Drew Dowdell

It was my understanding that both the 3.6 and 2.8 were designed from the get go to accept a turbo. Thusly the naturally aspirated ones are a little over built, but GM can just throw a turbo on without any hassle.

I have driven all those engines. 1. Stratus rental car with an I4 while my Cutlass was at the dealer. 2. Multiple Sebring convertibles with the 2.7, including the one which died on me on the Florida Turnpike while at a 75mph cruise.... the car had about 3,000 miles on it, I picked it up with 2100 miles on it. 3. A 300 with a 2.7. 4. A 300 with a 3.5. 5. A company Jeep with the 4.0 began leaking around 12,000 miles. 6. Observations of the neighbor's Jeep which leaks oil all over the pavement in front of my house. It's a 98ish Wrangler with the 4.0, but I can't remember it not leaking. The Stratus was a fairly beat to hell rental. I'm perfectly willing to admit that perhaps I didn't give it a fair shake, but there has yet to be a Chrysler I4 that has changed my mind. My opinions of the 2.7 are based on just the Sebring Convertible and the 300. I don't know what it would be like in a lighter car, but both of those are just too much car for that engine. Sure it puts out respectible numbers for it's size, but it is just not enough engine for those cars. The 3.5 I found to be nothing great. I picked up this rental with 250 miles on the clock. It's got the punch and the power, but it seemed to be on par with a S/C 3800 in terms of refinement. I'm not a 3800 hater, but I do believe it has served it's company well and now needs to retire. Two co-workers blew the 3.5s in their Intrepids in 2005. I have no problems with the performance of the 4.0. It does an ok job at what it's ment to do. It's not a sports car engine, and don't I expect it to perform like one. What I have a problem with is the big oil stains in front of my house that make it look like the Valdez crashed on my curb. Frankly, I'd love to be a Chrysler fan. I love the looks of the 300C from the outside. I hate the ergonomics of the inside. The cruise control location alone gives me pause at the rental car place. I'd love to love the Sebring convertible. Few days go by where I don't miss my Cutlass Convertible 2+2. The 3.4 DOHC had punch. Chirping the tires in 2nd was very easy. It was a big, comfortable, convertible with balls. The Sebring isn't as roomy, doesn't have as much trunk space, doesn't have as much engine, and has about the same quality interior..... yet the Cutlass came out in 1991. When Chrysler can meet/beat a 1994 Oldsmobile convertible in terms of performance, interior space, trunk space, and interior design... GM will lose a customer, because I'll be trading my CTS in on that. So yeah... no speculation here.

It's probably the gearing. Like I said, 1-4th feel great in the CTS, it's 5th and 6th that are the issue. BTW, the Saab 9-3 now has the 2.8 as well.... or is that the turbo version?

Complete wrong. Overdrive means that in the top gear <top two for 6-speeds>, the engine is turning at a slower RPM then the drive shaft. For example, for every .90 turns of the crankshaft the driveshaft makes one full turn. Generally, this is for cruising and the engine is near the lowest point on it's powerband. This is how the Corvette acheives 28mpg at 60 because it loafs along at 1700rpm in 6th. To pass a person, the transmission or driver must shift out of overdrive to bring the engine back into the heart of it's powerband. This is where you get your acceleration. That the Ford 500 hunts for gears is troublesome to me. Is this the same 6-speed GM intends to use? I know GM and Ford were supposed to have a partnership on a 6-speed. I always hated how the Sable would hunt for gears when I would borrow my ex-BF's mother's car.

What are they replacing it with? The killer of that 200hp 188ft/lbs torque is that you have to spin the engine to 5800rpm and 4850rpm respectively to get that. With the 3800 you got 225 ft/lbs at 4,000 RPM, and a substantial amount of that was available at 2000 rpm. Don't compair HP per litre. It isn't a convincing argument.... unless you're another one of those that wants to dump the S2000 engine into an LX car. :rolleyes:

overdrive.... not overdrives

I'm always around. PM me whenever. You can get me on AIM or Yahoo also.

Now... it couldn't be that the Alero sucked gas compaired to his Civic because it was a V-6 rather then a weakling 4?

