Jump to content
News
Reviews
Discussons
Activity
Create New...
Close

dwightlooi

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,013

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

 Content Type 

Everything posted by dwightlooi

  1. dwightlooi
    A midsize family sedan does not become competitive by being particularly fast, luxurious or beautiful. Those things may not hurt, but they are not that important. It does so by being practical and dependable. That is why Camry and Accord buyers buy those cars. That takes several generations of building cars that stay on the road for 20 years with minimal upkeep. Here are a few thing GM can do that few others can emulate. (1) Make it quiet. GM already knows how to do that with laminated glass, acoustic sandwich steel, etc. They should further the effort not dial it back (like they did with the current generation). (2) Bring back increased displacement, 2-valves per cylinders and single overhead camshafts. Why? Because that is the best way to get the most MPGs not high specific output engines. A 2.8 or 3.1 liter four with 8-valves and running an Atkinson cycle cam will get you about 170~180 hp and better mileage than a turbo 2.0 or DOHC 2.5L of a similar output. How about getting rid of all belts and relying on the chain drive for the water pump and having an electric HVAC. This can allow for no scheduled maintenance for 200,000 miles except for 20,000 mile oil change intervals. (3) Hubcaps are fine. Yellowish Halogen head lights are fine. Hey, even drum brakes are fine. Put the money in the cabin where the driver spends his time look and feel premium. Give the car a tall trunk and seat backs that fold flat for cargo. A smart phone shelf and cradle system over the HVAC console for cars without Navigation. How about a GM branded child seat which snaps in place in 5 seconds over either of the rear seats or between them without the need to thread seat belts through awkward hoops. Practical minded buyers care about these things.
  2. dwightlooi
    A V12 -- presumably based on the (LFX) 3.6 V6 will make about 640 bhp. That is about the same as the Z06. But it wouldn't be faster because the DOHC V12 will invariably be heavier and put out "only" about 550 lb-ft of twist. It will however be more refined in the sense that you have much close firing pulses from 12-cylinders and being essentially two inline-6s it is perfectly balanced just line an I6 is. Using a V8 based on the (LTG) 2.0T is an option. But power will be down even more. The LTG makes 270 bhp in the ATS. Doubling that is "only" 540 bhp / 590 lb-ft. Not bad but not exactly Z06 territory. Being a DOHC powerplant expect the 4.0 V8 to weigh as much if not more than the Pushrod V8. Now, the "practical" thing to do however is to introduce no new powertrain bits. Use the LT4 supercharged V8 for the XLR-V. The difference between the Z06 and the XLR-V being that the caddy has a full carbon fiber body shell of caddy's design language powered aerodynamics (rear spoiler and air dam flaps), etc. It should be possible to get another 30~50 bhp out of the engine without much changes, but that is not particularly necessary. In essence the Caddy becomes the cost no object version of the Z06. With the ZR1 gone, people looking to pluck down $120K on a GM sports car is sent to the Caddy dealership. At the same time -- as bad a decision as it may have been -- GM has committed to the Twin-turbo 3.6 for Caddy. It is a natural extension of that decision to power the Caddy version of the Vette -- the entry level XLR with the 3.6 Twin-Turbo. Yes, it's a heavier, laggier, more expensive, no more powerful and no more fuel miserly engine. Yes, it is inferior in every way. But it makes about the same amount of power and that is close enough. If anything it gives buyers a choice between a Chevy branded rocket ship with the V8 or a Caddy branded sled with the TT V6. The Chevy is likely 0.1 or 0.2 sec faster to 60 and offer more direct throttle control and feel. But, hey, they are both comparably fast cars and styled quite differently.
  3. dwightlooi
    I think it'll be a really nice addition to the Caddy lineup if they make a Caddy version of the C7 Corvette. Unlike the Vette, the Caddy can be offered with different engine choices. The 3.6L V6 for people who just want a boulevard cruiser and maybe a 7.2L V12 for folks who want a 640hp car with lots of cylinders and a middle finger to the Global Warming scammers and Carbon Emissions morons.
