The story first ran in The Onion, December, 1995:
“Clinton Deploys Vowels to Bosnia: Cities of Sjlbrdzv, Grzny to Be First Recipients”
The article is available at
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/humor/clinton-deploys-vowels.html
OK, OK, back to motors and engines now!
As for xeroxing copies and non-Suzuki jet skis, it’s pretty common for a brand name to become ubiquitous with a product. My favorite example is Kleenex facial tissues. Kleenex is a brand, but I grew up using it instead of “facial tissue” or just “tissue.”
I’ve always thought that any engine is a motor, but not all motors are engines. An electric motor would not be an engine.
Like all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.
But, than, I failed senior English!
I recall some years ago when a guy claiming to be a retired professor with a PhD in linguistics gave us some long diatribe about language. He was so badly verbally pummeled that we never heard from him again.
A post just showed up on the annoying 'Ask Someone ’ - lite for light - do for due .
If only that type of conflicted literacy was limited to anonymous people posting on “Ask Someone”…
Petal for pedal comes up quite often. I concur with the not all motors are engines. _'m going to get my engineboat in the water soon @the_same_mountainbike 
_
Yup!
When somebody states that he has had problems with depressing his “break petal”, I am always tempted to ask whether that situation is a classic case of Flower Power.
Yeah sure ya becha, but he pronounced it right not like before when it was the Marine “Corp” as in "corp"orate recruiting from all 57 states. I’ve heard though that others actually compose the tweets but who knows.
So he did not hire the best people after all.
That is quite a rationalization for his… compromised literacy…
He did go to a military school, where the pronunciation and spelling of corps would be pretty common language, wouldn’t you think?
The use of smart phone predictive text and speech-to-text is making this happen more often than before.
It’s not Marine Corpse? 
I use engine to mean something that generates its own power, usually by burning something; I use motor to mean something that moves when you deliver power to it, which would include steam-power (and others?) as well as electricity.
I got grief somewhere (a bicycle forum?) when I told a guy asking for recommendations for break pads that I didn’t need to buy stuff to help me break my bicycle.
As a long-time spelling-bee champ I learned that my skill in spelling wasn’t welcome when I was a boy.
Actually, “electric engine” would not be incorrect, although it’s not in common use. The term engine simply means any contraption or machine or even software used to some purpose such as search engine. We have fire engines, steam engines, siege engines. Airplanes and tanks are engines of war. Cotton gin is short for cotton engine. Tractor is short for traction engine, traction meaning to pull. Your automobile could be called a transportation engine.
Motor is a more specialized application, it is the device that moves our machinery but the motor itself can be a heat engine.
Engine comes from the Latin phrase “in gegnere” which became ingenium, a talent or device. This gave us the the words engine, a device, and ingenius and ingenuity.
And yes, your bicycle is another transportation engine.
Nothing generates its own power. Power is synonymous with energy, and it can neither be created or destroyed, only converted to a different form.
An engine is defined as a machine that converts thermal energy into mechanical energy. I’m going to guess that that’s what you meant. Was my guess correct? 
I disagree. A bicycle does not convert thermal energy to mechanical energy. Your body does that. The bicycle simply is a machine that converts that mechanical energy to a different form more usable for transportation. It adds a structure to carry the load’s weight, relieving the body of that use of its available energy, and it adds a system of mechanical advantage via its drivetrain to more efficiently use the body’s energy for transportation.
In getting into uses of the term “engine” like in “fire engine” and such, and/or in getting into the derivation of the base word(s), the term “engine” as a description of a mechanical device is easily corrupted. The discussion isn’t about the linguistics, it’s about the machines. Frankly, it could be argued that the software industry has added yet another meaning to the word “engine” totally different than that of the machine definition. That’s certainly valid, but the mechanical and software meanings have entirely different meanings and IMHO should not be intertwined.
Naw the best people are still waiting for confirmation at 30 hours of debate each, but enough anyway.
Actually this thread is about linguistics and you are moving the goalposts in order to win the argument.
Hee hee. I worked for a guy like that once but the thing is, he’d never beat around the bush, just come right out tell you how he felt. I thought it was a real accomplishment when he promoted me.