dwightlooi

It's not that large displacement engines run under light loads and are hence more efficient. In fact, with gasoline engines running under light loads increases specific fuel consumption -- gallons/hour/horsepower. So while running a V8 at 10% throttle at 1600 rpm saves fuel over running that same exact engine at a higher speed and bigger throttle openings, running a smaller displacement engine at even bigger throttle openings and load theoretically saves even more fuel. This is because gasoline engines are at their most efficient with the throttle wide open and are least efficient with the throttle closed. If you take the same V8 and remove 4 cylinders it is running under higher load and becomes more efficient -- that is the reason AFM is implemented. If two engines of different displacement are otherwise identical, the smaller displacment one will always be more efficient. However, if two engines are otherwise identical, the smaller one will make less power. If the displacement is halved, so does the power output. What happens over the last several decades is that manufacturers try to reduce displacement while increasing specific output, so that smaller displacement engines can still provide the same or similar outputs as the larger displacement engines they replace. They do so by increasing adopting DOHC heads, multiple intake and exhaust valves, turbocharging, etc. The problem is that while these design choices improve specific output and makes the smaller displacement engine more powerful, they also reduce fuel economy. And, oftentimes you end up with an engine where the fuel economy losses to the implements that increases specific output exceeds the gains from running at a higher load with a smaller displacement. It's really not that complicated. If you take the Ford 5.0 Ti-VCT DOHC V8. It's reduction in displacement vs the GM 6.2 increases it's load and throttle opening at cruise. This improves fuel economy. But having four camshafts instead of one creates more friction, having 4 cam sprockets vs 1 creates more friction, having 32-valves instead of 16 creates more friction. All these things that are put in place to allow it to be powerful enough at 5.0 liters instead of 6.2 liters ends up causing it to lose more efficiency than is gained from the displacement reduction. The more efficiency robbing things can be found on say the ecoboost V6 engine. Turbochargers = high exhaust back pressure and poor exhaust efficiency = lowered compression ratio and reduced thermal efficiency. Sure the turbos allow it to make more power than a naturally aspirated V6, but they do nothing at cruise while the low comprssion and high exhaust pressures reduce efficiency at cruise.

Audi also goes out of the way to pulls different kind of "scam" when they don't need to at all. They call their 3.0 Supercharged V6 3.0T... then explains that the "T" stands for the engine having Turbo like output from its 3.0 displacement!?!! There is absolutely no need to do that. The 325hp 3.0V6 outfitted with it's Eaton TVS R1050 supercharger is nothing they need to hide from! Not in terms of performance, not in terms of fuel economy, not in terms of anything. In fact, that it doesn't rely on exhaust driven turbos means that it doesn't exhibit turbolag and it doesn't have all the potential maintenance and longevity issues some people perceive turbocharged as having. Just call it a 3.0SC. Its perfectly fine. No need to fake it! I am very glad Cadillac doesn't pull all these nonsense.

I don't get the need to bloster the "number" such that the 2.0L is a C300 and the 3.0L is a C400. Just call it a C200 and C300. If they feel the need not to belittle the new cars next to the C250 and C350 just add a "turbo" or "bi-turbo" badge on the other side of the trunk lid. That'll be plenty of differentiation.

If you need a real world example, here's one... Despite 1.2 liters of extra displacement, 60 more horsepower and 80 more lb-ft of twist, the pushrod engine matches the DOHC V8 in city fuel economy and exceeds it's highway rating by 1 mpg. Ford F150 4WD -- 5.0L DOHC-32v V8 -- 360 bhp @ 5500 rpm / 380 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm -- 14 mpg (City) / 19 mpg (Hwy) GMC Sierra Denali 4WD -- 6.2L Pushrod-16v V8 -- 420 bhp @ 5600 rpm / 460 lb-ft @ 4100 rpm -- 14 mpg (City) / 20 mpg (Hwy) Now, let's also compare a 5.3L Pushrod V8 with a 3.5 liter DOHC Bi-turbo V6. To its credit, the Twin Turbo V6 has 10 more hp and 37 more lb-ft of twist. But, the Pushrod V8 is actually the more economical engine with 1mpg better fuel economy both in city streets or on the freeway despite carrying a whopping 51% greater displacement (1.8L). Ford F150 4WD -- 3.5L DOHC-24v Ecoboost V6 -- 365 bhp @ 5000 rpm / 420 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm -- 15 mpg (City) / 21 mpg (Hwy) GMC Sierra Denali 4WD -- 5.3L Pushrod-16v V8 -- 355 bhp @ 5600 rpm / 383 lb-ft @ 4100 rpm -- 16 mpg (City) / 22 mpg (Hwy) Still think that down sizing engine displacement is a good way to produce higher MPG numbers? ------------------------ Sources: http://www.gmc.com/sierra-denali-pickup-truck/features-specs/powertrain.html http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/specifications/engine/

