G. David Felt

Pentagon

The car is looking good and sounds great. Awesome job.

boring

That should be a hot car to hit the streets. Wonder if the large v10 is so it competes with the Z1?

Boy do I find this auto UGLY!!! I do not see what the public finds so great about this auto. I would take the current skyline over this car and I am not really thrild with the current skyline. I think the R35 skyline was the last great design for that auto and this really should be a Supra as it looks like one regardless of what is said on other threads.

Hello Fellow Cheers and Gears members. So since I became unemployed, while I search for a new job I started to clean up to office of the few piles I had and came across the following: http://www.thedieselpage.com/duramaxconversions.htm I had purchesed my conversion book about 3 or 4 years ago as I was planning to convert my clean 1994 C1500 suburban to diesel. I still dream of having it that way but recently had a interesting idea I wanted to float out to the fellow Gear heads here and get some solid feedback. So here goes the questions / thought and I look forward to your responses. I found a 2004 crewcab 4x4 GMC Duramax with 135,000 miles for 10K. If I was to buy this truck, remove the body, bed, etc would my 1994 c1500 suburban body fit on this frame? I know I would have to adjust for the 4x4 connections and use at least a 2" body spacer to fit over the Allison tranny. I figure at this time since the 93-99 suburbans were so close to each other, I could pull out my existing dash and replace it with a more modern one, maybe even use what is in the truck. My concern is the frame, I know the mounting points will be different and I will have to manufacture mounting points. So what are your thoughts, feelings, etc? Would it be better to get a late 90's 4x4 suburban and go that route with adding the diesel? This is my other thought on moving to a 4x4 with diesel in a suburban setup. I have attached what my current Suburban looks like right now. Thank you all in advance for your input.

If memory serves me, is this not heavier than the CTS both in RWD and AWD?

Animals

These look like goodyear tires, over all they have a ton of rubber on them still. It would be worth it for them to run through the winter with these tires. Good luck

Well... two turbos definitely cost more and brings with them a host of additional plumbing. The question is what advantageous do they bring? First let's get the myths out of the way:- Twin Turbos are not more efficient than a single larger turbo -- in fact, they are LESS EFFICIENT as larger turbines and compressors aerodynamically superior Twin turbos (in parallel) are not more responsive than a single large turbo -- V6es use two for the convenience of not having to route exhaust to one There are two advantageous to using two turbos in a 4-cylinder. Both applies ONLY to SEQUENTIAL setups... (1) Sequential, asymmetric, turbines offer improved low end response. Basically, you have a smaller turbo which spins up sooner and faster provide boost at the lowest rung of the engine rpm range. This turbo's exhaust and waste gated bypass flow feed a second larger turbo which is able to cope with the engine's higher rpm breathing. The most advanced single turbos of today can manage a torque plateau of about ~3500 rpm at a boost level of about 1 bar (14.7 psi). This gets narrower if you run higher boost. With twin sequential turbines you can extend this by about 500 rpm. In otherwords, with a single turbo you may be able to have an engine which makes maximum torque at 2000~5500 rpm. With a sequential setup you can extend this down to 1500~5500 rpm or up to 2000~6000 rpm. (2) Sequential compressors allow higher pressure ratios to be reached. A single stage compressor becomes very inefficient above a pressure ratio of about 2.5:1. That is, they start making more heat than compress air when asked to deliver more than about 22 psi of boost (about 37 psi of absolute pressure on an atmospheric input of 14.7 psi). By the time you reach a pressure ratio about 2.75~3.0:1 (26~29 psi of boost) more boost actually makes less power just a lot of hot air. This is why jet engines have many axial compressor stages and helicopter turbines usually have more than one centrifugal stage. With two sequential compressors you can efficiently reach 30~40 psi of boost. More if you insert an intercooler between the two stages! Realistically though, this advantage is quite irrelevant to road cars running on pump gas given that the static compression will have to be so low (~3:1) that the engine wouldn't run right if at all off boost And, if it did, would be quite lousy on thermal efficiency and fuel economy. So... really it comes down to the ability to create one of those engines capable of 1200 rpm torque peaks or one with a modest torque peak of say 3000 rpm but a plateau stretching to 7000 rpm hence making pretty impressive power. The question is whether that added 500 rpm extension of the torque plateau is worth all the addition complexity and cost. Remember, the sequential setup is NOT more efficient or more responsive than a single setup when the latter is within its already pretty wide optimal operating range. Also, the same broadening of the torque plateau and/or increase in power output can also be achieved by running about 0.2 bar (3 psi) less boost, using a slightly larger displacement and running slightly higher static compression. In fact, the latter probably yields slightly better mpg numbers due to improved off boost thermal efficiency from the higher static compression. You Rock!!! Thank you for the Great explanation, so for most applications it would be best from cost, MPG and overall efficiency to stay with a single turbo and maybe consider a dual scroll turbocharger would be a step up from the single. So if I am understanding your explanation, using dual turbo chargers really is a performance issue off the line only. How about if one were to consider dual – dual scroll turbochargers for performance with the proper intercooler for chilling to control thermals? Could one take an Eco 4 banger and create a monster with acceptable performance? The thoughts of what this could do for a small or medium size performance auto could be awesome I would think.