  4. dwightlooi
    Not a bad looking car overall. Looks fabulous particularly in White and Silver. Modern, with nice clean lines, no clutter, no gimmick. Everything but that rear spoiler looks great. The spoiler looks tagged on and do not integrate well with the rest of the car -- something like the previous gen CTS-V Coupe would have been much, much better. It looks like something from Pepboys really... but, the spoiler probably wouldn't cost more than $500 to remove, have a body shop weld up the mounting holes, smooth and repaint the trunk lid. Given the excellent handling characteristics of the regular ATS the fact that GM took their time to tune and sort of the V-car before launching it -- two full years. I am confident this car will have no trouble keeping up with the Ultimate Driving Machines in the twisties. Absolutely lousy power train choice though. The 3.6L (LF3) Twin-Turbo V6 is in every way inferior to the 6.2L (LT1) V8 from the Corvette. The V6 weighs more than the V8 (485 lbs vs 465 lbs), it takes up more room under the hood than the V8, it cost more than the V8, it has some turbo-lag whereas the V8 has none, it makes no more power than the V8, it makes less torque than the V8 and it's fuel economy numbers are no better than the Pushrod V8. That bulge in the hood aft of the vents would not have been necessary if the V8 was used for instance allowing for even sleeker lines and having 20 lbs less mass hanging in the front will improve vehicle balance. Being turbocharged, GM is also opening itself to warranty abuse by individuals who will re-flash the ECU with some aftermarket hack which over-boosts the engine, shorten the life of its components, then -- when times go awry -- revert to stock programming and show up at a dealer for warranty repair. In short, it is inferior in every measure. This is before we even take into account the desirability of 8-cylinders with certain buyers and more importantly the lack of competition fielding 8-pots and a large swept volume. The Pushrod V8 is a technological marvel that dominates DOHC designs in terms of making the most power from the most compact and lightest engine package while delivering superior fuel economy. GM should embrace it not run away from it just be be more like the Europeans. Oh well, I guess it could have been worse -- they could have dropped in the CTS V-sport engine without any upgrades to the internals or output.
  5. dwightlooi
    The 3.6 Twin turbo is not more fuel efficient than the LT1 V8. So that is not it. It is also heavier than the V8, take up more under hood space than the V8 and cost more than the V8.
  6. dwightlooi
    The "claim" that rich buyers prefer a turbo V6. What's that based on? But, let's say some of them do. The problem is that these same buyers will also be more inclined to choose that M3 with a Turbo I6 over the ATS-V. At the same time, you'll lose those buyers who prefer 8-cylinders. I know one thing with certainty though... the ATS-V is no longer a candidate to replace the Jaguar XF Supercharged I currently drive.
  7. dwightlooi
    LF3 is inferior in every way to the LT1. 20 lbs heavier than the V8, less powerful, bigger, more expensive, laggier and no more fuel efficient.
  8. dwightlooi
    Water injection has a nasty habit of chewing up spark plug electrodes in short order. The problem is not so much corrosion, but that there is no spark plug which is of the proper heat range for when the misting is on and when the misting is off.
  9. dwightlooi
    There are many claims to the effect that the ATS-V will be powered by the 3.6 Bi-Turbo. GM has not disclosed anything to this regard, so that is speculation at this point. Whether it is educated speculation or not, we'll find out soon enough at the LA Autoshow. Still, it brings back the entire debate on whether the 3.6TT is a better engine than the LT1. And, in this regard, there should be very little argument. If it does indeed use the twin turbo V6, what GM has done is basically chose the heavier, bulkier, laggier, more expensive, lower performance engine in hope that it'll somehow have greater appeal in a performance car. The LT1 is the superior engine in every respect, I mean EVERY. There are plenty of myths out there such as... The 3.6 Bi-Turbo is smaller displacement so it should be lighter or more compact? (False; the 3.6 is heavier and taller) The 3.6 Bi-Turbo has better fuel economy? (False, the 3.6 in the CTS-V has similar city MPG and worse Highway MPG) The turbos endow the 3.6 with better low end torque? (False, the 3.6 makes less torque at every point torqur curve from 0 rpm to the rev limit) Here are the cold hard facts. Weight: LF3 3.6TT = 485lbs -- LT1 6.2 = 465lbs Power: LF3 3.6TT = 420bhp -- LT1 6.2 = 460bhp Torque: LF3 3.6TT = 430lb-ft -- LT1 6.2 = 465lb-ft* Turbolag LF3 3.6TT = some -- LT1 6.2 = none Size: LF3 3.6TT = taller -- LT1 6.2 = lower profile MPG: LF3 3.6TT = 17/25 -- LT1 6.2 = 17/30** Service: LF3 3.6TT = complex -- LT1 6.2 = simple Cost: LF3 3.6TT = expensive -- LT1 6.2 = less so Prestige/perception: = Debatable / depends on buyer * Not just higher maximum torque, but higher torque is EVERY point on the torque curve from 0 rpm to the rev limit. ** Based on the EPA numbers for CTS V-sport and Stingray. Projected numbers for the ATS-V is 18/26 using the LF3 vs 16/28 using the LT1 given that the ATS is a lighter car than the CTS and a heavier car than the Stingray. Here are the two engine's torque and power curves superimposed for a crystal clear comparison.
