regfootball

simple. one would think that relying on gears instead of chain could improve cam performance and timing. gears may require more power to run and have more friction. wear may be an issue as well. I am only aware of one engine that i know of that had gear driven overhead cam. Honda produced a VFR interceptor motorcycle that had it for awhile. It apparently was a strong performer. I am not certain how this worked over time. Remember, Honda had oval pistons in some bikes too. what does anyone know regarding gear driven cams and any advantages / disadvantages? Mostly I am thinking in the context of an OHC or DOHC motor. Wouldn't this eliminate timing chain or belt hassles? Couldn't accessory drives be synergized with this?

i know overseas we see a lot of smaller 3 poppers. the obvious question then is why this approach is not popular on an engine like a 1.8.

going back and revisiting your quote here, your train of thought works well for your choice. The MT in the Subaru I don't think would disappoint you and for you would IMO be the better choice, and that is what is beautiful in this case, Subaru gives you the choice. It's too bad the shifter throws are soooo long. Sales dude I spoke to has a 2010 outback with 6MT.....he's had sticks for 15 years and said in spite of mpg he still got the stick and he's been totally happy with it. It still gets really good mpg for this type of vehicle and he said saving the 1000 bucks it takes like 7 years of driving to make the payback on that grand on the worse mpg.....sounds like something a true stick fan would reason in their head....lol.

RIght after I test drove the Subies again today I was at the buick dealer for a half an hour sitting inside a new Regal and now I am more convinced than before that as nice as all the midsizers are, the Regal really hits the sweet spot at least with the interior and the packaging. But I am not going to torture myself by test driving one unless I can ever afford to get into one.

I do find it odd that the earliest Subaru review, I found the seats 'comfortable' and today the bottom cushions felt super soft. This time it was more than a quick jaunt. Maybe that was enough additional time to help it go soft. Or, I'm getting fat again and sinking in more. HMMMMMMMMMM

