Drew Dowdell

Rebadged Fiat 500s

I've gotta tell Dominic about the '70

cause it worked so well last time....

Put an ad on Craigslist, "Throwing out an old mower? Call me, I'll come pick it up!"

Vista print will make biz cards for free if you pay shipping

Proof? It works reasonably well and isn't prone to catastrophic failure. Remember, "co-developed" can mean GM did the hardware and Ford did the software.

Interesting point there, and I agree. (With Ford, though, the 6F is a joint venture with the GM 6T.) yeah... GM developed it, Ford gave them money for the design and then did their own software for it.

LLT and LFX are still derivatives of the HFV6. http://en.wikipedia...._Feature_engine I meant HV..the pushrod oldies... too many similar acronyms. The point I've tried to make is the HV pushrod engines are descended from the 1980 Citation 2.8. The modern HF DOHC engines are unrelated AFAIK. The HVs are not descended from the 2.8 in anything other than they are both pushrods.

2.8 -> 3.1 -> 3.4DOHC.... and that's where the linage ends. The pushrod 3.4 was not the basis of the 3.4DOHC, they actually used the 3.1 pushrod and increased the bore slightly while keeping the stroke. Nor was it the basis of the HV engine other than it was the predecessor to them. There is no direct link between the 3.4 DOHC and the Northstar other than GM using it to learn what NOT to do. There is a stronger case to say that the 4-cylinder Quad-4 lead to the Northstar. In very early Northstar development GM did produce a Frankenstein engine by connecting two Quad-4s at the crank in 90 degree bank. There is a picture on the internet somewhere if one of you is up for a good scavenger hunt. The 3.5 Shortstar is only related to the Northstar in that the same team developed it. About the only thing that might carry over is the pistons. It is a completely from scratch block....even the bore centers are different. The HV and HF line were almost entirely all new and not derived from prior engines. The HV line has slightly offset bore centers in each bank of cylinders which none of the prior V6es had. The HF was developed because GM knew that neither the 3800 nor the 3.5DOHC Shortstar nor the 3.2DOHC Opel engine would be sufficient going forward. It is a "from scratch" design and any similarities to prior engines are coincidence.

The Malibu will be getting a revised 2.0T with over 250hp. If you want a V6, there is a 300hp Impala or Lacrosse. You know what I meant about the SS.

An Ecoboost V6 in RWD would probably suit you very nicely. Sing it with me.... 350 lb-ft @ 1500rpm - 5000rpm.... and capable of 27mpg in AWD form.

You've missed out on some real 4-cylinder goodness.

I'm listening to this bit of awesomeness. <iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/25004046?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0"></iframe><p><a href=" hold back, just push things forward</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/ithacaaudio">Ithaca Audio</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

Buick was a luxury brand. Pontiac still sold lots of I6es (except in '55-'60 where the base engines were relatively small V8s) Olds was maybe entry lux until '61 when they went down market and began offering a 3.5liter V8 My point being... very few of the cars sold were SS, 442, or GTOs.

I'm not sure GM has fear in this segment. They were just caught a bit short by the bankruptcy. I see no problem waiting till the next redesign in 2013 for the Cruze hatch

I agree on all counts Olds But I think the article is a skewed bit of propaganda to make people feel good about either choosing a 4 pot or being forced into the lesser engines by the manufacturers Chevy,Hyundia... all for the CAFE standards. Not being a V8 only guy but loved a certain flat six, turbo Ecotec, 3800 3500 & 3900's I like what I like even I3's. No one is being forced into anything. If you want 300hp+, it's out there... in a family cars even. General consumers are choosing the 4-cylinder of their own volition... and finding that it suits their needs. I think there is a bit of distorted nostalgia going on in here. In the 60's most cars weren't Impala SSes. The biggest sellers were typically the I-6es and small V8s.

I'm looking forward to more electric propulsion across the board. I like my acceleration silent and instant.

but I thought your mom was at Kinkos running off PFLAG fliers within minutes of you coming out......

they are shortening model cycles, that's probably why they're not bothering with the hatch until the next release.

What?! Two-Door Trooper II w/o any signs of rust Sorry, that was supposed to say "old style Benz grill insert"

The SRX out powers both the Mercedes and BMW.... how is it limited?

A new Lucerne with an old style Benz insert..... oookaaay.....

Not necessarily true, otherwise we'd be using turbines. However, the testers felt the power came on too unnaturally... and the project ended. To expand on what JB said... it's the size of the boat AND the motion of the ocean.

and why not? 25 years ago, V8s were the norm and they typically put out between 160hp to 240hp. 10 years ago the typical Family V6 sedan could come with horsepower somewhere in the range of 160hp to 240hp. Fast forward to 2011 and most 4 cylinders (some with turbo) are capable of .... 160hp to 240hp... with some going higher than that even. V6es have moved into the 260hp to 360hp range.... any V6 with less than 260hp gets laughed at. People buy what they need and can afford.... and the 160hp - 240hp appears to be the range that satisfies most drivers.

2012 Cadillac SRX gains the LFX July 26th, 2011 Drew Dowdell - CheersandGears.com For 2012 Cadillac is dumping the smooth but overwhelmed 3.0 liter V6 and replacing it with the new LFX 308 horsepower V6 giving it a jump of 43 horsepower over the 2011 model. While the 308 horsepower is a good marketing bump, where consumers will feel the biggest change is in the torque rating. The outgoing 3.0 V6 produced just 223 lb-ft of torque at a lofty 5,100rpm. This meant that the driver would have to keep the engine rev higher even just for regular city driving. Indeed, the lack of torque was noted in our earlier review of the 2011 Cadillac SRX 3.0 and 2.8 Turbo. Cadillac remedies this deficiency by increasing torque output to 265 lb-ft and making that torque peak available at just 2,400 rpm. In city driving, this should make the SRX feel substantially faster than the 3.0 model. In fact, this new torque rating pushes the SRX above the base engines of the BMW X3, Lexus RX350, Audi Q5 and Mercedes Benz GLK. The only luxury crossovers on the radar that offer more torque (Lincoln MKX and Acura MDX) make you rev the engine much higher to get it. Along with the new engine, Cadillac is including a revised 6-speed automatic transmission with an Eco mode that lowers the rpm for each shift point, there by increasing fuel efficiency. With all of this increased power, fuel economy does get dinged by 1mpg in each rating to 17/24 cty/hwy for the front wheel drive model and 16/23 cty/hwy for the all wheel drive one. However, my guess is that with the availability of more torque at lower rpm, achiving those numbers will be more realistic.... something that couldn't be said for last year's model. Cadillac claims that 71% of SRX buyers come from other brands. This has helped the SRX to take number 2 spot in the entry luxury crossover segment. With the above changes plus some other baubles and bright work, Cadillac is clear that they are not standing still.