CMG

Cool stuff balthazar!

Well, I got a few projects, but I just noticed the new Project Car forum and thought I would toss mine in.... Just bought it today...... freshly rebuilt engine and transmission, it has sat in a garage since 1991.....

Couldn't agree less! I think the Camaro will be an "also ran" in the looks department, hopefully it brings a performance advantage to the table... :AH-HA_wink:

Nah, the SRT8 versions (ALL first year cars) can be defeated through the dash switch mostly- The non-SRT8 cars can reduce stability controll 50% by pushing the ESP switch, the SRT8 cars can further reduce the stability control by holding the switch in, I think it's 95% disabled. The Diablo Predator allows any LX car to completely remove the stability control on top of that. Problem has already been solved!

The 3.5 V6 isn't that bad at all, it's 250hp and moves the other lx sedans quite decently. The 2.7 SE cars aren't quite as good, they are a little on the anemic side of things.... :AH-HA_wink:

I haven't even seen one.

I agree, Nissans SUCK!!!!!!!!

My favorite concept forgotten in this thread is the Chrysler Firepower..

I reject that! In the nicest way though....

2.2 and 2.5s are and were VERY reliable. Hall effect sensors would ocassionally cause a "no start" condition after high miles, smacking the distributor would get one home and $50-$55 would get a new sensor. Timing belts last a loooong time, and the engines aren't interference engines anyways. Maybe overheating and/or screwing with the wastegate for more boost would take a head gasket out, but EVERY brand car would do the same... I have a feeling no matter what MoPar brand car I posted you would have a relative that had numerous troubles with one, if ya know what I mean.....? :AH-HA_wink: Sorry, but they are cheap and rock solid basic transportation.

DUSTBUSTER VANS? You guys don't like him or what? 40mpg? LOL Here, drop the brand stuff and buy a late 80s early 90s Daytona, good on gas, reliable, CHEAP, easy to find and CHEAP. Did I mention inexpensive?

I think, though I'm not positive- the newer GMs will disable the fuel pump with a low oil pressure signal, but won't the "check engine" or "service engine" light then stay on? If the key is on and the engine stalls the oil light should come on... I have a weird feeling the IAC might be plugged or fouled, or maybe oil is getting up into the IAC...?

Personally I can't see it being the timing chain, if the chain jumped a tooth it wouldn't be an intermittent problem, it would be a steady problem, and most likely lacking in power... Fuel pump doesn't sound terribly good to me either, maybe a plugged filter, dirty injectors, etc etc etc. The fuel pumps on many vehicles with EFI have inertia switches, but they would kill the pump and wouldn't run again unless reset. Crank (and/or) cam sensor should be able to be brought up with a scanning tool, should it not? It sounds pretty reasonable to me if it's pulled a fault code, but to replace the sensors without verifying they are the trouble is a money problem as far as I am concerned. If you KNOW they are the culprit sure.... Dirty IAC sure sounds like a possibility too. I think it's a good thing to check first, IMO anyways.... Throttle body might have wear issues at the shaft, but you should be able to alter the idle easily by moving the shaft with your hand at idle if that was the case.... Fuel filter is a maybe... there might be TWO filters as well, maybe a question to the forum you use as to how many filters the car actually has might be worth a try, I know people who have regularly changed ONE filter and later found they actually had two from the factory. Is there any noticable lack of power, or does the idle just dump from time to time? Is there any issues of a hunting idle?

Big time POWAH!!!!!!!!!!

New technology gets credit for alot IMO. My wife's Magnum has MDS, it works astoundingly well, hard to tell when it's on but over 25mpg on the freeway when in cruise control, and it's 340hp and a big car.....

Manual transmission cars I have a feeling would fare MUCH better. Both performance AND mileage.

So when you say, as I quote- from above.... :AH-HA_wink: I love it. Are you making your astute comments from through the window of a vehicle and wondering how a journalist who actually drove the vehicle can come up with a different conclusion? LOL You're just too funny reg.

I'm guessing we'll have to agree to disagree, as a relatively heavy car with a small displacement turbo engine is going to have a converter with weight in mind if it's trying to do anything for bottom end performance. Call it drivability if you like. Either the performance would suffer with a lower stall converter or mileage would suffer with a higher stall converter, it depends on how much GM is willing to go one way or another to make it work. OR if they could come up with some sort of "new" solution....? Variable nozzle turbos have been tried in the past, but not with huge success IMO. At least they TRIED to address mileage as well as power.

The Solstice and Sky are LIGHTWEIGHTS compared to the upcoming Camaro, are they not? I'm not sure the stall will be chosen to compensate for bottom end if it ends up costing mpg ratings in any noticeable way... kind of a catch-22 situation? More mpg ratings vs decent bottom end power. Picking one or the other isn't the best scenario, creating a way to achieve both would be a better solution.

One problem I see with that is gas mileage will suffer, of course. I think I'll have to wait and see to believe..? :AH-HA_wink:

I agree. To compare "peak ratings" of a turbo 4 cylinder to a naturally aspirated engine won't tell the whole story IMO. Imagine the low rpm capabilities of a turbo 4 BEFORE the boost gets up. Imagine off-peak turbo 4 cylinder performance. I'm not going to say it's a "BAD" idea, I just hope the drivetrain is thoroughly tested in a vehicle at the same weight as the production Camaro ends up. It'll save alot of trouble in the long run.... There has been variable nozzle turbos in the past that tried to remove turbo spooling time in the past, going for fast response times at low engine speeds while still having a large turbo capability for top end power. Turbos are powerful and fuel efficient, but a car of the Camaro's size will need a little more torque than a GLHS to get it moving with any kind of authority...?

Maybe in YOUR ignorant world, but not on my planet.... :AH-HA_wink:

Well, after driving new minivans and getting to know more about them, I think the Caravans are selling because they "are what they are". The 2008 Caravan doesn't look as good as the (dated- now) 2000 Caravans IMO, but the combination of the way they drive, the useful factor etc, all make up good reasons for why they are selling very well in my corner of the woods. I actually see them quite regularly now. The outside looks is where they could use work IMO. The front isn't bad, but the eyes start to wander as the looks of the rear start to come into focus... :AH-HA_wink:

I have a feeling the present V6s won't get much in the way of attention as far as manual transmissions go, with the Phoenix V6 coming in 2010. I'm more impressed with the Challenger than I thought I would be, it's not bad as far as what they were going after, but sales will tell the story- in 2009 and beyond..... as the first year Challengers are all sold long ago. The SRT8 cars will be the only ones out at first, which I kinda think was a good idea, image wise..?

Nope. PCS needs to post a pic of his back hair, so we can all decide his ethnicity.... :AH-HA_wink: