I was trying to compare a OS with an automobile so starting with the kernel
can I relate it with the engine of the automobile.
If so for eg,
engine of the car -> Linux Kernal
body parts -> GNU
interior designs -> Flavors (Mate, KDE, GNOME, XFCE)
company assemblies these together -> Distribution (let's say Debian)
This ideology is just for the sake of understanding with obvious simplification of hardcore concepts
I know that kernel is the lowest level in an OS so I'm not sure whether its engine mechanism ( sort of fuel injection, spark ignition since that's the lowest you can get) or the engine itself
I wanted to know if there are flaws in this (considering the simplification factor) and add some details to picture this more clearly.
If there weren't flaws (e.g. if an OS was identical to a car) then it wouldn't be an analogy at all.
An analogy is good if it serves the intended purpose. This depends on whatever the intended purpose is. For example, if you're using this analogy to describe how an OS is produced (e.g. with a factories mass producing parts that are assembled on a final production line before being transported by trucks to dealers) then it's a very bad analogy.
Myself; I'd say that an OS is a design (e.g. the "Single UNIX Specification"), and that Linux distros are just implementations of an OS design; and that the "engine" is the CPU, and that a GUI isn't part of the OS (but is a third-party thing slapped on top of an OS - like a roof rack on a car or maybe like a caravan being towed by the car).