rkmdogs

........ AND..... what has that got to do with the number of cylinders of an engine... which IS the topic of this thread! Would you like to try and stuff a Cummins 6-cyl diesel into a Cobalt? Or would a Ferrari 250cc V-12 not fit either? Duh! The external dimensions are derived from what INTERNAL dimensions are chosen for a given design, not the other way around. But of course you already knew that, and were just "funnin" with us.

Evok, Here again is your half-ass comment from last May! Your philosophy and observations about the longevity of the V-8 configuration for an internal combustion engine design are so devoid of factual engineering data as to not be worth the ink it takes to print them! Chew on this!

They were mandated as pedestrian "unfriendly" by the Feds, and mandated to be removed by Federal law!

The nonsense is the crap that you have been posting. I just called for a reality check! I believe that the initial topic was you postulating that V-8 engines for passenger cars were dead! Then you carried on with some other B/S comments, and the one that I challenged you on pertained to engine external dimensions being the most important factor! And only on TV shows is truth a non-important fact! You need to learn your subject more, before you blow your horn. Remember, people may only THINK that you are a fool, until you open your mouth and prove it!!!!

Evok, I don't know where you get your expertise from, but you had better go back and re-read that comic book! Engines are designed from the inside out. Bore spacing and crank stroke are the major design criteria. These control what the outside dimensions are, after you factor in wall thickness, cooling & oiling passages, etc. Your bleating about number of cylinders is worse than chicken-littles' "the sky is falling!" hysteria. Proper engine design concerns itself with what the application requirements will be, abeit in terms of performance, loads and efficiency. Number of cylinders and outside dimensions become secondary factors, sometimes relating to economics or all engines would display the best known efficient design parameters all the time! Desmodromic valves, electronically controlled, ceramic internal components, etc would be in every engine if cost and reliability were not a factor. You guys all amuse me with your postulating about engines. Betcha never even replaced the 710 cover on one of them! :AH-HA_wink:

Man, you must be smokin' them funny cigarettes again! The Equinox is a non-competitive joke! Somebody could not make up their mind when it came to features for this vehicle, so they just left them out! What are you supposed to be able to tow with this, compared to a Trailblazer?... Marshmellows?

The in-line edition of Autoweek had an interview article with Gary Convis, of Toyota about their application of a diesel option in a Tundra. In addition the following pieces of news were included. By RICHARD TRUETT | AUTOMOTIVE NEWS 6:00 am, September 20, 2006 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ANN ARBOR, Mich. -- Could Toyota break with 50 years of business practices and go outside the company for an engine? It's not out of the question for the diesel engine being planned for the new generation of Toyota's Tundra pickup. Production of that vehicle begins next month, but Toyota has not said when a diesel option might be offered. "We realize that to be a true truck company, it's important to develop a diesel," said Gary Convis, Toyota's executive vice president of engineering and manufacturing for North America. He spoke Sept. 8 at the groundbreaking ceremonies for Toyota's new North American Technical Center, scheduled to open in 2008. Convis said that more than likely, Toyota will develop its own diesel or lean on its heavy-duty commercial-truck division, Hino, for diesel technology. But Convis says Toyota has not ruled out buying one from an established supplier. If Toyota does buy a diesel from a supplier, it would be the first time in the company's 50-year U.S. history that one of its vehicles would use a non-Toyota engine. Possible U.S.-based diesel-engine suppliers could include Detroit Diesel Inc., John Deere & Co., Caterpillar Inc., Cummins Inc. and International Truck & Engine Corp. Cummins and International already supply engines to automakers. Cummins builds the 5.9-liter turbocharged diesel in the Dodge Ram and has announced a new deal with an automaker for two more diesels, a V-6 and a V-8 that will be launched in 2010. Cummins has not named the automaker, but DaimlerChrysler is likely to be the customer. International builds the Ford Power Stroke diesel and is well into negotiations with Nissan to supply a diesel V-8 for the Titan pickup. Toyota will need a diesel for the Tundra not only because consumers are demanding better fuel economy but also because Ford, GM and Dodge are planning to use small-displacement diesels in light-duty trucks around 2010.

