Drew Dowdell

Yes. The media drives are late summer / early fall. More than likely, William or I will get to test one out to give you our opinion.

The 3500 and 3900 were designed at the same time and were distant cousins of the old 2.8 liter V6 which begat the 3.1 OHV which begat the 3.4 OHV. The 3.4 Twin Dual Cam was related to these also.

Oh good, just what no one wanted.

The 3900 was in no way related to the 3800. The 3800 had a 90 degree cylinder angle, the 3900 had a 60 degree cylinder angle. The 3900 was a very advanced engine and it was only due to the drumbeat of the uninformed like you who chase high horsepower per liter that killed it. It had 240 horsepower and 240 lb-ft of torque with a turbo-charged like torque curve. 90% of max torque was available from 1,500 rpm - 5,500 rpm. It had variable valve timing, variable length intake manifold, and on the Impala it had Active-fuel-management. It was surprisingly efficient even in the big cars. It is also substantially physically smaller externally and lighter than any DOHC V6 made of the same material.

I don’t think that’s the case at all. From what I recall about acoustic properties, sound and electrical wave properties are very similar. I don’t recall the unit of measure, but it is a lot like impedance or resistance to pressure. Thus, aluminum resists both more than steel, which is more excitable due to it’s density. And combined with the fact that aluminum bodies are typically much thicker gauge, and any specific materials properties now have to consider volume. In fact, I am no recalling an F-150 document that mentioned how optimization for strength and sound in critical areas, is easier with aluminum, because you are not paying a huge weight penalty by adding needed local thickness. Anyway, chipping away at sub system weight with exotic materials and processes only nets you so much reduction. Even when taken to the extreme, and unless shaving fractions of 1/10ths of seconds on a track is your goal, there is little other benefit. Fuel economy gains are minimal. So as we all cheer for the automakers to double the price of our family sedan to gain a leg up in bragging rights, maybe we should pause and gage the real benefit, which is seldom realized. Hey, it keeps me employed, but I like to question everything. The benefit in the CT6 is a 740i sized sedan with a 335xi weight. As long as the sound reduction properties are what they say they are, I think the benefits are rather obvious. The use of steel in place of aluminum in the CT6 was specifically around the floor pan, firewall, and passenger cage.

A Bonneville SSEI wouldn't be a terrible choice either. They're big, but they only weight like 3500 lbs.

Not with a 3800 it doesn't. I saw one in person when I used to work at a state inspection station. It had a 3800 and it was in a white Pontiac G6 two-door with a six speed manual. I remember it very well, he had a car seat in the back and the interior was a friggin mess I pulled it out of the shop after the inspection. I wish I could have taken cars for "test drives" sometimes when I was working there. you saw a 3900, not a 3800. Or someone did a rather strange swap.

They won't be going to more aluminum in the Omega unless it is some sort of sport car to be loud. They specifically left steal in certain areas because the weight of the steel alone was less than aluminum + required sound deadening material. Steel has some acoustical properties that aluminum doesn't have. Going with both let them net out to a lower curb weight.

Not with a 3800 it doesn't.

He's hard to buy for... but I put together this video of the 1972 Kawasaki H2 sports bike that he has restored and modified.

That would probably be a hard car to beat, I wasn't thinking of non-American cars. That might have to be another rule change. What is great about the other 3800 cars is all have a flaw. The Camaro/Firebird should have the best handling, but are the slowest. Every car has a trade off, the Regal GS might be fastest in a straight line but would handle the worst. Another good oddball would be the 3800 powered Cutlass Ciera International. The answer to your Regal GS quandary is the Grand Prix GTP coupe.

BTW - I pick a 2004 Holden Commodore S with the supercharged 3800 and 5-speed manual

Can I make suspension changes?

It's mostly around the hard points of where the body mounts up to either other parts of the hardware (suspension, transmission, engine mounts), the firewall and windshield. In most cases, you can make the sausages of different lengths by swapping out the front/middle/rear sections as you like. Usually the width of the car has to remain pretty much the same regardless of the length. The problem with over engineering is that it often adds weight, but you are correct that intentionally engineering some flexibility in to the platform is a goal of all of the manufacturers today to reduce costs. VW/Audi gets a lot of the credit for this currently, but the idea goes way back to the Chrysler K-Car platform.

I've had one for about 40 minutes at an event. Cool, Probably the Z, huh? MKC

I've had one for about 40 minutes at an event.

There's a whoooole buncha assuming right there. The Omega is very light weight. It is very flexible. It can scale down easier than Alpha can scale up. So then why can't the next full redesign of the CTS be on the Omega? Why can't there be a coupe in the form of a CT5? If you build a CT5 coupe, why can't there be a Buick Riviera? It can go up in size too... so there can be a CT7 Grand Coupe. It can be a crossover, so there's an XT7 to fit between XT5 and Escalade. Buick could theoretically get an XT7 version to differentiate itself more from GMC.

Suppose they get 300 a month here, 300 a month in China. That is only 7200 cars a year, I don't know if that makes profit when the chassis underpins only that one model for now. The turbo V6 could be scaled across other Cadillacs, so development cost on that shouldn't be too big a deal, but do they re-coup the chassis cost, and interior design cost, wind tunnel cost, certifications, advertising costs, etc at 7,000 global units a year? Such small picture thinking. The CT6 is not going to be the only Omega car nor will the chassis remain a Cadillac exclusive forever. Buick will almost certainly be getting a copy and that will also sell in China and the US.

