Edmunds isn't very C4 friendly
12-01-2015, 02:19 AM
#42
Team Owner
Thread Starter
Member Since: Sep 2003
Location: Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
Posts: 20,161
Received 639 Likes
on
443 Posts
St. Jude '03-'04-'05-'06-'07-'08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17-'18-‘19-'20-'21-'22-'23-'24
Yes, I still visit and keep it warm on the weekends. PM me..
12-01-2015, 03:44 PM
#43
In fact, even the base manufacturing level technology for the stock blocks for the big 3 were evaluated and found to be wanting. The tolerances of the boring and honing processes were not consistent leading to significant (from a modern perspective) variability in output. In the late 80s, the only manufacturer we could find that had consistent tolerance to their design was Porsche. This ultimately led to the adoption of CNC machining - a significant reason why there is so little differential in output among modern engines.
12-01-2015, 06:29 PM
#44
Former Vendor
Member Since: May 2001
Location: Callaway Cars - Old Lyme, Connecticut
Posts: 6,125
Received 738 Likes
on
419 Posts
I didn't bother stating this in the last debate, but for a large portion of my career, I was a powertrain planning manager inside one of the big three. I'm talking from my professional experience. We had data (design, durability, reliability, etc.) on just about every powertrain out there. It was part of my job to assess technologies, new and existing, for senior management where decisions could mean the expenditure of hundreds of millions. The simple truth is that turbo cars of the mid-80s to early 90s were not very good (from a durability and reliability perspective) compared to their naturally aspirated brethern. The Chrysler turbo Chargers and GLHs, the Ford Mercur and SVO Mustangs, as well as the Callaway Corvettes each had significant problems.
In fact, even the base manufacturing level technology for the stock blocks for the big 3 were evaluated and found to be wanting. The tolerances of the boring and honing processes were not consistent leading to significant (from a modern perspective) variability in output. In the late 80s, the only manufacturer we could find that had consistent tolerance to their design was Porsche. This ultimately led to the adoption of CNC machining - a significant reason why there is so little differential in output among modern engines.
In fact, even the base manufacturing level technology for the stock blocks for the big 3 were evaluated and found to be wanting. The tolerances of the boring and honing processes were not consistent leading to significant (from a modern perspective) variability in output. In the late 80s, the only manufacturer we could find that had consistent tolerance to their design was Porsche. This ultimately led to the adoption of CNC machining - a significant reason why there is so little differential in output among modern engines.
I don't see any facts, other than it was true that Chrysler turbocharged the 2.2L 4 cylinder, and some Merkur models, along with the SVO Mustang of 1984-1986, also were turbocharged. But I don't see any correlation between it and our Twin Turbo V8, RPO B2K cars. Other than being turbocharged, of course.
Now it's understood the benchmark in tolerances were generally european contemporaries, but Porsche has had their own fair share of issues, including tolerances on their engines. A case in point, is the torque thrust bearing and failures on their V8 front engine car, the 928. I'll presume you knew that and just forgot...
Regarding machining and assembly, it was interesting to note on a trip, touring the Performance Build Center for GM/Corvette, the practices were exceptionally similar between our companies. The documented procedures, identical. Now, on assembly, there were a few small differences, like electronics moving parts about and machines to check torque values on fasteners, but that's only a difference between man and machine. The processes were still the same.
That said, I don't believe you ever claimed to work for GM, so not sure your extent of firsthand knowledge of our car. But I have serious doubts you've had access to any real information pertaining to our cars or what we've done. So if that's the case, then respectfully, please just move on. Thanks.
12-01-2015, 07:57 PM
#46
Pretty broad brush you paint with, there.
I don't see any facts, other than it was true that Chrysler turbocharged the 2.2L 4 cylinder, and some Merkur models, along with the SVO Mustang of 1984-1986, also were turbocharged. But I don't see any correlation between it and our Twin Turbo V8, RPO B2K cars. Other than being turbocharged, of course.
Now it's understood the benchmark in tolerances were generally european contemporaries, but Porsche has had their own fair share of issues, including tolerances on their engines. A case in point, is the torque thrust bearing and failures on their V8 front engine car, the 928. I'll presume you knew that and just forgot...
Regarding machining and assembly, it was interesting to note on a trip, touring the Performance Build Center for GM/Corvette, the practices were exceptionally similar between our companies. The documented procedures, identical. Now, on assembly, there were a few small differences, like electronics moving parts about and machines to check torque values on fasteners, but that's only a difference between man and machine. The processes were still the same.
That said, I don't believe you ever claimed to work for GM, so not sure your extent of firsthand knowledge of our car. But I have serious doubts you've had access to any real information pertaining to our cars or what we've done. So if that's the case, then respectfully, please just move on. Thanks.
