2QuickZ's

More like VP! Rick Wagoner is the CEO. Either way, he could have picked a better cars ass to kiss!

I bought 250 shares a month or so back at $10.40/share. I wish I had bought another 250. I had the money but was waiting for it to drop back below $10/share, which it did but I didn't react in time. The bad part was I was looking how far it had gone up on Friday and was thinking of selling short this morning but thanks to after hours trading over the weekend, it had already dropped by $1/share by the time the market opened. Since I have a real day job, it is tough for me to react quickly. Oh well, missed opportunity I guess.

Nobody has any love for the VUE? Granted, its a heavy little piggy but that helps it feel solid. I guess it would be tough to put the 4 cyl. VUE up against much because it is woefully under powered for its weight class but I would put the V6 version up against anything. Plus, you can get some smoking deals on them.

In the U.S. you can call it in or you can go online and pull a number in about 2 minutes. The deal can be completed with nothing more than the number, though I believe the paper gets sent to the employee who must then verify the relationship, sign the paper and mail it back. If the paper is already on hand, they can sign it and turn it into the dealer. I'd have to verify all this with my Dad. He is a GM retiree and is the one that I have gotten my GMS number through. I have bought/leased 4 new GM products since 2005 and I have not had any official document in my hand for a single one of them. I had nothing more than a piece of paper with the number written on it in my hand writing. No problems what so ever. That seems like it would be a pretty easy system for an employee to cheat.

I should have been more specific and stated the latest generation LS series engine such as the LS3. There have been multiple generations. An F-body is a very poor example when judging loud and harsh. I know because I own one. I'd argue that they are loud and harsh because that is what your average pony car buyer wants hence why most put on even louder after market exhaust systems. I have no problem with you not wanting a push rod engine. I just don't agree with your assertion that they can't be made to feel as refined as a DOHC. You do realize much of the refined feel of a vehicle has more to do with how you dampen the inherent NVH, right? As for the Mercedes arguement, it's SOHC which is more compact than DOHC due to smaller cylinder heads. It's also a turbocharged 6.0L, not a 6.5 and the forced induction is a big part of why it makes so much torque at such a low rpm since small bore engines are not known as torque monsters when n/a. Second, what vehicle is it in and what other Mercedes cars would it fit in? I guess any other S class? The fact that it is a V12 and not a V8 means it has a smaller bore for the same displacement. This means 12 cylinders = longer than comparable V8 but narrower. For OHC, narrow is better to get it to fit under a hood in RWD (longitudinal) applications. 1) Agree 100%, 2) disagree unless you meant inertia, 3) this is really related to the previous item and agree for racing applications but argue a push rod engine can rev as high as 99% of production car engines can or would. Overall I find my self more in agreement with your recent posts, though. They both have advantages and disadvantages. I just don't like when people make a blanket statement like, "OMG!!11!!1! OHC engines are so superior to push rods and are the only way to go!" and yet have no clue as to what does or doesn't make them better. OHC is simply not the beginning and end of quality engine design, though the sheeple have been convinced to believe it. If you are referring to me, I actually am an engineer and I work in the auto industry, though not in power train. While I would never claim to know everything, I actually do know the advantages and disadvantages of both valve trains. I just wanted to see if those arguing OHC new what they were. My guess is there were some google searches involved. With that, I will leave the CIB vs OHC argument since it has detracted from the original intent of this thread.

More hp for displacement is only important in OHC cars because they are displacement limited due to the sheer size of the engine assembly. Push rod engines are not very displacement limited due to their more compact size. Push rod engines can easily be made to rev as high as OHC with nothing more than a lighter valvetrain. Sounds better is subjective and exhaust note can easily be changed anyway. Smoother/less vibration is usually a function of using a timing belt and/or balance shafts. As for fuel economy, check the numbers. GM manages to get as good (or almost as good) of fuel economy with a larger displacement engine in a heavier car with its push rod engines. The main reason most V type engines are OHC is because consumers in the U.S. has been conditioned to believe they are better, based mostly on the hp/liter argument as well as the "technology" argument. That alone is why luxury cars HAVE to have a DOHC engine. Refer back to post #44. I will again ask, from an engineering perspective, what makes an DOHC engine superior to a push rod engine in a V arrangement? Just out of curiosity, have you even driven an recent GM cars with an LS series engine in it?

