G. David Felt

Weird, but this picture being so clear and close up, the headlight look just like the Honda RidgeLine. Shame, wish it was truly more Chevy Unique.

Amazing, Car Pros is advertising Dodge Darts with 2000 factory cash and 2002 dealer cash, $12,988 + tax and license for a new Dart with 6sp manual. http://www.carproschryslerjeepdodgeram.com/new-inventory/index.htm?SByear=clear&SBmake=Dodge&SBmodel=Dart&SBbodystyle=clear&SBprice=clear They also started advertising Elantra's new 2013 blow out for $10,988. Crazy the blow out prices this year I am seeing on new auto's. Not good for residuals.

I wonder how long before the purist complain about the growth in size. Course all you have to do is look at Fiat for that failure, trying to grow a business based on 1 model with lots of options but no other size and it was a failure. I think for Mini, this will help them grow and get more customers, just not sure who it will cannibalize.

From what I see in the news here that is covering this guy, the politicians are trying to remove him, sadly no one ever thought they needed the process or laws to allow for removal from office piss poor people voted in. Course the local peeps deserve what they get as they knew he had a criminal record and still they voted this idiot into office.

Have a Rockin Good B-Day!

Lovely, Glad we did not break the embargo against posting pictures.

What surprises me is the 41' turning radius. That just sucks, why can't GM make a small truck with a tight Turning radius? My Trailblazer SS AWD has a better turning radius.

Yes and No, If you have a classic car with a big block V8 and you are not worried about how much Horsepower you have like in a classic Corvette, Camero, Muscle car, but instead you have a classic Caprice with a V8 and you like to cruise, then yes, the much lower cost of fuel with the small decrease in MPG, HP and Torque makes this a great way to go for driving around. Most people do not miss the 10 - 15% decrease. Performance driven folks would so you would want to either convert to pure Fuel Injection or leave it as is on petrol. Today we have many various auto's that people love, they are not what you would call a collectors or classic model worth large dollars on the auction stand, but they hold sentimental value to their owners, are in various stages of shape that still have many years left of good use. So one willing to invest 3-6K dollars on converting to CNG and driving on cheap cleaner fuel versus traditional prices of petrol can make a large difference. My 94 GMC SLE suburban is a perfect example. Yes it is very clean, but it is not what I call a collectors. I love the interior layout, the space and the way it drives when I go for long drives or camping. So with the built motor that requires premium, why not convert it to CNG, run on high octane low cost fuel and enjoy it. In my case, I have decided I will replace the Fuel Injected Throttle body carb setup with an actual true Fuel Injection top end to preserve the HP and Torque I know it will never get great MPG, but then I love my burb and it is all paid for, so why spend 50K + on a new one when I have what I love already.

Crunch

Yes you can get a kit. Here is a reseller for me on Fuelmaker home fueling appliances who also sells and installs the conversion kits. http://www.premiercngservices.com/Versus-Conversion-Kits.html The versus conversion kits work great on fuel injector cars keeping same MPG, but more HP and Torque, with Carb versions you do loose some MPG, HP and Torque. The bonnet system work by installing between the Carb and the Manifold. You end up having a switch that turns off the gas flow and then allows the CNG to be sprayed into the manifold to be sucked into the pistons and ignition done to power the car. With the carb version you do loose some of the CNG to the normal evaperation process but the majority does go into the motor. This loss is why you loose MPG/HP/Torque. You still need to buy a tank and that is more expensive than the conversion kit. Tanks run from 6 GGE to 42 GGE in size.

That guy is one wacky mess!

I have to say with techonology, I have not found cars with big HP to have Torque Steer any more. Drew or Mud, you both have been driving more FWD this year than most of us, do you notice Torque Steer in your FWD Auto's?

Interesting, I might actually be able to fit in one now. Have to test it out when they get to the lot in March.

Love both cars drew, but I would still have to go with the Escalade as once I put the seat back in both the CTS V-Sport and ETS V-Sport no one can sit behind me. I really miss the days of true full size cadillacs. The Brougham was such a lovely car, just wish they had gotten rid of the float ride.

I would think they could do an AWD Dart with a Twin Turbo 4 banger.

Vlasik

So then TT would be the Trademark of Cadillac and leave the same 3.2 T for chevy?

We don't know that the 3000 SS would be profitable...they may lose money on them. Who knows... I could be wrong but I thought I read somewhere where GM stated this would be a profitable model at 3000.

Demolition Man is an AWESOME MOVIE! The Ultra Lite is a Great car, not sure why they will not review this as you could so kill the competition with an auto like this. With the advances in Carbon Fiber, it has to be cheaper and easier to produce a body shell like that now. Ease of entering and exiting the car with the gull wing doors that also offer protection from the elements is cool. I could see this as a High Compression CNG two stroke engine.

Tickle

One would think if they can build the SS with only 3000 being a profitable import, then why not 3000 Ute's.

Why not just Twin Turbo the 4 bangers? This would probably beat the V6 for HP and Torque and over all performance. The V6 numbers are pathetic compared to other companies that are hitting 300HP and 300+ Torque on a TT setup.

GMC Canyon Please with 2.8L Duramax Diesel, Twin Turbo as a performance option.