If it is just a matter of price, maybe the question is why GM doesn't import an Chevrolet SS with cloth seats, no navigation, no premium audio, smaller allow wheels, cheaper tires, etc. and sell it for $35K. I am sure they can, there are Commodores outfitted like that. They just think that the SS's market is niche enough and trying to deck out a few different trims simply isn't worth the effort.

Uh... yes... it's called the Chevrolet SS. http://www.chevrolet.com/ss-sports-sedan.html Just why do you think a "Caprice LTZ" outfitted perhaps with a 3.6 LFX V6 but otherwise comparably equipped will be any cheaper?

There are three technologies I believe GM should pursue because it'll make enough of a difference to matter and they are not difficult to attain. (1) Reverse Flow heads for Vee engines. These puts the exhaust on the inside of the Vee instead of the flanks of the engine. Reverse flow heads allow one to use a single turbo instead of two smaller ones. Larger turbos are more efficient and having one is cheaper. (2) SOHC or COHC (Concentric; cam-in-cam) heads. These make the heads narrower which helps with (1) and they are more efficient than DOHC heads because there are less cam sprockets and bearings leading to less parasitic frictional losses. With COHC you still get independently variable intake and exhaust cam phasing. (3) Flywheel Integrated Generator/motor. Basically, you replace the flywheel with a 5 hp DC induction motor. This replaces both the alternator and the starter. Essentially it turns every car into a mild hybrid with smooth idle-start-stop functionality, a little bit of regenerative braking and a tiny bit of assist. It takes up no room and if you use a 12V electrical system won't cost that much more than current engines. For more significant hybrids simply replace the FIG with a 30hp unit, stuff a 115V Li-Ion pack somewhere and you have what is essentially Honda's IMA system. Unlike other arrangements, the transmission and other systems remain unchanged making it very easy to add a Hybrid option to any car. Also, because the motor is coupled to the crank, if you have a sufficiently powerful one (say a 30hp unit) you can simply eliminate the torque converter. The car cannot idle and it always shut the engine down with the VVL system closing all valves when you get to 600 rpm or below. It always pull from a stop on electric power with the engine kicking in smoothly at 600~1000 rpm.

Honestly... 'll rather they put a Non-turbo version of the 2.0T (LTG) engine in the base car. With a 86 mm stroke (vs 101 mm) the vibrations will be much less pronounced. With 11.5:1 compression (vs 9.5:1) it'll reasonably easy to cam it to make 170 hp (85bhp/L) ~6800 rpm & 150 lb-ft @ ~4800 rpm. The base car doesn't have to be fast... it's not fast with the 2.5 anyway. And, I'll take a shot in the refinement direction over a few extra hp. Besides, 2.0L is the threshold between a low tax bracket and a higher on in most countries that have a silly displacement tax. This is why manufacturers don't build 2.1 or 2.2 liter engines. Being 2.0L helps with many markets outside NA. And, for goodness sake, put isolators, blankets, baffles and everything you have to on those injectors and fuel rail to quell the DI racket. GM sucks in this department. Yes, DI engines are generally less refined and noisier than port injected ones because solenoid or piezo valves slamming shut at thousands of psi is inadvertently noisy. But, VW/Audi, M-B and BMW all quelled it better than GM. VW/Audi is almost universally on piezo injectors so they have an edge there, but BMW is not so no excuses there.

But is it good enough to be in a Mercedes or BMW? GM often does this "good enough" thinking or cuts corners because they think it is acceptable. But being better than previous Cadillacs isn't the goal, being better than Mercedes and BMW is the goal. I agree with Dwight, 2 versions of the 2.0T would make sense, that is what BMW is doing with the 3-series. Plus the 3-series has a diesel that if a buyer is looking for MPG as a top priority, the ATS is in trouble as the 328d and 2015 C250 Bluetec get 45 mpg. So perhaps 2.0 diesel is in order more so than two versions of a gas turbo four. Well, it is distinctively less refined than the Acura 2.4 i-VTEC or the ubiquitous Toyota 2.5 VVTi (both of which have the advantage of NOT being a DI engine which helps with refinement). It is also less refined than the BMW or Audi 2.0Ts which have the advantage of having lower displacement and, most importantly, shorter strokes. I haven't sampled the Mazda Skyactiv 2.5 but it is less refined than the Mazda 2.3 and about the same as the Nissan Altima 2.5. Is that good enough to be in a Cadiilac? You decide.

