Enclave is all show and no go. All the reviews I have read is great interior but at over 5000 pounds, it is not very agile.
We love ours. Is it agile? How the heck would I know. We drive the kids here, we drive them there, it does everything and more than what we need. It handles the expressway curves and goes around corners great. I guess I need to go to a race course and check out its limits. If you are looking for agility then the zoom zoom Mazda would be great for you. That is why Mazda outsells others.
Tahoe Hybrid makes me think large shrimp or goverment intelligence. Not sure a vehicle getting 20 mpg on the highway is somethingwe should reward. Put that hybrid technolgy in a small car and get 40 mpg then we can talk.
??? The vehicle gets better mileage than a 4 cylinder Camry in the city. What do you think most families drive today? Camrys? Go drive up to a school during pick up or drop off. There are not very many sedans. Almost all minivans and SUVs/CUV's. And most of these soccer parents drive primarily in the city so the Hybrid Yukon (and future Suburban) are making hte right choice.
Keep talking to yourself, the rest of us are very happy with the utility and 20 mpg. Then again I jsut got an Enclave and get almost 20 and that is keeping me happy.
If you are happy getitng 20 mpg with gas prices at $3/gallon, good for you. I'm very happy you are happy with your Enclave. Nice vehicle. BTW, I have a minivan and yes I have driven my kids to school and seen what everyone else is driving. yes they get under 20 mpg city, but I still won't pay $39,300 for a vehicle when I can buy a minivan for $26k and use the extra $13k for the gas.
Agree with what you say. I drove a minivan for years but the kids are a bit older and the Enclave does great for us. Minivan only got slightly better MPG in actual driving. And yes I am very happy to pay the extra money for an Enclave. Guess I am in a lucky situation.
MInvans are losing their popularity quickly. Down 20% last year continuing the trend.
Tony Snow (C&D) expounds wonderment on the beauty of the CTS, expecially the rear end and sail panels. Talks about the CTS Coupe, which will be built, convertible, stations wagon and diesel.
Jeanne Jennings (Automobile) talks about her love of the BMW 1 series($36K base!!). Then discusses how great the GM vehicles are including the CTS coupe and CTS-V and SR1.
Jim Hall (ex-AutoPacifica) says the the CTS coupe is astonishing. Says it was the most succesful car, from a styling point, of any car at NAIAS.
Even Wolfgang Puck was there and he loved the Escalade. I guess that answers this question: "There are only a few hundred professional athletes out there and a few dozen rappers. Who is buying the rest of these Escalades?"
Jason Vines (ex Chrysler) says CTS Coupe was stunning and GM won the NAIAS show. Wagoner doing great and the best press conference ever.
yes the new Toyota is very much like the old GM. Toyota tells you what will work and what wont work and we are supposed to accept it. Toyota says that there is no practical way to apply hybrid tech to large vehicles and GM is proving them wrong as we speak. Toyota is merely giving excuses since they dont have a hybrid for large vehicles like the Tundra and they are going to be left behind since Chrysler and Gm will have hybrid pickups/V8 SUVs on the market this year that get better city mileage than the Highlander.
Minivans are not getting any more popular. Yes, they make sense and are practical but the public is staying away from them and the segment is stagnant to declining at this point. Minivans are cheaper than large V8 SUVs but they arent much cheaper than the GM lamdba SUVs when you option them similarly. The Odyessey, Sienna and T&C can approach $40k with all the options and none of them look as good as the Acadia and none get subtantially better mileage. BTW, the Enclave starts at $33k, so you dont need to spend $40k just to get an nice CUV if you dont want a minivan.
We all know there are more efficient vehicles out there than the Tahoe hybrid but the point is that people who need or want a large SUV can now get one and not be stuck with 14mpg. I dont hear anyone deriding the LS600h just because its mileage is poor compared to a Civic or Prius. 20mpg isnt great mileage for a car, but it is for an SUV that can tow 6000lbs and has 332hp and its actually great for a V6 crossover these days. Havent seen many Pilots or CX-9s or Q7s that get 20mpg.
I think you're right. In the 70's, the Big 3 said they couldn't meet emissions standards and Honda proved them wrong w/ the CVCC engine. I think Toyota is addicted to Synergy Drive, much like the Big 3 were addicted to HP back then.
Nothing like coming in at the end of a conversation.
The $39.3 was for the Tahoe Hybrid and it's 20 city/20hwy. Also it was in response to rockylee's comment about the Enclave or Tahoe Hybrid not winning over the Mazda CX-9. I was simply telling 62 that the Enclave is a very nice vehicle but many reviewers have complained that it sluggish due to its excessive weight (5100 # with a V6). No big deal 62 loves his car and it is a nice vehicle.
Yes you can get a minivan for $40k, not sure why people pay that much for a minivan but they do. For my taste $26k is plenty. I still don't understand the CUV. Why pay the same price as a minivan for a vehicle that gets the same gas mileage but has considerably less passenger and storage space. I gave up trying to look cool years ago. I don't make enough to pay cash for a $33k Enclave. So I'm looking at a 5 or 6 yr note. I love the new car smell but.....
Please, not everything has to be a GM vs. import. You GM fanboys/fangirls really have been scarred over the years that you feel you have to defend your product by bringing others down. Yes the Tahoe Hybrid compares favorably others as far as gas mileage. This is not the point. The Tahoe Hybrid only gets 20 mpg city or highway. So if you take a 500 mile trip, you get 20 mpg. Drive your to school or run short errands, you get 20 mpg. I don't consider it a very "green" car. This is what I am critical of adn why I find it laughable that it Green Car of the Year. Again, put that technology into a small to midsize car and get 40 mpg city and then we can start to talk about "green". That will help us reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Imagine being able to drive your car twice as long and filling up half as much. That would truly stretch a person's paycheck and piss off our "friends" in the Middle East and Venezuela. Maybe 20 mpg impresses you but with $3 gas and recession looming, I'm not impressed.
If there is a true "need" for the Tahoe (need for large storage w/ 4WD; towing capacity, large family and 4WD, etc.), then great you have a nice alternative. The one thing I have noticed is people confuse "wants" for "needs" like the family that needs a 2800 sf new house for their family of four (I guess each family member "needs" 700 sf to survive). My wife and I convinced ourselves twice that we "needed" that 91 and 96 Explorer even though it was only the two of us. We "needed" that 4WD for all the snow we get in south central PA (yeah right). Fast forward to 2003, we finally got smart and realized that we need a minivan (2 kids now; both very active=lots of stuff) and I need to drive a paid off, used car cause having two new car payments for us is stupid and financially disastrous.
I'm not against anyone who wants to buy a Tahoe hybrid or Enclave or whatever other vehicle you want to drive. As I said earlier nice cars. We live in a wonderful country where you can drive whatever car is on the market as long as you can pay for it. I just don't want to hear people who have big behemoth vehicles complain about the price of gas or that it cost them $60 to fill up. Trust me I hear it all the time. maybe this economic slowdown will get us back to reality.
