Drew Dowdell

In the Cadillac, it pulls the car over and calls OnStar.

I could do that as long as I put a modern Android Auto compatible head unit and upgraded speakers in.

Interesting about the camera that watches to see if you're looking. I could see someone getting into their fully autonomously driving car, programming a destination 300 miles away (on a full tank of gas), starting off on their trip, and then having an aneurysm. The car keeps on driving to its destination for the next 4 hours with a dead body in the driver seat... Grandkids looking out the window... "Oh yay! Grandpa is here! We see him pulling up!" You get to imagine the rest....

Challenger for sure... all of the Hellcats.

We should have an age cut off... but I think the '96 Fleetwood, Impala, and Roadmaster have that potential. After the Hertz spec models get crushed, I think the top end 300C might qualify.

Why is this concept so difficult? Stop thinking only in max throttle situations. A turbo will not hit max torque at 1500 rpm at partial throttle because you're only getting very light boost. 1/3 throttle in a 2.0T and you're driving about the equivalent of a 2.5 N/A. 1/3 throttle in a 3.6 and you're still driving a 3.6. 3.6 > 2.5

It's an indicator of how it performs at full throttle. How often do you pull away from a stop light at full throttle? Part throttle on a turbo engine and you'll barely be into any boost.... you're just driving a regular old 2 liter 4-cylinder sedan. Maybe with the slight boost, it will feel like a 2.5 liter naturally aspirated 4. In a V6, you have all the smoothness and all the displacement of a 3.6 liter engine pulling you out of the stop. Might the 2.0T be able to do more? Sure.. but you've got to put your foot into it more, spin those turbos up, and that's called lag. As for saving gas. Honda and GM V6es can shut down 2 cylinders at cruise and turn them back on faster than a turbo can spool.

People don't drag race cars every day. 0-60 is meaningless in EVERYDAY driving. It's not the full throttle performance I care about because I use it so infrequently. It's the partial throttle glide away from a stop light that feels strong rather than spooling.

The holdup is mostly in the legal department.

But your Bug is putting out 210 hp / 207 lb-ft.... that's not V6 power... Well it was... in 1993 in an Oldsmobile.....Grandpap's Buick Lacrosse can do that in it's sleep and still have loads more over that as the RPM climbs.

I own a Turbo 4 (and a laggy one that GM compensates for by having a very short 1st gear). I've owned the very first generation CTS with the 3.6. Even that old first gen HF has better every day feel than the 2.0T in the Regal GS. I drive different cars nearly every week, I've sampled nearly EVERY new car out there. I rent cars nearly every week and take them on 400 - 800 mile trips. If I walk onto a National lot and my choice is between a Taurus Turbo-4 or an Avalon V6 which would you think would have the more satisfying power delivery? You know me well enough @hyperv6 to know I'm not Toyota lover, but I'm going with the Avalon. I'll even take a Maxima with the CVT over a Taurus with a Turbo-4. Now if the Taurus had the 3.5, the math would be different for me. What I'm saying is this... in a space where there can not be a V6, a Turbo-4 is a great improvement over a N/A 4. But a Turbo-4 is not a full on V6 replacement... at best it is a tweener that lets manufacturers sell cheaper products at a premium price. Remember, you're driving a tuned and chipped 2.0T, but that's not what is being produced for most cars these days. Your HHR is putting out more power and torque than the ATS 2.0T does from the factory.... so your view on the matter is obviously shaped by that. All of that argument aside. The ATS is quite possibly the only instance where I might go with the 2.0T over the 3.6 because there is such a difference in weight balance and handling. But given my current desire for raw thrust, I'd probably pick the 3.6

There are other ways to get there.... GM and Honda's active displacement works really well. The ATS-V is essentially a turbo-4 at highway cruise.

"....off the line...." That's the key that I'm getting at. If you're flooring it every time you leave the stop light, sure, the Turbo may be better... but that's not a normal situation. People just don't drive like that. I'm in NYC this week in my underpowered Encore... and I still don't drive like that. Buick took a bunch of us out to a track to drive GSes for a day.... it was just about the most boring day of track driving I've ever had. Sure they handled well in the corners, but I could watch a full episode of House of Cards on the straight-aways. Something as mundane as a Camry V6 or Cadenza feels much faster and effortless in its acceleration though neither of them would handle turns like the GS does.

It's a really simple thing to figure out. Go test drive two Ford Explorers... one with the turbo 2.3 and one with the V6. Drive them normally, not as race cars. Drive them in normal traffic... take them on a jaunt on the highway for a bit. Try and pass someone at highway speeds. Head on over to the Buick dealership and drive a Regal GS back to back with a V6 Lacrosse... Then head over to Kia... try out an Optima Turbo and then a Cadenza. Which one handles daily driving in a more competent way? I'm trying to imagine what kind of pig the new Traverse is going to feel like with the 2.0T spinning under the hood of the base models. It will probably be more pig-like than the much heavier current traverse with the V6.

His attacks against me went far beyond any line that could be crossed. Oh he's here... I see his IP addresses in the logs. Every once in awhile I'll ban an IP.

When you drive such a wide variety of vehicles like I do, you notice it. I am more forgiving to Turbo-V6es because they still have a baseline torque that comes on sooner. They aren't a true V8 replacement either, but they are more satisfactory than a Turbo-4.

I gave Turbo-4s a chance.... I really did believe they were a decent replacement for a larger displacement V6. But the power delivery just isn't as good. Too long to wait to spool up... even on the light duty ones. Are turbo-4s an improvement over non-turbo-4s? Absolutely... but they are still no V6. A V6 still has a baseline level of torque there that a that a turbo-4 doesn't. V6es have a level of refinement that 4s cannot match. I also want to be clear. This is not just GM products I'm objecting to. I'd rather have a V6 explorer than a 2.3T Explorer. As far as CAFE, GM can turn their V6es into 4-cylinders and back in less than a single revolution of the crank. Much less lag than a turbo.

The Eagle Vision was the ChryCO competitor to the Bonneville at the time and was probably the best of the early LH cars. There was supposed to be a second generation...It was rebranded into the 300M.

Apparently I'm not allowed a preference. I find the experience behind the 3.6 V6 to be much more satisfying than a 2.0t in nearly all situations. The same holds true for similar situations in other brands. And I am in fact quite stupid and have never driven any of these cars.

Monaco/Premier? That's the only sedan I can think of that was shared between Dodge and and AMC brand...

..... Once the torque kicks in.... Like I said. I'd rather have the lag free version. NO turbo has no lag... It's physically impossible.

Some of us have tried many turbo 4s. I used to be sold on the technology.... Northstar like power from a 4 cylinder sounds great on paper, but in practice it is a much less satisfying drive. And yes, I know that the Northstar is no longer the state of the art in V8s, but they do still provide a satisfactory power delivery. Even the old/current regal could have taken the HF V6, Buick just decided not to sell it that way. The Insignia was sold with a Turbo 2.8 V6 that has the same external engine dimensions as the current HF V6. The engineering effort from GM would have effectively been zero. By that measure, the Malibu could have a V6 also. There are no platform constraints.

I guess I'll call the credit union and find out their requirements first. I want to privately purchase another vehicle I've found. I'd need minimal financing on that.

What's the best way to sell a financed car without trading in? I'm not upside down.

The regal is much smaller than the lacrosse and impala. The V6 version should be just about as quick as an ATS V6