No, what they really need to do is build two versions of the 2.0T -- a Performance Version (the current engine or a higher output derivative) and an eXtreme Fuel Economy (XFE) version. Both engines will cost about the same, but the 2.0T XFE will actually out miser the 2.5L in terms of fuel economy. The Performance Version is basically a 2-stage VVL equipped version of the 2.0T with a better turbo than the Mitsubishi TD05 and air-to-water intercooling. 300 bhp / 270 lb-ft should be achievable with no increase to boost or compression. The current turbo runs out of breath at about 5200 rpm if you simply maintained that maximum torque of 260 lb-ft to 5800 rpm you get 287 bhp. In reality though, when compressor and turbine efficiency is increased, the maximum torque number at the same boost level will increase slightly in addition to stretching itself over a wider plateau. That plus the superior efficiency and lower pressure drop of an air-to-water IC should easily achieve another 28 hp and 10 lb-ft with no increase in boost, compression or fuel requirements. Actually, I think I am be very conservative with those numbers. Another side benefit is that because the pressurized volume of an air-to-water setup is much lower than with a front mount air-to-air IC the turbolag is also markedly reduced. A Honeywell-Garrett MGTX-2860R is a perfect match for this application. The XFE Turbo engine differs from the performance version in having pistons that raises static compression ratio from 9.5:1 to 13.6:1. They get an intake cam grind which keeps the intake valve open for the initial 30% of the compression stroke. The result is an effective displacement of 1.4 liters and an effective compression ratio of ~9.5:1. Boost levels are about the same (20~22 psi) and but the turbo itself can be smaller because mass airflow is about 30% lower. Something like a Honeywell-Garrett MGTX-2056 will be perfect for this role. While cruising or pulling along at light loads (hence off boost) the VVL system switches to a cam grind that shortens intake period such that only 10% of the compression stroke is negated and raises the compression ratio to a healthy 12.2:1 while still maintaining a little compression/power stroke asymmetry for superior MPG. Output will essentially be about 200 bhp / 200 lb-ft, but fuel economy will be about 15~20% better than the 2.5L and kissing Cruze Eco numbers ~26 (City) mpg / 40 (Hwy) mpg. Basically, the customer is given a choice of two refined, turbocharged, engines of two liters displacment. They are asked if they prefer performance or fuel economy. It's the same price.

There are also little details which they need to fix... like the fact that the auto brightness on the instrument cluster is useless. The ATS cluster is behind smoked plastic and relies on back-light to be readable day or night. Cars that do this usually rely on a light sensor on the dash to modulate the brightness during the day. The problem with the ATS is that the sensor is far back enough on the dash that unless the sun is in front of you it always reads a dark. And the instrument cluster gets dimmed to near your night time settings which is unreadable. Yes, you can manually turn it up but then it becomes blindingly bright at night. This is both a poor sensor location and a calibration issue. Anyone into photography will know that even the shaded cabin in daytime is a heck of a lot brighter than the night time environment. The sensor should have been calibrated such that even in the shade in the day it would have put the cluster in full brightness and it is when it reads nearly no light -- as in pitch black -- would it turn the brightness down to the minimum set by the user for night time driving. Simple things like that simply is not in good order on what is otherwise America's best effort to date for a luxury sport sedan.