  10. dwightlooi
    (1) The weight will be significant, but not so much from the motor as from the battery itself. A 70hp motor itself will be in the order of 70~80 lbs, a battery powerful enough and which stores enough charge to support a 70hp motor however will be on the order of 200~400 lbs. Still that is about what the Prius lugs around and it will not offset the gains from regenerative braking and subsequent motor assist. (2) There isn't much "steam" in the exhaust. Certainly not enough to drive anything. However, there is plenty of heat and plenty of pressurized gas. Another source of "free" power is to use half a turbocharger -- just the turbine section without the compressor -- to drive a generator. This way, the normally wasted energy in the exhaust is converted (at least in part) to electricity. The problem with that is that it is much more of an engineering challenge. Turbos run at up to 100,000~150,000 rpm. Generators generally don't work well at such high frequencies, meaning you have to gear it down to maybe 1/10th or 1/20th of that rotation speed. It's a similar challenge as say Pratt & Whintey faces in commercializing the Geared Turbofan except it is actually worse because the reduction ratio is much greater. Alternatively you can simply work with a very high frequency AC source... that's another challenge by itself (efficiencies aside).
  11. dwightlooi
    Honestly, I don't think the ATS's powertrai choices ake sense. There is no reason for the 2.0T and the 3.6 NA to co-exist on the line up (especially with the up boosted 2.0T now making 295 lb-ft) What it should be is 4 engines... 2.0XFE (Enhanced Economy / Turbo Miller Cycle) -- 200 bhp @ 5600 rpm, 220 lb-ft @ 3600~4600 rpm, 25 City / 37 Hwy MPG 2.0T (Standard Version) -- 272 bhp @ 5000 rpm, 295 lb-ft @ 3000~4800 rpm, 21 City / 31 Hwy MPG 3.6TT (Low pressure version) -- 360 bhp @ 5300 rpm, 360 lb-ft @ 1600~5200 rpm, 6.2NA (Corvette powerplant for the ATS-V) -- 460 bhp @ 6000 rpm, 465 lb-ft @ 4600 rpm The 2.5 shouldn't exist and the 3.6 NA V6 really is unnecessary. The 2.0XFE and 2.0T are the same price. Buyers get to decide if they favor economy or perfromance. The 3.6TT is high refinement upgrade engine modeled after the BMW 3.0 I6 Turbos. Low boost, High compression, Immediate response. The LT1 engine from the Vette is a shoo in. Nothing makes 460 hp with less weight or better fuel economy or better price or V8 creds. That Cue and haptic touch center dash is a disaster. It's OK to say we are wrong and do the right thing by reverting the the previous gen style of physical buttons or try something new. Being stubborn doesn't fix the problem. Also the new Emblem is worse the the old one... Looks like some transformer logo that is neither recognizable as cadillac nor elegant.