Again, put that technology into a small to midsize car and get 40 mpg city and then we can start to talk about "green".
yep, but again I would not buy a small to midsize car even if it got 50 mpg. Just does not fit MY needs or desires. And I know I am not alone. Just because you do not agree with everyone else does not mean they will change their buying choices. People want what they are buying now for a reason. GM has found a way to make it more "green" even though again the price of being green is very steep.
As far as folks giving up the people haulers I do not believe they will really take a significant downturn in sales (50% drop) until gas hits at least $5/gallon and I do not see that happening in the next 4 years. Sure we could go to war with Saudi Arabia but the oil producers do not want to cut off their customers, they want our money. Sure China and others are starting to buy more but it will be quite a few more years before they really start to use the oil in huge quantities and I am confident we will have found other ways of powering our vehicles. In fact if we do go into a recession look for the price to go down.
And 2800 sq ft is about average today for new homes. Again you are trying to say what others should do in your eyes. To me the 10,000 sq ft McMansions are too much. I could afford one but think they are stupid. Many of my friends have them. We like our cozier smaller home that I designed and all my friends with the big houses come over and comment on how warm and inviting our house is. We have no 20' ceilings, etc.
It actually sounds like you are where we were 4 years ago. Driving a minivan with two preschoolers. Now that they are in elementary school the CUV is a good choice for us. Onlyu thing I miss is that it was easier to put 4x8's in the minivan.
1. For most people, including myself, most driving is urban or suburban and not hwy. That said the Tahoe's 20mpg in the city is very impressive since most crossovers and minivans cant hit that number in the city. 2. While most import crossovers are far smaller than minivans, the lambdas are not. Sure you would be giving up a ton of room if you go from van to Highlander or CX-9, not that isnt the case if you downsize to a lambda. People dont like minivans because of their styling and image and thats the way things are today. 3. Most folks that drive large vehicles are willing to live with the mileage on those vehicles and know what its going to cost them to fill up. 4. I notice that those who dont like domestic vehicles are quick to start throwing around "fanboy" to describe anyone who disagrees with them. If people here don't agree with everything you say that doesnt make them fanboys. 5. The two mode hybrid system in the Tahoe uses a large battery that is stored under the rear seat. You cannot just drop this system in a car as you suggest. You need a place to store the battery but under the seat isnt an option in a car since the fuel tank and exhaust piping are in that area. Things are not always as simple as people want them to be. Furthermore I dont see how the Toyota "we're not going to address mileage of large SUV" strategy is any better. People who dont like large vehicles have decided that saving fuel in said vehicles isn't important because in the end you dont have a 40mpg vehicle. Gas savings are gas savings, regardless of how you get them. A Tahoe that gets 50% better mileage than its gas only counterpart is indeed saving a lot of gas. 6. Since you dont think 20mpg is impressive I would assume you dont drive a V6 sedan since nearly all of them get less than 20mpg in the city and most only average 20mpg overall. My V6 only gets 17 in the city so I'm not one to criticize a Tahoe hybrid owner for driving an unimpressive vehicle.
for those worried about lack of power in the Enclave I believe the DI V6 will be offered for 2009. It appears the Chevy Traverse is scheduled to appear soon and it will have that engine available.
Choice is a wonderful thing which is why i added my last paragraph. I don't care if someone wants to buy a large vehicle or a large house. It's your choice. I love the fact we have the power to choose, i just wish more people would think through their purchase. I don't want to hear you complain about gas prices or how expensive it is to heat your house or why your property taxes are so high. If everyone thought like I did, the world would be a better place and also very very boring. :P I love diversity in the true sense of the word.
I have a nice cozy house as well, 1950 sf built in 1940's. We use the finished side of the basement for my kids to play in (not part of the 1950 sf; no egress). Love visiting my friends in their Mcmansions and would love to own one but the practical side in me knows better. Plus I like the fact we can go out to dinner when we want to and provide for our kids.
Our minivan is paid off later this year but I'll run it to 100k miles which should be another 3 years. It serves our purpose well for now. Maybe when we replace it, I may warm up to the CUV. I do like the Freestyle and XC90. Of course the Freestyle is scheduled to disappear in 2010. Maybe the Tahoe will get 25 mpg by that time. Couldn't resist.
I've spent more time on this topic then i ever imagined. last time I attempt to answer a simple question. I'm never getting these two hours back. Again, nothing like coming in on the end of a conversation.....
1) Let's be absolutely clear, the Tahoe Hybrid gets 20mpg city AND 20 mpg hwy. So I get the same mileage whether I do a 2 mile trip or 500 mile trip. I am not impressed with 20 mpg and don't consider that "green". You do. Great, just don't complain about the price of gas.
2) Again why the comparison to import crossovers? Where did they come into this topic? And why does everyone GM fanboy feel the need to bring down another product to make theirs shine? I don't understand crossovers because they are smaller then minivans and get the same gas mileage. Like I mentioned above, I gave up trying to be cool in high school. If that is what you like to drive, go for it.
3) How many of these owners do you actually talk to? I have spoken to several in teh past few months. Go over to the "Smart Shoppers" forum and see how many folk are asking for trade in values on SUVs that are less then 4-5 years old and they have a note on them. Again, I don't care if buy a large vehicle. Choice is a wonderful thing. i just don't want to hear the complaining.
4) Teh reason I call them fanboys is because everything that GM does is good and the imports are evil (plus I have been reading their posts for the past 7-8 years). Everytime they compare a GM vehicle to an import (BTW, what is an import these days?) they feel the need to degrade that car so that the GM counterpart looks better. A good car should be able to stand on its own merit. GM is finally building such cars as in the Enclave, CTS, malibu. Also they want us to forget cars like the L-series, Malibu, Ion, Grand Am, Venture, Silhouette, Relay, etc. Here are the list of cars I have owned over the years and you can decide if I am an "import lover" or not. 1989 Tempo (my first, the memories), 1991 Explorer (wife's car when we got married), 1994 Accord, 1996 Explorer, 1989 Century, 2001 malibu, 2004 Quest and 200 Intrigue. Please do not assume anything about me. If you want to know simply ask.
5) Again why did you feel the need to discuss Toyota? I know it is not a simple process to drop one technology into another vehicle. it involves engineering (I have degree in that) My comment was in regard to the fact that GM does not have a fuel efficient car and nothing to do with the Prius. I bet you knew that GM was on their way to developing the first electric car in the 90's and stopped. Why? A number of reasons I'm sure like lack of battery technology and storage issues. But I bet during one of the director's meetings they started talking about cost of developing this technology and the return on investment. Someone raised their hand (probably had thick rimmed glasses; a pocket protector and a calculator hanging out his back pocket) and said "Guys, we make $10k on each Silverado we sell and $8k on each Tahoe. Why should we invest $xx millions of dollars on this technology when we won't see a dime of profit?" BTW, spending $39k to save 4 mpg is not the smartest thing. I will keep saying, if that is what you want, then buy it. heck knock yourself out and buy two if you can afford it. Choice is a wonderful thing. Choose wisely, that's all.
