dwightlooi

Personally, I think Lexus has been doing a good job trying NOT to be bland. The IS isn't exactly a luxury barge. The LFA certainly is an un-bland halo car. They have a core focus on refinement, reliability and comfort though, and that isn't a bad focus. That's what Americans want more than performance or aggressive looks. Lexus beats Mercedes and BMW in sales, and it's widening its lead. I think GM ought to go full tilt with that focus too... with Buick being the dedicated Luxury-Comfort brand. Let Buick deal with Lexus, while Cadillac concentrate on being beating the Teutons. This is why I am completely opposed the the Caddy XTS or the talk of some RWD Buick flagship. As far as the RX vs SRX issue, the fundamental problem isn't that the Caddy doesn't have a hybrid. RX350 sales outpaces the RX400/450h by an entire magnitude. The fundamental problem is two fold -- the SRX is about 400 lbs overweight and GM powerplant choices are moronic. It is no lighter than the previous body on frame RWD/AWD SRX with a Northstar V8. At the same time GM chose the torque deficient LF1 3.0 V6 engine to power it. When that turns out to be way inadequate, they went and incorporated an old turbo V6 engine that Saab is trying to phase out. In the end the SRX is out performed by Lexus and Infiniti, while drink more gas. The way to fix it is to make the next SRX about 3800 lbs and outfit with the 3.6 HF V6 as the base engine. Fuel economy will improve significantly as will peppiness off the line. For the performance oriented buyer, a small block V8 will fit where the HF V6 fits. Fuel Economy on the pushrod engines are actually better than with the Northstar. Instead of a Hybrid, a 270hp / 420 lb-ft Turbo diesel from Opel would be a lighter and more economical solution, or perhaps Caddy can go for the Diesel Crown with the 4.5 Duramax V8. Hybrids and diesels, however, are niche products. They are not a fix for fundamental problems with pork on the mainstream car -- fixing the volume driver ought to be the priority. On the brightside, the SRX is pretty and the interior is pretty up to snuff. It won't beat the RX, but it'll be viable for keeping and increasing the SRX's market share until the next model cycle.

The US has 2% of the world wide "proven" oil reserves. However that is a poor indication of actual oil under the ground. In order for something to be a proven reserve, you have to explore and verify its extent by drilling. The US has done everything under the sun to see that we do not explore and we cannot drill on most land, we cannot drill within 40 miles of shore, we cannot drill too far off shore, we cannot drill in most of the places that have oil or have the potential to have oil. Heck we cannot even build ONE new oil refinery in the past 40 years. There are geologic surveys that peg the potential reserves in the US at a level eclipsing the entire middle east. Is it a sure thing? Of course not. Is portion of that shale oil that is hard to extract and refine? Perhaps. But we are not even allowed to try to find it and figure out ways to use it. The entire US energy policy -- not just with the radical Obama Administration but with a half dozen administrations and congresses in the past several decades -- is ridiculous. China, Russia and India are looking high and for oil wherever they can within their territories and eyeing oil rich terriroties beyond their national boundaries for political control or influence . We are refusing to allow oil exploration, extraction and refining however and whenever we can, and for all the billions and lives we put into liberating Iraq we refuse to even take one drop of oil from them. Yes, the environmental lobby and anti-energy government-media complex is deeply rooted. But I think it is presumptuous to assume that their reign and excesses will last forever.

Yes, luxury cars need image to sell. But what constitutes that image? Styling, quality, prestige, performance, etc. for sure. The mpg numbers on the sticker of the model the consumer is looking at? Probably plays into his buying decision too. But, the mpg numbers on a Hybrid or Diesel he is not looking at? Probably doesn't matter one way or the other. I mean... let's say I am on the lot looking at a CTS or SRX. I will probably compare the mpg numbers to the BMW 535 or RX350 if I am cross shopping those cars. Whether BMW has a 535d or if Lexus RX400h probably doesn't matter to me since I am not interested in those cars. That is unless I am looking for Green Creds to impress my global warming coolaid drinking friends. If so, I'll be buying a Hybrid and I'll be that 2~3% of Green buyers.

