Moriarty

I have to admitt. That is a sweet idea. Talk about the ultimate energy independence. And even if the unit doesn't use solar energy to make the Hydrogen, it could plug into the wall and use energy from the local powerplant, which, by the way, is much cheaper per KW than gasoline is. Instead of plug-in electric cars, plug-in hydrogen cars. Now just make the unit a mere $3000, bundled along with the car, and offer a free lifetime-of-the-car warrenty on it. Imagine, no more paying for gas ever again!

Wow.

That large patch of exposed metal right beneath the headlights is an interesting styling idea. I kind of like it, though the jury will be out until I see one in person.

I have to admitt. Things are going to get fun in the next couple of years.

So I was looking over Chevy's website a while ago, especially the page about the Trailblazer SS. Now I think that everybody realizes that the Trailblazer SS is about the best SS you can get currently, with RWD and the Corvette V-8 and such. Over base price, the TB SS costs an extra $6275, plus tax. For what it gives you, it is an incredible deal, making it (in my opinion) a true SS. However, the other SS's don't fare so well. For a Malibu SS, which upgrades you from an 144 hp ecotec to a 240 hp 3.9L V-6, it costs $6255, or basically the same amount as the TB SS. Wouldn't it just be a lot easier to put in the Solstice GXP's turbo for the same amount that it is in the Solstice, $5000? You'd get more power, for cheaper! Besides, 260 hp sounds a lot cooler than 240, even if they may be not that much different. For the Impala SS, which upgrades you from a 211 hp 3.5L V-6 to a 303 hp 5.3L V-8, it costs an expensive $7025. Why does it cost more to put a 5.3 in an Impala than a 6.0L in a TB? I understand that you wouldn't want to put in a more powerful engine due to FWD torque steer issues, but can't the 5.3 be cheaper? For the Cobalt SS, which upgrades you from a 148 hp ecotec to a 205 hp supercharged ecotec, it costs and exorborant (sp?) $7800. Again, I say, put in the turbo ecotec for an even $5000 and be done with it. However, the worst by far is the Silverado SS. The base Silverado is dirt cheap, really. $16,740 for a bare-bone V-6 half-ton. To plop in a 5.3, it costs a miserly $1,745. However, to upgrade to a SS, does it take a similar amount to the TB? You would think it would. In fact, it would make sense if it did. The Silverado is already RWD, already has a heavy-duty suspension, chassis, and drivetrain. You could probably throw in a Corvette 6.0L and call it good, not even messing with the tires or the suspension, or anything else. But does GM do it? No. Instead they double the price of the vehicle, an extra $17,440, and all they put in is a half-decent 345 hp V-8. What the hey? So the real question is how much SHOULD GM be charging for their SS's, and what engines SHOULD they be putting in their vehicles to get the optimum performance for price? What do you think?

I have to admit, having the gauges in the center could get annoying, real fast. After a while, it would make me want to hit someone.

Hey!! I'm from Utah!!! He he!

I agree, a huge selling point would be the fact that it's the most efficient and cheap vehicle out there that can carry eight. If a bare-bones model could sell for $20,000 even, and get more than 19/27 mpg, than it would achieve that.

