dwightlooi

What will you like to see beyond the "standard" C7 corvette? Personally, I'll like to see the Z06 move up market and gun for the ultimate expression of a Naturally Aspirated RWD performance car that gives the F458 Italia no quarters. This is what I'll do... 2015 Corvette Z06 "Stealth Ray" Base Price: $84,995 Price with Options: $84,995 (there are no options) Chassis: ~200 lbs lighter than "standard" C7 corvette (2,850 lbs) Hardtop only with stressed Carbon Fiber roof panel completing structural cell Lightened Aluminum frame with reduced bracing and material thickness Carbon fiber panels replace fiber glass for ALL exterior body panels Engine: 6.8 liter Small Block V8 (LT5) -- Magnesium Block, Aluminum Head, Inconel exhaust headers Pushrod OHV, 2-valves per cylinder 103.25 mm (bore) x 101.6 mm (stroke) -- LT1 bore w/ LS7 stroke 12.7:1 compression w/ Direct Gasoline Injection Cam-in-cam dual independent VVT Variocam Plus style 2-stage cam switching lifters in-lieu of AFM 575 bhp @ 6300 rpm 525 lb-ft @ 5300 rpm 91 octane unleaded gasoline (required) Transmission: RWD w/ rear mounted transaxle 7-speed manual with auto rev match (standard) Electronically controlled active rear differential Performance: 0-60: 3.4 secs 1/4 mile: 11.0 secs Skidpad: 1.08G 15 (city) / 25 (hwy) mpg Given the increased pricing, the ZR-1 takes a hiatus and less "dedicated" buyers can opt for a $70K "grand sport" which gets you the LT5 engine but without the expensive Carbon Fiber bodywork.

Honestly, I think the C4 interior is better than the C5 and the C6's. Why? Because it is less of a parts bin interior. And it's more driver focused (like the C7's).

I too find the 130R an unimpressive design. It is not really ugly, but it's also completely unremarkable. The rakish TRU140S is much better looking and more importantly a more striking visual statement. The problem of course is that the TRU140S is front drive. But if they intend to tackle this with a new platform, it won't be too difficult to stuff the engine in the back between the seats and the rear axle turning it into an MR design with an engine under the rear glass. They should also stop trying to make a sports car a green car or an economy car. Buyers looking for such vehicles are not Prius buyers, Fit buyers or Cruze buyers. They want a fast, nimble, exotic they can afford. MPG numbers don't hurt but they are not a top priority. Forget the 1.4T, just stuff the 270hp 2.0T (LTG) in there and call it a day. For an entry model, just stuff the 2.5 NA in there. The transmission choices can be a auto rev match 6M and a 6A, both with an electronically controlled locking differential. In anycase, the 2.5 is not going to post significantly worse MPG numbers than the 1.4T anyway.

The problem with the Volt is that it is neither as philosophically interesting as the Teslas or as economically approachable as the Prius. The folks who drink the Carbon Footprint Coolaid and have the money to spare will buy a Tesla. Those who do but don't have the dough buys a Prius. People who really want to save money buys a Corolla or a Civic. None of the above are particularly attracted to a $40K "economy" car which can go 40 miles on a charge then post worse mileage than Cruze afterwards.

Three things... (1) There is nothing particularly Stingray about this Stingray. But, the name does have a nice ring to it. (2) I find the design modern and up to date, and not particularly offensive. However, it is also overly cluttered -- too many unnecessary lines, ridges, creases and slats. I would have preferred a hood vent more like the C-6R or Shelby Series I rather than the slatted rendition here. I also like my cars with less lines -- like a B6 "Clinque Soap Box" Audi A4. But that's me and I also happen find the GT-R ugly and cluttered. (3) The interior I find to be a thousand times better than the current car. Again, I think it is a little too cluttered and would have preferred clean, symmetric lines like was found on the NSX or 300ZX. But the stitched elements are a class above the C6 and it's not bad compared to today's Audi interiors (which are a mess too). The steering wheel looks a little out of place though, especially the airbag cover (which looks like an after thought). Regardless, it could have been worse... like the Ferrari F430 or to a lesser degree the 458. I don't know why they choose the red car with black accents for the show. A Silver or Metallic Grey car looks much better -- if not anything else because the colors will flow better with the black roof and the black vent accents.