took a spin in a MT Outback today, and a CVT Legacy. The MT in an outback feels weird because you sit higher. But, for this 'type' of vehicle, the MT works well. Some of my old comments regarding the MT on the Legacy apply, a tish rubbery although it felt better this time. Throws are long and the shifter is bit far away. Subaru sells a short throw shifter as an option. I am not sure why its not standard. For some reason this time the 6M felt like I could find the gates easier and overall the clutch is light easy to use and it accelerates nicely for a big wagon (outback used to be small!). Anyone who wants a CUV with a stick will be satisfied. I have tested a Kia Sorento with stick as well and to be honest neither is a sport sedan and in their own way they are each attractive. I don't think much separates an MT Outback vs an MT Sorento. I think the Sorento has a higher seating position and more interior and cargo space (excepting rear leg room). The Sorento sits higher. The Sorento can be had equally equipped for less money and this perhaps would tip the scales in its favor. Here is the glitch with the MT Subaru. The Outback in 6th runs 2500-2700 rpm in 6th at highway speeds. I tested the Legacy with CVT. While not as aggressive on lauch or kickdown as the CVT in the Altima, it works well for a CVT. And I think for most drivers it accomplishes two things.....quicker launch and up to 60 then shifting yourself....... And much lower cruising rpm's at speed, especially above 60 mph. I was over 70 mph and it wasn't even at 2,000 rpm sometimes. A lot of the time in the 60 mph range i swore it said like 1600-1700 rpm on the tach. And if you needed more grunt, tap the gas and it got up to the appropriate rpm pretty quickly without the momentum you would lose shifting yourself. 3rd with the stick was a good acceleration gear on the Outback. 4th was not as gutsy as I thought it should be. The Outback will go fast if you use 3rd a lot. If you upshift more often and try to keep the revs down, I think the CVT may be faster overall for someone who is not a rabid manual freak. Both the Legacy and Outback feel wide and large. Outback felt heavy, too. Maybe the added height does that. That is the main tradeoff between the Legacy and Outback. The Outback does actually feel bigger and heavier when in reality its not that much heavier. Neither car felt 'nimble'. The Legacy does not feel numb, it did fine being wound up on the cloverleaf and stayed relatively flat without flopping too much. The Mazda6 is more polished all around in that regard. The Accord has more reflexes. If you nail the gas with the Subaru on the cloverleaf and the CVT downshifts fast it can really launch you and test the suspension. The Legacy is no sport sedan but it avoids being a floater. Call it the middle ground. There is an element of softness or cush to the Legacy and Outback that just might keep them from being considered by anyone who has some standard in the ride and handling of the car they drive. Yet, it probably does a good job of benchmarking the vehicle dynamics of a family friendly car in 2010. Goldilocks might call it just right. There is no bump harshness or excessive noise, it is a bit of a floater but not much. To revisit some interior thoughts with the Subaru. Cabin space has no deficiency. Armrest and console are nicely place and the center stack layout is nice top to bottom but it seems like a random mess of buttons to some I would think. Gauges are laid out exceptionally well but are a bit small. The mpg gauge gets ripped a lot judging by edmunds user comments....and yeah it provides no useful information in the moment. Visibility in the Legacy is superb. The outback has some restriction with the tall rear opening and the side glass being a bit small. Touch points and plastic are generally agreeable. The black interior is a bit deadly compared to the tan. But neither is suicide inspiring like the Mazda6 with black interior. The door armrests are nicely padded and dashtop feels nice too. There is enough detail and lines and surfaces and materials that I think it was pulled off ok. Some of the controls were hard to locate and find. Power mirror switch is on the dash and its a bit strange. E-brake on the dash is in a weird spot. Give points to the heated seat controls in a good spot by the armrest. Steering wheel is a bit ugly and clunky but the size of it is nice and not a hula hoop. Probably the biggest sin about the Subarus is the seats. Front driver seat has a soft squishy bottom and no shape. Its like going back to the 70's, no support, spongy padding. The density of the backrest almost feels quite a bit firmer and there are shape issues there as well. At least the power seat has a lot of adjustment potential and this can help. But, 'bucket seat' does not apply. This feel more like a one person bench seat for really fat wide assed people who want to sink into the carpet. I would say the seating is the biggest interior flaw on the Subarus. I would lean to the Legacy with CVT. I would not discourage a MT driver from getting one (and maybe adding the short throw shifter). But I think MT drivers might prefer the Mazda6. The Mazda6 just feels a little lighter (not carrying the AWD). It's probably the quietest in the segment has the most composed chassis and polished feel, and the seats are better. The Mazda's big knock aside from the death interior is that at least in the MT version, it runs over 3000 rpm in 6th at interstate speeds and likely gets poor mpg. I think if you prefer the interior of the Subaru and are ok with the ride and handling and seats in the Subaru its defensible. The fusion is another highly comparable car. Having driven all three in MT form, it really comes down to personal preference if you like MT. Whoops, forgot, the Sonata with MT is pretty darn nice to drive. Its just got some extra cabin noise they need to tune out. It does ride and handle nicer than the Legacy, although not by much. I might choke on words here and give it the win for MT folks in spite of the cabin noise, which is much less on the MT sonata than on the automatic. Style points and warranty give it the prize. Brother Optima is coming out soon, and I am waiting. I think if you like automatics but are scared off of the CVT I can say the Altimas is very good but personally putting close to 1000 miles on a 2010 Altima rental with CVT earlier this year and only getting 27mpg I fail to see the point, when the new Hyundai Sonata has lights out highway rating with a normal 6 speed. This is where I think the Subaru if you like the AWD and the styling you probably may prefer the CVT over the MT. It will get better mpg and its performance is done well enough that I don't think to many people will dislike it at all. Its super quiet at highway speeds, quieter than the MT. I would encourage anyone who likes the Subaru to drive a couple other competitors and then decide if they like the CVT and if the X factor of AWD is important. The AWD is almost transparent in the Subaru but some folks won't want it. My point is overall, I think the Legacy although a bit soft in many ways and with the still unique CVT is among the top entries of the class in the 'midsize' family segment. A somewhat rambling segment, but i think you'll all sort of get what I mean.

