oldshurst442

Whatever happens.  Ill be ready.  Ill just turn to the past.

Stellantis is going I6 too though.

Stellantis is doing this for different reasons.  The French group part  HAS EV technology and has seen success selling them in Europe already.  This R&D technology was created and existed BEFORE  the French Group bought out FCA. So for Stellantis, R&D for EVs has been invested and continue to do so.   And with the advent of Chrysler engineers, the SRT guys, more engineering brain power has entered the fray. 

 There are plenty of Stellantis brands with an already established performance image with a plethora of performance vehicles to make a good business case in introducing as a final internal combustion engine offering in their line-up.  Couple that Stellantis ALSO has a bevy of luxury minded brands as well, an I6 for smoothness is yet another good reason to engineer a last internal combustion offering ever as an inline 6. 

11 hours ago, smk4565 said:

EV will allow them to do this.  Where as you can't fit a supercharged V8 into a GMC Terrain, you can put 2 electric motors making 500 hp in there.  You can put 500 hp in a Trax or a Bolt and have an EV that is like $30k after tax credits that can beat a $150,000 Corvette Z06 in a drag race.  EV lets you make anything fast, which will also make the performance cars of yesterday look bad. 

CAFE is basically the reason small trucks are dead, the Maverick only meets CAFE because it is a hybrid.  But in EV land, GM can bring back a small truck like a Maverick, have a 200 hp version, a 400 hp dual motor, an 800 hp quad motor if they want to.

 

 

Yes. That is EXACTLY why I mentioned the Typhoon and Syclone with the same breath as hinting at battery electric technology and why I think that Mazda offering an inline 6 at THIS point in time to change image is too little too late. 

I am not at all surprised at GMC never again revisiting a speed performance smallish SUV and pick-up truck.  The Syclone and Typhoon were not well recieved by the public back in the day.  The concept of zero ground clearance and no hauling capacity on utilitaerian vehicles  confused people.  And GMC as a brand wasnt coveted either.  But like you said, today is a different time.  GMC has brand cachet where GMC could re-enter the realm of speed oriented CUVs and pick-ups and join the ranks of Porsche Cayennes, Lambo Urus and the like with Battery Electrics.   As you said.  

12 hours ago, smk4565 said:

I don't think there is any negative to the Inline 6 other than they are too long/wide if you try to put it in a front wheel drive car.  And most car makers the past 40 years wanted to build mediocre front wheel drive cars.  Unless you have a V12, nothing is going to beat inline 6 smoothness.

I think inline 6s are OVERrated.  

Smoothness is just about the ONLY advantage I see in the world that consisted of stringent CAFE measures, downsize-ment and fuel economy.  From the 1970s until just about the 2000s.   The V6, in longtitude form in a RWD config but ESPECIALLY in tranverse form for FWD was just about THE only way to go.   For packaging purposes because cars did get smaller but I6 were also gas guzzlers...   

Inline 6s made sense again from 2000s up until today because of new technologies making I6s more frugal on gasoline consumption.  Couple that with turbocharging and these engines were beasts.  But then again, supercharged V8s not only come in smaller packages as compared to I6s, especially in OHV form, may make similar power, but a whole LOT more TORQUE...   

And... in the freewheelin' days of the 1960s, when gas mileage was not an issue but huge horsepower was, big cubed V8s were the answer.   Because NO I6 could even come CLOSE to the horsepower those big block V8s produced.  And...when big crass noise exited the huge ass muscle car when revving up the big V8 and the whole road shook, never mind the car itself, smoothness was NOT a factor...   And...472 and 500 some odd cubic inched V8 Cadillacs and 460 cubic inched Lincolns tuned to be revving up lazily just as smooth as an I6.   Couple those Caddys and Lincolns with that pillowy suspensions they had and smoothness was unparalleled.   Only French cars were smoother.   And the DS from Citroen had a buzzy I4.   The SM had a V6...   Answer: hydropneumatic suspension. 

Engine smoothness is cool and all.  But where I live, shytty road surfaces are a thing and honestly,  I6s are a moot point.  So yeah... a better suspension ABSORBING potholes is a much more appreciated asset than an I6.   

So yeah, these are just a few reasons why I think inline 6s ARE overrated.  

If battery electrics have their batteries under the carriage and are in a skateboard platform and the weight of the battery  is between front  and back wheels, then THAT weight is distributed equally along the length of the vehicle.   Forgetting for a moment about the dynamics of pushing versus pulling.  Winter driving should technically be the same whether FWD or RWD.  In a RWD only BEV,   the motor driving the rear wheels is in the back and on TOP of the rear wheels  so the the weight is... on the wheels that do the propulsion and therefore no different than a FWD ICE car regarding weight on the driving wheels...and since the weight of the battery is more or less equal across the length of the vehicle, a RWD only BEV may not be that much of a nuissance in snow as compared to a RWD ICE vehicle.    

