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

hyperv6

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,128

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by hyperv6

  1. hyperv6
    I agree packaging is how some are better than others. I believe that some companies take liberties on how they measure. I am sure they are accurate but they may measure ever nook they can. It is like Cam Shafts there is the advertised lift measurements and them there is Lift at 50 that equals all measurements. Many things affect seating and passenger room the dash shape and placement, Seat shape size and placement and door panel shapes etc. There are ways to open of space and I just do not think it was taken advantage of as much as it could have been in the new BU and it hurt it more since the old one was so much larger. But with that said with the new Impala coming they could not keep the Malibu the same size. Also I expect the Cruze to see a size adjustment as well as the next Malibu. This BU is not going to be around long as there will be another new platform for it before long.
  2. hyperv6
    Anyone other than 98 notice that Dan said the LTS will be here in two years. USA Today has the info on this.
  3. hyperv6
    Just look at the illustration above! To each his own tastes when it comes to aesthetics, but those proportions will not be possible with an inline four. It is also not purely a "styling" issue but a functional one. A car's wheelbase has a lot to do with it's weight since the wheels are the carriers of the entire load. All the structures between the wheels give the car it's torsional and bending strength. With the same rigidity and strength requirements, the shorter the wheelbase the lighter the car. That ~10% reduction in wheel base is responsible for most of the weight loss. But a short wheelbase also means less leg room for the occupants in the passenger cell. A V4 engine -- being 2 1/4 cylinders long -- allow you to move the firewall forward towards the front axle. This allows you to make this a 2+2 vehicle with tight but usable rear seats. If you don't use a V4 the car will have to have more wheelbase (be heavier) or you need to lose the rear seats. From a structural standpoint, the "strongest" design for a unibody is to have the a-pillars terminate at the front strut towers. This is generally impossible in practical cars because of the length of the engine and the desire to have good F/R weight balance. Move the axle further from the firewall and the structure weakens, requiring either weighty reinforcements & bracings, or a sacrifice in platform rigidity and suspension performance. The V4 gets you closest to the ideal triangulation of forces. I think I would be more worried about the transmission tunnel in the car more than the few inched that engine would provide. Think back to the Monza and the large driveline tunnel in the car and how much space it took up. Also shorter the wheel base the poorer the ride tends to be. Many cars today have the wheels moved out as far as possible to give better ride and handling. I think I would look at ways to cut the tranny size or a light weight rear transaxle to remove the large tunnel in the car and create more room where a car like this needs it in the front foot wells.
  4. hyperv6
    Is there really a need for a hood that is any shorter? If you make it too short you will end up with a car that looks like a Buick Skylark X body FWD. In fact many of GMs FWD cars in the 80's had odd short hoods that did little for styling.
  5. hyperv6
    Someone understands what is in play as this engine would have to satisfy FWD and RWD.
  6. hyperv6
    This deal is a K tech deal and I suspect it was targeted at some racing class more than anything. This is why we have had cut small blocks before as they were intended for Midget Sprints. It was something that just did not work out well and turned into a very expensive engine since so few parts were ready made. blocks and heads had to be cut and custom cranks etc had to be made. They ended up going to a inline 4 and laid it over on the side Offy style. There are many still looking for an engine to replace the old VW engines they used to use in midget sprints. They also had in many cases a lot of engine failures too. Not sure if it was the design or the tune. K tech does their own things and Pratt and Miller just pays them to build and tune the engines. I am not even sure if GM has a direct contract for the engines from them or If it is just with P and M. K tech does some great work with race engines and they also do a lot of custom work too. The numbers on the engines they have would be ok on a Bike but they are not spectacular compared to the stock Eco. The base V4 is less on power and the race version is about where the base Turbo Eco is. Now on the other hand the weight is fantastic. But it would come in heavier with the things needed for a production style engine. If I were to do an a V4 I would look to a 60 degree engine as it would fit the FWD applications better. Also I would so a clean sheet engine as you would not have to compromise as much. You could make it push rod or OHC or what ever but I would make sure it was more narrow. Also most 60 degree engines do not require balance shafts and other aids to calm the shake. In todays market you have to have the engine right or it will not look good anymore. The old 4.3 and 3.8 shake just would not get it today anymore and GM did a lot to the 4.3 over the years to fix what was wrong. My first 4.3 was crap an the second one was much better but never got the MPG and power it should have. Today they have fixed most of these issues but little is left of the original engine and today we have pretty close to a total new engine. I expect to see the Eco 3 cylinder before long also another reason they will keep a inline 4 as it will share parts. I have also heard talk in some markets of a 2 cylinder. We may or may not ever see that and worry about that then. Anyways I fully expect the car he is predicting as GM has already indicated and while it still needs approved I still expect them to move forward here. The question is just what else would this smaller platform support? A GMC like Jeep or small Ute or pick up? Sports car for Buick? I just see the engine as not bad but just not anything we will see from GM based on their investments and their moves with product. They have to do more than just dream on the web and find the many ways they need to use these engines and pay for them. If I were making realistic predictions on this car it would be on some kind of Ecotec engine of the future.
