Blake Noble

Great, another Chevrolet that lacks identity. If GM released these press shots of the new Traverse without the gold Bowtie mounted in the grille, I'd almost confuse this thing with some sort of Mazda. I'm starting to fear GM is designing cars during coffee breaks again.

Wanna know a secret? That's the result I got after screwing around with the original image in Photoshop. It was taken with a Canon PowerShot A470 7.1 megapixel point-n-shoot. It's sad I managed to get better results in the other pics I posted with a $h!ty VGA camera mounted in the back of an iPhone.

Fabulous Flops is a monthly series profiling some of the spectacular failures in the automotive industry. The automotive industry is by nature an innovator, but sometimes those innovative ideas are taken out of the oven before they are done cooking, and others fall victim to poor timing. Today, we are profiling Chrysler's two terrible piston-equipped children, the 2.2L four-cylinder engine and the 2.2L Turbo I four. During the course of automotive history, we’ve seen automakers take the engineering that goes into building an engine and turn it into something of an art form. The end result usually is nothing short of something brilliant. For example, Ferrari has given us microscopic engines that somehow produce massive horsepower numbers and still have at least eight cylinders. Then there’s Alfa Romeo, who have built engines so beautifully detailed they’ve somehow managed to make the innocent act of raising the hood of one of their cars into something totally adulterous. Detroit, during the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, managed to produce the most heroic symphonies the world had ever heard from their massive V8s. On the subject of Detroit, remember the old 2.0 liter, forced-induction Ecotec four-cylinder from General Motors? That really was nothing short of a 21st-century small-block Chevy. Those are just a few highlights from the century-plus long automotive footage reel, though. Watch the whole film in its entirety and you’ll find that there have been many an instance where an automaker strives to push engine — uhhh — engineering to the outer edges of the envelope only to fall flat on its face. And while it’s certainly true that GM has succeeded in this century with building a great four-cylinder engine, you certainly couldn’t say the same for Chrysler in the closing quarter of the 20th century. For those of us who had to suffer through the K-Car years and the subsequent fallout, the mere mention of the name LeBaron or New Yorker codgers up images of some bland, front-drive car with a nasty paint job and electrical issues. Okay, yes, I know Chrysler was more concerned with building affordable, efficient cars that would pay the bills back then. Yes, sure, some of them were sort of reliable and not completely terrible, but the K-Platform-derived Chryslers were all cars devoid of the rather admirable, plucky Pentastar personality that made the original Hemi Challengers and Road Runners such magical machines. In my eyes, the fact the platform spawned a billion soulless children and carried on relatively unchanged for over a decade is one of the many great automotive mysteries. It’s even more mysterious when you consider people actually bought them with Chrysler’s horrible 2.2 liter four-cylinder engine. I’ll admit Chrysler seemed to have all of its stars aligned and ducks in a row when they were designing it. First, they benchmarked a fairly solid 1.7 liter engine they had bought from Volkswagen to use in the Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon/Talbot Horizon triplets. After that, they grouped together a team of guys that was led by Willem Weertman, who worked on the old warhorse Slant 6. How the 2.2 became the end result then is a huge letdown. The original Chrysler 2.2L four was more or less born from the VW 1.7L four used in the Dodge Omni. For starters, the 2.2 had an aluminum cylinder head and an iron engine block, exactly like the 1.7 liter VW motor. This was by no means a bad design and was advanced for an American four-pot in its day. However, Chrysler failed to understand the mixed metallurgy required additives to the coolant that would prevent a total meltdown — additives they decided to forgo for production and subsequently forgot completely. American buyers, who were then used to a four-cylinder motor that required very low maintenance, weren’t exactly ready for the high demands of the aluminum/iron design either. As a result, cylinder head gaskets had to be replaced as often as the driver would change his underwear, and the cylinder heads themselves would eventually crack. Then, there was the terrible carburetor and distributor chosen for use on the 2.2. The carburetor came from Holley, who by no means makes bad carbs, but on the day they built the ones chosen for use on the early 2.2 liter motors, they must’ve forgotten everything. The design was an electronic progressive feedback, two-barrel design that only lent itself to stalling when you wanted to go, wheezing when you did, and bizarre burps of power at random intervals. The distributor, in particular, was a rather nasty device because the shaft support bushing was so cheap it would wear out in such a fashion that the rotor would eventually hit the distributor cap, which would then break. The end result of that, well, is obvious. The 2.2 also had a rubber timing belt, which would break between oil changes, and the whole thing only produced an underwhelming 84 horsepower. As for torque? Let’s just say your grandmother is probably capable of a higher amount of twist if you handed her a torque wrench. The Dodge Shelby Charger used a tuned version of the 2.2 that produced all of 107 horsepower. How's that for power? Chrysler knew the engine left plenty of room for improvement, so it didn’t take very long for them to set about changing things. For 1983, they fiddled around with the pistons and the aluminum head and wrung a whole 10 more horsepower out of it. Poor Carroll Shelby also had to use a modified version of the 2.2 in the front-drive, Horizon-based Shelby Charger. His tuned 2.2 managed to just barely break the 100 horsepower mark. Then, in 1984, Chrysler installed throttle body fuel-injection, which bumped the power up to 99 and actually had few advantages over the terrible Holly carburetor. 1984 also was the first year Chrysler built the laughable 2.2 Turbo I motor. What Chrysler did for the Turbo I was take the 2.2 and, well, put a turbo on it. That sounds like it could’ve made a bad motor decent and that would be true if they had fitted it with something all well-built turbo engines have — an intercooler. The decision to save a few bucks by not installing an intercooler on an turbocharged motor that was, in turn, based on an engine that already had cooling system issues meant that the Turbo I was one of the least reliable engines Chrysler had ever built. Take a Turbo I-equipped LeBaron up a decent grade of a hill and you were guaranteed to boil your coolant into oblivion. So, in 20/20 hindsight, the Chrysler 2.2 and 2.2 Turbo I were flops, perhaps not in sales, but from a reliability and engineering standpoint. To Chrysler’s credit, they tried to at least rectify some of the issues that plagued the Turbo I when they rolled out the 2.2 Turbo II, which actually had a factory intercooler. The Turbo III and Turbo IV 2.2 motors that succeeded it also were fairly respectable performance motors. The Turbo IV, in particular, was responsible for making the old Dodge Spirit R/T the fastest North American production sedan money could buy when it was new. * * * * * Do you have a nomination for a Fabulous Flop? Drop an email to [email protected] with your nomination. Make sure to share this with your friends on Facebook or Twitter using the buttons below. View full article

