Drew Dowdell

I saw that, too...and promptly figured out who most likely did it. Whatever, some people revel in drama because they lack sufficient hobbies Don't assume you know who it was. I was surprised by it (not someone who stirs up drama around here)

Oh dear... http://www.autoblog....ts-new-four-cy/ http://www.emercedes...more-efficient/ Don't forget that BMW is heading that way too, starting with the Z4 and most likely moving to the 1- and 3-Series and 5-series. Fixed that for ya. They already have the 4-cylinder available in Germany, just not with a turbo. The turbo will make the 4-cylinder more palatable to SMK's BMW-Humpers' tastes. When I had one 2 years ago, the NVH was such that I thought it was a diesel until I went to fill it up.

I'm curious as to why 3 of us got -1s for what we said... especially from the person to did the down repping.

Though Dwight, isn't there that 8-speed in the works as well?

Not since the winter.

I'm sure those are special AMG 4-cylinders that aren't used in any other MB models.

We had the rear differential filled about 2 years ago.

I stayed on the gas long enough to burn a good size hold in the lawn.

no on/off switch

Ok, so we had the Honda CR-V in the back yard over the weekend. It was a slight upward incline, on slightly wet grass. I tried to move the car a bit further up and instead of crawling up the hill, I just spun the front tires.. the rear never engaged. I tried backing and pulling forward. I reached the same spot with the same result, forward tires spinning, no motion from the rears. Zero unusual noises. Am I not getting something about all wheel drive? Did Honda not understand the concept? Or is it going to the dealer service department next week?

And... thread. you don't need any other responses.

Voted yes and tweeted the link out to our 576 followers

He probably would have heeded the multiple warnings that were handed to Bush.

From a housing standpoint, I would rent for at least the first year.

You know what I'm curious about? Why the car was out for 2 years in other countries and GM wasn't able to shake this problem out of the system.

The problem is that it is not. At least it is not as economical as it could have been if GM went with a bigger engine with higher compression and taller gearing. Conventional wisdom has it that smaller displacement engines are easier on gas. This has lead to some governments passing displacement taxes to encourage the sale and adoption of cars with small engines. It has also lead to the new government owned Chevrolet introducing the Cruze with a decidedly tiny 1.4 liter – 1364cc to be exact – turbocharged four with the aspiration to claim the fuel economy crown of the compact segment. But conventional wisdom is wrong. As it turns out, the 1.4 liter turbocharged four was not only more expensive to build and made less power compared to its competitors – 138 hp versus 160 hp in the Ford and 148 hp in the Hyundai respectively – it was using burning more gasoline. When equipped with a 6-speed automatic transmission, the 1.4 liter Cruze Eco's 26 / 37 mpg was easily beaten by the 2.0 liter Ford Focus's 28/38 mpg and the 1.8 liter Hyundai Elantra's 29 / 40 mpg. How did that happen? To start with, the Cruze's power plant was geared in such a manner that it spins at a relatively brisk 3000 rpm at 75 mph. This is considerably higher than the competition. And it has to be gear in this manner because highway cruising is typically done at very low engine loads and with the turbocharger making very little boost. The tiny displacement means that the engine has to be geared in a manner that will allow the engine to easily maintain highway cruising speeds off-boost. In addition, the combination of turbo-charging and the lack of direct injection meant that the engine operates with a relatively low compression ratio of 9.2:1 – a far cry from the Focus's 12:1. Combined, these more than negated marginal savings in pumping and frictional losses gained through displacement reduction. That is apparently only true for the automatic. The manual ECO is doing very well with MPG, I'm regularly seeing reports of over 42mpg.

That would be a very good option to add, too bad they did not do that. Course who is to say someone does not update this again. It could show up if GM is watching our chat. They are. They won't.

GM is Back! Reports Net Income of $3.2 Billion GM Reports first quarter profits of $3.2 Billion on $36.2 Billion in Revenue

