dwightlooi

I am all for it as long as it is a user defeat-able feature.

This was, and is, possibly the ugliest hatchback ever since the BMW Z3 Hardtop coupe.

The problem here is the 6T75 transmission -- can't handle the torque so boost control has to be trimmed to limit the torque output. But, on the bright side the engine will be more linear in its torque mapping. Torque at the power peak will be similar, with the top of the plateau chopped off below that.

8-speeds vs 6 6.71 ratio spread vs 6.05 Most importantly, better shift quality and speed.

Two things... a Luxurious Civic with a slightly bigger engine doesn't really appeal to too many in the USA. Also, not offering an automatic tranny with the premium engine is just plain retarded when 80% of the US driving public doesn't know how to drive a stick. This might be acceptable for, say a Lotus Elise -- a car no one but hard core enthusiasts will even consider -- but for a poshed up Civic? That's plain dumb.

There is usually not a particularly bad place to be when you have a good product. The ATS is a fine opening shot and the CTS looks like a good follow up on it. They are not perfect though... the ATS is near perfect with chassis tuning, but it's transmission can't keep up drag both performance, driving experience and economy down. CUE is also a rather tacky dud. GM needs to incrementally improve the ATS without waiting for the next model cycle. Try what Jaguar did. They launched the XF in 2009, in 2010 they replaced the 4.2 V8s with a pair of 5.0 DI V8s, 2011 they added a supercharged V6 and a turbo I4, 2012 they facelifted the car with a new front fascia and a revised interior and new interactive infotatinment system, 2013 they swapped out the 6-speed autos for 8-speed autos. Almost every year, there's a significant upgrade in one area or another. GM only needs to do two things to turn the ATS from good to great -- apply the Aisin TL80SN tranny in 2014 on all the ATS models except perhaps the base car (to keep the entry price low), go on a crash development of CUE version 2.0 and make it a complimentary upgrade for existing cars. The ATS-V will be a nice addition too, but in the larger scheme of things it's not as important as upgrading the tranny and CUE.

What Cadillac needs is a CUE version 2.0 -- a complete revamp of the horrible UI -- and make that a free (but optional) update on existing cars.

If you don't have enough brand clout and enough market share for a 7-series / S-class competitor, you have even less for an even smaller niche like a uber lux GT or 4-door coupe. If small doesn't justify your R&D money, smaller than very small won't either!

They could have used the 103.25mm pistons and 92mm crank throw in the truck V6. This would have yielded a 4.7 liter displacement and about 340 hp / 340 lb-ft. The compression ratio of 11.5:1 and the "premium recommended / not required" gasoline diet however probably won't be the best choice for a truck engine. A relatively peaky tune with torque peaking in the high 4000s and power peaking at about 6 grand probably won't be ideal either. I'll gladly lose 30 hp and 10 b-ft to move the torque peak down 1000 rpm and go to an 87 octane recommendation.

If you express the numbers in MJ / Gallon the numbers will be different, but the ratios won't. It'll be like 62 mph is 50% faster than 31 mph. If you express it as 100 km/h and 50 km/h respectively, that's still 50% faster. As so far as light hydrocarbon (gaseous) fuels go, I still very much prefer Propane. It is liquid at ~120 psi (@ 75 deg F) whereas Natural Gas is never liquid at any "practical" pressure. At room temperature, propane is about 25 MJ/L compared to with about 9 MJ/L for natural gas with 4000 psi tanks. Unlike CNG, rupture of a 100~200 psi pressure vessel is generally not explosive and not dangerous. The low pressures also means that the tanks can be relatively cheap and significantly lighter given the same construction compared to CNG tanks. From a handling standpoint, high pressure rigs are not required for refueling and processing gaseous propane into liquid fuel requires only moderate refrigeration to the tune of -44 deg F which is easy to achieve with common refrigerator technology without needing fussy cryogenic equipment. Propane is about 110 octane. Not super high, but still notably more than gasoline. Allowing a compression ratios in the 13~13.5:1 range in an engine that is normally suited to 10.5:1 with Gasoline. Not bad. More importantly, Propane is metered as a gas, meaning that unlike liquid fuels port or direct injection is really unnecessary for precise fuel metering. Instead, you simply mix the propane with the intake air somewhere between the throttle body and the intake. Fuel distribution in the pretty homogeneous gaseous mixture will be even. As far as combustion cleanliness, it is practically as clean as CNG. C3H8 combustion results in CO2 and/or CO as well as water the combustion products -- no soot, no carbon fouling, no gunk, no particulates. Generally, there won't be a need for a catalytic converter and there is no issue with hydrocarbon emissions. The engine will be naturally smog free. If you run it very lean and very hot you do get oxides of nitrogen, but that's really from heating air itself really and anything that relies on atmospheric air for the oxidizer will form NOx if operated lean enough and hot enough since air is 21% oxygen and about 78% nitrogen.

