dwightlooi

Uber and Lyft has nothing to do with it. Uber and Lyft drivers need to buy vehicles too. There is certainly a trend towards high hip points and a vertical and upright seating position. The problem I see here is GM's over proliferation of models. There is really no justification for a Spark, a Sonic, a Cruze, a Malibu and an Impala. Unfortunately, I think they made the wrong call on the models to keep. Keeping the Cruze and the Impala for a compact and a full size would be a better bet. There is no reason the Impala has to be more expensive than the Malibu. Size doesn't really cost money. Equipment costs money. One of the criticism I had for GM was their march towards low displacement, turbocharged engines. if fuel economy is the goal, a better approach is not the 1.4L (now 1.5L) fours. If that is the goal, a 2.5L Aktinson cammed SOHC 2-valve four will make the same 150hp / 170 lb-ft with equivalent or better mpg numbers without the cost of the turbocharger or its intercooler. Basically, what you are doing is keeping the power stroke but throwing away about 25% of the compression stroke (hence effective displacement) with late closure of the intake valves. Since you are also not going for high revs or specific output, an SOHC 2-valve head will not only cost less, but generate less frictional losses. Displacement doesn't cost money; complexity costs money. Displacement doesn't equal gas usage either; power output equals gas usage (at least when it is making power).

A little update... There has been considerable interest in 2-stroke diesels lately. Companies like Achates are design new 2-stroke engines -- in the case of the Achates an Opposed Piston Diesel design with no cylinder heads, no valves, no spark plugs. Their first production engine is a 3-cylinder design which displaces 2.7 liters. It produces 270 bhp and 480 lb-ft. Now, to be fair, the engine has six piston, two crankshafts and is closer in size to a 5.4 liter H6 than a 2.7L I3. But it has three advantages. Firstly, there is no camshafts, no cylinder heads and 40% as many parts. Secondly, because there are two pistons for each cylinder, the expansion ratio of each cylinder is twice that of a conventional engine of the same bore and stroke length which allows for insane effective stroke lengths (hence energy extraction) without high piston speeds. Finally, the thermal efficiency of the engine is above 40% (between 40.2 to 43%) across it's entire rev range which is about 15% better than 4-stroke diesels of the same output. A Silverado light truck so powered will deliver 37 mpg on the highway -- not bad at all. A more interesting application for opposed piston designs is as a micro generator. A 400cc one cylinder O-P engine will generate about 30~35 KWe (40~47 hp). The supercharger (a necessity for 2-stroke O-Ps) can be a tiny and simple centrifugal impeller since this generator only needs to operate at its optimal rpm or not at all. It'll be spun up to its self-operating speed by the generator it drives before any fuel is ever injected. That is perfect as a range extender for electric vehicles. This is enough to completely recharge a 30KWh battery pack in an hous or maintain high way cruise at 60~80 mph while recharging the battery in about two. Effectively this means you CAN drive from San Francisco to LA on a full charge and about 6 gallons of diesel fuel. Not bad at all. Or, if you don't ever want to plug in that electric car you can drive around as a diesel powered hyrbid vehicle with about ~50 mpg and a ~300 mile range on that 6 gallon tank. Again not bad. The performance of the vehicle is quite independent of the generator or the battery capacity. It is governed largely by the size of the drive motor. Unlike the ICE , a big electric motor is not significantly less efficient than a smaller one (low load efficiency is about 70~75% vs about 90~95% at optimal). The single cylinder engine, its generator and the diminutive diesel tank will fit under the trunk floor in the same space currently occupied by a pair of mufflers and their exhaust pipes. Unlike a gasoline tank, rear placement is not a collision hazard because diesel spills are NOT flammable.

