balthazar

>>"That's called evolution."<< One man's reguritation..... >>"Rehashing a design that past it's freshness date 3 decades ago (and hasn't been around since) is an entirely different practice. "<< Sixty-8 is exactly right: if there hadn't been 22 (stale, out-of-date) versions of the '68 BMW in between it and the '91, it would be the exact "carbon copy" retro 'bad thing' that the Challenger supposedly is. Evolution... {short!} that's a good one!

I was waiting for that type of pic to surface. Thumbs up from me! -- --- --- --- -- For those that hate retro & the Challenger; don't forget this 'exact carbon copy':

All right then- git 'em up! Find out if it's a 401 or 425- air cleaner may say either 'Wildcat 445' (the 401) or 'Wildcat 465'. Check on bench/buckets/console too, among general inspection.

subaru justy?

Well, I bought this truck yesterday. '04 2500HD LT CC/SB Duramax 4x4, 46K miles, interior is in excellent shape, exterior has some scratches & I have to re-align the front bumper (should be no prob). Something is up with the steering- there's an occasional minor grating that you feel more than hear- gonna have that checked out. Otherwise it's a very nice truck, a real monster. Paid $24250. That's a lot of $ for me to spend on a vehicle, more by far then I ever have, but at that price I should be able to drive it for a year or more and sell it for what I paid for it, should I choose to.

Thanks for the link, Oldsboi. This pic supports exactly what I was saying: the bores on one bank (separated by 15 degrees) have to be shifted in order to not interfere with each other. It's pure physical mechanics. So the 15-degree V-6 is about as much longer than the inline 4 as the traditional V-6 is shorter- all because of bore spacing. I can see how it could provide some packaging answers in some situations, but it still hardly seems worth the engineering millions & increased complexity/cost.

Well, since no one here can breath or bat an eye without 'marketshare' being dragged into a discussion, did anyone bother to crunch any numbers from the below quoted pot of numeric stew? No??? I did. BMW marketshare ~ 2001: 17.5%. 2005: 17.8% Mercedes marketshare ~ 2001: 17.0%. 2005: 15.0% Acura marketshare ~ 2001: 14.0%. 2005: 14.0% Cadillac marketshare ~ 2001: 14.1%. 2005: 15.7% Only other marque to match Cadillac's marketshare increase was lexus (1.8% vs. 1.6%). Infiniti's numbers are mathmatically invalid because its 2001 volume was so extremely low. "Renaissance"? I vote yes.

If overall length was a universal indicator of maneuverability, the 1-series should outsell the 3-series handily and we're going to be up to our eyeballs in SMARTs. The smallest cars would be the #1 seller, instead of camry lumberwagons. Indeed; like Flybrian implied: I must be a world-class driver wheeling my 217" truck thru parking decks & drive-thrus, eh? I should sell driving instructional DVDs or sumthin'. Still no answer: >>"If a 190" CTS is uncompetitive because it's 190", is another competitor in this class at 187" also uncompetitive? "<<

Nonsense.

And how many people buy a 3-series to 'canyon-carve' or otherwise push the car in handling situations? Whatever the number, its a strict minority. I see scads of them, plodding thru traffic here in NJ, commuting to work, driven by fat middle-aged foreign housefraus. Bet they can't tell --if they cared-- how long their bmw is by driving it. The vast majority of consumers are not enthusiasts. Still no one... who focuses on minute overall length differences... has ever answered the question: If a 190" CTS is uncompetitive because it's 190", is another competitor in this class at 187" also uncompetitive? Exactly what is the overall length range in this class in order to be viewed as 'competitive'? The CTS is without question, competitive. Not in everyone's book, but what vehicle within it's class is?

When have any of you taken a tape measure to a car dealership?

We must not be talking 'apples-to-apples'. Something is radically different to allow such close spacing on such a narrow bank angle. The only way I can see to make a 15-degree V-6 with the same size bores as a comparison inline 4 and have the block be shorter is to have long rods & very short strokes to avoid bore/piston interference. This runs counter to the target optimum bore/stroke ratio, tho with electronics I suppose a great deal is possible. Again- VW isn't building smart-sized cars for these V-6s- what is the packaging problem these motors answer? Because if the overall dimensions aren't at least 20% smaller, the engineering dollar could've been spent much better, elsewhere. Any links to a cut-away drawing?

Mmmmm. I'm not a Chevy guy, and the wheels (& stance) absolutely suck, but in a sea of plastic-pastic-plastic it's nice to see some metal trim and decent proportions for a change. '63 is still the best of the '61-64s.

Is an inline six also V-type with a zero degree bank angle? Thos VW engines with 10 or 15-degree banks must have increased bore spacing to the point of almost making them comparable to an inline. What was the supposed advantage of building them so narrow??

