Jump to content
News
Reviews
Discussons
Activity
Create New...
Close

dwightlooi

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,013

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

 Content Type 

Everything posted by dwightlooi

  1. dwightlooi
    The China-US trade situation is VERY SIMPLE... (1) China sells us $540 billion worth of stuff. They only buy $120 million of our stuff. Trade with China cost $420 billion in US Wealth every year. If this is allowed to go on, China will get very rich and we will get very poor. (2) Part of that is low Chinese wages, part of it is high levels of market protection by the Chinese, part of that is from low tariffs on our stupid part and part of it is China simply cheats via exchange rates, intellectual properties violations and industrial espionage. (3) China is VERY replaceable. We do not need Chinese factories at all. If the idea is to have cheap consumer goods, Cambodian factories, Vietnamese factories, Taiwanese factories, Indian factories, Indonesian factories, Thai factories all offer cheap labor -- none of these countries are a geopolitical rival to the USA the way China is. It makes zero sense to enrich your biggest opponent. (4) More importantly, cheap consumer goods and trade volume should not be the objective of public policy. Surpluses or at least the elimination of deficits should be. The revival of American industry should be. Why? Because irrespective of consumer good prices, consumption of US goods enrich US companies and US workers which then pay US taxes, consume US services and buy more US goods. This feeds growth and prosperity back into the US economy. Sending money to another country for cheap stuff simply BLEEDS the US economy and enriches our rivals and enemies. (5) If you believe that a $19 trillion economy cannot do without $120 billion in exports to China, you are delusional. If you believe that $540 billion in imports cannot be replaced with domestic manufacture or alternative imports, you are simply silly. The show down with China is long overdue, and there is no reason a country which buys 5 times as much as it sells cannot win ANY trade war.
  2. dwightlooi
    Actually, yes, we can even though we don't have to. It's very simple. Make what we can and buy what we cannot despite high tariffs which encourages us to find a way to make more. Less Trade is preferable to trade deficits. All the bull$h! your economics professor tries to "teach" you on absolute and comparative advantage is true. True but misunderstood, because prices are not measured by man-hours but by currency. Its not idealism, its common sense. Free Trade and Globalism is idealism.
  3. dwightlooi
    Yes, that man. Who also happens to be the best president in a century on foreign policy, on trade, on immigration, on energy, on taxes, on education and on every aspect of common sense. I don't care what you think of me.
  4. dwightlooi
    No way. Combustible weed is not strong enough for that. He must be drinking distilled THC straight up.
  5. dwightlooi
    They won't do it because that is what the Swamp lives on. Another fact of reality is that the overwhelming majority of the Federal budget (~62%) is in social entitlements. Without addressing the Social Entitlement Complex, all the austerity and reform on the federal government machinery and defense is merely addressing 1/3 of the budget. The seed of America's potential destruction was planted in Social Security, Medicare and Welfare, just like the seed of America's industrial demise was planted in "New Deal" and "Free Trade".
  6. dwightlooi
    Actually, yes you can. If the cost of an iPhone in China is $10 Labor and $200 materials, whereas in the USA it's $100 labor and $200 materials because US wages are 10x higher than China (it actually is NOT 10x more like 3~4x), then a 43% tariff will COMPLETELY eliminate any motivation to produce in China and export to the USA. $210 x 1.43 = $300.3 A country like the USA has all the natural resources, manpower and technology to make EVERYTHING we need and want. Do do not need ANY trade. But we should be open to trade where is enriches out country. That requires that we export as much as import or more than we import. We can easily implement a tariff policy whereby we look at each country separately. If we have a surplus or no deficits we can have free trade. If we have a deficit, we raise tariffs progressively until there is ZERO deficit or a