balthazar

>>"Am I the only one that thinks for the price that the Phantom and Mayback are, their door panels are jokes?"<< No, you're not.

Interior on the chinese version looks nicer, but the exterior certainly does not "outclass" the American Buick and the chinese nose is far more dated. Captainbooyah: >>"I'm sure the results will be nothing but excellent."<< Why- what from experience has ever reinforced that theory for you ??

I have not encountered anyone calling 'GM', 'GMC', but no doubt it happens occasionally. But personally I am not in favor of emblems reading 'GMC Trucks' again because the 'Trucks' portion is redundant IMO. And so would my vote go for the header: the division's products are branded "GMC", the forum should be the same (in reality- everyone knows what it is either way). Is the Cadillac forum "Cadillac Motor Car Division"? And yes I'd call the Acadia a truck before I called it a car.

I did know the mercedes-bach from the curtain, but I was thinking #5 was range rover. It has some appeal, even tho it's so blocky (now I know why). Cadillac has the most artistic application of wood of any of them- flows nicely.

Tho for the life of me I've never encountered the term 'M-car' in reference to the bmws, the ruling makes sense, esp when compounded by useage of 'M-car' and M6 by nissan. Dopes.

Well, I don't know what any of them come from, so here goes. They all suffer from excess plastic and plasticy wood. #1: bad- a giant oversized grab handle & cheesy fiberglas carpeting. #3: bad- (I'm ignoring the curtain), looks lux but not a cohesive design. #4: awful- way too 'space-shippy' #5: bad- had better be in an SUV- too blocky for a car. #6: OK- bland #7: awful- way too 'space-shippy' Only one I find tolerable (or 'good') would be #2

Yeah- I need wheelwell moldings and Invicta rocker moldings for the '59, and front fenders & running boards for the '40. Ford COEs are the same generation: '38-42 & '46-47.

The assumption above regarding the DTS is that the majority of buyers purchase it primarily because it's FWD- has this factor EVER been surveyed before ??? I do not believe there's much validity to that theory- IMO the DTS sells on what it is as far as quality, ride, amenities, room, style, power, etc, but not necessarily because it's FWD. I have no problem with 1 FWD car in Caddys lineup, but importpollyannas won't forgive it (even tho they'd never buy a Cadillac in their life because of the 'baggage'), so it's probably wise to switch the DTS back to RWD with an AWD option.

Ahh- I see; dealer ads. Sure- mistakes there all the time. The Scat Pack ad I posted on above was a national print ad from ChryCo.

The one that springs to mind for me is an 8-page Dodge 'Scat Pack' as I have for '71, where each page is a performance model ad. Among them is the '71 Challenger T/A... which was not produced for '71 at all. Reportedly the car was airbrushed- it never even existed.

I think the DuraMax 'pulls off' a IBC/4V system by being a diesel (high CR reduces the need for a particular-shape, combustion-friendly chamber) and by being a diesel (no spark plug... tho where is the glow plug?) >>"That is all four valves are parallel to each other."<< = valve faces are all in the same plane. >>"this is bad for airflow, but it is good enough for a diesel which revs in the 3250 rpm redline."<< Hence: turbochargin', baby. >>"In general DOHC engines have less pumping losses "<< >>"Increased airflow = reduced pumping losses. Period."<< So did we not just agree?; a DOHC will appear to have a lower quantity of friction due to increased airflow, not because of actual lesser frictional quanitities from the valvetrain. This does not prove but does lends creedence to the theory that a 2V IBC valvetrain may have less friction than (esp) a DOHC design. Score one more for the IBC.

Hey Chris- ever notice any '59 Buicks or cab-over-engine Ford trucks from the '40s in that OH yard?

>>...in general DOHC-4 valve designs have not just higher power but also higher torque yield than IBC-OHV designs of the same displacement. ...If the frictional qualities are inferior or even equal, and accessory tap off is roughly the same, then the only reason this can be the case is higher pumping loss."<< What about increased airflow, possible increased combustion efficiency and increased RPM of a DOHC head? A straight displacement/output comparison is not 'apples-to-apples' and is not valid proof of anything here other than a broad generality. We're attempting to discern the pros & cons of 2 different valvetrain designs- factors such as metallurgy & lubricant quality are not design parameters nor should they be factors. >>"But they do because the wear resistance of the contact surface is very much affected by the material and lubrication. This governs how much spring pressure you can apply before wear becomes unacceptable."<< Wear is achieved over great spans of time- even a brand-new, blueprinted engine with no wear can achieve valve float if improperly spec'd; these are 2 different issues. The only way to objectively & scientifically determine the facts here is obtain 2 identical engines (displacement, materials, # of cylinders, piston speed, clearances, redline, etc), but have one a 2-valve IBC design and 1 a 2-valve OHC design. Only then could friction be measured & compared. >>"In short, if you have advanced, very wear resistant materials and very good lubricants, you can use higher spring rates and still have the parts last the same amount of time. "<< Truw, if not longer... have you ever tried to manually cut tool or spring steel?

enzl= >>"So, all of these sources...."<< do not make the "hyundai" NAMEPLATE a quality one. The vast majority of their history in this market has ranged from disasterous to mediocre; the NAMEPLATE is still heavily tarnished & equated with poor quality, and rightly so. "It will take many years for the consumer to change their mind based on past experience, even in light of the few quality improvements made in the last year or 2."