6) Darn. i already told you the answer to what I drive now. There goes the suspense. 2000 Olds Intrigue (154k miles). it has a 3.5L liter "shortstar" engine. 215 "I dare you to try and beat me off the line" horses. I average 24-28 mpg each tank. I have the calculations to prove it. My commute is 35 miles each way. Speed limit varies from 25 - 55 mph. first 15 minutes is classic city driving and warming up the car (5 miles); then 22 miles of two lane roads (I've hit 65 mph on this stretch before); 8 miles of highway and 5 miles of two lane roads. If I had that "green" Tahoe, it would have cost me well over $50 (closer to $60) to fill up yesterday. Instead it cost me $41.
Again, nice to see a 5000#+ vehicle get 20 mpg. If it was 1999, I would share in your enthusiasm for this "break through". It's 2007 and gas is at a record high. None of us should be happy that 20 mpg is some magical brek through. On vacation this summer, we visited one of the caverns in Virginia. Outside the caverns they had an auto museum, sort of a history of cars (it was cute and recommend for all car nuts). In the 1920s and 1930s, they had cars capable of over 20 mpg (21 and 22 mpg but still over 20 mpg). Of course I'm assuming this is under ideal conditions and but think about this, this is the progress we have made in 70 years????? We are happy about 20 mpg!!! Sure I know the overall automobile is vastly superior esp. with regard to safety and reliability. And I understand this s 5000#. But look how little we have advance in fuel efficiency. You are impressed with 20 mpg. This is not an import or domestic spitting contest. If someone had posted this in Nissan, Honda, Ford or Chrysler forum, my posts would be near identical. 20 mpg no matter what manufacturer is not impressive to me.
I have typed this much since my final paper in college in 1989. (Imagine an engineering having to do 20 page research paper required to graduate). :sick:
I blame you Rocky!! last time I answer one of your posts!!! lol Start calling you Hoover, the way you suck people into topics.......
Many universities now don't require student to write a thesis for a bachelor degree, at least my school (Georgia Tech) doesn't.
Some graduate schools now even offer non-thesis programs for a master degree. However, an independent study including a 30-to-40-page paper and presentation is required in place of the thesis.
Like louiswei stated, not for a bachelor degree. Lots of pressure when you need to pass "Recent American History" to graduate. The only grades for the class was mid-term, final and the paper. Tough when you can't use your calculator or ruler. Of course, I do none of that now but you'll have to wait for my autobiography to read about that story.
Graduated from MSU (ME) in 2001 and no thesis required. Graduated from UM with a masters in ME and no thesis required. Did do a group study paper for my masters but it was not required. Thesis is for doctorates.
Anybody know when the 350 V8 became fuel injected. A customer came in today and was looking at our 94' Silvy 1500 4x4 on the lot and I thought it was fuel injected. It was either a throttle body or carbeurated to my surprise. :surprise:
I want to say '88. I'm sure you could get it before, but not standard. My '91 GMC had the 350 and was TBI. Of course, if you want to get technical, fuel injection was offered in '57 on the vette, but that was a 283
I believe my 82 z28 was throttle body injected which is fuel injection but just not one for every cylinder. I think my 84 vette was the same and therefore the 82 vette also has TBI(same powertrain).
Anybody know when the 350 V8 became fuel injected. A customer came in today and was looking at our 94' Silvy 1500 4x4 on the lot and I thought it was fuel injected. It was either a throttle body or carbeurated to my surprise. :surprise:
The corvette 350 had electronic fuel injection starting in the early to mid 80's.
Outside of the corvette, I think the 350 had TBI in the early 90's. I know my grandpa had a '92 Roadmaster that had a TBI 350. I believe this is basically the same engine used in the trucks too. Not much HP, like around 180, but they did have a ton of low rpm torque.
I'm sure a '94 350 would be throttle body (TBI). I believe GM switched over to port fuel injection with the vortec 350 I believe in '96. Boosting HP a bunch with port fuel injection and the vortec heads.
Role Reversal: New Malibu Is Sleek, Accord Is Bloated January 25, 2008; Page W10, The Wall Street Journal
Which is better, a very good GM car or a mediocre one from Honda? That's the question I keep coming back to while contemplating the new Chevrolet Malibu and Honda Accord, both completely redesigned for 2008.
In a quantitative comparison the two sedans are as similar as their corporate parents aren't, with comparable prices and powertrains, features and fuel economy. But when you look beyond the specs and start analyzing the design and product planning that went into these two models, the Malibu becomes much more compelling. It represents an upward trajectory for Chevrolet, a triumph of good decision-making that stands in marked opposition to Honda's misguided new model.
But before we get into all that, let's consider what you're actually spending your money on when you drive one off the dealer lot -- other than the depreciation. Both the Malibu and Accord are marketed as midsize sedans, although the latter has actually outgrown the category. This is the first strike against the Accord, which is now considered a "large car" in the EPA classification system. Yes, right there on the same list with the big Buick Lucerne, Mercury Grand Marquis and Toyota Avalon.
While the mathematical difference between the Accord and Malibu isn't extreme, the profile they cut couldn't be more so: The taller, wider and longer Accord looks like it could swallow the Malibu whole. The design of the Honda screams for attention in the same way the first and worst Korean cars did, with a wild combination of elements including bulging headlamps, a squarish grille fit for a truck, and a crease along the car's sides that looks like the result of an accident involving a guardrail.
The Malibu, however, is rather understated. Its longer wheelbase makes the car look sleeker and lower than it really is, and by virtue of this illusion it also seems sportier than the Accord. The simple design of the Malibu is classic Chevrolet, using chamfers, smoothed edges and sparse bits of what these days passes for chrome to create a staid but attractive package.
Inside the tables are turned. The Accord plays it safe with as conventional an interior as in any car on the road. GM's designers, on the other hand, have done a bang-up job in obscuring the inferior quality of some of the Malibu's materials, primarily by using color in an optional two-tone scheme. You will realize the brilliance of GM's smoke and mirrors when you feel just how deficient the Malibu's two major touchpoints -- its steering wheel and seats -- are compared to those in the Honda.
My Malibu test car was powered by a 252-horsepower, 3.6-liter V6, while the Accord was fitted with a 268-horsepower, 3.5-liter V6 with what Honda calls Variable Cylinder Management. This technology is designed to boost fuel economy by allowing the six-cylinder engine to run on just three or four cylinders when full power isn't needed. It works almost seamlessly, but in this case, "almost" isn't good enough. During highway driving with the cruise control on I could feel a slight vibration when the engine switched from three- to four- to six-cylinder mode, which it does often, a downright maddening behavior. That the Accord managed only 22 miles per gallon during my testing, a single mile per gallon better than the Malibu, only made this all the more annoying.
Speaking of which, the Chevy's six-speed automatic transmission isn't without its own shortcomings, principally its reluctance to downshift and the rudeness with which it finally executes. At least once you coax either engine into full acceleration you'll be treated to a more-than-adequate display of power, rendering the Honda's 16 extra horses something of a moot point. As anyone who has spent much time around high-performance cars can tell you, there are limits to how much power you want to be routing through the front wheels of a family sedan.