Offering the 2.4 liter ILX in the USA, or any 4-door passenger car for that matter, w/o an automatic transmission in the USA is moronic. 90% of the driver's can't drive a manual in this country!

If it is indeed the case, it will be a big mistake. A 3.6 TT will not be cheaper, lighter, more powerful or significantly (if at all) more fuel economical than the LT1. If it is used as the base engine it will raise the base price significantly and doesn't make any sense. If used as a mid-tier engine, you end up with a car that is more expensive than the V8 powered top-tier model. If used as the replacement for the LS3, it will raise the price of the SS, lower it's performance and make it less desirable to most Camaro buyers. What would have been a perfect fit for the Camaro will be the 4.3L V6 from the new Sierra. Tuned for a car instead of a truck, it'll make about 320 hp / 320 lb-ft. Similar in output to the 3.6 but with a much stouter bottom end. With AFM, the reduced drag from the pushrod valvetrain and the ability to use taller cruise gearing, the fuel economy will likely be as good or better than the 3.6 DOHC engine.

There might be a pricing problem with the ELR. The Volt is a $40K car to begin with and there is no way the ELR is going to be cheaper than that. As you inch upwards from $40K with luxurious equipment, more battery and an uprated different engine you start to get awfully close to the $60K mark. $60K is where all the posh tree huggers will go for the 120 mile range (60kWh) Model S. I see the Volt based ELR as a missed opportunity. This shouldn't be Caddy's version of the Volt (which nobody really wants). It could have been either a super fuel sipping conventional hybrid combining an Opel 2.0L turbo diesel in parallel mode with the Volt's 72hp secondary motor/generator only and a light weight 4KWh battery. The diesel electric formula will be unique within the US hybrid market and will beat the Prius hands down in MPG numbers. Alternatively, it could have been a no-compromise "performance" hybrid, with a 270hp (LTG) turbocharged 4 from the ATS 2.0T and the same 72hp secondary motor/generator from the Volt and a 4 kWh battery. Either would have been much more attractive than a rehash of the Volt.

Well... if it does not have the merits discussed -- frictional minimalization, power density, mass efficiency and cost effectiveness -- why does it have the aftermarket clout to begin with?

The B16A 1.6L VTEC engine was the first to deliver 100 hp/liter back in the early 90s. The Civic of that era also had double wishbones front and back which made them nice little handlers. The extremely low hood and belt line with a large green house made Honda's uniquely Honda looking. Over the last two decades, Honda has made great progress in becoming more mainstream and "ordinary". Today, the SI uses a 2.0L 160hp engine -- which does have a better torque curve than the aged 1.6 from 20 years ago, it it isn't particularly interesting in any way. It also lost the double wishbones for a more traditional front strut. I actually found the Rakish previous gen Civic quite attractive -- attractive but not particularly exciting. Kinda recalls an old Duran Duran song... as I try to make my way To the ordinary world I will learn to survive...

Not this particular law. 93B pertains exclusively to automobile franchises.

