dwightlooi

The reality is everything is going to get smaller and while the V8 may be around it will get more and more expensive to drive people to smaller engines. Europe and out side the USA the V8 is not a must have default as most of these countries have been paying much higher fuel prices for much longer, most have never even had a V8 in the family for several generations. Also the Green movement in places like Europe have an affect on the market. In the State the V8 was the default for 80% of the buyers but in cars today it is becoming a are item. Even the V6 is no where as common as it once was. The last two generations have grown up in cars with 4 cylinder engines and they expect the same. Even many who have a V8 in the 80's in the family only had a V8 with just under or at 200 HP while today most 4 cylinders will do that even without a turbo. The fact is it will be difficult to meet the coming CAFE standard even with small 4 cylinder car let alone larger cars with even larger engines. That is why we are seeing the goofy Hybrid systems that they hope will develop to give them room for larger cars. The V8 will remain longer but GM and others will limit it's use to models that have lower standards like heavier trucks and use loop holes of the larger trucks to still over them. As for cars like the SS they will price them high and you can have one but the price will limit the sales naturally for the MFG. Europe just has a whole different outlook than the states at engines and even here it has evolved an continues to do so. The kink with that argument is that the assumption that a 6.2 liter Pushrod V8 consumes more fuel than a 3.6 Liter Bi-turbo V6 is in general not true. The only thing that dings the V8 is the large displacement incurring higher displacement taxes in those countries that have them. As far as MPG ratings is concerned, a Pushrod V8 is exemplary, matching beating DOHC V8s and force fed V6es of equivalent power output any day. As far as the ATS-V is concerned, a 6.2 LT1 V8 will post MPG numbers better than 16 (city) /25 (hwy) MPG -- 16 /25 is achieved by a Camaro SS 6 speed-Auto using the previous generation Port Injected 6.2 V8. In other words, the V8 -- if employed -- will be 17 (city) / 26 (Hwy) or better, unless all the VVT, AFM and DI stuff they did amounted to no improvement in mileage numbers (one of the major engineering goals). Given that the 3.6 NA engine which has higher compression, resonance tuned intakes and freer flowing exhaust came in at 19 (city) / 28 (Hwy) it'll be very difficult for a 3.6 TT to beat 17/26 MPG. I don't think you fully comprehend the advantageous of a Pushrod valvetrain -- in addition to making the engine lighter and more compact, it is also somewhat more fuel efficient than a DOHC design (definitely so at the same displacement and still modestly so at the same output with a larger displacement). The argument that going to smaller 4-cyliner engines equates to better mileage number is also for the most parts unproven at best. The 1.4L Turbo Cruze did not beat its 1.8 and 2.0L NA competitors (with similar or higher power ratings) in mileage numbers. In fact, it lost to the majority of these cars. If you really wanted the "best" mileage numbers than a 2.0 DOHC 16v DI four you are better off going BIGGER in displacement, dropping cams and ditching valves! Go to 2.5 or 2.7 liters, go to a SOHC head, go to 2-valves per cylinder and most importantly go to an Atkinson cam. Do that and you'll run circles around the 2.0L DOHC16v engine in MPG numbers while generating similar output. Even if you don't go atkinson cammed, just going to 2.3L, dropping one camshaft and dropping halve the valves will see an improvement in MPG numbers. Specific output goes down the drain... but we are after the best fuel economy here not bragging rights about hp/liter.

Like the Turbo engine it depends on what you want out of it. You can get about 300 hp all the way past about 500 hp out of it with a Roots Blower if you want. The will also be zero turbo lag. The price you pay is that unlike turbocharger(s), spinning that compressor costs you power and hence fuel. In other words, you trade fuel efficiency for a method of forced induction that has no lag. If you still want about 17(city) / 27 (hwy) mpg, you'll probably feed that 3.6 with an Eaton TVS R1320... that'll be good for about 400 bhp @ 6000 rpm with about 380 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm. Think of it as the Audi 3.0 Supercharged engine in the S4 with about 20% greater displacement and a 25% larger blower*. It is going to be a tall engine with a hood bulged though since the GM 3.6 is a 60 deg V6 as opposed to a 90 deg V6 with the Audi design. The narrower angle does not allow you to sit the blower as low in the valley. *The Audi 3.0 S/C V6 uses an Eaton TVS R1050 derived blower integrated into the intake assembly. It delivers 333 hp @ 5500 rpm / 325 lb-ft @ 2900 rpm.