I have to disagree with you on the 1/4 less than petrol. CNG is equal in energy content to petrol when you compare a gallon of Petrol to a gallon of CNG. Propane is clearly less pressure but has 1/3rd less energy in the same gallon. As such, all propane powered auto's loose HP, Torque and distance unlike CNG that is equal to Petrol on getting the same energy out of a Gallon of fuel. CNG being 130 Octane is much cleaner and actual increases HP and Torque figures. I am sorry, I don't think that's scientifically accurate... Here are the Volumetric Energy Densities of the fuels we talked about. It is given in Megajoules / Liter (MJ/L) -- a standard measurement of energy density per unit storage volume:- Pump Gasoline = 33.2~34.3 MJ/L* #2 Diesel Fuel = 37.3 MJ/L Jet A (Kerosene) = 33.1 MJ/L Liquified Natural Gas (cryogenic) = 26.0 MJ/L Liquid Propane = 25.3 MJ/L Ethanol = 24.0 MJ/L Compressed Natural Gas (@ 3625 psi) = 9.0 MJ/L Uncompressed Natural Gas (@ 14.7 psi) = 0.0365 MJ/L * General = Generally speaking, the higher the Ethanol content the lower the energy density; 10% Ethanol blends have the worst energy density amongst Gasoline formulas. Octane boosting additives and detergents also generally reduce energy densities although extremely insignificantly. Based on the above, I'd say that 1/4 the energy content is a reasonably accurate description. Now, CNG is also a lot lighter per unit volume. In fact, in terms of Mass Specific Energy Density it is not bad at all -- 53.6 MJ/kg vs 46.3 MJ/kg for Gasoline -- but we were talking about how far the vehicle can can go with a particular fuel tank size not fuel weight! Also, while Natural Gas weighs very little the tanks are large because it is a gas and densities are very low compared to liquid fuels. Also, to hold thousands of PSI of pressure, the tanks are heavy compared to gasoline and diesel tanks.

Here's an in depth presentation on the LT1 Pushrod V8 by its Chief Engineer Tadge Juechter. http://media.gm.com/dld/content/Pages/presskits/us/en/Chevrolet/gen5/_jcr_content/rightpar/sectioncontainer_1/par/download/file.res/LT1%20presentation%2024OC12a.pdf This is an official GM press kit distribution; all relevant copyrights and fair usage etiquette apply. In short, the information is public domain and you may quote it or share it. But, you may not claim it as your own, you may not modify it or distort the information, and you may not use it to sell a commercial product.

Well, a lot of time has gone by since this thread was started. We now know what kind of animal the Gen V small block is:- General Motors Gen V Small-block V8 (RPO Code: LT1) Displacement: 6.2 Liters (6.162 cc) Bore x Stroke: 103.25 mm x 92 mm Compression Ratio: 11.5-to-1 Construction: Aluminum block & heads w/ Iron cylinder liners Fully Dressed Weight: 211 kg Valve Train: In-Block-Cam, Pushrods, 2-valves per cylinder, variable valve timing, cylinder deactivation Fuel Supply: Direct Gasoline Injection Fuel Requirement: 91 Octane Premium Gasoline (Recommended; not required) Power Output: >= 450 hp (SAE Certification pending) Torque Output: >= 450 lb-ft (SAE Certification pending) Redline: 6600 rpm Fuel Economy: >= 17 mpg City / >= 27 mpg Highway (EPA certification pending) Performance Claims: 0-60 <= 3.9 secs (3,250 lbs Base Corvette C7) Confirmed Applications: Corvette C7 Expected Applications: Cadillac V-series products, Holden Commodore HSV products

This car needs the 3.6 Bi-turbo more than the CTS does. It is afterall the heavier car.

