91z4me

Oh yeah CD/BP is Chris Doane, I think I mis spelled that. Anyways he is a spy photographer and lets us know when and where his photos show up so we can see things rather quickly. He also shows us some photos for free on occasion, but usually we have to guess for 3-4 days to guess what it is. Edit: Corrected Chris I hate it when people spell my name wrong so I won't do it to others.

Wish it were mine but alas I have a MC Z34. Anyways lets see there were leaked pictures of the Tahoe, Escalade, Yukon about a month before they debuted. Then there were leaked pictures of the Camaro conept, in early design stages, about a week before it debuted. GM said they were pissed about both BUT I haven't heard that anything has been done. There was a press preview about 3-4 months ago where the media and auto anaylsts got to see a look into GMs future. The next CTS, Malibu, Enclave (Buick Lambda crossover), Outlook (Saturn Lambda crossover), Acadia (GMC Lambda crossover), rumored to have been sketches of a 4 door Pontiac RWD coupe, and of course the GMT900s. The next Malibu and CTS are supposed to have WOWed the people present. The next Malibu was pushed back a year or so to put it onto Epsilon II. The next Ion GMX002 was shown in 2 pics here and then the pics were pulled, if you need them you could say so and probably get them in an email :AH-HA_wink: . Apparently Delta II will not happen as GM Europe was not to happy with Delta I. The next gen of compact cars will ride on the global compact car chassis which will likely use parts from Delta and the current (albeit revised) T-body. Camaro is a go from a source or two and likely are a couple of other RWD cars for NA. The most likely plant will be Willmington for the coupes with other RWD cars going to Oshawa. There is a survey on the Fastlane blog about future smaller cars being FWD or RWD and benefits and people's opinion, something that thegriffin hinted at about 3 months ago for the next G6 and having the GTO be a coupe version of that. Also don't be upset if you see the next Holden Ute because there is a chance it could be sold in the states as well, could be built on the coupe line in Willmington. BTW Welcome back, hope I gave you some good things to read and ponder about.

http://www.pixeldreams.com/bob_lutz.html

In terms of forum life or in terms of future vehicle stuff?

You do know about the 3.9 GTP G6 right? 242 hp 6 speed stick optional. That is more Accord territory, and it will likely get better gas mileage.

FYI the 3.6 has VVT just like the 3.9 does only it vaires the intake and exhaust cam individually whereas the 3.9 has static timing between the intake and exhaust valves. So by your argument the 3.6 needs more help than the 3.9. And despite having more displacement it is a smaller engine.

That doesn't mean squat so far as what is the better engineering decision. The OHV engines ARE competitive. Just because only 1 manufacturer is using it and the market percieves it RIGHT NOW as being less than ideal doesn't change the logic that the OHV 3.9 is a better engine than the 3.6 OHC. If GM wanted to they could make a 4.4 of 4.5 OHV V6 that would wipe the floor with the 3.6 HF because it would take less space to get more displacement. GM could add DOD, VVT, DI, an aluminum block, and Variable intake manifold for the same price it costs to make the 3.6 HF. IF such an engine were made it would get better fuel mileage, make more power, and be a better engine across the board but because it isn't what everyone else makes that makes it inferior? That is hardly a reason for an engine to be inferior.

Lets use the 3.8 VVT vs the 3.6 VVT. One is OHV the other OHC. The 3.6 has 240 hp at 6000 RPMs and 240 ft lbs of torque at 2000 RPMs in the Lacrosse, FWD with a 4 speed auto. The torque curve is very flat decreasing slightly as the RPMs rise and the hp curve is very linear. The compression ratio is 10.2:1. http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/produ...Y7_LaCrosse.pdf The 3.9 makes 242 hp at 6000 RPMs and 242 ft lbs of torque at 4800 RPMs. The torque curve peaks around 2500 RPMs and then dips around 3300 and then rises back to the peak. The torque curve is not quite as linear but is still fairly flat. The compression ratio is 9.8:1. http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/produ..._LZ9_Impala.pdf So lets see which one is more advanced. The 3.9 is lighter, even with an iron block. It is dimensionally smaller and therefore easier to package. It is much cheaper and delivers nearly identical peak numbers while delivering BETTER fuel economy! The best engineering solution is the one that is the simplist, cheapest, easiest to assemble. Which is the better engineering solution?

Yeah that LS7 runs out of breath so low doesn't it? :rolleyes:

The majority of the parts used in the 3800 date back to the 1950s. The engine was great while it lasted but come on we are still using it 60 years later! The 3900 is more compact, lighter, cheaper to assemble, offers more versatility in things that can be used on it(DOD, VVT, variable intake), better NVH, better balance. Give me 1 good reason why the 3800 should still be used when the 3900 beats it in EVERY single category of testing. BTW don't throw well you can turbo it and get this because anything you can do to the 3800 you can do to the 3900. Edit: To those saying why keep the 4.8 around think of one thing. Everyone that wants the 5.3 pays for it. It is an upgrade engine and therefore costs more. More cost=more money.

To quote from the thread http://web.camaross.com/forums/showpost.ph...50&postcount=22

Does that mean we should disreguard what you just said?

For comparison's sake.

Best I can do. Prayers and thoughts with Chief's family.

And Air Bags, which they proptly gave away so that everyone could have air bags in their cars.

I don't need it. My first new car will likely have Onstar and if I am lost I can just press the button and they will guide me where I need to go. Also I, like most people, stay within my home city for 95% of my driving and I know where I am going without needing to look at a map. So for the 95% of the time I am in my car I want something usable like a nice looking radio or dash, rather than some blue screen with white letters telling me in big numerals what radio station I am listening to.

Theta I Theta IIAlso the Captiva may have 7 seat capacity, I am not to sure about that though.

Yes, by people like me.

Sorry I am having trouble comprehending the last few days, been out of town a lot and have gotten little sleep. Thanks for clearing that up evok.

I think the problem I am having is that I am reading this posthttp://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...indpost&p=72235 and http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...indpost&p=72739 as the two being linked when in fact they are not. So a CTS coupe (I was calling it CTC) not based on the same platform as Camaro and a Camaro would leave little space to a GTO. Also as I read in your second post there are no plans at this time for a Sigma based Caddy coupe. Did I get it right this time?

You have said previously that a Camaro business case would be paired with a Caddy coupe. Also numerous reports indicate that the next CTS would have coupe and convertible varients. Are you indicating that the Caddy coupe may not share sheet metal/designation with the CTS?

CTC, it is coming...around 2008 or so.

Any insiders wish to comment on Brandon from GMI claiming that a RWD 4 door Pontiac coupe, which he says will carry the GTO nameplate, was present at the media preview?

Colorado has round red tail lights within its trapizoidal housing. The Aveo is one for sure. The Malibu and Maxx have round circles in its tails also but only one per side. The HHR has 2 per side. The Monte/Impala have 1 per side.My answer is the Aveo, Monte Carlo, and Impala.

Was it Rides? Do you know when it will be on again?