Uh, the competition already have it. Let's see, there's Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Jeep, Mitsubishi ... The nose appears to be a little longer, but these patent drawings always manage to come across different from the real thing somehow. It's not a blatant rebadge, no, but it's obvious that it appears be related to the Encore/Mokka.

G. Noble Editor/Reporter CheersandGears.com March 28, 2012 Recently, CBS’s staid block of news programming 60 Minutes sat down with Fiat/Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne and chatted about the roll coaster ride the company has been on for the last few years. Some of the topics discussed ranged from negotiating the controlled bankruptcy of Chrysler with the US government back in 2009, the horrible bureaucracy that plagued the company, to the recent introduction of the Dodge Dart. It’s all very interesting to listen to and, whether or not you care about Chrysler, you do gain a certain respect for Marchionne who, as it turns out, is one of the biggest workaholics in the automotive industry. As we’ve seen in the past, though, when 60 Minutes sits down with a notable auto exec and takes their cameras inside the halls and rooms around company headquarters, what’s usually out of focus in the background of certain shots can sometimes be more interesting than the story that’s being reported on. And it seems members of the Chrysler-centric website Allpar may have locked in on something. At around the 10 minute mark in the video, 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft takes a break from chatting with Marchionne to talk to Chrysler’s SRT Division CEO and head of design Ralph Gilles. In the background of the footage of the talking Gilles, there appears to be a design for a coupe of some sort painted in red paint. Okay, so it isn’t hiding out in the weeds, but whatever it could be is hiding out behind Ralph Gilles. Chrysler has reportedly been working on the revival of Plymouth’s old Barracuda muscle car to be sold either as a Dodge or underneath the Viper as another SRT-branded model. Could this be it? What do you think? When Automotive News picked up on Allpar’s findings, they contacted Chrysler where a representative responded and said the design was “just one of the many concepts and projects in our studios. That one [was] a student model.” While I have no reason to doubt any of that, the rep also didn’t say it wasn't a student design for a new Barracuda. The 60 Minutes segment can be viewed here. Again, the car comes in around the 10 minute mark. It’s also worth watching, if you haven’t already. Sources: Automotive News (Sub. Req.), Allpar View full article