They were saying that 50 years ago. The fact is that the math doesn't add up. US production has doubled from 1.8 billion barrels a year to 3.6 billion a year. Yet, US oil reserves had more than DOUBLED in the last decade from 20 billion barrels to 45 billion barrels meaning that they are finding a lot more oil than they are pumping despite the doubling of production rates during the same period. Oil will never just run out one day. That is not how it works. The way it works is that the easily to drill for reserves will be gradually depleted and more and more of the production will come from hard to get to reserves which progressively increases the price of oil and gas. This will in part be offset by advancement in technologies like hydraulic fracking, horizontal drilling and deep sea drilling. 500 years from now there will still be oil available, it'll just be stuff that is really deep in the oceans or small pockets under hills and mountains and the like. And, it'll still be drilled for for applications for in some quantity or another. The point is that there is no need to force fuel economy or electrification on the public. If and when oil gets to and stays at about $200 a barrel or more, the alternatives will start to make sense. If there is demand for 60 mpg cars at a $20,000 premium, manufacturers will make them within one or two product cycles. If batteries are cheap enough and/or the price of gas is high enough, people will naturally adopt electric vehicles and put up with the inability to refuel in 5 minutes. Turning your argument back on you, unless you are a beneficiary of Global Warming scams like carbon exchanges and lobbyists for corporate welfare concerns like Solar Manufacturers or Wind Turbine vendors, why will you be opposed to the natural and market driven evolution of energy sources?

Because... #1 Fossil Fuel has not run out, is not about to run out and the USA has just become the largest producer of coal, oil and gas. #2 I have no problems with alternative energies. I do have a problem with the fraudulent claims of androgenic climate change and in subsidizing renewable alternatives that are unaffordable and which has no chance of replacing mankind's energy demands today much less in the future. At some point, fossil fuels will become sufficiently expensive that alternatives will make economic sense. That point is not today or in the forseeable decades ahead. There is no need to subsidize or accelerate that process while rejecting cheap and plentiful energy which we currently have access to! #3 I have always said that Hybrid cars like the Prius do not make economic sense. They do not make economic sense because the premium of the hybrid drive train (~$4,500) will take about 13.5 years to recoup via the fuel savings over a comparably sized, equipped and performing ICE powered car. This is longer than the expected life of the battery, hence not one penny will be saved. If driving one makes you feel better or more popular with "green" friends, all the power to you and you should get one. But I do not want to pay taxes to subsidize your purchase. #4 I have always said that Battery Electric is the ultimately the future for ground transportation (we'll still burn hydrocarbon combustibles in aviation, be it drilled or farmed). I defer from the tree huggers in that I see Nuclear Power as the future of electric generation, not solar, not wind and certainly not farmed Ethanol. However, I am also pointing out that TODAY the cost of the battery is equivalent to the fuel cost of a 30 mpg car over 125,000 miles; not counting the cost of electricity. I see no imperative to accelerate the adoption of battery-electric transportation, because I am not a subscriber to the Global Warming nonsense and I see no economic advantages to doing so.