I don't see any facts, other than it was true that Chrysler turbocharged the 2.2L 4 cylinder, and some Merkur models, along with the SVO Mustang of 1984-1986, also were turbocharged. But I don't see any correlation between it and our Twin Turbo V8, RPO B2K cars. Other than being turbocharged, of course.
Now it's understood the benchmark in tolerances were generally european contemporaries, but Porsche has had their own fair share of issues, including tolerances on their engines. A case in point, is the torque thrust bearing and failures on their V8 front engine car, the 928. I'll presume you knew that and just forgot...
Regarding machining and assembly, it was interesting to note on a trip, touring the Performance Build Center for GM/Corvette, the practices were exceptionally similar between our companies. The documented procedures, identical. Now, on assembly, there were a few small differences, like electronics moving parts about and machines to check torque values on fasteners, but that's only a difference between man and machine. The processes were still the same.
That said, I don't believe you ever claimed to work for GM, so not sure your extent of firsthand knowledge of our car. But I have serious doubts you've had access to any real information pertaining to our cars or what we've done. So if that's the case, then respectfully, please just move on. Thanks.
Some of your commentary is quite naïve and reactionary.
Some points:
- You DO recognize how extensive the teardown facilities are at the OEMs? Or the frequency of competitive evaluation of competitive products? Or do you? Are you aware how extensive the evaluation of competitive products can be – especially when they include new or differently utilized technology. Do you really think that a Callaway or a Ferrari or a Yamaha engine (or vehicle as the case may be) isn’t examined to the nth degree? To suggest that there wouldn’t be first-hand knowledge of ANYTHING currently (spoken from a contemporaneous perspective) being produced is incredibly naïve.
- Do you recognize the cross-pollinization across all of the OEMs? The chief engineer of the 2.5L Duratec launched by Ford in 1995 then jumped to Chrysler to become the Chief Engineer of the 2.7L Chrysler DOHC launched a few years later. I’ve seen GM engine engineering calibration execs move to Ford and Ford truck engineers move to Nissan.
- Do you recognize the extent, even going back to the 80s, of the talks that regularly went on to see if joint development of powertrain (and other vehicle) components could be shared (from both and engineering AND manufacturing perspective)? You do know that GM and Ford currently share in the engineering of some transmissions. Do you? And when agreements aren’t reached, there is nonetheless significant discussion between the OEMs (domestic and foreign based) as to joint opportunities around new technologies? How do you think the GM/Toyota/NUMMI joint venture was initiated? Where do you think the OEMs view their value add in the development of vehicles?
- Many studies are focused on specific elements of technology. The study I referenced in my prior post was focused on cylinder case boring and honing technologies and the resultant tolerances. Porsche did the best because of their extensive (read: slow) tolerance verification process.
- You do realize that much of the basic electronics technology developed since the early 80s, especially around electronic control, has been generally shared among all the OEM manufacturers (given the supply base) and has been driven largely by the CPU capabilities (and ability to either package or consolidate the separate controllers). You certainly must recognize how important the calibration process is on turbocharged vehicles.
- As for additional data sources on competitive vehicles, you do know what “dual dealership studies” are and the type of data that they produce? Do you? It is through this data (which I had easy access to – data that did include Callaway Corvettes) that ALL the OEMs walked away from turbocharged cars by the mid-80s (and was a KEY reason why GM walked away from the turbocharger technology of the time). It is also this type of quality data that drove the large increase in DOHC applications to meet the fuel economy, power, and emissions requirements of the day – especially as we all watched Toyota and Honda deliver much with little.
- Personally, I have a lot of respect for large degree of progress your firm made with so little in the way of resources, but if you don’t understand how interconnected the entire OEM industry is, how often technology and people cross paths, and how competitive the industry is when delivering product, then respectfully, please just move on.
12-01-2015, 09:29 PM
#47
Team Owner
Member Since: Aug 1999
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,841
Received 522 Likes
on
342 Posts
St. Jude Donor '10
Chris,
Some of your commentary is quite naïve and reactionary.
Some points:
- You DO recognize how extensive the teardown facilities are at the OEMs? Or the frequency of competitive evaluation of competitive products? Or do you? Are you aware how extensive the evaluation of competitive products can be – especially when they include new or differently utilized technology. Do you really think that a Callaway or a Ferrari or a Yamaha engine (or vehicle as the case may be) isn’t examined to the nth degree? To suggest that there wouldn’t be first-hand knowledge of ANYTHING currently (spoken from a contemporaneous perspective) being produced is incredibly naïve.