OK, the Jaguar XF 5.0 Supercharged got into an accident and I got an ATS 2.5 from Hertz as a loaner until it gets fixed. Here's my impression after a couple of days with it. THE GOOD Cabin appointments are better than the SRX or the Gen II CTS. Tight, nice textures, sharp (HD) displays, very good seat comfort and even the base car's BOSE stereo is very decent. And, for the first time they are not cutting corners and under tucked that headliner between it's edge and the screen! The aluminum trim with brushed, bead blasted and polished textures all on the same piece is as nice as they come. The overall perceived interior quality and posh is better than the F30 3-series. Extremely good posture and handling; excellent suspension tuning and very solid chassis. This chassis is phenomenal (even compared to very decent cars like the Gen II CTS). It is a small car and it feels even smaller around the corner without feeling harsh. Between an A4, a C-class and the 3-series, this is the best handling car. Not punishing around town, confident at 8/10ths, completely unflustered with the tail stepping out and the front tires in counter steer (uh... don't tell Hertz that). It's a very good looking car in Radiant Silver Metallic and I suspect it'll be even better in Silver Coast Metallic or White Diamond Tricoat. The car is stunningly handsome in person, especially in front and over the front quarters. The rear is clean and nice enough albeit not immediately making a huge impression. Sides are clean enough. The chrome accents work very well and compliments silvery and white paint very well, but I suspect won't be as matching with dark colors. Doors close with solidity, trunk is properly lined, save for the navigation system, the base car is not basic at all -- unlike bimmers which can be really, really, basic... I mean even the arm rest, leather and power seat adjustments are options of lower series bimmers (you can get a 1-seires or 3-series that is worse equipped than a Honda Civic EX). The 6-speed is actually not bad. Doesn't hunt around as much as it's reputation had me expect. Shifts fast enough and never had me wanting more gears. THE BAD The 2.5L Inline-4 (LCV) sounds like a lawn blower on steroids and revs like a tractor engine. Forget about what you read on magazines; some of which has relatively positive things to say about this engine. It is half as refined in perceived NVH as a Toyota Scion or Camry 2.5 or the Acura 2.4 -- twice as noisy, half as fast reving as the altter, and bellows it out groans and grit for the sound track. I don't expect it to be high performance, but I did expect it to be refined. It is anything but. This is a step backwards in refinement over -- let's say the old 2.2L in the base Cobalt or the port injected 2.4L. I suspect the increase in stroke length and the direct injection clatter being the culprits. The only good thing is that if you keep in under 2000 rpm and 25% throttle, its muted enough to ignore. CUE gets more and more annoying the more you use it. It's not really that it is a touch screen per say, but how they handled the little things. This thing starts up with a musical passage very much like Sony's DTS intro you hear in movie theatres. It's as louder than your playback volume from the stereo and after the first few entries gets positively annoying -- and YOU CAN'T TURN THAT OFF. Or, at least I can't find an option to disable the boot up disturbance after 20 mins of mucking around the UI. Things like audio cue preset bar in the system options do not auto repeat or drag -- you cannot hold down to the + or - sign, or click and drag, you have to repeatedly tap them umteen times -- that's just retarded. What is the point of having dedicated button "locations" on the console outside of the touchscreen when those are touch based anyway? And the tactile feedback feels like an electric shock. OK, it's fancy, but that wears thin in 15 mins. The ATS would have been better served with traditional buttons like Buicks have. The screen is big enough that there are plenty on "empty space" on most sub menu screens. Why isn't there a consistent row of direct clicks in the same places to other menus instead of having to rely on the "back" button? OK, as a saving grace, this is no worse than Ford's (Microsoft) SYNC setups... but that's about as bad as it gets. GM needs to go hire an Apple guy or two to design their UI, hey pay them a $1 million a year salary, it'll be worth it. I am used to HIDs and at this price point, those $100 discharge tubes and ballasts should be standard. Yellow and dim halogens just seem out of place on this car -- especially next to the whitish LEDs flanking the headlights. Wind and road noise isolation is below average. This stand in stark contrast to other GM products like the LaCrosse which is exemplary in this regard. By that I mean it is worse than a 3-series and defintiely worse than a c-class. Honestly, it's only about as good as a TSX which is... well... not much better than a Civic. This would have been forgivable if the sound track from under the hood is anything to look forward to, which for the V6 TSXes are actually quite enticing, but for the ATS 2.5 the lawn blower waking up is something you don't want to hear. At 22,000 miles this rental already have a few rattles which is sooner than I expect in luxury sport sedans.

evo buyers are not interested in extreme fuel economy nor do they care for zero emissions from a plug-in. Buyers of that sort of car -- the Tesla buyers -- are not interested in a Kamikaze AWD rally car for the streets. Trackday and/or real rally folks can't use a plug-in which runs out of juice or draws down its battery to limp mode a third of the way through the course -- that is if class rules even allow them to race it at all. Mitsu executives need to get their heads examined.

One thing to bear in mind is that BMW is and has always been habitual liars when it comes to their power figures. When they say 425 hp, expect the engine to make about 480 or thereabouts. 425 usually dynos to about 415~20 at the crank and unless their ZF transmissions feature non-newtonian mechanics their engine output is not what they claim.

