Drew Dowdell

I just got the renewal notice for the domain name... .and for the first time ever... I hesitated. That's what some people around here are making me feel about my own website.

I love them

I don't mind them getting this test over and done with as they launch. No chance for controversy later.

Again, you attribute failures of those two to the brand rather than to the content of the car. The old Sebring/200 was an atrociously bad car, convertible or not. The Camry convertible was an aftermarket conversion on a flabby chassis. The Verano has sold quite well as a premium car above similar cars of it's size. When you think about it, Verano buyers are paying $26k - $28k for something in the Cruze size range. This is going by Buick's claim that their cars tend to sell more in the higher trims. And, aside from it's age, the Verano is quite a capable vehicle.

What I bolded there, if GM lives up to it.. and learned anything from the last two years... they should be fine, offering a NICE, safe, and compliant alternative to the people who would of bought a VW specifically because they, for all intent, cornered the market. Chevy marketing would be FOOLS to not get out in front of this and under EVERY advertisement state in BOLD letters, with the Spokesperson/actor repeating as if he's reading off the brochure: "THIS VEHICLE, The CHEVY CRUZE DIESEL, IS CERTIFIED BY THE EPA, and AN INDEPENDENT TRIBUNAL WHO IS NOT IN ANY WAY ON OUR PAYROLL, A PRIEST, A RABBI, the Dalai Lama, AND MORGAN FREEMAN, AS BEING COMPLIANT WITH THE ENTIRE WORLD'S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TESTS " Hell.. at this point.. GM should be pushing every division to have a diesel including Buick, Cadillac, and GMC in the Terrain, Canyon and Acadia. The market is now open for a transparent and available diesel maker who makes it clear, without gloating that they are compliant BTW. The "Whisper Diesel" should be plastered across every GM Diesel as if it were an Ecoboost or Hemi label Yes, they should absolutely trademark Whisper Diesel

Apparently even some of VW's Urea equipped cars fail the test.

The 8-Speed is so good, I too wonder why they are holding it back for now. Maybe make it an added-value option?

Welcome to C&G fellow Pennsylvanian!

On GM's more powerful front drivers equipped with HiPer strut, they've increased that limit a good bit.

My impression is the Buick will feel more upscale than the EOS. Think of the Cascada as a Buick Verano Convertible

With the EPA refusing to certify the 2016 TDIs, that is an immediate 25% - 30% hit on VW's sales.

that has absolutely zero to do with the valve train layout.

Correction.... a FWD 90 degree V6 isnt the best for packaging. 60 Degree pushrod V6es are fine.

there are a lot more skip fire options in a V8 than in a 4-cylinder... it's harder to make a 4-cylinder with deactivation smooth. huh? V8 to V4 is same as I4 to I2 in terms of reduction proportionally, and although I can't go into details, the future of cylinder deactivation will include idle speeds. Currently, GM allows for deactivation in higher gears only due to NVH. That problem is going away in the near future. V8 to V4 is easier to do than I4 to I2 for balance and NVH reasons.

there are a lot more skip fire options in a V8 than in a 4-cylinder... it's harder to make a 4-cylinder with deactivation smooth.

SMK saying something complimentary about a GM car and even a Cadillac!?

I never thought it was out of the running... The Best or Nissan.

