Karl's Daily Log Book

kyfdx

True... In fact, you could just have a button or switch... Manual non-sport.. shifts at redline... Manual sport.. doesn't shift at redline... I doubt that would be hard to program in, considering all of the electronic controls..

Now that we've solved that problem, on to the next one...

Does anyone really want an H3?

regards,
kyfdx

michaellno

Sure, all those folks who couldn't pony up the $50K for the H2!

I suspect I'll be seeing a lot of these around town ... we have the first or second largest Hummer dealer in the state in my town. Most of the H2s are driven by soccer moms who are too tough for a minivan or an Expedition, Tahoe or Durango.

What's funny is that I can probably smoke them with my 130HP Focus....

graphicguy

A base H3 (with a manual tranny, no less) is about the same price as a Nissan Pathfinder, Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo or GM's own GMC Envoy. Everything else has one or more advantages......equipment, 6 cyl, better NVH, MPG, nicer interiors, etc. over the H3

I can say the only thing really going for the H3 is that boxy style. Don't know that I'd be willing to pony up the dollars for something that is inferior in almost every way to the competition just to say I own a Hummer.

kurtamaxxguy

I have to agree with everything you said on this one, Karl.
Maybe there are enough buyers who prefer exterior flash in their cars ..vs.. engineering and refinement to keep Detroit alive? More power to 'em.

1997montez34

IMHO, GM really screwed the pooch by not making sure that their very nice 4.2 liter I-6 would fit into the Colorado/Canyon/H3. Its got very nice power and no one would have complained. Who the heck really loves a 5-cylinder engine? We owned one (Audi 5000S) for a few years and it was always awkward sounding, though it performed well.

davem2001

Yeah, I agree with that - the 6 should at least be an option on the Colorado/Canyon/H3. How hard would it have been, when designing them, to make sure that the I-6 fits? It couldn't be that much longer than the 5. Is the 5 really shoe-horned in there that tight? The hood of the Colorado, etc... doesn't seem noticeablely shorter than the Trailblazer/Envoy etc..

jchan2

I like the Cobalt too. Don't understand why CR slammed it a few months back when they reviewed it. I sat in one at the autoshow and was impressed.

And who'd buy an H3? Good question...

davem2001

I think it will actually do OK - anyone who wants an H2 but can't afford one will be interested. Sure, there are many other SUVs that are quieter, smoother, better, etc... but you can also say that about a Jeep Wrangler. Some people want that "hard core off road" image, and there probably are a few who will actually use it off-road.

alfox

CR explained in a page of test results and commentary why they didn't like it. Personally I haven't even seen one yet, but most reviews are not inspiring. GM needed to hit one out of the park with the Cobalt, but they hit a chopper in the infield and the play is still in progress - could be an out. YMMV for sure, but compared to having "sat in one at the autoshow and was impressed", I confess I am more swayed by the other reviews.

seminole_kev

I could be remembering this incorrectly, but wasn't the Canyon/Colorado originally designed for/by the Asian market? If so, that would probably explain why it wasn't designed with a longer engine in mind.

davem2001

It still seems to me that they should have had the foresight to give the Colorado/Canyon enough room under the hood for the I-6 to fit. How much bigger/longer could it be? A few more inches? I wrote up above, the TB/Envoy nose isn't noticeably longer than the Colorado/Canyon's.

Also, in terms of the H3 - if they knew the I-6 definitely didn't fit, then maybe they should have based it off the Trailblazer/Envoy which does fit the I-6 and can even have a V8.

Although, they may have gotten lucky here, in that the marketplace may be ready to give up some HP in return for a few MPG.

varmint

I think that's correct. In fact, I think they originally had plans to use it for Isuzu.