...uh.... :blink:

Disclaimers: 1. This is only a review of the drivetrain. You all already have your opinions on the interior, etc. 2. I stepped out of my '04 CTS 3.6 auto into the CTS 2.8 manual. This was a direct comparison. 3. I drive my husband's manual transmission Passat regularly, so I'm not a manual newbie. The 2.8 seemed very rough. Noisy in fact. I felt I was in a substantially lesser car then my current CTS. At 80mph it was turning a very loud 3,000 rpm in 6th. Not impressive compaired to my car, and certainly not better then a S/C Riviera that can silently woosh along at 80mph doing about 2200 rpm. The gear shift throws are perfect. I was easily able to hit the gear I wanted. Reverse is in the wrong spot, but I think thats were it ends up on a 6-speed. It's German style, hard left and up. The clutch was waaaaay to sudden. I found it really hard to take off smoothly. Your foot is all the way in, let it out slowly... slowly... then BAM... you're stalled at the light with a semi blaring it's horn at you. I stalled the CTS 4 times on my test drive. The clutch MUST be pushed all the way to the floor.... ALLL the way... before the car will let you engage the starter. 1,2,3 and 4th gears the engine is fine. It's peppy and feels a lot more powerful then it is. 5th and 6th gear and the car magically transforms into Cavalier that hasn't had it's airfilter changed since 1982. Getting up to speed on the highway had my foot completely to the floor... in 4th. In short, I think the CTS is too much car for the 2.8 to haul around... even with a manual.

Oh goodies.... powered by chrysler engines..... does that mean I can have the 2.7 litre Chrysler Hemi-magnum powerhouse die on the Florida Turnpike with 3,000 miles on the clock again!?!?! Oh please let it be so! Seriously, why doesn't anyone ever address the crappiness of the Chrysler engines <not including Hemi> The 4 cylinders make a Quad-4 with no oil look like a swiss watch. The 2.7 is gutless The 3.5 lacks refinement and reliability The 4.0 in the jeeps always have oil leaks I agree that is may be time for the 3800 to die, but it still seems to do it's job better then any V6 Mopar is producing.

The think two of the most laughable police cars I've seen were a Fish generation Taurus and a Plymouth Horizon. There are actually some 92ish Bonneville SSEIEI-OHs around here doing police duty. They're mostly relegated to parking enforcement but by the looks of them, they were once full blown patrol/persuit cars. Almost all of the cop cars around here are Impalas. There are some Intrepids, but I'm seeing less and less Crown Vics. Edit: And I haven't seen Pittsburgh's Plymouth Horizon patrol car in a while, but it was in service as recently as two years ago.

*passes around the "german is best" koolaid" Ooooh... ahhh.... TEH BEST DEZING EVAR!!!!!#$!!!

and I keep buying GM stock.....it's so cheap now, even if it never goes up in price, the dividends are worth it.

I had a Stratus I4 when my Cutlass was in for brake work that the dealer f-ed up the first time. I was so glad to get my Cutty back. The Stratus was a "Neon del Grande". Sadly, the one time I was renting a 300M I felt the same way. The interior looked quite similar.

LOL!!!

The Electra name should be saved for a trim level to designate Hybrid. Person 1: "I have a Toyota Camry Hybrid" Person 2: "I have a Buick LaCross Electra" Person 1: "Ooooh Aaaah" The Lucerne would have made a good Invicta. My question about the Nav system would be... the DTS has it now, why couldn't the Lucerne with virtually identical interior also have it now?

Just a rehash of this:

The LH cars are known for blowing trannys........ uhm... that didn't come out right. :unsure: Sing it sista!

Not a Skyhawk: 1. too big 2. look at the rear quarter windows. They match the pic of the Century, not the pic of the Skyhawk.

Lets give it a try 68. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Fine: 1990 Lincoln Town Car 1979 Buick Riviera S 1977 Chevrolet Caprice 1976 Chrysler, Dodge Aspen/Plymouth Volare 1970 Ford Torino I'll venture to guess that the 1991 Caprice is still tighter then any of those listed above. Face it, the Caprice was a good car. It was reliable, durable <see the Jay Leno video>, relatively efficient with the 5.0, police and taxi cab drivers loved them. Just because it doesn't handle the way you like doesn't mean it doesn't deserve COTY. The Civic handles NOTHING like I would like. Based on ride and handling the DTS or Lucerne would have been my pic.

Actually that design was originally planned to be the next Eagle Vision till that division got axed.

No, the Vega was the worst COTY. The B-body Caprice was a good car when not equiped with the 4.3 litre. The 300M was COTY and it was just a downsized LHS. 1995 was the Chrysler Cirrus 1983 was the AMC/Renault Alliance 1981 was the Dodge Aries/Plymouth Reliant 1980 was the Chevy Citation 1976 was the Dodge Aspen/Plymouth Volare' 1975 was the Chevy Monza Certianly you can find ONE of those on the list to pick as worst COTY ever over the Caprice. Oh yeah, and since sport is such a BIG consideration for COTY: 2004 Toyota Prius* *not saying it wasn't worthy of COTY, it is, but it isn't sporty as has been suggested the COTY should be.

It's a Century with some burned out bulbs.