  12. dwightlooi
    Yes, it does but not as much as you think. A properly designed, integrated collector will flow as well as ANY header placed on individual ports. No matter how fat or fancy the header, it is not going to flow any more exhaust than the size of the ports themselves dictate -- whish is why many engien builders feel a need to open up the ports by hand or through machining. The biggest thing isn't power, but the ability to tune the torque band. An integrated 3-to-1 collector is in effect the shortest possible 3-to-1 header. That is good for high RPM breathing actually but not so good for low RPM torque. Exhaust pulses travel at roughly the speed of sound. Exhaust pulses will travel from the valve to the collector where it opens up to the other two passages as well as the downpipe. This is when it is at the lowest pressure. At a particular RPM, this will happen the same amount of time it takes for the engine to open that valve again and this conincidence of a low pressure event in the exhaust and the opening of the valve(s) help with scavenging at that particular RPM. With short headers, this resonant scavenging happen at a high RPM, with long headers it happens at a lower RPM. An integrated collector does not allow you to design, or put in as an aftermarket accessory, long headers for trucks and shorter ones for sports cars for instance.
  13. dwightlooi
    Pushrod engines were invented after single overhead cam engines and dual overhead cam engines, so historically this statement is untrue. What's more important though is the merit of Pushrod designs today. Today, a modern pushrod engine with direct injection and variable timing provides higher power and torque output at a lower engine mass and external size than a DOHC engine of equivalent performance. It also offers better fuel economy despite having a larger displacement. A good example is the current generation of high performance small block V8s. The LT1 wth 460 hp / 465 lb-ft has lower mass and fits into a smaller engine bay than any mass produced DOHC engine (V6 turbo or V8). With At 17/29 mpg the pushrod 6.2 V8 is also arguably the most fuel efficient 460hp powerplant in service. A similar thing can be said of the 650hp / 650 lb-ft LT4 engine. Having said that, the Pushrod configuration is not without it's disadvantages. In nations with misguided displacement tax laws -- which penalizes engine displacment and not actual fuel consumption -- larger displacement, lower specific output pushrod designs are at a tax disadvantage to extremely high reving or highly boosted DOHC alternatives. The Pushrod configuration is also optimized for reducing engine size and complexity on Vee type blocks. It essentially has no advatnages over a single overhead cam engine in inline-4s or any other inline engine.
  14. dwightlooi
    I am sorry, but Cadillac needs to stop wasting time on silly gestures like changing their badge. What they have done is trade in a perfectly elegant and, more importantly, perfectly recognizable Wreathed Crest for an oversized "Transformers" logo that is neither elegant nor recognizable. If they believe that this will fix the fact that Audi, BMW, Benz and Lexus are all up and they are flatlining they are sadly mistaken. Let's give credit where credit is due. Yes, Cadillac has improved their quality and design dramatically over the past generations. Yes, the ATS is arguably a better looking and better handling car than the F30 3-series. Yes, the new CTS is a step up over the old one more or less justifies the $12,000 increase in price. But that doesn't mean Caddy hasn't had their missteps. CUE is a joke... and that broad swath of glossy plastic that makes up the center dash which vibrates and shocks you when touch is arguably the worst luxury car HVAC/Infotainment UI to grace anythingon the market. Touch sensitive plastic with printed symbols makes zero sense... touch is a tactile hell it has always been, if you want an all-touch based UI at least have a screen that goes all the way down the dash so the "buttons" can be graphically driven dynamically! Otherwise, mechanical buttons are superior in every way. The ELR is a re-skinned Volt selling for twice the price with no performance or technology to show for it, meaning it appeals to neither the practical minded hybrid buyer nor the Tesla crowd looking for maximu green creds. The long anticipated S-class/7-series competitor is a no show. All-in-all caddy the Caddy 4-pot engines still have more direct injector noise than the competing engines from VW/Audi and BMW, not a big deal by itself but little things add up. There are plenty left to fix in Caddyland... the stupid emblem isn't one of them!
