Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
bill ramsay bill ramsay is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default Dickless Wiecky's motor: bent rod, firing on zero cylinders More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:16:22 GMT, John Byrns
wrote:

In article ,
bill ramsay blah@blahdeblah wrote:

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:36:05 GMT, John Byrns
wrote:

In article ,
bill ramsay blah@blahdeblah wrote:

isn't this getting rather tiresome?

give it a rest.

who cares if it's 60, 90 or 112.7?

Someone must have cared or 60 & 112.7 degree V8s would have been more
popular.


that's not the point, this petty point scoring is just childish.


You are the one doing the point scoring, not me.


Regards,

John Byrns


au contraire, i
i think that this whole group has been infested with nonsense. I have
no interest in point scoring or any other kind or scoring.


  #162   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Jon Yaeger Jon Yaeger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 645
Default Peter Wieck, forger, was More from the Don Pearce School


Now we have one point cleared up, that the Gordon Rankin design was
the other amplifier, the one you didn't buy. I apologize for saying
the one you did buy was a Rankin design, Yaeger. Pasternack should
have explained sooner and better, preferably at the time when all this
started. What are you doing about clearing up the other points?


Andre Jute


What, the other stuff you fabricated about me?

No need to keep proving you a liar. I'll leave it to the others.

Jon


Real gracious of you, Yaeger, to be so ungracious as to remove from me
the onus of discovering if there is anything else I should apologize
for. You're your own worst enemy. -- Andre Jute



I've said it all before. You weren't listening. I'm bored and finished with
this thread / topic. Have a nice evening with your family.

Jon

  #163   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
Dave Plowman (News) Dave Plowman (News) is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 767
Default More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?

In article ,
John Byrns wrote:
IIRC this engine was developed to replace the ill fated aluminum V6
that they dumped on Rover, and IIRC it was derived from an existing
V8 so it could be built on the same line with existing tooling.


Please note that my use of the term "aluminum V6" was a typo and it
should have read "aluminum V8".


Goes without saying.

No, the 90 degree V6 (Buick) was initially contemporaneous with the
aluminum 90 degree V8 (Oldsmobile).


What does "initially contemporaneous" mean? It sounds like a bunch of
weasel words to me. My point was that the aluminum V8 came out before
the 90 degree V6, although their production did overlap if that is what
you mean by "initially contemporaneous".


According to Hardcastle, the 198 cu in cast iron V-6 was developed from
that engine using some of the design and tooling. And was in production
for about a year at the same time as the V-8. It was made from '62-'67
after which GM sold their tooling to Jeep - then bought it back from AMC
and produced the 231 cu in V-6 in '75.

The facts, which can be found on the Wikipedia, are that the Buick
aluminum V8 came out before the 90 degree iron V6 that was derived from
it. Wikipedia says the 61 model year for the aluminum V8 and the 1962
model year for the 90 degree V8. I well remember the events as GM was
recruiting new automotive engineering graduates from the college I
attended and they had a big display explaining the design, technology,
and production of their newly introduced V6. Not only did the V6
obviously follow the aluminum V8 to the market, meaning it came later,
but my memory is that GM presented it to the newly minted engineers as a
replacement for the ill stared aluminum V8.


The other point Hardcastle makes is that the Buick 300 and 340 units are
based on that original V-8 using the by now developed thin wall cast iron
casting techniques which helped to minimise the weight penalty.

--
*Okay, who stopped the payment on my reality check? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #164   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Andre Jute Andre Jute is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,661
Default Peter Wieck, forger, was More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?

On Sep 14, 8:35 pm, "Wolfgang Amadeus" wolfgang@amadeus,com wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in oglegroups.com...
[Deleted]


You are an inherently unreasonable person, Andre, so by definition no productive
purpose can come from trying to argue reasonably with you.