FREE TRADE = SUICIDE -- Countries can make things or buy them from other countries. A country like the USA – with a lot of land, resources, technology and people – can make everything that we need and want. However, for many things it is cheaper to buy from other countries than to make it ourselves. This is because American workers get paid more, and because we have costly social and environmental standards. Let’s get one thing straight… it will always cost less for the USA buy rather than to make most things as long as there are countries in the world where workers make peanuts, while our social and environmental concerns are laughed at. -- When we buy more from other countries than sell to them, it is called a TRADE DEFICIT – an outflow of wealth from our country to others. Right now that stands at about $800 billion every year – eight hundred thousand million dollars with eleven zeroes – a figure greater than we spend on defense, education and infrastructure combined. What that means is that $800 billion worth of stuff are not being made in the USA, tens of millions of workers in other countries are employed to make this stuff and tens of millions of workers in the USA are not. If we keep having a massive trade deficit, sooner or later we’ll run out of money to pay other countries for our favorite stuff. -- With Free Trade we will continue to have massive deficits and lose the ability to make most of the things we enjoy in life. It will NEVER END until wage, social and environmental differences in the world are equalized. With Free Trade we’ll enrich developing nations and transfer to them the wealth past generations had built up in affluent nations. There is no country in existence today, or throughout the annals of history, with consistently high deficits that isn't in decline, and there isn't a country with consistent surpluses that isn't in ascension. That is why FREE TRADE IS SUICIDE! -- Let's set aside subjective opinions on the style and methods of the Trump Administration for a minute. The fact is that it is a good thing that we renegotiated NAFTA to include the most important thing -- an elimination of low wage motivation to move production to Mexico in form of the tax free nature of automotive and auto parts imports being conditional on a $16/hr wage floor in the factories that make them. This stops the bleeding of US industry to Mexico. It is also good that we say no to China which taxes our exports 25~40% whereas we tax theirs at 2.5%, not to mention the state sponsored dumping to kill off major US industries and the exploitation of easily pirated intellectual property. The EU is next and you cannot convince me that the current agreements with the USA taxing German automobiles at 2.8% while the EU taxes ours at 10% is a reasonable deal. -- I am not a believer in Free Trade -- not for affluent, developed, countries anyway. I am a believer in Mercantilism where the objective is not to maximize trade volume or minimize consumer goods prices, but rather to generate a trade surplus or at least achieve a net balanced in trade flow. I believe that tariffs should be high with countries with whom we have a deficit and zero with countries with whom we do not.

That is unfair. If the battery is $12,000 and the vehicle is $40,000. The battery is 30% the bill of materials cost. A 24% reduction in battery costs represents a 7% reduction in vehicle costs. But, no, you won't even see that because ALL the legacy automaker's EVs from the Bolt to the Leaf to the i3 to the eGolf are being sold at a loss. Hence, the manufacturers are simply glad they are not losing as much.

Of course there are costs associated with electric drive trains. It is simply not substantially different from developing a new generation of ICE or transmission. Of course, battery costs is being reduced. But it is not dramatic because it is not an emerging technology and has always been seeing reduction from mass production and evolution in the electronics space. Chemical battery density will NEVER approach combustible hydrocarbons. This is not an engineering problem; it is a physics problem. This also why you will never fly to Tokyo in an electric 777!

Really? Have you actually looked at the issue or are you accepting the "everybody says its true, hence it must be true" fallacy? #1 The Earth is not warmer than it has ever been. The Earth was warmer many times before in the history of the planet, including several times in the last 10,000 years. This includes the medieval era when there was little to no polar ice cap, and Norse settlements were established on Greenland, while CO2 levels are half today’s level. #2 The Earth has been cooler than it is today many times before. During some of these periods, CO2 levels far exceed today’s level. For example, during the late Ordovician, the Earth turned into a great snowball with ice all the way to the equator while CO2 levels were 10x today’s level. In fact, if you look at ice core samples (length of winters) you'll see that temperatures has NEVER tracked CO2 concentrations in the air in a statistically discernible manner over the planet's history. #3 If you cannot establish that today's temperatures are outside of historic interglacial fluctuations. And, you cannot establish that global temperatures track CO2 levels in the air, how can you justify economic suicide in rejecting the most reliable, most (currently) available energy sources for dubiously green and exorbitant energy?

There are three flaws to this logic... #1 There is no significant R&D to recover on electric drive trains. Neither motors nor inverters are anything "new". #2 The main costs in the electric drive train is the battery. You cannot have a $20,000 car with a $12,000 battery. And, the reason the battery is $12,000 is the physical cost of the cells in the battery. And, that, is again not an emerging technology with a lot of cost reduction pending either due to improvements or economies of scale. Those same cells have been used in Laptops and all manners of personal electronics for decades. That $40 battery you stick in the Camera or $80 battery for your laptop? Imagine that you need 200~400 of them and with liquid cooling. #3 There is still the fundamental problem of energy densities. Gasoline is at 46 MJ/kg vs Lithium-Ion Batteries at 0.30 MK/kg.