Also, at the time of launch, GM press focused quite a bit on the fuel economy offered by the I5. Probably for good reason. GM's CAFE rating is pretty dismal. Having to pay CAFE fines on top of all their other cash-related issues would be tough.

varmint

They needed to add capacity at the plant where the Colorado/Canyon are made. otherwise they might have lost the plant. Well, maybe not lost it, but things would have been tough for them.

davem2001

Yeah, that's sort of what I meant above - "dammed if they do, dammed if they don't" - If they brought the H3 out with a V8, all the reviews would talk about how it gets terrible gas mileage, GM is out of touch, SUV sales are down, price of gas is up...etc... When they bring it out with the I-5, people say it's underpowered.

varmint

They could design a vertical stack I6!

navigator89

Just finished reading your most recent comparison test.

I had originally posted a message on this board suggesting a midsize wagon comparison test featuring the Dodge Magnum, Subaru Legacy, Ford Freestyle, Mazda6 and Volkswagen Passat. You said it was a good idea, but apparently not good enough for you to do.

"You're a car enthusiast who has set his (or her) sights on a sporty wagon priced in the low $30K range — what are your choices?"

Anyway, my main issue with theMagnum vs. Legacy test was simple. You forgot to include, or even mention the Mazda 6. The Mazda 6 is a better competitor to the Legacy because their horsepower numbers are similar and they're both Japanese So basically, you should have included the 6 along with the Legacy and Magnum or dropped the Magnum so it would be 6 vs. Legacy. That would have been more evenly matched.

By the way, will you guys ever do a real wagon test with the Ford Freestyle, Volkswagen Passat, Dodge Magnum, Mazda 6, Subaru Legacy and maybe Chrysler Pacifica? The other wagons out there deserve consideration, even the underpowered Freestyle.

1997montez34

I have spent a lot of time driving my father's Magnum RT Awd lately and I am recalling the great(?) wagons of my youth. A '84 Plymouth Reliant wagon and a '84 Volvo 240DL wagon, dirt brown, rusted, with a 4-speed stick and electric overdrive.

Somehow the HEMI makes it much more enjoyable than I remember.

varmint

Hey, I really think I'm on to something with that vertical I6 notion. I mean, think about it... what Hummer buyer wouldn't want to have two or three cylinders poking up through the hood where passengers would have no choice but to admire them. I'm certain Freud's works could easily form the basis for a business case. Sure, the NVH for such a design would shake the paint off it, but picture this...

Man walks into garage and climbs into H3. Man starts engine and everything hanging on the walls of his home comes crashing down. Man communicates his approval to a passenger using the time-honored series of grunts and noises perfected by Tim Allen. Man turns on radio and listens to local emergency broadcast warnings of a 6.5 reading on the Richter scale with an ear to ear grin splitting his face. Man giggles like a school girl as he tools around town, ripping down traffic signals as they get caught on the cylinder tower protruding from his hood. Terrorists begin plotting how to fly a plane into it...

kurtamaxxguy

Karl, I am confused. The latest top 20 list of popular cars, posted yesterday by C&D, had (as far as my tired eyes can see) 1, repeat _1_ RWD car listed:

1. Ford F-Series pickup — 335,269
2. Chevy Silverado C/K pickup — 274,869
3. Toyota Camry — 178,890
4. Dodge Ram pickup — 163,094
5. Toyota Corolla — 147,146
6. Honda Accord — 143,304
7. Honda Civic — 115,577
8. Nissan Altima — 108,237
9. Chevrolet Impala — 107,181
10. Ford Explorer — 105,925
11. Dodge Caravan — 103,811
12. Ford Taurus — 92,879
13. Chevrolet TrailBlazer — 87,847
14. GMC Sierra pickup — 87,210
15. Jeep Grand Cherokee — 83,590
16. Chevrolet Malibu — 83,118
17. Ford Focus — 82,963
18. Ford Mustang — 81,541
19. Chrysler Town & Country — 78,350
20. Ford Econoline — 75,721

Ok...where are all the RWD sales?
Where is the Chrysler 300 that Los Angeles CA cannot get enough of?