Those who argue reasonably with me find me eminently reasonable; I'm
happy to talk forever. Those who try to shut me up by violence and
character assassination, as the Magnequest Scum did under the
leadership of you and Michael LeFevre, as your surrogate Worthless
Wiecky is trying to do today, eventually discover that I'm eminently
reasonable quite until the day that, still smiling and joking and
singing about my work, I destroy them for their hubris in attacking
free speech. I really don't understand what your beef is: you tried to
be a player way outside your league, your methods were immoral, you
were soundly beaten (and became a laughingstock with your peers for
not realiizing for several years that I whipped your ass on day one),
you were thrown out of the game because of your contempt for the rules
of decent behaviour and your association with criminals: what else did
you expect?

But, in any event, Plod, you never tried reason on me; a psychopath
like you always confuses his intention with reason. It isn't. For
instance, in our very first exchange after this abortive "comeback"
you characterisctically committed the gross dishonesty of deliberately
snipping my post to make it seems as if I said the opposite of what I
did say. When I pointed it out, you went into this snit. Enjoy your
misery, sonny; it's all you have left.

I'll say again: It's long past time (say, ten years) for your departure. I don't expect
you to agree, but it's the truth nonetheless.


One of the alltime great failures and mighthavebeens of RAT parachutes
in for the weekend because his family is fed up with his maudlin self-
pity, and tells me what to do! Thanks for the giggle, Plod. But I
still have a couple of projects cooking for my Stax headphone amps,
so, with your permission or without, I'm here.

-Henry


Oh, and I'll do exactly as my morality dictates. It is a sick joke for
someone with your record of public immorality to offer me instructions
on behaviour.

Unsigned out of contempt

  #165   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
Andre Jute Andre Jute is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,661
Default Gentlemen in Audio was More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?

On Sep 15, 12:50 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
John Byrns wrote:

IIRC this engine was developed to replace the ill fated aluminum V6
that they dumped on Rover, and IIRC it was derived from an existing
V8 so it could be built on the same line with existing tooling.

Please note that my use of the term "aluminum V6" was a typo and it
should have read "aluminum V8".


Goes without saying.


Yes, I saw it too, and just passed it by, knowing that John meant the
V8. I really can't resist saying that this is the way gentlemen treat
an obvious typo by anyone else. This thread gets its very name "More
from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation" because I was ****ed off
by the boorish way in which some parties on these conferences screech
every tiny error into a heresy simply to build up their own low self-
esteem. There's a right way and a wrong way. Congratlulations to Dave
and Arny for showing that there are still gentlemen left here.

Andre Jute



  #166   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
Andre Jute Andre Jute is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,661
Default The Sin Eater Peter Wieck, forger, was More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?

On Sep 14, 10:51 pm, Jon Yaeger wrote:
Have a nice evening with your family.

Jon


Just about the only good advice available, so I took it. Cooked a meal
for my family, watched a movie with them. The Sin Eater with Heath
Ledger. Superb; better than those millennium movies, one with Arnold
Schwarzenegger, one with Gabriel Byrne.

Andre Jute
Habit is the nursery of errors. -- Victor Hugo


  #167   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Wolfgang Amadeus Wolfgang Amadeus is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Peter Wieck, forger, was More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?

"Andre Jute" wrote in message oups.com...
It is a sick joke for someone with your record of public immorality to offer me
instructions on behaviour.


Do you ever let up?

-Henry


  #168   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
Andre Jute Andre Jute is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,661
Default Dickless Wiecky's motor: bent rod, firing on zero cylinders More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?

On Sep 14, 9:53 pm, bill ramsay blah@blahdeblah wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:16:22 GMT, John Byrns
wrote:



In article ,
bill ramsay blah@blahdeblah wrote:


On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:36:05 GMT, John Byrns
wrote:


In article ,
bill ramsay blah@blahdeblah wrote:


isn't this getting rather tiresome?


give it a rest.


who cares if it's 60, 90 or 112.7?


Someone must have cared or 60 & 112.7 degree V8s would have been more
popular.


that's not the point, this petty point scoring is just childish.


You are the one doing the point scoring, not me.


Regards,


John Byrns


au contraire, i
i think that this whole group has been infested with nonsense. I have
no interest in point scoring or any other kind or scoring.