Nothing! That's perfectly fine, just like it is perfectly fine for the CTS-V and the Camaro ZL1 to use basically the same engine (with the Camaro's louder exhaust treatment actually making 24 more horsepower). I won't buy a Camaro ZL1 because of the cheap, tacky interior and the "retro" exterior. That the CTS-V's engine is also found in a Chevy costing $6K less doesn't even register as a concern. Another way to look at it is that I'll rather have an ATS-V which shares it's engine with the Corvette than one which shares it with the CTS 3.6T. What really should happen is that the 2.5L should be dropped altogether. With the ATS carrying three engines across the lineup -- the 2.0T and 3.6NA for "normal" ATSes while the ATS-V packs the 450~460hp LT1 V8 for the enthusiasts. The CTS will then carry the 3.6NA, 3.6TT and a 600 hp Supercharged version of the LT1.

Actually, the C63 does not have Carbon Ceramic brakes at the ATS-V's assumed price point. You need to shell out $100K for a Black Edition for that. This is also one of those things which are for the most parts unnecessary and a poor value for money. Carbon Ceramic brakes actually do not stop any better than cast iron. They are just lighter and last about 3 times as long. With street acceptable pads fade resistance is about the same as properly sized cast iron rotors. At about $10K they are a waste of money given that traditional rotors are only about $200 a pair. Anyway, back to the engine issue... the 420hp LF3 is in many ways, not particularly impressive. For one this is a parallel twin turbo engine. Which means that it will be less responsive than a sequential twin turbo or a single turbo mill. Unfortunately, given that it is not a reverse flow engine (which has exhaust exiting in the middle of the V), there isn't much they can do about it. If power is bumped to 450 bhp lag will get worse. If it is not, it won't be competitive with the C63 or the M3. Regardless of the power plant of choice, the Aisin TL80 8-speed is an overdue upgrade. And, I believe they'll use it on the ATS-V (automatic) whether they had chosen a V8 or the TTV6. This application is a lot more stratight forward than the vette since it uses a traditional front located transmission rather than a torque tube and rear mounted transaxle which the Aisib box is not designed to accommodate without a new casing.

Which begs the question... do you believe that GM will be able to render a better Turbo 6 than BMW is putting in the new M3? FYI, by starting with a conventional V6 the GM engine already has some disadvantages -- not being able to use one larger turbo instead of two smaller ones for greater efficiency and responsiveness, not being able to use a sequential twin-turbo setup efficiently because the exhaust exits from both sides, etc. On the other hand, GM already has a V8 engine that is better than BMW's Turbo 6 or Turbo V8s. Better as in -- lighter, smaller, similarly powerful, no turbo lag, no less efficient and cheaper to build. To not use it in the ATS-V will be like folding a pair of aces in a poker game when the flop has no pairs and is not a flush magnet. But then, people have been known to do that... LOL