Another grey area, except even greyer. One argument is that the dealership franchises are GM dealerships, hence GM marketing a direct sales model on a new brand is still pitting factory direct GM vehicles against dealer sold GM vehicles. The counter argument is that Jupiter brand vehicles are a differentiated product from Chevy and Cadillac Vehicles, so the dealers' claim that it out-competes them and is unfair to their investment into the franchise of selling Chevies or Cadillacs is as bogus as saying that Hyundai out competes them because their vehicles have a lower price or they offer their dealers better terms. With my bias, I'll say that the court rules that the manufacturer cannot do that only if it's the same brand, and that in the case of Jupiter its OK unless GM also franchises Jupiter Dealerships in parallel to factory stores. But, that's me. It'll be fought over in the courts for sure. Forget about factory outlets and company owned stores. Just think of it this way. Do you think it's fair to an owner of a car dealership who has put up 5 million dollars of his own money, 10 years of his time and assumed all the financial risks of operating a Chevy dealership, only to have GM decide to sell Chevies on Chevrolet.com at DEALER INVOICE price with free delivery? His business and investment would be totally compromised overnight, and GM has acted to put him out of business through (unfair) competition rather than going through the (expensive) compensatory process of terminating his franchise per their franchise agreement. I believe that illustrates the spirit of the law and what it is trying to prevent.

Actually, I kinda agree with the premise of the law, but not the extension of it to require manufacturers to sell cars through dealers. I'll rewrite the laws to clearly state that:- (1) An automobile manufacturer may sell directly to consumers by any means it deems fit, but only if it does not have any franchise dealerships in the state. (2) If it does decide to have franchise dealership(s), it may not operate a factory store or market directly to the consumer in direct competition with its franchised dealers unless all franchise agreements are nullified or terminated, and suitable termination notice and compensation are made. In short, you can sell direct or utilize dealers. You cannot do both. If you already have dealers, need to buy them all out. You cannot simply operate a competing factory store and uncut them out of business and skirt franchise termination compensations.

This is a problem only in Massachusetts and a few states with laws designed specifically to protect dealer franchises. Basically, the law (93B in Massachusetts) is an anti-competitive ordinance which prohibits automobile manufacturers from also owning a dealership. Or at least that is the Dealer's Association reading of the law. The law does not actually say that. It says that an automobile manufacturer cannot own a dealership and get into direct competition with its own franchise dealerships. The law came into being to protect dealers who had invested in their dealer franchises from being out competed by manufacturer owned dealerships -- which presumably will have an unfair pricing and/or inventory advantageous owing to their factory ownership. For instance, if Ford has 23 dealer franchises in Massachusetts and each one had invested considerable time and money in their premises and operations, Ford buying up a few of those dealerships or opening a dealership in direct competition with its franchise dealers may potentially make those business nonviable and unfairly threaten the investment the dealers made into their businesses. The law prohibits that. However, Tesla does not have any dealers in Massachusetts, does not intend to franchise any dealerships and there does not currently exist any "investment" by anyone outside of Tesla to the marketing, inventory, sales or support of Tesla products. Hence, the protection of commitment and investment argument is ludicrous. And in Tesla's view, it is not buying any up any dealer franchises, it is not competing with any of its own dealer franchises (they don't exist) and it is not planning to operate factory stores in parallel with franchise dealers. Hence, the franchise law does not apply simply on the ground that the franchise system does not exist. Basically, if the dealers win. A precedent will be set that says that automobile manufacturers cannot sell direct to customers and that only a middle man system, with non-manufacturer owned dealerships acting as the go between, will be the ONLY legal business model for the sales of automobiles.