Are you sure you want to say "or any other kind of scoring", Bill.
This is a tube audio group, dedicated to mechanims on which music is
played. Music is all about scoring on large lined sheets of paper...

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review


  #170   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
Andre Jute Andre Jute is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,661
Default Andre - how would you explain this?

On Sep 15, 9:19 am, Jon Yaeger wrote:
in article om, Andre Jute
at wrote on 9/15/07 10:38 AM:

On Sep 14, 10:51 pm, Jon Yaeger wrote:
Have a nice evening with your family.


Jon


Just about the only good advice available, so I took it. Cooked a meal
for my family, watched a movie with them. The Sin Eater with Heath
Ledger. Superb; better than those millennium movies, one with Arnold
Schwarzenegger, one with Gabriel Byrne.


Andre Jute
Habit is the nursery of errors. -- Victor Hugo


Andre,

If you'll note the time of my post, it was 10:51 PM. Dublin time was 3:51
A.M., I believe.


We keep Leprechaun Time. That was also 3.51am.

When you wrote your reply it was 10:38 AM your time. About 7 hours later.


Remember the Zulu witchdoctor who nearly killed me with thirst and
sunburn? Among the things I did to pay him back: I would follow him
around and tell his three wives what he thought of the younger women,
and I was always right, as they could see on his face; they made his
life hell for months, until he gave blood for me to stop cursing him.
I knew you (or somebody) would say, get a life, spend more time with
your family, go cook a barbeque, something like that. So I did,
stopping off long enough to take three bets on it (EUR 250 altogther,
about USD300) and in the morning there was your letter.

Of course, the witchdoctor is smoke and mirrors. It isn't even
psychology, just being sensitive to people.

Interesting schedule your family keeps during the "evening." Are you sure
you're in Ireland -- not Transylvania?


http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/Going%20wolfie.html

;-)

Jon


Andre Jute
Impedance is futile, you will be simulated into the triode of the
Borg. -- Robert Casey



  #171   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Andre Jute Andre Jute is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,661
Default Peter Wieck, forger, was More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?

On Sep 15, 7:42 am, "Wolfgang Amadeus" wolfgang@amadeus,com wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
It is a sick joke for someone with your record of public immorality to offer me
instructions on behaviour.


Do you ever let up?

-Henry


Why don't you have the last word, Plod. Make it "goodbye".

Andre Jute
Habit is the nursery of errors. -- Victor Hugo

  #172   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?


"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


They had a 90 degree V6 in the days when conventional wisdom was that
V6s
needed to be 60 degrees. (hold that thouught!) No balance shaft,
either!
Can
we say rock and roll? ;-)


IIRC this engine was developed to replace the ill fated aluminum V6
that
they dumped on Rover, and IIRC it was derived from an existing V8 so it
could be built on the same line with existing tooling.


Please note that my use of the term "aluminum V6" was a typo and it
should have read "aluminum V8".

No, the 90 degree V6 (Buick) was initially contemporaneous with the
aluminum
90 degree V8 (Oldsmobile).


What does "initially contemporaneous" mean? It sounds like a bunch of
weasel words to me.


How about this: the Buick 90 degree V6 and the oldsmobile aluminum V8 were
both introduced for the 1962 model year.

My point was that the aluminum V8 came out before
the 90 degree V6, although their production did overlap if that is what
you mean by "initially contemporaneous".


The Wiki article says that the 215 V8 was introduced in 1961 - IOW, for the
1962 model year.

"In 1961 Buick unveiled an entirely new small V8 engine with aluminum
cylinder heads and cylinder block."

The Wiki V6 article says that the 90 degree V6 was first available for the
1962 model year, which you say below.

The facts, which can be found on the Wikipedia, are that the Buick
aluminum V8 came out before the 90 degree iron V6 that was derived from
it.


The derivation happened during engineering.

Wikipedia says the 61 model year for the aluminum V8 and the 1962
model year for the 90 degree V8.


No, the Wikipedia says that the aluminum V8 was introduced in 1961, which is
when the 1962 model year was introduced in the US. In those days, the new
model year cars were introduced in September-October of the previous year. I
think they are more flexible about that these days.