Toyota = Avalon

Any tips on taking night shots? I know it's typically better to take a shot around dusk, but what if circumstances prove otherwise? I don't want to wind up with a shot like this again. Anyway, here are some shots I had on my old iPhone 3GS. I thought they came out well considering the 3GS had a VGA camera. Richland Balsam Mountain, Milepost 431, Blue Ridge Parkway, North Carolina: A badly edited version: Just a morning sky shot at home: And another badly edited version:

Are you surprised it's been forever since you've seen one? It's hard to keep your doors open when your customer base is dying. That said, one still operates in Corbin, KY about 40 miles south of me. It's also worth mentioning the Shoney's in Richmond, KY was re-purposed into a Hooters a few years ago after it shut down.

I don't know about that, hyper. I think it'll be here. The whole reason GM repurposed the Opel Antara/Saturn Vue for the U.S. market as the Chevrolet Captiva Sport was because they felt there was an absence left in the wake of the discontinuation of the old HHR. I know the Captiva Sport is only available brand-new to fleet buyers right now, but I think that will change with whatever replaces it. Call it a hunch, but I think the CUV in the patent images will be what replaces it. I also wonder how much shelf life the Antara has left after the Mokka goes on sale. The Antara only rides on a wheelbase that's six-inches longer than the Mokka's and the other dimensions aren't that much larger.

LOL you crack me up, not having to compensate for anything, but the history of life with V6 engines and their so called fuel efficiency is a joke in this country. So far America seems to still make a v8 that lasts compared to v6 or 4 bangers. If your going to get this type of car, then get the real deal I think. This way you know you can easily get 200 to 300K miles out of the engine. The V6 I would only count on for 150K to 200K at best. Plus when you do hit high mileage, a tired v8 can still move an auto nicely compared to a tired v6. That is the most asinine argument I've ever heard. I'm going to have to agree here. The 3.5L I had in my Challenger seemed to be a very stout engine and I know some LH owners have gotten excellent life out of it. Hell, you can milk 300,000 miles out of any engine just so long as you change the oil, coolant, and spark plugs and occasionally do a tune up. The only criticism I had with the 3.5L was the fact it required mid-grade gasoline for the best fuel consumption and what is an average amount of power these days. I believe the new 3.6L addresses that issue. It really is how you drive something, not what you drive. I know we all have our preferences, but at this point the only thing that would stop me from making the Redline model my next Challenger is the lack of a manual transmission. Again, I'd almost bet money the Redline would at least keep up with an R/T on the right roads and tracks, especially in the hands of a driver who knows what he's doing.

