thegriffon

According to Carl-Peter Foster, the production Antara "will obviously not be exactly the same, the car will be slightly more functional, will have a little more space, but you can expect that you will see some of the design language, some of the design cues and the overall concept you can expect to see in the series production vehicle."

The engineers at its unveiling were quite clear that it was not ready enough to build a production architecture out of. Far from it. It was just a concept to demonstrate what could be done, both by Holden and packaging wise. As I tried to explain, a production car would need an entirely new architecture with only the most rudimentary similarity to the concept.

How does that in any way confirm "Centieme" as the name? Centieme was chosen for the concept as a reference to Buick's centenary. It was originally referred to as the Centurion and there is as yet no reason to think that Buick would change the name (from Rendezvous) at all.

THe G6 effectively replaces the current Grand Prix in (actual) market position. The new sedan would be a larger performance sedan giving BPG an alternative to the Avalon and more expensive versions of the Charger and 300. Target pricing would be below the Avalon and perhaps even Kia Amanti. Given bargain pricing for the Charger I would expect $24-25K for a base (well equipped) V6, with a relatively modest sales target of 110K per annum, but far better margins than the Grand Prix.

Publicly GM NA was very supportive of the Torana as a concept. For Holden it demonstrated their design and engineering capabilities. To save time and money it borrowed elements from all of GM's existing rwd architectures, but was not "based" on any per se. The general structural paradigm followed that of the Premium Sportscar and Kappa architectures with a "lower-dominant" design, but as a concept it would be a mistake to think of the Torana as having an "architecture" at all. If something similar had been approved for production, then like the Solstice a suitable "architecture" would still have to be developed, with all the extra requiremets of a production model such as production compatibilities, cost, safety, productivity etc.

What? You haven't worn out your old tapes yet? You can always plug a tape player into the auxillary jack.

Remember that GM Daewoo is no longer an affiliate. Holden increased it's stake to more than 50% earlier this year, so the company is now a fully-fledged part of GM, although Suzuki and SAIC remain major shareholders.

Mustangs, Supras, F-bodies, 928 etc are generally considered too small to be true grand tourers. So is the Aston Martin really. The late Soarer coupe and the Jaguar XK8 are bigger, but rear seat legroom and trunk capacity are marginal. Grand tourers aren't really sports cars either, but "big" coupes for fast, long distance cruising. They need large trunks and ideally a back seat large enough to be comfortable for several hours. The abbreviation "GT" has been applied more widely to smaller coupes and 2-seat sports cars such as those used in long-distance "touring car" races, where speed and endurance were far more important than the practical requirements of llong-distance travel. Current "grand tourers" include the GTO, BMW 6-series, Ferrari 612, Bristol Blenheim, Bentley Continental GT, and Mercedes CL-Class. Classic grand tourers would include the the big Ferraris such as the 356GT and 456GT, Virage, Eldorado, and American muscle cars such as the Challenger, Monte Carlo and Riviera.

Standard vehicle powertrains can run with no more than about 15% ethanol becayse of the damage to gaskets etc.. As rkmdogs says, they know how to solve that problem and flex-fuel vehicles are becoming more common. Most of GM's new engines in Brazil will run on any mixture of ethanol and gasoline, and some are designed for gasoline, ethanol and CNG. Flexfuel vehicles are also taking off in some European markets. Germany and Italy go for CNG (30% of all CNG vehicles in Germany are Opel Zafiras), Sweden for ethanol. GM already offers most large truck models with an E85 version of the 5.3 L V8 in North America, the Impala and Monte Carlo are just the first to specify an E85 version as standard (in the US). E85 is more expensive and less energy efficient to produce than gasoline, primarily because farmers are paid to not grow feed stock. Despite a recent study production is not a net energy consumer however. Most feed stock is much more energy-dense (high-calorie grains and sugar-cane and not grass), and power often comes from associated biological wastes.

That spy shot is the first of the Opel, which will not be called the Frontera, despite many media reports. Previous shots and renderings were either misguided pre-S3X speculation based on the larger Equinox, or the Chevy version of the S3X.

360 hp Diesel with 6-speed auto anyone? GM is not expecting fullsize truck sales to match previous levels, but with the best fuel-economy in the segment, and much improvement on the way with lighter aluminum engines, more 6-speed autos, DOD, VVT and eventually the two-mode hybrid they'll be in a good position.

Nissan has not retested any models to the new standard, except for the FX45, so there wouldn't be any changes. Most European manufacturers conduct one test for both EEC (usually certified) and SAE hp ratings, as both standards were near identical until the latest revisions to the SAE standard. Media and company PR (GM included) have had problems with different units of hp instead, continental Europe using metric rather than imperial hp. Figures for the Cadillac BLS are metric, not US hp, for example. VW America has had regular problems forgetting it needs to convert from one unit of hp to the other. With few exceptions (by Honda) Toyota and Honda have largely cribbed Japanese test results (from memory DIN standard, probably now a Japanese variant of the similar UN ECE reg 85), apparently unaware that the tests were not to the SAE standard, nor US, but metric hp. With the new standard they have chosen to retest almost every engine, highlighting the discrepancy, but a quick comparison of the same models in Europe (with their lower EEC figures) will show what the "old" figures "should" have been. Even now, however, Honda seems to be misquoting EEC PS data as SAE hp for the new Civic 1.8 L. The revised SAE standard does not always produce lower figures. Since they now need to conduct seperate EEC and SAE output tests Jaguar is claiming an increase of 6 hp for the AJ34 4.2 L V8, as the SAE standard apparently allows for the trick "active" exhaust, which the EEC standard does not (effectively requiring a more restrictive exhaust setup than in the actual vehicle). Most countries have their own variant of ISO 1585, itself based on the SAE J1349 standard. GM do Brasil quotes a Brazilian version of ISO 1585, and Ford Europe usually specifies the ISO standard. 80/1269/EEC is also based on ISO 1585, but with some influence from ECE reg 85, effectively an updated versin of DIN 70020. SAE, ISO and EEC standards specify the same operating conditions and similar accessory setups. The ECE has the DIN standard's more favorable conditions, but with stricter (more explicit) accessory requirements. Testing must be carried out between specified temp. and pressure ranges (differing for spark and compression ignition engines) and the results "corrected" to the standard conditions using a rather complex formula. European manufacturers still quoting DIN as well as EEC figures probably use this formula to "convert" from the certified EEC results to the DIN standard, rather than conduct a seperate test. Unlike EEC results, which may be required for type approval in EU member countries, SAE test results do not have to be certified. Along with the revised SAE standard adopted by Honda and Toyota, there is now a seperate standard for third-party certification which GM is phasing in for new engines.