dwightlooi

Three things gays... You can bring used cars into the discussion, but a USED STi is a $25K buy and should not be compared to a $40K used CTS-V or whatever. But for that money, a used Lancer Evo -- with its active differentials and less nose heavy attitude -- is a better buy. The 9-speed Auto in the Cherokee is garbage. I really don't like the tall hip point and upright seating position of SUVs. This is particularly true of the unibody Cute Utilities which has no credible off-road value. If I need 3 rows, I'll rather pull a Jeff Bezos and drive a Minivan.

Typo... see updated post.

The Focus ST is a hooligan's car. It is an overpowered front drive, nose heavy, hatch. Which means it naturally wants to understeer, torque steer or otherwise tug and push. Ford's answer is put a sh!t load of roll stiffness in the back for the explicit purpose of breaking it lose in a turn. You end up with a car that breaks both ends loose and slide around like a hooligan's ride. When it finally grew up into the RS, Ford decided it was done with cars in general.

Which is excusable if the STi is a cheaper product with a better price-performance quotient. But, BOTH cars are basically priced at $40K.

Which is precisely why it is a Bullsh!t Luxury Sedan. In what way has a Saab been luxurious or perceived as such? Eccentric, quirky and not too slow, maybe... Luxurious? That is like saying a Citreon or Fiat is luxurious. BTW, the Saab 900 of the 80s and 90s is the ache-typical Turbo car which you DON'T want. Dubious reliability, tons of turbolag, a pretty decent mid-range once it is spooled up but not much elsewhere. Pretty much like a Buick Grand National except that it is not particularly fast. The "best" turbo four engine from that period is arguably the Mitsubishi 4G63T 2.0L which you will find in anything from the 1989 Eagle Talon Tsi /Eclispe GST/GSX to the Gallant VR4 to the various Lancer Evolutions. It'll take a lot of boost (particularly the early 7.8:1 engines) and with a stock TD05 turbo will make quite a bit (~18 psi) without needing a turbo swap and without EVER running into the knock threshold. It also has impeccable manners (for its time) with its dual balance shafts, hydraulic valve lash adjusters, sequential fuel injection and Karman Vortex MAF meter with no moving parts.

BLS = Bullsh!t Luxury Sedan

The WRX STi is growing stale. What qualified as exhilarating turbocharged AWD compact when the Camrys, Passats and Malibus had less than 200hp, is now... yawn... with a Silverado pickup having a 310hp / 348 lb-ft turbo four and most V6 family sedans and SUVs topping 300 horses. The WRX is stale bread... two decades old 1990s stale bread... particularly with much better appointed offerings like the Golf R ponying up 300 horses and AWD.

With a new dress cover and oil pan, I don't see why not. Height really isn't an issue at +15mm. The stupidly long oil filler neck needs to be replaced and the oil pan need to avoid the front sub-frame in a different way. Neither are stressed elements and it's not rocket science. Arguably it's less effort than designing a muffler.

You can gear and AFM a pushrod V8 for better fuel economy too. We were comparing the economy numbers output focused E63S and the CTS-V. You CAN get over 400 hp from 2.0 liters. I know... I have been there and done that. You could do that 25 years ago with a 4G63 in the Talon or Eclipse running a TD06H-20G turbo and 7.8:1 compression. The engine actually never broke... the tranny and the transfer case keeps breaking though. You will lose fuel economy from reduced compression and you will gain massive amounts of lag not just from a large turbocharger, but the need to go from vacuum to about 30 psi of boost when you stab on the throttle. For a production car carrying a warranty and appealing to customers with their heads intact, one has to ask why do you want to do that? Displacement does not cost money; complexity and exotic materials do. Displacement also does not necessarily cost fuel economy; friction and aspiration loses do. If you want 400 hp in an economical powerplant, you are far better off with a 2.5~3.0L class four with half as much boost, cylinder deactivation and a miller cycle cam on your VVL system to switch to. You don't even really need 4-valves per cylinder; it doesn't really give you much under 6,000 rpm except a lot of friction and complexity*. *Note: This is NOT a subjective statement. Look at the torque peak and power peak of a LT1 V8. 460 hp @ 6000 rpm and 465 lb-ft @ 4600 rpm empirically tells you that peak volumetric efficiency (cylinder filling) occurs at around 4600 rpm and volumetric efficiency does not fall faster than rpm rise until 6000 rpm. There is no airflow problems with two valves sitting side-by-side and with pushrods in the way of the intake ports at least until 6000 rpm. A SOHC 2-valve engine with a hemispherical combustion chamber and opposed valves should do a bit better. I can confidently say that for motors tuned to deliver torque peaks under 5000 rpm and power peaks around 6000 rpm -- which includes all the Accord and Camry engines -- DOHC 4-valves costs you a little fuel economy and extra money for NO PERFORMANCE BENEFIT.