That said, for cars likely destined for commuter duty, both handle well. The Accord has long courted the sportier part of the midsize market, eschewing the floaty, "comfortable" ride of the Toyota Camry and its ilk. Clearly GM wants the Malibu to be similarly regarded. To that end both the Accord and Malibu have suspensions that do a nice job of controlling body roll without being harsh.
The steering on the Accord has a lighter touch that will feel familiar to Honda owners, while the Malibu has enough feedback through its wheel to make you forget the decades of numb-steering GM cars that came before it. Both the Accord and Malibu have good brakes with a firm and responsive pedal feel. Without putting the pair on a race track together there's no declaring either the true handling champ, a point which comes off as a win for Chevy. After all, who has any expectation that GM could or would actually design and build a car that's as enjoyable to drive as a Honda? Not to mention one that looks better and is competitive on price.
The Accord couldn't present a more stark contrast, serving as it does as the "bedrock of the company," as Honda puts it. The Accord is the company's best seller. Indeed, the last time Honda sold as few Accords as GM sold Malibus last year was in 1978. This makes it even more impressive that the Malibu has literally come out of nowhere to challenge the best of the competition.
But then again, Honda's reputation has been slipping lately. The company has thrust a number of ill-conceived models on the public, from the ugly Element SUV to the poor-selling Ridgeline pickup truck to the now-discontinued hybrid Accord. These products all reek of too-clever marketers backed by the distortions of focus groups. You can now add the new Accord sedan to that list.
The 82 Corvette had the same engine/transmission as the 84, which was a throttle body fuel injection 350. The Corvette engine is not used in the trucks, although it is based on the same block. The RWD sedans (Fleetwood, Chevy, Roadmaster) used throttle body on some engines, but the 1990 5 liter Fleetwood was a carb.
The RWD sedans got the detuned Corvette engine in 1994 with tuned intake port fuel injection which got more power and better fuel economy.
I believe my 82 z28 was throttle body injected which is fuel injection but just not one for every cylinder.
That's right; Those cars had a cross-ram intake manifold, but Chevrolet called it "Cross-Fire Injection" because Chrysler Corp. held the rights to the "Ram" name.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Dad, said it was a TBI which was a type of fuel injector. He made em' up until he retired in the aftermarket dept. We talked about it for like a half-hour !!!
TBI (throttle body injection) is a fuel injector that replaces the carburetor on the intake manifold. Apart from the need for an electric fuel pump and computer system to manage the injector, the TBI is a simple replacement for the carburetor. Less expensive than the port fuel injection system. However, you still have some of the carburetors shortcomings, like an uneven distribution of fuel to the cylinders because of the way that the intake manifold works.
I've had pretty good luck with the Q-Jet; actually took the time to learn how to properly tune one. With its small primaries and large secondaries it's a pretty good good carb. And you can get pretty decent mileage out of one as long as you stay on the primaries, continual lead-footing and of course mileage will suffer. But that is true of F.I. as well. Hell, considering Q-Jets were still in service until the 307 was retired in 1990 has to say something. Though I prefer the earlier models to the E4MCs...
I'd rather have the Q-Jet and a good dual-plane than that the Cross-Fire injection any day; those things are a night-mare. But agree as well, I like the port-injection, except for maybe the factory T.P.I.s - I'm somewhat 50/50 on those.
I've had pretty good luck with the Q-Jet; actually took the time to learn how to properly tune one.
That's the key; once you understand how they work you realize how adaptable they are. You can fine tune the part throttle cruise mixture, optimize full throttle power, and basically map the enrichment circuit to whatever parameters you need/desire. In 1981 I toured the BMW Museum in Munich. There was an early prototype V8 engine on display. Sitting on top of the manifold was a Quadrajet, replete with a GM logo. (FWIW, I'm not opposed to technology; the only things in my garage that have carbs are my mowers, trimmers, saws, and my Speed Triple bike.)
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
The Quadrajet carbs were great. I had a 350 in a Cutlass 77. I gave good gas mileage for that era on trips. It could send chills up your spine with the sound it made when accelerating with the secondaries open. And that's with a single exhaust system.
The basic problem with carbs is getting them to work well with the engine cold, but with a well designed choke that was not a problem. My 71 Riviera (not sure if it was a quadrajet) was an interesting car. Still, my 86 Corvette was much better for performance. The difference between the 84 Corvette and the 86 was very interesting.
That being said, my SRX's VVT northstar V8 is perhaps as good as either Corvette for performance (but not handling. With snow on the road the SRX is better by far...
Dad, says the Multec 3 fuel injectors had some design problems. Multec 2 was the best designed fuel injector ever made which GM, still buys. However Multec 3 1/2 dad says is a pretty damn good one also.
Yessir. That is the key, you have to understand them. As you pointed out, if you take the time to understand the subsystems you can tune them boys pretty good. And I found they where less temperamental than Holleys, based on weather and track conditions. Many times guys would bring in the Q-Jet equipped cars into auto shop, say everything is bad due to the carb, and that a Holley would solve their problems. Many times it wasn't even the carb, it was just poor maintenance or vacuum problems. And a Holley can be a nightmare to tune...
Yesterday got a chance to spend some decent amount of seat time in the company's new livery, a Chevy Uplander. Here are some of my thoughts, sometimes compared to the van it replaced, a Venture:
Interior fit/finish: A whole lot better than the Venture. Panel gaps are very tight; no knit lines in the lower plastic door panels. You can see the parting line in the map pockets but the edges are not sharp, meaning the parting line is not on the leading edge, but a little into the pocket. No cut fingers. The dash grain was better, actually nice. The color combo is black dash and upper door trim panels (panels have like a gray stitching), with mahogany lament panels for the switch gear. One gripe is that the screws inside the door handle seemed not to be screw in all the way. I think this will cause an area for dirt to collect.
IP/Center stack: I like the center stack and the layout of the switch gear. Has a more modern look, lines do flow better. They carried the mahogany lament into the radio surround, giving it a nice touch. This lament is also used in the door switch gear. It seems the cluster was lifted from the Saturn Aurq/'Bu? maybe. Not really a knock; it flows into the shape of the IP. I would have preferred a rallye / sport cluster with more gauges (volts/oil pressure) but that is subjective to me. But for basic parts chasing the standard gauge pack is ok; does have a tach.
Seating: Removing the seats was better / easier than in the Venture; was able to load it up quite well
Driveability: Handled the road better; suspension tighter but this may be due to the low-mileage (17.5k) versus the the other beast (85K). Considering how the other van was driven this one may end up the same, tired and loosy-goosy. It did handle the foul weather yesterday better than I expected (blowing snow and +45mph cross winds on the way back last night).
Drivetrain: Typical Chevy V6 growl; more grrrrr than movement. But it is a mini-van? so...
