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

cp-the-nerd

New Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,267

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by cp-the-nerd

  1. cp-the-nerd
    Gonna restore the whole thing?
  2. cp-the-nerd
    Funny how JD Power surveys regularly keep GM in the top half of initial quality and reliability results. CR, on the other hand, can give GM cars like the Impala, Volt, and Lambda crossovers incredibly high test drive ratings and turn around and manufacture reliability faults. Audi in the top 3?? Come the f@#k on. They're still having oil consumption issues in their turbo engines and it's pretty often I hear new stories that would keep me trading in new Audis before the warranty is up.
  3. cp-the-nerd
    I was born in the late 80s, grew up in the 90s, but the auto industry just didn't do anything for me back then. IMO the 90s were one of the worst decades for design. If I had to pick one year that specifically locked in my soul as an auto enthusiast, it was 2008 (MY). GM introduced the 2nd gen Cadillac CTS and the reinvented Chevy Malibu (which I bought a year later). The C6 Corvette was kicking ass with a newly minted LS3 V8, the Cobalt SS Turbo brought an industry first direct injected 2.0T with an unbeatable 260 hp/30 mpg, Pontiac was romping around with the Aussie bruiser known as the G8 sport sedan, and Cadillac was in the midst of a renaissance with Art & Science in full swing and a new 300 hp direct injected V6. Of course, there was an industry wide revitalization of design and performance going on. We had the first retro pony cars, Audi's sweet 4.2L V8, Acura at its best with the TL Type S and TSX, the list goes on.
  4. cp-the-nerd
    I'm between displacement snob and "it depends." I have driven a number of 2.0T sedans that are supposed to replace N/A V6s, and I always come running back to my 7000 rpm 3.6L V6. Between the sound and power delivery, I can't help but find bigger N/A engines vastly superior. At the same time, I'm opposed to trading 2.4L and 2.5L N/A engines for even SMALLER 1.5-1.8L turbos making 170-180 hp. My basic conclusion is if an engine displacement can't comfortably move a car off boost, it's detracting from the car's driving experience every time the turbine has to catch up to your throttle input. Conversely, that also explains why other engines like the 2.7L and 3.5L ecoboost V6s as well as the GM 3.6T and other 3.0T engines from the Germans can work so well. Off boost, they're still making over 200 hp/tq, so turbo lag be damned. I lust over the ATS-V despite the lack of V8.
  5. cp-the-nerd
    Ya know, I always assumed we were the same age, but I didn't actually have proof until now. I'll race your stock fox body in my stock Monte Carlo SS! Both are slower than 4-cylinder family cars now...
  6. cp-the-nerd
    I'd probably go with the '87 Monte Carlo SS off the top of my head. Grand Nationals were badass too, but looks wise, I'm way more into the Monte and I wouldn't feel like I was killing a unicorn by doing an engine swap and heavy mods.
  7. cp-the-nerd
    My only criticism of the GT350 from initial impressions is that the starting price is a base Mustang GT Perf. Pkg with recaros and a Voodoo 5.2L swapped in. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the standard Boss 302 was a much deeper package than that. GM over delivered on the Camaro SS. I think a track battle between the SS and the standard GT350 will be closer than anyone expected.
  8. cp-the-nerd
    Why do you think the 2.0 will be right on its ass? It's off by 60hp and most likely even has LRR tires on it as it is the fuel economy model. It seems like a 14.5 car. I know it makes more torque than the v6 but I can't see it running a 14.1-14.2 to the V6's 13.9-14.1. Two reasons: first, the CTS and ATS already existed with the 2.0T and outgoing LFX V6 side by side, and the acceleration differences are minimal. Motor Trend even found the CTS with both engines to be right on top of each other. Second, the 2016 CTS 2.0T AWD 8-speed auto was already tested by Car & Driver, it ran a 5.8 sec 0-60 and a 14.5 1/4 mile while weighing a bit over 3900 lbs. Assuming logically the Camaro will be a few tenths faster than that (500 lbs advantage), the 2.0T and LGX V6 will be 3 tenths apart at best. HAVE YOU BEEN READING MY DIARY!? I've been wishing and hoping for a Camaro 327 ever since rumors began swirling about the gen 6 Alpha Camaro over a year ago. It's the perfect blend of power for the street and livable fuel economy. The truck engine makes 355 hp/383 lb-ft, so a sporty intake manifold and free flowing exhaust would make around 380/380. Plus the heritage "327" marketing potential.