I disagree. The problem with the Electric Car -- apart from the inconvenience from the inability to be recharged in a the few minutes it takes to refuel a conventionally power car -- is that the cost of the battery (about $12,000 for a 60kWh Li-Ion pack) -- exceeds the fuel cost of an equivalent gasoline powered car over 125,000 miles or the lifetime of the battery. This is not counting the cost of electricity it costs to recharge the battery pack. That is why electric cars need subsidies to attract normal buyers who are not worshipers of the Global Warming fraud.. The Golden Age of Industrialization is over in the USA because -- over the last seven decades -- we allowed foreign produced goods (including cars) to be imported into the USA will minimal or no tariffs, even from countries which charge significant tariffs for our exports -- China has a 25% tariff on cars, EU has 10%, whereas the USA has tariffs at 0~2.5%. This is not called Free Trade. It is called Stupid Trade. It's called an unequal treaty. This is the kind of agreement which countries sign when enemy tanks are on the capitol lawn! Except of course our politicians galdly sign it because the were never negotiating in the best interest of the American people or the USA nation. They were acting in the best interest of multinational corporations which cannot careless about the rise and fall of nations as long as they get to make their profits somewhere in the world. This is not to mention the fact that Free Trade itself is suicide and fundamentally incompatible with social policies like a minimum wage, safety nets, environmental standards and labor laws. You can have a high living standards for your workers or you can have Free Trade. You cannot have both! Else, all the $h! hole countries will build everything, you will buy everything, the outflow of wealth from your country will continue until you are poor and they are rich. It's not rocket science.

The DIesel's 1st and foremost advantage is that it is not choked by the throttle body all the time. Unless you are a bonafide retard in desperate need of a suspended license, 99% of all driving is not done at WOT. With gasoline engines, this means a partially or largely closed throttle plate. The engine is constantly working to suck air at partial vacuum against the obstruction of the throttle plate. It's like working a syringe with a needle attached and takes a lot of effort. A diesel engine does not have a throttle plate. It runs wide open and sucks in all the air in wants all the time. Power is simply regulated with fuel flow and the engine simply runs lean most of the time. That is where most of the efficiency of the Diesel Engine comes from. The 16~22:1 compression ratio being secondary. This is also why diesels are high in the oxides of nitrogen and use nitrogen storing catalysts which in turn require low sulfur fuels. The lack of refinement and high construction costs stems from the fact that, as a compression ignition engine, the diesel engine by design ignites the mixture and sees a spike in cylinder pressures before the pistons reach the top of their travels. It's knocking all the time by design.

The LSY engine in the XT4 (and presumably many GM vehicles to come) is decidedly underwhelming. The long stroke 83 x 92.3 mm design seems to want to mimic VW/Audi's 2.0T (82.5 x 92.8 mm). A reduced bore to stroke ratio is good for energy recovery but effects a lethargically revving engine with high piston speeds (hence reduced vibrational refinement). 237hp puts it at the back of the class and is quite unforgivable given the its variable valve lift system and other expenses. More important than peak numbers is the fact that it's 258 lb-ft is delivered at 1,500 rpm and fades above 4,000 rpm. An engine that comes on strong then spends the entire half of the tachometer running out of breath is decidedly uninspiring to drive. Simply using a larger turbo with modern aerodynamics running moderate boost (~14.7 psi), slightly higher compression (~10.5:1), an air-to-water aftercooler and an appropriate high lift cam grind would have allowed a torque curve 250~260 lb-ft @ 1800~5800 rpm with 280~300 hp @ 6000~6200 rpm. Such an engine would feel much livelier and more pleasing to drive -- if not anything because it comes on below 2000 rpm and is linear across most of the tach until it kisses the rev limiter. It'll drive and feel like an Acura 3.5L V6 (280hp / 254 lb-ft) which is not a bad thing!