Overall it was ok, showed some improvement over the previous offering but still not something I would purchase. But it is nice to seee GM can improve fit & finish when they want too. Would I buy one as a people hauler, no. But I'm not van man anyway.
I would not put up the Uplander as a proof point of the new GM. Totally based on old Venture platform and not up to latest GM workmanship. Glad it is OK though.
Yes, I know. I was just saying that they did actually improve on fit/finish for the replacement livery. Again, this is in comparison to our old Venture. More times than not, new name same shame. Would I compare this to say the Saturn Aura / new 'Bu, no; I would hold them to a higher level. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, that's my bad; I should have emphasized my thoughts of it as a plain-jane (not to be confused with her sister mary-jane ) company grocery-getter, parts / people hauler.
Hopefully I will get into a new CTS soon to compare it to the '07 model I had seat time in. And unfortunately I haven't had the opportunity to get into another C6, but that can wait until May / June. Wouldn't want to have it out on a day like today - nasty. A couple weeks ago had a '08 PT Cruiser automatic for a day. Work gets in the way too much sometimes. :P
When I use the 'browse by vehicle' option to get to a particular discussion in this forum I am amaized at how many vehicles there are for any particular GM product.
And then there are products under the guise of another hoop emblemb i.e. Chevy to GMC as Buick to Saturn and Pontiac to .....
I see GM dealerships that combine Pontiac, GMC and Buick all on the same lot!
Does headquarters in Detroit have VP's for all these divisions or worse yet, for each of these products? Do they have Presidents for each division? If so, the company is mired in waste and top heavy "leadership".
My father worked 35 years for GM (retired in the early 80's), I'm guessing not much has changed with the old boys network. He brought home some pretty cool cars in the 60's - we always had the best looking driveway in the neighborhood. But the 70's came and it was all down hill. Then in the 80's the Japanese began to eat their lunch. I see GM making progress with their products, but how much fat do they have yet to cut out of management?
see GM dealerships that combine Pontiac, GMC and Buick all on the same lot!
That is because Pontiac/GMC/Buick are becoming one "division" by design. Both Buick and Pontiac have been downsized for many reasons but what GM is doing is deliniating models from each other. Chevy will be the value leader with a full line of cars and trucks. Buick will be the mid level premium comfort line more along the lines of Lexus cars and CUV's. Pontiac will be the mid level sporty car models and GMC upscale trucks. Cadillac will be above both "divisions".
Does headquarters in Detroit have VP's for all these divisions or worse yet, for each of these products? Do they have Presidents for each division? If so, the company is mired in waste and top heavy "leadership".
No presidents at any Marketing division anymore. There is a Chevy General Manager (Peper) who is a 2nd level unclassified which means he has 3-4 bonus level unclassifieds working for him (Marketing, Advertising, Product). The GMC/Pontiac/Buick is the same way. One guy with 3-4 under him. Cadillac the same way. All these General Managers work for a Marketing boss (LeNave) who is two steps down from Wagoner.
I see GM making progress with their products, but how much fat do they have yet to cut out of management not a lot anymore. There is still some trimming going on today but as far as salarieds it cannot get much thinner w/o some real cuts to the business. i.e. dropping divisions and even so it will not cut much unless you really cut one of the super divisions (Chev or Cad or Bu/PO/GMC)
Didn't GM discontinue the Uplander, Relay, Montana and Terrazza minivans? I thought both GM and Ford gave up on minivans to concentrate on crossover vehicles.
Chevy still buiilds and sells the minivan uplander. They do not have larger CUV yet. The other I believe are no longer being built but there are probably some still in stock for sale.
Comments
We love ours. Is it agile? How the heck would I know. We drive the kids here, we drive them there, it does everything and more than what we need. It handles the expressway curves and goes around corners great. I guess I need to go to a race course and check out its limits. If you are looking for agility then the zoom zoom Mazda would be great for you. That is why Mazda outsells others.
??? The vehicle gets better mileage than a 4 cylinder Camry in the city. What do you think most families drive today? Camrys? Go drive up to a school during pick up or drop off. There are not very many sedans. Almost all minivans and SUVs/CUV's. And most of these soccer parents drive primarily in the city so the Hybrid Yukon (and future Suburban) are making hte right choice.
Keep talking to yourself, the rest of us are very happy with the utility and 20 mpg. Then again I jsut got an Enclave and get almost 20 and that is keeping me happy.
You can get the Acadia for around $26k, and not have the stigma of driving a minivan :P
MInvans are losing their popularity quickly. Down 20% last year continuing the trend.
Jeanne Jennings (Automobile) talks about her love of the BMW 1 series($36K base!!). Then discusses how great the GM vehicles are including the CTS coupe and CTS-V and SR1.
Jim Hall (ex-AutoPacifica) says the the CTS coupe is astonishing. Says it was the most succesful car, from a styling point, of any car at NAIAS.
Even Wolfgang Puck was there and he loved the Escalade. I guess that answers this question: "There are only a few hundred professional athletes out there and a few dozen rappers. Who is buying the rest of these Escalades?"
Jason Vines (ex Chrysler) says CTS Coupe was stunning and GM won the NAIAS show. Wagoner doing great and the best press conference ever.
http://www.autolinedetroit.tv/ The New Frontier
We all know there are more efficient vehicles out there than the Tahoe hybrid but the point is that people who need or want a large SUV can now get one and not be stuck with 14mpg. I dont hear anyone deriding the LS600h just because its mileage is poor compared to a Civic or Prius. 20mpg isnt great mileage for a car, but it is for an SUV that can tow 6000lbs and has 332hp and its actually great for a V6 crossover these days. Havent seen many Pilots or CX-9s or Q7s that get 20mpg.
-Rocky
The $39.3 was for the Tahoe Hybrid and it's 20 city/20hwy. Also it was in response to rockylee's comment about the Enclave or Tahoe Hybrid not winning over the Mazda CX-9. I was simply telling 62 that the Enclave is a very nice vehicle but many reviewers have complained that it sluggish due to its excessive weight (5100 # with a V6). No big deal 62 loves his car and it is a nice vehicle.
Yes you can get a minivan for $40k, not sure why people pay that much for a minivan but they do. For my taste $26k is plenty. I still don't understand the CUV. Why pay the same price as a minivan for a vehicle that gets the same gas mileage but has considerably less passenger and storage space. I gave up trying to look cool years ago. I don't make enough to pay cash for a $33k Enclave. So I'm looking at a 5 or 6 yr note. I love the new car smell but.....
Please, not everything has to be a GM vs. import. You GM fanboys/fangirls really have been scarred over the years that you feel you have to defend your product by bringing others down. Yes the Tahoe Hybrid compares favorably others as far as gas mileage. This is not the point. The Tahoe Hybrid only gets 20 mpg city or highway. So if you take a 500 mile trip, you get 20 mpg. Drive your to school or run short errands, you get 20 mpg. I don't consider it a very "green" car. This is what I am critical of adn why I find it laughable that it Green Car of the Year. Again, put that technology into a small to midsize car and get 40 mpg city and then we can start to talk about "green". That will help us reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Imagine being able to drive your car twice as long and filling up half as much. That would truly stretch a person's paycheck and piss off our "friends" in the Middle East and Venezuela. Maybe 20 mpg impresses you but with $3 gas and recession looming, I'm not impressed.