GM Reports Net Income of $3.2 Billion Net income of $1.77 per share including a net gain from special items of $0.82 per share EBIT of $3.5 billion and EBIT-adjusted of $2.0 billion GM Europe achieves breakeven results on an EBIT-adjusted basis DETROIT – General Motors Company (NYSE: GM) today announced first quarter net income attributable to common stockholders of $3.2 billion, or $1.77 per fully-diluted share, marking the company's fifth consecutive profitable quarter. Revenue increased $4.7 billion to $36.2 billion, compared with the first quarter of 2010. "We are on plan," said Dan Akerson, chairman and CEO. "GM has delivered five consecutive profitable quarters, thanks to strong customer demand for our new fuel-efficient vehicles and a competitive cost structure that allows us to leverage our strong brands around the world and focus on driving profitable automotive growth." Net income attributable to common stockholders includes gains of $1.6 billion and $0.3 billion respectively related to the sales of the company's ownership interest in Delphi Automotive LLP and Ally Financial Inc. preferred stock. It also includes a $0.4 billion goodwill impairment charge at GM Europe (GME) resulting from a change in accounting standards and charges totaling $0.1 billion at GM International Operations (GMIO) related to revised tax regulations affecting the company's India joint venture. Combined, these special items increased net income attributable to common stockholders by $1.5 billion or $0.82 per fully-diluted share. Earnings before interest and tax (EBIT) were $3.5 billion. EBIT adjusted to exclude special items was $2.0 billion compared with $1.7 billion in the first quarter of 2010. GM Results Overview (in billions except for per share amounts) Q1 2010 Q1 2011 Revenue $31.5 $36.2 Net income attributable to common stockholders $0.9 $3.2 Earnings per share (EPS) diluted $0.55 $1.77 EBIT $1.8 $3.5 Less special items $0.1 $1.5 EBIT – adjusted $1.7 $2.0 Impact of special items on EPS diluted $0.08 $0.82 Automotive net cash flow from operating activities $1.9 $(0.6)* Automotive free cash flow $1.0 $(1.9)* * Includes $2.5 billion negative impact related to wholesale advance financing agreement termination GM North America (GMNA) reported EBIT of $2.9 billion compared with $1.2 billion in the first quarter of 2010. On an EBIT-adjusted basis, GMNA increased its earnings by $0.1 billion to $1.3 billion compared with the first quarter of 2010. The company expects GMNA's quarterly EBIT-adjusted results to improve on average for the remainder of the year compared with the first quarter as better pricing and improved fixed cost should more than offset commodity cost increases and unfavorable mix. GME reported EBIT of $(0.4) billion. GME's results improved by $0.6 billion on an EBIT-adjusted basis compared with the first quarter of 2010 and it achieved a significant milestone by delivering breakeven results on that basis. Based on current plans, GME is targeting to achieve breakeven results on an EBIT-adjusted basis before restructuring for the entire year. GMIO reported EBIT of $0.5 billion compared with $0.9 billion in the first quarter of 2010. On an EBIT-adjusted basis, GMIO earned $0.6 billion in the first quarter, a decline of $0.3 billion compared with the first quarter of 2010. GM South America (GMSA) reported EBIT of $0.1 billion, down $0.2 billion from the first quarter of 2010. There were no adjustments in either period. GM expects that full-year 2011 EBIT-adjusted results will show solid improvement over 2010. GM continues to expect no material impact on full-year results from the Japan crisis. For the quarter, automotive cash flow from operating activities was $(0.6) billion and automotive free cash flow was $(1.9) billion. Both figures include the $2.5 billion cash impact of GM's decision, announced in October 2010, to end a wholesale advance agreement with Ally Financial. GM ended the quarter with very strong total liquidity of $36.5 billion. Automotive cash and marketable securities, including Canadian Health Care Trust restricted cash, was $30.6 billion compared with $27.6 billion at the end of the fourth quarter of 2010. "GM has great potential to deliver profitable growth around the world as the recovery continues," said Dan Ammann, senior vice president and CFO. "While we're encouraged, we keenly recognize we have more opportunities to leverage our scale, improve spending and investment efficiencies, and optimize our strong balance sheet."

I'm guessing the Charger and 300 are both suffering from changeoveritis right now. They'll be back, especially after the updates.

The SRX is second only to the RX in sales volume yet at the same time it gives up nothing to the X3 or GLK in transaction price. The X3 is brand new and the SRX approaching it's 3rd year, yet the X3 would need to increase sales by at least 33% to match the SRX in volume and the SRX is showing no signs of slowing it's own sales growth. Who is chasing who now?

doesn't that 3-1 collector also make turbocharging the thing quite a bit easier?

The softtop also has the advantage of allowing more interior and trunk space.

A way to do it will be to build a 60 deg V8 of 4.8 liters using the HF V6 architecture. You can build it on the same lines, they'll used the same pistons, rods, valvetrain parts, etc. A balance shaft can be used to smooth out the 60 deg configuration (ala Volvo's Yyamaha built 4.4 V8). It'll be a DOHC 32v engine making about 420~430 hp. But, again, such a V8 will be a heck of a lot more work and money than a variant of the LFX V6 with different pistons and a cam grinds. What about a 90 degree V8 from scratch, or by using blocks of the 2.0, 2.4 or 2.5 liter ecotecs? The Germans seem to come up with a new V8 every other month, Cadillac had the Northstar for 18 years and now nothing. No, they just have better marketing departments.