Drew Dowdell

Also New - Notice something you'd like changed on the website? Spot an error? Have a feature request? Drop it in here under "Suggestion Box" and someone will take a look. https://www.cheersandgears.com/support/

The main point is that we're now on much more modern web technologies. The site works far better in mobile than it did before. It allows us a new platform for future expansion. And once the database update tasks finish up overnight, the site will be even faster than it is now. There is still work to be done with the article templates, but I didn't want to hold the upgrade back any further to wait for those to be completed. I kept the look as close as I could to the original so I didn't overwhelm people post upgrade, however a new look and logo is coming soon too.

2019 is a long time. The GM twins will likely be refreshed by then, the frontier will be new, and there is still the Ridgeline.

What is it with GM and these buildable concepts that they never build? El miraj, the Buick concepts, this...

I don't like the horizontal headlights. Cadillac needs the front vertical blades.

And we're back! The upgrade was successful. You may notice some posts or articles that are not properly formatted. The server is currently processing those posts and will fix all of the formatting over the next 36 hours.

If for some reason I have to revert us to this version of the software. Posts after this date/time will be lost. If the upgrade is successful, posts after this data/time will remain.

I plan to start the upgrade tomorrow morning.

To bring it back to the topic.... if stop/start were an issue, we'd have been hearing widespread reports about it since it came out on the Malibu hybrid in 2008, or any of the eAssist cars, or the Honda IMA. And when you look into it.... it's virtually nothing. More people have their driver's door handle break on a Malibu than have problems with start/stop.

Not on reliability. They have their place and purpose. What I'm leary of is some rather dubious fuel economy advantage claims certain manufacturers make over larger displacement non-turbo engines. I have no qualms with a turbo engine in of itself, but I remain unconvinced that it is inherently superior to an engine of larger cylinder count and/or displacement in terms of fuel economy.

You said the same time about turbo engines and reliability 5 years ago. The moment your foot even thinks about pulling off the clutch, the engine kicks on.

For the moment, we will be keeping the look and feel as close as we can to what we have today. I don't want to do too much major change all at once. Think 5th Gen Camaro to 6th Gen Camaro - It looks mostly alike, but everything underneath is all new and substantially upgraded with superior performance.

Stop-Start has worked in manuals for years. Put your foot into the clutch while not moving and the engine shuts off. My BMW rental in Germany did that to me 5 or 6 years ago.

I finally have a successful test upgrade of the software complete. I will be pulling the trigger on the upgrade sometime this week. It takes about 12 hours to complete the initial upgrade before I can let you back in, then here is 24 hours of background upgrading where search won't work and posts might not look right. The speed of the site is greatly improved and also improved mobile support. Please note - Your current display name, if different from your log-in name, will become your new log-in name. You should also be able to use your email address to log in. Of course I will also make my email available for anyone who has log-in difficulties. This is a major step for us, but it will enable some exciting new stuff that we can add in the future. Regards, Drew

I think more of the blame lies with the CAW than with the Canadian government.

Skoda is just a VW in Buick's clothing. Expect no arrogance difference.

Oh please, I can see Oshawa closing from here..... I don't know why the workers on site wouldn't see it.

You're right that it is an argument for displacement. These small displacement turbo engines are turning 3,000 rpm or more to maintain 70mph and at that speed the turbos are really spooled up....any time you're into the turbo, the fuel economy will suffer. GM seems to have tuned the Encore to get every last drop of fuel economy at 55 - 65 mph. At those speeds I will generally beat EPA highway. Set the cruise at 75 mph though and I see a significant drop in fuel economy. I can see a swing from 33mpg to 27mpg with just a 10 mph change in speed.

I've noticed a big difference in FE in the Encore over 65 mph. Above that and the engine is just working too hard just to maintain speed.

