Drew Dowdell

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.

Yes, the current model has a ride quality that is far too firm for the target audience. They are introducing a softer model for people who preferred the traditional softer ride of the older generations. Not sure when they'll be out, but I would imagine it is in the next few weeks.

Disagree. VW would most likely be the quickest to market and most successful. They already have a truck in production elsewhere that would likely do well here. All they have to do is federalize the next generation of it and send it to dealers. MB has to start from scratch or dial up Ghosen. MB isn't going to be making a Superduty or 2500HD Denali competitor on a G wagon because they can't sell those in other markets. No, MB will be making what everyone in the US would call "lifestyle truck". Basically a luxury Ridgeline.

I doubt Chevy would poke VW too hard if at all. There is too much material for VW to turn around and poke back with.

Of course not. That will be Nissan's job.

I agree that Chevy needs to offer the Turbo-4, but the GM 3.6 doesn't get some phenomenal fuel economy (DI-Turbo models not withstanding) because to get any decent performance out of it you have to really wind the thing up.

I think if the Kia Soul can do well here, that car would do phenomenal.

If you could choose the 3.6 or the 5.3 for the same price, which would you choose? The 5.3 is cheaper, lighter, and more powerful with much much more torque than the 3.6. With AFM, the 5.3 would likely post similar highway MPG.

Actually, you can probably mostly blame the "gotta have DOHC" crowd.... because somehow a DOHC V6 is moar better than a pushrod V8 There's an element of that, no doubt. But there's an exonomics of scale thing going on as well, particularly with the 3.6. There isn't enough economics of scale with the 5.3 Ecotec? It's in all of the full size trucks and SUVs. Don't get LSD. Drugs are bad m'kay....

That's really cool!

Probably waiting to see what the new Nissan Frontier turns out to be before they rebadge it.

....sombody with a God Complex, perhaps?

Actually, you can probably mostly blame the "gotta have DOHC" crowd.... because somehow a DOHC V6 is moar better than a pushrod V8

Is no copy!

Please tell me you are going to take a break in December at this rate.. I just realized I missed a couple in the "since July 1" list, but oh well, you get the point. Yes, December is typically slow for me, however, I do know I have to fit two additional trips to California and one trip to Boston in there somewhere.

Im mostly referring to the lament about "kids these days" not being interested in pony cars like we were when we were that age. A good chunk of us on this forum grew up from the late 70s to the early 90s.... compared to the pony cars of those years, a Turbo-4 Camaro *is* a hi-po pony car.