Let's run the math... Let's say a Hybrid drive train brings a $5000 premium -- the approximate difference between a Camry or Fusion Hybrid vs their conventional but otherwise comparatively equipped counterparts. Now let's compare the fuel usage numbers at the blue book neutral 12,500 annual miles... Camry Conventional -- 22 / 33 mpg (27.5 mpg) -- 12500/27.5 = 454 gallons Camry Hybrid -- 31 / 35 mpg (33 mpg) -- 12500/33 = 378 gallons Fusion Conventional -- 22 / 31 mpg (26.5 mpg avg) -- 12500/26.5 = 471 gallons Fusion Hybrid -- 41 / 36 mpg (38.5 mpg avg) -- 12500/38.5 = 324 gallons Hybrids save an average of (76 + 147)/2 = 111.5 gallons a year. Now, lets look at what that amounts to in dollars at various gas prices... $3/gallon = $335 $4/gallon = $446 $6/gallon = $669 $8/gallon = $892 $12/gallon = $1338 $16/gallon = $1784 Years to break even on Hybrid Premium... $3/gallon = 5000/335 = 14.9 years $4/gallon = 5000/446 = 11.2 years $6/gallon = 5000/669 = 7.47 years $8/gallon = 5000/892 = 5.61 years $12/gallon = 5000/1338 = 3.73 years $16/gallon = 5000/1784 = 2.80 years Now, remember at break even point you haven't saved a dime yet. I'll say that for an upfront payment for later savings to make sense it has to be such that the buyer spends at least about 1/3rd of the ownership period saving money. Based on that, hybrids start to make economic sense at about $12 a gallon given that a typical new car buyer keeps it for 5~6 years. When gas prices spiked the last time around we did not see people flocking to Hybrids in general. The Prius kinda has its own niche as a green creds car. But Hybrids in general weren't hotcakes. What happened was that more people than usual bought conventional cars that have better mileage. People want fuel economy, but they don't want to pay to have better fuel economy. What will happen 20 years from now is anyone's guess. The whole Global Warming fraud may completely fizzle out like the 70s impending ice age scare. We may see more gas and oil exploration in the US. We may see a boom or collapse of the world economy. We don't know. But we are pretty darn far from $12 a gallon. And, when we do see $12/gallon, we don't know if it'll be diesel or electric power that presents the best alternative. The smart thing to do at this point is to play on today's market conditions and stay current with the alternatives -- maybe do a halo car or two like the volt. But don't bet heavily on green cars, at least not yet.

Looking good to the "Green" buyer only matters for the purpose of appealing to "green" buyers. This is a pretty small segment of the market. Just look at the numbers... total Hybrid sales are... 30,000/(14,000,000/12) = ~2.57% If you take the non-luxury entries like the Prius out of the equation, and look at "green" luxury cars the numbers simply aren't there. This is not my opinion, this is a fact. With the volume of cars Cadillac is selling, it does not make economic sense to add a diesel to the US lineup. I have always said that I am not asking GM not to build hybrids or diesel passenger cars or "green" cars. I am not asking GM to comply or not comply with CAFE. What I am saying is that GM should always build to market demands, not political correctness or ideology. Build what consumers want to buy, let there be as many or as few hybrids as the buyers would digest, let CAFE lands where it may and pass on the cost of the fines if any. GM is first and foremost a business, a participant in a competitive market. GM is not, and should not be, an instrument of social change or environmental activism. Europe is different matter. About 2/3rds of car sales are diesels. In fact, if you go to more expensive cars the ratio skews even further towards the diesel column. With El Cheapo economy boxes, some people buy gasoline vehicles simply because the diesel versions are just a bit too expensive. Luxury buyers are less sensitive to a slightly higher costs of a diesel engine. Cadillac sales in Europe is very small. The established players are very established. A strategy that is applicable to such situations is "differentiation and simplicity". Keep the lineup different for the rest of the pack, but keep it simple. Going all diesel further differentiates Caddy, keeping the model range simple helps with logistics and economies of scale.

Actually, IMHO, electrochromic glass in a car has mcuh more "wow" value than a moonroof or an upgraded stereo. The reason simply being that nobody has it, whereas everyone has a moonroof or stereo (upgraded or not). I'll say it is palatable as a $1500 option... same price as GPS Nav system w/backup camera and upgraded stereo thrown in. If you break the glass you'll need to get an electrochromic pane from the dealer to replace it. There is actually no moving parts so mechanical failure is unlikely. If the connections fail the panel defaults to clear. The material is voltage sensitive but not temperature sensitive... in fact.. the Boeing 787 uses electrochromic windows in lieu of sunshades. The passenger as a button where he/she can finger through 5 levels of tint. The flight attendants have a master switch to tint down or clear up all windows if needed.