  9. cp-the-nerd
    yup... You wanna get freaked out? There was a fellow Greek kid that came to my high school when we were both in Grade 10. His high school closed down. We became good friends for the next 2 years when we both graduated high school and then we both went our different ways...This was in 1990. No news from him since then. I met my future wife in December 2001. Her dad had died in 1998... When April 2002 arrived, we went to cemetery to see where her dad was buried, because that was the same cemetery where my grand parents were buried, we did a meeting of our dead relatives... I was looking around at my future father-n-law's neighbors when I saw not too far away down from my future father-n-law, my friend that I havent seen since 1990. He had died in 1994. That's gotta be a shock to the system. Very unfortunate way to discover a lost friend.
  10. cp-the-nerd
    Just understand the context of my disappointment with the V6. Cadillac is using this engine as an upgrade to the 2.0T. GM spent a sh*t-ton of money developing this engine from scratch and it's basically a tenth faster than the outgoing LFX V6 and (presumably) 1-2 mpg more efficient. That's a problem. The 2.0T is still going to be right on its ass performance-wise, there needed to be a .5 second gap or more.
  11. cp-the-nerd
    There are tons of cut apart filters in reference to ACDelco E filters if you google it. Try PF48 vs PF48e. That was my filter, it's a common one.
  12. cp-the-nerd
    Actually, I don't think those "e-core"(as they are called, if I remember correctly) don't have the anti-drain valve. Those are the cheapest of the cheap. I would HOPE they would still use the regular PFXX filter if he's paying for an $80 oil change but that doesn't reall mean anything other than they could take an extra couple bucks by using the "e-core". Well I started a thread over at Bobistheoilguy.com because I'm on that forum as well.. I'll see if anybody has anything other than what I was thinking. Confirming or disproving. I wasn't guessing, I know they have the drain back valve. Like I said I have researched and made a thread somewhere about this. E-core on the left. Standard ACDelco in the middle. Premium filter (rebadged Mobil 1 EP) on the right.
  13. cp-the-nerd
    ACDelco is typically GM's shop brand. I find it strange you have "GM" stamped oil filters. Anyway, all ACDelco filters have drain back valves, HOWEVER, in recent years, ACDelco started rolling out "e" label filters that are cheaper. I believe I had a thread about this here or on MT at some point. The "e" filters are actually rebadged Fram e-core junk. They have back flow valves, but everything about the filter is low quality. I had to switch filters because they stopped selling the good ones in a lot of sizes. Very disappointing.
  14. cp-the-nerd
    Camaro V6 tests are out, and frankly they're a bit underwhelming in a straight line, though reviewers seem to like them quite a bit. Problem is, the LGX V6 is supposed be a step beyond the outgoing LFX V6, it has big shoes to fill in the Cadillac lineup, but fails to stack up where it needs to be in terms of outright performance. Where it does seem to succeed is sound and refinement, but given that this is an entirely new engine from the ground up, it needed to be more IMO. Motor Trend - RS V6 Automatic 0-60: 5.3 sec 1/4 mi: 13.8 @102.9 Lat grip: .92g Curb weight: 3440 lbs http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/2016-chevrolet-camaro-rs-v-6-first-test-review/ Car & Driver - RS V6 Manual 0-60: 5.4 sec 1/4 mi: 14.1 @100 Lat grip: .91g Curb weight: 3460 lbs http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-chevrolet-camaro-v-6-manual-test-review
  15. cp-the-nerd