Well, it looks like everyone's had a great time. Looks like it's time for my two bits. It seems to me that the reason that passenger cars don't have V-8's is because V-8's generally are less reliable, more expensive, heavier, take up more volume, have less fuel efficiency, and V-6's generally don't. (did I forget anything?) So the question is "is this true (generally)?" 1. Less reliable: I would say that comparing two engines, a V-6 and a V-8, each getting similar horsepower, the V-8 would probably be more reliable because it is a lower RPM engine, due to it's larger displacement. Lower RPM, less wear and tear on the engine. However, the counterpoint is that the V-8 has more moving parts, and therefore is less reliable. However, I think I heard somewhere that a OHC V-6 actually has more moving parts than a OHV V-8. I may be wrong. 2. More Expensive (to make): Somebody said that it's dirt cheap to make a Hemi compared to an OHC V-6. I don't know why that would be, but that may be right. As for building a low tech V-8 vs a high tech V-6 with similar horsepower, it would seem that the V-8 would be cheaper. Also, GM has been making small-blocks for so long that it would seem that they could build them very cheaply, at least compared to new high-tech V-6's. 3. Heavier: New aluminum-block V-8's are said to be very light. I don't know how they compare to V-6's, but I would assume V-8's to be slightly heavier, as long as they are significantly larger displacement than the V-6's. If the V-8 and the V-6 have the same displacement, than it would depend on engineering issues. Personally, I don't think you can generalize V-8's and V-6's in this catagory. 4. Take up more Volume: OHV V-8's are smaller volume-wise than OHC V-6's, due to packaging issues. This is only has to do with OHV vs OHC, not V-8 vs V-6. OHV V-8's are bigger than OHV V-6's, which apparently only GM has. 5. Less Fuel Efficiency: V-8's are generally less fuel efficient because they have bigger displacement, plain and simple. However, many V-8's are quite fuel efficient as seen in comparison to a V-6 in a Power:MPG ratio. Compare a 400hp Vette getting 20mpg compared to a 250hp Sedan getting 25mpg. Most people don't see it that way, though. It seems to me that the fundamental differences between V-6's and V-8's getting similar horsepower is price and fuel efficiency, with price going in V-8's favor, and mph in the V-6's favor. Most everyone appreciates driving a car with an engine that has lots of power on demand. V-8's are the cheapest way to get lots of power. So, if V-8's are ever to be sold in high-volumes, an engine must be built that can compete with the V-6 in fuel economy while still providing cheaper power. This may be done through DoD, Hybrid Transmissions, 3-valve heads, efficient design, etc. It seems to me that a cheap 300 hp V-8 that could get 24 mpg combined could find many applications in passenger cars, especially if it's RWD. Also, especially in larger cars, the additional torque supplied by V-8's will always be a plus. So, if you haven't already guessed, I hope that V-8's do NOT decline in availiability in the future.

Interesting, 6 inches. Cars really do have thick doors these days. But I guess it would make quite a difference in a crash. My Beauville can't have much more than 4 inches, at most. It may be closer to 3. As for 15", yeah that's cutting it a bit close. Although that can't be much more than many small cars have. In the ol' Beauville, in the back seat, there's about 3" thick body panels, leaving 17.5" for every passenger, which is much more reasonable. As for sitting to the left, yes, Van drivers sit right there on the left. I think the real thing is that it'll be a bit weird to be that far left that close to the ground. By the way, thanks for all the feedback! It's great to be able to discuss ideas with people who can take an honest look at what you've got!

Hey Hudson! Some reasonable feedback! Okay, don't want to invade the drivers bubble. So you give the driver a bucket seat and a console, and then have a short bench for two over to the right. How does that sound? As for misjudging the width of the vehicle, I don't see chevy-van drivers side-swiping people all the time. I doubt it would be a serious problem beyond the first couple minutes of drivetime, right when the buyer takes the car out for it's first spin.

Hi, I'm new, so if I sound dumb, give me a break. Anyway, I was wondering. I have a '95 Chevy Beauville that can carry twelve, with the back seat very reasonably fitting four across. What if someone built a sedan that was as wide as my van (76 inches), with two bench seats, and marketed it as both a better minivan (no climbing out of the back over seats, legs, and seat belts), an exceptionablly well handling large sedan (just think how it would handle being so wide. I just DARE you to try to flip it!), and the sedan with the biggest trunk, period? It would have to be a reasonable weight (as close to 4000 lbs as possible), either RWD or AWD, and if you really want it to be nice, it would come with four-wheel steering and GM's 2-mode hybrid transmission standard. Build it so it can tow a generous amount, give it sweet styling, nice engines, a six-speed, and GM's magnetaride suspension. Ta-da!