Right and if you try really hard you can hear the turbocharger whistle in ANY turbocharged car. So, you point is? There is a reason why the LSA (14/19 MPG -- Camaro ZL1) has notably worse fuel economy numbers compared to the LS3 (16/24 -- Camaro SS). I am citing Camaro numbers for a fairer and more accurate comparison since we are comparing engines not chassis weight and aerodynamics. The reason is that like all supercharged systems, it consumes power to make additional power. Additional effort is made and fuel is burned to turn the supercharger connected to the crankshaft and force feed additional air into the cylinders. This means that superchargers are always less efficient than turbochargers which gets "free" energy from otherwise wasted exhaust heat and pressure. This means that in addition to burning more fuel because it is ingesting more air, the engine is also consuming additional fuel to ingest the additional air. Many supercharged engines have an electro-magnetic clutch which decouples the supercharger from the crank when it is not being called on to make extra power. This partly defrays the efficiency penalties. The 1987 Toyota MR2 (1st Gen) has one, the C230 Kompressor had one, the Audi 3.0T cars have one. The LSA does not so it suffers from the extra drag all the time. There are a few reasons you do this. When the engine gets to a certain power level, you tend to forgo that clutch because it is a source of failure. When a high capacity supercharger is used, the engagement and disengagement tend to cause the clutch to fail (slip) over time unless it is sufficiently larger and robust. A sufficiently large and robust clutch may not fit. The other reason is that clutch tends to engage only with a reasonably deep throttle application and can cause smoothness issues with power delivery unless properly managed -- which get harder as the engine gets tremendously powerful. In the end, the compactness, reliability and lower cost of a directly driven supercharger won out over the increased fuel efficiency of a clutched supercharger. The reduction in compression, drag from the supercharger and the lack of a decoupling clutch assembly amounted to a 2 mpg (city) / 5 mpg (hwy) difference in fuel economy in exchange for 154 additional horses and 136 lb-ft more twist. Could they have done better? Yes, perhaps 1 mpg / 2 mpg better if they adopted a clutch assembly, but 14/19 was deemed good enough for the LSA powered cars like the CTS-V or the ZL1 because their owners typically didn't care about that extra fuel economy and GM can do without the potential reliability issues and increased costs.

Actually, the CTS-V V8 is quite suitable for a flagship -- if it is fitted with the appropriate exhaust system that does not make a lot of noise. The LSA is a smooth and tractable engine with a 6100 rpm redline. The M3 V8 on the otherhand is not suitable because it is an edgy, high strung engine that needs to be wound out to 8300 rpm to deliver its goods. You can quiet both engines down with an exhaust system appropriate for a luxury saloon, you cannot make an edgy 8300 rpm engine appropriate for an S-class.

A Pushrod engine is not inherently louder than a DOHC engine. The CTS-V is loud because it was decided that a pretty loud exhaust is OK, perhaps even desirable.

An engine like this will fit in as the "Standard V8" for Caddy. Probably as the top engine on the ATS and the run of the mill V8 for the SLS or whatever they chose to call the large sedan. The CTS-V and Top engine for the SLS will probably need to be a supercharged version of the LT engine pulling in 600~700 hp, probably retaining the 6.2 liter displacement for the cylinder wall thickness. Supercharging is easier than turbocharging from a packaging standpoint -- less intake piping and less exhaust plumbing. It will be less efficient, but in that price and performance bracket nobody is actually concerned about fuel costs and "green fashion" buyers would be shopping at Tesla anyway.

The LT1, for all it's merits, is already over weight. 211 kg vs 183 kg for the LS3 (15% gain in mass). If you switch to DOHC heads the engine gets even heavier (possibly around 240 kg). DOHC heads also make the engine taller and wider. Most importantly though, DOHC heads make the engine less fuel efficient by increasing the internal friction -- four times as many camshafts, twice as many lobes and much greater bearing surfaces in the valve train. As far as the new autos go, they won't arrive for another 2~3 years. Twin turbo 5.5 l,560+ hp, v8 DI DOHC v8 from Mercedes (m 157)- 204 kg 6.2 l v8 DOHC v8 from Mercedes , 570 hp (M159)- around 200 kg. BMW 4.4 v8 DOHC twin turbo DI ,from 400- 550+ hp- around 220 kg Viper v10 8,4 l 640 hp, ohv-around 220 kg Coyote v8, 440 hp, DOHC -around 200 kg Now put a supercharger on the LT1 (i doubt GM will increase displacement on this one) to have competitive HP&torque rating and you have an engine with over 220 kg and more. Now when small block has lost advantage on weight and if i have read correctly it is getting bigger in dimensions too (but still not as big as DOHC competition) ,i think GM should think about special engine for Cadillac premium vehicles. I can see even a coyote v8 with supercharger or twin turbocharger having less weight than a LT1 (LT4). Dimensionally I don't believe it has grown. If anything the runner in box plenum is shorter in height than the current runner design. The engine is heavy though compared to the LS3 183-> 211 kg represents a 15% weight growth. That's a lot considering that there is no displacement growth and no bore spacing changes.

