Drew Dowdell

Bring back a decent, light weight, AWD optional, Turbo charged, Eclipse and Galant and we'll think about it. Mitsubishi was my only ever serious consideration away from the domestics (via Eagle). I wanted a '98 Eagle Talon like no other when I was in college.

Big Floppy Donkey Dick

Excellent explanation! Thank you sir!

I'm thinking more in terms of the Ford Ecoboost that hit's it's plateau at around 1700rpm and holds it till 5500 rpm. This is the Taurus SHO, but the F-150 turbo gets a stump ripping 420 ft/lbs

I doubt you see Loki's point.... because it's such a confused one. Loki.. you really don't understand how currency works. Gold is only valuable because we say it is and assign a specific value to it. Thus, a certain amount of gold can be traded for a certain number of loaves of bread. The same goes for paper currency.... paper currency is like a check that doesn't need to be signed. It can be exchanged for a certain number of loaves of bread depending on the amount listed on the "Amount" line of the check. If you break the meaning of currency down to it's absolute most basic meaning. Currency represents slices of time... and if you have currency, you can buy slices of other people's time.

What about the Camaro convertible? I also have to point out that the Granite going to GMC has nothing to do with GMC's CAFE numbers...as there is no such thing. CAFE is Corporate Average Fuel Economy... It doesn't matter which brand the Granite gets placed in, it still helps the numbers for all of GM's average across any brand.

I can't imagine why the Avalanche and EXT would need to die. They are massively profitable vehicles even at lower volumes. They take no development dollars over what is being spent on the full size SUVs... the mid-gate hasn't changed since introduction in 2002.

There hasn't been a single vehicle released that was developed under post bankruptcy GM. That GM vehicles are as competitive as they are today and were developed under "old" GM just goes to show how much potential hurt GM can do to it's competition. Look at the Equinox, entirely developed with all the albatrosses of old GM, yet selling so well they had to add production at Oshawa to keep up with sales.

I've been saving this for a while, but somehow I just knew I'd be using it to reply to Loki.

coat the underside with gunk, hose off, repeat till clean. The leak will show itself

Dwight, that Turbo V6 may not have the torque peak down low, but I bet it would have 95% of peak available at something like 1,700rpm right? That's why I would pick the Turbo.

I don't know about the getting the money back part, but DF is right that you can call the credit card company to complain and the merchant will get a fine from their bank. However, as I said in an earlier post, that rule goes away at the end of 2010.

The minimum purchase rule goes away at the end of this year. I simply have too many transactions to NOT use electronic banking. 5 water bills, 5 mortgages, 5 sewer bills, 8 electric bills, 4 gas bills..... and on and on

Why would you paint flames on the front of a rear engined car?

As always.. you fail to see the point. Even if Cadillac managed to get the Northstar under the hood of the CTS, it'd still be maxed out at 4.6 litres. Even if GM could get 115 hp per litre out of the engine, you're looking at a max of 530hp. The CTS-V already has 556hp and there is still room for more displacement. Give me a Veyron too... then I'll sell it and buy a Corvette ZR1, a Viper, a Camaro SS, a CTS-V, a Challenger, and a 300C, then I'll fly them all to the Nurburgring where me and 5 of my best C&G buds can play with them on the track for a week. Each of the vehicles you mentioned can run with anything in their price class. You may have valid issues with their interior trim, weight, or handling.... but the engine isn't the falling down point for those cars.

A pushrod V6 is still larger than a turbo-4..... you're not *that* dumb.... or are you? Here is a question: What is the maximum displacement DOHC engine that can fit in the CTS? At most, you're looking at a 3.6 HF with it's cylinder sleeves removed to give it a total displacement of 4.0 liters. What is the maximum displacement that can go in the CTS with pushrods? At least 7.0 litres. Think about that.... you have a whole 3.0 liters of additional potential under the hood if you would just give up your love of the older DOHC valve train layout.

ok, ya'll settle down now....

Politics continued here

HAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAH

I don't think the ATS-V will get the LS engine. I'm fully expecting it to be something like a twin turbo 3.0 or 3.6

Now here's a reason you'd need 760 ft/lbs.... when you tie one end of a banker to a tree and the other end to a Duramax 3500HD

To do that, you'd have to kill all the bankers.

Oh! You've met SMK!?

I think we do need increased usage of the $1 coin, but not to discontinue usage of the $1 bill. Different sized bills for different denominations would make sense... it does make a currency easier to use.

There is no point in more than 6 gears unless the transmission is also going to start skip shifting. If you have a decent enough amount of torque, you really don't need that many gears. The Audi TDI 2.0 I just had was a 6-speed manual. It was entirely civilized to drive 1-3-6 in normal driving and never even touch 2-4-5. The Buick Regal 2.0T has similar torque numbers to the Jetta TDI.... I assume it would be possible to drive 1-3-6 in that was well. The only time you really need a bunch of gears is when the engine isn't good at putting out peak torque over a wide range....That only seems to happen lately on the very small displacement engines... which should really be hooked up to a CVT in that case anyway. 6 is enough.