Drew Dowdell

Sonic doing very well.

yard full of rust is what it looks like.

I think his point is that the Atlas is too tall and that without major re-engineering, won't work in anything other than the full size trucks and SUVs, where as the 3.0TT will likely hit the spot on performance and can be used in almost anything. I get that. I would like to see an Ecotec I6/VR6 plus optional turbo, slanted if need be, that could be used in everything from the Epsilons on up. And FWD, transverse, slant engines are out there already. The Camry uses/used a transverse slant 4. That means they could engineer it as a slant engine from the start and use it in both transverse and north/south applications.

I don't think this will be a proprietary button. It will just be the same button they are using now to activate the voice activation system but now able to activate Siri or the android equivalent also

Because of the New Manly body design language or the diesel? Well I already did a review of the 2012 Volkswagen Beetle Turbo and really enjoyed the car. I like anything diesel, so I expect I would enjoy the Beetle TDI even more.

Volvo S80 has a 2.9/3.0/3.2 liter I6 mounted transversely 2013 Volvo S60 has a 3.0t mounted transversely Suzuki Verona/Daewoo Leganza as a 2.5 liter I6 mounted transversely

There are a number of other non-GM brands that need to go away before Opel does and at least half of those are owned by VW.

Same place I get parts for mine. Ebay. that said, even as an E-body lover, I have to vote no on this... at least until the upsizing a few years later.

Those of you on the Sprint network should have noticed their contribution to this. Their network has been more than crap lately now that you aren't able to use Verizon towers anymore.

I thought you did a beauty touch up on your intake plenum.... or was that someone else?

You don't happen to have pictures to scan, would you? No scanner, but I could try and take a pic tonight. Considering the collection you have, I think it is high time that C&G take up a collection on your behalf.

Suzuki and Volvo did it in FWD vehicles right up until recently. Even an I6-Turboed-DI Camaro could be an interesting proposition if they can slant the engine. You know that such vehicles wouldn't really be my thing - But I see too much logic in the possibilities to ignore this idea. You could get your E-body back... You may have misunderstood me. Suzuki and Volvo did transverse I-6 FWD cars. Technically, so did VW, with a twist. In terms of packaging, the VR design is really the solution to the problem. 15 degree V, V6 makes it smooth like an inline, but not much longer than an I-4. Seems I may have. But then, FWD Suzukis and Volvos are in my "beneath notice" category. I do find it interesting the Chrysler's LH cars used a north-south configuration though. Those were some of the best-looking FWD designs of their time. A slightly taller hood, and they could have used an I-6. I agree. I've always wondered what an LH coupe, probably a Chrysler branded one, would look like. Given GM's stumble with the E-body starting in '86, Chrysler could have snatched that market away with something like that. Technically, the drive layout is an AMC/Renault derived design going back to the Monaco. Another interesting North/South arrangements. The 1996 - 2005 Passat. Available with 1.8 liter 4-cylinder, a 2.8 liter V6 or a 4.0 liter W8.... all longitudinal.

I can't wait to drive one of these.

The 2.5 is a dud because you have all the bulk and weight of the 3.7 (plus slightly more) without the performance that comes with the 3.7. It costs Nissan exactly the same amount of money to build the 2.5 as it does to build the 3.7. They'd be better off turboing a 4-cylinder.

Suzuki and Volvo did it in FWD vehicles right up until recently. Even an I6-Turboed-DI Camaro could be an interesting proposition if they can slant the engine. You know that such vehicles wouldn't really be my thing - But I see too much logic in the possibilities to ignore this idea. You could get your E-body back... You may have misunderstood me. Suzuki and Volvo did transverse I-6 FWD cars. Technically, so did VW, with a twist. In terms of packaging, the VR design is really the solution to the problem. 15 degree V, V6 makes it smooth like an inline, but not much longer than an I-4.

I'm the reverse. Prewar -> about 1960, then about 1965 - Mid-70s, then 1980 - 87, then 1992 - 96 for me. GM loses me completely from 1961 - 1965/66

Nobody saw GM heading to the troubles they had in 1992, much less BK in 2009. Indeed, if you told anybody in 1981 that GM would have those events happen in the next 30 years, you would have been laughed out of the room. By 1992, GM already had, in no particular order: The original Cavalier The X-bodies The 4100 The 350 Diesel The Cimmarron The less than successful initial launch of the W-body. The disastrous downsizing of the E-bodies. A 5 year lag on the Mini-van Chrysler just released the LH cars while GM was just filling out the rest of the W-body line. The Camry that made the Camry the Camry was released in 1991 and blew away what GM was putting out in comparison. If you couldn't see it coming in 1992... well... then you need better glasses.

Edsel Corsair making good time on I-81 in Virginia/Maryland

I am grumpy (exhaustion) but my opinion is still the same.

Suzuki and Volvo did it in FWD vehicles right up until recently. Even an I6-Turboed-DI Camaro could be an interesting proposition if they can slant the engine.

DI , full VVT, and a turbo or two would address those issues in the Atlas and make it more than a match for the Ecoboost.

Where's the 2.9 V6 diesel that was developed for Cadillac? That had 400 ft-lb of torque. The 3.0TT is coming to the cars wouldn't take much work to make a 3.6TT for the trucks. The hardware is basically the same but use lower boost numbers. I do think that Chevy needs a turbo V6 or Atlas I6 Turbo as an option. But mostly l would like to see Chevy do a broad spectrum diesel release. Cruze, 'Nox, Impala, Colorado, and Silverado should all be available with diesel and in the Silverado specifically, a diesel that isn't a $7,000, Heavy Duty upgrade.

Ugh... if you're talking just tail lights, ok.. but overall '57 goes to any division BUT Pontiac. I think their grills are terrible. The only '57s I dislike more than the Pontiac are the Mercury and Dodges.... but all three would be improved by a medium speed impact into a brick wall.

It is a feature available to premium members