Since GMC went Hummer

Since GMC is serious with AT4, GMC may NOW need to dip themselves into this realm. 

and then maybe revisit this

6. There is a reason why inline 6s went away m at the end of the 70s mostly in favour of transverse 4s and 6s.   Because in MANY aspects, it was NOT the superior drivetrain.   V8 with RWD for performance and transverse V6 for packaging.   

Sure inline 6s are smoother, but there are many negatives attached to the inlline config.  

VW had MAJOR success in combining V and Inline.  Quite a good engine.  Sporty cars too using that set-up WITH FWD and AWD.   BMW does inline 6s good.  THAT is their thing. Just like GM does pushrod V8s good. That is their thing.  But an inline 6 is NOT the end all be all.  

I like Mazda.   (I thought Id start off by saying to let people know about how I feel about Mazda)

But Mazda done inline 6 with a turbo on a RWD theme to go upmarket.   Commendable Id say.  If this was 1999.

GMC started going upmarket about that time and coincidentally,  offered an inline 6.   Ironically, Mazda almost introduced a brand new luxo brand 10 years prior but the leaders that be didnt have enough confidence to pull it off like their crosstown rivals Honda, Toyota and Nissan done...   But they did sell that one car they enginnered as their first luxo brand vehicle into a Mazda but it didnt quite hit the sales mark so the  leaders were quite correct in the fear and assumptions of a new luxo Mazda brand not succeeding.

Also, Lexus SUCCEEDED with a TON of transverse V6, FWD  sedans and CUVs without the dumb moniker of ultimate driving machines and right wheel drive---RWD.  

What Im trying to say is that 

1. inline 6 turbos in 2024 at the dawn of the EV era might just BE too little too late for an image boost and market shift for Mazda

2.  GMC has succeeded going up...UP market WITHOUT the use of an inline 6.  Their big models use V8s, but their smaller offerings use, since the last 40 years, the tried and true transverse V6 WITH FWD bias AWD.   

3.  I may bitch about CUVs quite often, but a transverse V6 and FWD is not necessarily an inferior drivetrain to a RWD set-up.    It depends what the vehicle is set up for and what the driver needs of his sedan or CUV.    Ill argue that an inline 6 ON TOP of the front wheel axles would ALSO be a shytty set-up REGARDLESS of the rears pushing the car forward.   As much of a shytty set-up as having a shytty tuned transverse V6 with the fronts pulling the car.  

BMW CUVs with inline sixes are nothing to write home about.  And I would bet the Mazda CUV would be the same shyttyness as the Bimmers.   And what is also tricky is that inline 6es tend to be quite long making them NOT ideal in certain packaging criteria regarding...well, comfort for the passenger in the cabin. And being RWD also cuts into that said comfort.  You know...for luxury purposes.    

 I could be wrong though, with my assesment of things.  

But probably not since I have NEVER drank from the BMW fountain and their so called definition of luxury.   With driving dynamics.  Yeah...I never biught into that hot garbage either.  At least not with their econobox offerings.   

4. Mazda made and continue to make some pretty cool and sporty,  small FWD cars with transverse 4 pots.   

5. GMC need NOT learn ANYTHING from Mazda.   Not even BMW.  GMC done success their way.  They need to inspire to Frank Sinatra and continue on doing what they do.  

On 9/14/2023 at 7:54 AM, Robert Hall said:

I get the appeal of CUVs compared to sedans, though.   I prefer sedans and SUVs, but a CUV is low to the ground like a sedan, higher H-point so they are easy to get in and out of, more headroom, more cargo room than a sedan without the stigma of a minivan or heft of an SUV..  for example, comparing my sister's Equinox to a simiarly priced Malibu, it's more practical for her use case...easy to get in and out of, easy to drive around town, room to pack up 3 months worth of stuff when snowbirding in the winter. I don't want a CUV, but I understand why the general public like them--they are very practical vehicles. 

I get the appeal of CUVs as well.   I really do.   

No!  I absolutely do!   Really.

Sedans...our beloved American sedans have been downsized, shrunk, made smaller in EVERY metric that CUVs HAVE become the defacto quintessential American land yacht.  Well...pick-up trucks have almost taken that role in some parts of both of our countries, but in most areas, 'tis the CUV.   Ingrees, Egress, headroom and everything else you described... and our beloved American land yacht ALL had those qualities but were taken away.  