surplus. Any country who wishes to export to the USA with low tariffs or no tariff must find ways and adopt policies to buy more US goods. Or, they can choose to basically not trade with the USA, that's fine too. Trade volume is not important. Trade that generates deficit is not in the best interest of the nation and must be corrected or ended. Of course this is totally against WTO rules which is why we should withdraw from the WTO -- a treaty designed to favor developing countries and transfer wealth globally, just like we ended our participation in the Paris Climate Ripoff. Trade is BUSINESS. SURPLUSES are PROFITS that enriches a country. DEFICITS are LOSSES that impoverish a country. It is called MERCANTILISM. Not rocket Science. Orange Man understands it very well, so sleep well tonight knowing that for the first time in 50 years we are not lead by total morons.
  7. dwightlooi
    GOOD! Buy American and you don't have to pay the tariffs. Free Trade = Suicide. And, for GM and all, the risk of tariffs now and in the future will make them hesitate to move production to Mexico. You cannot ask for a minimum wage, worker protection, environmental regulation, healthcare, unions and all the other stuff that jack up costs on the one hand, while on the other hand tell companies they don't have to pay any of that by just moving the jobs overseas and importing it to the USA without tariffs. 25% is not sufficient. Tariffs must be high enough and universal enough to negate ANY wage and regulatory advantage in offshore manufacturing. Trade which produces perpetual deficits is not in the best interest of the country and should be corrected or ended.
  8. dwightlooi
    A Maximum Engine Speed of 5,100 rpm is VERY HIGH for a diesel engine, particularly one which reaches its power peak at 3,750 rpm. That is higher than the 4,500~5,000 rpm range of most 2.0L turbodiesels (including the Opel/Cruze diesel and BMW diesel all of which reach their power peaks at about 4000 rpm or more). The transmission will probably shift shy of 4,000 rpm for optimal acceleration. The only explanation is that it is for engine brake burping. Still one wonders why they bothered with a new DOHC I6 design for this application. Simply taking HALF of the 6.6 Duramax V8 (L5P) will get you a 275 hp @ 3050 rpm / 525 lb-ft @ 1975 rpm 3.3L 4-cylinder diesel engine built on components proven with a 18-year service record. More than stout enough for the application without the development costs, complexity and added parasitic of a DOHC valve train.
  9. dwightlooi
    These WEAK SAUCE CT5-V and CT4-V cars are a disgrace. They should have at least been kept with the VSport (Red slash \V) badging. The CT4-V’s 320hp engine is a mere ECU tune of the 310 hp Silverado Pickup Truck engine and a pretty mild one at that. The CT5-V’s 355 hp engine is, again, a mere ECU tune of the 335hp 3.0T V6 in the “regular” CT5. Both engines are significantly less powerful than the existing 404hp 3.0T V6 in the CT6 Premium and Platinum models, not to mention the 420hp 3.6T V6 in the CTS VSport or the 464hp 3.6T V6 in the ATS-V. With these what GM is saying is that Cadillac is not a performance brand and anyone interested in a performance product should look at a 455hp Camaro SS starting at $37K ($13K less) or get a BMW. The engine the GM should have built – with minimum cost and development really – is a 2.7T Inline Four re-equipped with a larger turbo and air-to-water intercooler. Based on the compressor map, stepping up to a modest turbo like the Honeywell G25-550 and the 2.7T “Silverado Special” will make 420 hp @ 5,300 rpm with 420 lb-ft @ 2,200~5,200 rpm without breaking a sweat and keeping compression at or near 10:1. If they are willing to put up with a little lag and push the torque plateau rightwards, a Honeywell G25-660 and forged internals will easily make 512 hp @ 6,000 rpm with 460 lb-ft @ 2,800~5,800 rpm. These engines would be perfect for the CT4-V and CT5-V respectively – nevermind the 4-cylinders or the truck pedigree. It’ll also give GM the bragging rights to the most powerful “production” four cylinder engines in the world – snubbing Mercedes AMG or it’s displacement challenged M133 2.0T mills. Alas, as a 2014 CTS VSport owner, I must say that I will not even consider any of these cars. Sadly, I may have to add to the US Trade Deficit and buy German in a year or two.
  10. dwightlooi
    The Killed-In-Action Stinger is heavy as a rock and slow as a rock... LOL!