  7. hyperv6
    Hyper, I have to disagree with you on the V4 reasoning. GM would not have to invest Billions to Create the V4, one of their licensed Corvette Racing and engine builders have already done the work and has a Solution GM needs to pick up and use. 10010941_KATECH_website3.jpg http://www.katechengines.com/engineering/katech-v4/ v4-dimensions.jpg If you have Driven a Motus Motorcycle which comes with the Katech V4 engine based on chopping a Corvette V8 in half you would be amazed at how silky smooth and powerful this engine is. Katech sells a Crate version of the V4 for anyone with almost 400HP/lbs. It really is an amazing engine that is not turbo or supercharged. Proves that the Pushrod V4 cannot only deliver amazing gas mileage but also performance. Great Idea Dwight, I think this would be a hit for GM and they could easily expand this through other versions for Buick and Cadillac. I have nothing against the V4 itself but I just do not think or expect GM to change course here with the investment they already have made and are still making. The inline 5 and 6 on paper was a good idea too but it never panned out like they had hoped. The K Tech is one I missed and looks nice but it is far from an engine I would want to see in a production car. The specs on the rave version match the base turbo Eco numbers and the standard version is below some of the predicted 3 cylinders to come. Also would it has as wide and flat of a torque curve as the Eco turbo that has been the key to its wide acceptance? The low end torque is hard to duplicate in an engine like the V4. Like I said I have no issue with a 4v in the concept but sorry I do not get excited over some quasi self proclaimed engineer that generally is counter to anything in the market. Generally there is a lot more involved in these things. Besides do you or do you not think GM has not already investigated this in more ways than anyone with a web thread has even considered? If we were on the inside we would have a clear understanding of what and why they do what they so as there is more to it than hey this is a good idea. My main point is I do not expect to see this happen. The car I could see happen as GM already as hinted loudly they are looking into it but the engine will be something more of what they already are investing in. I like to speculate but I like to try to keep it realistic as to what could really happen and not some wishful thinking. That is the main difference.
  8. hyperv6
    How so? The V4 has a packaging advantage which cannot be matched by Inline-4 designs or horizontally opposed -- it is how that extremely short hood and chassis is possible. A 90 deg Vee has each pair of cylinders exhibiting the same great balance as a V8 by allowing full counter weights to be used. A Pushrod V4 has a mass, width, height and frictional advantage unmatched by OHC designs. Those are fundamental facts. Why do you think it won't work out? As far as it not actually being an existing engine, well neither is anything GM hasn't built yet (including the car itself). By that line of reasoning -- if doesn't exist it is impractical -- nothing new would ever be built. The reality is GM has committed Billions to the inline 4 and I do not see them investing in another 4. 90 degree engines were tight in past FWD cars and will be worse today as space is even more limited. To make the engine viable it would need to be used in both FWD and RWD and I do not see that happening. A host of Racers over the years have tried to build 4 cylinder engines for different racing classes and they all just never worked out. Some for cost most for issues with NHV that would damage the engine and or drive line. Pink, Crower and Scat have all taken this in and they never lasted. In most cases where a engine has been cut down there have always been issues. Often even when they are made into a good engine it take time and other things to fix them. Just look at the most successful V6 the 4.3 has had a lot of money and development tossed at it and looking back GM may have been better off now just doing a clean sheet. For many years it is amazing they sold as many as they did as bad as they shook and run. Not existing is normally in this day and age a sign that they have already visited this and found issues or things that did not make this practical or even a good idea. GM has a long history of chopping engines and do you really think they have not tried this one yet? Keep in mind this company has chopped Pontiac's Chevys and Buicks already and grafted Olds 4 cylinders into V8 and LS engines into V16. Jumping off a cliff may sound like a good idea but generally most do not be cause there a consequence. The bottom line is if you think you are the first person to come up with this idea you are not. GM chose an inline 4 that is small and light and suites their need to the point that they have invested Billions. You are not a GM engineer and you have not had this engine on the stand so to prove it is a viable engine is more than just on paper here. Do you have the loads and how the harmonics of the engine will be? You won't know till you do it. Generally removing cylinders creates as many issues as they solve. A V4 is not a bad idea in its self but if you want to do one I would recommend looking to what most Motorcycle companies are doing or even boat as they can packaged these engines smaller lighter and extract even smoother power than just cutting cylinders from a V8. Once you have some real dyno results and maybe you may sway some of us.