Also interesting to note that biggest sellers remain Trucks.

explorerx4

if i'm not wrong, 9 of the 20 are RWD. as far as passenger cars go, it's mostly the high end cars that are RWD.

kurtamaxxguy

yes, a large number of the top 20 vehicles have RWD, but they seem to be trucks and SUV's, not "cars". The Mustang is the only one that I know is a "car".
Then again, these days perhaps most people consider "trucks" to be "cars" with an open trunk attached?
If I missed the obvious, my apologies - was a very long day at work.

jchan2

The Camry numbers include a fairly large number of fleet sales that Toyota does. Is the Camry turning into a modern day Taurus?

anonymousposts

is a better car than the Taurus that frequented rental car lots. Toyota is just on a quest to be #1 and they are willing to sacrifice the Camry and Corolla to fleets to achieve this goal. Nothing wrong with it but Toyota has significantly increased rebates over the last year.

carguy4life

I agree with you, hammen2. Newer has definitely not always been better. The mid to late 70s were pretty bleak. This is when I got my drivers license; even then there was definitely a sense that our generation of newly minted drivers were being cheated. The late 60s muscle cars were the aspirational rides of my peers, in the LA car culture. A small minority were into the "road race" cars, like Datsun 510s and 240Zs, Bimmer 1600/2002s; there were some hot rodded Corollas. But the Camaros, Firebirds, Mustangs, Chevelles, GTOs, Javelins, Chargers, etc. were the cars we considered to be much better than the new cars at the time. Remember the Mustang II? There was even a Cobra version with something like 160HP, maybe less, from a 4-cylinder turbo. The Z28 went away from 1975-1977, returning in 1978 with the Chevy LM1 motor, 350cid and 170HP I think. Not quite the specific output we are used to now!

editor_karl

I had originally posted a message on this board suggesting a midsize wagon comparison test featuring the Dodge Magnum, Subaru Legacy, Ford Freestyle, Mazda6 and Volkswagen Passat. You said it was a good idea, but apparently not good enough for you to do.

No, it was actually a good enough idea for use to do. Then we called the manufacturers and started scheduling wagons. Then we were told what was -- or, more often than not, what wasn't-- available. Between massive price disparities ("the cheapest Pacific available is coming in at $36,000 and the most expensive Mazda 6 is coming in at $26,000) and the flat out "none in the fleet" responses (Passat) we were left with our long-term Magnum and a Legacy. Hey, at least they were both dark blue, cost with $2,000 of each other, and can both be had with all-wheel drive (though our Magnum in the test was RWD).

You know how wagons, while cool and slightly on the upswing in terms of market share, are still quite limited in the marketplace and total sales? You can assume that same situation is reflected in the press fleets. It's like the H3 engine thing -- if we conduct the test with major variances between competitors we'll be told how "unfair" this version of wagon XYZ was versus that version of wagon ABC. If we keep it "fair" and only include vehicles that are truly comparable the response is "Why didn't you include wagons D through W?" Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

editor_karl

is a better car than the Taurus that frequented rental car lots. Toyota is just on a quest to be #1 and they are willing to sacrifice the Camry and Corolla to fleets to achieve this goal. Nothing wrong with it but Toyota has significantly increased rebates over the last year.

Actually, a large number of the cars on this list are the equivelant of fleet/corporate sales. All those utility trucks with plumbing/construction/etc. logos on the side? That's what drives a good chunk of the Big 3's domestic truck sales -- corporate sales. The Impala, Malibu and, yes, even Camry? Fleet. Even the minivan sales -- ever noticed how many cabs these day are minivans, not to mention airport shuttle vans?

The reason Chrysler is seeing success with the 300/Magnum is because they are one of the few RWD, non-truck offerings in the marketplace. It doesn't take many customers, and it doesn't even take that many sales, for these vehicles to be successful. If a tiny sliver of the market wants a rear-wheel drive sedan for less than $30,000, and only four exist (300, Crown Vic, Grand Marquis, and -- soon -- Charger) then those models essentially have a monopoly on that tiny sliver. And with Crown Vics and Grand Marguis being a) ancient designs and b) not exactly "hip" between their styling and their "retiree" image, the Chrysler products are really the only consideration for people under 60 who aren't cops or cab drivers. Yes, I know cops are going to start using Magnums, but it will take awhile for the image of them as cop cars to filter into the marketplace.