G. Noble Editor/Reporter CheersandGears.com March 27, 2012 If these patent drawings unearthed by French publication L’Automobile Magazine are the real deal, then it seems Buick — and by extension Opel — won’t be the only GM brand selling a new small crossover in the near future. The drawings, which unsurprisingly are claimed to come from the European patent office, clearly show what seems to be a Buick Encore-based vehicle with some changes to the sheetmetal and wearing the familiar Chevrolet dual port grille. That also means the small Chevy CUV depicted would be the same size as the Encore, would offer all-wheel drive, and would probably share an engine or two. L’Automobile didn’t receive any confirmation or comment from GM about the patent drawings. On a more interesting note, the L’Automobile article seems to think that this particular GM model may play a tidy role in the GME-PSA partnership, providing PSA with a vehicle which they can rebadge and use to replace the Mitsubishi-based Citroën C-Crosser and Peugeot 4007. If this new Chevy shows up anywhere, count on it turning up in Europe and Asia, especially China. As for us in North America? There’s a good chance we may get a crack at it as well. An Encore-based Chevy CUV could slot in below the Equinox and give Chevy a vehicle that can take the Toyota RAV-4, Honda CR-V, and Jeep Compass head-on. Source: L'Automobile Magazine View full article

How do you feel about the Cobat SS/SC or SS/TC? I know it's front-drive, but the small lot of SS/SC cars I've driven were actually fairly decent handling cars and pretty fun to drive. The fuel economy isn't terrible either, as long as you don't mind paying out for premium gas. You'll also never run the risk of being stuck with a slushbox in one, too. I've seen SS/SC cars with lower mileage in good shape go for $11k. I'd remove or replace the rear spoiler if I had one, though. There's also the GTi. A hot hatch is always a fun car to own. The Mk.V GTi runs about $14 grand with 50k to 70k miles. There's always the E46 Coupe as well. One from around '02 to '03 with 75k miles and under should cost about $11 to $12 grand. I don't have to tell you the market out there is growing extremely limited for enthusiasts on a budget who can't afford new or don't want to pay new car prices. It's just about hopeless. If your search for a worthy F4 T/A or Z28 car doesn't pan out, be prepared to go slightly outside your comfort zone to find a car that fits 3/4 of your criteria. Either that or beat your head against the wall trying to find a nice Jeep of some sort.

I just now thought about the LUW 1.8 Ecotec. They used that particular engine in the Opel/Vauxhall/Saturn Astra didn't they? It's interesting it doesn't seem to boast better mixed mpg in the Sonic than it did in the Astra. It also seems they managed to bump the torque up from 125 in the Astra to 130-something for the Sonic. I wonder how?

As someone who previously owned an SE Challenger, I'll say that I prefer the way the V6 model handled versus the V8. I almost have to wonder if the Rallye Redline's suspension and handling upgrades mean it can keep up with an R/T through the bends? If there's anything ChryCo should do for the V6-equipped Challengers before they send this model off, it's install an honest-to-God manual transmission. AutoStick is a cool novelty, but it's a terrible subsitute for third pedal and a stick.

G. Noble Editor/Reporter CheersandGears.com March 27, 2012 There certainly aren’t many large cars in the world more dull and geriatric than Toyota’s Avalon. Drum up your thoughts about the current model, which went on sale all the way back in 2005, and you’re sure to think of retirement homes and Shoney’s rather than sporting arenas and Hooters. However, Toyota desperately wants to change all of that. The teaser image above was released today, and Toyota says it previews a “stunning US-designed sedan” the name of which hasn’t been officially confirmed. Not to worry, though, because you don’t need inside confirmation to work out this is probably the new Avalon. The teaser certainly fits some of the describing attributes dealers gave to the automotive press last year. It becomes even more evident that Toyota is probably teasing the new Avalon when you consider the Camry was just recently redesigned and a new Corolla certainly wouldn’t have design details like dual exit exhaust and an extremely sloping roofline. So do we think we’re seeing a “stunning” piece of design? Well, we’re going to wait until we can see this car in the flesh before we pass any official judgment. That said, it certainly appears to be more interesting than the current Avalon because, let’s face it, just about everything is. With Chevrolet debuting the new 2013 Impala at the New York Auto Show, it’s going to be interesting to see if buyers are drawn to the Avalon or it’s closest American rival. Source: Toyota View full article

True, but who says a car's origins should dictate it's individuality? Staying within the GM fold, the F5 Camaro was raised by Australians and designed by a Korean and yet there's no mistaking its American. Then there's Chrysler with the new Dodge Dart that's largely of Italian origins and it still somehow comes across as distinctly American. I mean, look at me. I'm mostly of Irish and Cherokee Indian origin and you don't see me constantly peeling potatoes outside of a teepee ... shaped Casino. It's not just the Sonic that has this same issue. It's true of the Cruze, too.