Why do you use the same models with a different engine? XF NA XF SC? A4 NA S4 SC? Focus and Focus ST. We are talking about a different cars and different sizes and different weights in the ATS and CTS should they get different options to make the two models less alike? You are already taking a car built on the same platform and trying to convince it is different what better way than to offer a performance model with a different engine. How do you get some one to buy the heavier and more expensive CTSV you offer a V8. The key to marketing is to offer appealing but different packages to different models. Since Cadillac has nothing as for its own engine it take some extra effort to set their models apart. I also wish you would be more factual on the turbo engines. Yes there is some lag but it is pretty much a non factor anymore. It is nothing like the GN days, Also you seldom speak of the flat torque curve that even the LT1 is still not as wide or flat. Finally GM also can sell tune kits to bump up power easily with any of these engines. There was a report the other day they are at work with new kits for the 2.0 cars that will push them over 300 HP and torque already on the Solstice kit was 340 FT LBS so it will be interesting to where they will set the new kits. I expect the 3.6 TT will see a similar kit. GM made a lot of money on the first 2.0 kit. Also hold back the V8 for the ATS till later and add it as a special edition as the car ages to keep the car appealing longer as vs. just adding a flat paint job as they are doing today. . If you want to insist that a 450 hp NA V8 and a 556~600 hp Supercharged V8 will be viewed as a similar engine, I cannot dissuade you from that opinion. But, nobody out there sees it that way. An NA V8 in one car and an SC V8 in another as big of a separation as a Bi-turbo V6 and a SC V8. There is no positioning issue whatsoever. As far as turbolag is concerned, it is ALWAYS there the only question is one of magnitude. And the high the specific output you demand out of a turbo-ed engine the worse the problem gets. But, even a 3.0L bi-turbo with a "mere" 300 hp and a torque peak at 1200 rpm like the BMW 335i engine is laggy compared to naturally aspirated engine. The point here is that there is very little technical reasons to prefer a 3.6 Bi-turbo over a Pushrod 6.2 V8. It costs more, it makes similar or less power. It is no more fuel efficient. It is heavier. It takes up more underhood space. It has more things to leak and/or break. And, in the eyes of most of the existing Cadillac customers it is a downgrade in terms of desirability. In the eyes of would be customers, it is really a toss up. About the ONLY thing it has going for it is a lower displacement tax in countries that have them. But, the typical clientele for cars like the M3, C63, RS4 or Cadillac-Vs do not really care about that. If they do, they'll be buying the lesser renditions of the same model -- perhaps one overloaded with luxury bits -- rather than the monster sedan edition,

The CTS-V has a SUPERCHARGED V8 with 556 bhp -- the next gen CTS-V will likely get a SUPERCHARGED V8 with DI making north of 600 bhp. I don't see how an ATS-V with a NATURALLY ASPIRATED V8 with 450~460 bhp will cut into the CTS-V market. Any buyer who cares about the power train at all sees a big difference between a supercharged and normally aspirated engine and/or a 100~150 bhp difference in output. That is like saying that a 385 hp V8 Jaguar XF Premium cuts into a V8 SUPERCHARGED 470 bhp Jaguar XF Supercharged's market, or that a M-B C55 AMG with its 362 hp NA 5.5 V8 cuts into the market of an E55 or S55 AMG of the same period with their 510 bhp Supercharged 5.5 V8s. Or that use of the 3.2L V6 in Audi A4 cuts into the market of the 3.0L Supercharged V6 in the S4. Or that the use of a 2.0L NA engine in the run of the mill Ford Focus eats into the market of a 2.0T Focus ST. In short, that's utter rubbish.

If anything, the ILX is what needs to be cut. The TSX at least sells decently in the US market. The ILX sells like it doesn't exist.

Just asking: wouldn't putting the LT1 in the ATS engine bay (which I assume is smaller than the Corvette's) create some restriction issues for both intake and exhaust? Intake maybe. Exhaust, no. On the intake side it won't be the plenum or throttle body though. If anything is potentially more restrictive, it'll be the need to use a different filter and air box design with a 90 degree turn to the side upstream from the throttle body. On the other hand, if they decide to redesign the intake plenum, the ATS-V's intake system can potentially be less restrictive than the Vette's. The ATS-V, even without a hood bulge, will have a much taller hood line than the Vette. They can use a much taller plenum with straighter runners and greater reserve air volume if they want to. The 4:1 collectors on the LT1 are unitary and basically as compact as can be even on the corvette. It is already designed for packaging first, performance a close second. The only difference between the 455 hp and 460 hp installations in the Vette is downstream of the cats, and basically a trade off between noise/cost and flow. It really isn't much though -- just a 5 hp / 5 lb-ft difference. Regardless, whatever differences the intakes and exhaust makes is unlikely to be more than 5~10hp. 450 hp being the worst case is adequate for the ATS-V.

