Jump to content
Create New...

Drew Dowdell

Editor-in-Chief
  • Posts

    56,304
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    568

Everything posted by Drew Dowdell

  1. Happy Birthday MM!
  2. With VVT, engines have a broader rpm range of "most efficient engine speed". Thus, the need to shift often is diminished. We've reached and passed the point of diminishing returns on adding gear ratios.
  3. More gears is the direct opposite of "more smooth". The smoothest transmissions out there are the ones with no gears at all. Eventually, someone is just going to have to come out with a CVT that can handle the torque of a powerful V8 and still be reliable. A 10-speed is really just a 5-speed with another 5-speed backup in case the first one fails... the gear ratio spread doesn't seem to be changing with these newer transmissions, so they are really just additional notches on the same length ruler.
  4. Hate to say this, but try in IE instead of FF.
  5. Total price is $36.95 including shipping to your door, a savings of $11 after shipping had you bought it on your own. Please pay using the paypal button below and include your C&G member name in the form. AAS, you should be able to change the quantity ordered and still pay the one shipping price. PM me if it doesn't allow you to. If you don't use Paypal and need to arrange another form of payment, PM me directly. <form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"><input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_s-xclick"><input type="hidden" name="hosted_button_id" value="3VWD3NQF2EYNL"><input type="image" src="https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_buynowCC_LG.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!"><img alt="" border="0" src="https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif" width="1" height="1"></form>
  6. Because I'm a "sporty" guy.... 1980 Oldsmobile Toronado XSC
  7. Do they know the cause of the fire yet? What year Ridgeline was it?
  8. Actually, the C300 is not slow. It does 0-60 in 7.5 secs. That's faster than an SRX and fast enough to be "not objectionable" to most buyers who are enthusiasts. To put that into some perspective. 1999 Buick Park Ave Ultra - 7.6 .... with a 4-speed and pushrods even. 1994 Buick Roadmaster Limited - 7.8 1992 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Coupe 3.4 DOHC - 7.0 2004 Cadillac CTS 3.6l - 6.5 and for Dwight... 2012 Cadillac SRX 3.6 - 6.7
  9. I'll only be there for one.
  10. C&G attendees may also have the chance to drive a 2012 Camaro SS Convertible.
  11. In terms of Jumbos, the 747 still does it better than the A380. The only downside is that the Airlines are not really replacing their old 747s with new 747s, opting instead to go to 777-300 instead. The 777-300, while having a slightly lower passenger capacity than the original 747 is much more fuel efficient per passenger by virtue of a 50% reduction in the number of engines. Yet quietly, Boeing has updated the 747 to the new 747-8 version for future orders. It has the new cabin of the 787 plus some of the carbon fiber airframe updates. The result is an airplane with major parts already shared by older models, yet distinctly updated to compete with the A380.
  12. I'll handle Dominic's myself. I see him all the time.
  13. they already did grow, the Countryman is already up to 3,000lbs.... for a MINI!
  14. In trying determine if a car can benefit from more speeds in the transmission, all you have to ask is three questions:- Does the car have enough torque to smoke the tires in 1st gear? Is the cruising rpm in top gear low enough? Between shifts, does the rpm fall too far below the torque peak? If the answer to all the questions are NO. Then the car does not need more speeds in the transmission. In fact, more speeds in such instances will make the car slower with no benefits to fuel economy. For the Corvette, the objective is for enough torque to break the tires lose in 1st, keep top gear rpms at around 1600~1700 rpm at 60 mph and make see to it that when shifted at the redline (6600 rpm) the rpm drops to within 800 rpm of 4,600 rpm. If it is already doing that, then giving it more gears just means more shifts during acceleration (slower), more smoke during launch (slower) or a top gear that cannot be used until you are seriously over the speed limit (pointless). Do we have details on what gear is being added? Can they be putting an even more over, overdrive in?
  15. New Cadillac commercial I like... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heSVK8s-gfo
  16. it's not about mpgs expecially, it's about keeping current. If the C7 comes out without a 7-speed and all of it's competitors have them, yet again we'll hear about how behind the times GM is... and when will GM catch up...
  17. I the steering column, and some of the interior door panel parts are from an S-10 "parts car" That one is actually spruced up a bit. I sat in the blue one.
  18. F-100 They are going to move the Ranger up in size to be more like the Dakota (R.I.P.)
  19. Late and still a better plane than the oft delayed and fuel sucking A380. I can't wait to ride on a 787, but it will be a while till it begins serving routes that I typically travel.
  20. I've sat in one. Absolutely wretched interior......Imagine J.C. Whitney had a yard sale... then imagine there was a pile of stuff that didn't sell..... THAT is what ended up in this thing
  21. Why are you always against GM making a version of a car that will make them money and improve perception with non-car-people?
  22. No to the Eco, that is what the e-Assist is for at Buick. Possibly for the GS, Welburn asked us what we thought of the possibility.... however, he stressed that it could only be FWD and not AWD.
  23. What would the power curve on one of these look like? I'm all in favor of lower RPM anyway, so even after your explanation, I see it as a good thing. A 2.0 S/C 2 stroke should make roughly a little less than double the power ( taking into account supercharger losses) at a given RPM than a 2.0T 4-stroke. Knowing what today's 2.0t engines are capable of doing.... I am perfectly fine with a 5,000 rpm red-line. Any reason these couldn't be done in V configurations? I imagine the cylinder angle would have to be different than what we're used to with V6 and V8s today.
  24. Simple reason you should care. A successful Malibu pays the bills so the Camaro can be even better. The reason we lost the F-body in the first place was because GM couldn't even make the Lumina/Impala sell well at at profit. If they can't get "bland" right for the target market, there is no hope for "EXCITEMENT!!!!"
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search