(1) It is actually relatively easy to comply with local laws with electrochromic glass. As with tinted windows, most countries have a defined maximum level of tint which is legal. Sometimes the limit is also different for front and rear glass. Most of the time it is not so much that they don't want drivers to be able to hide their faces, but that too dark a tint is viewed as a safety hazard, especially at night. Unlike actual tinting which is permanent, we can set "soft" limits with electrochromic windows. That is the window itself may be capable of being darker than the law allows, but depending on where the car is sold, the maximum setting is lowered to the legal limit. This can simply be a firmware that the factory or dealer can load the car with. Of course, someone can try to "crack" the firmware or install 3rd party modifications to the system and defeat that, but someone can also put on illegally dark conventional tint (and many do). That does not make electrochromic glass or legal levels of conventional window tint unacceptable in the eyes of LE. (2) You cannot actually turn an electrochromic pane reflective. They only go from nearly clear to some shade of grey. The kind of glass that goes from clear to a silvery opague like is called Electrotransflective. Different material altogether. If you want both capabilities it'll have to be two layers of film -- one for tint, one of reflectivity. Now... I think that'll be a REALLY FANCY option for a car.

(1) Electrochromic Windows This is nothing new. The technology has been around for decades. The window glass has an electrochromic film applied onto it or sandwiched between two panes of glass. The film is almost clear until voltage is applied on it when it turns dark. The level of darkness can be controlled at the touch of a button or turn of a dial. Each passenger can control the darkness of his window. The driver can have a master override to darken or lighten all windows if needed. In addition, the car can be engineered to for example automatically lighten glass when reverse is engaged or have different default darkness settings in the day and at night. This basically makes window tinting obsolete. It can also replace those clunky sun shades found on some luxury cars. It is also safe in the sense that the failure state is clear. (2) 99.9% UVA / UVB proof glass all around (Buick China) Let's put it this way. The Chinese by and large don't want a tan. They want to be Victorian pale. 2/3rds the cosmetic products on the store shelves are about skin lightening. Ladies carry umbrellas, wear long sleeves, don gloves and cover up with opague stockings on sunny days just to stay fair. And, if their natural skin tone isn't that fair to begin with, they bleach it or put on light color foundations to cover it up. Fairness equates to superior status, bloodline, intellect, education, wealth and, yes, beauty. You are not going to sell many convertibles in China. Moonroofs? Well, most buyers see it as headroom robbing annoyance that they won't opened for years if ever. But an advertisement that says "Drive Buick, Stay Fair" that might just be a home run.