You know, I think a good entry level truck engine might actually be... a 3-cylinder Inline based on the 6.2L (L86) DI-VVT-AFM Small block. 103.25 x 92 mm x 3-cyliners = 2,310 cc 3/8ths of 420hp = 158 bhp @ 5600 rpm 3/8ths of 460 lb-ft = 173 ft-lbs @ 4100 rpm One CAM, 6-valves, 3-pots = fewest and lowest parasitic losses in the industry

Simple exercise for BMW... instead of having a different engine (a V-8 previously and a completely different I6 block with 100hp/L before that), now it's just a hotter version of the 335i engine. Bigger turbos, more boost and lower compression. But otherwise, the same architecture and lots of commonality.

I doubt it... the two engines are very close to each other in output. The 3.6 actually having more horsepower, although the 4.3 has more torque. Having both is redundant. The problem with the 2.5 is similar to that with the 3.6. Yes, it's usable as a truck engine, but not ideal as one. Not ideal because it is a relatively high revving engine with a modest bottom end. Yes, it revs to 7000 rpm, but that's not where most truck engines need to do their daily work. A best engine, albiet one which does not exist, will be a 3.1L Pushrod Inline-4 or V-4. That's be in the 210 hp class with about 230 lb-ft of twist. It'll be stout, simple and cheap to build and maintain. In fact, even if you are sticking to the DOHC configuration the Atlas 2.9L Inline-4 currently being used is better than the 2.5L.The one thing about very big fours is the below average refinement from the 2nd order vibrations which gets worse with engine size. But even here the 2.5 is not the shining city on the hill. While it is true that I4s tend to be less refined as they get bigger in displacement, what really drives vibrations up more than anything else is NOT displacement per say, but stroke length. The only reason big fours then to be bad in this regard is that they tend to have long strokes amongst other things. The 2.5 has a 101mm stroke which is about the longest around. The 6.2 V8 actually only has a 92mm stroke. Long strokes are slightly more fuel efficient and makes an engine more compact (any stroke increase grows deck height once instead of engine length four times as is the case with bore increases). The 2.5 is refined only because of its dual balancer shafts, but even with these some vibrations leak through and you can put balancers on any engine of any displacement or valvetrain setup.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time GM (or any manufacturer) has made a decision which -- from a technical merits standpoint -- isn't the best one. It may be that the 4.3 is a "new" engine whereas the LFX line is up and running with capacity to spare. That said, the LFX while decent on Fuel Economy isn't particularly spectacular in this regard. The 3.6 Lacrosses and CTSes have worse MPG numbers than Nissan 3.7s or the like. Honestly, though, I really didn't support the idea of the 5.3 V8s and 4.3 V6es. There is no real good reason for all these added complexity to small block supply chain and manufacturing. All the Pushrod engines should have the same bore x stroke, the same rods, the same pistons, the same wrist pins, the same valves, the same valve springs, the same injectors, main bearings, etc. Namely, they should all be based on the 103.25 mm bore and 92 mm stroke the 6.2L V8s use. This will produce a 4.6 V6 and a 3.1 V4. The trucks and SUVs get either the V4, the V6 or the V8 -- at 210, 315 and 420 hp. That is enough to cover the entire truck and SUV spectrum in non-displacement tax limited markets. For those markets with heavy displacement based levies, the 5.3 and 4.3 won't cut it either! For those markets, A 2.0T serves the budget conscious customers in trucks and passenger cars alike.

Stop copying the Mercedes grill... completely unnecessary and utterly counterproductive to raising the prestige of the Equus brand!

Three things... (1) As far as performance and/or efficiency goes, only ratio spread and the number of gears matter. How tall or short the 1st gear is being relatively irrelevant since you can change the effective drive ratio by matching the transmission to an appropriate axle ratio. (2) Being able to handle 738 ft-lbs of torque allows it to work with any "reasonable" rendition of the supercharged LT4. But a high torque loading typically means broad strong gears that equals weight and inferior efficiency. GM will need an 8L50 more than it needs an 8L90 -- it is the 2.0T and the 3.6 that needs the extra gears more, and it is these engines that drive volume. (3) Another factor which goes unmentioned -- one which GM Hydramatics traditionally do not excel in -- is maximum shift speed. It helps to have a maximum shift speed of 7000 or 7500 rpm. This will especially be true of the lower torque rating 8-speed. For the mega torque transmission it is still good to be able to at least match the 6,600 rpm redline of the LT1. The current 6L90 for instance is limited to 6,200 rpm which robs the LSA and LS9 engines of some of their otherwise allowable rev range.