Paradigm: Cadillac is a Totally Turbocharged marque, with all models having Two Engine Options (only)* XT3 -- 2.0T 4-cylinder, 2.7T 4-cylinder XT4 -- 2.0T 4-cylinder, 2.7T 4-cylinder XT5 -- 2.7T 4-cylinder, 3.0TT V-6 XT6 -- 2.7T 4-cylinder, 3.0TT V-6 XT8 (aka 5th Gen Escalade) -- 3.0TT V-6, 4.2TT V-8 XT9 (aka 5th Gen Escalade ESV) -- 3.0TT V-6. 4.2TT V-8 CT4 -- 2.0T 4-cylinder, 2.7T 4-cylinder CT5 -- 2.7T 4-cylinder, 3.0TT 4-cylinder CT6 -- 2.7T 4-cylinder, 4.2TT V-8 CT8 (aka Escala) -- 3.0TT V-6, 4.2TT V-8 * With the exception of the V models. The V models return the big displacement Push-rod power CT4-V -- Corvette C8 Pushrod V8 CT5-V -- Corvette C8 Pushrod V8 CT6-V -- Continues with the High Output 4.2TT V6 Inline-4 until the model sunsets. CT8-V -- Corvette ZR1 Pushrod V8 SC XT8-V -- Corvette C7 ZR1 Pushrod V8 SC XT9-V -- Corvette C7 ZR1 Pushrod V8 SC Engines across the entire lineup:- 2.0T Tri-power Inline-4 (LSY) -- 237 hp @ 5,100 rpm / 258 lb-ft @ 1,500 rpm 2.7T Tri-power Inline-4 (L3B) -- 310 hp @ 5,600 rpm / 348 lb-ft @ 1,500 rpm 3.0TT V6 (LGW) -- 404 hp @ 5,700 rpm / 400 lb-ft @ 2,500 rpm 4.2TT V8 (LTA) -- 500 hp @ 5,600 rpm / 553 lb-ft @ 2,500 rpm Corvette C8 Pushrod V8 -- TBD (~500 hp / 500 lb-ft NA) 6.2SC V8 (LT5) -- 755 hp @ 6,300 rpm / 715 lb-ft @ 4,400 rpm The engines are paired with 9-speed transverse Automatic Transmissions, as well as 8-speed or 10-speed Automatic Transmission including the 9T50, 9T65, 8L80 and 10L90.

It depends on your definition of "best". The 2015 era Corvette Engine makes 100~150 more hp and 23~97 lb-ft more torque than the 4.2 "Blackwing" while weighing about the same. While the EPA fuel economy numbers have not been disclosed by GM, I suspect that the 2015 era Corvette Engine will not fare substantially worse than the 4.2TT. The LT4 V8 SC turns in 14 / 21 mpg. That is 1 mpg worse than the hot vee 4.0TT E63S AMG's 15/22 MPG, which the 4.2TT benchmarks. One has to note that the 4.0TT AMG engine produces 47 hp and 23 lb-ft less than the Corvette Pushrod engine while exhibiting notable lag to its 22 psi peak boost whereas the Supercharged pushrod engine is instantaneous. The fact is that the good old Pushrod design has consistently beaten DOHC designs of the same output in power-to-weight, power-to-size and power-to-cost ratios while matching or beating their fuel economy numbers. That said, the 4.2TT "Blackwing" with its torque characteristics will make a very decent Escalade or truck engine if you don't care about the cost or the complexity.

