Jump to content
Create New...

pow

Members
  • Posts

    7,908
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pow

  1. I find that to be the case... the drop in RPMs during gear changes is less on a transmission with more gears, so the rate of acceleration is sustained.
  2. Hydrogen isn't environmentally friendly until scientists find a way to make hydrolysis easier and cheaper. As for now, hydrogen cars may be clean, but to create the actual hydrogen isn't.
  3. I like all of them. I believe the Concept X hints at the next EVO... apparently, it's going to be more refined, more like the VW R32 and BMW M3.
  4. Good changes... too bad it's not consistent with GM's Total Value Promise. The 9-7X Arc was $36K after employee pricing... $5K is a lot for what is basically Stabilitrak, DoD, and new colors.
  5. AFAIK, Motor Trend's test track runs downhill. They always consistently get faster times than everyone else, and measuring to the hundreths is laughable.
  6. Bluetooth and Intelligent Key are definite pluses. I don't like the look of it, inside or out, but if the PR is accurate, at least the quality has gone up. I would assume a hotted-up "R" version would look great... the current wheelcovers are uninspiring.
  7. Probably the ION theory. If there are no practical and structural limitations of a current architecture, I can't see how endless tweaking of it can be a bad thing. Not saying the W-body architecture is fine, though.
  8. The Lucerne looks fantastic in Sharkskin, though I have reason to suspect it was digitally altered. It looks more hunkered down than in the other pictures. As far as nav, it's not on the CXS options list.
  9. As long as it meets the CA/NE states emissions requirements, I'm all for diesels.
  10. http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?se...article_id=9964 Pontiac Grand Prix GXP Pontiac rewrites the front-drive-performance rulebook. BY TONY SWAN PHOTOGRAPHY BY AARON KILEY October 2005 Highs: Mellow V-8 rumble, plentiful V-8 torque, excellent road manners. Lows: Hints of torque steer, hefty curb weight, high steering effort at low speed. The Verdict: A cool idea that would have been even cooler a decade earlier. The obvious part of the formula is obviously far from new: Cram a big ol' V-8 in there, make the car go faster. Detroit has been doing this since the '60s. But what may not be so obvious is that there's a big asterisk to the formula when you start applying it to a front-wheel-drive car. The footnote reads something like this: "Put enough power through a front-drive system, and the driver will find himself turning right or left when he was planning on straight ahead." It's called torque steer, and it's the major limiting factor in front-drive performance cars. Despite various engineering advances, the problem persists in cars such as Acura's otherwise superb TL, which sends 270 horsepower through a six-speed manual transmission to the front wheels via a helical limited-slip differential. But in the Grand Prix GXP, with more horsepower (303 at 5600 rpm) and a lot more torque (323 pound-feet at 4400 rpm), torque steer is not a serious issue. There are hints—a little tugging when the driver cracks the throttle at low speed—but no real wrestling. How'd they do that? By adopting a measure no one else has ever put into production. More in a minute. But first, another front-engine, front-drive problem, one that's even more chronic than torque steer. With a design that puts all the heavy powertrain hardware up front, front-drive cars invariably have a pronounced forward weight bias, 64/36 percent in this case. As a consequence, the front wheels carry more than their fair share of the car's mass, diluting the ability of the tires to transmit steering inputs. Worse, the front tires are also required to transmit power to the pavement, and all things being equal, the poor things just can't handle their multiple assignments as well as the front tires of rear-drive cars. The result is understeer. The faster the driver herds the car into a turn, the more it wants to go straight. Pontiac's solution to these two inherent front-drive directional control problems—understeer and torque steer—is unique. Instead of four tires of equal size, the GXP has a lot more rubber up front than at the rear: Bridgestone Potenza RE050As, 255/45-18 front, 225/50-18 rear. "We wanted a car to run with BMWs," says program engineering manager Phil Minch. "But we were limited by the W-car architecture, in other words, by front-wheel drive. "The rear end never lets go when you have the same size tires all around. So we put our computer guys on it, and they came back with a recommendation for a smaller rear tire, to give the car better balance." This is a radical departure from conventional wisdom, and the idea proved out in initial testing. But there was a