If there is a true "need" for the Tahoe (need for large storage w/ 4WD; towing capacity, large family and 4WD, etc.), then great you have a nice alternative. The one thing I have noticed is people confuse "wants" for "needs" like the family that needs a 2800 sf new house for their family of four (I guess each family member "needs" 700 sf to survive). My wife and I convinced ourselves twice that we "needed" that 91 and 96 Explorer even though it was only the two of us. We "needed" that 4WD for all the snow we get in south central PA (yeah right). Fast forward to 2003, we finally got smart and realized that we need a minivan (2 kids now; both very active=lots of stuff) and I need to drive a paid off, used car cause having two new car payments for us is stupid and financially disastrous.
I'm not against anyone who wants to buy a Tahoe hybrid or Enclave or whatever other vehicle you want to drive. As I said earlier nice cars. We live in a wonderful country where you can drive whatever car is on the market as long as you can pay for it. I just don't want to hear people who have big behemoth vehicles complain about the price of gas or that it cost them $60 to fill up. Trust me I hear it all the time. maybe this economic slowdown will get us back to reality.
yep, but again I would not buy a small to midsize car even if it got 50 mpg. Just does not fit MY needs or desires. And I know I am not alone. Just because you do not agree with everyone else does not mean they will change their buying choices. People want what they are buying now for a reason. GM has found a way to make it more "green" even though again the price of being green is very steep.
As far as folks giving up the people haulers I do not believe they will really take a significant downturn in sales (50% drop) until gas hits at least $5/gallon and I do not see that happening in the next 4 years. Sure we could go to war with Saudi Arabia but the oil producers do not want to cut off their customers, they want our money. Sure China and others are starting to buy more but it will be quite a few more years before they really start to use the oil in huge quantities and I am confident we will have found other ways of powering our vehicles. In fact if we do go into a recession look for the price to go down.
And 2800 sq ft is about average today for new homes. Again you are trying to say what others should do in your eyes. To me the 10,000 sq ft McMansions are too much. I could afford one but think they are stupid. Many of my friends have them. We like our cozier smaller home that I designed and all my friends with the big houses come over and comment on how warm and inviting our house is. We have no 20' ceilings, etc.
It actually sounds like you are where we were 4 years ago. Driving a minivan with two preschoolers. Now that they are in elementary school the CUV is a good choice for us. Onlyu thing I miss is that it was easier to put 4x8's in the minivan.
1. For most people, including myself, most driving is urban or suburban and not hwy. That said the Tahoe's 20mpg in the city is very impressive since most crossovers and minivans cant hit that number in the city.
2. While most import crossovers are far smaller than minivans, the lambdas are not. Sure you would be giving up a ton of room if you go from van to Highlander or CX-9, not that isnt the case if you downsize to a lambda. People dont like minivans because of their styling and image and thats the way things are today.
3. Most folks that drive large vehicles are willing to live with the mileage on those vehicles and know what its going to cost them to fill up.
4. I notice that those who dont like domestic vehicles are quick to start throwing around "fanboy" to describe anyone who disagrees with them. If people here don't agree with everything you say that doesnt make them fanboys.
5. The two mode hybrid system in the Tahoe uses a large battery that is stored under the rear seat. You cannot just drop this system in a car as you suggest. You need a place to store the battery but under the seat isnt an option in a car since the fuel tank and exhaust piping are in that area. Things are not always as simple as people want them to be. Furthermore I dont see how the Toyota "we're not going to address mileage of large SUV" strategy is any better. People who dont like large vehicles have decided that saving fuel in said vehicles isn't important because in the end you dont have a 40mpg vehicle. Gas savings are gas savings, regardless of how you get them. A Tahoe that gets 50% better mileage than its gas only counterpart is indeed saving a lot of gas.
6. Since you dont think 20mpg is impressive I would assume you dont drive a V6 sedan since nearly all of them get less than 20mpg in the city and most only average 20mpg overall. My V6 only gets 17 in the city so I'm not one to criticize a Tahoe hybrid owner for driving an unimpressive vehicle.
I have a nice cozy house as well, 1950 sf built in 1940's. We use the finished side of the basement for my kids to play in (not part of the 1950 sf; no egress). Love visiting my friends in their Mcmansions and would love to own one but the practical side in me knows better. Plus I like the fact we can go out to dinner when we want to and provide for our kids.
Our minivan is paid off later this year but I'll run it to 100k miles which should be another 3 years. It serves our purpose well for now. Maybe when we replace it, I may warm up to the CUV. I do like the Freestyle and XC90. Of course the Freestyle is scheduled to disappear in 2010. Maybe the Tahoe will get 25 mpg by that time.
1) Let's be absolutely clear, the Tahoe Hybrid gets 20mpg city AND 20 mpg hwy. So I get the same mileage whether I do a 2 mile trip or 500 mile trip. I am not impressed with 20 mpg and don't consider that "green". You do. Great, just don't complain about the price of gas.
2) Again why the comparison to import crossovers? Where did they come into this topic? And why does everyone GM fanboy feel the need to bring down another product to make theirs shine? I don't understand crossovers because they are smaller then minivans and get the same gas mileage. Like I mentioned above, I gave up trying to be cool in high school. If that is what you like to drive, go for it.
3) How many of these owners do you actually talk to? I have spoken to several in teh past few months. Go over to the "Smart Shoppers" forum and see how many folk are asking for trade in values on SUVs that are less then 4-5 years old and they have a note on them. Again, I don't care if buy a large vehicle. Choice is a wonderful thing. i just don't want to hear the complaining.
4) Teh reason I call them fanboys is because everything that GM does is good and the imports are evil (plus I have been reading their posts for the past 7-8 years). Everytime they compare a GM vehicle to an import (BTW, what is an import these days?) they feel the need to degrade that car so that the GM counterpart looks better. A good car should be able to stand on its own merit. GM is finally building such cars as in the Enclave, CTS, malibu. Also they want us to forget cars like the L-series, Malibu, Ion, Grand Am, Venture, Silhouette, Relay, etc. Here are the list of cars I have owned over the years and you can decide if I am an "import lover" or not. 1989 Tempo (my first, the memories), 1991 Explorer (wife's car when we got married), 1994 Accord, 1996 Explorer, 1989 Century, 2001 malibu, 2004 Quest and 200 Intrigue. Please do not assume anything about me. If you want to know simply ask.