That will not happen. China is NOT STUPID. They understand Merchantilism. They understand that the wealth of Nations rise on Trade Surpluses and diminishes on Trade Deficits. They understand that ONLY trade that generates surpluses is of any benefit to a country and Trade that generates deficits impoverishes a country. That is why they have the HIGHEST IMPORT TARIFFS overall in the world and they REQUIRE foreign manufacturers building cars in China to avoid tariffs and to do it in factories at least 51% Chinese owned. You see, Free Trade doesn't work. It doesn't work because unlike in stupid economics classes, absolute and comparative advantages measured in man-hours is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because Chinese and other 3rd world workers make $1.90 an hour and US workers make 10 times that. Are you willing to lower wages in the US to $2 an hour and eliminate social entitlements to compete? No? Then you will LOSE with Free Trade. You will never be 10 times more productive or skilled to make up the difference. Free Trade ensures the outflow of wealth, industry and influence from Rich Countries to Poor Countries. That is great for China, great for the 3rd World and great for the Globalist opportunists profiting in the process. IT might even be the best Social Justice and Redistribution program in history. But, it is terrible for any affluent country. What we can expect and hope for is for barriers to be erected to impede Free Trade with countries with whom we have a deficit and to cause a global manufacturing diversification away from China -- our chief strategic rival. We'll be a little less harsh on the Chinese if they play ball, but that's about it. Unlike the swamp creatures in Congress (from both parties) Orange Man is very smart and Orange man is laser focused on the things that matter.

The point is that just because it is an Inline-6 doesn't mean it is more refined. You can have a truck engine that is very refined -- go drive the 2.7T 4-potter (L3B) in the Silverado and you'll see. You can have a car engine that really isn't like the LLT 3.6 DOHC V6 -- despite GM's exhaustive attempts to claim to the contrary, it is louder, more granular and more clattery than the 3.5L and 3.9L Pushrod V6es it replaced (thanks largely to the curse of Direct Injection). The point is that while certain engine layouts have naturally superior balance (line the I6, I8, V12 and any of the horizontally opposed designs), adopting any such layouts is not sufficient to guarantee refinement. If GM REALLY wanted ultimate refinement they will incorporate Dual Injection (so direct injection can be disabled at idle and low engine loads where it is not needed and has no tangible benefit). If GM is REALLY interest in ultimate refinement, they will actually get rid of the Start-Stop nonsense or allow it to remember that it's turned off when the driver disables it. But, obviously, there are or have been other priorities.

That is the most contradictory statement I have ever heard. Yes, status is important for lucury cars. People in their right mind buy them specifically because they give a damn about what others perceive of their brand of choice. That is a huge part of the buying decision.

I am NOT impressed with the "Blackwing" V8. I am not impressed because:- It is not particularly high specific output (about the same as a 260hp 2.0L engine). Engines which making more notably torque than HP -- by definition -- spends it time running out of breathe as revs build The Hot Vee is a stupid idea because it limits turbocharger sizing for minimal to no benefits to responsiveness The only reason I'll advocate for a Hot Vee is to use a larger turbo vs two smallers ones for better efficiency and/or costs and that is not being done on the Blackwing. It did not include GM's new Tri-power cam switching valve train despite being based on the Ecotec 4-cylinder family That said, the Inline-6 is an even worse idea. The Inline-6 is VERY LONG and harder to fit in a car than a V8. Basically, if you can fit an I-6 you can fit a V-12 and it takes a heck of a lot of hood length to fit either. Also, just because it is an I6 and I6es are naturally 1st and 2nd order balanced does not mean an I6 is necessarily more refined. GM's last I6, the 4.2L DOHC-24v 291hp Atlas (LL8) was... well... blah. I'll very much prefer a V8TT to the tune of 500 lb-ft @ 2,600~6,600 rpm and 640 bhp @ 6,800 rpm with a 7,000 rpm redline. The key here isn't the power output per say, but the fact that you WANT an engine that gives you more and more as you progress up the tachometer. You don't want an engine that pushes you back like a freight train then spend half the tach sweep running out of breathe. It is very un-enticing to drive. People buying sports sedans are not exactly looking for the Peterbilt experience.

It didn't. GM sold 9,668 CT6es, whereas BMW sold 8,271 7-series vehicles inthe USA in 2018. BTW, the M-B sold 14,978 S-Class cars in the US in 2018. Regardless, when you launch a product in the large luxury sedan segment, only an idiot product planner will not realize that it is going to be a 10,000 unit/year (give or take) product. It might do worse if it sucks, it may be about 15K if it is really successful. It will NEVER be a volume model; it is not a Camry. R&D expenditure, pricing and production scaling should be designed around the low volumes, period.