'86 Pontiac Grand Prix 2+2: only 1225 units built. Very rare, tho not worth big bucks yet. I would help immensely if it had a Pontiac engine it, IMO, of course: an impossibility at that point.

>>"the total parasitic loss of an engine is not dependent on frictional drag alone. It is a combination of frictional drag and pumping losses. In fact, more of it is due to pumping losses than frictional losses."<< True- but pumping losses by themselves (the rotating assembly: piston/ rod/ crank) are not directly effected by valvetrain friction quantities. That is: a given rotating assembly is not going to "know" if it is working with a IBC or OHC valvetrain as far as friction goes... altho the crank may see some slight degree of load difference from a IBC valvetrain vs. a OHC valvetrain, but I don't know which way that would go; have any comparison studies of this ever been published? But, in fact, OHC rotating assembly friction quantities would be greater due to higher piston speed and operational/ redline RPM capabilites. Add increased frictional quantities with OHC valvetrains & belt-drives and I strongly question: >>"In general DOHC engines have less pumping losses "<<. Can you cite evidence to support this? Only thing that springs to mind as a possible contributor is valve timing/overlap, which may increase combustion compression/expansion efficiency, which may in turn work better with the rotational pumping pressures to aid rather than oppose those forces.... but again- in order to legitimately analyse these two engine designs, we need to eliminate variables. Valve timing --for the purposes of this duscussion-- needs to remain equal between the 2, so that as a contributor has to be striken from consideration. Likewise, lubrication & metallurgy need to remain a constant in this theoretical analysis of different engine designs, as these factors are not a mandate of valvetrain design. >>"...since the 80s for that matter -- metallic valve springs, contact surface material, valvetrain lightening and lubricants have already conquered valve float issues beyond any sane RPM"<< Valve float is a mechanical byproduct of engine speed & valve spring pressure alone; lubrication and seat hardness do not enter into it. I would question whether spring material has changed dramatically in the last 40 years as far as a demonstratable advantage goes in production engines. Weight would have some (miniscule) contribution, but pressure is the primary factor.

>>"GM has no special advantage in this area except for their ability to radically preannounce (which is par for the course when it comes to GM and hybrids). "<< Nothing beats honda's announcement last year that they'll have a production hydrogen vehicle in 2018 !!!!!

toyota workers are Americans, Americans who supposedly have come from the factories of the Big 3 in some, unknown quantity. If they think they can get a bigger piece of toyota's pie via a union, they'll seriously consider it, at the very least.

Friction amounts from the 2 valvetrains should, theoretically, be minimally different. Roller tech reduces the lion's share of it. In contrast, a DOHC design (not to mention a 2- or 3-stage cam lobe) should, again: theoretically, add that much more friction to that valveltrain (double the number of valve stems, valve springs, cam lobes, etc). How much for which is a guess at this point.

Since when is hyundai a "quality nameplate" ???

I just heard this story today: guy, married, 2 kids, successful (made $1M profit on a single real estate deal), partner in marina business, was going into a restaurant with his wife & another couple and stopped in his tracks: "I can't go in there, I'm not old enough to drink". He was about 55. Brain tumor. Between physical, physcological and medicinal issues, it's surprising more people aren't blithering nonsense on a daily basis. Then again, maybe those listening are similarly affected and unable to realize what was blithered.

Sorry- I wouldn't believe it. nissan would have to start over and bring something new to the segment if they want the titan to be 'better established'. You know the drill; 'they have to exceed their competition, not merely benchmark them (and fall short).

This titan news is crushing, absolutely crushing. I was waiting eagerly to see what wonders nissan would be bringing to the table like they did with the reinventing-the-truck titan, to the eye-opening extent that I'd simply HAVE to scrap my 2 Fords and my Chevy.

"in terms of my favorite vehicle", I am still an enthusiast because the car is so bad ass- that'll never change. It's angry, I'm angry... we get along on that level. And we have a job to do.

>>"If you want a 7000 rpm motor"<< Why is this "wanted"? The only reason I can see to intentionally increase reliable RPM ceilings is to extract more power or to sound 'racy'; to raise the ceiling merely because high RPMs are sometimes associated with 'high tech' is absurd. >>"and you are using push rods, you'll be using very heavy valve springs. You may also be using exotic materials or construction techniques to lighten the lifter, rod, rocker, valve retainer and all of that stuff. Heavy springs actuating a heavy valve train linkage is bad for durability. Skeletonized and aggressively lightened parrts may also narrow your margin to material failure."<< No exotic construction techniques, but yes, 'exotic' materials, but that's 'high-tech', which = more gooder. And those same exotic materials (titanium, etc) do not make for a heavier IBC valvetrain, but a lighter & stronger one, which increases longevity/durability (more 'more gooder'). Yes; OHC configurations should always be lighter than IBC set-ups. Not to mention, higher RPM in and of itself reduces longevity over a more moderate average operating RPM thru increased wear & tear. IMO, technology should push for slower-revving engines, as long as the same power levels could be obtained.