    Motor Trend - Base SS 6-speed Manual 0-60: 4.0 sec 1/4 mi: 12.4 @ 114.6 mph Lat grip: 1.00g Bass SS curb weight: 3670 lbs http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-first-test-review/ C&D - Loaded SS 8-speed auto 0-60: 3.9 sec 1/4 mi: 12.3 @ 116 mph Lat grip: .98g Loaded curb weight: 3760 lbs http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-automatic-test-review Autoblog - Loaded V6 + V6 delivers good sound (!!) and unexpected performance + Crazy low weight 3450 lbs + Interior ergonomics - Some poor interior fitment (pre-production?) http://www.autoblog.com/2015/10/16/2016-chevrolet-camaro-first-drive-review-video/
  16. cp-the-nerd
    I believe GM announced the Z71 and Trail Boss packages will offered with the diesel. The Canyon Denali hasn't been unveiled yet.
  17. cp-the-nerd
    Motor Trend's affiliate that does the "Real MPG" ratings tested a Colorado 2.8L Diesel and achieved 23.2 city/31.4 highway/26.3 combined. Pretty solid numbers. Cracking 30 mpg in a truck with towing capacity more in line with V8s 10 years ago is pretty awesome. For argument sake, the EPA rates the larger and more powerful RAM Ecodiesel at 20 mpg city/28 highway. It's an apples/oranges comparison, but take it for what you will. http://gmauthority.com/blog/2015/10/2016-chevrolet-colorado-duramax-returns-31-4-mpg-highway-and-26-3-combined-in-controlled-testing
  18. cp-the-nerd
    That first sentence, lmao! You got me.
  19. cp-the-nerd
    Not sure if I misunderstood you, but yes the 335 hp LGX is the Camaro's midlevel engine upon release.
  20. cp-the-nerd
    @ ccap - Misread your question. The MPG numbers I posted are for the CTS. The ATS fuel economy is like .5 to 1 mpg better.
  21. cp-the-nerd
    Instrumented test was a CTS done by Car & Driver. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-cadillac-cts-test-review This trans is the light-duty 8-speed and it is indeed debuting in a Cadillac, though the '16 Camaro is on the way and will share it. The heavy-duty 8-speed is the 8L90, and it debuted in the Corvette followed by the Escalade, then a bunch of other GM trucks, and now the '16 ATS-V, CTS-V, and CT6 3.0T. Are you saying you think GM should have delayed other applications to separate Cadillac? Usually that's a cost and trickle down situation, if GM can afford to pass around the 8-speed tech, that's a good thing.
  22. cp-the-nerd
    I found the updated EPA estimates a bit lackluster. Basically 1 mpg gained across the board. I was hoping for better highway FE, but maybe GM is going for achievable real-world ratings. 2.0T RWD 21/31/25 mpg 3.6L RWD 20/30/24 mpg The first test of the 2016 CTS 2.0T/8A ran a sub-6 second 0-60 sprint and a mid 14 second 1/4 mile. Those are brisk acceleration times, the new V6 should have solid gains over that.
  23. cp-the-nerd
    The Escalade got an 8-speed at the same time as the Silvy. The CTS had an outsourced 8-speed at introduction in the 2014 V-Sport and 3.6L LFX V6 RWD models. The 2016 ATS/CTS are getting a different light duty 8-speed that GM was still putting finishing touches on for the 2.0T and 3.6L LGX. They staggered the release rather than holding back models that were already complete.
  24. cp-the-nerd
    The Stingray finally nails the convertible profile, which the Corvette hasn't done in decades (IMO). They must have learned something proportion-wise when they did the outgoing Camaro vert, which was somehow better looking than the coupe. The new Camaro vert is also a serious looker. 10 years ago, every convertible out there looked like they required a driver with pastel colored sweater draped over the shoulders and a fake tan.
  25. cp-the-nerd
    I wish I had a filter layout like that. Must have something to do with transverse vs longitudinal engine bay packaging. @ ccap - FE hit isn't nearly as bad as the window sticker (17/26 EPA rating compared to the 4-cylinder's 22/33). Just went 1044 miles on a vacation road trip and averaged out 28.4 mpg (hand calculated) with about 5% city mixed in. On the drive down, I averaged 31 mpg (DIC) with 70-75 mph highway speeds. It was crazy. Even if there was tailwind, I was driving through rain sporadically and using A/C most of the drive with the car loaded down.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

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