It all depends on how much GM can squeeze ouf of the TTV6, I guess... If they can match or surpass whatever the expectation is for the NG M3 with the ATS-V, and then offer a detuned TTV6 making some 380bhp-400bhp in a possible ATS V-Sport, the only issue might be engine build cost and how that affects the unit margin on the V-Sport... The problem with a turbo V6 -- or turbocharged anything -- is that optimal power delivery for a RWD super sedan requires that the engine be operated with very low boost (less than 10 psi), high compression (>10:1) and the consequently minimal lag and exceptional responsiveness. However, such a tune (very similar to what BMW uses on the 3.0L Inline-6 Turbos/Bi-turbos) is only good for about 360 hp. However, for a 3.6L engine to be competitive in output, it has to operate at about 16~18 psi of boost. A Supercharger offers a compromise between the two trading fuel efficiency for the elimination of turbine induced response lag. The more you squeeze out of a V6TT the worse the driving characteristics of the power train. At about 22 psi you get to about 500 hp and something that spools like a Lancer Evolution. Another thing is that while it is easy to say that cost shouldn't matter. Reality is that it does -- a lot -- when you are trying to slot the ATS-V in a price bracket under that of the current CTS-V ($65K). It's hard to make the ATS-V a cheaper car when you saddle it with a more expensive engine. You cannot get the ATS-V under $60K unless you drop the two turbos (or a supercharger) and the air-to-water after cooler circuit. Even if you are comfortable with a $65K ATS-V, the savings on the engine front easily equals an active rear differential, a carbon fiber roof panel and magnetic ride control combined. Hence, there's always a trade off. It really comes down to this... ATS-V with 3.6L DOHC V6 Bi-turbo (LF3) @ 420 hp / 430 ft-lbs with some turbo lag, a little bit more weight up front and a $65K price tag. ATS-V with 6.2L Pushrod V8 Naturally Aspirated (LT1) @ 460 hp / 465 lb-ft (SAE) with no turbo lag, a little less weight up front and a $60K price tag.

There are only two scenarios where E85 makes more power in a gasoline engine that is unmodified. (1) The engine is turbocharged and is capable of not just advancing ignition timing, but increasing boost pressures when it detects the use of Ethanol as the fuel. (2) The engine normally runs hot and loses some amount of power due to the high temperature of the cylinder walls and heads. Ethanol (or E85) burns at a lower temp. This increases power by causing the engine to operate at a lower temperature -- it's like your engine making more power in the morning than in the noon heat on a summer day.

It probably won;t make any more power... Even though E85 has significantly higher octane ratings, this motor won't be able to capitalize on that without the ability to change its compression ratio. E85 also has a higher specific latent heat of vaporization, which means vaporizing it cools the intake charge more -- again allowing for higher compression but similarly useless if compression cannot be raised. At the same time, E85 has a lower volume specific energy density -- 25600 KJ/liter for E85 vs 36000 KJ/Liter for Premium Gasoline -- meaning you have to burn more E85 for a given air flow rate into the cylinders and fuel economy will be notably worse. Turbocharged engines can easily capitalize on the extra octane ratings by simply cranking up the boost (if the ECU is programmed to do so). Naturally aspirated powerplants can't really do much to make use of Ethanol's added anti-detonant properties. During WWII many aircraft piston engines feature Methanol and/or water injection. The whole point of that was to increase the anti-detonant characteristics of the mixture and allow higher boost pressures to be used. This is achieved in engines with 2-speed or 3-speed superchargers using a higher supercharger ratio (higher boost) at a lower altitude than normally allowed for that ratio -- because the engine would normally have pinged and detonated at lower altitudes with denser air being forced in by a supercharger ratio intended for operation with higher altitude, thinner air. Without increasing the boost pressure, Methanol-Water systems are of little benefit. At high altitudes, where the engine is already running at the highest supercharger ratio, Methanol-Water systems become essentially useless. High Altitude fighters of the day rely on Nitrous-Oxide injection for power boost at height.

Pretty nice torque curve too... not peaky at all.