Oddly, there has still been no explanation from anybody as to why DOHC is inherently better than CIB. I guess the answer is, "Because it just is." Or maybe it's "Because the Europeans and Japanese are doing it so it must be." I'm still waiting for something other than the meaningless HP/liter argument.

It's not a realistic comparison either. One thing that really pisses me off is when people get into the hp/liter discussion like that is somehow relevant to anything. I could write a whole dissertation on this but for now I'll keep it short. Here goes: - A 6.2L DOHC V10 (let alone a V8) with or without the supercharger would not realistically work in a BMW because it would be too damn big to fit in anything BMW makes today, probably including their SUV's. - HP/liter is only important for a OHC engine! Why? Because they are displacement limited. You have to keep the block small to keep the giant cylinder heads from making the engine too big to fit in the average vehicle. - If an OHV V8 engine of say 6.2 L can make 430 hp with a lot of area under the curve, 400 ft-lbs of torque, be very refined, rev to 6.5K rpm and get 17/25 gas mileage, explain to me why an DOHC 5.0 L V8 making 420 hp with less area under the curve, less than 400 ft-lbs of torque, slightly more refinement, the same rev limit and the same (or sometimes worse) fuel economy be any better?!? Ahh, that's right, it has 4 cams and weighs more! It must be better. Plus, that timing belt is quieter than a chain. Thank goodness many automakers have gotten away from the damn timing belts on interference engines. So, let me ask you a simple question since you are the one I have seen discussing hp/liter the most recently. What exactly is it about a DOHC engine that makes it superior to a well designed pushrod engine? Put it in engineering terms for me. Don't just use the meaningless and overused hp/liter argument. Trust me when I say if an OHC engine could get the job done with only 2 valves per cylinder, they would only have 2 valves per cylinder due to cost and weight. They only have 4 valves per cylinder for one reason: they need to be more efficient to produce the same hp from a smaller displacement due them being so damn big. Obviously that isn't a big factor with a 4 cylinder (or pretty much any other inline engine) so that is one engine where it definitely makes sense for DOHC and 4 valves per cylinder. Lets keep this argument to V8's, or really any V automobile engine.

I know this is going to sound crazy but... I've always really liked Vega's, Chevette's and Monza's. I don't know what it is about them. It started with my Dad. He had a 1976? Chevette. Then, he bought my sister a factory V8, round eye Monza notchback. Finally, I bought myself a relatively clean, non running powder blue 1977 Vega as a project car. After 2 years sitting in the yard un touched, I finally donated it to charity. If I had an unlimited bank account, I would have a clean Chevette, Monza or Vega with either a DI 2.0 turbo from a Solstice or Sky or a one off turbo 2.8l 4 cyl from a Colorado/Canyon. I like to be different and like seeing unusual stuff you don't see every day.

The Civic does have character for sure, but style....not so much. Not for me, anyway. I think it is one of the less attractive compacts on the market. And if that bizarre interior had been put in anything other than a Toyota or a Honda, the press would have had a field day with whatever poor automaker had the balls to stick in their car. Of all the Japanese makes, I'd say Honda is my favorite next to Subaru. I even test drove a couple of Accord V6's when I was looking for a new car back in '05. The thing that bothers me though is that in Honda's attempt to figure out what "style" is, they've apparently come to the conclusion that style = ugly. It seems like the current generations of each Honda and Acura is significantly less attractive than the one before it. The last gens may not have been the epitome of style, but at least they weren't ugly. Just my .02.

I'm sure they were planning this all along since we all know the Big 3 were the only ones blindsided by the rapid increase in oil and gas prices. That's not a knock on Toyota but on those that think GM, Ford and Chrysler were the only ones that didn't see this coming! The fact is, nobody predicted oil and gas prices would rise that quickly and force that rapid of a permanent shift in the market.

