Re: [MBZ] Picture just for fun

[Donald Snook via Mercedes]

That’s all Greek to me.  I’m basing it on what I read was the problem it.  
Mechanically it worked. The original owner drove it with the v-8-6-4 still 
active all the way up to 2018 when the second owner disconnected it.  

Perhaps I should amend my original statement to the 1981 Computer Technology 
THAT GM USED was not up to the challenge. 

Donald H. Snook


> On Sep 15, 2023, at 11:37 AM, Jim Cathey  wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> but 1981 computer technology wasn’t up to the job.
> 
> I think I would disagree.  The particular implementation may have been crap,
> but if the necessary mechanical bits were up to the task, the state of the art
> of electronics at that time was perfectly able to keep up.  (And would have 
> needed
> a long development time in order to get all the bugs and quirks out, which I 
> think
> is what went wrong with that engine.  This was a New Thing, and the various
> subsystems might have needed to be mixes of proactive and reactive logic, the
> partitioning and balance could well have been completely wrong in the early 
> designs
> meaning that it might _never_ work right, as initially designed.  It would 
> have been
> a fun engineering challenge, and I'm absolutely confident it could have 
> worked well.
> Eventually.)
> 
> Mind you, that was around when I was actually designing computers for a 
> living.
> And commercial- and mil-spec parts and second sources were still a thing.  
> Programs
> would have been hand-crafted and kilobytes in size, with nothing in there 
> that wasn't
> completely justified, and well understood.  Not like today.
> 
> -- Jim
> 
> 
> 

___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

Re: [MBZ] Picture just for fun

[Jim Cathey via Mercedes]

> but 1981 computer technology wasn’t up to the job.

I think I would disagree.  The particular implementation may have been crap,
but if the necessary mechanical bits were up to the task, the state of the art
of electronics at that time was perfectly able to keep up.  (And would have 
needed
a long development time in order to get all the bugs and quirks out, which I 
think
is what went wrong with that engine.  This was a New Thing, and the various
subsystems might have needed to be mixes of proactive and reactive logic, the
partitioning and balance could well have been completely wrong in the early 
designs
meaning that it might _never_ work right, as initially designed.  It would have 
been
a fun engineering challenge, and I'm absolutely confident it could have worked 
well.
Eventually.)

Mind you, that was around when I was actually designing computers for a living.
And commercial- and mil-spec parts and second sources were still a thing.  
Programs
would have been hand-crafted and kilobytes in size, with nothing in there that 
wasn't
completely justified, and well understood.  Not like today.

-- Jim


___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

Re: [MBZ] Picture just for fun

[Buggered Benzmail via Mercedes]

Mid-century modern!

--FT
Sent from iFōn

> On Sep 15, 2023, at 11:38 AM, Donald Snook via Mercedes 
>  wrote:
> 
> My wife went to the grocery store, so the MB gets to spend a little time in 
> the garage. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These cars are VERY different! 
> 
> Donald H. Snook
> 
> ___
> http://www.okiebenz.com
> 
> To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
> 
> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
> http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
> 

___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

Re: [MBZ] Picture just for fun

[Donald Snook via Mercedes]

1981 Coupe DeVille — with the V8-6-4.  It was GM’s very early attempt at cylinder deactivation. It was a great idea, but 1981 computer technology wasn’t up to the job.  It was only offered for 1 year.  It’s a great engine 368 Cu (6.0L) once the cylinder deactivation is turned off. This is accomplished by removing one wire. Technically the 368 was used in 1980 also without the cylinder deactivation. They also offered it in the Commercial chassis for a few more years. Donald H. SnookOn Sep 15, 2023, at 11:07 AM, Andrew Strasfogel  wrote:Is that a 70s or 80s Caddy?On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 11:38 AM Donald Snook via Mercedes  wrote:My wife went to the grocery store, so the MB gets to spend a little time in the garage. 



These cars are VERY different! 

Donald H. Snook

___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com


___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

Re: [MBZ] Picture just for fun

[Andrew Strasfogel via Mercedes]

Is that a 70s or 80s Caddy?

On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 11:38 AM Donald Snook via Mercedes <
mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote:

> My wife went to the grocery store, so the MB gets to spend a little time
> in the garage.
>
>
>
> These cars are VERY different!
>
> Donald H. Snook
>
> ___
> http://www.okiebenz.com
>
> To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
>
> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
> http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
>
>
___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com