This is a better article... from the General himself. http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2013/May/0528-corvette.html

Well, a switching system like this can be used in the following ways... Atkinson Cam <-> Race Cam -- Virtual variable displacement, variable compression, variable overlap, variable duration, variable lift (as described above) Atkinson Cam <-> Regular Cam -- Virtual variable displacement, variable compression, variable overlap, variable duration, variable lift (Eg. iVTEC-E) Regular Cam <-> Race Cam -- Variable overlap, variable duration, variable lift (Eg. VTEC, VVTL-i) Total Cylinders Shut OFF <--> Atkinson Cam or Regular Cam -- Allows engine to free wheel without pumping losses, allows efficient, clutchless, part-time 100% electric propulsion* * An engine so equipped will have no torque converter or clutch! Basically, it is a hybrid vehicle which can ONLY start from standstill or go below 500 rpm in 1st gear on electric power. It cannot idle the internal combustion engine. All cylinders are deactivated as the vehicle slows to a stop or accelerate from stand still. The engine is turned over relatively effortlessly by the electric motor along with transmission input, because all the valves are shut and the pistons act as springs. You always rely on 100% electric power to get going initially, the engine is started simply by reactivating all the valves and injecting fuel. Shifting once underway is done by electronic throttle modulation (for rev matching) and directly shifting the transmission without a clutch.

BTW, if GM does the aforementioned, it actually won't be the first... Mazda's Skyactiv-G engines are exactly that. That's how they get 13:1 and 14:1 compression to work on pump gas. However, their performance cam is not particularly aggressive.

The silly thing really is that, as a fuel economy device, they are not employing it effectively and the effects on fuel economy and/or performance is marginal at best. What they should have done is create a virtually variable effective displacement / effective compression engine. Bore x Stroke: 88 x 101 mm Static Displacement: 2457 cc Static Compression: 13.5:1 Low RPM mode (lower lift, extended intake duration, pseudo-Atkinson cycle) Effective Displacement: 1966 cc Effective Compression: 10.8:1 Effective output: 122 bhp @ 4200 rpm, 153 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm Minimum Operating speed: 500 rpm (idle) Maximum Operating speed: 4200 rpm Performance (Otto) Mode Effective Displacement: 2457 cc Effective Compression: 13.5:1 Effective output: 250 bhp @ 7000 rpm, 200 lb-ft @ 5200 rpm Minimum Operating speed: 2700 rpm Maximum Operating speed: 7200 rpm (fuel cut) The basic idea is this... By closing the intake valves really late -- 20% into the compression stroke's piston travel -- you essentially eliminated 20% of the effective displacement by kicking about a fifth of the air back out the cylinders. You also reduce the effective compression by about 20% because you are squishing 20% less air into the same combustion chamber volume. Finally, because the power (expansion) stroke remains the same you have an asymmetrical compression/expansion stroke which significantly improves energy extraction from the fuel burned. This method of operation is good for fuel economy. Most hybrids use this cycle for maximum fuel efficiency from their ICE at the expense of specific output. But, because we have cam switching system here, there is a greater implication. Notice that a 13.5:1 compression ratio and 2.5L displacement was what we started with, and this was turned into 2.0L and 10.8:1 compression due to the Atkinson Cam? If we stop using an pseudo-Atkinson cam grind we are back at a sky high 13.5:1 compression and 2.5L displacement! The problem of course is that 13.5:1 compression will probably ping and knock even on 91 octane premium. That is why it is not used on current 2.5L non-iVLC engines. But, knocking really happens not at high rpms and at high acceleration situations, but at low rpm, high load situations. The reason being that knocking -- the ignition of the charge prior to spark ignition -- is really a function of temperature and time. Compress a fuel-air mixture to a certain degree, expose it to a certain temperature and AFTER a certain amount of time it goes "boom" without the need for a spark plug to light it. It is when the engine is turning slowly and carrying a heavy load (wide throttle opening letting lots of air and fuel in) at it is most likely to knock, because the mixture is in the cylinders the longest before the spark fires. At high rpms, there is less in cylinder time between when the fuel and air is in the cylinder and when the piston approaches top dead center and the spark plug fires. With the ability to drop effective compression at low rpms, we also have the ability to run ridiculous compression ratios because we are only going to run the Atkinson cam at low engine speeds. The exact switchover depends on not just rpm but also throttle opening and rate of acceleration. But generally speaking it should occur somewhere between 2700 and 4200 rpm. Below 2700 we are always on the Atkinson cam which lowers displacement, increases fuel economy and most importantly drops our effective compression ratio. Above 4200 we are always on the high performance cam grind (which won't work at low speeds and will in fact ping like crazy at low speeds). About 102 hp/liter can be expected with a high performance cam with 13.5:1 compression), at the same time the engine is rendered operable and more fuel efficient than usual below 2700~4200 rpm, albiet a little low on torque and power, thanks to the Atkinson grind. When cruising on the freeway or puttering around town with a gentle foot, you really don't need all the performance you can get. A prod of the pedal brings a downshift above the 2700~4200 rpm threshold and the unleasing of a race bred 4-potter. This can be one of the best 4-cylinders ever.