The real question is -- is this a fleeting fad or a sustainable shift in buyer demands? If it's sustainable than Chrysler is the first to jump on it and will have an advantage until the competition catches up (think 1984 and minivans). If it's a fad, they can still own the market while it lasts, and because the cars come largely from the last generation E-Class the development costs were probably pretty low, meaning they'll come out OK financially, even if the cars only survive one model cycle (the current one), which is doubtful.

Of course, if it's a fad, that means in five years the market for sub-$30,000 rear-wheel drive sedans/wagons will be dead...which of course means GM will just be hitting the market with theirs...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

jchan2

I've noticed that too. Toyota used to only offer deals during the Spring and Fall but now I'm seeing deals on TV all the time. Ads that say "1.9% Financing on all 2005 Highlanders, Camrys, and Corollas!" And ads that scream "$750 Cashback on ALL 2005 Tundras" (excluding the Double Cab models of course)

I remember Toyota one time in 2003 combined 0% and $500 cash on the Camry. Probably the only reason I remembered was that a friend had bought a Camry and qualified for the deal.

Honda is also starting to increase incentives.... The low APR and lease offers are becoming a year round thing instead of a year end thing like it used to be.

bigdaddycoats

So, Karl, do you think it is a fad? Or the beginning of a new trend?

editor_karl

I think between the near universal advent of traction control on cars over $20,000, and the advances in all-weather tire technology, the argument that front-wheel drive is better for inclement weather doesn't old much water.

I can tell you what my Dad used to always say in the 1970s and 1980s as nearly every domestic car went from front-wheel drive to rear-wheel drive. "I don't see automakers like BMW or Mercedes jumping on this front-wheel drive bandwagon. When front-wheel drive becomes good enough for them then I might consider it good enough for me, until then I'm always going to consider it an inferior design used for cost savings."

There's no denying that rear-wheel drive has a more premium feel to it, regardless of other considerations that made front-wheel drive dominant 20 years ago (cost savings, interior packaging, inclement weather advantages, etc.).

I also know you could throw the styling elements of the Chrysler 300 out the window and I'd still be interested in it for the drivetrain design alone. But I could be unique in that respect, which means it may never catch on with mainstream buyers and may never come back as the dominant drivetrain layout.

We'll see.

editor_karl

Here's a link to my latest editorial column that discusses the problem of punishing the many for the acts of the few:

http://www.edmunds.com/news/column/carmudgeon/105685/article.html

Be happy to hear anyone's thoughts on it.

1487

This RWD isn't a fad, but that doesn't mean that all the other automakers are going to jump on the RWD bandwagon. I am curious as to why the media (and many others) seem to be pinning GM's lack of recent success on not having RWD sedans like Chrysler. Never mind the fact that Nissan and Toyota are having great years selling FWD sedans. The new Avalon has 280hp and is FWD and has been praised by the press. Very few reviewers have said it is at a disadvantage to the 300 because of its FWD layout. GM has been making FWD cars with 260-300hp for the last 6 years or so and the general consensus on most of those cars has been they would be better if they were RWD. The Chrysler cars have been successful, but not just because they are RWD. RWD is important in that it allows the cars to offer the HEMI, but people arent buying the cars strictly because they are RWD. Most people could care less and don't even know what wheels are driving their vehicle. The 300/MAgnum are spacious, uniquely styled and offer good value when compared to more expensive European cars. RWD is only part of the story. Since Chrysler is going to stay with RWD for the foreseeable future it is silly to thing this is going to be a fad and GM will miss the party. BTW, why is no one demanding that Ford or any of the Japanese rush to build affordable RWD sedans? As far as I know Ford has no plans to offer RWD sedans in the future because Lincolns will soon be swithcing to Volvo derived AWD platforms.

As for the notion that teh 300 is essentially a last generation E-class, that is not true. Chrysler has said numerous times that the platform was under development before DCX starting sharing parts between the two brands. The 300 only has a few components from the E-class, mainly suspension parts and some other minor under the skin pieces. It is not a E-class in Chrysler sheetmetal and it is wrong to make it sound like the car was developed by Germans and then wrapped in American styling.

navigator89

Ok, i get your point, although I still wish a complete wagon test had been done. Anyway, I'll leave it at that.

