dwightlooi

Actually, they NEVER got any more horsepower than their contemporary pushrod engines of the same mass or external dimensions. This is because they are as big, and weigh as much as, a push rod engine of ~50% greater displacement. They achieve simply achieve the same power output using less displacement, less torque and the ability to maintain higher torque outputs above 6000 rpm. While lower displacement gives them a theoretical edge in fuel economy by operating at a larger throttle opening for any given torque demand, this does not usually pan out in real life because twice as many valves and four times as many cams also incur higher frictional losses. At the same time, lower torque means that their powerband is less accessible in daily driving. To combat this, many resort to low pressure turbocharging to bolster the torque output and bring it lower into the rev range. This incurs additional efficiency losses from back pressure due to the turbine(s) and reduced static compression. Case and point: Audi 4.0T 32-valve Hot-Vee bi-turbo DI V8 (CEU) Engine Mass: 219 kg 435 hp @ 5100 rpm 445 lb-ft @ 1,500~4,500 rpm 18 mpg (City) / 28 mpg (Hwy) (RS6) Crate Engine Price: $30,800 GM 6.2 16-valve Pushrod DI V8 (LT1) Engine Mass: 211 kg 455 hp @ 6,000 rpm 460 lb-ft @ 4,600 rpm 16 mpg (City) / 27 mph (Hwy) (SS) Crate Engine Price: $8,400

The "fake" V CT5 and CT4, as well as the abandonment of the CT6 got me from the CTS VSport into an Audi A8L 4.0T in Dec 2019. That and the absolutely dismal value retention of Audi flagship Sedans in this age of SUV stupor. It came down to a 4 year old A8L 4.0T with the flagship B&O audio system for $31.6K or a 3.5 year CT6 3.0T Platinum for 35K which didn't even have the rare Panaray system. Both cars had 32~37K mileage on the clock. It was no contest.

With the new CT4-V and CT5-V, Cadillac has returned to big power:- CT4-V Blackwing gets 474 bhp / 445 lb-ft Twin-Turbo V6 (LF4) CT5-V Blackwing gets 668 bhp / 659 lb-ft Supercharged Pushrod V8 (LT4) This is definitely welcomed news for Cadillac V-Car fans who were completely underwhelmed by last year's CT4-V and CT5-V that boasted a whopping 10~25 hp gain over ordinary CT5 cars and base model Silverado pickups. The return to Pushrod power is encouraging, showing that GM is finally playing to it's architectural strength rather than chasing after other manufacturer's design weaknesses. Still, it begs the question as to why Cadillac (or GM in general) decided to downgraded the 3.0TT (LGY) engine for the CT5 from 404 bhp to 335 bhp (360 bhp in the CT5-"V*") which saved no money, gained no compression, gained no torque and gained no mpg over the same engine in the CT6 (LGW). It also represents a missed opportunity to evolve the promising 2.7T engine. The 2.7T -- as I have previously articulated -- could easily have made 420 bhp @ ~5300 rpm / 420 lb-ft @ ~2800 rpm with about 20~22 psi of boost from properly sized turbocharger like a G25-550D while providing markedly better drivability than any AMG 2.0T engine of similar output by virtue of its 36.5% greater displacement. It would have been a fitting powerplant for the CT4-V Blackwing and it would have captured the 4-cylinder performance crown for GM. This also confirms the abandonment of the hot-Vee 4.2L twin turbo DOHC V8 (LTA) used in the short lived CT6-V and which GM had declined to employ in the new Escalade, CT5-V Blackwing or any other suitable vehicle -- a total waste of R&D and tooling dollars. https://www.cadillac.com/future-vehicles/blackwing-reservation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dg_hh8A78kM

You do not usually blow transmission lines because you impacted something; that usually leads to a cracked case or leaking pan but the lines would be generally intact. You usually blow lines because of an internal blockage causing a spike in hydraulic pressures.

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Not that there aren't unslightly aspects to the QM2 -- such as the fake rounded stern with conspicuous cheeks when this is in fact a flat transom hull -- but I wasn't talking about the exterior looks of the ship. My point was that the QM2 on-board experience does not measure up to the price. It is about 50% more expensive than the mass market lines but it does not feel any more luxurious or special. In fact, the interior passages were awkward in many places and the ship doesn't have the modern 10 deck atrium and hence didn't feel airy on the inside. For a very big ship it also didn't have entertainment that measured up to the other very big ships. I was on her relatively early in her career... circa 2009 when the ship was about 5 years old.

A better product strategy would be to totally IGNORE CAFE, but amortize the CAFE charges only to vehicles who are above CAFE mpg requirements instead of across the entire lineup. You can buy a non-CAFE meeting car, just pay the insignificant fine. Or you can buy some green mobile that needs to be charged or which has a few thousand dollars worth of fuel saving systems that (I guarantee) is more than the $55 per MPG CAFE penalty.