Again, you are missing the point. There is NO legal barrier to this, period, simply because the tint is user variable and can be set to zero if so desired. Therefore, legally at least, you can sell a car so equipped as a no tint car as long as driver can turn the tint off. Yes, there is no mechanism to prevent him from insisting on using tint at a locale that legally prohibits it. But there is no mechanism to prevent him from insisting on putting on aftermarket tint or plastering newspaper on his windows on any car either. Usage in compliance with local laws is the responsibility of the driver, not the manufacturer of ANY product. That's firmly established case law in the USA. The fact that the system permits a user configurable tint limit and even one that sets recommended limits based on state law of a selected state is not a required compliance mechanism. It is simply a convenience feature in the same manner as a state "tint" law chart is if made available by tinting film manufacturer(s). As far as being a "good corporate citizen" that is something that should be completely ignored. The reason corporations exist is to make profits within the legally permitted boundaries. And to do this they must give their customers what they want and are willing and able to pay for as long as it doesn't violate the law. To heed some unspoken, unwritten and/or imaginary accommodation with what the politicians and/or yanters in our society want breaks the very reason corporations exist. If the law makers or whoever don't like it, they can go make a law that prohibits it. There is no law on electrically variable glass on the books today, period. Until then, they can yant all they want or they can go campaign for votes to pass such a law.

Regardless of you want to dress this the tint has limited chance of consideration with GM. As for the detector it has zero chance based alone on their image as a responsible company. People are not held accountable but large corporations are. Like I said neat idea but not realistic. You can be sure that many in side many automakers have looked at this and considered it long ago but have you seen it implemented? Detectors are far from a new idea. You need to come up with a new and better idea if you want it to be realistic. This time look at it from all sides not just one. First of all, just because nobody has done it doesn't mean it cannot be done or shouldn't. It's the same as your argument for DOHC valvetrains -- everybody does it so it must be better. It is no different from "everybody believes in global warming so it must be true" or "they all say the world is flat so it must be". That kind of argument has very little substance. Besides, it is not even true! Have you seen a Lexus RX300 with it's factory tinted windows and rear windshield? That's a fixed tint and they sell it even in states prohibiting ANY tinting. The loophole? Apparently, the law apparently makes it illegal to tint your windows AFTER you purchase the vehicle, but says nothing about factory tints. So, it's OK if it's OE.