Oh, I don't know if I agree with that, Drew. Every Avalanche I saw on Chevy dealer's lots in 2012 and 2013, when I was actively looking to purchase one, was priced in the $48-$52k range, and these were the LT-trimmed models. The LTZ, the one I drooled for, was approaching $55-$57k. With the price that new 2016 crew cab pickups are selling at ($52k and up), I think the Avalanche would have continued to sell if it was updated along with the Suburban. I was hoping that the new mid-size twins were going to spawn an Avalanche-like model, hence the full-size Avalanche's departure. The Chevy Silverado High Desert concept tells me that the Avalanche isn't really dead with the GM designers Oh I know they typically sold new in the $55k and up range, but can you imagine them trying to add another $8k on top of that when the most recent ones came out? It's a great truck and a great concept, but at $63k for it to be equipped the way people like it you're already into Sierra Denali range.

This thread is no longer about the original topic and has moved on to personal attacks against fellow members, as such, I feel it's run its course.

gas prices aren't going to be skyrocketing anytime soon.. and yes, FCA should have done this the last time they redesigned the Ram. These are very high margin vehicles and even if they come in third behind GM and Ford, they'll still be ahead of Toyota and Nissan... which means a good chunk of profit for FCA.

Screenshots to my PM box please

Much of Benz's profits come from the fact that most of their volume is tarted up taxi cabs selling at a premium to gullible buyers in the US. I doubt they're make much, if any money, with these weird one-offs like the GLE Coupe. At least when you buy a CTS, you know it's not being used as a Yellow cab somewhere else en masse. Even the Escalade is based on a Chevy that is considered best in class with an 80 year history.

Not touching the political points of what you posted, but your technical points on E85 are incorrect or missing the point. If you tried to run peanut oil fuel through your gasoline engine you'd get less than ideal fuel economy also. E85 is a great fuel when it is put in engines it is designed for as the primary fuel. In Brazil they use sugar alcohol, essentially E100, in their cars. I don't know what the octane is, but it's gotta be over the 110 that E85 is here. The little 1.0 liter Chevy compacts run around with compression ratios equal to that in the V10 in the old M5 (basically, pretty darn high by industry standards). The loss of fuel economy and the political ramifications are unavoidable. We're forced to have that E15 blend in our gas for our cars engineered to run best on pure gasoline. This is the crux of the subsidized ethanol scam. I see no US automakers developing engines to run E85 or E100 in a way that compares to pure gasoline. But that's beside the point because our agricultural infrastructure cannot support corn production in a way that will replace gasoline in a significant manner without, again, wreaking havoc on food and produce costs. Meanwhile, we're at a point that so much agricultural production has adjusted for government ethanol subsidies and fuel supply, that we literally cannot stop what they've started without bursting the agricultural economic bubble. Again, for the 3rd time, the failure of E85 has nothing to do with the fuel itself and everything to do with the way it was implemented. Whether you see it or not, is irrelevant. Any manufacturer that participates in the Brazilian market makes an engine variant the runs on E100. There will not be a substantial fuel economy benefit running E85 in an engine designed for gasoline. I fully admit that. However, what E85 allows is for a substantial downsizing of displacement without sacrifice in total output. Lets take the old 3.9 liter Chevrolet Impala that was E85 capable. It was rated for 230 hp and 235 lb-ft of torque. It was rated at 17 city / 27 highway on gasoline and 13 / 20 on E85. That's a pretty large drop. But what if GM had built an Impala to run on E85 first and gasoline second? To get to that 230hp/235tq target they could have greatly downsized the engine. Instead of 3.9 liters, the high octane level of E85 would have allowed them to run as small as 1.6 liter turbo with the boost turned way up. I say 1.6T because GM can get 200hp out of one of these on standard pump gas today, getting another 30hp out of it by using 110 octane fuel is trivial. You'd still get all the torque of the big V6 but in the smaller, lighter, and less fuel sucking package of a 1.6T. Get that car out on the highway, and the fuel economy numbers would likely be in the mid-30 rather than high-20s. THAT is where you get the benefits of E85. All of these Ecoboosts and other DI Turbos running around could have been even smaller and still have the same performance, or remain the same size and get even better performance, had they been tuned from the start to run E85 first. It's it the government's fault that GM took the lazy route? As for producing the fuel... it doesn't have to come from corn, Brazil uses sugar cane. Alge and kelp farms off the coast of our ample coastline would have spawned a whole new industry. Logging industry waste, grass clippings, corn husks, brewery waste, sugar beets, switch grass, and many many other sources are usable to make E85.