Actually, no, it's not. Not anymore with the rampant censorship of contrary opinion currently going on. Regardless... the QM2 was the WORST cruise ship I had ever been on. OK, maybe not in the absolute sense, but definitely the worst for the money. Overpriced, segregated unnecessarily into class accessible areas and the food was... meh... even in Princess Grill (and I doubt Queens grill is any better). The class system made the "normal" passengers feel inferior without making the the suite passengers feel pampered or special. While it is a big ship, it also didn't feel spacious inside. If it is luxury you are after, try Carnival's Seabourn, NCL's Regent or RCI's Silversea for the money. If it is the big ship experience you like -- in particular the production shows and big budget entertainment -- try the RCI Oasis class megaships or even the Celebrity Edge class vessels.

It is incredibly sad that GM is kowtowing to the Global Warming Fraud and the environmental extremists, while insisting on forcing electrics down the throats of their customers instead of build ALL vehicle types that are in demand and which are legal then letting consumers decide what they want to buy. Saying to people who do not want to spend hours recharging electric cars, do not care about carbon emissions, but who do want affordable, high performance, luxurious and/or reliable cars running on the cheapest form of energy currently available on Earth (fossil fuel) that we don't want your business is simply dumb.

Regardless... If any of you gyus are into Caddies, the CT4-V and CT5-V Blackwings are due for unveiling 2/1/21.

The K-series 2.5 remains one of the smoothest V6 engines to date. The combination of a short 74.2mm stroke, 60 deg angle, relatively low compression (9.5:1), belt driven cams and being devoid of modern direct injection clatter meant that it was supremely quiet and creamy all the way to its 7,000 rpm fuel cut. This was one of those engines where you can hardly tell the difference between 2,000 rpm and 7,000 rpm. You could hear the whirl of the alternator fan but you couldn't hear the engine! There wasn't much above 6,200 rpm though and the briskest pace was achieved by shifting way short of the redline. They do have a habit of cracking the distributor caps, but that is a cheap and easy repair you can do in 15 minutes. -- Oh, and if you totally neglect it and snap the timing belt? No problem! I it was a non-interference engine and the pistons wouldn't hit the valves.

My first car was a silver 1994 Ford Probe GT. Acquired used in 1996 with a rather high 73,000 miles for $7,500. It had a buttery smooth Mazda KL-DE 2.5L 24-valve V6 which made 164 bhp @ 6000 rpm, 156 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm and a 5-speed manual transmission. It took 7.5 secs to reach 60 mph and got 20/26 mpg. The tires were 225/50 R16 Michelin Pilot HX MXM which gave plenty of grip despite the all strut suspension. -- In many ways, my subsequent cars -- which included a 1987 GTi 16v, 1988 MR2 Supercharged, 1991 Celica All-Trac Turbo and 1992 Eagle Talon TSi AWD -- weren't quite as new or as nice. The Probe was lost in an accident without comprehensive insurance and my college era wallet never allowed it to be replaced with something comparable. So, I ended up buying older cars which I could buy, own for less than a year and sell for the same amount I paid for it (or a little more on occasion).

First of all, I am a CLIMATE DENIER. I do not believe in the Global Warming hypothesis. It is nonsense that the climate today is warmer than it has ever been or that it is in any way abnormal. The fact is that the Earth was warmer 800 years ago when there was practically no polar ice cap and the Norsemen were able to settle on Greenland. She was also warmer when the Step Pyramid was built, when the Minoans thrived, when the Dinosaurs walked the Earth and for countless periods in between. Perhaps more importantly, she has been warmer during most of these periods with half the CO2 in the air. The planet was also capable of being frozen to the equator with 8~10x the CO2 in the air such as during the late-Ordovician ice ball. If the planet had been warmer with half the CO2 and much colder with 10x the CO2 how can we conclude that the current climate -- smack in the middle of historical fluctuations -- is in any way abnormal or that it is linked primarily to CO2 much less man made CO2? It doesn't matter how many "scientists" anyone claims agree with them; science is not a popularity contest. Therefore carbon emissions are totally irrelevant to me and I never believed in any form of carbon footprint reduction or economic suicide pacts like the Paris Accord. CO2 is a trace gas in the Earth's atmosphere at 2~4 parts per 10,000. Water vapor and other factors dominate our green house effect, while ice core samples have shown that warming and cooling cycles have never, ever, tracked CO2 concentrations ever since with have an Oxygen-Nitrogen atmosphere. That said, I do care about pollutants like particulates, oxides of nitrogen and other compounds that are actually harmful to humans. I also care about the economics of EVs. The idea that EVs are cleaner is predicate upon the electrical grid's power generation actually being cleaner. This is empirically not true in countries like China which gets 80% of their power from coal, while is is quite true with countries like France which is 80% nuclear. As far as the US is concerned, we get about 20% nuclear, 68% fossil fuel and 12% others. Of the fossil fuel slice of the pie, modern ULEV and PZLEV rated ICE are about as clean as the natural gas plants and CLEANER than the oil and coal fired plants.

