dwightlooi

As a matter of technical accuracy, there is no way peak torque can be 260 lb-ft and available from 1,700 rpm to 5,500 rpm. By definition, 260 lb-ft @ 5,500 = 272 hp @ 5,500 rpm. If max hp is 259, then torque at 5,500 rpm must be less than or equal to 247 lb-ft at that engine speed.

It is not enough for Cadillac to get this car right. What Cadillac needs is a commitment to persistently get it right for a decade.

Well, I think you have your numbers confused... The US tax revenue is about 2.3 trillion about 17~18% of GDP. The US Defense Budget is ~$680 billion. And, no, we are not spending $1.5 trilion of leases for foreign military bases. I don't have initmate knowledge of that expenditure, but 1.5 billion is more plausible. Do you really want to know where I stand politically? Well in Dwight's vision or America we'll have an 16% flat tax, federal spending capped at 15% of GDP with no deficit and borrowing allowed, a 20% reduction in government headcount over the next 10 years will be pursued. I'll phase out Social Security and Medicare over a 50 year period, transitioning to individual retirement saving accounts and a market based heatlhcare system focused on reducing the cost of care not trying to find one group to pick up the tab for another. Wellfare will be minimal and shameful on recipients. I'll not make tax payers pay for the investmen decisions of banks, companies or home owners. Green Energy Initiatives will end and we'll have domestic coal-oii-gas exploitation. A national right to work law will be passed and unions will no longer be able to compell membership or dues as a condition for employment. Education will be completely privatized. Wearing seat belts and helmets will be a decision that is left entirely up to the invidividual. And, yes, every adult that is not a felon, mentally diesease or handicapped will be required to own a firearm and may carry one concealed in public places should they elect to do so. Anyone unable to afford a gun will be issued a sidearm from military surplus stocks. And, yes, I'll reduce the size of the US military to roughly 75% its current size and realign it to be able fight and win massive, traditional conflict. We don't need counter insurgency capabilties, all we need to for the world to know that we are willing to employ war in the traditional fashion if they decide to antagonize us. By traditional, I mean WWII style traditional -- if we go to war it will be total war with the total destruction and/or unconditional surrender of the enemy being the only acceptable outcome. For the likes of Iran I'll televise a very simple message:- "To the government and citizens of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States of America brings you this message. The United States has decided that we cannot tolerate the existence of a Nuclear Armed Iran. This decision is not open to negotiation or discussion. We will no longer try to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear materials or refining nuclear fuel. However, if Iran is to assemble and test a nuclear weapon, the following sequence of events will occur. We will verify, beyond a reasonable doubt, the occurence of such a test with all available space, aerial and human intelligence. Upon such a verification an executive order will be issued. Somewhere in the world's oceans, a US Navy Ohio class ballistic missile submarine will receive her orders. 24 Trident II D5 missiles will leave her launch tubes and within 30 minutes, 96 475 kiloton W88 warheads will denoted on all military and population centers within the borders of your nation. Iran will cease to exist as nation and as a habitable plot of land. The human carnage will be horrifying, the environmental toll will be considerable and history will weep her saddest tears. But this outcome is as completely preventable as it will be inevitable. The choice is yours. So you do what you have to do and we'll do what we have to do. May God bless America and have mercy on all our souls."