Well, converting the country to a new fuel is something that isn't easy to do. We can't even get America to "accept" diesel as a mainstream fuel for non-commercial vehicles. The problem with CNG is that for the same storage volume you can store less of it compared to gasoline or diesel -- because it is a gas and because long chain hydrocarbons release more energy when broken down in combustion. A rough rule of thumb is that for the same storage volume (tank size) CNG has about 1/4 the energy content as diesel or gasoline. This means that for the same fuel tank volume a CNG vehicle goes 1/4 the distance all else being equal. This is exacerbated by the fact that being a pressure vessel, CNG tanks usually need to be cylindrical or spherical whereas unpressurized liquid fuel tanks can be any contorted shape. This is why CNG vehicles typically have to sacrifice passenger or storage volume for fuel storage, and still do not go as far on a full tank. As a "clean" combustible fuel, liquid Propane is probably better than CNG. It is liquid at very moderate pressures and room temperatures, it has a higher specific energy density and it is similarly available. The storage density advantages is why camping stoves and portable grilles -- which need to take their fuel with them and store it -- run predominantly on propane, whereas home kitchen stoves and heaters predominantly run natural gas (which is carried through pipes and need not be stored locally).

Probably not. Natural Gas is overwhelmingly CH4 (aka Methane), there are some trace aromatics and impurities, but generally no long chain hydrocarbons. It is technically not capable of producing soot or carbon compounds that cakes. The same can be said of slightly longer chain hydrocarbons like propane. In fact, one of the reasons Methane is being proposed as an alternative -- in a refrigerated liquid state -- to RP-1 (refined kerosene) in Kerosene / LOX rocket engines is the coking proof nature of the fuel which permits a fuel rich staged combustion cycle as opposed to an oxidizer rich cycle. The problem with CNG is the poor storage density and high pressure tanks needed. Your car will go half as far and the tanks will eat up half the trunk space. Go check out a Civic HX... Gasoline and diesel are attractive because they are storable, dense and readily available. Also, CNG is already a gas. Hence, there is no charge cooling through direct injection and there is very little benefits to using DI with it.

I can't go back and change the post... the window for modification has timed out. Basically, what I was suggesting is that DI has an inherent noise and fouling problem which cannot totally be eliminated in DI only cars. Using an auxiliary TBI system allows you to:- Reduce the injector noise from DI when it is most audible Provide for the cleaning of the intake and valves to eliminate the fouling problems Do the aforementioned using a system that is least complex and least costly The addition of the stage cam switching system and part-time Atkinson cycle merely compliments the idea by affording a way to alter the "effective" compression ratio to accommodate for the inferior knock resistance of the engine while operating with TBI. Fuel efficiency really doesn't matter at idle or in the parking lot given the low power demand, air flow and fuel use in those situations. A concentric lifter can be used to achieve cam switching. This is applicable to both pushrod and OHC designs and is quite possibly the simplest way of doing it.