Europeans love diesel engines. Diesels are more desirable from both a tax standpoint and from a fuel cost standpoint. Diesels are also viewed as technologically superior to petrol engines. In short, regardless of how it is perceived here, diesels sell in Europe. This beckons the question... should Cadillac go 100% diesels in Europe to both cater to consumer dispositions there and also to fundamentally differentiate itself? Global Engine Strategy for Cadillac (Circa 2013) Europe – 100% Diesel Lineup 1.9 DOHC-16v DI-VVT Twin-Turbodiesel I4 Output: 212 hp @ 4400 rpm / 300 lb-ft @ 1400 rpm Transmission: Hydramatic 8L50 8-speed automatic Applications: Cadillac ATS 2.0Td 3.0 DOHC-32v DI-VVT Turbodiesel 60 deg V6 Output: 270 hp @ 4200 rpm / 420 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm Transmission: Hydramatic 6L80 6-speed automatic Applications: Cadillac ATS 3.0Td, Cadillac CTS 3.0Td, Cadillac STS 3.0Td, Cadillac SRX 3.0Td 4.5 DOHC-32v DI-VVT Turbodiesel 72 deg V8 Output: 350 hp @ 3600 rpm / 520 lb-ft @ 1800 rpm lb-ft (400 hp @ 4000 rpm / 595 @ 2200 rpm) Transmission: Hydramatic 6L95 6-speed automatic / Tremec 6060 6-speed manual Applications: Cadillac ATS-Vd, Cadillac CTS 4.5Td, Cadillac STS 4.5Td, Cadillac Escalade 4.5Td 6.6 liter Pushrod-32v DI-VVT Turbodiesel 90 deg V8 Output: 480 hp @ 3300 rpm / 765 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm Transmission: Allison 1000 6-speed automatic / Tremec 6060 6-speed manual Applications: Cadillac CTS-Vd, Cadillac STS-Vd, Cadillac Escalade-Vd USA – 100% Gasoline Lineup 2.0 liter DOHC-16v DI-VVT Turbo I4 Output: 255 hp @ 5200 rpm / 295 lb-ft @ 2800 rpm) Transmission: Hydramatic 8L50 8-speed automatic Applications: Cadillac ATS 2.0T 3.6 liter DOHC-24v DI-VVT 60 deg V6* Output: 321 hp @ 6600 rpm / 283 lb-ft @ 5600 rpm Transmission: Hydramatic 8L50 8-speed automatic Applications: Cadillac ATS 3.6, Cadillac CTS 3.6, Cadillac STS 3.6, Cadillac SRX 3.6 6.2 liter Pushrod-16v DI-VVT 90 deg V8 Output: 460 hp @ 6200 rpm / 440 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm Transmission: Hydramatic 6L80 8-speed automatic / Tremec 6060 6-speed manual Applications: Cadillac ATS-V, Cadillac CTS 6.2, Cadillac STS 6.2, Cadillac Escalade 6.2 6.2 liter Pushrod-16v DI-VVT Supercharged 90 deg V8 Output: 600 hp @ 6000 rpm / 600 lb-ft @ 3800 rpm Transmission: Hydramatic 6L95 6-speed automatic / Tremec 6060 6-speed manual Applications: Cadillac CTS-V, Cadillac STS-V, Cadillac Escalade-V * 91 Octane HF 3.6 V6 Other Regions -- some combination selected from the above...

If I remembered correctly, that was a pneumatic start system. Quite a bit different as it involved using compressed air in the intake to move the pistons. Actually, many really BIG engines such as the ones you find in tanks are pneumatic start.

(1) Part Time Atkinson hasn't been done before on production vehicles to the best of my knowledge. Atkinson Cycle and Cam Profile Switching, however, has been done to death. (2) Restarting using pistons is currently done by Mazda on the Mazda 3. They call it i-Stop. http://www.mazda.com/mazdaspirit/env/engine/siss2.html

Traditionally, 3-potters shake more than 4-potters because it has 1st order imbalance vs the 4-potter's 2nd order imbalance. Perceived degradation in civility is almost always worse with 1st order imbalance*. This is compounded when you use fewer, larger cylinders. Also, with 2nd order imbalance like you see in 4-cylinder engines, vibration gets really bad only at higher rpms, with 1st order imbalance it is noticeably bad from idle and up. At 1.0~1.3 liters 3-potters are OK, go larger and they become significantly unrefined. However, that is true only when we are talking about engines without balancers. With a single balancer, a 3-potter can tame most of its 1st order imbalance putting it on a similar vibrational footing as a 4-potter without balance shafts. With two balance shafts a 4-potter is even better. But, as we can see, the market is full on unbalanced 4-potters -- all GM 4-potters smaller than the 2.0 DI Turbo are unbalanced, the Ford 2.0 Duratec is unbalanced, the Honda Civic's R18A is unbalanced, the Corolla's 1.8 1ZZ-FE is unbalanced. In general, you'll see that sub 2 liter 4-potters are generally unbalanced. The ONLY exception I know of in recent years is the 1.8 liter Kompressor engine in the C230 Kompressor which has balancers. About a 2/3rds of 2 liter mills aren't either. Most 4-cylinder engines in the 2.4~2.5 liter class are balanced. Hence, being on the same level of vibrational harshness as unbalanced 1.8s is not particularly horrible. * A simple way to understand the differences between 1st order and 2nd order vibrations is that 1st order vibrations are from a constantly shifting center of gravity, 2nd order vibrations on the other hand is from the differences in acceleration between pistons near the top and bottom of their strokes. 1st order vibrations has a frequency of the engine's current rpm, 2nd order vibrations occur at twice the frequency of the engine's rotating speed. 1st order vibrations in a 3-potter (or a V6) is tamed with a single balancer shaft turning in the opposite direction but at the same speed as the crankshaft. 2nd order vibrations must be tamed with two balance shafts turning in contra-rotation to each other at twice the speed of the crank shaft.