I have no problems with companies wanting to market "green" products or people wanting to buy them. I do however have a problem government taking money from me to subsidize such transactions. I have never supported corn or ethanol subsidies either. I have no problems with anyone wanting to have solar panels on their roof or drive an electric car, but I don't want a portion of my taxes to be given to that person or the company selling solar products. Let the free market decide when alternatives to fossil fuel make economic sense and when transitions away from fossil fuel occurs. For now, fossil fuel is the cheapest, most available and most reliable source of energy anf we should continue to use it to the fullest until the market determines otherwise. I'll rather have that subsidy go towards a tax cut or paying down the nation debt. I don't want "green" and exhorbitant energy, I am interested in cheap and plentiful energy. To that end, we should allow oil, gas and coal to be vigorously explored and extracted within the USA. I do not believe in the Global Warming Hypothesis because the "science" doesn't add up. It doesn't add up because there is nothing unusual with the climate fluctuations we saw over the last 200 years -- they are perfectly within statistical norm for interglacial periods in the planet's history. It doesn't add up because there was no statistically significant colleration between temperatures and CO2 concentrations in the post industrial period. Fact is that CO2 s a trace gas in the terran atmosphere and 95% of of the green house effect is from water vapor, whereas CO2 and other "green houses gases combined accounts for the remaining 5%. Furthermore, androgyneous CO2 accounts only for a minority fraction of atmospheric CO2 and most practical purpose is inconsequential. For example, global temperatures fell precipitously from the late-40s to the 70s despite a continuous increase in CO2 concentrations in the air. Finally, global temperatures have been falling not increasing since 2007. It's pretty simple... there isn't enough solid, liquid or gaseous fossil fuel on earth for their consumption to significantly or permanently affect the global climate, hence there should be no actions to regulate or reduce CO2 emissions. This doesn't mean I am opposed to alternative energy per say. Fossil fuel is after all finite and will be sufficiently scarce to be uncomfortably expensive within the next 100 years. There will be a transition to something else. But that something else -- I assure you -- will not be wind or solar simply because these cannot generate enough power to provide more than 10~20% of mankind's total energy needs -- there isn't enough windy areas or enough practical real estate for solar collection. These also cannot generate power on demand with complete independence from time of day or the weather. As such, there is only one plausible energy future -- Nuclear. This is why I am opposed to all the green energy initiatives; they are a complete waste of tax dollars to chase after the wrong ball. Instead, we should be focusing on nuclear power generation, upgrading the electrical grid to facilitate distribution and making the diplomatic and military investments to ensure that be can secure access to Uranium and Plutonium 50~100 years from now. Signing a strong mutual defense and fissile materials supply treaty with Australia will be a start. Reinitiaiting rare earth metals exploration and mining in the USA will be another.

Fact is that any incentives come out of my taxes. And, I don't want to pay higher taxes so somebody can buy a plug-in vehicle for $7500 less. I don't want to pay higher taxes to subsidize "green and expensive" energy or companies feeding off public subsidies in their production either. One more reason to not only not vote for this guy, but spend some time convincing my friends, colleagues and family members to vote out this socialist regime.

I don't think it is an impediment for most. I have a C55 with a 5.5 V8 and a 15 gallon tank. It'll go about 280 miles in my commute driving and about 350 on a long distance freeway stint. That is about a week;y fill up for me and one stop for gas between San Jose and LA. Carrying enough gas to go 500 miles is simply a waste of space and an unnecessary lugging around of fuel mass, I'll rather have a deeper trunk or more rear seat space than a bigger tank. Speaking of small tanks... the Acura TL (2nd gen) that we have only has a 12 gallon tank to feed its 3.2 V6. It has better fuel economy than the C55 but about the same range. The biggest impediment of electrics isn't that they'll go 40 miles or 120 miles or 200 miles on a charge. It is that you can refuel a gas or diesel powered car in 3 minutes at a gas pump. You need 8~12 hours to recharge an electric car.

Eventually RWD/FWD will be gone as we move to AWD in a Hybrid format giving us better over all performance. As has been mentioned, the last 15 years except for the Corvette and Camaro, Chevy has been a FWD builder of appliances that people seem to like and if you go to CUV/SUV you end up with AWD/FWD or 4x4/FWD. Active Lifestyles is making people change their thinking about drive trains. Plus Xbox has really helped raise a generation of AWD drivers. If Americans are all that active, 34% of us wouldn't be clinically obese. All wheel drive will never be the defacto standard because of two very simple reasons -- it is not as efficient as FWD (Hybrid or not, you incur more parasitic loss driving two axles instead of one), and it is not as entertaining to drive as RWD.