Fairy Tales

So instead of a Trailblazer SS, we have the NEW Syclone and Typhoon!

Change is always appreciated, good luck and wishing you a smooth transition.

I hope this is true that this really is a smooth reving engine with long life 250K miles and still holds up on HP and Torque. Wonder if you could take the 4 banger and do a dual turbo solution and get massive HP and Torque with decent milage? That would be fun. I will say that GM should do a Duramax Series of small v8, v6 & 4 banger. I think they could have a killer BioFuel Engine family that would really give them recognition and sales.

I would love a New Trailblazer SS Instead of the v8, this would be a perfect place for a twin turbo v6 AWD solution in Gas or Diesel.

My neighbor saw this happen with his malibu and changed out all the O2 sensors and it worked great but then about 3 months after that he started getting bad milage again. Could not find anything and by chance the local neighborhood police officer who lives around the corner suggested putting a cam on his driveway. Found out the local youth have been hitting auto's that are in the dark and stealing gas since the prices are so high. If the O2 sensors do not fix this and everything seems to run smoothly, I would suggest seeing if someone is stealing gas from your tank. Good luck with this.

Winnie-the-Poo

Lots of options, but for starters there is craigs list, ebay or Autotrader for a large audience or find a local auto seller that specializes in selling special edition vehicles like yours. If it is in perfect shape, take it to the auctions in Arizona.

pools

Personally with the explosion of the CUV market, it would at first and even second glance seem a dead market for a true Station wagon and yet I believe the first auto company to produce a v8 powered Station wagon that can pull a boat and especially in AWD form will have a killer sales product. There are many who still have fond memories of our Delta 88 Wagon from the 70's and loved the ability to pull a trailer or boat without having to have a truck or SUV. I think this is an overlooked segment that one company could make money on.

wetdream

Hey KnightFan, Keep up the positive attitude!!! You have had a great life and will come out of this in even better shape than before and will then be able to move onto enjoying life even more. Remember, Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming -- WOW -- What a Ride! Good Luck to you and your family from Seattle. I look forward to your post's after the surgery.

I think if they don't make a big deal about it in advertising, etc most consumers won't notice the difference. In the appliance market, engine size and # of cylinders mean little amongst the general public, I suspect. I have to totally disagree with you. My father has a colorado 5 cylinder and while he loves his truck, even he complains that the engine seems to run rough, never is as smooth as v8's or v6's he has owned and in riding with him, it is a noisy engine. Most people have noticed this about the 5 cylinder engines. My dad has taken his truck to 3 different dealers in the Seattle area and they all say the engine is within spec and runs just fine. One dealer did seem to get it to run a bit smoother, but still the engines are not the best balanced or have the best response. GM as well as all auto companies have a long way to go in getting 3 & 5 cylinder engines to run smoother and quite. Some day they might prove me wrong, but the only small engine I ever really loved was the QUAD 4. That engine could move and be custom built to race. Personally, the V8's have a long life ahead of them still.

Where does GM fit on that list?

I have no doubt that an engine of modern build with proper maintenance can go 250K, that is true of even old GEO's, but then if you ever got into an old GEO with 200K of miles, it barely goes and that is what I am expecting out of these engines. Great up to 100K and will still run after that but will loose out fast on torque and HP. My 99 Durango with the 5.9 V8 has 227,000 miles and still flies. Yea it is starting to use a quart of oil between oil changes, but over all you need to go and put your foot into it and it moves. I have yet to see that in current or old 3 & 4 cylinder engines at that mileage. I hope I am wrong, but every Honda, Toy, Nissan, etc that is a 4 banger barely bangs after 100k even with the maintenance done. Just not a fan of small engines as I have not seen them last like a v8.