Yes and no. Much of the bigger power capability has come hand in hand with the restrictions put into effect by the government. On the gasser side, you have sequential fuel injection, efficient cylinder heads, DIS/coil on plug, knock detection, electronic overdrive transmissions etc all in an attempt to meet emissions and fuel economy standards. These are the same technologies that allow us hot rodders to squeeze every last bit of power out of the factory offerings. If not for the push from the government, do you think the OEMs would pour the money into the development that they have? Nope. A new Camaro would still have a 350, quadrajet, and powerglide in it. lol.


I am a design engineer for a large diesel engine and equipment OEM...I sit through the meetings where upper management laments the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS that we spend to design, develop, and validate engines for each new round of government emissions standards.

I am a design engineer for a large diesel engine and equipment OEM...I sit through the meetings where upper management laments the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS that we spend to design, develop, and validate engines for each new round of government emissions standards.

Always interesting to hear an insider's perspective. I'll admit I hadn't really considered "gubmint" influence being a positive…that whole "I'm from the government and I'm just here to help" joke keeps going around in my head.

I'd tentatively agree with efficiency standards forcing the mfr's hands a bit; an engine being "just a big air pump" efficiency gains lead to HP gains.

However, I'd argue that HP gains have happened in spite of emissions regulations and would have happened faster without them. (I don't really mean "argue" - not trying to start an argument or turn this political)

"Upper management" has a responsibility to share holders to maximize profitability and minimize expenditures.
So, yes, they're whining about government regs which happened because the auto industry traditionally has been an easy target politically and likely to yield politically positive returns. They also argue about "how little can we spend on development and still stay ahead of the competition".

Here's a ridiculous example & true to govt form I'll use negative reinforcement instead of positive reinforcement.

You have 36 months to train yourself into good enough shape to run a 4 minute mile and if you fail you're going to be fined 97 gazillion dollars. However, because we're worried about emissions, when you test you need to wear a contraption which minimizes your respiratory and circulatory system, and you're going to be placed on a diet that doesn't allow your body to maximize the energy potential in your food (fuel).

Take away those restrictions, and reward you for performance,and I'd argue that your performance potential will be realized sooner.

I'd make the argument that competition and free market drives improvement. Compare the USPS to Fed Ex or UPS. To stay a bit more on topic, the early Ford P-Stroke and Dodge Cummins took GM's lunch money for years until the arrival of the D-Max. The competition, not regulations, forced GM to be competitive. If your product can't compete, customers don't purchase your product.

Claiming Federal regulation is the cause of the product we have available today is like claiming ice cream consumption is responsible for an increase in drownings. Drownings do usually increase when there is an increase in ice cream consumption…because it's warmer, not because ice cream causes drownings.

This would be a great discussion over a few adult beverages..regardless of which camp you're in - and yes I'll reluctantly admit it probably did take the "nudge" from the feds to get it started - I still think the engineers - people like you - are under appreciated (except for the ones who thought urea would be a good thing to add to diesel fuel lol). Engineers have time constraints, emissions, mpg and safety mandates, and have to come up with a product with a reasonable expectancy for profitability…and it has to look good. I heard it explained once "We're shooting at a target that 7 years in the future. And the target is moving". I think that's a pretty good analogy...

I'll even buy the first round