O.K., if that is the third row, then I still have two questions..... How in the h--l do you get back there without being a contorsionist, and still where do you put your feet to get in? Oh yeah, then if this is the third row, where is the baggage/cargo/trunk space?.... and that then means the second row is for two only, with buckets, so how do you seat 8 ??? 's'plain that one please Flybrian... Thanks.

Two cents worth....... if a picture tells it at all! I understand that the Enclave and the Acadia will be built on the same Lambda platform. If that is the case, then somebody better get back to the drawing board...QUICK! The attached pic that I just got of the Acadia second row floor area is either decieiving in its perspective, or anybody going back there better not wear a shoe bigger than a 3 or 4! The step-up for the duct work means that only your heels will touch the floor, since it sticks out beyond the seat platform. AND, because of that......... how do you get your feet into the second row? The space shown to the back of the front row seats is puny! Somebody needs to go back and look at the ergonomic models again!!!

Hey Sly, If you are still doing Tight Whips pics, I have a new one for you to update on Casper, if you would, please. Thanks,

Not only to fleet, but independent tradesmen who need to keep their tools & supplies under cover and secure---- something that you cannot do in a pick-up! AND---- it would not be soccer moms who would buy them for other, functional uses besides passenger hauling, where full-size vans can't and don't cut the mustard, even the SWB versions! BUT Please, give us 5 doors at least (both sides), a split variation on the rear hatch, maybe even go back to station wagon style, and definitely seats that disappear and leave a truly flat, one-plane floor--- without any removal of interior parts! The 4200 I-6 would be a very capable engine choice.

Remeber one thing tho, People may only THINK that you are a fool, ....... until you open your mouth and prove it!

I guess that none of the administrators read this stuff! Go look at the new post on GM Wagons. You have to scroll half-way across the page to read the whole blurb! That is not the case on other web pages, or even other topics on this forum! Why can't it be fixed?

Right on! The Magnum is as ugly as your Moma's army boots! It looks like it was designed by someone whose Mama had nightmares about Sherman tanks! The beltline is too high, and the roofline is too low. It looks like D-C designers are afraid of glass! But maybe slit windows are the in thing if you want a gang-bangers street cruiser. It sure is not for hauling large, boxy, awkward things unless they are made out of jello or fit in a body bag! For a practical, functional wagon the Magnum is an F- grade! I sure hope that nobody at GM would be inspired by this nightmare. I too like the looks and concept of the Nomad, but not the itty-bitty current version. Go back to the previous one that was Chevelle or-mid-sized, with the sliding back doors, the opening roof, but add the looks of the current one in front, with the '57 Corvette style grill!

Newbiewar, I have one question. Where did you study your thermodynamics? The instructor should be fired! They already run ethanol 100% in Brazil. Yes there are design considerations required because ethanol is a very corrosive fuel. VW had to chrome plate their die-cast carburetors to make them work down there, without being eaten alive by that fuel! There is a factor called latent energy, which all fuels have. It is the amount of BTU's per pound of fuel that they contain, if they were 100% effectively converted to all energy. Compared to gasoline, ethanol is considerably down the scale, but it is looked on favorably, as you said because it is a renewable resouce, and can be extracted from many products. Our choice of using corn is a poor one, as the other uses of that product have a much higher priority, especially in our food chain! Brasil has done it right! They extract their ethanol from sugar cane stalks, where the sugar has already been extracted, and the residual stalk is a former trash product! That is why their ethanol is cheap. Their resource is a waste product. The technology currently exists here and elsewhere around the world to extract methanol from garbage. This is another fuel that can be and should be used! Meanwhile we just throw our garbage in a trash heap, and hope that it doesn't pollute our water, when we should be using the natural by-product of decomposition as a fuel resource! Again, Japan is leading the way in this technology. WHY ????

