Drew Dowdell

RPM is not dictated by throttle alone. An engine at 10% throttle and 2000 with no load is producing less power than an identical engine at 90% throttle with a heavy load. The engine at 10% throttle is getting less air and fuel. The engine at 90% is getting more air and fuel. More air and fuel means more power output. It is the throttle's job to regulate air and fuel input. As for your statement about flooding the engine... That's also incorrect. In a carb, the air only picks up fuel as it passes through the carb and the carb mixes it accordingly. In a fuel injection car, there is a mass airflow sensor and TPS so the computer gets inputs from those two and adjusts the injection rates to match. The fact remains that it only takes about 10 - 20 hp to keep a car at a steady 60mph.

I have some great ideas for this list, but not done yet.

I don't disagree that FCA's other product lineup is pretty screwed... but that doesn't mean that the Durango is a bad or the Grand Cherokee is bad. Sergio is a terrible CEO... I've said that for a while.

Who cares? It is in the top echelon of performance for any SUV at that price and size. But all of the above that I typed out is for you to understand also. Peak torque and peak horsepower don't matter in everyday driving.

Again. That would be incorrect. Let's change the thought experiment a different way. You've just bought a new car, it has hyper accurate cruise control that can keep a perfect steady speed no matter the conditions outside the car (A Mercedes First!!) . Be it flat land, a steep hill, quicksand, or a crowd of ISIS fighters... that car is going to continue on at whatever speed you set it at and not a 100th of a mph different. For the sake of this experiment, we'll be going 60 mph... that means the torque converter is locked and there is no slip in the transmission at all. Crank to wheels is a solid connection. You've also pressed the Eco button, so the computer keeps the car in the highest gear possible with no downshifting until you hit full throttle You start your trip in the Pine Barrens... pretty flat land. You've set your cruise control at 60 mph and it will remain there until the end of the trip. Due to gearing and torque converter lock up, 60 mph will always mean the engine is turning 2000 rpm in its top gear. Your trip is taking you to Delaware Water Gap. As you approach the mountains, the cruise control does its thing and opens the throttle more to keep you at 60. The engine is still turning 2000 rpm, but now more fuel is entering the cylinder because the throttle is open wider. More fuel = more power. As the hills get steeper, the throttle opens wider... now ever more power, but still at 2000 rpm and 60 mph. Eventually you get to the steepest part of the hill, the throttle is almost all the way open. This is just about as much power as you're going to get at 2000 rpm. Now, you've hit full throttle at 2000 rpm, the only way to get more power is to spin the engine faster (i.e. pump more air and fuel through the engine), the computer kicks down a gear and you reach the very top. From the flat Pine Barrens till the point just before the transmission kicked down a gear, the engine remained at 2000 rpm, yet the throttle gradually opened from about 1/4 to full. Are you trying to say that the engine produced the same amount of power throughout that entire trip? After you crest the hill, the cruise cuts the throttle back to nearly closed. Now you're producing less power, but still turning 2000 rpm. If this were a direct injection engine, the injectors would be practically off. Are you still producing the same amount of torque at 2000 rpm with nearly zero fuel? Fuel injectors work by varying the amount of fuel squirted during each combustion cycle. If you know of a way to produce max torque with the fuel injectors off, you better patent that idea fast. Given the same car, same transmission gearing, etc, a 2.5 liter I4 and a 3.6 liter V6 (Think Cadillac ATS) will be making about the same horsepower at the same vehicle speed. It only takes a certain amount of power to move a passenger car along at a steady 60mph. Give and take a little for weight, gearing and aero, that number is around 10 - 20 hp. If you know your RPM at that speed, you can work backwards to see the torque (15hp, 2000rpm = 39 lb-ft of torque)... that's all your 400hp twin-electric-turbo Mercedes is producing. That's why cylinder deactivation can work and keep a Suburban at a steady speed with half the engine shut down. The Horsepower and Torque graphs that get passed around are only measurements at WOT. Less than WOT on that same engine will produce a lower amount of torque because less fuel is being used. Lower torque at a given RPM means lower horsepower.

No.. some people are saying it could be done with a 4-cylinder... and are incredibly wrong.