nasty side effect: Increasing the contact patch at the front amplified torque steer. However, after experimenting with a number of different tires from a variety of manufacturers, Minch and company decided the problem lay in the tire's construction-the way the plies were wrapped-and not the footprint. With sufficient application of power, the tire sidewalls distort, thus affecting directional stability. Bridgestone, the supplier of choice, was initially reluctant to accept this theory, but when the GXP team achieved improved results using an off-the-shelf tire from another maker, the Bridgestone people got to work and developed a tire that delivered the desired performance. Other elements of the GXP package include Bilstein monotube front struts—a first for a front-drive GM car, according to Minch—and forged aluminum 18-inch wheels (8.0-inch-wide front, 7.0 rear), a stouter rear anti-roll bar, and a 0.4-inch reduction in static ride height versus the old GTP Competition Group. Still another challenge was fitting the 5.3-liter V-8 into an engine bay originally conceived for a transverse V-6. Although GM has flirted with this idea in the past—our man Csere drove a Chevy Lumina mule with V-8 power more than 10 years ago—it wasn't as easy as simply greasing the thing up and cramming it in there. The powertrain troops had to develop a tidier version of the 5.3, achieved by creating a unique edition of the block with a shorter crank, a single-belt accessory drive, and a starter mounted on the transmission rather than on the engine block. The net of the redesign was a reduction in overall length of "about an inch," according to Minch, which was enough. The transplant also required mods to the 4T65-E four-speed automatic to handle the extra torque and a three-point engine-mount system designed to damp the V-8's torque rotation at full throttle. Pared down, the 5.3 V-8 met the assembly parameters—it installs from beneath—and provided an extra payoff at the scales. The all-aluminum V-8 is actually lighter than the supercharged iron-block 3.8-liter from the old GTP. But as you'd expect, the big payoff is in the realm of acceleration gratification. Tramp on the gas, and the GXP rumbles to 60 mph in 5.7 seconds (0.9 second quicker than the GTP we tested in July 2003). That time would have been second quickest in the all-star sedan field we've assembled in this issue ("$35,000 Sports Sedans,"), and the GXP's quarter-mile time—14.3 seconds at 98 mph—would have ranked with the best of that bunch, even though this Poncho weighs in at 3632 pounds. More important, though, the GXP's abundant torque makes it a formidable player in the stoplight wars. Super-size helpings of thrust are only a toe tap away. Some other sporty sedans can match this car's test-track accel numbers, but none of them can match its massive punch in urban close combat, nor can any of them hope to upstage the mellow mutter of its V-8 exhaust note. In this sense, the GXP is an appealingly American expression of the sports car disguised as family sedan. But how does it stack up in terms of Pontiac's BMW objective? Let's be clear. This ain't a BMW. It's not as agile as the sports-sedan pacesetters from Bavaria, and even though the unique tire stagger puts the GXP's responses much closer to neutral, the Pontiac's defining trait is still mild understeer. The four-speed TAPshift manumatic is better than some we've experienced, leaving upshift decisions totally in the hands of the driver, but the transmission offers only four speeds to play with. The engine's torque band is so broad, and the transmission's up- and downshifting so prompt in full automatic mode, that the driver can achieve pretty much the same levels of haste by simply putting the lever in D and leaving it there. That said, the GXP is not without some appealing traits. If it's not quite BMW eager in transient response, it's not too far off the curve, and if the GM Magnasteer II system is artificially heavy at low speeds, it's quick (2.4 turns lock to lock) and accurate, with effort that lightens as velocities climb. The GXP turned in a ho-hum 0.82 g on the skidpad, but real-world grip feels better than that, and as Minch and his cohorts hoped, a driver can induce a little oversteer. And braking performance—174 feet from 70 mph, and zero fade—is on par for this class. The net is a forgiving and capable four-door, arguably the most entertaining sedan Pontiac has ever offered. PONTIAC GRAND PRIX GXP Vehicle type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan Price as tested: $31,135 Price and option breakdown: base Pontiac Grand Prix GXP (includes $660 freight), $29,995; Leather Trim package (includes heated front seats), $665; XM satellite radio, $325; remote starter, $150 Major standard accessories: power windows, driver seat, locks, and sunroof; remote locking; A/C; cruise