  15. dwightlooi
    The effectiveness of a Hybrid system is directly proportional to the amount of regenerative braking it can provide. That is the ONLY source of free energy in a Hybrid. Charging the battery by running the engine or running it harder costs more fuel have than the stored energy will help you save when converted back to mechanical energy. That is because there is generation and motor losses along the way, not to mention a small amount of battery self-discharge. Everything else is secondary to this... The Prius is a more effective hybrid than the 2nd Gen Insight because it can slow the car with a 67 hp motor. And (more importantly) it has 295 lb-ft of torque working to slow the car in lieu of the brakes and capture that kinetic energy into battery charge, whereas the Insight only has 13hp flywheel integrated motor-generator with 58 lb-ft of twist. Slowing a 3500 lbs Buick with a 15hp belt attached device which is torque limited by its means of attachment isn't much slowing and hence doesn't capture a lot of "free" energy for reuse. It's that simple. If GM is serious about eAssist it cannot be a bolt on Belt-Alternator-Starter. Is should be a motor integrated into the transmission or flywheel. For a 3500 lb car... a hypothetical "Electramatic 6E75" will be ideal. Basically, it is a 6T75 6-speed automatic transmission with a 300 lb-ft input torque rating fitted with a 70hp/300 lb-ft synchronous motor in lieu of the torque converter. The car always pull away from a stop using just the electric motor with 300 lb-ft @ 0 rpm. At above 1000 rpm the internal combustion engine may start if needed. If the ICE is used the electric motor torque is electronically limited such that the combined torque going into the transmission never exceeds 300 lb-ft. During deceleration or below 1000 rpm the engine always uses the 2-stage Variable Valve Life system to shut-off all the valves and simply freewheel. This hybrid setup cannot idle the internal combustion engine; at rest the engine is always stopped and initial motion is always electric. Hypothetical Electramatic 2.5L performance = 268 hp @ 4,700~6,300 rpm / 300 lb-ft @ 0~4700 rpm
  16. dwightlooi
    Believe me there are people in the automotive industry who subscribes to this logic... (1) Hatchbacks don't sell in the USA. (2) OTHER manufacturers have a 10%/90% take rate split between hatches and "trunked" sedans/coupes (3) We sell 50% Hatches and 50% Sedans. (4) If we cancel the hatch and focus on the sedan, that 50% will (magically) become 450%.
  17. dwightlooi
    Nothing particularly interesting about the styling. The sizing is good though. Previously, Acura has the problem of having plenty of cars in the same size class. The TL as practically the same size as the RL, the only difference being that the RL had AWD and a bigger displacement engine (as default). The TL also grew in size with the last cycle and got to nearly TL size. The new lineup makes more sense from a sizing standpoint:- ILX = Luxurious Civic TLX = Small Mid-Size RLX = Large Mid-size
  18. dwightlooi
    3-3-3 Formula 300 Horsepower 3,000 Pounds 30,000 Dollars It is very easy to lose sight of what makes a car successful in the market place. Yes, styling, brand image and engineering excellence play huge roles. But, ultimately, the best selling cars are often not the most stylish, prestigious and well engineered. When it comes to sporty cars it is important that we recognize that they appeal most to younger people who are starting out in life and have limited financial resources. Before we get to making a car look pretty, marketing it properly and making sure it doesn't break, I believe that it is important that we define it in such a way that is is fast enough, agile enough and affordable enough. In this regard, I believe that 3-3-3 is a good formula. It basically addresses the problems of the FT86 (not fast enough), Camaro (not agile enough) and GT-R (Not cheap enough). The parameters are also very achievable without having to resort to unreasonable powerplants, materials or deep discounts. It is not particularly ambitious to demand 300 hp. A 2.0L DOHC Turbo will do just that as will a 3.1L supercharged pushrod four or simply a 4.6L NA pushrod V6. It is not too much to ask for a curb weight of 3,000 pounds. That's 200~250 lbs more than the FT86, but still lighter than most cars on the street with credible performance. It will not require aluminum construction or advanced steels. 30,000 dollars gives you plenty of flexibility to decide between superlative interiors, advanced transmissions, fancy suspensions, generous equipment or simply profit.
  19. dwightlooi
    What got into the heads of GM's designers? Adding clutter and lines to a clean, graceful design does not make it more attractive or even fresher... Same thing can be said of Caddy's "refresh" of the SRX.