You've already lost that bet. The majority of the CT8 budget is likely already in place. We're in 2015 right now. The CT6 doesn't go on sale till the end of this year. ​Cadillac​ can't be setting a budget in 2018, after a couple years of CT6 sales, for a car that goes into production in 2019.

The MKC has the nice interior... you just need to pay more to get the higher trims. I just think Lincoln is asking too much money for the lower trims.

Similar, but not the same. I have no problem with Lincoln borrowing from an excellent (probably class leading in this particular attribute) Ford product. I'd have no problem with Lincoln taking the Mustang architecture and stretching it into a Mark IX coupe as long as it got it's own look, because as a chassis, the Mustang is a great product. The current Sync system is terribly out of date compared with other systems. Sync is a negative attribute instead of a positive one like the Escape suspension tuning. As such, it should either be a simultaneous, corporate-wide rollout of the new version, or it should go to Lincoln first and then filter to the rest. This is an interesting dilemma. 1. Should Ford hold off roll out of sync3, which appears to have been worked on exclusively of any specific vehicle launches, to instead wait for any new Lincoln launch that aligns with syn3 development...which in this case would be either the Conti or all new Navi.... 2. .....or does Ford launch it first with their volume cash cow brand which will obviously generate far more benefit to the entire corporation? It seems the almighty $$$ won on this one. Holding off until Lincoln could launch what is essentially a co-developed upgrade, seems to have had not enough weighted advantage overall. I guess I agree then. The masses win. This is a habit that Ford (and others) need to get out of. There is no need to wait for the next total refresh to launch an infotainment product any longer. Cadillac has started doing Tesla style rolling upgrades to their products... when the base component has been upgraded, all of the relevant vehicles get that upgrade. For example, the 3.6 V6 and 8-Speed auto that Cadillac just released in conjunction with the CT6; both the ATS and CTS are getting that upgrade for 2016 as well. The Cadillac Cue system is getting an upgrade and that will go into all of the cars too (with the possible exception of the SRX for now since that is at the very very end of its model run). Simply put, if the new Sync is ready to go, it should be in all 2016 Lincolns. Period.

Similar, but not the same. I have no problem with Lincoln borrowing from an excellent (probably class leading in this particular attribute) Ford product. I'd have no problem with Lincoln taking the Mustang architecture and stretching it into a Mark IX coupe as long as it got it's own look, because as a chassis, the Mustang is a great product. The current Sync system is terribly out of date compared with other systems. Sync is a negative attribute instead of a positive one like the Escape suspension tuning. As such, it should either be a simultaneous, corporate-wide rollout of the new version, or it should go to Lincoln first and then filter to the rest.

His net worth is over 4 billion dollars, he's a successful businessman. I'm not saying he's THE guy to be president, but people need to stop voting with their heads up their asses. If we don't fix the budget, it's only a matter of time until the house of cards falls apart. We're already sitting on a student loan bubble on the brink of bursting. The next president's #1 attribute needs to be economics, and Trump wants to bring manufacturing back to the US which would be a big step in the right direction. Actions speak louder than words:

Yet you do not comment on one very IMPORTANT Fact! Most people are terrible at driving manual transmissions. I know for a fact. While I required both my son and daughter to learn and drive in Highschool a Manual Pickup truck. This limited having to many people due to it being a standard cab so 3 tight, but really only 2 people drive and 1 passenger plus their bags, books etc. My son is a terrible driver and never could get the feel for shifting compared to my daughter who would get EPA rated MPG on the Manual, My son always got 10-15% less or more depending on highway versus city driving. My wife and I could always exceed EPA MPG. The reason I believe Automatics do better for people is most people do not want to have to think about how they drive, the sweet spot for shifting and dealing with a clutch plus break and gas. Add hills and people fear the roll back and freak out. Manuals have their place but in limited applications due to human nature. Consumer Pickup trucks should just stay automatic as it would be best for everyone as is most auto's. Performance and econobox auto's can have a manual option but I still believe most people will go with an automatic. I am not saying your wrong about Manual being better than automatic, but the electronics today are faster than human response time and I think it does end up with most automatic auto's out performing manual transmission auto's. Very good points, sir. There is so much more room for error with a manual that if you really don't know how to drive it correctly you will be wasting even more fuel just out of pure ignorance. You could slip the clutch too much on every launch and never get city mpg because of it or conversely, slip it perfect and put it in neutral and coast to a stop and blow the ratings out of the water. This. I had an acquaintance with a 5-speed manual Civic Hybrid who thought he was a hyper-miler.. He argued with me till I just had to drop it.... he insisted that the best way to get the best fuel economy in his car was to floor it all the time while accelerating because that's when you used the most battery assist. I don't know how he was calculating his numbers but he insisted he was always getting 50+ mpg........ no... not in Pittsburgh you're not.

I've seen the Sentra 1.8L/CVT brought up more than once because it fails to achieve it's lofty mpg rating. I'm curious about DCTs though, since they're mechanical operation makes them similar to manual transmissions. Even with CVTs, who makes the unit determine how well it performs. The Altima and Accord do really well with their CVTs. The Caliber and Patriot not so much. Subaru's CVTs seem to consistently do better than their EPA rating.