The Cartoon Network version.[1] Not bad, actually.
And, inevitably, the Jam Handy / Chevrolet film on engines.[2] There's a whole series of these, with ones for suspensions, transmissions, differentials, lubrication, and frames.
Yeah, some of the CUT are like this 10, 20 hp difference only in software because they don't make enough to justify different engine components.
Diesel trucks tend to be like this too. If I recall they put the same 7.2L engine in a bunch of F-250 to F-550(although there your also paying for better built frame/suspension) models.
> Ford's Pinto engine, GM's Iron Duke and Chrysler's 2.whateverIforgetthename are all generally considered highly reliable engines.
The only of these I have firsthand experience with would be the Iron Duke in the Fiero, and "highly reliable" is the last thing coming to mind. It had a plastic timing gear that liked to disintegrate FFS.
In the last 60 years, automobile engines have improved many times: for instance, the 4.4 liter 8 cylinder engine powering the 1954 Pontiac Chieftain[1] produced as much horsepower and torque as the 1.4 liter turbo in my 2013 Chevy Sonic[2] - and it's not even a particularly good or modern engine. (Disclaimer: I work for GM, I'm using these models because I'm familiar with them)
Has the engine in the 172 been improved in that time period? The article says it has not, but I can't imagine using 60 year old tech like that.
I understand that it is "proven" tech, but that would be like saying that punch-cards are "proven" tech nowadays.
It's fairly unusual these days. Only thing you'll find with an engine that big is either a full-size SUV, a large truck, or a Corvette.
Plus, if you weren't here, you might not appreciate just how horrible the "EPA era" engines were. Much stricter emission controls + not having the technology to really meet it led to some really de-tuned engines. Wouldn't be unusual for a 5-6L engine in those days to only make 140-160HP stock.
reply