DETROIT – Drivers of the new 2014 Chevrolet Impala will enjoy sweet sound and sweeter savings at the pump thanks to precision noise reduction and a new advanced valvetrain technology on the Ecotec 2.5L four-cylinder engine, arriving in dealerships this month. Chevrolet expects the 2.5L model to be a popular choice among Impala buyers. More than two-thirds of Chevrolet cars sold in the first quarter of 2013 had a four-cylinder engine. “Impala customers have three engines to choose from, appealing to a wide array of needs,” said Chris Perry vice president, Chevrolet Marketing. “But the 2.5L model in particular offers both improved fuel economy as well as an accessible starting price of $27,535.” Chevrolet expects its new flagship sedan to be more fuel efficient, due in part to the 2.5L engine’s Intake Valve Lift Control technology. In older engines, valves operate strictly based on mechanical camshaft rotation, opening and closing the same way all the time. Chevy’s new system allows the valves to open and close by varied amounts and at different times depending on power demand to provide greater fuel efficiency or power. When the technology operates in low-lift mode, the engine pumps only the air it needs to meet the driver’s demand. The system switches to high-lift mode at higher engine speeds or under heavy loads, providing the full output capability of the engine. Impala’s 2.5L engine, which delivers SAE-certified 196 horsepower (146 kW) and 186 lb-ft of torque (252 Nm), achieves variable valve lift using an all-new rocker arm that switches between low and high lift intake cam profiles. The mechanism is actuated by an oil control valve through a dual-feed stationary hydraulic lash adjuster. It is the first of its kind for low friction roller-type finger-follower valvetrains in gasoline engines. The engine’s computer continuously selects the optimal lift profile based on conditions such as engine speed and load. “Intake Valve Lift Control works so seamlessly drivers aren’t likely to notice it at all,” said Mike Anderson, General Motors’ global chief engineer for Ecotec engines. “What they will notice is a fuel economy improvement of up to one mile per gallon.” The EPA estimated fuel economy for the 2014 Impala with the new 2.5L engine is 21 mpg city and 31 mpg highway. The redesigned large sedan’s 2.5L engine with direct injection is engineered to be one of the quietest and most refined in the segment. The development team reduced engine noise intensity by 40 percent by specifically targeting the 2.5L’s noise frequency signature. They pushed radiated noises into a higher frequency range well above 2,000 hertz, which is more pleasing to the ear – particularly in the high-load operating ranges where engine sound is most intense. The refinement-enhancing changes and improvements over previous Ecotec engines ranged from the comparatively simple – such as integrating a sound-absorbing cover into the intake manifold and specifying quieter drive chains – to more fundamental architecture items, such as relocating the balance shafts from the cylinder block to a cassette within the oil pan. Impala’s passengers get a quieter driving experience due in part to active noise cancelling technology and a more refined sound as the engine revs to its 7,000-rpm peak – a sound that GM Noise and Vibration Engineer Tom Slopsema likens to the precision purr of a sewing machine. “We focused on reducing the overall engine noise level and placing the remaining noise in a higher frequency range,” Slopsema said. “No fastener, cover or internal engine part was left unexamined in our quest to make this engine one of the quietest in the industry.” Impala offers three fuel-efficient powertrains, including the 3.6L V-6, the new Ecotec 2.5L four-cylinder and the Ecotec 2.4L with eAssist. Founded in 1911 in Detroit, Chevrolet is now one of the world’s largest car brands, doing business in more than 140 countries and selling more than 4.5 million cars and trucks a year. Chevrolet provides customers with fuel-efficient vehicles that feature spirited performance, expressive design, and high quality. More information on Chevrolet models can be found at www.chevrolet.com.

As I said, the legality of these are not in question any more than the legality of all cars without a 75mph limiter or a kitchen knife without the ability to blunt itself when placed against human flesh. Smart glass gives you the ability to break window tint laws in various states, but it does not compel you to do so and in fact offers you the means to easily adjust the "tint limit" settings to be in compliance. How you want to view its intent is up to you. But, there is no question that it is legal if it is something that can be disabled for the two with laws against detectors. The same arguments against "seeing" photo, radar and cameras can be used against street signs saying "photo enforced" or "radar enforced".