Will you guys be doing a premium wagon test, with the Jaguar X-Type, Mercedes C-Class, BMW 3 Series, Audi A4 and Volvo V50 anytime soon? I know you will have to wait until the BMW comes out, but are there any such plans?

And also, how come the Honda Ridgeline wasn't included in your midsize truck comparison test? Was it because you couldn't find any press cars? I know Car and Driver tested it, and rated it 1st out of the same batch of trucks that you guys used. For them, the Ridgeline was 1st, Frontier 2nd, Tacoma 3rd, Dakota 4th and Colorado 5th. They didn't include the Ranger.

jchan2

seems to be getting old. When does Ford plan on replacing it?

editor_karl

I am curious as to why the media (and many others) seem to be pinning GM's lack of recent success on not having RWD sedans like Chrysler.

If you go back and look at my original post, you'll see that I was referring to the fact that the 300/Magnum are unique in the sub-$30,000 sedan market because they are the only cars to offer RWD beyond the old, un-hip Crown Vic and Grand Marquis.

The reason Chrysler is seeing success with the 300/Magnum is because they are one of the few RWD, non-truck offerings in the marketplace. It doesn't take many customers, and it doesn't even take that many sales, for these vehicles to be successful. If a tiny sliver of the market wants a rear-wheel drive sedan for less than $30,000, and only four exist (300, Crown Vic, Grand Marquis, and -- soon -- Charger) then those models essentially have a monopoly on that tiny sliver.

So, this isn't about GM's success being pinned on RWD sedans, it's about GM being a market leader, taking some risks, and offering something that isn't yet available for the most part. They didn't do this, Chrysler did, and now Chrysler is reaping the benefits.

By the way, it's not just Chrysler 300 sales that matter here (I suspect an impending post of how 300 sales aren't that high, relatively speaking). This is about the 300 creating increased press coverage and recognition from the media and the buying public at large. The 300 won't save Chrysler by itself, but what really matters are accolades like Edmunds Most Significant Vehicle, Motor Trend's Car of the Year, etc. These put Chrysler on the brain, bringing more people to dealers to look at "this new 300 model I've been hearing so much about" and, hopefully, in the process leaving the dealership with something wearing a Pentastar on the side (a Neon, Caravan, Dakota, or maybe even a 300). It obviously is working, as Chrysler is the only domestic automaker with sales and market share increases over the last 12 months.

As for it being "an old E-Class with a new body," I never said that. I said "because the cars come largely from the last generation E-Class the development costs were probably pretty low" and that much is true. I know the idea of creating a new breed of rear-wheel drive sedans existed before Mercedes bought Chrysler, but the actual execution of these models, and the parts they used, happened AFTER the "merger of equals" (which was in 1998, and the 300 just came out last year, so don't try to argue that this platform was developed without Mercedes overseeing everything).

Of course Chrysler and Mercedes want to downplay the level of platform sharing because, like every modern automaker, they HATE the idea of consumers knowing where different models come from. They want every consumer to think every model is unique and special, created just for them without cost cutting by using the same parts from other models. Do you think Ford wanted people reporting that the 1964 Mustang was really just a rebodied Falcon? Of course not, but that doesn't change the fact that it was.

When I was at the A3 event a few weeks ago and a journalist asked how much of the A3 comes from the Golf the Audi people got very testy. "We must get past this misconception of platform sharing. We call them modules, not platforms." So the journalist says, "OK, what other product does the A3 share modules with?" and the Audi engineer gets this sort of forlorn look and sheepishly says, "Uh, the Golf."

editor_karl

And also, how come the Honda Ridgeline wasn't included in your midsize truck comparison test? Was it because you couldn't find any press cars?

That test was performed back in January and posted in February. The Ridgeline press vehicles didn't come out until April, so yes, we couldn't get a Ridgeline back then. Also, while the Ridgeline has much in common with those other trucks in terms of dimensions and look, it's not a body-on-frame design so we don't consider it a true competitor.