- Do you recognize the cross-pollinization across all of the OEMs? The chief engineer of the 2.5L Duratec launched by Ford in 1995 then jumped to Chrysler to become the Chief Engineer of the 2.7L Chrysler DOHC launched a few years later. I’ve seen GM engine engineering calibration execs move to Ford and Ford truck engineers move to Nissan.
- Do you recognize the extent, even going back to the 80s, of the talks that regularly went on to see if joint development of powertrain (and other vehicle) components could be shared (from both and engineering AND manufacturing perspective)? You do know that GM and Ford currently share in the engineering of some transmissions. Do you? And when agreements aren’t reached, there is nonetheless significant discussion between the OEMs (domestic and foreign based) as to joint opportunities around new technologies? How do you think the GM/Toyota/NUMMI joint venture was initiated? Where do you think the OEMs view their value add in the development of vehicles?
- Many studies are focused on specific elements of technology. The study I referenced in my prior post was focused on cylinder case boring and honing technologies and the resultant tolerances. Porsche did the best because of their extensive (read: slow) tolerance verification process.
- You do realize that much of the basic electronics technology developed since the early 80s, especially around electronic control, has been generally shared among all the OEM manufacturers (given the supply base) and has been driven largely by the CPU capabilities (and ability to either package or consolidate the separate controllers). You certainly must recognize how important the calibration process is on turbocharged vehicles.
- As for additional data sources on competitive vehicles, you do know what “dual dealership studies” are and the type of data that they produce? Do you? It is through this data (which I had easy access to – data that did include Callaway Corvettes) that ALL the OEMs walked away from turbocharged cars by the mid-80s (and was a KEY reason why GM walked away from the turbocharger technology of the time). It is also this type of quality data that drove the large increase in DOHC applications to meet the fuel economy, power, and emissions requirements of the day – especially as we all watched Toyota and Honda deliver much with little.
- Personally, I have a lot of respect for large degree of progress your firm made with so little in the way of resources, but if you don’t understand how interconnected the entire OEM industry is, how often technology and people cross paths, and how competitive the industry is when delivering product, then respectfully, please just move on.
Some of your commentary is quite naïve and reactionary.
Some points:
- You DO recognize how extensive the teardown facilities are at the OEMs? Or the frequency of competitive evaluation of competitive products? Or do you? Are you aware how extensive the evaluation of competitive products can be – especially when they include new or differently utilized technology. Do you really think that a Callaway or a Ferrari or a Yamaha engine (or vehicle as the case may be) isn’t examined to the nth degree? To suggest that there wouldn’t be first-hand knowledge of ANYTHING currently (spoken from a contemporaneous perspective) being produced is incredibly naïve.
- Do you recognize the cross-pollinization across all of the OEMs? The chief engineer of the 2.5L Duratec launched by Ford in 1995 then jumped to Chrysler to become the Chief Engineer of the 2.7L Chrysler DOHC launched a few years later. I’ve seen GM engine engineering calibration execs move to Ford and Ford truck engineers move to Nissan.
- Do you recognize the extent, even going back to the 80s, of the talks that regularly went on to see if joint development of powertrain (and other vehicle) components could be shared (from both and engineering AND manufacturing perspective)? You do know that GM and Ford currently share in the engineering of some transmissions. Do you? And when agreements aren’t reached, there is nonetheless significant discussion between the OEMs (domestic and foreign based) as to joint opportunities around new technologies? How do you think the GM/Toyota/NUMMI joint venture was initiated? Where do you think the OEMs view their value add in the development of vehicles?
- Many studies are focused on specific elements of technology. The study I referenced in my prior post was focused on cylinder case boring and honing technologies and the resultant tolerances. Porsche did the best because of their extensive (read: slow) tolerance verification process.
- You do realize that much of the basic electronics technology developed since the early 80s, especially around electronic control, has been generally shared among all the OEM manufacturers (given the supply base) and has been driven largely by the CPU capabilities (and ability to either package or consolidate the separate controllers). You certainly must recognize how important the calibration process is on turbocharged vehicles.
- As for additional data sources on competitive vehicles, you do know what “dual dealership studies” are and the type of data that they produce? Do you? It is through this data (which I had easy access to – data that did include Callaway Corvettes) that ALL the OEMs walked away from turbocharged cars by the mid-80s (and was a KEY reason why GM walked away from the turbocharger technology of the time). It is also this type of quality data that drove the large increase in DOHC applications to meet the fuel economy, power, and emissions requirements of the day – especially as we all watched Toyota and Honda deliver much with little.