  #173   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

They had a 90 degree V6 in the days when conventional wisdom was that
V6s
needed to be 60 degrees. (hold that thouught!) No balance shaft,
either!
Can
we say rock and roll? ;-)

IIRC this engine was developed to replace the ill fated aluminum V6
that
they dumped on Rover, and IIRC it was derived from an existing V8 so it
could be built on the same line with existing tooling.


Please note that my use of the term "aluminum V6" was a typo and it
should have read "aluminum V8".

No, the 90 degree V6 (Buick) was initially contemporaneous with the
aluminum
90 degree V8 (Oldsmobile).


What does "initially contemporaneous" mean? It sounds like a bunch of
weasel words to me.


How about this: the Buick 90 degree V6 and the oldsmobile aluminum V8 were
both introduced for the 1962 model year.

My point was that the aluminum V8 came out before
the 90 degree V6, although their production did overlap if that is what
you mean by "initially contemporaneous".


The Wiki article says that the 215 V8 was introduced in 1961 - IOW, for the
1962 model year.


I think that is where you are going wrong, check this "Wiki" article
which says that the 215 V8 was "introduced for the 1961 model year."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buick_V8_engine#215

The Wiki V6 article says that the 90 degree V6 was first available for the
1962 model year, which you say below.

The facts, which can be found on the Wikipedia, are that the Buick
aluminum V8 came out before the 90 degree iron V6 that was derived from
it.


The derivation happened during engineering.


The "Wiki" puts it a little differently saying the 90 degree V6 "was
reverse-engineered from the 215 and used many of the same design
parameters, but was cast in iron." The "reverse-engineered" term puts
it more the way I remember it, the aluminum V8 didn't work out and they
wanted a similar sized engine that they could build without investing in
more new tooling. See he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buick_Special
The "Wiki" also says "In 1962, the Special was the first American car to
use a V6 engine." My memory is that a considerable amount of time
elapsed between the introduction of the V8 and the V6, at least a year
and probably more. It wouldn't be at all surprised at all if the V6 was
introduced later in the 1962 model year and not at the time of the
initial introduction of the 1962 models.

Wikipedia says the 61 model year for the aluminum V8 and the 1962
model year for the 90 degree V8.


No, the Wikipedia says that the aluminum V8 was introduced in 1961, which is
when the 1962 model year was introduced in the US. In those days, the new
model year cars were introduced in September-October of the previous year.


Check the above "Wiki" reference for the V8, it specifically says "1961
model year", not the 1962 model year.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
  #174   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
Dave Plowman (News) Dave Plowman (News) is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 767
Default More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?

In article ,
John Byrns wrote:
The "Wiki" puts it a little differently saying the 90 degree V6 "was
reverse-engineered from the 215 and used many of the same design
parameters, but was cast in iron." The "reverse-engineered" term puts
it more the way I remember it, the aluminum V8 didn't work out and they
wanted a similar sized engine that they could build without investing in
more new tooling.


The aluminium engine 'worked out' very well but was expensive to make and
maintain. The cooling system required an expensive coolant year round
which didn't suit some owners - and if it was omitted problems followed.

--


Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #175   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
Andre Jute Andre Jute is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,661
Default More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?

On Sep 17, 3:58 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
John Byrns wrote:

The "Wiki" puts it a little differently saying the 90 degree V6 "was
reverse-engineered from the 215 and used many of the same design
parameters, but was cast in iron." The "reverse-engineered" term puts
it more the way I remember it, the aluminum V8 didn't work out and they
wanted a similar sized engine that they could build without investing in
more new tooling.


The aluminium engine 'worked out' very well but was expensive to make and
maintain. The cooling system required an expensive coolant year round
which didn't suit some owners - and if it was omitted problems followed.