Weren't the transmissions for FWD cars only? Or was there to be a rear drive version as well? Both.

GM's engine options for the H1 sucked anyway. At 60K, one can probably build a better Hummer for less than the 100K it sold for. The proper powerplant for the Hummer should have been the LML 397 hp / 765 lb-ft 6.6L Duramax turbo-diesel with the MW7 Allison 1000 6-speed auto.

The LT1, for all it's merits, is already over weight. 211 kg vs 183 kg for the LS3 (15% gain in mass). If you switch to DOHC heads the engine gets even heavier (possibly around 240 kg). DOHC heads also make the engine taller and wider. Most importantly though, DOHC heads make the engine less fuel efficient by increasing the internal friction -- four times as many camshafts, twice as many lobes and much greater bearing surfaces in the valve train. As far as the new autos go, they won't arrive for another 2~3 years.

I don't believe the Pushrod configuration or the DOHC configuration affects the noise level. The valve train doesn't make any more or less noise. If you want to cut down on noise and improve refinement you may want to consider doing things like going back to port injection or better yet carburetion, or dropping compression ratio. If you pull all the cost and complexity concerns out of the equation, you may do what Lexus does --use both Port Injection and Direction Injection. Port injection for a quiet idle and cruise refinement, Direct injection cutting in at when maximum power is called for. Dropping displacement makes the engine less noisy at any given rpm. But it also increases you minimum cruising rpms due to reduced torque.

91 Octane required does not mean the engine will blow up if you pump 87 octane in the tank. It practically never happens. What happens is that the engine losses a significant amount of power, will probably fail emissions tests and may go into a limp mode (limiting throttle opening) if you pump 87 octane in the tank. Knock usually happens at high load, low rpms. And, the immediate remedy by the ECU is usually to go rich on the fuel-air ratio. Go rich enough and you can run 14:1 compression on 85 octane. It just means that power goes down, fuel consumption goes up and hydrocarbon emissions can go through the roof. If you do it for years on end you plug up the cat converter too, but this won't happen even with a few tanks of gas and when you lean back up the stuff tends to burn away in over time anyway. There is no EPA or CARB requirement that a vehicle pass SMOG on the wrong fuel, so the emissions part is a non issue for certification purposes.

LT5 Premium V8 (hypothetical) The LT1 is a more than competitive engine for the Corvette and other GM vehicles. But, certain feature decisions pertaining to the LT1 were made to strike an optimal balance between costs and benefitsfor a wide array of applications – decisions which may or may not be optimal for Luxury Performance cars which are less price sensitive. Should a premium version of the LT1 be developed – every much like the LS6 was the to LS2 and the LS7 was to the LS3? Such an engine may fit well into the Cadillac lineup. Features Added over LT1 104.8 mm bore x 102 mm stroke (7.0 liters displacement) Cam-in-cam independent intake & exhaust VVT 2-stage valve lift control via concentric intake and exhaust lifters Titanium intake valves Titanium pushrods Titanium connecting rods Double wall 4:1 headers Magnesium Structural Oil Pan Magnesium valve covers Trumpeted velocity stacks in air box with 8 linked throttle butterflies Dry Sump lubrication (standard) Raised Compression Ratio (12.2:1) Increased Maximum Engine speed (7100 rpm) Premium 91 Octane Fuel Required Features Deleted from LT1 AFM Cylinder Deactivation (AFM lifters replaced by VVL lifters) Performance 550 bhp @ 6800 rpm 512 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm Redline @ 7000 rpm Fuel cut @ 7100 rpm Porsche Variocam Plus lifters -- the VVL pushrod lifters will be similar in design except for the location of the camshaft.