Drew Dowdell

The White one is where I really see it. The other colors, not so much.

1. The battery shape would need to be changed. 2. Yes there is room for it. 3. It would probably end up being a more space efficient design than can be done in the LAX.

From a U.S. perspective, I hope that the Buick projects that Holden is working on make it to the U.S. as well. There is room above the Lacrosse for a big Buick

On the Enclave, you can really see a bigger toothier grill... I think it will look really handsome. The Acadia looks like it will open its mouth more to look more like its big brothers.

The threshold for who is included and who isn't is rather nebulous. Mazda was sometimes counted in Ford's total, sometimes not. Hyundai and Kia report their numbers seperately even though Hyundai owns 51%. Nissan/Renault often report their numbers together and sometimes seperate depending on which way is more convenient.

Actually, the Renault Clio V6 Renault Sport (what a mouthful!) is mid-engined and rear-wheel drive, so those vents actually cool the engine which is behind the front seats. The same is also true for the Renault 5 Turbo balthazar posted. Wow! How French!

Make sure you take pics and upload it to the garage!

The news programs out there reporting that your Volt will burst into flames if you sneeze wrong certainly don't help. Even one of the car guys here at work thought that the Volt would catch on fire without being involved in an accident. Just goes to show how widespread the misinformation about the Volt is.

Someone took the Chrysler/Mercedes-Benz merger a bit too far.

Gm had included numbers from these two chinese subsidiaries for years. It's a bit late to be crying foul now.

That would be nice... but the Japanese don't want NAFTA into their country. They only want NAFTA out. That is the big reason people on all sides are opposed to Japan joining the TPP trade agreement. Japan wants all of the benefits of exports but doesn't want to allow imports. It isn't just GM, Chrysler, and Ford protesting this.

This. One of the things I notice about the DSG in the Beetle was how low in the RPM band the transmission keeps the engine during normal driving. It was like there was an invisible line at 2,050 rpm that the computer didn't want to cross. However, at high end highway speeds, it could have used another gear to continue to keep RPMs low.

.... we have NAFTA with those other countries.

What surprised me about the Encore was that with the driver seat set for me, I could sit in the back and have lots of legroom. I didn't think to take a picture at the time, but if it is open in Chicago I'll get one (heck, even if it's not, I'll get someone to open it for me)

How much longer till we actually see Teslas rolling on the ground?

fair competition is equal access to the same markets. Toyota doesn't sell anything here at any special discount.

That was the point I think hyper brought up, wouldn't the 2.5 pistons start smacking off the valves?

They are going to convert Sigma to RHD at this stage of the game? for all of 1,000 CTS-V sales in UK and AU combined? maybe there is more life left in Sigma than we thought.....

Would have but the Zeta is nearing the end of it's life and just live it out with some upgrades till it is gone. From what they said they can't make it much lighter as it is. I believe GM could afford to do this one much better this now with better funding. But who is to say they could not do a larger Alpha coupe as a Chevelle like vehicle or a new Zeta replacement down the road. A flag ship Cadillac has to go on something. That really is the question - what can Alpha do with its flexibility, and what will Omega be? For what I want, Zeta is perfect - I hope that Alpha or Omega can support a car (truck) with the same size and powertrain as Zeta now does. Otherwise, it's really all over for me and future GM cars. Alpha can go up at least as large as the E-class.

tastless

As much as I enjoy driving the new cars from the manufacturers all the time, driving the Toronado gives me much more enjoyment. Out of all of the test vehicles I've driven, only 4 come to mind as something I would consider for a daily driver. CTS-V coupe, Chevy Volt, the New New VW Beetle Turbo, and the Buick Lacrosse eAssist. However, the cost of those vehicles is rather preventative. The least expensive of the lot, the New New Beetle, was still over $30k.

Why should we impose less restrictive trade rules on them than they impose on us?

it makes up for it by having rear intake scoops on a front engine car.

This wasn't an article about replacing all of our coal power generation capability with wind. This is about the coming need for additional power generation capability needed to power the ever increasing number of plug-in electric vehicles. Home wind generation that wasn't particularly affordable producing 3,000 watt-hours a month suddenly becomes a lot more interesting when the same installation at minimally higher cost produces 9,000 watt-hours a month. Additionally, your point about 5mw peak is true, but coal plants and even nuke plants don't run at peak output all the time either and both can take time to ramp up the juice. As for averaging out the power output of the turbine to 25%, one of the points of the article is that with the wind lens, the turbines can operate at much lower wind speeds, so the amount of time the turbine spends generating electricity is increased. I don't know what the new percentage of peak is, but it is much higher than existing technology turbines.... and that is what I am trying to convey here. Baseline wind generation becomes higher with a wind lens. The reason we have been installing the 1.5 - 2.5mw units is because we have the luxury of space in this country. The big 5 - 7 mw units are substantially more costly to construct because they are so much larger. Those are typically European installations. The mid-west from Texas all the way up through Canada is a veritable Saudi Arabia of wind energy. There is a lot of wind and a lot of room to put these installations in. There is a lot of room on the Great Lake to put in water based turbines. As for the view, I don't know what your tastes are, but I find wind turbines much nicer to look at than a coal plant beltching sulfer into the air or nuke plant blowing off steam. With this technology, the math changes for wind power. Currently, not counting subsidies, but including captial costs and fuel costs, the breakdown for power generation is this: Wind - $68/MWh Coal - $67/MWh Gas - $56/MWh (reflecting the recent downturn in natural gas prices) That number for wind power is using today's technology. I don't know the number that would result from a wind lens installation, but you can see the potential for wind to suddenly become competative if it achieved only a 50% boost in output, much less the possible 200% increase.

Well another thing I didn't mention in the article was that these can be built much lee to the ground. All wind turbines today can rotate themselves. They have motors to do it for the exact reason you mention. They are doing a test installation in japan now