just as a item to note, before i was at the buick dealer i was shuffling through cars at a local lux car broker. Looked and sat inside lots of Volvo, Saab, Merc, BMW.......this Regal IMO has an interior that can compare with many of those cars. The regal's interior is more stylish than that of the outgoing 5 series interior and better finish too. S80 has a lackluster interior in comparison.

had the pleasure of sitting in a connected 2011 in the showroom today. black interior. played with the radio a lot. overall admired all the surfaces and details and textures and such. the decision is made, definitely based on interior, the regal takes the crown. the regal only lacks like 2 inches of rear legroom. that would be nice. but the seats are sculpted to be cozy and coddling. That helps. the front seats are fantastic. and the smell of the leather and leather itself is wonderful. Actually the lacrosse has great seats too, the Regal's seats are the bomb. I'd put them up against just about any seats on the market. All my previous comments it was amazing how in a controlled environment (nice cool dealer showroom with excellent lighting) how the interior presented itself vs. outside and non cleaned and prepped and on a hot day. The price on the one in the showroom was a little 27. I'm sorry, but at that price I do not think there is another interior that can compare for a sedan. All of the less expensive plastic that was so visible when inspecting the car out in the sun and not always in the drivers seat, yeah it's hidden below your view inside the car when you are driving. Everything you touch and see when in the driver's seat is the real deal. This is a fantastic interior. I was close to getting off on how nicely the radio buttons felt. Near tops by any standard. Absolutely this is perhaps GM's best execution job on the interior of any of their cars and the LaCrosse needs an immediate update of its interior to bring to standard the areas which it is inferior to the Regal. THis also makes you ask whether Cadillac is even relevant. The CTS has a pretty nice interior, The SRX's new interior is bangup, but I fail to see how they are substantively better than this Opel....er....Buick. I spent a lot of time playing with the radio and its menu setup is similar at least for tone controls to the menus on the advanced audio on the saturn astra which i alomst bought once. This car had standard sound and my God it was really good, I can't imagine how much better the H/K system is. This is almost reason enough for me to hang on to all my DVD-Audio discs, I might be able to play them in this car if I get one someday. The display screen (non nav) is nice and legible and where you can see it. Searching for tunes takes a few extra button pushes but the controls are so nice to the touch its ok. To me, the only visible interior flaw was the glare off the shiny parts of the steering wheel. I couldn't initially get my flash drive into the USB port but you have to flip the port back a bit to clear the front console storage bin trim and then you can close the armrest cover over it and its fine. A bit complex, but its not an issue. All the trim in this car was perfectly aligned. Gaps are tiny. Top of dash texture is luscious like chocolate to the eye and is soft and gooey to the finger. Buick NA should be ashamed of the detail on the LaCrosse where the soft dash plastic just dies when it hits the glove box door. The change in materials is nasty. And there is no detailing to help it to not stand out as cheap. There is none of that half assing it here on the Regal at least the parts you see. I was able to get comfy in the backseat behind where i set the front seat for myself. Cabin width is perfect, front leg room is perfect. Like i Said a couple more inches in the rear would have been nice. The cabin is intimate and spacious at the same time. The roof is lower than what you get in most of the midsize family type sedans. At first when i was in the Regal I said it was on par with the VW CC interior. I now believe it to be better than the CC interior. The one i was in today was black. I love that Opel smell. Out on the lot they had a Regal with tan interior. It looked nice too but very different with all the contrast then the black. I wish the faux wood would just be the black trim. At least you have 2 nice options. Buicks have traditionally of late had lots of tan interiors so i think it will be popular. THis has to be GM's best interior. Its embarrassing to say that, but this interior is cooler than possibly even an A4's if you ask me. A4 is excellent, but is stark in some regard. The Regal's interior is warmer and has more detail. GM would have never become the suck ass company it was if they had built interiors like this in nearly every car they made. LaCrosse is bang up, and still ranks as one of my favorite test drives in recent memory. I love the LaCRosse, but sorry, the interior on the Regal seals the deal.