Honest question to the powertrain engineer. If two engines of two different cylinder counts are using the same amount of fuel per mile (assume that it is true), Also assume that things like combustion chamber and fuel delivery are the same, wouldn't those two engines have the same level of emissions? The amount of fuel used is dependent on many, many variables. But on a dyno, where many of those variables are not there, here is what I know; A 2.5L I4 engine humming along at idle will use roughly half the amount of fuel as a 5.0L V8 with the same bore / stroke. Simple physics, half the injectors and plugs combusting about half the amount of fuel and air mixed. Now there is no NA I4 than will match a modern V8 in power, at least at similar rpm's....so we have to now consider boosted engines, or high rpm's to get close. That's where it gets tricky, and yes, more fuel is added and eventually, under full load and matched power, the amount of fuel used for both become closer and closer....but never will they match. Not with secondary systems assisting to match power levels. So, to my point about fewer I4 emissions, we can expect similar increases with matched power, but again, 4 combustion systems working hard versus 8....will ALWAYS yield less byproduct emitted. So part of the benefit of GTDI that we all seem to ignore, is that under normal daily use for 99% of the time, it emits far less pollutants. Which is a good thing. But that's the point I'm getting at. If you can make a Turbo I4 and a V8 use the same amount of fuel, don't the emissions levels roughly match as well? If you're only burning a certain amount of fuel and the combustion process is equally advanced, then the emissions should be the same, no? I have a reason for asking the question that way. But they don't use the same fuel, and thus not the same emissions. Sure, under full load they might come close, but that is a tiny, tiny fraction of the time. So under normal uses, 99% of the time, half the combustion chambers will produce less emissions. Well what I'm getting at is that not all V8s use all 8 cylinders all the time. The GM and Chrysler V8s are capable of using only 4 cylinders at cruise right now. At a 65mph cruise, the Suburban is a really big 4-cylinder vehicle... and it is an effective method of providing power and fuel economy...I've done multiple trips in Suburbans and gotten 22 - 23 mpg. That's the same fuel economy I've gotten out of an Expedition Ecoboost but with more horsepower and torque, and without having to use premium fuel (I get in the high teens MPG in the same Expedition if I use regular gas) So, while the Suburban can run on 4-cylinders today, GM is working on getting them to run on as little as two cylinders in the near future. Thus my question.... if you can get a 4-cylinder turbo and a variable displacement, naturally aspirated 8 cylinder to use the same amount of fuel under a given load, is there any difference in the emissions of those two engines?

Your protests appear to be directed at the wrong person...... and please... how about we just ignore the voting for a bit.

Honest question to the powertrain engineer. If two engines of two different cylinder counts are using the same amount of fuel per mile (assume that it is true), Also assume that things like combustion chamber and fuel delivery are the same, wouldn't those two engines have the same level of emissions? The amount of fuel used is dependent on many, many variables. But on a dyno, where many of those variables are not there, here is what I know; A 2.5L I4 engine humming along at idle will use roughly half the amount of fuel as a 5.0L V8 with the same bore / stroke. Simple physics, half the injectors and plugs combusting about half the amount of fuel and air mixed. Now there is no NA I4 than will match a modern V8 in power, at least at similar rpm's....so we have to now consider boosted engines, or high rpm's to get close. That's where it gets tricky, and yes, more fuel is added and eventually, under full load and matched power, the amount of fuel used for both become closer and closer....but never will they match. Not with secondary systems assisting to match power levels. So, to my point about fewer I4 emissions, we can expect similar increases with matched power, but again, 4 combustion systems working hard versus 8....will ALWAYS yield less byproduct emitted. So part of the benefit of GTDI that we all seem to ignore, is that under normal daily use for 99% of the time, it emits far less pollutants. Which is a good thing. But that's the point I'm getting at. If you can make a Turbo I4 and a V8 use the same amount of fuel, don't the emissions levels roughly match as well? If you're only burning a certain amount of fuel and the combustion process is equally advanced, then the emissions should be the same, no? I have a reason for asking the question that way.

That would be the first place I'd start with a performance Infiniti.

I can't imagine that anyone was that interested in it. It had to stand up against the M3, AMG C-Class, and the ATS-V.

Honest question to the powertrain engineer. If two engines of two different cylinder counts are using the same amount of fuel per mile (assume that it is true), Also assume that things like combustion chamber and fuel delivery are the same, wouldn't those two engines have the same level of emissions?

The 2.3 probably feels faster than the 5.slow of the old days, but it won't sound like it. I'm not against the 2.3 in principle, I just wouldn't want one myself. And Hyper..... DSF should bring even more FE to the 5.3.

I thought they were having a lot of trouble with reliability and emissions on the Skyactive-D and that is why it isn't here yet.