True plastics are rarely used in today's oil pans and intake manifolds anymore. Most, are molded composites with about 30~40% fiber content. The last 20 years seems to have worked out the wrapping and degradation problems. Molded composites are a lot easier to make smooth on the insides and integrate fine features like baffles or vanes. The inherent elasticity accommodates the differences in thermal expansion. The main disadvantage of these Molded Composites is that, unlike aluminum, they cannot be load bearing structural members of the engine. My personal opinion is that they contributed negatively to the aural quality of engines that use them. A rigid manifold or structural oil pan increases the rigidity of the engine and raises the harmonic frequencies of the entire engine. Despite GM's claims, I find the aural quality of the LF and LG series V6es to be decided inferior to overhead cam engines of the 1990s such as the Mazda/Ford K-series, the Toyota JZA or the VW/Audi VR6es. The biggest step backwards in engine refinement I attribute to Direct Injection and the diesel like clatter its high pressure injectors make. But another factor is the use of composite manifolds and oil pans. Mid-frequency noise are the least associated with fine machinery.

Well... things have gotten simpler. There are only 4 diesels left in GM's portfolio for new vehicles (for the US market anyway). These can be loosely split into the Turin Two* and the Detriot Two. The Turin Two (GM Medium Diesel and GM Large Diesel) GMMD 1.6L Inline-4 DOHC 16-valve (LH7) 137hp @ 3,500 rpm / 240 lb-ft @ 2,000 rpm GMLD 2.0L Inline-4 DOHC 16-valve (LUZ) 170 hp @ 3,750 / 295 lb-ft @ 1,750 rpmDuramax The Detriot Two (Duramax) Duramax 3.0L Inline-6 DOHC 24-valve (LM2) Performance 260 hp @ 3,500 rpm / 445 lb-ft @ 2,000 rpm (est.) Duramax 6.6L V-8 Pushrod 32-valve (L5P) 445 hp @ 2,800 rpm / 910 lb-ft @ 1,600 rpm * After the sale of Opel to the Peugeot-Citroen Group, GM retained its Diesel R&D facility in Turin, Italy. This produced two 4-cylidner diesel made in Hungary and (at least for now) supplied to Opel among others. Apparently, 2.0L is "Large" by European Global Warming Coolaid standards.

There is no problem with the Camaro's performance -- especially in it's SS or ZL-1 renditions. The problem with the Camaro is looks like a modern redux of a 60s Muscle Car. The entire demographics who buys Lancer EVOs and WRX STis finds 1960s American cars repulsively ugly and completely the opposite of what they deem desirable in a ride. The Turbo AWD D2XX is not that difficult to do. The AWD system and the platform's ability to accept it is part of the D2XX crossover parts pin. The transverse CuteUtee AWD drive train will already handle 295~300 lb-ft (they are afterall mated to the 6T75 transmission which handles 305 lb-ft). What's left is to source a DCT and pump up that turbocharged LTG engine.

Because that will not win any crowns and help boost the image of the Cruze and of Chevy in general in the eyes of people who grew up or are growing up with B16A powered Civics, 4G63/4B11 powered Lancer EVOs or VR38DETT powered GTRs. But, yes, you can have a Cruze GT-A if you will powered by a plain vanilla LTG engine making 270hp/295 lb-ft driving the front wheels via the 6T75 automatic transmission,17" alloy wheels and big-n-cheap sliding caliper brakes. That can go for $26K with the moonroof thrown in as standard.

Yes and no. The GM 7-speed DCT is (1) Designed with and made in China by Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (上气集团）- GM partnership. (2) It is a dry clutch DCT, which is slightly more efficient and cheaper than a wet clutch DCT, but cannot handle high torque loads from high power engines suitable for the aforementioned applications.