most folks would say why not just a typical 4 cylinder, why change what already works? Spend the time working on enhancing the design of the parts already there, the torque band, and the gearing. spend the money on an efficient and RELIABLE (domestic mfrs thats you) CVT which would be perfect application for this kind of car. explain why 3 cylinders and only 12 valves as opposed to 4 combustion chambers and 16 valves (more valve area) would allow more air in and out and more power? Or is this just an exercise to save manufacturing parts, but charge the same price for something that has less power? that's what it sounds like. 3 cylinders = 3/4 the price. 1 cam = half the price. If you want fuel economy, oversize a nice proven four with DI and mate it to a CVT and spread the gearing wide. the challenge with a small motor is to keep it operating in the optimal torque band and rpm so as not to have so much rpm. i thought you said small fours didn't need balance shafts, why do a 3 with a balance shaft if you can have a 4 without. would this mythical 3 be well suited for turbo charging?

you are exactly right, stir frying is a test. my gas burners are like 17k btu and the thing is what you describes still even happens because i don't have a thin, fast transfer wok. I have to use my really heavy pans which don't pass on the heat like an expensive high quality wok, or a lighter alum pan like all clad.

mother in law had/has a glass cooktop. she kept it meticulous. but invested a lot of time in doing so. she died last year, father in law doesn't cook much but I can tell doesn't keep up the cooktop meticulously. the black mess, that. it does heat nicely. I have gas cooktop, energy usage was not a factor, i just wanted flame cooktop. ideally, i think next house I'd want a couple electric burners and a few gas burners. sometimes you only want to cook noodles or heat up soup, you don't need to do stir fry.

the furnace alone will save you huge bucks.

aveo sized rwd is inefficient....

cheap steel is heavier too. but the accountants for GM Ford and Chrysler like it because its cheap so the higher ups can pad their pockets more. yes, sometimes it makes sense to add durability or other assets by going heavier. problem is we are in the CAFE age and generally reducing the vehicle weight is the number one thing you can do to get the mpg up. i hvae found studying mpg ratings that certain carmakers spread a powertrain across multiple vehicles. assuming the vehicles are not outlandishly different in size and configuration, if you put a 3.5v6 in a 3600 pound sedan and it gets 18/29, but its cousin the crossover weighs 4400 pounds, it often times is close to a direct inversion...... divide the weights into each other to get your factor to modify the mpg of the better vehicle and apply the number to the mpg and you come darn close to the mpg of the heavier vehicle. you can almost generalize it to say two vehicles same powertrain if the second vehicle is 20% heavier it will probably get 20% less mpg. weight hurts even more for a performance based car. whoever the lead engineer is should manage the 'weight creep' of the design team and get them all to resist the urge to bloat every piece of the vehicle. unless a really good case can be made for the value in return.

the main thing with hot water is to have the tank close to the point of consumption. It might make sense in a typical house to have two tanks if your plumbing is grouped in two highly separated groups. An engineer could spend days engineering the optimal scenario, but housing costs to build are all generated from the concept of showing up on site and Joe Plumber puts in 'typical stuff' 'without having to think' to 'industry accepted normal' methods. By saving you all that brain power, they keep their bid low and keep your new home price from being much higher than it already is. time = money.

everything i hear regarding tankles heaters is that they basically don't work as advertised. they are great point of consumption 'boosters'. I would install them as an additional convenience heater where plumbing runs lead to heat loss. I wouldn't depend on one for a main source of heat. There is great potential in having a main tank and just keeping it at a temperature. It can be linked to solar, geothermal, etc....and radiant floor... I see no sceario how tankless is more 'green'. It just shifts where you heat the water. If its electric, you're burning coal that a miner got cancer retrieving to make the electricity to heat it in line..... large regular water heater tanks can be had for like 400 bucks.