The Problem Direct injection, as many of you know, allows for charge cooling, more precise fuel metering and a higher degree of atomization. This consequently permits a higher compression ratio to be adopted which in turn affords greater fuel economy and higher performance. Sounds good right? Well, there's a catch. Direct Injection also presents a few problems... Noise from the injectors Carbon fouling of the intake valves, intake tracts and/or throttle assemblies. The reason is simple. Every engine has some degree of blow by past the valves when they are closed and many deliberately circulate exhaust gases into the intake side -- via valve event overlap and/or EGR valve(s) for emissions control. These "dirty" gases carry carbon particles (soot really) which over time can stick to intake valves, runners and throttles. In port injected or, heck, carburetor equipped engines the intakes are "wet". Fuel is constantly misted over the intake tracts and valves. If the gasoline is of any decent quality, it will containt detergents which gently cleans the valves of carbon deposits. It won't be completely spotless, but in general there won't be a problem with significant build ups. Direct Injected engines have completely dry intakes, anything stuck on this side of the intake valve never gets cleaned off. Mitigation strategies are available. They generally involve timing and angling the fuel injection event so no fuel vapor gets back up the intake. Also, close tolerances of the valve seats may be specificed ensure that blow by is minimized. The valves and intakes can be coated to reduce the amount of carbon that actually sticks. Finally, combustion chambers and mixtures may be optimized to mimizing sooting. However, completely eliminating carbon particles on the intake tracts is largely impossible with a "dry" intake. And, many respectable companies (Audi comes to mind, BMW & GM too to a lesser degree) has serious carbon fouling issues on their direct injected engines. Carbon build up can be so bad that by 40K miles you may see a loss of about 10% of "when new" output. To make matters worse, there is no easy fix. Injector cleaners and oil additives do nothing because they don't reach the trouble spots. The only cure is for a complete dis-assembly of heads and manual scrubbing or replacement of the valves and other components -- which is essentially an engine rebuild. To be honest, every DI engine has this fundamental problem. The difference is in degree. In an Audi RS4 for instance you'll lose 20~30 hp in 10,000 miles and for the 2.0T engines, its pretty darn ugly and somewhat performance impacting by 50~60K miles. In GM and BMW engines it's about ~1 secs off your original 0-60 times by 50~60K miles; build up is visible, yet not horrendous although it makes one wonder how these engines will perform at 200K miles. Ford and Porsche on the other hand have been relatively clean -- just thin visible coating of grey but no discernible impact on dyno or real world numbers. Toyota of course is completely free of the issue because they went to the complexity and expense of using both port and direct injectors on every cylinder. The Solution Direct Injection for power Throttle Body Injection for idle and low rpm / low load 2-stage cam switching system between a 80% Atkinson and a High Performance Otto cycles* * Otto Cycle Compression Ratio of 11.3:1 will become 9.0:1 with the Atkinson cam grinds in action. This reduction in compression allows the slightly uneven fuel distribution from the TBI system to not be an issue with pinging. The Atkinson cams also makes the compression stroke 80% that of the expansion stroke improving energy recovery for better economy. Using the good old TBI scheme allows one to "wet" the intakes using one injector instead of many. This is especially economical when you talk about six or eight cylinder powerplants as opposed to Inline-3s and 4s because of the number of injectors needed to do it the Toyota way. Also, the good old TBI cleans from the throttle body all the way down the intake and right through the valves. A port injection system only cleans the valves and the very end of the intake. The reduced compression from the Atkinson cam also reduces combustion noise. Ideally, the TBI system will be active only at idle and when creeping around at low rpms (below 1500 rpm). A little cleaning every day goes a long way! This is also when injector noise is most audible. And, even when cruising on the freeway way at 1800 rpm in top gear, only the direct injectors are in action. If you ever prod the throttle the direct injectors and otto cams come online too. Basically, it is a system for intake cleaniness and enhanced refinement -- the TBI injector is capable of supplying no more than ~10% of the maximum fuel demand of the car at WOT near the redline.

BTW, now is a horrible time to buy a used car. Used car values in 2012 was at a 30 year high -- 2008 was a 30-year low so it was a dramatic swing around. Used car prices for a 4 year old $60~70K car is about 40K today which is higher than it normally should be (low 30s). In late 2008, a similar car would have sold for the high 20s -- I bought a 1 owner, 2005 C55 AMG (3 yr 10 months old; $62K when new) in December 2008 for $27K. One thing to note when buying used is that you cannot be too hung up on one model, preferably you'll be flexible on the exterior and interior colors as well. It'll help if you shop for a "category" of cars rather than one specific model. For instance, I may be open to an M3, M5, C63, RS4, CTS-V Coupe, IS-F or even the Jaguar XF Supercharged when shopping for a replacement for the C55. I also won't be stuck on a particular color or interior trim -- basically I'll take anything that isn't black. Generally, that's how you broaden your chances of getting a good deal. Also, remember that the power to walk away is your most powerful weapon. If the seller (or worse yet dealer) thinks you are set on the vehicle he won't be prone to cutting you any price breaks! Finally, do not ever have a time horizon -- always be shopping in a mode where you can buy today or next month or a year from now, just only when the right deal comes along.

The Impala grille is ugly and cluttered, the Cruze / Malibu grille looks much better. The 1.4T engine is a ho-hum waste of time though... the money they spent on the turbo and intercooler is better spent on an aluminum block and direct injectors. An NA version of the 2.0T (LTG) in the ATS will serve the Cruze better as an upgrade engine over the 1.8. It'll make about 160 hp and 150 lb-ft, and mileage won't be any worse than the 1.4T's 26/38 mpg.

