This dovetails nicely with the diesel article, and the points I was making about GM. Neither of these articles serve as technical dissections of the products or the history behind them.
I'll add one point here, that applies to both: despite any fault you may ascribe to GM, people do annoyingly get the facts wrong. For example, the Cadillac 368 is a very reliable engine, mechanically. The issue was with the archaic computer controls that caused drivability issues.
And no matter what you think of the V8-6-4, the fact is we certainly have come a long way, as evidenced by the intro:
Read those words in the context of 1985 or even 1995. Seems like the laws of physics wouldn't allow that to be possible. But here we are.Today, GM's Active Fuel Management system works great— you can get 29 mpg from a car that runs 0-60 in under four seconds, and you never even notice when the system turns your V8 into a four-banger