I replaced most of the lights in my house with CFL's starting 2+ years ago. My electric bills never went down, the light quality sucks, and they sure as fk don't last "7 years". But i leave them in primarily because they have gotten cheaper, do last a while longer than incandescents. Mostly I leave them in because they don't put off heat. I am still waiting for them to start quicker. It's really stupid to be green to introduce mercury into the bulbs. Break one and expose your kid to poisoning, nice. I have an HE washer, but I got one before the big HE boom. The reason i got it had more to do with better cleaning of clothes and not beating them up. If the washer heats the water, it cleans better, and front load will always keep your clothes from getting beat to $h! like they do in the old vertical / agitator style. All that said, i would scream to the hills to everyone to avoid Asko laundry equipment like the plague. The washer cleans clothes nicely, but it just goes to show you another reason why scandinavian style thinking is often more flawed than with merit. exactly, it just forces them to push the prices up even more. they will get your money, they would love to get more of it by giving you less. we are all fools. this applies to gasoline as well. problem is, gasoline is hard to find and pump and may or may not run out......

I've always enjoyed the magnum. i drove an SRT 300 once and thought it was a really nice car. something to be proud of owning. all the LX's have extremely long wheelbases to me though. really makes em feel large, even if they are fairly agile for their large dimensions.

i'd say that's pretty spot on for a review, based upon my short test drive of a similar taurus. it really does make a good account of itself for a car. I didn't like the thin steering wheel on the one I drove, and I thought it was kind of soft and had slower steering with a lack of feel. But for most folks that would be spot on, especially for a big car. surprised, i didn't think ford was renting new taurus'...ah times are hard even for ford. John Wayne airport, i've been there a few times. For some weird reason i never minded coming into and out of that airport. It's not so freaking huge. And its low key. I kind of like the area around there. what did you think of the T bar shifter? I hated it actually. T bar shifters to me are relics from a bygone era. the fender vents need to leave, too. How do you feel about this car compared to a Charger or 300?

if you see a new decked out mustang on the lot these days you are truly amazed with what they have done with the presentability of the car. and now with new engines and fantastic track skills, the mustang is an amazingly realized machine. the whole comparison is a no brainer except the camaro has wicked exterior styling which may tip in its favor if that is important. Ford has refined the exterior of the stang enough that even though its not a stop you dead in your tracks sort of exterior, it has appeal and enough interest to it its like the same thing with Harley motorcycles. Consistent design language, some interesting detailing, the design always evolves a little, and you can build and buy it so there is something unique about your copy. Like a sportster. mustang or camaro is one of those decisions where your answer truly can be different everyday, as long you don't say 'challenger' at least the camaro is not as much of a pig as the challenger is.

by all accounts the engine note on the new Mustang GT is primally sexual. the chevy pushrod mills sound don't fit the mustang character.

for me the issue is for the extra size you get no extra interior comfort / space or trunk space with the camaro. the only advantage that tips the scale in the camaro's favor in that scenario is the exterior styling. if it didn't have that, it'd be toast. ford is evolving their mustang line and treating it like Harley does their sportster bikes. always keeping it relevant. yet keeping it true to heritage.

the camaro is a fine car. but as long as no one kids themselves into thinking its optimized as a sports car. It's a style exercise first, and after that its a fast car. It does have good handling for a car its size and heft I hear. I really want to get in one and see if its a great long distance car. Most Camaro shoppers don't need the backseat, but my own situation is that I would want enough leg room for kids and it really doesn't appear to have that. The styling is so badass that for that reason alone I would be tempted to get the Camaro over the Mustang. But the Mustang really has done all it can to make it a good sports car, finally.

while its fine to try to excuse the camaro for being built on a heavy platform it just shows that it was not built for optimal performance. we all know the camaro is a styling exercise, and that's ok. just don't make excuses for it when the mustang has better sporting behavior. And the Mustang can still be lighter with a DOHC engine.

So GM must have inefficient engineering if their engine is lighter but the car itself is a lot heavier. so there is no merit to the CIBOHVPR motor with 'lower friction' if in the end the car is a pork roast in comparison to the mustang, which gives you the DOHC and lower weight overall. sounds to me like the GM engineers need to work a little harder. If the general's engine is 5% lighter, I should expect the whole car can be optimized to be 5% lighter as well if you are using the pushrod motor and simplicity as your calling card. they tried that before...LOL TWIN DUAL CAM, yeah that was reliable....