It's pretty simple actually... Smart Glass Option There is no DOT regulation on allowable tint, period. However, states and even local municipalities may have laws governing what's legal and what's not. It is not illegal to sell any car with any tint anywhere in the USA; it may be illegal to drive one with tinted windows, but never to execute a sales transaction. The SMART GLASS OPTION is not a fixed tint. It can be operated with essentially no tint or pretty dark tint. It is as legal as a power rear sunshade even though some states prohibit their use -- just don't use it! If simply having the capability is illegal (it is not) then having newspaper in the car would be illegal too, because you can patch it on windows and block driver vision (nevermind that you haven't yet done so and have no such intention)! It is the responsibility of the owner to use certain darker settings only in locales that do not prohibit them -- All GM vehicles are capable of breaking the speed limit, it doesn't make the vehicle illegal or subject GM to legal liability; it is the responsibility of the driver to obey local laws and limit his tint level usage just like he limits how fast he drives. Because this is electronically controlled "SMART GLASS", GM can even add a menu option in CUE which allows the driver to automatically set the tint limits based on the "STATE". This can be turned off allowing full range usage, or by selecting a State it automatically set limiters on the darkest tint accessible based on a database of tint laws in 50 states. A legal warning of course accompanies this feature warning the driver to always obey local laws and that the data base may not reflect latest rule changes in your locale. Threat Warning Receiver The TWR option is not offered new cars sold in Virginia and DC. If someone buys a used car and bring it to these states, they can turn off the functionality and/or have a dealer permanently disable it (via an OBD port update). This is no different from buying a car whose owner had a radar detector installed and removing it. In addition, because this is a really "smart" TWR system integrated with the car's navigation system and it's various OE displays, it is smart enough to actually display "TWR NOT AVAILABLE DUE TO STATE LAW" whenever you drive into VA or DC because it knows where you are! Finally, from a philosophical stand point, the moral argument is that the system is not intended to assist in breaking the law but to warn the driver not to break them by frequently reminding them of the presence of law enforcement devices. The aforementioned is especially true since it warns not just of radar and laser hits, but also red-light and/or speed cameras known to the database. In fact, the reverse argument -- that ignorance to the existence of such devices keeps the public safer -- is indefensible. To argue that, what you will be saying is that there shouldn't be "radar enforced" or "Redlight Camera Ahead" signs as is so frequently posted along our roadways. That you WANT drivers to break the law so you can fine them. This is completely indefensible both legally and morally.

Here are three option packages I hope Cadillac will offer on all their products which (I believe) will set them apart from the Japanese and German competition in an uniquely American way. Smart Glass Package -- $3000 (electrically adjustable tint and privacy glass with 99.9% UVA/UVB blocking) World's most advanced automotive glass green house All side windows are acoustic sandwiches (like that you find on a Malibu's front windows) but with a few additional tricks It has three films on the inside of the acoustic sandwich layer. Electrochromic dimming allows the side, moonroof and rear glass to be varied from 5% to 95% tint with a touch of a button or dial Automatic mode allows automatic tint reduction at night and at low ambient lighting situations, plus automatic tint augmentation when high beamed from the rear Privacy glass allows the side, moonrood and rear glass to go from clear to frosted with a touch of a button 99.9% UVA/UVB blocking film keeps the tan off your skin (will be hugely popular in asia where women spend billions on skin lightening cosmetics) Fail-safe; unlike conventional tints, if the system fails or power is lost, the glass are clear. All courtesy of 3M & DuPont Cadillac Signature Upholstery -- $3000 (Genuine American Luxury Hides all around) Designed to be as distinctively Cadillac and American as Connolly hide is to Aston Martins. Genuine California Napa Leather on seats and door panels Real Stitched, non-reflective, black Texan Nubuck leather dash, headliner and pillars Genuine Tempurpedic Memory Foam seat cushions out of Kentucky Threat Warning Receiver Package -- $1500 (OE integrated radar and Lidar detection and warning) Most advanced X, K, Ka & Ku band radar and Laser receivers placed within the same "sharkfin" mast as the satellite radio antenna. Displays on car's multi-functional screen in instrument cluster and/or HUD (if equipped) instead of separate display Precise Graphic Indication emitters by number and bearing (Front, Side & rear) Audible warning which cuts in through the audio system (user defeatable) No wiring, no box on the mirror, nothing exposed Receives traffic and weather alert emitters as well Smart GPS based database indicates fixed red-light cameras and photo speed traps, mutes audible warnings if vehicle speed is at or under the speed limit for the road Real time traffic collision alert (based on real time traffic data from Nav System) Free "Please obey all traffic laws" sticker Developed in partnership with Valentine Research Inc. None of these are technically challenging; the technology and materials have been there for decades. And, most importantly, the competition hasn't offered them yet.

Why bother? The C7 Vette is lighter, just as powerful and just $58K. It looks better too IMHO.

Welcome back.