Drew Dowdell

He was asked not to throw around ad hominems and to back up his claims. Everyone is allowed their own opinion... even wrong opinions. No one is allowed their own facts. Facts are facts whether you like them or not. In his case, some of his facts might have been true 10 years ago but technology has changed in the meantime. Rare is the non-hybrid V6 N/A, Turbo, or S/C, that can outrun the Volvo 4-cylinder PHEV. At 4.5 seconds to 60, it's faster than a 540xi's 4.7s, and XTS V-Sport is 5.3s. The S90 PHEV only 0.1 seconds behind the Turbo V8 Audi S6's 4.4s. Give an E400 4Matic a 1 second head start and the driver will be looking at Thor's Hammer lights rapidly approaching from behind till they both cross 60mph at the same time. A plain old E300 4Matic shows up 1.8 seconds late to the party.* After that list, can you think of any AWD midsize or fullsize sedan with a 6-cylinder that would be faster? And then after the full-size luxury sedan drag races are over and it's time to drive Granny to the Old Country Buffett, the S90 PHEV will also get 71mpg-e and be absolutely whisper quiet. Diesel can't do that. If you have a diesel big enough to keep up with an Audi V8, it's not going to be getting 71mpg. If you have a diesel capable of 71mpg, it's not going to keep up with even the E300. As for the decrease in MPG without aero or driving, that is true for any vehicle. Eco oriented hybrids will suffer more when driven hard more because they're under-powered than anything.... even my Encore drops mpg quickly if driven hard because..like the Pruis.. it is under-powered. *only AWD vehicles cited in order to keep apples to apples. Edit: I went and looked up the CT6-PHEV... at 5.2 seconds, it's faster than the XTS-V Sport and the E400. 0.1 seconds behind the A6 3.0 S/C, Faster than the A8L V6, 740i, and S450.

Yes, but again those were sold that way up front. The reason Olds got in trouble was because they were marketing the 88 with a Rocket V8, but some of them got Chevy V8s instead because Olds couldn't build enough V8s to meet demand. It's one thing if you buy a Skylark and you know it is coming with a Chevy 305. It's another if you think you're buying an 88 with an Olds 350 and it even has a sticker saying so, but when you get to the parts counter for an oil filter (or whatever might be different) you find out its actually a Chevy 350.

I went and looked it up and @Cubical-aka-Moltar had the right answer. In '77 they got sued and it was for using Chevy 350s in Olds 88s. It wasn't so much that they used the Chevy engine, it's that it had a sticker on it calling it an Olds Rocket V8 when it wasn't. It was considered false advertising. (1996) Setting the Pace, Publications International Ltd. (384 - 385) - One of the best Oldsmobile reference books out there. There were other Olds models using Chevy engines, and Cadillac Seville using an Olds 350 variant... but the Cadillac Seville didn't say it had a Cadillac engine... the air cleaner just says "Electronic Fuel Injection". Besides, the 350 Olds V8 had a reputation for refinement and quality that Cadillac customers didn't seem to mind it in their Cadillac, where Oldsmobile 88 buyers thought having a Chevy V8 was a downgrade regardless of actual performance. The whole thing was Olds being a victim of its own success. In 1977, 1 million Oldsmobiles were built. Only the third time to that point that a single brand had sold 1 million vehicles in a single year. The Olds V8 plant couldn't keep up with demand, so Chevy engines were substituted in.

The XK needs to be a grand tourer like the S-Class Cabrio or 6-series Cabrio. Doing so might even give the XJ a reason to live. They don't sell a lot of them, but the ones they do sell command very high prices. Sharing with an XJ would minimize development costs. J-LR has already shown they are willing to do extreme niche high end product with things like the Velar Coupe.

Isn't that the one GM got sued for? Or was that some other divisional cross breeding?

Olds also had the aluminum 215.

I think you inadvertently pointed out part of the problem. The manufacturers are building to Ace the test, but the test in an effort to be fair and uniform is terribly unrealistic. That's why NA V6es often to better in the real world on the highway than smaller displacement but similar power turbo 4s. If the test was more representative of real world driving, we'd see different results.

I'll let Wikipedia type for me - All Oldsmobile V8s use a 90° bank angle, and most share a common stroke dimension: 3.4375 in (87.31 mm) for early Rockets, 3.6875 in (93.66 mm) for later Generation 1 engines, and 3.385 in (86.0 mm) for Generation 2 starting in 1964. The 260 cu in (4.3 l), 307 cu in (5.0 l), 330 cu in (5.4 l), 350 cu in (5.7 l) and 403 cu in (6.6 l) engines are commonly called small-blocks.[1] 400 cu in (6.6 l), 425 cu in (7.0 l), and 455 cu in (7.5 l)[1] V8s have a higher deck height (10.625 in (27.0 cm) versus 9.33 in (23.7 cm)) to accommodate a 4.25 in (108 mm) stroke crank to increase displacement. These taller-deck models are commonly called "big-blocks", and are 1 in (2.5 cm) taller and 1.5 in (3.8 cm) wider than their "small-block" counterparts.[1]

Tell that to the Class of 1980-1989 at just the Pittsburgh Oldsmobile club (of which I am no longer a member). There was always a row of 307 powered Cutlasses, a few 88s and 98s, and at least one white Toronado. Some of those Cutlasses were Hursts But anyway, except for a couple oddball years (1985 being one), the intakes, headers and other bits from the Olds 350 could bolt right on. The 307 was just a 350 with a smaller bore.

