ccap41

Something about this piqued my interest and I want one. Okay, I don't have a spare 1.15M+ sitting around nor the schooling and hours to fly one even if I did have the cash but this certainly has me interested. I'm not 100% sure why, but it really does. I think I looked at it and thought, "damn, "that's a pretty lookin' plane.", then thought how a 7-seater would also be relatively "practical". It's pretty, it's "practical" I LIKE IT!

1-2 MPG is a pretty large percent when the vehicles were getting 17mpg or so, at the time, highway mileage. It was likely all pushed by EPA regulations. "According to EPA test drives, the technology effectively improves fuel economy by 6 to 8 percent." https://www.autobytel.com/car-ownership/active-fuel-management-general-motors-104039/#:~:text=The technology made its debut,allowed for more reliable performance.

There is a zero percent chance this frame is as rigid as it was prior to holes being put in it. I'm not saying there aren't ways around making more interior space (although I think the hump in SUVs is grossly overblown) but this is not one of them. Where's the GIF of the Tundra dancing over bumps?

You're very open about not liking anything from Europe. I'm not sure how that's even an assumption.

Yeah, I can't remember a time when it got in the way. Anybody who's regularly seating 3 wide in the middle row likely had a 3-row SUV and is then not utilizing the middle seat anyway and, if they are, it's for a child or very occasional adult. I could see utilizing it more in a truck where the whole back seat folds up and there's a large open area on the floor, for things I didn't want in the bed. That could be a hinderance if there was a hump all along the middle.

Personally, I don't really care about a 2-3 inch hump for whatever needs to go through there. It impedes next to nothing on a regular basis. A 6 inch bump? That would be bothersome more regularly. I don't even know if my MKC or Escape had one. I'll have to look for pictures online, they probably do.

Thank you for the useful input. His intent is obvious in every thread.

That wasn't what I meant by that. I was just saying he would be okay with it in an Avalanche or anything from GM, but that same size hump he would complain about in anything from Europe. Funny enough, looking at weathertech for good pictures, it looks like the older GL-Class had less of a hump than the newer GLS. Not by a ton, but it looks lower from their pictures. But also, looking at all three of them X7, Q7, and GLS, they all have a little hump in the middle of the 2nd row.

Well, David would if the same exact hump were in anything from Europe.

Thanks, I definitely looked at pictures of everything before commenting but they certainly did not look like those.

Why Especially the Germans? The Silverado/Sierra, Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade, Blazer, Trailblazer. and Coloado/Canyon all have humps in the rear floor.

I've always done 5000 mile intervals on my vehicles with full synthetic. Just yesterday I changed the oil in my MKC and, I believe, this was the lowest I've seen the oil live monitor for 5000 miles and it was at 35%. Usually it's within a couple percent of 50%, give or take. 5000 miles is just a nice round number for me to track oil change intervals. With that said, I also go a little thicker than Ford asks, because I have trust issues and a tad thicker never hurt anything. I run 5w-40 instead of 5w-30. I also used one of the Seafoam top end spray cleaners to hopefully minimize and/or clean up some of the carbon buildup on the intake valves.

This is WAAAAY beyond that though. And, again, this isn't a high revving and low torque engine. This wasn't a question of preference, it was a question of what facts do you have to prove that these will be unreliable? Turbos have become more and more common since the 80's so I cannot imagine the technology surrounding the concept of turbo charging and engine has not advanced along with the oil that lubricates them. The day this engine was finalized, it should have been put into the Colorado/Canyon. It just seemed way too perfect for this application.

You were talking about the engine being too small and needing so much boost, hence the Silverado mention. It's ironic you don't trust the technology of small boosted engines but admire other technological advances in automobiles.

But where is the proof that the list of vehicles you mentioned plus, let's add in other small boosted engines, like the ones I mentioned, that they're not being properly maintained? I don't recall you being so fearful of the Silverado 2.7T.

How do you know this? Are you in those Facebook groups or forums? Do you check various CarFaxes for ones for sale? Outside of the STi, I don't hear of any constant issues with any of the mentioned vehicles adding the Focus ST/RS, Fiesta ST, Silverado 2.7T, and Civic Type R. Yes, every vehicle has its weak point but lubricating parts is VERY rarely one of them.

So with what Drew said, with the 25% oil life and being able to hear the engine(with the turbo cars), with you saying you hear THE SAME difference in your N/A V8, why the fear for this engine? You're assuming Average Joe and Jane are buying 40-50k Corollas and using them like any other vehicle. I don't see why you think the buyers of this wouldn't follow the proper oil change intervals yet you probably think the owners of 2.7T Silverados change their oil PROMPTLY at 25% oil life(5625 miles - 7500 mile interval - 25%). Also, this was a joke, hence the "ironically" thrown in there because you're obviously into new technology, yet think a small boosted engine will fail - as if they're not utilizing the most modern of engine/turbo/oil technologies.

You know trades happen all the time in sports, right? The idea is to benefit both parties, neither one is trying to get fleeced in the transaction but to both get pieces to help themselves.

Sounds like David is, ironically, afraid of new technology and assumes it will fail.

This all got me a little curious... The 1.0 Ecoboost makes 24psi from the factory(Overseas FiST). It's a little tougher to find boost pressure for engines that are utilized across a multitude of vehicles but I believe the GM 1.4T makes 16psi.

Silverado 2.7T utilizes 22psi from the factory. Civic Type R makes 23.2psi from the factory. I also don't think it should be assumed a 60k car gets taken care of better than a 40k car. Both are geared towards enthusiasts and I don't think it's unrealistic to think both would be, generally, maintained about the same by the owners.

What's your definition of this?

This is where I see the Honda brand going downhill. I don't think it would be a good merger for the Honda name but it would probably benefit GM. Long-term, I don't think it would necessarily work well.

I would guess that being able to scale up for multiple vehicles (GM and Honda) would also help bring down some of the costs, being able to amortize across a lot more units. Regardless if a Honda or GM sells, Both get a bit of the pie. I'm not sure why this is a bad thing. Two heads are always better than one. What's funny, is that sounds exactly like something he would have said. "The customer doesn't care if X engine is in XYZ vehicle, they just want it to work right and get the from A to B".