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

balthazar

In Hibernation
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    40,855

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    583

 Content Type 

Everything posted by balthazar

  1. balthazar
    Nuttin' but CURVES!
  2. balthazar
    Correct; 2.7L. Ram's V6 e-torque adds 12 HP and 39 TRQ. I added that much [15/35] to my old F-150 300 I-6 via a chip and I can attest from experience; you cannot discern that little of a power bump. Ie-Torque also ADDS 105 lbs, lessening the benefit. Besides, the Ram e-torque 3.6 still has less HP & TRQ than the Chevy 2.7T [305/269 vs. 310/348]. Hell, the Ram is no better than the Chevy 4.3 V6 [285/305]. Know what I think? People should buy the 5.3L [355/383].
  3. balthazar
    They've also used 6.2L to make 640 HP. It's called 'tuning'. Didn't I mention the 2.0L engine in a full-size pick-up only a few posts earlier??
  4. balthazar
    Looks like a Wagon-Aire.
  5. balthazar
    BS. Everything in production was engineered to that spec, pre-production. Can't have the latter without the former. smk : "Imagine GM telling engineers that the C9 Corvette has to use a sub 2-liter engine but have equal or better performance to the C8. They would just shut down the whole program." smk was speaking hypothetically, and I gave past evidence that disproves his future hypothesis. 'Production' is irrelevant to the discussion, which was about the ability.
  6. balthazar
    No- the need's not there for production as of yet; V8s worked easier and remain fully compliant. But they've successfully done the engineering years ago,and there's still more on the table.
  7. balthazar
    THEY’VE ALREADY DONE IT.
  8. balthazar
    Ford built a 800+ HP 4-cylinder for competition 40 years ago. Chevy has a pedestrian 2.0T developing 310 HP right now, and took an Ecotec 2.0L 4 to 246 MPH 15 years ago. That's faster than a MB GT R with a TT V8 does now. You don't think Chevrolet could take a 2.0L 4 and make it produce 600-700 HP in a Corvette with a snap of their fingers?
  9. balthazar
    Stylistically, these are a pair of 'mehs'; not much of anything going on.
  10. balthazar
  11. balthazar
    String of failures so far from daimler...
  12. balthazar
    ^ 700-R4. - - - - -
  13. balthazar
    Model 3 is without question; minimalist. The question remains; is it 'luxury' tho? - - - - - Who knows wassis?
  14. balthazar
    Prolly not quote as tight, but since both trucks require ‘loose surface’ (IE; dirt), I imagine there’s no difference either way.
  15. balthazar
    It’s ironic- how many times have we said/read ‘why can’t we get the good vehicles here’ yet some markets get our leftovers for DECADES.
  16. balthazar
    Ford Brazil built the '65 Ford Galaxie until 1984. This is a '74 :
  17. balthazar
  18. balthazar
    It's certainly not "heavy" - it's not a subaru.
  19. balthazar
    The current gen GM trucks seems to sit perfectly level, whereas earlier gens were commonly jacked.
  20. balthazar
    Apparently Tesla is under a 500,000 vehicle NHTSA investigation for sudden acceleration. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-could-face-nhtsa-probe-173658343.html
  21. balthazar
    This thought struck me today~ The proponents/religious zealots of autonomous driving cars frequently claim that 'the vast majority of driver's aren't very skilled, and this would help reduce accidents'. There seems to be a huge cross-over where these same proponents also fully support electric vehicles (not yet or neccessarily in the same vehicle). Many of the EVs (and near future EVs) go 0-60 around 3.0 secs. ?
  22. balthazar
    A $40K, $53K, $70K and $125K pickup in no way, shape or form compete with one another.
  23. balthazar
    Chevy, Buick & GMC can add as many as they think prudent. Cadillac needs to remain 'bookended' at the XT4.
  24. balthazar
    Please no XT3 or XT4. I'm begging here.
  25. balthazar
    ^ The 2 pics were taken from the exact same distance & angle. While the gauge pod is the same height, the rest of the Denali dash rises higher than the bottom of the windshield, and it's doesn't on the AT4. IMO, that just makes it appear more claustrophobic and has to cut a bit into the outward vision of shorter drivers.
×
×
  • 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