Eric Bryant

Is an countershaft even effective at balancing out a 90-degree V6? It has a primary imbalance, not the secondary imbalance of a inline-4, and so I think it's a completely different situation. Frankly, the cost difference between the two engines is basically a wash compared to the big question that's out there - which one can be run down an existing assembly line? If the V6 shares the same 4.4" bore spacing as the current GM V8s, then it'll be far less expensive to tool-up than a smaller V8 with a reduced bore spacing. As to comments from others about the V8 having "more torque", keep in mind that when talking about engines of equal displacement, the one having fewer cylinders will typically have a higher peak torque at a lower RPM. Simply compare the average sportbike 1000cc V-twin to a 1000cc I4 and see what the powerbands look like. V8s are not inherently torquey; they're that way because they carry a lot of displacement.

Actually, I saw Hudson make the comment that he works in the industry. I'm not sure where or in what capacity, but for those of us in the supplied-component business, the transplants (imports) have been very good to us. So, in a roundabout fashion, many of us are "hooked up to receive pay" for any anti-domestic propaganda we may be spreading. If I were coming at this from a purely selfish standpoint, I'd tell you to buy an Accord over a G6 since my bonus is tied to profit, and my employeer makes far more money from the former than the latter. A better example yet is a Civic vs. the Cobalt - my employer makes a particular component right here in Michigan for the Civic that's used world-wide (even in Japan), while the Cobalt uses a component that's make in S. Korea. So, tell me what "buying American" means again? Now, by no means do I want to see any of the Big 3 go down, because anyone who says that it'd have disasterous consequences is exactly right. In fact, I'd like to see them return to their glory days, since I really like a lot of the product they've put out over the years, and I like what they've done for this country as a whole. But the way I see it, the domestic OEMs have depended too much on the generousity of their buyers for way too long, and they've also lost track of what made them so great. Chrysler has scored big with 300C/Magnum/Charger, and Ford has an undeniable hit with the Mustang. Why? I think it's because those cars are distinctly "American" in character. Make something that's as interesting to me as my Impala, and I can ignore all sorts of minor flaws. Make it a souless appliance that's intended to go head-to-head with the Asians, and then by all means I'll nitpick it to death. GM's condition has just as much to do with the cars they were trying to sell 5, 10, 15 years ago as it does with the cars they're selling today. Is it fair that they're suffering because of years of Luminas and Cavaliers? Maybe, maybe not, but the marketplace isn't about being "fair". If they intend to recapture sales, it'll take cars that aren't just "as good as" the competition, but rather stuff that's out-of-the-ballpark better. There seems to be this mentality that it's all about how much GM spends on the product, but I think it's more than that - the company needs to find some soul. And don't give me any crap about how Honda or Toyota or whomever doesn't have any "soul" - let the competition do what they must. GM's had an eye on the competition for way too long, and that's lead directly to them being a follower instead of a leader, and constantly a model generation behind. Whew. I didn't expect that long of a rant :)