With the 2016 Cruze based on the new D2XX platform with transverse AWD support, one cannot help but wonder if GM should take up the torch Mitsubishi is setting down. The formula is simple and very attainable:- Base Price: $39,995 2016 Cruze Chassis (D2XX) -- 3,200 lbs Target Weight 400 bhp 2.0L Extreme Output Turbo Four (LTX)* Getrag 7DCT500 7-speed Dual Clutch transmission (7,500 rpm max input speed; 413 lb-ft Max Torque) Open Front / Active Rear / Quaife Helical Torque Biasing Center Differential (40F/60R default split) Wider Fenders wrapping 18x9.5" wheels shrodded by 275/35R18 Michellin Super Sport Tires Brembo Brakes w/ 14.6" vented Discs (Front) ; 13.3" vented discs (rear) -- from ATS-V Recaro Racing Bucket Seats (Optional) Aggressive Air Dam / Hood Vent / Ridiculous Wing (Totally Optional) *2.0L Extreme Output (LTX) Engine Based on the ubiqutous 270 hp / 295 lb-ft (LTG) 2.0L engine, the (LTX) is beefed up with light weight Titantium connecting rods, Titanium Intake Valves, hypereutectic pistons and a forged crankshaft. Compression Ratio remains at 9.5:1, but the twin-scroll turbocharger is englarged and features a titanium-aluminide turbine wheel. The Intercooler system is replaced with a low volume, high efficiency air-to-water setup. Maximum boost remains unchanged at 22 psi, but the new turbo now supports much higher airflow rates allowing for the torque peak of 300 lb-ft be available from 3000 to 7000 rpm. The power peak of 400 bhp is reached at the engine's 7000 rpm redline -- 500 rpm short of the 7500 rev limiter. This turbo philosophy is not unlike that adopted by the McLaren MP4-12C's M838T engine. Compared to the Mercedes CLA45AMG's M133 engine, the LTX achieves 40 more horsepower with 4 psi less boost, a more linear torque curve and an 800 rpm higher rev limit. Coupled with a lofty 7000 rpm redline this makes for a revy, easy to control engine which is less demanding on transmission or the driver. To keep the price a smidgen under $40,000, the Cruze "Evolution" SS does not employ magnetorheologic shocks, carbon-ceramic brake discs, carbon fiber body panels or active steering gears. Like on the Lancer Evolution X, 7-speed Dual Clutch Transmission is externally sourced from Getrag. The 7DCT500 however is 1 generation newer than the DCT470 on the Evo X. The key here is to win the Kamikaze Turbo AWD crown without busting the budget of the buyer demographics in the market for this type of vehicle (Working 20s and 30s year olds). This is why this needs to be a Chevy and not a Buick of Cadillac. Selling ~8000 of these annually shouldn't be a problem. More importantly though is that cars like these help to channel the attention of high schoolers and college freshmen onto the run of the mill Cruze, just like the Civic Si or the WRX STi does for the Civic and the Impreza lines.

I see it more as a Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X ($36,500) replacement. Lighter, higher output, faster, more tossable. Something that sits right between the Imprezza WRX and the $48,500 CLA 45AMG. There has always been a healthy market for these Kamikaze Turbo AWD rocket sleds. Mitsubishi just bowed out -- because the next gen Lancer no longer provides a suitable platform. The CLA45 is about $10K too dear for the demographics that buy these cars. GM has an AWD ready D2XX platform under the upcoming 2016.5 Cruze which is ~200 lbs lighter than the curent Delta 2. It also has the LTG 2.0L engine from which to derive a high output variant. Transmission -- like with most of these low volume cars -- can be outsourced to a transmission vendor like Getrag which has the next gen 7DCT500 7-speed twin clutch reeady to go and hungry for customers. I think GM is well positioned to get in. The key here is to defnitively win the Kamikaze Turbo AWD performance crown without pricing the car out of reach of the late-20s / early-30s young working professionals' budget. This is why Magentic ride control has to go and cloth upholstery needs to be standard. This is also why this needs to be a Chevy and not a Buick or Cadillac. The WRX STi has always been a somewhat compromised entrant due to it's architecture. The longitudinal H-4 engine with the transmission bell and hence the front diff inline with the front axle forces Subaru put the center of gravity further forward than any of it's transverse I-4 engined competitiors. This same engine layout also compells a shorter than ideal piston stroke and a larger than ideal bore due to the limited width in the engine compartment between the front wheel wells. The consequent spark to cylinder edge distance forces Subaru to run lower compression ratios and competiting I-4s. With two banks of cylinders the exhaust routing to the turbos has alwasy been contrived in WRXes. As such the STi WRX has always been of a worse balance than the Evo. It has always had a torque peak coming in higher in the rpm range and boost response.