Please don't start in with Honda's rhetoric about how it's more than a unibody and less than a body-on-frame. More corporate spin. We have a long-term Ridgeline, and at 2,000 miles we just drove it on a national park road (not off-road, but a dirt road in a national park that was basically like a fire road) and three of the four struts were blown out in the process. Our editor saw a Subaru Baja out on that same road when he was in the Ridgeline, and I know that any of those trucks from our comparison test would have handled this road with ease. I also know that if we took the Ridgeline off-roading, like we took those other trucks during the comparison test, we would have had to tow it home.

I'm not sure what sort of torture test C&D put their trucks through as part of their comparison test, though I admit that if you never actually go off road, the Ridgeline has a better ride, smoother engine and better interior design than any of those trucks. But it's not a "real" truck.

Honda is inspecting the damaged struts right now, so maybe it was a fluke involving bad struts or something, but we also had a Ridgeline press car a few weeks before buying our long-termer, and it also proved incapable of serious, or even light, off road activity. I suspect that the Ridgeline is the ultimate expression of the world we've come to live in:

"Give me a vehicle that looks like I live an active lifestyle. Don't worry about it actually supporting this look in the least."

I don't mind automakers responding to this demand from the market, as long as buyers know what they really are (and aren't) getting.

jchan2

did well in the latest CR test on midsize trucks. CR says that the Ridgeline handled their off-road course with ease.

I guess either CR's off-road course must be really really easy to get through, Edmunds.com got unlucky, or CR is REALLY biased towards Japanese cars.

kurtamaxxguy

Not exactly sure how to take this. Car enthusasists in S. Calif desperately want places to drift/sport drive, but continual sprawl and building puts real pressure on the roads. While I am no slouch on the roads and enjoy a nice "driver style" road, It's no fun having my rear bumper being continually kissed by tuners and other crazies who want to do double the speed limit.

As for those LA, CAers who want thrills....
Try driving Route 23 (Decker Canyon road) from Pacific Coast Highway to USA 101, or from 118 to Fillmore; No guard rails and 1000 foot drops on many of the curves.
Another good one is route 41 between the I-5 and 170 (some inhabited stretches, so beware).

Perhaps some racing organization can petition the CHP to do what they do in Nevada - close a major road for a day or so and do nothing but run races on it, as fast as drivers want to go.

blueguydotcom

Read it too. Agree with it totally. Before the San Diego fires we used to have a crazy fun back road running up to Julian - that was one of the first places I drove my 330i the day I bought it. 270 degree corners, cliffs, tree-lined roads...pure heaven. Now it's closed by the safety police.

rorr

"It's no fun having my rear bumper being continually kissed by tuners and other crazies who want to do double the speed limit."

Well, neither (I suspect) does Karl; but lowering the speed limit to an aritificially low number won't solve the problem, it just creates more 'lawbreakers'.

If the problem is "crazies who want to double the speed limit", then why not crack down on them? Address the problem through increased enforcement/stiffer fines, not dropping the speed limit which only affects those who WERE ALREADY OBEYING THE LAW. Do you think the fatalities mentioned were from people who were stone sober and obeying the old 55mph limits? Or perhaps were they from individuals who were DUI and/or vastly exceeding the speed limit? And precisely HOW would a lower speed limit affect these individuals?

rorr

"...270 degree corners..."

Wow! I thought those only existed on cloverleafs.....

Some of our roads here in the Texas hill country are so curvy that I once ran up on my own taillights. Worse part was I had my brights on and about blinded myself..... :P

blueguydotcom

That road was a thrill. The signs all said 10-15 mph for the crazy hard corners. Took me back to my days growing up in the sierras...one mistake and you were up a tree or off a cliff.

editor_karl

Do you think the fatalities mentioned were from people who were stone sober and obeying the old 55mph limits? Or perhaps were they from individuals who were DUI and/or vastly exceeding the speed limit? And precisely HOW would a lower speed limit affect these individuals?