Dave, why does the book you have say
a) the engine was expensive to make for GM
and
b) Rover could make it cheaper in much smaller numbers

Neither statement makes much sense. Ali isn't that much more expensive
as a raw material, and GM, unless they bought the casting in, had
already made the investment in design, smelters, whatever is necessary
to make a run of ali blocks. With all of that tooling set up, the
expense per unit couldn't have been all that much more than per iron
block, comparing like with like, a low-run iron block with a low-run
ali block. Not knowing the facts, I have no problem imagining a
meeting in which the marketing guy says, "That engine is doing our
image harm with consumers," and he engineers say, "But--" and the guy
at the head of the table says, "**** it, it earns us peanuts. We don't
need it. Lose it."

On the Rover side, I can easily understand the attraction of a
powerful engine already fully developed, without the baggage of the
old, heavy heritage engines; a high tech engine of the sort for which
the board won't vote development funds. But how you can say, as you
did earlier, that Rover could make the engine cheaper is a mystery.
Surely Rover never contemplated the sales numbers that GM must have
had in mind for this engine (whether achieved or not). And Rover would
have had to set up a casting shop, and special machine tools.

It may be true that after a few years and with additional uses (in the
Range Rover, for instance) that engine eventually became cheap to
make, but there is no way the management could have foreseen that. (It
is one of the things that makes buying that orphan engine such an
inspired decision: good managers not only have good judgement, they
have good luck.)

I agree with your assessment that Rover wouldn't have worried about
the marketing downside of customers not looking after the engine
properly, as GM correctly did in their own market. The British had
long experience of looking after fiddly engines well, and the Rover
bosses could count on them keeping to the instructions. (I seem to
remember cross-pushrods in one British engine I rebuilt in my teens --
it looked like an explosion in a hedgehog nest up there -- and that
wasn't the only cheap stupidity in Brit engines.)

Any advertising man with international experience will tell you
Americans are generally more bolshy than anyone else, though they
prefer to describe it as "rugged individualism". The upshot is that
you have to explain to them ten times why they are supposed to do
something, and what the consequences will be if they don't, and then
they still think they know better and do exactly the opposite. It's
what makes theirs the land of the free but it can also make the
marketing of innovations in basic commodities (which a car is in the
States) a bit fraught for marketers.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review



  #176   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Byrns wrote:


The "Wiki" puts it a little differently saying the 90 degree V6 "was
reverse-engineered from the 215 and used many of the same design
parameters, but was cast in iron." The "reverse-engineered" term puts
it more the way I remember it, the aluminum V8 didn't work out and they
wanted a similar sized engine that they could build without investing in
more new tooling.


I'm willing to concede to John that maybe the V6 lagged the V8 by a model
year. However lead times for new engines, even just derivatives, were a lot
more than a year. They had planned the V6 before the V8 first saw the light
of day. There was no doubt a lot of controversy over this decision within GM
so they moved based on a problem that was either predicted or showed up in
early pre-release testing.

The aluminium engine 'worked out' very well but was expensive to make and
maintain.


Eventually making aluminum engines got cheaper, and keeping a good modern
coolent in them became accepted practice for all engines. For example, the
Vega had a die-cast aluminum engine and was supposedly an economy car.
Didn't pan out that way for either GM or the owners! :-(

The cooling system required an expensive coolant year round
which didn't suit some owners - and if it was omitted problems followed.


That seems to be the case. Also, in those days stainless steel and robust
corrosion-resistent coatings didn't grow on trees, so the aluminum engine
was a bit of an electrolytic nightmare, now easily addressed with modern
coolants.


  #177   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
Dave Plowman (News) Dave Plowman (News) is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 767
Default More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?

In article . com,
Andre Jute wrote:
The aluminium engine 'worked out' very well but was expensive to make
and maintain. The cooling system required an expensive coolant year
round which didn't suit some owners - and if it was omitted problems
followed.


Dave, why does the book you have say
a) the engine was expensive to make for GM
and
b) Rover could make it cheaper in much smaller numbers


I didn't mean to say Rover could actually make it cheaper per unit cost.
Both are relative. GM would expect a unit cost *way* below one that Rover
could sustain - Rover was an upmarket brand similar to Jaguar in some ways
and their large cars which this engine was intended for way above the
average UK car cost. Probably over double. The Buick, on the other hand,
was a pretty ordinary car in the US at or near the bottom cost wise of
home produced cars?