What I lament is the loss of the unique styling those old barges had between the brands of the time DESPITE them being ancient 3 box designs. 

What I also lament is the loss of what cars used to be to people and why cars like coupes and convertibles existed and what cars have become to people and whay expendable CUVs exist today.

I think THAT is what is ailing me more than the CUV itself. 

On 9/13/2023 at 8:59 PM, Jamie said:

You know when she's running hard. Had no issues cruising at 120km/hr on the highways in New Brunswick when I was bringing her home, though the front end was a little harsh as the previous owner had over inflated the tires for storage..

It needs better tires. That's a task for the future as it'll need a minimum of USD$1500 for new wheels (hubcentric 16" Ions if I can't find a set of hub centric 16" Alcoas at the right price). The current 16.5" steel wheels are really set up for cross plys, though it is running LT radials.

Post some pics again when you get the right rims.  

4 hours ago, ccap41 said:

The little nip-tuck looks great here. It wasn't bad looking before. I think the current one looks good but this is a nice little update. 

What I wanted to say.  

Short and sweet.  Im glad you said it rather than me. I would have added another paragragh or two.  

Purrs like a kitten at idle. 

Bet she roars like a lion at full throttle despite it being in an RV. 

@A Horse With No Name 

40-0  

Impressive

I wonder if the Giants complained today for Dallas running up the score.  For trying to win in the last quarter despite them leading with the amount they led.  I mean, they forced another fumble... common now...

Oh...those are silly childish unwritten rules in...baseball.  

Hockey sometimes gets into those stupid childish things too...   Im thankfull for at least that in football.  

I could do without the over-the top exuberant cellys after a play of some sorts in the 1st or 2nd quarter tho...

That goes for all 3 sports that I watch actually. 

And why dont I feel bad for Aaron Rodgers injuring his ankle? 

I have really slowed down in being a car enthusiast as well.   Im looking  to learn and love new types of cars to feed my car craziness.   And its not these modern ones.  Its all older cars.  And from continents other than this one as its become almost boring to always post pics and read stuff about American cars of the 50s, 60s and 70s.   We've done that hundreds of times.  If not thousands.   I miss @balthazar to read about his endeavors of the (American) classics.  

About EVs for me.

Unless the automakers make these EVs interesting stylistically, Im not sooooo amuzed by them.  B But that has nothing to do with battery electric motorvation either.  The ICE vehicles are just as boring to look at.  CUVs and pick-up trucks are not fun  things.  Regardless what powers them.

Ive talked about this before.  

Looking back at cars like a Honda CRX or Subaru SVX or even a Nissan Pulsar, I hated these things back then.  Maybe not the SVX. I liked that one. But...there is absolutely NOTHING like that today.  OK...Nissan and KIA tried to do something like that with CUV type cars.   The Cube, the Juke and the Soul.    Great and good for them.. They were still boxes on wheels.  Ugly boxes on wheels.  The Puslar was also a box on wheels.  But it somehow was more special...  And it has NOTHING to do with me being reminiscent of my youth.    Because I also have fondeness for a Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe.  Those would be in the same vain as the Cube, Juke and Soul.  All CUVs.  And I wasnt a teen when the Matrix and Vibe came out.  Its just that...today's vehicles SUCK.  JUST like everything else that our world today has come too.   From pop culture to our cars and our technologies.  I LOVE what our computers, phones, internet and 5G could do for us.  I HATE what we actually DO with it.  Our world SUCKS today in more ways than one! 

Me too actually.  On both accounts.  I prefer the Trans Am over the Camaro but in 2023, they are on equal footing.  Same for the Mustang. I didnt like that '80s Mustang at all.  But I loooong for one today.  There are a few around in my neighborhood and I grin every single time I see one.  I would sooooo own one right now and drive the heck out of it.  Proudly I might add. 

Same with the Japanese sports cars of that era.  Most of those I liked, maybe in a more hush hush manner. But today, I have a deep, as you said, fondness for them. 

10 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Quoted for truth. Apparently Canadians get something right once in awhile.  Does not mean that I hate the 

Any less. 

 

 

Canadians...ALL Canadians dont like the Maple Leafs either.   Only Canadians from the GTA area tolerate the Leafs.  

9 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

I kinda want an '80s IROC-Z w/ t-tops to go w/ my 5.0..

 Speaking of GTA.  

Not exactly a Camaro IROC.   Diffrent but same;  a picture of...until you find and buy your IROC-Z.