At this point, there are only a few cost effective ways to increase fuel economy: 1) Reduce weight 2) Improve aerodynamics 3) Improve powertrain efficiency (6 speed transmissions, direct injection, hybrid, etc.) 4) Reduce horsepower. That is how the laws of physics work. They didn't reduce weight. They didn't improve aerodynamics and they actually reduced powertrain efficiency (removed DOD) so by default they had drop horsepower. I guess you can also play with the HP/Torque curve so you have more peak power but less area under the curve. People get to focused on peak HP anyway.

I'm placing my bet on GM and I put my money where my mouth is. I bought 240 shares last week. I'll buy another 250 or so if it drops back below $10/share. As for our messed up country, to me, the problem is the last several generations have been raised with selfish, egotistical, nothing is my fault, the world should be handed to me, the government should bail me out (mortgage crisis) but not them (Big 3) attitudes. Sadly I am starting to believe the only thing that can/will fix this attitude is another Great Depression. No, I'm not kidding. We, as a nation, have been on top for so long that the only thing that will bring us around is getting knocked down a peg or two. It can't happen soon enough. I hate to see people suffer but if in the long run it makes us a better country, so be it. Maybe GM or Ford filing for bankruptcy will tip the scales that way.

I agree with you. I posted this up because there are people on this site that somehow think the Big 3 should have seen this rapid market shift coming and didn't. Some even want to use this reasoning to run GM's current management out of the place. While there may be other good reasons to do that, this is not one of them. Even though I am not a Toyota fan, they do seem to do a decent job of predicting changes in the market and even they completely missed the boat on this one. They were caught flat footed with a new pickup plant and not enough capacity on the their small cars and hybrids. Nobody could have predicted this rapid of a market shift that is likely permanent.

I can't wait to see the official announcement. I'm sure Toyota will come out of it okay, especially since they are a media darling, but it must be a little embarassing to have to shut a brand new plant down for 3 months to clear inventory of an "All new, best evar!" vehicle. Link HERE

QFT I HATE it. Cruze? WTF???? I wonder what the next gen Malibu will be called? GM obviously places no value on name recognition and building a name up. I am starting to agree that it may be time to clean house with the management team and start over. Decisions like this make me think the people in charge have no F'ing clue. Is it really that difficult to put a different badge on a car built in it's own plant in the U.S. or is it really that important to have a global name just in case an American moves to Europe? Idiots!

1) 2 --> 2005 9-3 Linear and 2005 9-2X Aero 2) Probably not. If a stunner of a 9-3 showed up by 2010, I'd consider it. Would also consider a 2011 9-4X to replace the Vue IF it has a turbo 4 cyl. with decent performance (0-60 in upper 7 second range) and above average gas mileage.

1) 2 --> 2007 Aura XR and 2008 Vue XR 2) Maybe a 10% chance of a 2010 Aura but I'm kind of against getting the same vehicle twice in a row. It almost makes it seem silly to even buy a new one when you already have one.

1) None 2) Definitely not.

1) None 2) Definitely not.

1) None 2) Possibly a 2010 Invicta/LaCrosse but it would have to be a real panty dropper.

1) None 2) Possibly a G8 in 2010 but leaning more toward other vehicles

1) 2 --> 1998 S10 and 2002 Camaro Z28 2) Very possible in 2010, though Cadillac CTS has the lead currently. Would likely be either a Malibu or a Cobalt SS sedan.

1) No 2) 50% chance of a 2010 CTS

I really liked the Vue but my wife loves it so when it hit 5k miles, we switched and I now drive the Aura. I don't have any recent mpg information because she doesn't reset the trip odometer at fill ups (she could care less about knowing what kind of mileage she is getting). Her commute in the Vue is 100% city driving. I have the Aura now and it is 75% hwy. When I had the Vue, it averaged around 18 mpg in the colder months and jumped to around 21 mpg in the warmer months. Anyway, here is a fuel economy tracking thread I started on Saturn Fans back when I first got the Vue. Others have added their mileage as well. You can find the thread HERE. The best I got with the Vue was 23.5 mpg on a 500 mile or so round trip that was 80% 2 lane rural highway. For comparison purposes, we just made the same trip in the Aura last weekend and it averaged 25.5 mpg.