If you take the "high wattage" stuff like the generator-motor providing engine starting (or assist) and the A/C compressor, everything else normally associated with the DC supply in a car is relatively low wattage stuff -- lights, cell phone chargers, etc. In a 37V vehicle, the power sockets in the cabin and trailer connections will still be 12V. This will be provided by a DC-DC power converter which is both very small and relatively inexpensive. The following is a DC-DC powerboard that takes 6 to 36V input (can even be a fluctuating input) and produces steady 3.3V, 5V and 12V outputs. The total output rating is 250 watts -- plenty for most things people hook up in their cars. It also has a micro-controller on there to do fancy things like programmable shutdown delay and voltage monitoring. It is, as you can see, pretty small (about the size of 2 credit cards) and costs $75. If all you need is 12V output the board becomes even simpler, smaller and cheaper.

Actually, valve area has nothing to do with the total umber of valves or the number of cylinders. With 3-cylinders you will still have 4-valves per cylinder and you can have the same ratio of valve area to bore area if you scale everything proportionally. The advantages of less cylinders is reduced frictional loses. The same advantage you get in say a 2.4 liter four cylinder vs a 2.4 liter 6-cylinder. The 6-cylinder has more cam bearings, more cam lobes, etc. In addition, if you do the math, a cylinder bore's surface area (the area the piston rubs against) is smaller if there are less cylinders for the same displacement. The bore area is determined by the circumference. If you take two circles, one with twice the surface area of the other, you will notice that the circumference of the larger circle is not twice as large even though the area is twice as large. This is because Area is a function of the Square of radius, whereas the Circumference is a function of 2 x Radius. In short, for any given displacement, friction is reduce if the cylinder count is reduced. The reduced complexity does reduce cost as a side benefit, but the merits of the configuration is substantial even when costs are equal. The idea is not to have a smaller engine. The engine is still 1.8 liters -- same displacement as the Civic, Focus, Corolla or Cruze four cylinders -- it simply has one less cylinder, one less cam and the added benefit of part time Atkinson Cycle operation as well as DI. Same displacement, less frictional loses = more torque and more power (compared to a 4-cylinder 1.8 liter) A big 3-cylinder with a balancer is similar in vibration levels to a small 4-potter without one. Which means vibrational harshness should be similar to the competing engines. As far as turbo charging goes, a 3-cylinder actually as one advantage. It doesn't need or care for a twin scroll turbo. The purpose behind a twin scroll turbo and the segregated exhaust manifold that feeds it centers around a unique problem with turbo fours. In a 4-cylinder, the pistons are 180 degree apart in position. This means that the very moment a cylinder is at the beginning of the exhaust stroke (bottom of the power stroke travel), another piston is inconveniently at the top of the travel and in the overlap period where both the exhaust and intake valves are open. The high pressure exhaust pulse from the cylinder beginning its exhaust stroke feeds back into the cylinder at the end of its exhaust phase preventing proper scavenging. Traditionally, this is why turbocharged engines (without twin scroll turbos) do not like overlaps at all and simply prefer to live with the inefficiencies of closing the exhaust valve early. This is also why twin scroll turbos exist. They along with their manifolds separate the exhaust flows of cylinders 1 & 4 from that of 2 & 3 so that exhaust pulses do not interfere with optimal scavenging. With a 3-cylinder engine, this problem simply does not exist. The cylinders are 120 degrees apart; as one cylinder is at bottom dead center neiter of the other two are any where near Top dead Center. Hence, 3-potters can use a single scroll turbo and proper overlaps with no penalties.

Thank you. Such attentiveness and considerations are, to say the least, uncommon in an internet forum.

Yes, I did. I meant to say Atkinson cycle, but the time for limit for editing a post had expired when I realized the mistake.