O.K., I have not changed anything on my computer, and now the center section of the forum pages no longer fits my screen....... as it was doing for the past several weeks! Is somebody messing around with the screen scale again? This page fits O.K.......... and I don't want to here crap about sentences too long, or pictures are too wide, I'm talking about the format box that the text message is in! What is going on?

Great article! Just a few add-ons. I had a '95 S-10LS extended cab with the 4.3l engine. It was great off the line until about 40mph. Then it felt like somebody thru out an anchor. Problem was : that truck weighed more than my 1974 Custom Deluxe FULL-SIZE Chevy truck...... which had a 454 in it! I tried to get the parts to convert to a Tyhoon or Syclone engine. The people who catered to these specialty trucks would not sell me the parts for a conversion! They said that they were too rare, and could not be "wasted" on a conversion! I then tried the aftermarket........... there was nothing there! Everybody was suggesting do a V-8 conversion instead! AND..... I was told that the transfer case used on those specialty trucks, being full-time, had no low-range shifter, and that the transfer case is the same one that was later used in all the Astro and Safari AWD minivans! That same stock transfer case is the one that Jon Moss used in the later testing of an AWD SS truck model!

Well there are two of us,then ehaase! Most of the participants on this web are too young, immature, and have an axe to grind to be objective! Some of the people here however, would make a good sounding board for future ideas, provided their interests are identified prior, and their degree of expertise in a given area is known. THAT is the resource potential that GM is wasting!

A SMALLER WAGON ?? What are you going to wear on the other foot? People approching 6 ft.tall and getting older do not fold neatly into a small package. Get real and think about PEOPLE sizes!

It is basic engineering red. Most diesels run at about a 40% effiency. The best gasoline, internal combustion engines run at about 30% efficiency. So the fuel price per gallon may be the same, but for a given amount of work, you are consuming 10% less fuel! That's just better economics!

All you guys need to read the Oct 2006 issue of Motor Trend to see who is beating the drum for Pontiac, and what they are beating it with!!!

Oh yeah, and while I'm at it.... For all of you in love with the idea of an E85 fueled vehicle, I ask one question.... WHERE YA GONNA GET IT ???????? There are only 670+ stations in the entire USA that have the capability to store & pump E85. Is there one by you, out of the almost 200,000 gas stations in this country? And who is gonna pay the cost of the installation of this additional fuel variable? The gas companies? Nah! The estimate to add one additional fuel to all the stations in this country is $37 Billion! Yesah, that's with a "B" The gas companies want your Uncle Sam to pick up that tab. Well, who is that? That's you and me folks....... with our tax dollars!!!! Ain't gonna happen if I get a vote.

I cannot find any evidence of a solid opening roof. Maybe Harley has some info. O.K., compared to the regular Envoy, you felt or feel that the XL was too big.--- but the XL was created to add the 3rd row of seats! And it was still smaller than the Tahoe! Again, looking at concept function, the Avalanche/Escalade are bigger than the XUV, and cost more!...... but they sell! Maybe the XUV did not meet marketing expectations or forecast volumes. I don't know. Again, it was a typical GM move---- when you have something unique in the market, cancel it before it can reach its potential! They have a history of it! Corvair, Fiero, B-body Impala SS, Camaro & Firebird---- do I need to go on? Not trying to put you on the spot MBD, but someone should be able to give us some specific reasons, instead of our blind speculations. Some one who knows what is going on, please speak up. Hold on! Late incoming report. I just found another pic of the Wagonaire that seems to be showing a metal top. Hard to tell. Other pics have shown pleats in cloth top. Maybe they did have both?

I don't know about leaks on the Wagonaire, but it did have a cloth, not a metal top.Maybe you have a point on the simplification of the operating systems for the roof and midgate features...... but GM seems to have an attitude that you can add all the electronics you want.... cause the dumb buyers love electronics! That's why you are forced to take satellite radio and On-Star--- even when you specifically say you don't want them! They are after market cash-buckets for the General! Regarding the size point, the Envoy XUV did not appear to be any bigger than a Colorado crew -cab model! Why would someone say that it was too big? It was smaller than a full size pick-up, or the Avalanche!