5) Again why did you feel the need to discuss Toyota? I know it is not a simple process to drop one technology into another vehicle. it involves engineering (I have degree in that) My comment was in regard to the fact that GM does not have a fuel efficient car and nothing to do with the Prius. I bet you knew that GM was on their way to developing the first electric car in the 90's and stopped. Why? A number of reasons I'm sure like lack of battery technology and storage issues. But I bet during one of the director's meetings they started talking about cost of developing this technology and the return on investment. Someone raised their hand (probably had thick rimmed glasses; a pocket protector and a calculator hanging out his back pocket) and said "Guys, we make $10k on each Silverado we sell and $8k on each Tahoe. Why should we invest $xx millions of dollars on this technology when we won't see a dime of profit?" BTW, spending $39k to save 4 mpg is not the smartest thing. I will keep saying, if that is what you want, then buy it. heck knock yourself out and buy two if you can afford it. Choice is a wonderful thing. Choose wisely, that's all.
6) Darn. i already told you the answer to what I drive now. There goes the suspense. 2000 Olds Intrigue (154k miles). it has a 3.5L liter "shortstar" engine. 215 "I dare you to try and beat me off the line" horses. I average 24-28 mpg each tank. I have the calculations to prove it. My commute is 35 miles each way. Speed limit varies from 25 - 55 mph. first 15 minutes is classic city driving and warming up the car (5 miles); then 22 miles of two lane roads (I've hit 65 mph on this stretch before); 8 miles of highway and 5 miles of two lane roads. If I had that "green" Tahoe, it would have cost me well over $50 (closer to $60) to fill up yesterday. Instead it cost me $41.
Again, nice to see a 5000#+ vehicle get 20 mpg. If it was 1999, I would share in your enthusiasm for this "break through". It's 2007 and gas is at a record high. None of us should be happy that 20 mpg is some magical brek through. On vacation this summer, we visited one of the caverns in Virginia. Outside the caverns they had an auto museum, sort of a history of cars (it was cute and recommend for all car nuts). In the 1920s and 1930s, they had cars capable of over 20 mpg (21 and 22 mpg but still over 20 mpg). Of course I'm assuming this is under ideal conditions and but think about this, this is the progress we have made in 70 years????? We are happy about 20 mpg!!! Sure I know the overall automobile is vastly superior esp. with regard to safety and reliability. And I understand this s 5000#. But look how little we have advance in fuel efficiency. You are impressed with 20 mpg. This is not an import or domestic spitting contest. If someone had posted this in Nissan, Honda, Ford or Chrysler forum, my posts would be near identical. 20 mpg no matter what manufacturer is not impressive to me.
I have typed this much since my final paper in college in 1989. (Imagine an engineering having to do 20 page research paper required to graduate). :sick:
I blame you Rocky!! last time I answer one of your posts!!! lol Start calling you Hoover, the way you suck people into topics.......
LOL, hey I have a tendency to do that. Now only if I can get that good in car sales I'd be rich, eh ? :P
-Rocky
Is that all? You didn't have to write a thesis?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Many universities now don't require student to write a thesis for a bachelor degree, at least my school (Georgia Tech) doesn't.
Some graduate schools now even offer non-thesis programs for a master degree. However, an independent study including a 30-to-40-page paper and presentation is required in place of the thesis.
I'm sure one of you guys have the answer !!!
-Rocky
The corvette 350 had electronic fuel injection starting in the early to mid 80's.
Outside of the corvette, I think the 350 had TBI in the early 90's. I know my grandpa had a '92 Roadmaster that had a TBI 350. I believe this is basically the same engine used in the trucks too. Not much HP, like around 180, but they did have a ton of low rpm torque.
I'm sure a '94 350 would be throttle body (TBI). I believe GM switched over to port fuel injection with the vortec 350 I believe in '96. Boosting HP a bunch with port fuel injection and the vortec heads.
January 25, 2008; Page W10, The Wall Street Journal
Which is better, a very good GM car or a mediocre one from Honda? That's the question I keep coming back to while contemplating the new Chevrolet Malibu and Honda Accord, both completely redesigned for 2008.
In a quantitative comparison the two sedans are as similar as their corporate parents aren't, with comparable prices and powertrains, features and fuel economy. But when you look beyond the specs and start analyzing the design and product planning that went into these two models, the Malibu becomes much more compelling. It represents an upward trajectory for Chevrolet, a triumph of good decision-making that stands in marked opposition to Honda's misguided new model.
But before we get into all that, let's consider what you're actually spending your money on when you drive one off the dealer lot -- other than the depreciation. Both the Malibu and Accord are marketed as midsize sedans, although the latter has actually outgrown the category. This is the first strike against the Accord, which is now considered a "large car" in the EPA classification system. Yes, right there on the same list with the big Buick Lucerne, Mercury Grand Marquis and Toyota Avalon.
While the mathematical difference between the Accord and Malibu isn't extreme, the profile they cut couldn't be more so: The taller, wider and longer Accord looks like it could swallow the Malibu whole. The design of the Honda screams for attention in the same way the first and worst Korean cars did, with a wild combination of elements including bulging headlamps, a squarish grille fit for a truck, and a crease along the car's sides that looks like the result of an accident involving a guardrail.
The Malibu, however, is rather understated. Its longer wheelbase makes the car look sleeker and lower than it really is, and by virtue of this illusion it also seems sportier than the Accord. The simple design of the Malibu is classic Chevrolet, using chamfers, smoothed edges and sparse bits of what these days passes for chrome to create a staid but attractive package.
Inside the tables are turned. The Accord plays it safe with as conventional an interior as in any car on the road. GM's designers, on the other hand, have done a bang-up job in obscuring the inferior quality of some of the Malibu's materials, primarily by using color in an optional two-tone scheme. You will realize the brilliance of GM's smoke and mirrors when you feel just how deficient the Malibu's two major touchpoints -- its steering wheel and seats -- are compared to those in the Honda.
My Malibu test car was powered by a 252-horsepower, 3.6-liter V6, while the Accord was fitted with a 268-horsepower, 3.5-liter V6 with what Honda calls Variable Cylinder Management. This technology is designed to boost fuel economy by allowing the six-cylinder engine to run on just three or four cylinders when full power isn't needed. It works almost seamlessly, but in this case, "almost" isn't good enough. During highway driving with the cruise control on I could feel a slight vibration when the engine switched from three- to four- to six-cylinder mode, which it does often, a downright maddening behavior. That the Accord managed only 22 miles per gallon during my testing, a single mile per gallon better than the Malibu, only made this all the more annoying.
Speaking of which, the Chevy's six-speed automatic transmission isn't without its own shortcomings, principally its reluctance to downshift and the rudeness with which it finally executes. At least once you coax either engine into full acceleration you'll be treated to a more-than-adequate display of power, rendering the Honda's 16 extra horses something of a moot point. As anyone who has spent much time around high-performance cars can tell you, there are limits to how much power you want to be routing through the front wheels of a family sedan.
That said, for cars likely destined for commuter duty, both handle well. The Accord has long courted the sportier part of the midsize market, eschewing the floaty, "comfortable" ride of the Toyota Camry and its ilk. Clearly GM wants the Malibu to be similarly regarded. To that end both the Accord and Malibu have suspensions that do a nice job of controlling body roll without being harsh.