Neither statement makes much sense. Ali isn't that much more expensive
as a raw material, and GM, unless they bought the casting in, had
already made the investment in design, smelters, whatever is necessary
to make a run of ali blocks. With all of that tooling set up, the
expense per unit couldn't have been all that much more than per iron
block, comparing like with like, a low-run iron block with a low-run
ali block. Not knowing the facts, I have no problem imagining a
meeting in which the marketing guy says, "That engine is doing our
image harm with consumers," and he engineers say, "But--" and the guy
at the head of the table says, "**** it, it earns us peanuts. We don't
need it. Lose it."


Well, aluminium has always been a much more expensive material than cast
iron both to buy and work. And saving a few dollars per unit over a
production of millions makes a big difference to profits. Not the same
with the relatively low volume Rover production - and besides cars have
always been much more expensive in the UK than US.

Rover also went to a cheaper casting method - sand cast. Suited to their
volumes. Die cast is cheaper for large volumes but needs a big investment.

On the Rover side, I can easily understand the attraction of a
powerful engine already fully developed, without the baggage of the
old, heavy heritage engines; a high tech engine of the sort for which
the board won't vote development funds. But how you can say, as you
did earlier, that Rover could make the engine cheaper is a mystery.
Surely Rover never contemplated the sales numbers that GM must have
had in mind for this engine (whether achieved or not). And Rover would
have had to set up a casting shop, and special machine tools.


That's it in a nutshell. IIRC the Buick unit sold more in its few years
than in the 30 or so as made by Rover.

It may be true that after a few years and with additional uses (in the
Range Rover, for instance) that engine eventually became cheap to
make, but there is no way the management could have foreseen that. (It
is one of the things that makes buying that orphan engine such an
inspired decision: good managers not only have good judgement, they
have good luck.)


They will have compared likely production costs against the engines they
already made. If in the same ballpark it would be economical. Perhaps had
GM still made it they could have bought it in from them cheaper. But that
option didn't exist.

I agree with your assessment that Rover wouldn't have worried about
the marketing downside of customers not looking after the engine
properly, as GM correctly did in their own market. The British had
long experience of looking after fiddly engines well, and the Rover
bosses could count on them keeping to the instructions. (I seem to
remember cross-pushrods in one British engine I rebuilt in my teens --
it looked like an explosion in a hedgehog nest up there -- and that
wasn't the only cheap stupidity in Brit engines.)


It's only really a question of using the correct coolant year round.
Something we're all used to these days. Otherwise it required little
maintenance - hydraulic tappets were a bit of a novelty in the UK in those
days.

Any advertising man with international experience will tell you
Americans are generally more bolshy than anyone else, though they
prefer to describe it as "rugged individualism". The upshot is that
you have to explain to them ten times why they are supposed to do
something, and what the consequences will be if they don't, and then
they still think they know better and do exactly the opposite. It's
what makes theirs the land of the free but it can also make the
marketing of innovations in basic commodities (which a car is in the
States) a bit fraught for marketers.


It's interesting that many US driver still want to change engine oil every
3000 miles. The last 'ordinary' UK car I know of that needed that was in
the '50s. So why your less highly stressed units in a country that used to
have very low speed limits needed such care, I don't know.

--
*I brake for no apparent reason.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Williamson kt66 mono amp and pwr supply $400 Frank Vacuum Tubes 1 August 2nd 06 03:17 AM
FS. Williamson kt66 amp (acrosound 300 transformer) $400 [email protected] Marketplace 1 July 24th 06 04:25 AM
Williamson Amplifier-a good web page [email protected] Vacuum Tubes 3 July 23rd 05 11:16 PM
neatly built Williamson monoblocks Eike Lantzsch, ZP6CGE Vacuum Tubes 6 June 5th 04 05:16 PM
FS: WILLIAMSON G-400 Mono Power Amps Tatalits Vacuum Tubes 0 August 9th 03 04:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:03 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"