It is not that import fans won't buy a $40K chevy. It is that import fans won't buy a Camaro or anything remotely reminescent of those ugly cars (in their honest opinion) from 60s Americana.

With the 2016 Cruze based on the new D2XX platform with transverse AWD support, one cannot help but wonder if GM should take up the torch Mitsubishi is setting down. The formula is simple and very attainable:- Base Price: $39,995 2016 Cruze Chassis (D2XX) -- 3,200 lbs Target Weight 400 bhp 2.0L Extreme Output Turbo Four (LTX)* Getrag 7DCT500 7-speed Dual Clutch transmission (7,500 rpm max input speed; 413 lb-ft Max Torque) Open Front / Active Rear / Quaife Helical Torque Biasing Center Differential (40F/60R default split) Wider Fenders wrapping 18x9.5" wheels shrodded by 275/35R18 Michellin Super Sport Tires Brembo Brakes w/ 14.6" vented Discs (Front) ; 13.3" vented discs (rear) -- from ATS-V Recaro Racing Bucket Seats (Optional) Aggressive Air Dam / Hood Vent / Ridiculous Wing (Totally Optional) *2.0L Extreme Output (LTX) Engine Based on the ubiqutous 270 hp / 295 lb-ft (LTG) 2.0L engine, the (LTX) is beefed up with light weight Titantium connecting rods, Titanium Intake Valves, hypereutectic pistons and a forged crankshaft. Compression Ratio remains at 9.5:1, but the twin-scroll turbocharger is englarged and features a titanium-aluminide turbine wheel. The Intercooler system is replaced with a low volume, high efficiency air-to-water setup. Maximum boost remains unchanged at 22 psi, but the new turbo now supports much higher airflow rates allowing for the torque peak of 300 lb-ft be available from 3000 to 7000 rpm. The power peak of 400 bhp is reached at the engine's 7000 rpm redline -- 500 rpm short of the 7500 rev limiter. This turbo philosophy is not unlike that adopted by the McLaren MP4-12C's M838T engine. Compared to the Mercedes CLA45AMG's M133 engine, the LTX achieves 40 more horsepower with 4 psi less boost, a more linear torque curve and an 800 rpm higher rev limit. Coupled with a lofty 7000 rpm redline this makes for a revy, easy to control engine which is less demanding on transmission or the driver. To keep the price a smidgen under $40,000, the Cruze "Evolution" SS does not employ magnetorheologic shocks, carbon-ceramic brake discs, carbon fiber body panels or active steering gears. Like on the Lancer Evolution X, 7-speed Dual Clutch Transmission is externally sourced from Getrag. The 7DCT500 however is 1 generation newer than the DCT470 on the Evo X.

BTW, the 6V53 displaced 5.2liters 318 cu-in (6 x 53 cu-in/cylinder). It made 275hp. This may not sound like much, but it is actually quite impressive given that this was the 1960s before electronic anything and this is a diesel engine. For comparison, the M60's AVDS1790 engine displaces 29.3 liters (1790 cu-in) and made 750 hp -- that is 5.6x the displacement for 2.7x the output. Why? Because it is a 4-stroke engine and it fires each of its cylinders half as often.