REBUTTAL – Dwight has given good information below, yet I believe he left it in an Apple to Orange comparison for some info rather than a true Apple to Apple Counter Points: Five Reasons You shouldn't switch to CNG (1) CNG is much less dense than Gasoline. At atmospheric pressure a given volume of natural gas has 1/1000th the density of gasoline. Even at 3,000 psi (204x the pressure of the air we breathe, CNG has about 1/5th (22%) the volumetric energy density of gasoline. What it means is that for a given size of tank, a CNG car will go 1/5th the distance between refueling. Or, if it is to go the same distance it has to have 5 times the fuel tank volume. Rebuttal – True as it comes out of the ground, but then oil is not usable as a fuel either till refined. As such, Natural Gas is compressed (CNG) to 3600 psi that gives you a Gas Gallon Equivalent (GGE). This is how you then have a usable fuel for auto. CNG GGE = 1 Gallon Petrol. MPG = Same as Petrol, 130 Octane means you get more HP and Torque depending on the efficiency of the engine. Your example of only 1/5th the distance on CNG is misleading, proven by the industry over and over. (2) CNG is compressed to a high pressure. This means that tanks have to be cylindrical or spherical to effectively contain that pressure. Spheres and cylinders are much less space efficient than the kind of irregular shaped gasoline tanks cars use to tuck the fuel under the rear seats above and around the drive shaft and suspension bits. Rebuttal – Yes the cylindrical shape is not as efficient in one large tank as a petrol tank, but thanks to carbon fiber, type 5 tanks allow multiple layouts by using multiple small tanks such as the Chevy Van that uses a 3 tank layout in the frame under the body to give you a impressive storage amount. (3) CNG is not as available as gasoline or even diesel at today's gas stations. If you drive CNG, you have to plan your refueling stops around stations that sell CNG. If you drive gasoline you just drive and pull over at any gas station when the empty light goes on. Rebuttal – All current OEM built autos have CNG fast fill stations clearly listed for ease of find a fueling station. In fact one can drive from Vancouver BC to Baja California, From LA to Florida and up and down the east coast rather easy with finding fast fill CNG stations. Even driving from San Francisco to DC across the middle of the US was done on a CNG road trip in a CNG only Honda Civic GX. The 2015 Bi-Fuel Chevy Impala, with Petrol and CNG, this car on sale spring of 2014 will have a 150 mile range on CNG plus the petrol range. On top of this, with CSA certified CNG home fueling appliances, you can fuel for less than a dollar at home not having to bother going to a CNG station. As of 2009, 50% of all households in the US had Natural Gas available for use. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=49&t=8 (4) Converting existing engines to CNG has no performance or efficiency benefits. In fact, both are a little worse. CNG is best run with increased compression ratios, but most converted CNG engines simply replaces gasoline fuel systems and metering with a CNG compatible alternative without changing the engine internals. If you drive CNG, it is best to get a factory CNG vehicle with an engine designed from the ground up to use CNG. These unfortunately are few and far in between, limiting your choices. Rebuttal – Todays conversion kits allow the modern day efficient engines to burn CNG so that one keeps the same MPG. Fuel delivery via the injectors, a fully functional computer brain that takes all sensors into account and adjust timing / dwell, etc. to maximize the burn of CNG. Can the engines be tuned or built to be more efficient for CNG, sure and that has been done in markets like Italy and Brazil. In many places, these pure CNG engines are just that, the current Petrol engines tweaked to truly maximize CNG. Yet you do not loose MPG with a Petrol engine converted to CNG. One exception is older auto’s that have carburetors, the adapters used for these engines do reduce MPG, HP and torque due to the inefficient use of fuel via the Carburetor. Modern day engines with injectors loose no fuel loss and as such no loss of MPG, HP or torque. (5) Today, US Natural Gas usage in vehicles is about 33 billion cu-ft compared to the total 23,400 billion cu-ft. That is 0.14% of the total usage; quite insignificant in the overall scheme of things. The USA uses a lot of NG and for good reasons we have a lot of it. Can we use more and be less reliant of imported oil? Sure. But is NG in vehicular use the best avenue to increase that usage? In residential and industrial heating, as well as power generation, the storage density issues (CNG's Achilles heels) are largely irrelevant since the fuel is pipe delivered in very mildly pressurized form. Most US power plants are not NG fired. Many homes use electric stoves and heaters. A drive to convert these to NG has a much larger effect on NG usage than trying to use them in vehicles without all the compromises. Rebuttal – According to the EIA, 35% of electrical production is now by Natural Gas, 65% is an almost 50/50 mix of Coal and Nuclear. Natural Gas use has finally passed coal use for clean energy production. Natural gas is far more readily available to home users and with efficient CSA certified CNG appliances, Time Fill fueling at home is a reality. While we see many businesses such as UPS and Waste Mgmt. go to CNG fueled fleets, more and more trucks are being produced to run on pure CNG only by Kenworth and Peterbuilt for inner city deliveries as the cities require cleaner fleets. Cost of CNG for businesses and home owners who keep their auto's longer than 3 yrs makes sense to use this abundant fuel. As one can see from the map below, we have an extensive network of Natural Gas pipelines and it is continually expanding. Here is the compressor map showing the ability to move natural gas around the US.

BMW is so far out of touch with customers, I suspect we will see them do an about face in the next 5-10 years and consolidate their lineup to be cleaner.