I had a chance to poke around a basic Sonic 5-door hatch with a decent set of rims recently. While I think it's a great, solid car and a great value for money, I realized it has a big problem, at least for me. If you removed all the badges and swapped out the Chevy grille for something a little more non-descript, you feel as if you might be sitting in something Asian. It lacks identity in my eyes, and I have a hard time overlooking that. .

I've barked up the fourth-gen F-Body tree more than I care to mention. Trust me, I know things might seem promising, but in reality 95 percent of what you're going to find out there is very, very disappointing. Most of what you'll find is overpriced, high mileage, ragged out, molested to hell and back, and has been patched back together by idiots after an accident. Clean examples with reasonable mileage are commanding stupid prices considering the condition of the used car market right now, and still somehow manage to sell quick. Here are a few examples of what I'm talking about. First, here are a batch of fairly clean cars: '02 Z28 Anniversary Edition, 22k miles, $17,995: http://pittsburgh.cr...2923468421.html '96 Trans Am WS6, 51k miles, $13,995: http://pittsburgh.cr...2860311946.html '97 Formula, 49k miles, $9300: http://pittsburgh.cr...2920202785.html '02 Trans Am Anniversary/Final Edition, 7k miles, $24,995: http://pittsburgh.cr...2906804757.html '00 Trans Am, 38k miles, $18,500: http://pittsburgh.cr...2896032078.html '98 Trans Am Non-WS6, 15k miles, $18,000: http://pittsburgh.cr...2898534983.html Here are the dogs: '98 Formula, 146k miles, $6995: http://pittsburgh.cr...2860539501.html (Overpriced, high mileage, bad headlight motors. I also personally wouldn't trust it with those miles because I bet each and every one of them were hard.) '00 Trans Am, 113k miles, $9000: http://pittsburgh.cr...2913679411.html (Molested to hell and back. High mileage as well. Neither of those two factors bode well for a decent everyday all-rounder. It's also overpriced.) '99 Trans Am 'Vert, 75k miles, $14,500: http://pittsburgh.cr...2844643859.html (Molested, extremely overpriced, and getting up there in miles.) '97 Z28, 81k miles, $8495: http://pittsburgh.cr...2901845847.html (Molested, overpriced, getting some age on it.) '99 Z28, 116k miles, $6,500: http://pittsburgh.cr...2920772036.html (Average price and high mileage. Again, not a car I'd trust everyday.) '98 Z28, 70k miles, $11,000: http://pittsburgh.cr...2904233753.html (Overpriced and molested to hell and back.) And here's three of possible ill-repute: '01 Trans Am WS6, 56k miles, $12,500: http://pittsburgh.cr...2895650281.html (The mileage and condition for the money is too good to be true considering the current market conditon. I'd almost bet good money it has a rebuilt or some other sort of branded title.) '02 Trans Am, 38k miles, $13,000: http://pittsburgh.cr...2899143385.html (Again, the mileage and price are too good to be true because the owner had to go and dick around with the engine.) '97 Z28 Anniversary Edition, 75k miles, $6,000: http://pittsburgh.cr...2902759020.html (Once again, the miles and price make it seem too good to be true. It also oddly seems to sit up too high in the photos.) The '05 - '09 Mustang GT is in that particular price range you mention, but the fact it's so ubiquitous is enough to keep me away from one. I'm not a big of the way it handles, either.

SNAKKEEEEEEEE!!!!! lol, srry wrong game