- Personally, I have a lot of respect for large degree of progress your firm made with so little in the way of resources, but if you don’t understand how interconnected the entire OEM industry is, how often technology and people cross paths, and how competitive the industry is when delivering product, then respectfully, please just move on.
blah blah blah...Should we all bow down now?
Do you recognize....That might have been the biggest "Im better than you, know more than you, you know nothing" self serving load of crap has ever been posted on this forum. Do you?
Do you recognize....That its a really REALLY good thing you're so impressed with yourself b/c if you weren't there wouldn't be a soul that is. Well, Do you?
Seriously. Get over yourself. That was just ridiculous.
Last edited by SurfnSun; 12-01-2015 at 09:37 PM.
12-01-2015, 10:15 PM
#49
Former Vendor
Member Since: May 2001
Location: Callaway Cars - Old Lyme, Connecticut
Posts: 6,125
Received 738 Likes
on
419 Posts
Reactionary? Of course. You called our product into question, and still without basis or facts. Fascinating, really. 
Naiveté however, is seemingly reserved for your posts, still. Thanks though, otherwise, for the half-hearted compliments.
Naiveté however, is seemingly reserved for your posts, still. Thanks though, otherwise, for the half-hearted compliments.
12-01-2015, 10:28 PM
#50
Team Owner
Pro Mechanic
I know you love throwing that one out there...even when it's not relevant at all. And here, it's not.
Buick GN, TTA? "Not very good"? Saab, Audi Turbos? "Not very good"? How about 80's Volvo Turbo's? I hear those blow up and wear out all the time...right?
Doesn't matter, Your claim about the block machining, MAY be true...it might, but totally irrelevant in the case of the CTTC being discussed now; it was a hand built engine! The original machining process that you're criticizing were all done over, anyway and none of the stock rotating assy was used. Your data/experience from FORD, is pretty worthless in this conversation...as great as it may feel to toss out there. Same bull **** you tried to pull in the LT5 bore centers thread. Glass Slipper busted you there (Everything bb62 posted was nothing but superfluous "stuff" meant to deflect from the truth.)...now you're trying the same, tactic here too? Post something of substance.
.
The simple truth is that turbo cars of the mid-80s to early 90s were not very good (from a durability and reliability perspective) compared to their naturally aspirated brethern. The Chrysler turbo Chargers and GLHs, the Ford Mercur and SVO Mustangs, as well as the Callaway Corvettes each had significant problems. In fact, even the base manufacturing level technology for the stock blocks for the big 3 were evaluated and found...blah,blah...BLAH
Doesn't matter, Your claim about the block machining, MAY be true...it might, but totally irrelevant in the case of the CTTC being discussed now; it was a hand built engine! The original machining process that you're criticizing were all done over, anyway and none of the stock rotating assy was used. Your data/experience from FORD, is pretty worthless in this conversation...as great as it may feel to toss out there. Same bull **** you tried to pull in the LT5 bore centers thread. Glass Slipper busted you there (Everything bb62 posted was nothing but superfluous "stuff" meant to deflect from the truth.)...now you're trying the same, tactic here too? Post something of substance.
.
Last edited by Tom400CFI; 12-02-2015 at 09:44 AM.
The following users liked this post:
SurfnSun (12-02-2015)
12-02-2015, 01:20 AM
#51
Melting Slicks
Yeah turbos are so **** that everyone abandoned them.... it's not like a marque made their bread and butter with an infamous turbo charged sports car or anything....
oh wait the 911 DID happen.
The Supra happened.
The 300ZX TT happened.
The RX7 Happened.
the 3000GTVR4 happened.
The Evo Happened
The WRX STIs happened
the GTR Happened.
The GNX, and the Turbo TA DID happen... the Callaways happened, and proved themselves to be ludicrously quick, and durable.
I'm sure I've missed a few in there somewhere too, in the 80s and 90s period. The 80s and 90s were the dawn of the age of reliable and powerful turbocharged engines. They weren't the End.
I swear this guy is a complete joke. Next he'll be talking about how the 70LT1 is totally better than the LT1 that came in the C4 again.
Let's put it this way, if Callaway's cars were complete crap in the 80s like you think they were, they wouldn't be around today, with the serious investment and risks involved.
They sure as hell wouldn't have had a car that set a production speed record that stood for over almost 25 years, and drove 300 miles...EACH WAY with said car either.
oh wait the 911 DID happen.
The Supra happened.
The 300ZX TT happened.
The RX7 Happened.
the 3000GTVR4 happened.
The Evo Happened
The WRX STIs happened
the GTR Happened.
The GNX, and the Turbo TA DID happen... the Callaways happened, and proved themselves to be ludicrously quick, and durable.