  9. hyperv6
    I can see you did not spend much time driving one. I have and it was nothing special.
  10. hyperv6
    And GM has already just made more major investments and has just place more future plans in advancing the Ecotec. Like it not, agree or not GM has placed their money where they are going so there is little to debate. So in this case for the point of reality you have to work with what is there. They thought it a good Idea for the same reasons on the Slant 4 Pontiac had and it never went anywhere. V8 engines chopped into 4 cylinder never work out well no matter how you slice it.
  11. hyperv6
    GM is already looking into this an has been investigating how to do such a car. A lot of it depends on a couple things. The major issue is they would like to do this on what one insider called an Alpha lite platform, though they said it would not be an Alpha and be its own platform. Then once it is build what else could they expand this platform to be used for in the whole of GM. In other words doing a car like this is not an issue but what else can you leverage the platform out over to make it more profitable. By the time it would arrive the price would be a little higher as to do this it would take at least 5 years. As for the engine you will have to look at the reality of what is out there and what will be there and a V4 is not really in sight at this point. While I agree they should look into a car like this and fully expect that this will come to market at some point I do not agree it will fully happen as explained here. There is no right or wrong on dreaming here but with the way things are and how GM works many of these ideas will remain dreams in a car like this. But over all you have a general idea of what little info that was disclosed.
  12. hyperv6
    They had to pick the lesser of two evils and the new one was the choice. While the old one has some good left it would have left them in a place where they were selling an old car in a segment with the shortest models lives. They were dammed if the so and dammed if they don't. The car needed an interior and a new nose and tail. I do not think the old car would have faired much better and you would have been investing in a car for only one year at best. Better to release what you have and keep the investment in the new car. I really think the changes were in place before they even released the car because they knew what it needed. They came a lot faster than they have on any other model in GM's recent history.
  13. hyperv6
    The new platform is all about refinement and weight loss. Every platform change from here on out will be about that for all GM cars. I think they may have looked at the car and would have released it like the others with the engine or transmission they did not really intend to keep. Kind of like the trucks with the present tranny and not the one they will get next year. With the present car selling so well they can wait a year and get the second round of improvement in the car the first years vs. the second year. It has been a long time where GM has had a car like this where they had time to wait and do it right out of the gate. I wonder if they may do the same with the Nox. the competitions is getting tougher but the old Nox is selling as well as it ever has. Same with the Terrain. There are advantages to having such good selling cars and time on your side. I really do not see this as a Malibu Mistake. In that case they had a old car being replaced by a car that was shelved during the Chapter 11. They had a choice of keeping an old car with declining sales or pushing the new old car out with the changes they wanted and no time to do them. They picked the lesser of two evils in that case.
  14. hyperv6
    If it is a new vehicle they have to stock the parts and keep them available for enough time to deal with any service issues. It was never an issue on the Isuzu Chevy trucks. We had a couple where I worked and they did what was asked of them Cheap to run, Cheap to buy and lasted 10 years. I hated to drive them as if you had any load the small turbo diesel did not handle the weight we had in them well. The company went back to V8 GMC box vans as you could over load them.
  15. hyperv6
    Sprinters rust like a Dodge van. They never were great for rust free. GM had the advantage on rust in most years of production vs. Ford or Dodge. I used to service a lot of company trucks and vans and got to see first hand how they held up.
  16. hyperv6
    Terrain would have never replaced the HHR. It was more expensive even in base from and it would never get the better MPG. These two strikes would have prevented it from doing the job. I know as I have one of each now. GM need to redo the van and offer a smaller higher MPG runabout delivery. This is where the Granite at GMC may have filled the smaller roll if it has come about. The larger van will be built here and should go global so no import stigma but even that is not as much a factor to companies looking to hold cost down in this economy and with the changes in health care.
  17. hyperv6
    The reality is they have nothing to give now or in the near future of their own. GM needs to take advantage of Peugeot, Nissan or what ever partner with a solid vehicle if need be to have at least something to sell and to establish a presents in the market. What GM did for 50 years means little now as they have closed down nearly all of their heavy truck lines and only have some medium duty trucks left. They are behind in the van fleet class as they have had much more important needs of late. Beg borrow or steal what ever they find appropriate is the only way to not be left farther behind. To wait 5 years for a new vehicle would be suicide. Now if they have something pending that is a year or two out that would be even better and then just move the borrowed products aside and move to your own.