That is only a problem with nitrogen storage catalysts. Urea Injection is an after treatment sprayed into the exhaust after the cat; $h! fuel is not going to hurt the tank or the sprayer. You may have trouble buying the Urea (aka DEF) if you used it up and peeing in there won't cut it. But, they typically last between 6000 and 9000 miles so if you top it off before the trip you should be fine.

Nobody actually needs to remove anything in half of the modern diesels. These use urea injection not a nitrogen storage catalyst. This is favored in the USA because we do not really have true low sulfur diesel fuel and sulfur poisons nitrogen traps. The Urea is misted downstream of the cat and the ammonia in it converts oxides of nitrogen to nitrogen and CO2 (as well as some CO). When the Urea tank is empty the ECU knows and is supposed restrict vehicle operation (to 5 mph). THAT, however, is easily fixed with a software flash. It's as easy to detect as performance software on the ECU -- which is to say the SMOG gay have no idea. All the guy knows is that all the HARDWARE are all in place and no error codes are present.

I don't know how I became part this fray, but your outburst is nonsensical. I don't dislike you and I never left... I simply haven't found much to comment about on this tread lately exactly because of the prevalence of this kind of diatribe. My position on EV is very simple and it hasn't changed. (1) EVs do not currently make economic sense because of the cost of batteries exceeds the cost of fuel over the lifetime of the battery (and often times that of the vehicle). That is why they need subsidizes and tax bates to survive on the market. (2) EVs also do not make convenience sense because they cannot be recharged in 3 minutes like a gas tank can be refueled. This is a big deal because convenience is the very reason automobiles exist -- if you don't care much for it you'll be happy waiting for the bus and consulting train schedules. (3) That said, EVs do offer a massive leap in refinement because of the lack of vibrations and noise from electric motors. However, brands like Tesla have done a terrible job making their vehicles refined, luxurious or simply quiet. (4) Given the above, I have always advocated for a primarily electric vehicles with a SMALL battery enough for 40~50 miles and a micro turbine generator -- which does not have to be efficient, just extremely compact and devoid of a cooling system -- for infrequent trips that exceed that.

That's VERY a bad Photoshop job on the teeth...

OK... given GM's announcement regarding their Ultium Battery architecture, my prescription for a practical EV will be:- 4 x Ultium Battery modules = 33 kWh (~80 mile electric range) = enough for 95% of US commuters 1 x 30kW Capstone (single stage unrecuperated) Microturbine = Ability to recharge battery to 90% capacity in 1 hour 16 gallon fuel tank will provide 230 mile of additional range for a total of 310 miles* *Note: With 16% thermal efficiency on the Turbine-Generator, 16 kg (5.56 gallons) of fuel is needed to produce 33kWh (or 80 mile range) using 12.9 kWh/kg Gasoline fuel. 16 gallons of fuel will hence provide (16/5.56) x 80 = 230 miles range extension. Basically, the idea is that you get to be fully electric for your daily commute and grind. Once in a year when you drive to LA from San Francisco or whatever, it'll cost you $68 in gasoline at $3.30 a gallon which you can get in 2 minutes at any of the gas stations along the way. Sure as hell beats lugging around an additional 1000 lbs and $20,000 in battery capacity every day for capacity you use once or twice a year. Or, waiting in line to recharge four times along the way. You can also go to a 33% efficiency recuperated turbine and basically half your fuel costs to $34 for that 380 mile trip (300 mile beyond electric range). But is saving that $34 once or twice a year worth the additional costs, space and weight of the recuperated turbine-generator (about $3000 more taking three times the space and weighing about 2.5 times as much)? I don't think so.

None of this would have happened if the Australians are smart and not fixated on "free trade" fallacies. Imagine a 50% import tax on cars made anywhere except Australia, plus making any purchase of durable goods over $1000 that is made in Australia tax deductible for income tax purposes! Suddenly, Holden makes perfect sense and importing US, Mexican or Chinese made Chevys makes zero sense. Not only that, you'll probably find at least two or three automakers like Toyota or VW setting up a factory in Aussieland. FREE TRADE = SUICIDE.