The LX platform today is so far removed from that old E-class that it is not remotely the same platform. In fact, even just the frame itself is not the same as the E-class platform... the platform was an American designed unit that "Shared components include the rear suspension design, front seat frames, wiring harnesses, steering column, the 5-speed automatic transmission's design and a derivative of the 4Matic all-wheel drive system.". Next you'll tell me that the original CTS was platform shared with an old BMW just because BMW allowed Cadillac to use GM's own transmission in it. So, we have rear suspension, seat frames, wiring harness, steering column, and 5-speed auto from an E-class in the 2005 300. The second generation in 2011 got a whole new wiring harness to deal with electronic shifting and the UConnect system, steering column (gone was the STUPID Mercedes cruise control lever), new seats with 12 way power adjusters, a completely revised suspension setup and a new AWD system. In 2012, they tossed out the 5-speed auto in favor of the 8-speed on V6 models. The Hemi got the 8-speed in 2015. So you tell me... what's left of the 2004 E-Class in the 2017 300C? "Shared components include the rear suspension design, front seat frames, wiring harnesses, steering column, the 5-speed automatic transmission's design and a derivative of the 4Matic all-wheel drive system.".... nothing.

No, that would be incorrect, especially on turbo engines, which in spite of your disclaimer below, is relevant. The whole point of the throttle is to regulate the amount of air and fuel gets to the cylinders. Holding steady at 2000 rpm with 1/4 throttle lets less fuel/air into the cylinder, thus less power. Ripping through 2000 rpm at full throttle puts a lot more fuel/air into the cylinder because..well.. the throttle is wide open and allows unrestricted access. If it's a turbo, then there is also a few extra PSI being pushed into that cylinder. The net result of that extra fuel/air is more power and an increase in RPM. Increase the fuel supply by 1% at 2000 rpm and you've increase power output enough to overcome inertia and increase RPM. No engine at 1/4 throttle at 2000 rpm is producing what the torque charts from a Dyno run indicate.

You still fail. You have completely misunderstood what the torque charts are showing you. Just because an engine is turning 2,000 rpm and has a peak torque rating at that same RPM does not mean the engine is producing that torque. Think about that for a moment. The engine can be spinning at 2,000 rpm at both 1/4 throttle and full throttle. In which throttle position do you think the engine is making more torque? The Giulia only has that torque at full boost which means near to or actual full throttle. Moving at 45mph at 2,000 rpm the Giulia is not making 306 lb-ft.... it's making whatever a basic, unboosted 2.0 4-cylinder would make... probably no more than 100 lb-ft. When more speed is called for, it needs to downshift, spool up the turbo, and then go. If it is a manual and you don't downshift, you lug the engine and the turbo lag is even more pronounced. So, for those reasons, I don't care where peak torque is because that's only under full throttle... I care what the engine does for me at partial throttle. At partial throttle in a 2.0T, I'm driving a 2 liter.... in a 3.6, I'm driving a 3.6 liter. You drive a V8... you know the difference I'm talking about. Would you trade your V8 for a less responsive engine that needed to shift more just to provide similar peak output that you rarely use? The benz is an electronically driven turbo (I would call it a supercharger since it operates independently of exhaust output). That is entirely different technology than the existing turbos we are discussing. Don't try moving goal posts.

Not a surprising list. I've made similar predictions. XTS is already confirmed as a goner after 2020. CTS is getting a name change on the next refresh, so technically dead, but not really. Platform is another question, I haven't looked into if it is going on Alpha or Omega. Lacrosse, if it keeps the name, may live on.... on another platform. Impala, no surprise there if its main platform mate, the XTS is gone. Sonic is Gamma... makes sense to build it with other Gammas (Trax / Encore / Spark) on a continent were small cars sell really well, so I would see that moving to Korea. BUT, that is not the same as being dead in the US. Sonic has been in the top sales slot in its segment more than a few times. I expect Regal production to move to China within 5 years. They have to keep building in that class for China alone.... I expect it to continue to be sold here too... doesn't cost that much to throw a couple Regals on the boat for every 10 Envisions they ship over. Cascada has got to be toast. Opel built, out of date, no place to call home, and poor sales.

I think it might have been confusion with the other thread. I didn't even see this one until tonight.