Electricity itself -- unlike high pressure gases -- generally do not make noise. But in order to use electricity to do work and move a vehicle you need to have two things which definitely do. The first is the motor itself. These either use a bunch of offset electrical coils or offset bunch of coil and magnet pairings fed by an an alternating current or a rapidly switching current. When stationary they BUZZ. When in rotation they transition into a whine. The second is the variable frequency drive or the inverter. These... well... always just BUZZ. The lack of significant vibrations is the reason EVs are more refined. A different kind of noise is definitely there, but not the shakes. And, that is a big deal.

It is a LUXURY car so a 80~100 mile range on battery (about 25~30kWh) is a justifiable luxury. There is also the practical problems of asking a 15kWh to put up with the current draw and discharge cycles of a 300~500 hp motor for the kind of performance buyers of a LUXURY electric car will presumably want. -- But, 75~100 kWh is simply three times more than you'll need 95~99% of the time. Three times the cost on the most expensive component in an EV is a big deal. Three times the weight on the heaviest component in an EV is a big deal. Like Teslas or hate Teslas, know that Teslas are VERY HEAVY vehicles. How heavy? Any dua motor Model S is almost 5,000 lbs (4,900-something to be exact). You don't want that if you want great performance, ride and handling. -- It only takes about 20 hp to keep a 3000~4000 lbs car at 75 mph on the freeway. A simple turbine generator the size of a wastepaper basket and weighing 30 lbs will provide 30~50 hp. Now, that 10~30 hp (7.5~22.5 kW) of excess power will also mean that a 25~30kW battery will be recharged in about an hour or two of freeway cruising. If you are parking the car and running the charger it'll recharge the car in about a hour. This recharge rate is also properly matched to the fast charging rate of Lithium Ion batteries (about 30~32 kW). The difference is that nobody wants to be tethered to a fast charging station for an hour; it is like having a fast charging station you use while driving. Developing such a device is well worth the investment because a (relatively) lengthy recharge duration, battery mass and battery costs are NOT GOING TO GO AWAY. You will always have a need for a mobile means of replenishing your battery. It will be a single stage centrifugal turbo generator and it won't be that efficient (about 20~25% thermally efficient) but efficiency doesn't matter since you are only using it 1~5% of the time. There is no radiator, no coolant, nothing. It'll cost about the same as a turbocharger, an intercooler and a 30hp electric motor -- because that is exactly what it is a turbocompressor/turbine, a recuperator and a motor generator. You need intake air and somewhere to vent the exhaust, that's all. This is a heck of a lot simpler, lighter and cheaper than a Hybrid drive train with an ICE, a transmission, coolant circuit and all the other nonsense.

That is like saying warp drives will replace chemical rockets in space flight. Yeah, it'll be great but it'll require a fundamental change in the understanding of physics (or in the case of batteries chemistry). (1) Solid State Batteries already exist. They are called Lithium-Polymer Cells. (2) By the very nature of solid electrolytes they CANNOT offer the high current properties automotive or other high draw devices demand. Current, you see, require free ionic movement in the electrolyte and being a solid means you have a limited amount of that. (3) The problem with electric cars is not the lack of charging points per say, but the time it takes to put the equivalent of 300 miles of range in a car -- be it a tank of gas or 80 kWh of battery charge. (4) To charge a 80kWh battery in 5 minutes will boil the electrolytes and cause an explosion. But even if it didn't, Delivering 80 kWh of charge in 5 mins with a 440 volt supply will require 2182 Amps. FYI, the electric chair puts about 7 to 12 amps through the condemned. (5) The need to wait hours to recharge a vehicle is an inherent disadvantage of electric propulsion. It is a problem to live with, accept and work with. It is not something you can simply wish away by some magic of engineering or science.

LOL... you can spend all the extra coin you want and you will still get an interior that won't even measure up to a Hyundai with Tesla. Apart from a large LCD touch screen there is nothing particularly luxurious or enticing about any Tesla's interior. Sitting in a Tesla is like sitting in a Laptop. You get either broad swats of plastic or broad swats of covered plastic. Teslas' are ergonomically challenging and you can't even get adjustable head rests. -- Teslas are expensive cars. Teslas are fast cars. Teslas are prestigious cars. Teslas are cars in which you can flaunt your prosperity by exhibiting the size of the BATTERY you can afford. Teslas are a lot of things, but Teslas are NOT luxurious cars.