  11. dwightlooi
    Let's just say Mercedes, BMW, Audi and Lexus have 99% of the market share of the top 1%. To be in the top 1% you need to be making $421K a year in family income -- which is really not that much. That is about what you need to make to buy a home in California and still have money for a car... with a 1200 sq-ft 50 year old single family home in a middle income neighborhood pushing $1.7 million and taxes pushing 40% (State/Fed combined)... LOL!
  12. dwightlooi
    LOL... The first Rolex Daytona is basically a Zenith movement. Also, a well regulated ETA-2892-A2 will perform as well as any Rolex 3100-series and was used in everything from IWCs to Omegas to Breguets to a gazillion independents. Rolex doesn't even really "finish" their movements since they don't use glass backs and didn't think it matters. The only reason so many "high end" makers do their own movements these days is because Swatch Group is refusing to sell them their ETA movements. In house movements are more expensive but they are frequently less reliable and less accurate than proven, mass produced, calibers from ETA. For in-house movements to actually be better you'll need to be spending 20K or more. Anyway, that's besides the point. The point is that irrespective of any of that, BRANDS and the PRESTIGE AND STATUS associated with them MATTERS A LOT. That is true of all tertiary goods including but not limited to cars. Realists understand that and pay for that.
  13. dwightlooi
    You can call them that, but I will call them "STATUS REALISTS". The same kind of people who buy a Rolex never mind that watches costing 1/10th as much often have as good a movement or finish. They are realists because (1) a Rolex is recognizable by everyone and that is half the reason to spend $10K on a stainless steel watch, and (2) a Rolex actually GOES UP IN VALUE year after year. They are the same kind of realists who will buy a home with a hole in the roof and mold in the walls BECAUSE OF THE ZIP CODE. It is you who is arrogant and ignorant when you think that people do not, or should not, buy a car (or anything) based on the prestige and status its badge confers.
  14. dwightlooi
    Well, Mercedes has a lot more brand kudos and image than Volkswagen, Most people will pay $6K more to have a Mercedes over a Volkswagen even if both cars have identical performance, equipment and quality. That's reality.
  15. dwightlooi
    That is more of a cam profile issue than a valve train layout issue. To get high rpm breathing, it is necessary to have high lift and long duration cam grinds. These will have poor aspiration and low intake velocities at lower rpms, and hence reduced low end torque and probably lower peak torque as well. To have high tumble or swirl from high intake velocities, and minimal overlap induced back flow, loss of effective compression or early loss of the power stroke you MUST use a short duration cam grind with low lifts. The means toqur will fall off at high rpms and the engine wont make much power. Unless you have a camswitching system or a variable lift system, you can have one or the other or a compromise between the two,, but you cannot have both. Even with switching, there will be a step jump in the engine character when the switching occurs. This is true of pushrod engines and it is true of DOHC 4-valve/5-valve engines. The laughable thing which most people don't get is that 2-valves per cylinder is fully capable of supporting the airflow requirements for a power peak at or around 6000 rpm. Any engine that makes its maximum horsepower at or around 6000 rpm -- which includes most Toyota and Honda DOHC engines -- do not their DOHC valve train and do not benefit from the added friction, complexity and cost associated with them. For a DOHC 4-valve cylinder head to serve a useful purpose, the engine must make its peak power at or above about 7000 rpm. Then, and only then, do you need or benefit from the freer flowing DOHC heads.
  16. dwightlooi
    The Pentastar is more refined than the LF1, LLT or LFX engines because Pentastars are NOT Direct Injected. It's as simple as that. Direct injection is the biggest step backwards in engine refinement in the last several deecades until the advent of the Start-Stop nonsense.
  17. dwightlooi