Back to the topic of a Roadster... Won't it be interesting if the make it a collapsible hard top with Scissor Doors? If not anything, there is nothing like that at any price. When you get rid of the rear seats and move the front seats back half a foot, it makes it possible to have a significantly lower roofline and a straddle the floor board sitting position. The shortened green house makes a low-profile, 2-piece, arching roofline much more attainable than with a 2+2 vehicle.Such proportionsa also bear lamborgini style scissor entry ways well. Also, because you no longer have rear seats, you can have a bulkhead fuel tank where the rear seat backs typically are. This then makes room for a rear mounted transaxle. Or, for a hybrid, room for the Volt's 147 Powerrtrain wise, because this is going to be a niche vehicle anyway because of its configuration, I'll peg the extremes and forgo all the standard choices. The Roadster can be had with two engine choices -- Naturally aspirated Pushrod V8 @ ~470 hp or 2.0 160hp / 265 lb-ft Turbodiesel in a parallel Hybrid arrangement with rear mounted Volt generator-motors and main propulsion motors for a total of about 290 hp.

Smaller is not necessarily lighter. And, small and heavy does no one any good. The BMW 1-series is a good example. Much more cramped than a good deal uglier than the well proportioned 3-series, but a mere 50 lbs lighter because the load bearing structure is so similar that there were minimum weight savings from paring down the shrink wrap!

This is the first time I have ever said this about any car... but I think the Cruze Wagon looks better than the Sedan (or the Hatch). The Sedan's weakest design element is the uber generic tail lamp and this car certainly improves on that.

I don't think there is any chance that they'll cancel the coupe and other variants of the ATS. This is especially true at this stage in the development cycle where much of the development costs are already sunken costs. However, I fully expect a staggered introduction, meaning that there won't be a coupe, convertible or wagon in the first model year and they won't all show up in the 2nd model year either. This actually makes sense; in fact, this is preferrable to launching all fourr variants the same year and not having enough engineering or marketing resources to go around leading to a patch job on each.

Well, at least if they indeed go with a I6 turbo and if the ATS-V goes pushrod V8, BMW has ceeded power plant superiority. That helps. The rest is up to the GM team's ability to match the 3-series on suspension and chassis tuning. But even here they start with a lower weight platform which helps.

Well, if they go to a Bi-turbo 3.0~3.6 liter Inline-6 and the ATS-V goes with a Pushrod V8, they stand to lose the performance crown. The ATS is already a lighter platform. Combined with the lower weight and higher power density of a smallblock V-8 along with an absence of turbolag. The King is in trouble.

The problem is not with electric cars. The problem is with the completely unnecessary and ill timed push to make hybrids and electrics "mainstream". The open market will determine the price of gasoline. The price of gasoline will determine when alternatives will become attractive. There is no shortage of fossil fuel, at least not enough to justify switching to alternatives -- not now not in the coming few decades. This is especially so given that we have lots of domestic oil, gas and coal, it is just that we are refusing to tap them because a gang of environmental zealots are in position to derail any sensible energy policy and push idiotic concepts like a "green" economy. There is no problem with the Volt as a vehicle. Yes, it is an overly expensive and economically impractical vehicle catering a niche of buyers who desire a 40 mile plug-in range, the ability to extend that using an ICE, believe that somehow the perceived environmental contributions or that the electric driving experience is worth the price tag. But, there is a market niche for it and it can be tapped for profit. That's fine. What is not fine is to expect it to sell 60,000~100,000 copies a year and planning the project's economics around that assumption. There is nothing wrong with the Segway either, but there is something very wrong about the irrational presumption that it'll be as commonly accepted as the bicycle!

