motorman

Well, most drivers don't put E-10 in their car so why should anyone test with E-10 as a "standard"? As a matter of fact, using this fuel or that fuel is not particularly important. What is important is that everybody is using the same fuel during their tests.

The problem with EPA numbers is two fold.

The first being that EPA's defined cycles are not particularly reflective of typical driving habits of Americans (or any other market group for that matter). It is also completely separate from the standard used to determine CAFE contributions and/or European fuel consumption numbers. This has gotten slightly better over the years, but overall EPA numbers overstate mileage. IMHO, that is actually just fine as long as it is consistent. But it is frequently not.

The second being that the EPA does not actually test the vehicles. Many people think that manufacturers send their cars to the EPA and they get official mpg numbers in return for their window stickers. That cannot be further from the truth. The EPA defines the test cycles and does not actually do any testing. There isn't even an independent 3rd party (like a UL or whatever) doing the testing. The manufacturers do their own testing and report their own numbers. They are supposed to base their testing strictly on EPA's test guidelines. But as it turns out, some flat of do not and others "game" the system by testing with with environmental preconditions that are not representative of typical situations.

most states have to use E-10 gsoline to meet the federal mandated emissions for their area. i know from personal experience that E-10 will drop the MPG about 2 MPG in the same car on the same trips

do they do the tests with E-10 as not using E-10 will give you more MPG.

i was stuck in a 28 mile long traffic jam and it took over 6 hours to get out of it. how many times can this system restart the car when you only move less than a car length each move? can it be shut off ?

it needs the CTS-V engine as a option to be a serious contender for a performance coupe.might even get me out of my 2008 corvette

I agree.

The "Sport" trim is now an appearance package. Why not slap it on the XFE?

people who worry about 1 or 2 MPG are not going to pay extra for a "appearance package". also anything that adds weight hurts the mileage as i get a big kick out of some 250/300# car owner complaining about gas mileage.

i will be interested in the car after i see the real world MPG to see if they beat the mrs 04 impala LS 20/22 MPG every day driving and 28/30 MPG on trips.

The big, squarish, aluminum contraption is not the aftercooler. It looks like the intake plenum. In the classic "M" arrangement for a roots type blower, the blower is underneath in the valley of the "Vee". Air goes into the blower horizontally from the front or the rear. It blows upwards through an air-to-water aftercooler and ends up in the squarish manifold plenum on top. The intake runners from the side of the plenum straight down to the intake ports.

i bet the corvette is twin turbocharged because belt driven blower eat up HP and hurt fuel mileage. JMHO

i can smell a class action lawsuit by people who bought the cars before the improvements. the lawyers are ready to pounce because these changes were made before the model year change.

how is a farmer to push start his tractor with the plastic front bumper??????

Anyone here have a clue to what this is? Is this the long talked about and never seen Chevy 3 valve head?

I posted it here as this was on the CamaroZ28.com site and they were all wondering if this may be a glimps of the future Camaro engine.

If anything it is GM and a very interesting layout. Some over there were claiming red lines od 6,600 to 7,000. Also it was claimed to have the same low end torque as a LS but it continued where the other stopped. If true this would be a big jump over the Ford 3 valve.

All of this is speculation from the Camaro web site and has not been confirmed.

So just enjoy till we hear more!

190219[/snapback]

this design with the short across the head pushrod for the exhaust valve was used in a 1939 BMW to make a cross flow head using pushrods with the cam in the block

that design using the short across the head pushrod was used on the 1939 BMW to make a cross flow head. nothing new about this design.

they are still paying roger smith a million $$$ a year pension so they have not yet gotten rid of the "cuture". he is the one who screwd GM up to the place were it has almost went under.

Dodgefan:

The Chevy Rep Girl said it best at NYIAS.

The Challenger is flat, it's like throwing a

brick down the highway, versus the

Camaro which is sculpted, aerodynamic

and flows air throughout & around the

car in a 21 century maner. The Challenger

is very cool, don;t get me wrong, but

when GM said the Camaro borrows styling

from the YF22 they were not just saying

that like most B.S. marketing/P.R.

that is GM problem,too much wind tunnel designs and all the cars look the same. you can hardly tell the new models from the old ones. the reasons DC cars are selling so well is they look different. no one wants to spend money on a new car and have the new one look like the old one

how do you know its not stainless steel?

thats the problem, in '00 they switched to regular steel with a ruber coat to save costs... but they corroded regaurdless of insulation...

mine are flat metal straps not covered cable. they are plated steel because there is some rust on them

The problem is that they went from stainless braided in the last model to a steel braid with a rubber cover.  The idea was reduced cost and same effective life but, moisture and dirt got underneath the rubber and the braids started to corrode.

Newbiewar, these cables are a 1/4" in diameter and A-36 steel brades have a modulus of rigidity of 11200 ksi that is 11,200,000 lbs/in^2.  They are by no means undersized or dangerous!  The problem here was simply the switch from stainless to standard steel brades.  The cables themselves are design with a factor of safety on the payload capacity.  If you don't exceed the payload you most certianly will not exceed the maximum strain for the cables.

my 88 silverado has the steel strap type tail gate holders and no problems in 18 years and 130K + miles. they just tried to cheap things and the person who came up with this idea should be fired if not aleady