Drew Dowdell

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.

Bet it'll be a pain to get NOS parts for...

The diesel would be Europe only I assume...

My rental was an Audi A6 TDI 2.0 front track. I turned it in last night, but I'm still in Germany for a bit while more. I was thoroughly underwhelmed. The 3-er I had last year was a substantially better car in nearly every way. The only thing I would have changed on the 3er was having it be a diesel (I forgot to ask for a diesel last year)

Spotted a small used car dealer with a new Dodge Ram, 2 Dodge Challengers, a Chrysler 300C SRT 8, and a 1969 Chevelle..... If this doesn't sound particularly remarkable.... consider I was 60 KM south west of Stuttgart at the time.

The only pushrod powered vehicle that GM makes that is intended to be quiet is the Lucerne, which meets or beats it's similarly priced Lexus competition in sound avoidance. Don't say "yes but the LS...." because at $70k instead of $35k you can afford another layer of sound insulation.

It's really difficult to avoid HFCS in a lot of daily, take-for-granted foods.... but since I already drink a lot of soda, I avoid it there. with regard to baked goods.... I've just been making my own lately. Not because of HFCS, but because I enjoy baking and my bread tastes better then any mass produced store bought stuff.

and I'm behind the helm of an Audi A6 TDI

Chrysler 300C SRT estate and Chrysler 300 estate V6 both today and an Audi R8 and a SsangYong Kyron Cyber

I agree that taking an existing block and making it do things it wasn't designed to do is probably a bad idea..... but if it's designed from the start to use either configuration, I think it could work out well.

You know how Suzuki is just about to pull out of the U.S. market? Yeah, they can thank the Verona for that.

I don't think the '93s had the neon.

A green 1979 Buick Riviera Turbo that keeps popping up for sale a few blocks from me. They're smoking something good for the price they're asking though...

My fault for not including AWD on the CTS, it was introduced for 2008. But my point was that ALL manufacturers make powertrain changes even after just 1 year into a body style. You wanna look at the Mazda 3? Here's the powertrain changes over time: 2004 Mazda 3: Intro year - 144hp, 148hp, 160hp I4s, 5-speed manual STD, 4-speed auto optional 2005 Mazda 3: 144hp, 148hp, 160hp I4s, 5-speed manual STD, 4-speed auto optional 2006 Mazda 3: 145hp, 150hp, 153hp, and 160hp I4s, 5-speed manual STD, 4-speed auto optional on 2.0 liter, 5-speed auto optional on 2.3 liter 2007 Mazda 3: 145hp, 148hp, 151hp, and 156hp I4s, 5-speed manual STD, 4-speed auto optional on 2.0 liter, 5-speed auto optional on 2.3 liter 2007 Mazda 3: 145hp, 148hp, 151hp, and 156hp I4s, 5-speed manual STD, 4-speed auto optional on 2.0 liter, 5-speed auto optional on 2.3 liter 2008 Mazda 3: no power train changes 2009 Mazda 3: last year of body style, no power train changes 2010 Mazda 3: New body - 144hp, 148hp, 165hp, and 167hp I4s, 5-speed manual STD on lower models 6-speed manual on upper models, 5-speed automatic available across the board

Or the CTS: 2003 CTS - New model intro, 220hp 3.2l V6 5-speed manual or automatic 2004 CTS - 220hp 3.2l V6 only available in manual, 255hp 3.6l V6 introduced with 5-speed auto, 400hp 5.7 liter V-series introduced with 6-speed manual 2005 CTS - 210hp 2.8l V6 replaces 3.2l, 5-speed manual replaced with 6-speed manual across the board, 3.6l V6 now available with manual 2006 CTS - V-series displacement increases to 6.0 liters, horsepower and torque remain the same but at different RPM 2007 CTS - last year for the body style - no powertrain changes 2008 CTS - New body, 3.6l V6 available with or without direct injection, 263hp base, 304hp DI, No v-series this year, 6-speed manual or auto either engine 2009 CTS - V6es remain the same, V-series introduced with 556hp 2010 CTS - Non-DI 3.6 dropped, replaced with DI 3.0l producing 270hp, other engines remain the same

2002 Camry - New body style, 157hp I4, 190hp V6, 4-speed auto 2003 Camry - 157hp I4, 190hp V6, 210hp V6, 4-speed auto standard, 5-speed auto introduced on upper trim - this is the first year Toyota beats GM's 1995 3800 V6 in horsepower. 2004 Camry - same as above with 3.3l 225hp V6 introduced on SE model - first year Toyota beats GM's 1992 3.4DOHC in horsepower 2005 Camry - Drops the 4-speed auto, engines remain the same 2006 Camry - Last year of body style, 3.3l SE drops to 210hp 3.0 V6 drops from 210hp to 190hp - Camry "Sport" now has less horsepower than a base 1999 Intrique. 2007 Camry - New Body Style, 155hp I4, 158hp I4, 268hp V6 offered, 5-speed auto on most models, 6-speed auto on upper trim V6 models, hybrid introduced late in model year - this is the first year Toyota beat's GM's 1996 3800 S/C in horsepower, never beats it in torque. 2008 Camry - 155hp I4 dropped, everything else remains the same 2009 Camry - Toyota is a bit distracted with cars running off the road, no changes made. Or, the best selling Corolla: 2003 Corolla - New body style, 130hp I4, 4-speed auto 2004 Corolla - 130hp, 4-speed auto 2005 Corolla - 130hp, 4-speed auto, XRS 170hp model introduced with 6-speed manual 2006 Corolla - 126hp, 4-speed auto, XRS drops to 164hp 2007 Corolla - 126hp, 4-speed auto, XRS dropped completely 2008 Corolla - 126hp, 4-speed auto 2009 Corolla - light body refresh, 132hp, 4-speed auto, XRS returns with 158hp and 5-speed auto or manual

one for you BV?

don't wait for others... just go get the Carfax and if it's clean, go pick it up. With 28k miles there's at least 8,000 miles left on the original transmission* *(joking at DF)

she is no longer in need of a water pump. Thanks Dominic.

(some random number that if Chevy doesn't beat, automatically makes the entire car inferior to <insert import product here>)

She's in need of a waterpump...

Does it have 73 way power seats? Does it have surround sound?

uh, the b-class is 168" long... roughly 14 inches longer than the Aveo (154") and 8 inches longer than the Fit (160")... the B-class is about Honda Fit size (169") or Audi A3 size... This may blow your mind, but... the A3 comes with: automatic self leveling integrated LED daytime running lights. Rain Sensing Windshield Wipers automatic light switch and coming home and leaving home functionalities but I'm sure Mercedes will find some Cadillac technology to rip off.... who knows... maybe they can make that multi-contour seat swivel out for the driver like Oldsmobile did back in the 70s.

with regard to point 3: Adding 2 cylinders to the HF series was what the UV8 was supposed to be. I'd imagine that casting a new block is more expensive than putting new heads (of a different valve train) on an existing block. Also that having two blocks (HF + SB) is less expensive than having three (HF + SB + UV8). The 3.4DOHC (which will inevitably be brought up) suffered reliability problems not because it was converted from a pushrod block, but because GM cheaped out on some of the components (brittle plastic timing belt idler pulleys? really?) and very poor location of the alternator. Designing a block from the start to use either valve train configuration allows the engineers to consider the differences needed and account for them in the design.

This.... is an ex-parrot!