I am pretty sure there is a niche there. But a niche is just that, a niche. There is a niche in very light, very cramped and extremely well handling cars like the Elise too. But until the vehicle has mainstream economics and practicalities it will not be anything more than a niche. I have nothing against electric vehicles. In fact, I absolutely believe that electric cars are the future. Their time will come when oil, gas and coal eventually become scarce enough that the economics of the alternatives naturally become competitive. When that time comes, it won't be wind, solar or farmed ethanol powering the human ciivilization. Hydrogen, being the lowest density gas or the coldest liquid in the universe, won't be the distribution medium either. It will be nuclear generation with electrical distribution. A natural consequence of that will be electric cars. When combustible liquid fuel becomes $500 a gallon, a 40 mile range, a $30K battery pack or 1500 lbs of storage cells suddenly become not so inconvenient. I am totally convinced of that eventuality. I just do not believe that government should be in the business of forcing a premature and economically foolish transition to electric vehicles, especially by taking money from one tax payer to subsidize the believes and habits of another. Fact is the Earth still has plenty of oil, gas and coal. Being sufficiently plentiful and accessible, these sources represent the most attractive sources of energy for the next 40 ~ 80 years. Heck, there is plenty of potential sources of oil, gas and coal within the USA which we should aggressively and exhaustively explore and extract. Beyond that, we need to look at where the uranium and plutonium are, and secure access to that diplomatically or militarily. I am not interested in dubiously green and exhorbitant energy. I am interested in plentiful and affordable energy. I am not interested in global leadership in "green" technology. I am interested in security of current and future energy supply.

The two fundamental things people need to pay utmost attention when thinking about products in transportation is CONVENIENCE and AFFORDABILITY The subway works in New York City because it is convenient and affordable. High Speed Rail in California is a lousy proposition because it is neither more convenient than domestics flights nor more affordable. Electric Cars are a lousy proposition because they are neither convenient nor affordable. Whether you believe in the Global Warming scam or not, whether you believe that androgynous carbon output is something society needs to regulate or not, one has to realize that the reason people choose to drive a car instead of ride a bicycle or helicopter is because for suburban dwellers it is convenient and it is affordable. Electric cars will never be as convenient at gasoline powered cars in today's practical context. The reason is simple. The Volt's 16kWH battery for example weighs 390 lbs, takes up four times more space than a typical gasoline tank and moves the Volt 40 miles before needing an 8 hour recharge in the very limited locations where you have a Volt's recharging assembly. A Cruze carries 15.6 gallon gasoline weighing 96 lbs and taking up 1/3 as much room. This holds enough stored energy to propel the Cruze 592 miles and can be refilled at any gas station in 3 minutes. It is inconvenient to rely on an energy storage medium with 1/50th the energy density and cannot be quickly recharged to its full capacity. Electric cars in todays context are not affordable relative to internal combustion engine powered vehicles. The Volt's drive train adds a $20,000 premium to the vehicle before any wealth transfer scheme come into play. Even if electricity is free (it is not) and the car is only operated for less than 40 miles per charge (which won't be the case for 99.9% of Volt owners) that is the monetary equivalent of 182,857 miles of driving driving at $3.50 a gallon and a modest 32 mpg in a comparibly sized and equipped Cruze. It'll be the equivalent of pre-paying for 15 years worth of gasoline. There is no practical economics in this. And, if you receive subsidies to wash away all the cost difference, then you need to ask yourself whether it is fair and just to demand that your neighbours pay higher taxes so you can drive an electric car? The problem with the government taking money from one and giving it to another, is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

Nice addition to the Mopar lineup. But don't count on the power rating to exceed the Caliber SRT. Afterall the Caliber uses a 2.4 liter mill. Plus, if the new car is lighter it may not need as much power to have equal or superior performance.

Just as dumb as the "Global Warming Solutions Act", which requires that a third of Californian power come from renewable sources and companies trade carbon credits instead of letting the price and viability of each energy source compete on a free market. What happens when you do that is that electricity rates go up 40~70%, manufacturing flee your state and everyone pays more to support the politician's favoured but uttely uncompetitive industries. In this case, everyone will have to end up paying more for transportation to subsidize cars and infrastructure that nobody but a small minority of tree huggers want. California is on the road to destroying its own ecconomy and attractiveness as a state to live and work in. That's the sad thing.... not the who gets the final laugh in this environmental witch hunt.

