Same…You know though, now that I think of it, and just to relive the past;), being forced to drive a Saturn over a Mazda 929, a sweet car are definite grounds for divorce. I say that only half jokingly but I can’t imagine that a wife would not acquiesce to a hubby with that kind of superior motor vehicle knowledge. For her cars, I give my wife a list of cars to choose that are acceptable to buy, quality and function wise. Then she is on her own after that.
A Mazda 929 would definitely be one of them !
@Docnick
"All the women" I know seem to have decided colors should be based upon some “Color Me Beautiful” color chart. Now, everything from clothes to house colors to cars have to match their skin tone and eye color. Suddenly, because of “her help” all my cars are silver and I have five Navy blue sweaters in my dresser draw. The influence of a good women can not be underestimated by automakers.
I’m lucky my wife and I are in sync with auto purchases. We BOTH decided to give up the pickups I was driving and buy an SUV. Better family vehicle. We BOTH decided that we didn’t need a mini-van as long as we had a capable SUV…so wife could buy a mid-size car. We both had to be able to drive each others vehicles. There were some vehicles I like better…but wife had a hard time driving…so I settled for second choice.
@The same Mountainbike–It may actually have been a good decision to not buy that 929. You mentioned lifter problems with its engine, but its problems may have gone deeper than just the lifters. I base that statement on this factoid from Wikipedia, regarding the 929:
“488 929s were registered in The UK in 2001, but took a sharp downturn in 2008, going down to 28. As of April 2013, there are only nine 929s registered in the United Kingdom.”
Yikes!
That is a hell of an attrition rate!
Naw, it was just that I was the one that had chosen it. The new car had to be the one that she chose, as did everything else. The Saturn was not a compromise, not a joint decision. I had already gone through one argument, so I just kept my mouth shut and wrote the check.
The marriage itself was destined for divorce from the get-go. But, hey, I made my mistake and I paid the price. End of story.
Ran across this interesting article about GM’s new Ecotec engines.
I confess I don’t have a clue about most of what it discusses but figure those of you who are mechanically knowledgeable will easily decipher what it means.
One thing did catch my attention; apparently many of the components in these new engines are all hollowed out rather than solid. I wonder what that will mean for long term durability?
Anyway, have fun reading the article. Any basic translation / synopsis for non-techies such as I are appreciated. 
Marnet
…still reading, still learning!
I’m having a hard time understanding the idea of the 3 banger and 4 banger having the same block
Does that mean the 3 banger has an empty 4th cylinder, minus the piston and connecting rod?
That would also mean the cams have a section with no lobes on them?
Maybe use the fourth cylinder bore as a soup heater. We just need to get the soup companies to make a can that fits in there neatly. The coolant should heat your soup nicely, though we may need a thermostatic probe to cut the coolant when the soup is hot. For the pureed soups and broths you could even have a tube to the dash and a disposable mouthpiece. Or a little spigot under the dash, on classier cars. Oh, wait, three-bangers. Nope, no spigot for us.
Try as I might, I was unable to find any indication in the actual article that the three banger would be a four banger block with only three pistons. I saw reference to that on the comments section, but not in the actual description. My understanding is that the three banger block will be designed to utilize as many components from the four banger as possible; the same pistons, rods, bearings, etc. etc., but the block will be a different block with three cylinders that uses the same cylinder spacing, cylinder size, etc. etc.
If someone can direct me to a sentence in the description that shows my reading comprehension to need work, I’d certainly appreciate it. Short of that, I’m inclined to think the “four-bore block with three pistons” was a misunderstanding by the person that posted in the “comments” section.
It could be something like GM’s 4.3 engine. It was basically GM’s V8 with the last two cylinder chopped off. Obviously there was a lot more to it (new crank - and such).
Yeah, I think it’s just referring to the same cylinder specs, just a different number of cylinders. BMW did that for several years, had a 0.5l cylinder/cam/piston/etc. design, used it as the basis for their 2.0 4, 3.0 6, 4.0 V8, and 5.0 V10.
The artical did say that it used the same block but I think that was not what the author meant for it to say. Pictures of the engines on a GM web site show that the 3 cylinder engine is the same height and width and looks exactly like the 4 cylinder, it is definitely shorter lengthwise.
I wouldn’t worry about the new Ecotec engines, @Marnet. An Opel will have an Ecotec engine this summer and the Chinese Cruze gets it next, probably a year later or so. Don’t expect to see it here for maybe 4 years or more.
mountainbike
Here’s a cut and paste . . .
All blocks are the same (whether they’re three- or four-cylinder).
For me, there’s only one way to interpret that
That said, the author of the article probably didn’t word it correctly, or explain it in sufficient detail
Some of you have expressed concerns about turbo engines. What about them is problematic?
Given my low mileage average driving, how good, bad or indifferent would concerns about a turbo engine be?
Just trying to sort out the possibilities.
Engines are turbocharged to put out more power than they would without a turbo. More power = more stress and heat. They’re designed to handle it, but not all designs are up to the task.
Don’t forget that the small turbo engines tend NOT to get the fuel economy they’re supposed to get
Consumer Reports and other magazines have already reported on this
Just a heads up, in case you’re enticed by a small turbo 4 engine . . .
@texases and db4690 – Thank you.
Interestingly, I’ve just finished reading a book “Freedom’s Forge” about how U.S. industry ramped up to WWII war production before and throughout the war. Part of the book deals with aircraft production and the problems encountered with turbo plane engines having chronic severe overheating problems. I know it’s been 70 years since then and technology has come a long way, but sounds like the basic physics of turbos producing extra stress and heat remain.
For anyone who enjoys reading history and/or about the development of auto technology and production, shipbuilding production, aircraft production, etc., this is a fascinating book to read. (Despite some egregious typos.)
Author: Arthur Herman
Title: Freedom’s Forge: How American Business Produced Victory In World War II
ISBN: 978-1-4000-6964-4
eISBN: 978-0-679-60463-1
Library of Congress # 940.531 H551F
To see some great 1940s art deco advertisement posters imagining rail cars, cars, planes, trucks, buses, lawnmowers, phones, tractors, ships, etc. of the future, check out these from Bohn Aluminum and Brass Company. There is even a flying wing that looks amazingly like a Stealth bomber.
I suspect the problems of turbo engines will be easily solved. The Turbochargers used to be the weak spot, especially bearings, but they seem to have solved that. Millions of turbocharged diesels do very well around the world, but diesels are built sturdier. I suspect the current problems are with turbos being put on engines that haven’t been beefed up enough.
Almost all companies are moving this way because theoretical efficiency gains are certainly there to be had. They just aren’t there yet because it takes drastically shrinking engines (to threes, for example) to realize those economies. The current 1.4 liter turbo engines are putting out around 200 HP, more than is really needed for an economy car, leading to the odd situation where a 2 liter engine is the base engine and a much smaller turbo is the premium performance option.
In many cases the performance hasn’t been much better, nor the gas mileage. There does seem agreement that the GM 1.4 turbo is better than their weak 2.0, but that may be a reflection of the larger engines weaknesses. Right now I’d buy a VW turbo without much concern (about the engine, the rest of the car still being a concern.)
I’d give others some time to work it out. When Mazda is getting such terrific efficiency from normally-aspirated cars, and hybrids getting better all the time, I don’t see much need to take a chance with a turbo.