control; tilting steering wheel; rear defroster Sound system: Pontiac AM-FM-satellite radio/CD player, 6 speakers ENGINE Type: V-8, aluminum block and heads Bore x stroke: 3.78 x 3.62 in, 96.0 x 92.0mm Displacement: 325 cu in, 5327cc Compression ratio: 10.0:1 Fuel-delivery system: port injection Valve gear: pushrods, 2 valves per cylinder, hydraulic lifters Power (SAE net): 303 bhp @ 5600 rpm Torque (SAE net): 323 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm Redline: 6000 rpm DRIVETRAIN Transmission: 4-speed automatic with manumatic shifting Final-drive ratio: 2.93:1 Gear - Ratio - Mph/1000 rpm - Max test speed I - 2.92 - 9.1 - 54 mph (6000 rpm) II - 1.56 - 16.9 - 101 mph (6000 rpm) III - 1.00 - 26.5 - 143 mph (5400 rpm) IV - 0.70 - 37.3 - 137 mph (3650 rpm) DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 110.5 in Track, front/rear: 63.5/61.7 in Length/width/height: 198.3/73.8/55.8 in Ground clearance: 5.9 in Drag area, Cd (0.36) x frontal area (24.2 sq ft): 8.7 sq ft Curb weight: 3632 lb Weight distribution, F/R: 63.8/36.2% Curb weight per horsepower: 12.0 lb Fuel capacity: 17.0 gal CHASSIS/BODY Type: unit construction with a rubber-isolated subframe Body material: welded steel stampings INTERIOR SAE volume, front seat: 55 cu ft rear seat: 43 cu ft luggage: 16 cu ft Front-seat adjustments: fore-and-aft, seatback angle; driver only: front height, rear height, lumbar support Restraint systems, front: manual 3-point belts, driver and passenger front and side airbags rear: manual 3-point belts SUSPENSION Front: ind, strut located by a control arm, coil springs, anti-roll bar Rear: ind, strut located by 1 trailing link and 2 lateral links, coil springs, anti-roll bar STEERING Type: rack-and-pinion with variable hydraulic power assist Steering ratio: 13.2:1 Turns lock-to-lock: 2.4 Turning circle curb-to-curb: 38.0 ft BRAKES Type: hydraulic with vacuum power assist and anti-lock control Front: 12.7 x 1.3-in vented and cross-drilled disc Rear: 12.0 x 1.0-in vented and cross-drilled disc WHEELS AND TIRES Wheel size: F: 8.0 x 18 in, R: 7.0 x 18 in Wheel type: forged aluminum Tires: Bridgestone Potenza RE050A; F: P255/45R-18 99W, R: P225/50R-18 94W Test inflation pressures, F/R: 30/30 psi Spare: none C/D TEST RESULTS ACCELERATION: Seconds Zero to 30 mph: 2.1 40 mph: 3.0 50 mph: 4.2 60 mph: 5.7 70 mph: 7.5 80 mph: 9.5 90 mph: 11.9 100 mph: 14.8 110 mph: 19.0 120 mph: 24.3 130 mph: 30.9 Street start, 5-60 mph: 6.0 Top-gear acceleration, 30-50 mph: 2.6 50-70 mph: 3.8 Standing 1/4-mile: 14.3 sec @ 98 mph Top speed (governor limited): 143 mph BRAKING 70-0 mph @ impending lockup: 174 ft HANDLING Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.82 g Understeer: minimal moderate excessive FUEL ECONOMY EPA city driving: 18 mpg EPA highway driving: 27 mpg C/D-observed: 14 mpg INTERIOR SOUND LEVEL Idle: 46 dBA Full-throttle acceleration: 75 dBA 70-mph cruising: 71 dBA
  11. Mid-engined, rear-drive (or all-wheel drive), supercharged...
  12. The pricing is fantastic... if I were in the market for a premium family car, I'd get the Lucerne over the Avalon. When comparably equipped (stability control, moonroof, leather, 6-CD), they're only a few dollars apart: Avalon XLS w/ opt. VSC and JBL 6-CD - $33,345 Lucerne CXL V8 w/ opt. Stabilitrak, Driver Confid Pack, Moonroof, 6-CD - $33,280
  13. Whaa? I can't find it... did they remove it? Link? Nevermind... found it. It looks sharp in that banner ad.
  14. They always obsess over RWD V8 products. You should've read the review of the regular C6... they nearly had an organsm over it.
  15. The only good thing about Panera is their wi-fi, IMO. You could kill somebody with their bread... its, um, like a rock.
  16. That's so 15 years ago. :P I'd hardly consider modern California, or at least Los Angeles, to be generic suburbia. The Jones have moved elsewhere, places where they can afford a white-picket fence, cul-de-sac, a Camry and a Sienna, white neighbors, and some conservative religious institution.
  17. Whatever the hell happened to the Axiom? At least it was an actual Isuzu, and it couldn't be that much crappier than the Ascender. In fact, its interior was decent, the engine was great (direct ignition, VVT, 250 horsepower), and the styling was fresh. It came out in '02 and died in '04.
  18. Hmm, I also wonder what happened to that Danish guy, notapatriot, I think.
  19. Sometimes I wonder the actual worldwide percentage of homosexuals to heterosexuals? 20%? 10%? 5%?
  20. Its coincidental similarities to the Passat are amazing. Similar greenhouse, similar trunk lid, similar stance...
  21. Yeah, but those all look fugly, cheap, or dated. Oh, and while the LaCrosse has different pieces for the bench and buckets, but both look horrible. Buick shouldn't have bothered.
×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search