I don't buy new cars... period. The depreciation is simply not worth it. I buy 3~5 year old cars, and I look for those which are heavily optioned because -- as far as used cars go the price for a stripper and a loaded example does not vary all that much. However, if I have to order the new Vette, the only thing I absolutely will splurge on is Magnetic ride control.

It's not whether electric cars are ready for the road. It's that there is no economic need to go electric at this juncture where fossil fuel is still the best source of portable energy -- best meaning most available, economical and storable. The entire push to go "green" with electric cars, wind power and solar is completely misguided. It is misguided for three reasons... The first being that there is no economic need to do so for another 50 years, perhaps longer. Gas has to be in the neighborhood of $20 a gallon in 2012 dollars for the alternatives to make economic sense. And, oil is not disappearing fast. In fact, the USA has more reserves than the entire middle east combined and the USA and Canada has more than the rest of the world combined if only will explore, extract and refine. In fact, the maturing of mining and refining of tar sands has completely redefined the energy map of the planet. But, when 95% of federal lands is off limits to exploration and extraction, when we chase all the oil rigs off the gulf to brazil and elsewhere, when we haven't built a new refinery in over 30 years and when Canda wants to sell us their oil if only we'll built a pipeline to get it to where our refineries are we said "NO", our problem is not energy supply it's people that needs to be thrown out of Congress and the White House. The second being the "environmental" justification for the drive towards electrification. Nobody is for dirty air hand water here, but CO2 is not a pollutant of any consequence, it is not a problem and it should not be controlled or restricted. All the emissions mankind has made since the beginning of the industrial age has not made a statistical dent in the climate of this planet. We don't have a warming problem (in fact we are cooling right now) and all the fluctuations in past 200 years is not abnormal compared to what has historically been the case in interglacial times in the planet's history. Global warming, climate change and the targeting of carbon emissions this the biggest scam in the history of climate science and it is about time we tell the Europeans that they are idiots and that we will not regulate or control carbon emissions. And, that if they want to dig their own economic graves they can go ahead and we'll use all the cheap energy they don't want. Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, is the claim that all this rubbish is going to create jobs. Well, when in history has forcing higher energy prices and operating costs on an economy ever netted any jobs? Sure, you gain a few wind mill technician jobs and a few solar salesmen jobs. But you lose entire factories and industries who relocate to states and countries where there is cheap power and no cap-n-trade. --- Now... having said all that. I am not oblivious to the fact that fossil fuel is finite. And, that at some point of time in the future -- perhaps 50 or 100 years from now -- electric propulsion, grid distribution and and battery storage will be the best solution for the resources and economics of that time. But that day is not today, it is not next year or even 20 years from now. And, before we get there, we need to also realize that electricity is not an energy source -- it needs to be generated from something somewhere. Right now, 90% of it comes from burning fossil fuel anyway. And, wind, solar and hydroelectric -- exploited to their fullest -- cannot ever account for more than about 15~25% of today's needs much less tomorrows. So, before you go electric you need the capacity to generate it from something other than fossil fuels. That means Nuclear Power. Until you are ready to talk about 500 new reactors for the America you are not ready to talk about electrifying the economy. Also, if you make so much more power you need to move all that from the powerplant to the socket. This means increasing the capacity of our grid by a factor of three to four. So until you are willing to talk about a massive power lines and substation construction program, you are not ready to talk about electrification of the economy. These are all serious questions and they need serious, committed answers! Why are we talking about windmills, carbon credits and giving $6000 of taxpayer dollars to people who want to try the novelty of an electric car?

It's very simple. Is the objective to maximize fuel economy? If it is, then you want it to be a diesel hybrid. Why? Diesel maximizes the efficiency of actual power production (via the ICE) -- especially at cruise and part throttle conditions (which is most of the time). Hybrid drive trains allow for the recovery of kinetic energy during deceleration to be stored as electric energy and be reused during acceleration. Atkinson cammed gasoline engines help, but now where as much as diesels. If you are only doing energy recovery and not maximizing power production you are only tackling half the equation.

Which begs the question... Why is the Volt or the ELR's ICE not a diesel engine?

What I meant was they don't NEED to copy the Teutons. In fact, it hurts them more than it helps them because it creates the perception that they are nothing more than copy cats -- which they have come a long way from technologically,