Z-06

Yes A3 2.0T, and A4 2.0T. Does anybody know the specifications for this new Chinese Regal in terms of dimensions, capacity, and weight?

It is a spectacular piece of equipment. Wonder who got the deal 5 years ago.

Do it "Too Much Time Member"

:useless:

They have done a remarkable job of hiding the FWD overhangs which are visible on the Vue. GM might throw a good competition in this now becoming crowded segment.

I concur with you about not being bad at all. But given the uniqueness of the vehicle they could have had a bolder design than the production version. Volt was dumbed down to take the middle of the road approach so that all consumers do not hate the design.

That explains most of my questions. That is my gripe. GM could have certainly kept the original shape of the Volt, and made it better in the wind tunnel. The production version looks lot less inspirational than the concept.

That estimate is still better than Infiniti M which has more than often had hard time to break the 20K annual sales barrier.

Drag coefficient and hence the resistance has nothing to do with height of vehicle it is a function of the area of foot print that is projected perpendicular to the flow of the fluid which in this case is air. Therefore, a 100x1 sq.inch board will have the same drag as an area of 10x10 sq.inch board.

That would make some sense. But remember Lutz said that GM was surprised when they put the original design in the wind tunnel considering how bad it was. He went a step farther saying that it fared well from the rear than from the front.

Car Debris

Then why the heck the production Volt is a bubble trying to beat the Prius in being a bulb? Couldn't GM apply a little bit from this extensive knowledge they gained from the Trans AM to keep the original concept? Why did Pontiac's slab sided aerodynamics die to give way to these French curves we are looking at? The more I look at the car the more it seems like an engineering miracle, I mean look at the car, the front lower diffusers and lower intakes are almost non existent compared to those huge ones in Ferrari.

Excellent. The front is very well done. However, if I was you work on the details of the C-pillar in the front 3/4 it seems like the lines almost intersect. Rear is cobalt+corvette+previous gen impala with a future perspective. Good designs overall.

Again I am COMPARING the Trans AM with more aerodynamic cars of today, and am not calling it by itself a brick. Look at the cars below: Pontiac has the straightest face (horizontally), most upright windshield, and least curves on its sides. None of that are signs of good aerodynamics. Those straight edges on its face lead directly to creation of vortices around them leading to a increase in drag. An upright windshield makes the trans am more on the slab sided than the other three hence my brickwall comment. Notice that despite Ferrari has more upright windshield than the Prius, it is more curved than the Pontiac's which is almost flat. Even the tucked in headlights lead to increased resistence. So my engineering question is how in the heck GM got that design right? I want to know how they achieved it. And if they did such a marvelous job, they could have certainly kept the original Volt design, which would not have been hard.

What meant was when you look at the bulbous shapes of the F430 or wind tunnel love child the Prius, this vehicle certainly has more sharp crests and creases. Modern wind tunneling is better advanced than 20+ years ago, unless GM knew something that Ferrari with its F1 experience does not. And I will not be surprised if they did, given their prowess. What does surprise me is if they could use these French curve defying lines to make a vehicle aerodynamic, they could have taken some cues to the Volt and made it a little less anonymous.

What made it click so much aerodynamically? If you look at the new 0.001 CD humping modern car designs, this Trans AM looks like a Brick wall in a hurricane, yet people say that this car was aerodynamic and the records do prove that.

Want..... Stately 5.0L producing massively huge 276 HP, RWD barge seems like 68's territory - ahh only for its B-pillarz.

That pretty much explains everything regarding GM's marketing euphoria. GM is basically breeding transsexuals at least through advertisements. Equinox, GMT 360, Caddy CTS. Trying to match the value of the upper segment with the price of the lower segment. While they think this strategy will get both buyers, what happens is common people do not understand the vehicle just like they have hard time understanding if a transsexual is a he, she or it. I know it was a gross comparison, but the point seems to be made.

Help me Jesus! Help me Jewish God! Help me Allah! AAAAAHHH! Help me Tom Cruise

Caution Flag

That possibly might happen before Chrysler can be a BMW.

Where will the 4th one fit? Below Mini? How many vehicles do you envision and what would be its target market?

Left ---------------------> Straight - cuss the mechanics- get out to pee -------------------> Slight right -----------------> LEFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT

NASCAR - the easiest sport to follow when you are hammered. LEFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT

Yes that is what I am thinking of how an ideal Alpha should be. It will bring back real racing roots of a fun RWD at a lower budget which people can afford as a Chevy and take it to NASA or SCCA, while keeping the platform distinct enough to make its Caddy stablemate a formidable, prestigious image. The DI V8 seems intriguing to mee too. It is too bad, the funds are causing GM to hurt and spend moolah on bringing those V8's to life. I agree upon the 4-cyl point too. LNF 2.0T has already shown its prowess. If that engine can be a base engine on a 3300lb odd car, it will make the car a spectacular racer.