  20. dwightlooi
    All this nonsense stems from the fact that we do not have a legal system based strictly upon contractual obligations and specific legal compliance. There shouldn't be ANY legal obligation between a manufacturer and the consumer beyond what is specifically advertized about the product and/or stipulated in it's functional specifications. There should also not be ANY legal obligation to the government beyond compliance with specific certification requirements. In other words... If a car catches fire and it is not marketed as a car that will not catch fire, the consumer has no legal resort and the manufacturer has no legal obligations. You are not entitled to ANY compensatory or punitive damages. Also, the NHTSA can demand that manufacturers certify vehicles to their precisely stated standards using their precisely stated tests. Once they certify a vehicle they have no legal power to then punish the manufacturer for any safety or environmental issues no matter how serious. Frivolous lawsuits and/or overbearing government intrusions into private enterprises benefits no one but bureaucrats and lawyers. If you think that the absence of such will result in horrible and unsafe products, you are grossly underestimating the ability and discretion of consumers to choose products based on reputations and past performances. Just because no nobody can sue for millions of dollars if their relative die in car fire doesn't mean manufacturers will want to build cars that catch fire, because many consumers won't want to buy a car from a manufacturer known for making such cars!
  21. dwightlooi
    If they think people are not buying Mitsubishi's because they don't have an electric car or a hybrid, they are seriously mistaken. People don't buy Mitsubishi's because their models of late are rather uninspiring in terms of styling, refinement, quality and performance.
  22. dwightlooi
    The 2nd Generation XK has been around since 2006. It's rather old and tired... especially so since it looks kinda like the 1996~2005 1st Gen car.
  23. dwightlooi
    I don't know many passenger cars of any engine configuration with 400 ~ 500,000 miles. More than 75% of new cars made don't even make it to 200,000! Most become scrap because their owners junk them before that for various reasons that are not limited to mechanical issues. When an economy car gets to 10 years of age and $3000 in resale value (Eg. 2004 Chevy Cobalt). There are many things which become "beyond economical repair". If by "many vehicles" you mean long distance Turbo-Diesel 18-wheeler trailer trucks... that's a completely different operating regime than passenger cars. The turbos are MUCH bigger, operating speeds are much lower and operating temperatures are milder. This is in complete contradiction to today's trend in designing turbocharged engines for passenger cars. Today, we trend towards using the smallest turbos we can that the very high RPMs in the name of minimizing lag. This is something that is, in part, made possible by electronic wastegate control. And, today, many engines run tiny turbos to the limit of their permissible speeds then actually reduce boost at higher RPMs and flow rates to keep the turbo from over speeding. I am not saying that the currently practice is reckless or un-manageable. They aren't. But, we are operating these little turbos really, really hard -- much harder than those monster scrolls in the Peterbilts. And, the verdict is still out on whether there is a significant increase in maintenance costs and longevity with regards to these engines as they age. What I can say is this... the record of the turn of the millenium VW 20V 1.8T engines are not very good. Very little has changed since then. The biggest break through in turbo durability has been the 1990s introduction (into everyday cars) water cooled turbocharge bearing jackets and electric pump(s) that circulate coolant through the turbos AFTER the engine shuts off. This practically solves the oil coking problems and rendered "turbo timers" obsolete. However, turbos still fail at a fast rate than engines... or rather I should say that they reach an unserviceable state sooner. While catastrophic failures due to a fractured thrust bearing is rare. Oil leaks into the intake or exhaust from the bearing sections is not. Accelerated wear due to oil issues leading to the turbos grinding themselves enough play to dremel themselves to death is not. Diaphram or solenoid failures leading to waste gate failures are not. The key though is that engines in a poor condition can often still run -- not very well but run. An engine can be operable with an oil leak from the gaskets and pans, it can run while burning 1 quart of oil a week, it can run with clattering lifters, it can run with a failed cam phaser, it can run with slipping belts, it can run with a finicky starter, it can run with the loss of compression in a cylinder. If you have driven a beater in your life you will be familar with at least some of those. Turbos with a major component in a poor state fail very quickly.
  24. dwightlooi
    The same goes for using 614 cc cylinders on a 4-potter siuch that you have a 2.5L engine. Does it negatively impact refinement? Yes, it does. Is it horrible? No, not if you use a balance shaft. In the case of a 3-cylinder engine you'll need just one shaft rotating in the opposite direction as the crank. This actually compare favorably with a 4-potter which uses two balancer shafts which needs to spin at twice the crank's RPMs.
  25. dwightlooi
    Such as? The 2.0L Turbo here has exactly the same displacement and displacement per cylinder as the current 2.0T.
×
×
  • 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

I've whitelisted
Continue without support

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