I don't think GM knows how to do it right just yet. HCCI requires the cam switching, it also requires real time cylinder pressure monitoring. Atkinson cycle cannot damage the engine, HCCI can if managed in correctly or if the management sensors fail over time. BTW, there is a difference between Miller and Atkinson cycles. Yes, they both keep the intake valve open into the compression stroke. But, Miller Cycle does not kick the intake charge back into the intake plenum, it continues to fill the cylinder as the piston is going up, closing the intake valve when airflow approaches the inversion point but not after. Miller engines do this by using a supercharger to maintain positive pressures in the intake plenum, so air continues to flow into the cylinders even as the piston is going up. There is hence a difference in intent between the two. Atkinson cycle strives to achieve an asymmetrical compression and expansion stroke -- the latter being longer than the former for greater energy recovery. Miller cycle strives to achieve more complete cylinder filling by giving the cylinders more time to fill than in a traditional supercharged powerplant.

The 1.8 Ecotec XFE is a concept centered around building the most most fuel efficient engine that will deliver 140hp -- the approximate baseline requirement for a FWD compact car in the same size class as the Cruze, Civic and Corolla. Basic Design Type: Inline-3 w/counter rotating balance shaft Aspiration: Naturally Aspirated w/Part Time Atkinson Cycle operation Construction: Aluminum Block and Heads Displacement: 1788 cc (109 cu-in) Bore x Stroke: 88 x 98 mm Bore Center: 96 mm Valvetrain: Chain Driven SOHC 4-valve per cylinder (2 x concentric camshafts) Fuel Injection: Direct Gasoline Injection Compression Ratio: 11.2:1 (7.5:1 in Atkinson mode) Power Output: 140 hp @ 6200 rpm Torque Output: 130 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm Maximum Engine Speed: 6500 rpm Fuel Economy Est: 28 mpg (City) / 40 mpg (Hwy) w/6T40 6-speed automatic transmission The engine implements five features to maximize fuel economy... (1) Three Cylinders The 1.8 XFE engine employs three cylinders instead of the more typical four. The bore, stroke and cylinder spacings are exactly the same as that utilized on the 2.4 liter Ecotec engines. Reducing the cylinder count reduces friction in the cylinder walls, in the crank case and in the valvetrain. This is because overall cylinder wall surface area, bearing surfaces in the bottom end as well as the valve train are diminished. (2) Concentric SOHC The engine employs a single cam sprocket and what can be characterized as a SOHC arrangment. This reduces the number of camshaft bearings and sprockets, again minizing frictional loses in the engine. However, unlike a traditional SOHC setup which prevents independent intake and exhaust valve timing control, the single camshaft in the XFE engine is actually two camshafts, one inside another. The cam sprocket drives the hollow outer intake cam via a hydraulic cam phase adjuster. The exhaust cam is inside the hollow intake cam and connected to it via a second cam phaser at the opposite end of the engine. The exhaust cam lobes slip on over the outer shaft and is pinned in place by with steel pins going through slots in the out camshaft. This is similar to the cam-in-cam setup in the Dodge Viper's Pushrod 8.4 liter V10. (3) Part Time Atkinson Cycle The intake valves feature a 2-stage cam profile switch system. Not unlike Honda's VTEC or Toyota's VVTL-i there are two cam lobes for each set of intake valves. The valves' rocker arms normally follow one set of lobes, whereas an idler rocker follows the second set. At cruising conditions and at low acceleration loads, the engine switches over to the second set of intake cam lobes. These cam lobes implement Atkinson Cycle operation. In essence, they keep the intake valves open long into the compression stroke. Air is allowed to escape back into the intake manifold for the first 33% of the compression stroke. This in turn reduces the effective displacement and compression of the engine. The expansion stroke however remains the same 98mm in length which maximizes energy recovery from the fuel burned. Traditionally, Atkinson Cycle engines (employed in the Prius and the Fusion Hybrid) sacrifices performance for improvements in brake specific fuel consumption. However, since this engine switches between the normal Otto Cycle and the Atkinson cycle as needed, no performance is sacrificed. (4) Direct Gasoline Injection Gasoline is injected directly into the cylinders. With direct injection, gasoline is introduced into the cylinders during the compression stroke. This prevents detonation and knocking prior the injection of fuel. It also produces a cooling effect from the atomization of the fuel. This permits the engine to operate using a higher compression ratio increasing thermal efficiency. (5) Stop on TDC The XFE's ECU stops the engine when the vehicle slows to a halt for more than 3 seconds. Unlike previous GM idle-stop implementions, there is no starter motor or BAS involvement in restarting the engine. Instead, the ECU (through a high precision crank position sensor) stops the engine when one of the pistons is just past Top Dead Center after its compression stroke. To restart, the ECU simply utilizes the direct injection system to introduce fuel and fire the the spark.