Yes. Hence " Things which can include a 30hp turbo-electric generator costing $2000 and the size of a muffler which can extend the range of the vehicle when needed and which guarantees that you will never be stranded by a depleted battery. A turbo-electric generator has no coolant circuit or radiator requirements. It'll run on gasoline, diesel, CNG, propane or whatever you throw at it. The fuel economy of this generator is largely irrelevant since you are not expected to use it 99% of the time. "

300 mile is NOT a sweet spot. 300 miles means that you are carrying more than 200 miles of battery costs and weight which 99% of commuters will NEVER use 99% of the time. -- Now, breaking free of EV range constraints is a great idea. It is the only reason Tesla was successful whereas previous EVs -- regardless of price and performance -- weren't. But at an equivalent of $5000 for about 50 miles worth of batteries, one has to wonder whether those $20,000 can be better spent on other things. Things which can include a 30hp turbo-electric generator costing $2000 and the size of a muffler which can extend the range of the vehicle when needed and which guarantees that you will never be stranded by a depleted battery. A turbo-electric generator has no coolant circuit or radiator requirements. It'll run on gasoline, diesel, CNG, propane or whatever you throw at it. The fuel economy of this generator is largely irrelevant since you are not expected to use it 99% of the time.

Great Video! #1 It illustrates what I was trying to explain -- that Tri-Power can only shut off two cylinders in the 4-cylinder engines. You'll notice that there are 6 solenoid switcher units. All four cylinders have them on the intake valves, but only the middle two cylinders have them on the exhaust valves. There is no way to put the exhaust valves of the outside cylinders in zero-lift mode and disable those cylinders. Tri-Power in the L3B and the LSY either operates on 4 or 2 cylinders; never 3 ,1 or 0. #2 BTW, the Tri-Power switcher is SCARY. It is scary because it is not a "safe-on-fail" In engineering, that is an important concept which ensures that should a device fail it will not render an essential function inoperable or cause damage to the machine. Tri-Power is not a safe-on-fail design the way VTEC, VVTL-i or GM's own iVLC systems were. When any of these systems fail either because of hydraulic failure or solenoid failure, they simply will not engage. The spring(s) then keeps them perpetually in the low-lift mode under which the engine is perfectly operable even if it runs out of breath above 5000 rpm and does not produce its rated power. Tri-Power has (up to) two solenoid units for every cylinder. Each has two cam pins. When the solenoid unit triggers the cam pins, they shift the cam slider left or right on the camshaft. There are up to three positions -- zero, low or high lift profiles. The spiral grove is such that it slides the cam sleeve only when the rollers are riding on the base circle to guarantee that no movement is possible when the valves are being actuated so the rollers won't be forced against the side walls of a higher lift cam lobe and damage the rocker catastrophically. Still, this is SCARY in two ways... If the solenoid units fail and the cam pins retract mid cycle and or are unable to extend, you can be stuck on a no-lift cam (in which case the cylinder won't work) or worse you can be stuck on the ledge between two lobes and fail. If the solenoid units fail and the cam pins fail to extend, it is possible that a cylinder gets stuck in shut off mode for its intake or exhaust valves. This will cause severe drivability problems all the way down to idle.

Uh... how was the Z06 penalized for being 7.0L? In the USA, or any country with a sensible policy on fuel economy, engine displacement has no bearing on taxes. The 2008 Z06 7.0L was 15/24MPG -- the 2008 M3 4.0L was 14/20 mpg, the Porsche 911 Turbo 3.6L of the same year was 16/23 MPG and the Audi RS4 4.2L was 14/20 MPG. None of these cars measure up to a Honda Civic; but the 7.0L was actually as good or better on fuel economy than its competitors all of which had less than it's 505hp/470 lb-ft. In stupid countries with displacement rather gas guzzler taxes, you are completely screwed whether it is 6.2L, 6.4L, 6.8L or 7.0L. For such markets, you'll want some souped up LF4 3.6TT engine to get you 460+ hp or better yet some souped up 4-cylinder running 30 psi of boost on as few liters of displacement as possible.

6.8 is the same bore and block as the 6.2 with no need for cylinder sleeves. The 101mm stroke is exactly the same as was used on the 7.0L LS7. You got 30 hp with the LT1 largely from Direct Injection and 11.5:1 compression. BTW, the estimated output for the 6.8 assumes ZERO gain in specific torque output, just a slight broadening of the torque curve from dual cam phasing.