Leaderboard

I think I posted a pic before, but this is Bro's 'bird:

Mostly Firebirds. To honour Balthy's 1968 1000 horsepower plus Firebird! From 1967-2002

Pontiac power!

Got a text from my brother- he's having a new engine built for his '68 Firebird and they ran it on the dyno. First pull it had restricted oil flow & ate an intake pushrod. On the 2nd pull it ate an exhaust pushrod, so it was only running on 7 cylinders. Made 1,055 HP at "only" 7000 RPMs.

Since the launch of the XT4 with the rather anemic (if more refined) LSY engine, many (including myself) had questioned why GM does not offer the Tripower 310 bhp / 348 lb-ft (L3B) 2.7T 4-cylinder in the XT4 (at least) as an option. To a lesser extent some have also questioned why the LSY is putting out a mere 237bhp / 258 lb-ft whereas the outgoing LTG engine is good for 265~272 bhp / 295 lb-ft. Is it just so that it can have 258 lb-ft arrive @ 1,500 rpm? Now, we have the answer... It's the 9-speed Automatics. Adopting the 9-speed automatics is deemed a priority for refinement and fuel economy. The new GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, jointly developed with Ford promises better fuel economy and better shift quality. There are currently two versions of this transmission:- 9T50 -- 258 lb-ft 9T65 -- 280 lb-ft The need to pack 9-speeds into a very slim transmission case meant that they have to use an ovoid cross section torque converter, a tension chain coupling and abandon the high torque capability of the previous generation top dog 6T80 (369 lb-ft) transmissions used in the 410 hp / 368 lb-ft 3.6L Twin-Turbo (LF3) powered Cadillac XTS. The lack of torque capability is also in part why Ford abandoned the use of the GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, choosing instead to develop an 8-speed evolution of the decade old 6T80 for use in their high torque applications like the Ford Edge ST (2.7L Ecoboost V6 with 335 hp / 380 lb-ft). Ford also asserts that the new 9-speed autos did not yield any fuel economy improvement when tested with their engines and the refinement improvements alone did not justify the costs and weight increases. View full article

The term for this type of behavior is the Sunk Cost Fallacy; go Google it. But, I am not sure this is exactly true of GM's decision in this case. The 9-speeds do offer a few things -- better shift quality from one way clutches from gears 2-9 and smaller ratio steppings. The 6TXX trannies were very average boxes in this department. The new 9-speeds also have a pressure accumulator to prime the trannies for engine restarts with Start-Stop systems -- instead of having to spin the converter from stand still and pressurize the transmission fluid so the hydraulics will start working. The Accumulator stores pressurized fluids while the transmission is running and re-injects them during a restart. The only bad thing about the new 9As is that they are stuck at 280 lb-ft. which is OK for the LSY 2.0T and LGX 3.6 V6es. For high performance stuff, I guess GM is deferring to Longitudinal cars with the GM-Ford 10L80 and 10L90 transmissions good for 590 lb-ft and 650 lb-ft respectively.

And this very well could be the reason that they're delaying the release. They're trying to make sure they're going to get it right. They certainly have gotten their "mileage" out of the current platform/chassis, just making minor adjustments over the last 12 or so years. I also think they are aiming at a minimum of 300 hp. That's probably a certainty. I just wish they'd do it with a larger displacement 4 or a smaller displacement V6, derived from the current Pentastar V6, and avoid the turbocharger. I know they've gotten more compact and more reliable, but it's extra hardware. I know I'm out of synch with this one, but I sure wish FCA could muster up a slick Chrysler 300 to continue running alongside the Charger. If people buy Cadillacs or up-line Japanese sedans for so much more, I don't see why they wouldn't consider a beautifully executed Chrysler 300 for mid-$30Ks.

I guess that was inferred from this paragraph at the linked story.. Jeep said that the Wrangler plug-in will launch in 2020. It will likely cost a fair bit more than a basic Wrangler, considering the fact the base Pacifica Hybrid is about $13,000 more than a base non-hybrid version. Some of that is probably due to equipment differences, but the hybrid powertrain will still probably command a premium of a few grand. History has shown that no matter the price of options, the Wrangler still sells well..

Just edit your original post. You get lots of stuff right, lovely cars for sure and some prime examples of bad corporate badge engineering. LOL

It's weird / I'm weird; I like cars from before 'my time', and music from after. '70s-80s stuff isn't my cup of tea.

First Peugeot buys Opel from GM, now this? If true, then thanks for almost single-handedly solving the overcapacity problem in the industry. If this comes to pass, Peugeot will have to do all the restructuring by itself. Win-win for (almost) everybody!

Only... ?

The C-class has air suspension as an option, V6 or V8 as an option and you can get it with or without the driver nanny controls and the materials are the best in that segment and better than a lot of cars in the next segment up. Not sure what else they could do in that segment.

Totally agree, if and when the next gen Charger comes out, either Turbo 4 or V6 as the base engine has to have a minimum of 300HP.