  18. hyperv6
    Except an obvious rebadge is at the bottom of effort among automotive programs. Unless you were thinking of some slip-shod Chinese knock-off, a rebadge, at best, can only be "enough" and never "more than enough". 1. Unique, groundbreaking product 2. 'in the pack' product 2. collaboration w/ another company 4. subpar product 5. well-done revamp of another's product 6. straight rebadge 7. horrific chinese knock-off What the hell are you thinking as even the Chinese do not like their own products in the automotive field. And I am speaking of a true Chinese vehicle not a joint partnership vehicles. GM would simply form an alliance with a present partner or a partner in needs of help or more sales and do what is needed to bring this to market. The simple fact is GM has nothing in this small van segment and nothing that they can do short term to be in it soon. Also they have to look to challage the larger Ford Transit. I would not be surprised if they have something started on both but it could be anything from 2-6 years before we see anything and they can not be left with an empty bag. If they can at least establish a foot hold in the segment with a somewhat solid performer and then build in that with a step up over the others in the market. While Ford may have set the standard and put GM at a disadvantage but GM will have an advantage to bring a better product in when they get it ready.
  19. hyperv6
    Rebadge they will have it this year and start nee product to replace it in 5 years.
  20. hyperv6
    VW is testing here as I am sure they will sell their van not only here but also in other places like the middle east. Testing is safer in Winslow vs. Syria right now! The realignment of GM is just now showing itself and more people will start to see the picture. Those of us who watch GM have seen this and understand what has been taking place but the product the most obvious sign of the realignment just has not taken place. Too many people look at GM and what they are doing and only think products but tend to leave out the business end of things. There is much more than just numbers and building cars on emotion or feeling. Anymore you have to get the most out of each platform and return on investment. While we on the web pine away about building diesel powered AWD wagons here there are people at GM would like to build these but they have to maximize the return on investment and that is difficult when all those who say they will buy it do not show up at the dealers when they do. Now that GM has a Diesel Cruze it will be interesting to see just how many buy, As for those who say they will not buy because it has leather seats etc. really were never in the market anyways as if you really wanted a Diesel would a seat fabric really stop you? GM needs to be in this segment now and not 5 years from now. Even with the way things are going it may take time to get new product here so they need to take advantage of what resources they have. God knows there are still a lot of Isuzu's with bow ties still working for a lot of companies and each one made GM money and companies loved them as they saved money not only buying them but also in MPG with the turbo Diesels. That Scott really knows his stuff. PM sent!
  21. hyperv6
    The most pressing need is a replacement for the large Chevy Van. Ford will have their new Larger Transit out this year to take the place of the old discontinued Econoline. Chevy has had it easy in this segment but with the new van comes lower operating cost and GM will have to have something for it. In the mean time they do not have the time and money to mess with the smaller segment unless they have something coming that can fill this need that we have not seen. GM has so much to do and only so much money and man power that the rebadge is not a cop out but a link to when they address the issue properly. The one vehivcle that was doing well for small companies was of all things the HHR panels. There are still many full and half panels still in use. They were cheap to run, hauled light loads with no issue and were cheap to buy. GM needs something small like this and they needed 4 years ago so we can either rebadge or we can wait 4-5 more years.
  22. hyperv6
    With all the other product GM needs to have great investment in and divisions to fix and new technology they need to invest in for higher MPG I see the rebadge is more then enough here. They will make a good profit here and can do something here once they get the rest of their house in order.
  23. hyperv6
    Opel has their hands full already trying to reinvent their entire line into a more expensive brand in a down economy. Opel will not do it with the present cars but with each and every new Opick they make. Buick and Opel will need 5-10 years to bring all new models to carry them closer to their goal. Opel has little time to deal with work vans that are generally sold on price and utility vs. any other quality. Ford rebranded their little carrier from overseas and imported them from Turkey. I saw them I though that will never fly just as many here also thought and today Ford is making truck loads of money on the deal. They have been very popular and selling better than they ever believed. This is also nothing new for GM as for how long have they also imported rebadged chassis tucks as GMC and Chevy from Asia. Now it is time for them to do the same here. Even Ram has one well with the White/Daimler vans. The key here is get good utility, good MPG, Low operating cost and low purchase price and companies will flock to these. Styling and other issues associated with cars here are non factors. If a company can buy your product to do the job and save money they will be there with their checks in their hands. We are not selling cars here.
  24. hyperv6
    I expect this is a preview of the new RWD Buick coupe. I like what I see so far but please do not tag it a GN or GNX as it is not that kind of car. It is not fair to the original nor to the new car. This one deserves a new name to move Buick into the future vs. rehashing a past only a few of us appreciate.
  25. hyperv6
    Yes but it is not the money that comes from the V10 that makes the profits it is the A4 and A6 that pays the bills. The one thing we also need to think about and none of us have brought up is all the money they would have dumped into this one low volume car. Just think about all the other projects and other models that it could help bring to market with the freed up money and man power.
×
×
  • 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