Precisely! Lowering a speed limit has absolutely no effect on drunkards or blatant law breakers. I will be curious to see if there is any reduction in fatalities after these limits are put in place. Of course, having lower limits helps justify ticketing all the people who use the road, even those who are otherwise driving safely, which makes perfect sense...from a government revenue generation standpoint.

rorr

Typical response of government to a perceived problem: rather than increased enforcement and/or stiffer penalties for EXISTING laws, simply enact stricter laws with the hope(?) it will do some good. The changes only effect those who obey the law who were not the problem in the first place. For some reason, I am reminded of extremely low BAC legal limits (on the order of 0.06) when the problem is with BAC's (far) in excess of 0.10. But this is a side issue.

Setting speed limits artificially low has two direct effects: increased revenue for the state and decreased respect for the law. Is the first result worth the second? IMO, no.

alfox

Carreful rorr - Officer Kidd will hunt you down...

kurtamaxxguy

270 degree turns with roller coaster hills in the middle are on route 23 in LA - enjoy!

Questions: how do we restructure driving in the USA so "expert" drivers get truely classified as such, and therefore allowed to drive twice as fast as everyone else? Should the DMV do this, and can it actually make money teaching us HOW to drive twice as fast as everyone else? How do drivers who get their licenses "the regular way" cope with "experts" driving 120 mph on a 60 mph road? What kind of penalities will experts get nailed with if they decide 160 mph instead of 120 mph is "their right" to drive?

I am happy to get out of the way of a pick-yer-favorite-brand, but on a freeway there is often no place to pull over to, given "we" love to drive bumper-bumper at 85 in LA..

Or, as I once asked, is the answer to build more racetracks, speedways, or whatever?

rorr

Your memory is WAY too good........

rorr

"Questions: how do we restructure driving in the USA so "expert" drivers get truely classified as such, and therefore allowed to drive twice as fast as everyone else?"

Short answer: you don't. But that wasn't a serious question, was it?

Long answer: set speed limits according to the max speed at which 85% of the traffic would travel in lieu of any posted limits (this speed may be derived mathmatically based on pavement widths, grades and degree of curvature, presense of visual barriers, traffic counts, frequency of intersecting roads, etc. etc.). I suspect that this is the way the limits were initially set by the D.O.T. and they probably worked fine for decades.

If there is a problem with 'expert' drivers attempting to show their stuff on public roads, CHP should enforce the EXISTING laws and/or penalties enacted to get the violators attention. The solution is NOT to lower the speed limits affecting EVERYONE in the hope that the violators would molify their behavior. This approach does NOT increase compliance with the law (that is what we are trying to do, right?). In fact, the opposite occurs: you've increased NON-compliance by setting the speed limits artificially too low.

kevm14

Also, in terms of the H3 - if they knew the I-6 definitely didn't fit, then maybe they should have based it off the Trailblazer/Envoy which does fit the I-6 and can even have a V8.

I have a feeling the 5.3L will easily fit in the space taken up by the I-5. Why? Well, it's only 4 cylinders long and it doesn't have tall OHC heads. The only potential issue would be width and, again, since it has compact OHV heads, I don't think it would be a problem.

kevm14

1. Ford F-Series pickup — 335,269
2. Chevy Silverado C/K pickup — 274,869
14. GMC Sierra pickup — 87,210

Just an interesting side note. I know how Ford likes to say how their F-series is the best selling vehicle in the world, but I just did some math, and GM's fullsize trucks outsell Fords. Does it really matter that I combined Chevy + GMC? In my opinion, no. Ford is Ford and GM is GM. It's just that "Ford" also happens to be a brand nameplate, whereas "GM" is not (except for the EV-1, which is now out of production).

kevm14

Of course, if it's a fad, that means in five years the market for sub-$30,000 rear-wheel drive sedans/wagons will be dead...which of course means GM will just be hitting the market with theirs...



Sad, but true. I'm a GM guy and they have nothing for me. Hence all my posts about the SRT-8. I'll probably keep driving my two RWD solid axle GM cars with 350s until the wheels fall off. Since they have about 156k and 217k each, that'll be...still a long, long time.