The steering on the Accord has a lighter touch that will feel familiar to Honda owners, while the Malibu has enough feedback through its wheel to make you forget the decades of numb-steering GM cars that came before it. Both the Accord and Malibu have good brakes with a firm and responsive pedal feel. Without putting the pair on a race track together there's no declaring either the true handling champ, a point which comes off as a win for Chevy. After all, who has any expectation that GM could or would actually design and build a car that's as enjoyable to drive as a Honda? Not to mention one that looks better and is competitive on price.
The Accord couldn't present a more stark contrast, serving as it does as the "bedrock of the company," as Honda puts it. The Accord is the company's best seller. Indeed, the last time Honda sold as few Accords as GM sold Malibus last year was in 1978. This makes it even more impressive that the Malibu has literally come out of nowhere to challenge the best of the competition.
But then again, Honda's reputation has been slipping lately. The company has thrust a number of ill-conceived models on the public, from the ugly Element SUV to the poor-selling Ridgeline pickup truck to the now-discontinued hybrid Accord. These products all reek of too-clever marketers backed by the distortions of focus groups. You can now add the new Accord sedan to that list.
WOW...(emphasis added for my favorite parts)
The RWD sedans got the detuned Corvette engine in 1994 with tuned intake port fuel injection which got more power and better fuel economy.
The truck engines were behind the sedans.
Midsized Sedans
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That's right; Those cars had a cross-ram intake manifold, but Chevrolet called it "Cross-Fire Injection" because Chrysler Corp. held the rights to the "Ram" name.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
-Rocky
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Not if you want precise fuel to the carb for both emissions and MPG.
Agreed. There is the mechanical lag of the carb, as well as the imprecise "flushing" of the toilet.......er....accelerator pump.
I've had pretty good luck with the Q-Jet; actually took the time to learn how to properly tune one. With its small primaries and large secondaries it's a pretty good good carb. And you can get pretty decent mileage out of one as long as you stay on the primaries, continual lead-footing and of course mileage will suffer. But that is true of F.I. as well. Hell, considering Q-Jets were still in service until the 307 was retired in 1990 has to say something. Though I prefer the earlier models to the E4MCs...
I'd rather have the Q-Jet and a good dual-plane than that the Cross-Fire injection any day; those things are a night-mare. But agree as well, I like the port-injection, except for maybe the factory T.P.I.s - I'm somewhat 50/50 on those.
That's the key; once you understand how they work you realize how adaptable they are. You can fine tune the part throttle cruise mixture, optimize full throttle power, and basically map the enrichment circuit to whatever parameters you need/desire. In 1981 I toured the BMW Museum in Munich. There was an early prototype V8 engine on display. Sitting on top of the manifold was a Quadrajet, replete with a GM logo.
(FWIW, I'm not opposed to technology; the only things in my garage that have carbs are my mowers, trimmers, saws, and my Speed Triple bike.)
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That being said, my SRX's VVT northstar V8 is perhaps as good as either Corvette for performance (but not handling. With snow on the road the SRX is better by far...
-Rocky
Anyway, back to support GM..
Interior fit/finish: A whole lot better than the Venture. Panel gaps are very tight; no knit lines in the lower plastic door panels. You can see the parting line in the map pockets but the edges are not sharp, meaning the parting line is not on the leading edge, but a little into the pocket. No cut fingers. The dash grain was better, actually nice. The color combo is black dash and upper door trim panels (panels have like a gray stitching), with mahogany lament panels for the switch gear. One gripe is that the screws inside the door handle seemed not to be screw in all the way. I think this will cause an area for dirt to collect.
IP/Center stack:
I like the center stack and the layout of the switch gear. Has a more modern look, lines do flow better. They carried the mahogany lament into the radio surround, giving it a nice touch. This lament is also used in the door switch gear. It seems the cluster was lifted from the Saturn Aurq/'Bu? maybe. Not really a knock; it flows into the shape of the IP. I would have preferred a rallye / sport cluster with more gauges (volts/oil pressure) but that is subjective to me. But for basic parts chasing the standard gauge pack is ok; does have a tach.
Seating:
Removing the seats was better / easier than in the Venture; was able to load it up quite well
Driveability:
Handled the road better; suspension tighter but this may be due to the low-mileage (17.5k) versus the the other beast (85K). Considering how the other van was driven this one may end up the same, tired and loosy-goosy. It did handle the foul weather yesterday better than I expected (blowing snow and +45mph cross winds on the way back last night).
Drivetrain:
Typical Chevy V6 growl; more grrrrr than movement. But it is a mini-van? so...
Overall it was ok, showed some improvement over the previous offering but still not something I would purchase. But it is nice to seee GM can improve fit & finish when they want too. Would I buy one as a people hauler, no. But I'm not van man anyway.
Hopefully I will get into a new CTS soon to compare it to the '07 model I had seat time in. And unfortunately I haven't had the opportunity to get into another C6, but that can wait until May / June. Wouldn't want to have it out on a day like today - nasty. A couple weeks ago had a '08 PT Cruiser automatic for a day. Work gets in the way too much sometimes. :P
And then there are products under the guise of another hoop emblemb i.e. Chevy to GMC as Buick to Saturn and Pontiac to .....
I see GM dealerships that combine Pontiac, GMC and Buick all on the same lot!
Does headquarters in Detroit have VP's for all these divisions or worse yet, for each of these products? Do they have Presidents for each division?
If so, the company is mired in waste and top heavy "leadership".
My father worked 35 years for GM (retired in the early 80's), I'm guessing not much has changed with the old boys network. He brought home some pretty cool cars in the 60's - we always had the best looking driveway in the neighborhood. But the 70's came and it was all down hill. Then in the 80's the Japanese began to eat their lunch. I see GM making progress with their products, but how much fat do they have yet to cut out of management?
That is because Pontiac/GMC/Buick are becoming one "division" by design. Both Buick and Pontiac have been downsized for many reasons but what GM is doing is deliniating models from each other. Chevy will be the value leader with a full line of cars and trucks. Buick will be the mid level premium comfort line more along the lines of Lexus cars and CUV's. Pontiac will be the mid level sporty car models and GMC upscale trucks. Cadillac will be above both "divisions".
Does headquarters in Detroit have VP's for all these divisions or worse yet, for each of these products? Do they have Presidents for each division?
If so, the company is mired in waste and top heavy "leadership".
No presidents at any Marketing division anymore. There is a Chevy General Manager (Peper) who is a 2nd level unclassified which means he has 3-4 bonus level unclassifieds working for him (Marketing, Advertising, Product). The GMC/Pontiac/Buick is the same way. One guy with 3-4 under him. Cadillac the same way. All these General Managers work for a Marketing boss (LeNave) who is two steps down from Wagoner.
I see GM making progress with their products, but how much fat do they have yet to cut out of management not a lot anymore. There is still some trimming going on today but as far as salarieds it cannot get much thinner w/o some real cuts to the business. i.e. dropping divisions and even so it will not cut much unless you really cut one of the super divisions (Chev or Cad or Bu/PO/GMC)