Predator grill? How about "Pinched Nose" grill? Predator gives it too much credit. The previous generation Lexus grills are not spectacular or particularly unique. But it's not ugly. The current version is pukingly ugly.

Reducing the number of platforms and engines are good things. In fact, I believe they are things GM has not done enough of... there are still too many engines, too many platforms and actually one too many brands. There is a big difference between reducing the number of things you build and building those things with inferior components, technology, features or quality. If it's me... (1) Chevy will end all truck and SUV production; all mainstream SUVs and trucks will be GMCs. (2) The number of engines will be significantly reduced from 36 (currently in production) to just 15:- Gasoline Engines For Cars 1.5 DOHC Inline-3 w/ DI-VVT ( 123 bhp / 117 lb-ft) 1.5T DOHC Inline-3 w/ DI-DVVT (200 bhp / 195 lb-ft) 2.0 DOHC Inline-4 w/ DI-DVVT(170 bhp / 156 lb-ft) 2.0T DOHC Inline-4 w/ DI-DVVT (270 bhp / 260 lb-ft) 3.6 DOHC V-6 w/ DI-DVVT (321 bhp / 275 lb-ft) 3.6TT DOHC V-6 w/DI-DVVT (420 bhp / 430 lb-ft) 6.2 V-8 Pushrod V-8 w/DI-VVT-AFM (460 bhp / 465 lb-ft) 6.2SC V-8 Pushrod V-8 w/DI-VVT (625 bhp / 625 lb-ft) Gasoline Engines Trucks, Fleets and Commercial Vehciles 3.1 Pushrod V-4 w/ DI-VVT (210 bhp / 230 lb-ft) 4.6 Pushrod V-6 w/ DI-VVT-AFM (315 bhp / 345 lb-ft) 6.2 Pushrod V-8 w/ DI-VVT-AFM (420 bhp / 460 lb-ft) Turbo Diesels 1.5CDTI DOHC Inline-3 w/ DI-DVVT (125 bhp / 220 lb-ft) 2.0CDTI DOHC Inline-4 w/ DI-DVVT (170 bhp / 295 lb-ft) 3.0CDTI DOHC V-6 w/DI-DVVT (250 bhp / 440 lb-ft) 6.6T Pushrod V-8 w/DI-VVT (400 bhp / 770 lb-ft) *Note: Basically there are the all the 1.5 and 2.0 petrol engines use the same pistons, rods, valves, phasers, etc. All the Diesels minus the Duramax 6.6 does the same. All the Pushrod gasoline engines agains share their internals regardless of displacement. There is also no duplicity in output; no two engines serve the same output category within their class. (3) Platforms are reduced by getting rid of all the obsolete stuff and sticking to the basics and doing them with superlatives. It works out to just nine:- FWD Gamma II -- Sub-Compact FWD Delta II -- Compact FWD Epsilon II -- Mid-size/Full Size FWD RWD Alpha -- Compact/Mid-size RWD Omega -- Full-size RWD Y II -- Sportscar RWD Trucks GMT 510 (Theta+) -- Compact Crossover/SUVs/trucks GMT 960 (Lamda+) -- Mid-size Crossovers/SUVs/trucks GMT K200 -- Full-size SUVs/Trucks

The sex of the individual aside... sometimes putting a marketing centric guy (or gal) at the reins is sometimes not the best thing to do. Just look at Apple choosing John Sculley over Steve Jobs. A car manufacturer should, first and foremost be about the product -- the cars. Everything else compliments that, nothing replaces that. GM is on a roll in this regard. Let's hope it continues unabated.

A twin-turbo, small displacement, DOHC V8 was never really in the cards... and if it did won't have out performed the LT4 from a power-to-mass, power-to-volume, power-to-cost or simply power standpoint. Besides, there is an immediacy to a supercharged or naturally aspirated engine's power delivery that cannot be matched with exhaust driven pressurization systems.

I hope she got the job because she's the best person to take GM to new heights and not because she's a woman and it's time to have a woman CEO because there hasn't been one... like "it's time for a black president simply because there hasn't been one". Having said that, being a woman doesn't necessary mean she's isn't the right choice. It simply shouldn't be that being a woman make her the right choice. Too many companies have succumbed to and suffered from political and social pressures to hire for diversity or affirmative action rather than simply hiring the best candidate.