Heavier weights does not necessarily mean bad engineering. It can be that or it can simply be a different set of priorities. For instance, aluminum intake runners are heavier than composite (aka plastic ones) but they are quieter, is it bad engineering to use them? How about variable length runners, they are heavier still but offer the efficiency of resonance charging over a wider range of engine speeds, is that bad engineering? How about balance shafts used in I4s... they are, by definition, a pair of extra weights. Is using them bad engineering? I am not ready to draw that kind of conclusions.

LOL...yeah... I think piping exhaust through the dashboard will be a very bad idea. In any case, it isn't intake being piped to the cabin, at least not directly. It is a tube going from the intake plenum to a diaphragm in the dash board. The intake is still completely sealed off from the cabin -- no air can enter or leave through this tube. The sounds are transmitted via the diaphragm. BMW does this too. It kind brings the induction road into the cabin. More noise really, but in the opinions of some more of the right kinds of noise.

OK... let's put some numbers into the whole discussion on how a Pushrod engine is lighter. If you look at the power-to-weight ratios, the advantages of a pushrod V8 is quite obvious. GM 3.6L DOHC DI V6 (LLT) 304 hp / 273 lb-ft = 194 kg GM 6.2L Pushrod V8 (LS3) 436 hp / 428 lb-ft = 183 kg Ford 5.0L DOHC V8 (TI-VCT 5.0)412 hp / 390 lb-ft = 195 kg* BMW 4.0L DOHC V8 (S65) 414 hp / 295 lb-ft = 202 kg Lexus 5.0L DOHC DI V8 (2UR-GSE) 417 hp / 373 lb-ft = 222 kg* Lexus 3.5L DOHC DI V8 (2GR-FSE) 306 hp / 277 lb-ft = 174 kg* * Weights given for Automatic Transmission versions of the engine because no manual transmission versions exist or data for that version is not available. Engines going into automatic transmission vehicles are about 20 kg lighter because of the absence of the flywheel. The torque converter which takes the place of the flywheel counts as transmission weight not engine weight. Eg. the GM 3.6 DI V6 is 194 kg in manual guise, 172 kg in automatic guise, most of that attributable to the flywheel. This is not to say that automatic vehicles are lighter however, since the automatic transmission itself is usually heavier than the manual and often more than offsets the flywheel weight.

Hyundai Genesis 4.6 V8 is 4012 lbs Pontiac G8 GXP 6.2 V8 is 4032 lbs Camaro SS 6.2 V8 is 3892 lbs All weights are for the automatic transmission cars to keep the comparison consistent.

Sorry, I mean the Sigma platform Caddy uses not Epsilon.

The fundamental problem with the Camaro isn't bad engineering, it is in building it on the Zeta Platform. The Zeta platform is not overweight. In fact it is marginally lighter than the Epsilon the Caddys use. It is however a large car platform designed to host the Holden Commodore -- a modern day Caprice. The Camaro neither needs such a platform nor does it benefit from it with its relatively modest cabin size. However it is the ONLY rear drive platform GM has at the time since GM does not have a mass production compact or mid-size RWD platform in portfolio at that time or even today. The Kappa used on the Solstice is essentially a semi-handbuilt low volume, specialty car platform so it doesn't count. The options would have been to wait till 2016 to have a Camaro or make do with what they had. They made do with what they had. GM is addressing that with the Alpha which will underpin the Cadillac ATS (3-series fighter) and the new Camaro. It'll also probably underpin a new Holden and possibly a new Opel.

You are looking at a 1 mpg difference. How much of that is from the 300 additional lbs? Let's put things into perspective... carry two of your friends in the car and do you think you'll lose 1 mpg? The redline is irrelevant except for allowing an engine to reach the rpm at which it makes it maximum power and give it a few hundred rpms more in case the driver or transmission needs a fraction of a second more to shift. And the Camaro isn't quiet at cruise? If you like sounds from the V8, work on the exhaust!