Speaking of Turboelectric generators... Simplest (least efficient) is a turbocharger with a combustor between compressor and the turbine wheels. The shaft is then extended and a generator/starter added. Efficiency is going to be low because a single stage centrifugal compressor can generate a pressure ratio of maybe 4:1 (5:1 with advanced aerodynamics and larger sizings). Next up is a recuperated turbine (most common arrangement in the turbine generator world). That is we put a heat exchanger on the turbine exhaust and use it to heat air coming out of the compressor. This recovers the majority of the heat otherwise wasted into the atmosphere.With a simple recuperator, expect the efficiency of a 4:1 or 5:1 compression ratio ICE, albiet one operating without valves, cams, pistons, rods, rings, belts, ports and all the other nonsense to add friction and aspirational drag. Two steps up (more efficient) is a dual shaft design. You add a second turbocharger whose compressor feeds the first turbocarger's compressor and whose turbine is turned by the exhaust of the 1st turbo's turbine. Everything on the 1st turbo doesn't change, but now you are talking about 8:1 to 10:1 compression and practically ICE level efficiencies. The unit is started by spinning up the inner (high pressure) stage and lighting the combustor. The low pressure stage will catch up once the unit is self-sustaining. With a recuperator, a 2-stage turbine generator is every bit as good as a ICE running at it's optimum speed, load and at WOT. The most efficient is a COGES-E. Basically, you have the above, but instead of a recuperator you have a boiler which captures the heat by turning water into steam. The boiler can be so efficient that the exhaust air is no hotter than blast of summer wind (130~140 degrees F). The steam is then used to turn a secondary steam turbine to produce additional power. A COGES-E arrangement can be as good as 60~66% thermally efficient which beats the 50% from larger diesels and 35-40% from gasoline motors. This is the state of the art for liquid or gaseous fuel power generation. In cases where power density is paramount and efficiency is not particularly important, you'll see non-recuperated single or dual stage turbines. Basically, staging increases power, recuperation increases efficiency. A commercial airliner usually has a turbine APU in the tail which is not recuperated because nobody really cares about the fuel efficiency of the APU as ground and starting power generation is less than 0.02% of the fuel consumed on a flight.

That only works if consumers actually want to buy EVs. Outside of Global Warming coolaid strongholds like California that is not really happening for three reasons. (1) People like the ability to refuel in 2 minutes vs recharge in 2-10 hours. (2) At today's costs the battery costs more than the lifetime gasoline cost of ICE powered cars. (3) Batteries with an energy density of about 0.8MJ/kg is simply not a direct replacement for gasoline at 46 MJ/kg. If you car carries the same weight in fuel as the Tesla Model S does in battery mass (1,200 lbs) it'll have an astounding range of 6,000 miles at a modest 30 mpg. If you have an all EV lineup today. GM will go out of business as it'll mean a 95% reduction in market share on top of losing money on every vehicle they sell. IMHO, pure EVs are impractical. What is needed if we are to go to mostly EVs is some way to have infinite range using combustible fuels when you need to at a minimal space, weight and economic cost. Fuel efficiency is not particularly important since daily commutes can largely be done on battery power (if the inconvenience of having to plug the vehicle in every night). This points to a turbo-electric generator. Why? Because it is very simple. It is air cooled. And, it has very high power density -- about 50hp from the size of a stack of CDs. It is not very efficient. But if you only use it for that one interstate trip or two a year, plus when you forgot to plug in your car, who cares if it is 15 mpg?

He sure stopped for the better part of two years and we gave him ZERO sanctions relieve, no nuclear fuel and nothing but a bit of attention. Sure as hell beats paying tribute to the fat arse under Clinton or Obama!

Not really. It doesn't work like that. The pie isn't "Chevy Sports car Buyers" and how to split it between a Camaro and a Speed. The pie has always been "$30~50K sports car buyer" and how to split it between all the relevant cars from every manufacturer. I'll be more worried for the Toyota/Subaru FT86, Toyota Supra, BMW M240i, etc. than I'll be for the Camaro or the Dodge Challenger. If GM wants market share they have to go steal it from the other gyus. The Camaro isn;t stealing anything except from maybe the Ford Mustang and Dodge Challenger.

Three things... (1) There is no reason to believe that the Camaro is going anywhere. It is not expensive to keep making it on the same platform with refreshed sheetmetal. Sales are enough to sustain production. Heck, sales are higher than all of GM's EVs combined. (2) The SPEED is not really in the same segment. It is a 2-seat MR coupe; not a muscle car. Mid-engine doesn't really cost anything apart from a new platform and in many cases a new platform doesn't cost much if it is kept simple (like the Kappa). Anyone looking for a muscle car is not going to look at the SPEED or vice versa. The point is that Muscle car people are not really C8 Corvette people either and there needs to be an entry level car that brings people to the Vette. (3) I know yoiu gays do not want to hear thus. But I think GM should have a Caddy version of the C8 instead of any Z06, ZR1 or whatever upgraded variants. What's the point in injecting Chevy with super-super car credentials? Caddy can you that in spades. Besides, obody is going to complain when the price tag breaches $100K when it's a caddy.

Don't worry, Orange Man is very smart.

Not really... the Miata is neither fast nor mid-engine nor a hard top coupe.