I'm sure I've missed a few in there somewhere too, in the 80s and 90s period. The 80s and 90s were the dawn of the age of reliable and powerful turbocharged engines. They weren't the End.
I swear this guy is a complete joke. Next he'll be talking about how the 70LT1 is totally better than the LT1 that came in the C4 again.
Let's put it this way, if Callaway's cars were complete crap in the 80s like you think they were, they wouldn't be around today, with the serious investment and risks involved.
They sure as hell wouldn't have had a car that set a production speed record that stood for over almost 25 years, and drove 300 miles...EACH WAY with said car either.
Last edited by MavsAK; 12-02-2015 at 01:41 AM.
The following users liked this post:
SurfnSun (12-02-2015)
12-02-2015, 01:37 AM
#52
Melting Slicks
By the way here's the real reason why domestics moved away from turbos.
Because they're a bunch of cheap bastards. Especially the late 80s and 90s. All you need to do, seriously is just look at the interior of a given Gm of the period and you could feel the cheap just ooze off the car. Let alone the fact that GM outside of the Corvette, F Bodys and Trucks didn't build a single car that was worth a damn mechanically, to go with the complete interior failure.
Ford? Ford didn't actually start building a performance car until 2005, after the Fox 1 was discontinued. The Fox 2 (93-04) was a complete pile of garbage compared to the Camaro, let alone the Corvette.
Dodge?
Dodge only made one vehicle worth even mentioning in the LATE 80s, through 90s, and through half of the 00s and that was the Viper.
It had nothing to do with turbos "being crap" to paraphrase BB62. It had everything to do with the bottom line, coupled with packaging concerns. Try to fit a turbo under the hood of a Gen 4 F body, Gen 5 F body, C5, C6, or C7... I'll wait.
Because they're a bunch of cheap bastards. Especially the late 80s and 90s. All you need to do, seriously is just look at the interior of a given Gm of the period and you could feel the cheap just ooze off the car. Let alone the fact that GM outside of the Corvette, F Bodys and Trucks didn't build a single car that was worth a damn mechanically, to go with the complete interior failure.
Ford? Ford didn't actually start building a performance car until 2005, after the Fox 1 was discontinued. The Fox 2 (93-04) was a complete pile of garbage compared to the Camaro, let alone the Corvette.
Dodge?
Dodge only made one vehicle worth even mentioning in the LATE 80s, through 90s, and through half of the 00s and that was the Viper. It had nothing to do with turbos "being crap" to paraphrase BB62. It had everything to do with the bottom line, coupled with packaging concerns. Try to fit a turbo under the hood of a Gen 4 F body, Gen 5 F body, C5, C6, or C7... I'll wait.
Last edited by MavsAK; 12-02-2015 at 01:37 AM.
12-02-2015, 09:35 AM
#53
Team Owner
Member Since: Aug 1999
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,841
Received 522 Likes
on
342 Posts
St. Jude Donor '10
Let's put it this way, if Callaway's cars were complete crap in the 80s like you think they were, they wouldn't be around today, with the serious investment and risks involved.
They sure as hell wouldn't have had a car that set a production speed record that stood for over almost 25 years, and drove 300 miles...EACH WAY with said car either.
They sure as hell wouldn't have had a car that set a production speed record that stood for over almost 25 years, and drove 300 miles...EACH WAY with said car either.
The car has Corsa Exhaust and the boost turned up a bit.
Such a terrible car to hang with the cars of today.
12-02-2015, 09:42 AM
#54
Team Owner
Pro Mechanic
Yeah, well....well....
your buddy is just lucky that his poorly machined block held, together for a 1/2 mile!
your buddy is just lucky that his poorly machined block held, together for a 1/2 mile!
The following users liked this post:
SurfnSun (12-02-2015)
12-02-2015, 08:19 PM
#56
Racer
Funny reading this, as none of us really know who we're interacting with
I just have a good laugh ................corvette comedy
yesterday I saw an '89 C4 coupe A4 with 267,000 miles for sale in san diego it was the rare white color, has a new starter too
the comedy it was only $ 9900.00
I just have a good laugh ................corvette comedy
yesterday I saw an '89 C4 coupe A4 with 267,000 miles for sale in san diego it was the rare white color, has a new starter too
the comedy it was only $ 9900.00
12-03-2015, 04:00 PM
#57
Pro
Member Since: Aug 2015
Location: Jackson Wisconsin
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
Received 79 Likes
on
70 Posts
I've always enjoyed reading the Consumer Reports evaluation of the Corvette. Typically it rates "below average" or "way below average" for reliability and quality but gets top marks for owner loyalty. You just can't rate an automobile like a toaster.