Actually this is a modern rendition of an old idea. 2-stroke engines with overhead valves and sleeve ports have existed before and had worked very well -- albeit mostly in diesel applications. Remember the M113 Armored Personel carrier and the AMX13 light tank? They are powered by the Detriot Diesel Allison 6V53 engine in blown or turbocharged form. This engine had overhead intake valves, side exhaust ports and operates on an externally pressurized 2-stroke cycle. It did not have an overhead cam however, relying instead on an in-block cam, pushrods and rockers to operate the overhead valves. It is one of the most reliable and long lived tank engines. The Japanese Type 90 Main Battle Tank is another example of a heavy vehicle powered by an overhead valve, side port 2-stroke engine. In this case it is the Mitsubishi 10ZG32WT 10-cylinder 1,500 hp 2-stroke engine and this engine does employ overhead cams. BTW, the spark plug does not have to be central. In fact in most 2-valve designs it is not. A centrally located spark is a favorable design choice for combating detonation and knocks. Basically, you can think of knocking as a race between the spark initiated flame front and the flame front generated by hot spots in in the cylinder (usually near the rim of the piston). A centrally located spark offers the shortest distance from the spark to the furthest point in the combustion chamber. An offset placement is less desirable, but it is no worse than... say... using a larger cylinder bore which has the same effect.

This is actually nothing new. In fact, this is the dominant engine format for torpedo engines. In fact, the US Navy's current heavy weight torpedo and light weight torpedoes -- the 533mm Mk48, the 324 mm Mk46 and Mk54 -- uses exactly this type of engine. The difference of course is that the torpedo engine runs on Otto Fuel -- an air independent fuel-oxidizer mono-propellant -- not gasoline or diesel as is expected of automotive applications. That this type of engine is vibration free is not true. It just doesn't have vibrations perpendicular to the drive shaft like most automotive engines. The engine does vibrate along the axis of the output shaft. More importantly, the design has high frictional loads and difficulty with lubrication from the need to convert axial forces into rotational forces via a swash plate and multi-axis bearing loads. Think of the swash plate as a wobbly disc. The pistons are connected to it via rods that ride up and down this wavy disc like ponies in a merry go round. There is also the problem with maintaining a gas seal over prolonged usage where the top of the cylinders slide past intake and exhaust ports sequentially. A good way to picture this problem will be imagining a traditional inline engine where the cylinder head must slide past the top of the block once per revolution and having to create a head gasket that keeps its seal while the head and the block are sliding past each other. Traditionally, axial engines are used in high efficiency, high power density, expendable engines. Obviously, engine component longevity and reliable service for 200,000~300,000 miles is not a concern for torpedoes which only needs to make one one-way trip of no more than 40 miles. That said, if you can make an axial engine live as long as a traditional (perpendicularly reciprocating) engine it does have compelling packaging power density advantages. Still, if you are looking for the highest power density and the lowest maintenance requirements, there is always the turbine engine which has the highest power density, lowest weight, is by definition air cooled, has as few as one moving part, coolant-less and truly has no vibrational forces. Turbine engines -- especially turbo electric turbine generators -- are also truly multi-fuel because their compression ratio is completely dependent on the operating speed. Hence, switching from gasoline to kerosene to diesel is as easy as changing the speed at which you run the generator.

At least they got the CTS-V right after they saddled the ATS-V with the inferior LF3 Bi-turbo engine instead of giving it the lighter, smaller, less expensive, just as fuel miserly and power powerful LT1 V8. I am somewhat luke warm to the styling, especially the big black spoiler on cars that have it, but perhaps they'll rectify that with the replacement of the previous generation's (very pretty) coupe. Still, this is a car I will seriously look into buying 3~4 years down the road when it is available as a 3 year old pre-owned. I like it, but I have a personal code to never buy a new car -- ever -- due to the horrible economics of new car depreciation.