Drew Dowdell

Well that doesn't address the issue of MB missing a pedestrian brand.

Again, Germany is supplying 50% of its electrical needs with solar, there is no reason we can't duplicate that. For the times the Sun isn't shining, you can used wide scale wind generation. For the amount of money we spent on Iraq and Afgahnistan, we could have deployed enough wind power in the US to power the US 3 times over. Triple electrical redundancy using conventional wind power. Now, there are newer developments called Wind Lenses that have already proven to double or triple output of a conventional turbine. and the equation changed in favor of wind even further. The US mid-west is a wind power bonanza that makes the oil reserves in Saudi Arabia look like Jed Clampett's back yard. I don't believe in "can't". We can power the US going forward and never build another conventional or nuclear electrical plant again while also decommissioning coal powered plants. We just need to get our priorities in order to do it. The State of New Jersey is already on this path as they have given up building new plants and are instead handing out grants to businesses and schools that put solar on the roof and sell back to the grid.

Leasing doesn't give him the flexibility to change his underwear car when he wants to. He's stuck in that 2 year term.

I am not sure about that, given the near-worship of DOHC in the last 30 years or so. As with anything, point out the benefits over the alternatives..... I really should have been a marketing major....

Marketing the pushrod would be easy.

It's what happens when you cross a steam locomotive with a Buick.

Maybe GM could sell Opel to Mercedes so they'd have a pedestrian brand to peddle.

IPods aren't expensive.

Twin cam-in-block?

Yea, but that wasn't a separate team making those cars like SVO or SRT

Happy birthday worthy adversary.

Insufficient for that boat.

Well I disagree on the nukes. Germany is getting 50% of their electrical needs from solar during the summer months. I don't see why we can't do the same, we have a lot more sunny days than they do and a lot lower latitude as well.

Every engine has issues at some point. BMWs are getting the rep for high dollar engine failures. We know about the cracked plastic intake manifolds, tell me, performance wise, how is the 2.5 a better engine than the 3900?

ONE PART of the railroad was done without land grants, there is much more to the history of the Great Northern than the Trans Con. That doesn't mean they never had government help.

The 3800, with modern add-ons and made from aluminum would make a fine alternative to the 2.5 with better torque and similar fuel economy. The big thing that held the 3800 and 3900 back was the 4Speed auto.

They have chips for these yet?

No rail company succeeded without help from the government. Not one.

Yea, there is only about 200 years of legal precedent for the Government doing investing.

Each iteration of these new tech cars brings the price down a notch. The Atlantic is $30k less expensive than the Karma. We gave how many billion to the banks for them to survive? I think we can spare $150 million for a innovative, US Technology company to make payroll while they get on their feet. They've committed to building cars here, there are certainly worse investments to be made with the money.

Yup. And I know you'll be eyeing up the Colorado/Canyon as soon as you can, so why not save as much money as you can in the meantime and still drive a new car you enjoy? Edit: Plus, the Sonic has the best crash test ratings you can get in the sub-compact class.

I will say that Chrysler is doing the right thing with SRT, it is slowly becoming a name to be reckoned with. It's not the level of M or AMG obviously, but doing a lot better than Ford's SVO or SVT that as far as I know are mostly dead as distinct groups within Ford. Did GM ever have a group like this that actively marketed their work? I know there is GM Performance division, but were you ever able to buy a Camaro GMPD-8?

In fact, even today, the 3800 S/C is still a better performing engine than the 3.0 DOHC that GM has been trying to peddle in it's vehicles the past few years. I'd even go as far to say that the 240hp/240ft-lb 3900 was a better performing engine than the 3.0 DOHC as well. Though down on peak horsepower compared to the 3.0, it was able to maintain 90% peak torque from 1500 - 5500 rpm, which at all points is better than the pathetic peak of 220 ft-lb you get from the 3.0 DOHC only after you've spun it up to 5700rpm. The 3900 would have been an interesting engine to throw a turbocharger on.

Correlation is not causation. If DOHC was so important, why didn't GM switch after the 3.4 Twincam. That engine wasn't a boat anchor it was just tough to work on and the major maintenance issues we're all addressed by 1994. How about the 3.5 shortstar? No major issues with that one and was class competitive. There was also the weirdo 3.0 DOHC from Opel. That engine WAS a boat anchor and reliability nightmare, but they worked most of the bugs out of it when it became the 3.2. At any of these stages, GM could have dropped the Pushrod V6 in favor of one of these engines but they didn't. A big reason they didn't was because in each case, the 3800 or 3800 S/C or 3900 could easily out perform it.

The Chrysler 300c SRT-8 would have something to say about being a Dodge sub-brand