Currently, the Suburban is just based off the 1500. There is an "almost 2500" Suburban available only to goverment fleets (think FBI and Secret Service) The previous generation Suburban could come as a 1500 or 2500, but the final generation Avalanche was 1500 only... though again there was an "almost 2500" version that got a 6.0 liter HO engine instead of the standard 5.3. The first generation Avalanche, like the Suburban, came in 1500 or 2500 guise. The Avalanche 2500 came with the 8.1 liter and a bunch of other upgrades The Escalade EXT of all generations was 1500 only.

You're correct on all points except one.. the Avalanche is more directly related to the Suburban. I know it's a minor detail from the powertrain side, but the interiors between Suburban and Silverado are different. In an avalanche, everything in front of the mid-gate is lifted straight out of a Suburban/Tahoe

This is very difficult to compare directly.... I'll do my best. I'm going on what my guess is for the most common configuration. Because there are so many configurations available in trucks, the curb weights can vary by more than 1,500 pounds from base single cab work truck all the way up to Crew Cab High Country/ SuperCrew King Ranch. A 2018 Chevy Silverado LT Crew Cab 5.3 4x4 Short Box is listed at 5,300 A 2018 Ford F-140 Lariat 5.0 Super Crew is 4x4 at 4,858 - Going to a 2.7 EB only saves 9 lbs. ... but that's the 2018. The 2019 Silverado dropped about 500lbs when announced and this new 2.7 supposedly saves them another 80lbs. So they're going to be pretty dead even. It's going to end up coming down to minutia like if sunroof is selected or not to tip the scale in one direction or another.

At least there is still some support for the Olds 307.... but that's mostly because a whole bunch of the Olds 350 stuff just bolts right on.

It looks like the Cruze RS Hatchback I just had

Only a bit, depends on when it comes on, but from my recollection, the Ford 2.7 hits it max torque pretty low in the range also. These engines are going to be pretty darn close. It's going to come down to overall weight.

They'd have to reduce displacement by reducing stroke to make it spin faster.... probably 2.3 or 2.4 litres max. I see this going into Colorado/Canyon, possibly Tahoe and SWB Yukon, and probably whatever replaces the Express/Savanna as a base engine. It's a 4-cylinder that can run on 2.... you'll never feel a 15hp difference particularly in a lighter Silverado. What you will feel is a heavier wallet from the highway fuel efficiency.

No. It really doesn't. Facts don't change depending on the news source. Doesn't matter if it is politics or cars. Facts matter around here.

Look at that green line rising and the black line plummeting... and that chart only goes to 2015, 2016 on tha chart was only a forecast. I bet the change is even more drastic 3 years later. I know here in PA an already large wind farm was vastly expanded in the past few years. That is the same equation being figured by drivers in the EU. Gasoline motors have gotten so efficient even without electrification that there is no longer a cost per mile advantage to get diesel.

I've already said I think it is being implemented incorrectly while the overall goal is good. There is major risk in repealing it entirely. We live in a global economy. GM doesn't want to build one engine for the US and one engine for China and one engine for the EU.... they want to build one engine that will work in all of those places. If suddenly the US is the one with the loosest standards, we will start falling behind in technology as all of the older stuff is sent here and the other countries get the newest things. This is already happening in renewable energy. China is pushing hard for renewables while we're trying to get our coal industry restarted. The center of gravity for solar and turbine development and manufacturing has shifted to China and the EU. So, that's why the premise of this article talks about the auto industry not wanting standards rolled back too much. Their ideal would be the same standard in emissions for all countries.

There is zero proof of illegals voting in Mass numbers.

Banks were deregulated with the repeal of Glass-Stegel Act. A big thing that came from that was that banks could now gamble with your money in dodgey investments. Simultaneously, mortgage regulations went out the window so that anyone who could fog a mirror qualified for a mortgage. You couldn't let your dog off its leash or it would come back with a home equity line of credit. At the same time, wages stagnated. Off shoring became the big thing for companies to do. The internet made it even more possible. People trying to make up for the loss of wage increases started turning to the home equity line of credit just to keep up with increases in the cost of living. That was what the professionals call; A Bad Idea. All of these newly qualified mortgage holders became house shoppers. This started driving up the price of homes. Speculators came in and flipped homes forming a housing price bubble. Swirl all that together and you have the perfect storm that caused the recession starting in 2007. It all formed because banks wanted less regulation. Not all regulations are bad, some regulations keep bad things from happening. CAFE is regulation with good intentions being implemented badly. I agree with it's generally stated goal. I disagree with how they go about getting there. Repealing it without replacing it would lead to bad things, including possibly a significant loss of the auto industry in the US.

Going by you purchase history, I would say the only candidate currently would be Volvo XC90 phev

If the only manual transmission left in the world was a FWD Ram Promaster, I doubt you'd be putting down a pre-order deposit. That's how I am with EVs. There are lots of plug in hybrids I'm interested in, none I can afford right now. There are no EVs I'm interested in... but not because of the power train. I wouldn't buy an EV ProMaster either. It's just not my kind of vehicle regardless of power train.

I had a whole bunch of fun in a CT6 which can drive itself if I want it to. Fun comes in different packages.

I never said EVs for everyone. You're against EVs for anyone. You want to tell people what they can't have. With EVs you must change your mindset on your fill up patterns. You start each day in a Bolt with a full tank. You "filled up" overnight. If you're on a trip and need to locate a station to charge up, like everything else, there's an app for that... In fact there are multiple apps for that.