I am so done with the full boost torque thing from you. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT GETS MORE TORQUE IF YOU HAVE TO USE FULL BOOST TO GET IT! Take the turbo away from a 2.0T for a moment.... what are you driving? A 2 liter 4-cylinder. At partial throttle with a couple PSI boost... maybe you're driving the equivalent of a 2.5 liter 4-cylinder. It's only under absolute full throttle and boost that you ever get to those V6 torque numbers. When you're driving a 3.6, you're driving a 3.6. The Pentastar and the GM 3.6 can both shut down 2 cylinders and run as a 4-cylinder. Those spare cylinders can power back up faster than any turbo. It takes no more than 2 revolutions of the crank. In normal driving, a bigger displacement engine that produces torque sooner (without lag) at a lower RPM is more desireable than something one needs to mash the throttle to get it moving. The heavier the car, the more this is true. 8/9/10 speed automatics don't help all that much either... they take away some of the downsides of turbos, but there is still more steps: 1. Press throttle. 2 downshift to allow engine RPM to raise. 3. Spool up turbo.... wait.... wait.... wait...... . 4. Go I like the looks of the new Traverse and I think in the V6 model it will be a decent, if a bit uninspiring, drive. However, no lie, the first thought that crossed my mind when I heard the base model was coming with the 2.0T was "That is going to be the most un-fun vehicle to drive of 2018." But sure.. it has "the same torque as the V6". People are going to be so into the boost that they'll ruin any gain in fuel economy. It's happened with Hyundai, it's happened with Ford, and it will happen in the Traverse. When I drive... I like 2 steps: 1. Press throttle 2.

Sorry @surreal1272 I meant to quote @smk4565. @smk4565 the Pentastar is majorly redesigned for 2016. It has always been an excellent V6 in the class. If it is performing it's job correctly, who cares how old the original design is?

Oh my! Buick was really ahead of the times in the 1950s with this ad.

You've gotta differentiate the thread title from the other one. Pick names for both and I'll update the titles.

Both the Durango and Grand Cherokee have been in nearly constant refresh since they debuted. Every year there is a change to keep them up to date. They just got the updated Pentastar last year. The 8 speed auto 2 years prior along with an interior refresh. Updated suspension for the R/T model. These are still excellent SUVs that sit in a niche that no other manufacturer occupies. They are the only SUVs in the segment with V8s and they have by far the highest tow ratings of non-truck passenger vehicles this side of a Suburban. They're comfortable, fast, handle well, and get surprisingly good mpg for their size.

When you're the Ultimate Steelers Fan! Oh, and if you aren't already, follow us on Instagram.

Cool. That picture is one of mine that I took at a Cadillac party in NYC just this April

Because the MTO counter is always so slooooooowww..... full service sit down at Rey Azteca is faster! How long can it really take to microwave a hamburger? I bet a Chevy Bolt EV could charge from not to half full by the time they make my cheese curds.

I thought crosshair grille was going away.

I think Sheetz has just a couple stations with chargers in them. I know New Stanton on the PA Turnpike has a charger, but it's a slower Level II charger, nothing high speed. The weird part is the TPK installed them at the ends of the turnpike but nothing in the distance between New Stanton and Bowmansville outside of Philly... They need some at Blue Mt, Sideling Hill, and Midway, etc... place in between the big cities. (For those of you who don't know the PA Turnpike, these are service station names.) If I'm leaving Pittsburgh, I don't need to stop 45 minutes later in New Stanton to charge... I probably need to stop at Sideling Hill to pee though, so that would be a good spot for a charger.

While true... most of my co-workers are not at all malicious, however the same cannot be said of the other trait.

Which Eldog photo did you like?

Really? I don't know how that is possible when the 4-cylinder is the main seller of the 5-series while Cadillac dealers won't even stock the 4-cylinder CT6, most buyers head straight for the V6 or Turbo V6. Then again you can build a $67,000 4-cylinder 5-series... but who would do that, right?

In the spirit of the challenge, I am limiting myself to just brands that are beyond any doubt a luxury brand.... otherwise I just keep posting pictures of the '66 Toronado. 1920s: 1929 Duesenberg 1930s: Cord 812 1950s The '57 Eldorado Brougham 1960s: 1967 Eldorado (Surprise! ) 1980s 1985 Cadillac Seville (this exact color combo) If a 6th car was allowed, I'd go with a '77 Lincoln Mark V