Oy! My car is a complete ground-to-roof rebuild. It would take a wholw page to list everything. Here's just one: Dana 60 truck axle, narrowed, new tubes, Moser 35-spline axles, Richmond 3.73 gears, 4-pinion posi, custom-built adjustable 36-in ladder bars, Heim ends, Panhard bar, 11" backing plates & new drums, all new hardware & bearings, Kevlar shoes. That alone was roughly $1600. I have just under $20K invested and the motor/trans isn't built (maybe $6000), no paint ($1500), no upholstery (??), wiring, plumbing, glass, a truckload of misc.... I hope to roll at under $30K. Is that enough mods, or is restore/modify another thread?

That angle of this possible V-type engine would have to be so narrow that the bottoms of the bores would interfere with bores on the other bank, requiring increased bore spacing and a longer crank. Sure, this is possible in theory, but even a 45-degree V-type doesn't encounter this problem. I am not aware of a V-type IC automotive engine with a degree of less than 45.

Fixed. Also fixed: Cadillac V-16 entry.

91z4me As far as length of an I4 vs a boxer I would imagine the boxer is shorter because the cylinders can overlap a little because they are on opposite sides of the crankshaft. Cylinder bores do not and cannot overlap on the same side of the engine for obvious reasons. There would not be a bore spacing difference (and thusly an overall front-to-rear dimension difference) --all else being equal-- between a 'flat' design and a V design. Height & width would differ greatly, tho. The engine would be wider but not wider than a transversly mounted engine. 90-degree IBC V-8s are nearly square F-t-R vs. width (slightly longer than wide). A Corvair flat 6 is definately wider than it is F-t-R- go to 4-cylinders and the difference grows. Tucker proposed a mid-engine flat six driving each rear wheel off the ends of the crank with torque converters at each wheel. That powertrain program was supplimented by another more-conventional rear-engine flat 6- data is scarce on exactly how well the first worked but then again; development had hardly started. In modern, smaller cars, flat 6s do not add to packaging efficiency, in general. The main 'advantage' is a greatly reduced height, but when is this a primary concern for packaging? 90-degree V-type offer the most compact dimensions for a given cylinder count & displacement range.

Interesting: 'it's no longer large glaring blemishes that make them bad'... but it's a half-dozen tiny things, and the vehicles are still "bad"? I can't see it from here. Real vs. fake wood is immaterial if people have to be told the wood is real- all of it feels like plastic anyway. Lots of vehicles have 'mouse fur' headliners yet that fact is seldom if ever mention unless we're reading about GMs. I have also yet to see a "perfect" toyota- none have ever wowed me upon inspection or even matched the general level of hype accompanying the loopy T logo. And if any vehicle in the CTS-V class defines the term 'boy-racer', it's the M3. That front bumper is straight out of a ricer catalog, and the rest of the gingerbread looks so tacked on and... yes; smacks of being an after-thought. So there you go- different people, different opinions.

evok= Really I do not care about the performance, that’s a moot point as far as I am concerned. That's.... the.... entire point.... of the CTS-V; performance! If you don't care about that aspect, perhaps you have to consider the fact that the vehicle will n e v e r appeal to you no matter how it's equipped. ...instead of copying another OEM with the dumb mess(h) insert. Uhhh... who copied which OEM?? What you currently have is akin to putting black walls on 1985 Eldorados, removing the stand up hood ornament and calling that package the EURO perfomance Touring Coupe! It does not work. So: the CTS-V looks too different than the rest of the Cadillac line (>>"GM tried too hard to make the products different from the rest of the line up"<<), and the Eldorado Touring Coupe was not different enough (>>tires, hood ornament, badges<<). Those 2 vehicles aren't even remotely comparable. I knew the ETC and CTS-V...., you're no ETC. Seems to me it's not Cadillac that 'doesn't know what the heck it wants'!

As a teenager, I had envisioned ovaloid pistons (to increase displacement) in free-rotating cylinder bores (to reduce wear).

No-ooo; the analogy related to your example would be: you are not in line because you are not first.... ie: the CTS is not competitive because it is outsold negligably by most of it's competition.Notice no where is anyone saying the c-class is not competitive. No; that's not it at all. You missed the point. It's not that 2 or 3 minor features are the "missing", it's that 3 or 4 minor features are "missing". See, it's not just one single thing, so the entire vehicle shows just what continues to be so very wrong with GM. See now?

Not only do I not shop at wal-mart, I will pay more for the same item to avoid the words 'Made in China' whenever possible, and have aborted a purchase when there was no other possiblility. Someone has to stand up for what's important.

Yes- the Caddy flower car has to be a 'homemade' one- as all 'official' flower cars were on the extended wheelbase commercial chassis and this one is obviously a standard Series 62/63 wheelbase. Could still be something really cool if done half decently. GoldenRod has been advertising in every issue of Hemmings for over 20 years- they've always featured at least 1 really intriquing ride every month. Usually always some sort of pro car or 8-door limo or custom. I would have loved to have gone with you guys. I like the late '40s Chevy truck, and the '59 Edsel convert in your sig. Wonder if I can qualify my '40 for some sort of latent federal Civil Defense grant money or something....

LOL!!