Or it could be that the limited demand for a vehicle that is "green" but which does not make economic sense had simply been tapped and exhausted. Remember... the Volt from a room, comfort, performance or luxury standpoint is Cruze class. But, it sells for twice; $18,000 more. And that is with about $6000 worth of government subsidies. Given the $1300~1400 annual gas tab @ 32 mpg, 12,500 miles per year and $3.50 per gallon. It'll take you over 13 years to break even on the investment even if electricity is free and you never ever use the volt in its gas powered extended range mode; which will never be the case. To buy a Volt, you have to believe in Global Warming and androgeneous carbon output beng a problem. You have to believe in it with enough idealistic frevor to want to attempt an individual and futile attempt to make a dent at your own carbon footprint. And, you have to be that kind of a person while at the same time having enough dough to say that you don't care about $18,000, will rather drive a "green" car than a more luxurious car, but not so loaded that you are in the market for a Tesla. In short, you have to be an environmental coolaid drinker with a lot but not too much cash and a distain for luxury. Honestly, I don't see that many Knights of Templars amongst the religiously faithful.

Why will they? The 2.5 pistons are 88 mm wide vs 86mm wide for the 2.0. Mainly the reduction in bore in the 2.0 is to give it thcker cylinder walls. If you bore a 2.0 out to 88mm and simply use the 2.5 pistons, the pistons are not going to travel higher or lower than in the 2.0 engiine. If the two engines have the same deck height relative to the crank axis, it means that the 2.5 has long crank throws with shorter connecting rods, whereas the 2.0 has shorter crank throws with longer connecting rods.

The Borg-Warner dual clutch boxes used by VW-Audi Group actually do not have a wide ratio spread; it is pretty close ratioed. In fact, it is closer to a close ratio manual than a typical 6A. The DSG's geart ratios are as follows; the axle ratio varies depending on application (diesel cars have a taller axle ratio). 1st : 4.04 2nd : 2.37 3rd : 1.56 4th : 1.16 5th : 0.85 6th : 0.76 Ratio Spread : 5.32 That it goes pretty low at cruise is simply the result of a relatively tall final drive and a control logic that wants to stay low unless prodded.

Well, if the shots actually show a camouflaged C7 body, then at least one thing is settled. The C7 will not be anything like the Stingray concept and will be an extremely evolutionary replacement of the C6. This is a little disappointing. Corvette needs to be bold to breakout of its traditional demographics. I didn't quite like the split rear windows, but the rest of the Stngray concept was very modern, pretty handsome and darn unique. That it is also somewhat polarizing is not necessarily a bad thing.

Honestly beyond 6 speeds there is very little to be gained by introducing additional speeds. The fact, all the 7 and 8 speeders skip gears during normal driving should tell you something. Most of the efficiency advantageous from the 7 and 8 speed boxes come from the increased ratio spread -- difference in rato between 1st and the top gear. A typical 6-speed gearbox is ~6:1, whereas the 8-speeders reaches ~7:1. For the most parts, widening the ratio spread on a 6-speed gearbox will achieve the same efficiency goals. Performance wise, which is preferable depends on the engine type. A peaky, high reving engine will benefit from closer shifts, but an engine with a broad torque band will actually be faster if there are fewer shifts even if there is a larger rpm drop with each because you lose acceleration momentarily during each shift.

GM's official site now reports 270 hp @ 5300 & 260 lb-ft @ 2400. So that settles the doubts as to when the actual peak arrives, despite 90% of it being available from 1500 to 5800 rpm. http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/cadillac/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2012/Jan/2012_naias/cadillac/0108_ats_overview

No, the stroke will not need to be longer. Combining the 2.5 pistons with the 2.0 crank gives you 2.14 liters of displacement. The crank determines the stroke length -- how much the pistons are moved. What needs to be longer is the connecting rods if you want to maintain the compression ratio (or increase it). Otherwise the pistons simply wouldn't go as high and the compression will be lower -- displacement doesn't change. Longer rods, although slightly heavier, can actually be good for high rpm durability because they reduce the side loads on the cylinder walls. When the crank pin is at 90 or 270 degrees, the longer the rod the narrower the rod angle and hence side thrust loads.