    What GM needs is a "high output" version of the 2.7T 4-cylinder. A simple G25-550, or like sized turbo, with air-to-water intercooling will effortlessly make 420 hp @ ~ 5300 rpm and 420 lb-ft @ ~2200 to ~5200 rpm. That, for all intents and purposes, is enough. Boost levels will be no higher than on the LTG. Compression will be in the 9.0~9.5:1 range. It'll be perfect for the CT4-V, the Camaro or any of the crossover V or SS trim cars. If you don't mind some extra lag (like you'll find on the AMG M133 2.0T engine) you can easily make about 480 hp @ ~5500 rpm and 500 lb-ft @ ~3500 rpm. Same turbo and CR, but more boost. We are not even straddling the line here... the turbo itself is capable of supporting about 550 hp with low enough compression and if you don't care about linearity.
  18. dwightlooi
    I was only talking to Oldhurst442
  19. dwightlooi
    All right GUYS, let me put it simply for you all:-
  20. dwightlooi
    All right gays, let me put it simply for you all:- (1) An engine being turbocharged (or not) has nothing to do with whether it is, or can be, high revving. Period. (2) Contemporary Turbocharged engines are typically not high revving because of the designers' desire to minimize lag and maximize torque down to the lowest reaches of the rev range. (3) Turbochargers generally have a range of airflow within which it functions well. A big turbo supports higher flow -- which means higher boost or higher engine rpms. A small turbo takes less exhaust energy to drive -- which means higher output at lower rpms and less turbo lag. (4) To be more specific, at about 20 psi of boost (~1.36 bar), the most advanced turbos can support a torque plateau of about 3000 rpm. That is to say you can have your peak torque of about 150 lb-ft/liter across about 3,000 rpm of engine speed range. This can be 1,500~4,500 rpm or it can be 4,000~7,000 rpm depending on the size of the turbo. Obviously, an engine the latter will make more power... much more power (greater than 200 hp / liter) and rev to 8,000 rpm without running out of breath. But expect 1990s style lag and rubberband like throttle response. With the former you get ~ 130~140 hp / liter, but the engine isn't dead between idle and about 3800 rpm. You can have either or something in between, but you can;t have both.
  21. dwightlooi
    For having NOTHING to contribute, you sure made a very long post! LOL!!!
  22. dwightlooi
    That takes at most 2 rotations of the crankshaft. At cruise with the engine turning at 2000 rpm, that takes 2/2000 * 60 = 0.06 seconds.
  23. dwightlooi
    Because NA engines get from 0 to, let's say 60% torque, at part throttle in about 0.1 second. The delay is from the intake manifold and runners downstream of the throttle body going from a greater to a lesser amount of vacuum as the throttle opens. With a turbocharged engine, everything that happens in an NA engine also happens. But that only gets you to the part throttle torque output of an otherwise identical NA engine. Next, the exhaust energy from the increased air/fuel charge starts spinning the turbo up. This causes the compressor to start bringing the intake ahead of the throttle to a higher pressure than atmospheric pressure. This is cut down to a fraction of that pressure by the throttle and fed into the engine. A cycle of every greater charge density, increases in exhaust energy and even greater charge density occurs until it is arrested by the waste gate opening and bleeding part of the exhaust around the turbine. This process takes a while. At part throttle, it often takes about 3~5 seconds. Compared to 0.1 the second it takes on an NA engine that feels like eternity. Also, it has a rubber band like effect where the throttle is constant and the engine rpm is not increasing much, but torque builds independently of rpm and throttle movement.
  24. dwightlooi
    Right, and going from brake to part throttle ALWAYS induce even more lag because you have a much slower ramp up of the exhaust energy available to drive the turbo.
  25. dwightlooi
    The new 2.7T (L3B) 4-cylinder engine makes 310 hp @ 5,100 rpm with 348 lb-ft @ 1,500 rpm. According to its design engineer, this is the fastest spooling turbo GM ever made with its dual volute housing enabling it to go from braking to full torque in about 1 second. That is considered VERY VERY RESPONSIVE. But, if you cannot feel a 1 second lag, there is something very wrong with your butt.
×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

I've whitelisted
Continue without support

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search

Change privacy settings