advertisement
Forums

The Forum is sponsored by 
 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the Tips and Deals forum
Buick GNX
Posted by: SteveJobs
Date: December 27, 2006 09:01PM
[www.autoblog.com]





******************************

******************************
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: BigGuynRusty
Date: December 27, 2006 09:06PM
Too Late.

BGnR



"Good heavens, Miss Sakamoto! You're beautiful!"
"If we dig precious things from the land, we will invite disaster."
"Near the day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky."
"A container of ashes might one day be thrown from the sky, which could burn the land and boil the oceans."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: December 27, 2006 09:12PM
Quote
BigGuynRusty
Too Late.

Ooch! <winces>
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: Don Kiyoti
Date: December 27, 2006 09:19PM
GM will never, ever get it right. In what fantasy world are they living?





[picasaweb.google.com] [www.flickr.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: Grumpyguy
Date: December 27, 2006 09:36PM
GM gets a lot of things right. But this isn't one of them. It looks like the back end of the last generation Cavalier. How about one of the those Cavaliers souped up with a raspberry sounding exhaust.



Bryan
______________________________________________________
Mac Studio 2022
MacBook Pro 14 inch 2021
iPhone XR
Location: Cincinnati
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: threeprong
Date: December 27, 2006 09:52PM
Turn arounds have to start somewhere.

This looks like an ideal start.

ANY company can turn around as long as they start making all the correct decisions and keep doing so.

Unfortunately, most concept cars get vanilla'ed down so they end up mere shadows of the original creative idea. I'm sure there's another Carroll Shelby coming, but he (or she) may only be in their teens right now.

Until then....
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: Racer X
Date: December 27, 2006 10:01PM
What they really should do is a high-boost supercharged 3.8 V6 (or go back to a turbo car). It could easily have the same power, but be several hundred pounds lighter in the nose, and handle far better than the Camaro. There are about half a dozen of us here that know that a Buick 6 can spank most V8s with just a little work. Shoot, the 20th An edition of the Pontiac Trans Am had a turbo Buick 6 under the hood.

There was a lot of interest for the Holden GTO, but they priced it too high, and added too many unwanted options. No real way to get a stripped down one at a reasonable price. Buicks traditionally haven't had a stripped option since the '60s. I actually have one, so I know they exist. The last real budget hotrod was the LX option on the old Fox-body Mustangs. Order the GT H.O. engine, in an LX model. Weighed several hundred pounds less just from ommiting the GT body kit alone.

GM really needs to put together a bunch of focus groups of 25-55 year olds that make 40K on up a year, and ignore everyone else. That is such a huge market.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: Filliam H. Muffman
Date: December 27, 2006 10:01PM
It looks like they are trying to find a "hit" by aiming at the target with a shotgun loaded with crap. They have the Cobalt SS, Corvette Z06, Grand Prix GXP, GTO, Impala SS, Malibu SS, Monte Carlo SS, Sky Redline, and the Corvette is the only one with any reputation of performance with decent reliability.



In tha 360. MRF User Map
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: Racer X
Date: December 27, 2006 10:06PM
They just need to go back to overengineering their cars and trucks. Putting a transmission rated for 200 horsepower and 250 lb/ft of torque behind an engine that actually puts out those numbers is asking for trouble. The reason a GM Turbo 400 or 4L80E is so damn bulletproof is that they are rated for about 800 lb/ft of torque.

Anyone remember the downsized Turbo 200 metric transmissions GM put behind V8s in the late 70's? Possibly the biggest silent recall in GM's history. They extended the warranty on them for the life of the car I believe.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: Grateful11
Date: December 27, 2006 10:17PM
Yeah that'll save them.



Grateful11
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: spearmint
Date: December 27, 2006 10:17PM
Forget turbo and1,2,3 go. Supercharge! On demand zoom.




Da Good Life
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: Rick-o
Date: December 27, 2006 10:23PM
Quote
Racer X
What they really should do is a high-boost supercharged 3.8 V6 (or go back to a turbo car). It could easily have the same power, but be several hundred pounds lighter in the nose, and handle far better than the Camaro. There are about half a dozen of us here that know that a Buick 6 can spank most V8s with just a little work. Shoot, the 20th An edition of the Pontiac Trans Am had a turbo Buick 6 under the hood.

Amen, Racer, Amen. We're STILL cranking out those 3.8's at the Buick Powertrain facility here in Flint, MI.

It's a rock solid motor with plenty of punch, and it's quite durable.

We'll be building them for a couple more years, then GM will shut us down. Oh well, I'm close to retirement anyhoo...



Mr. Lahey: A lot of people, don’t know how to drink. They drink against the grain of the liquor. And when you drink against the grain of the liquor? You lose.

Randy: What the @#$%& are you talking about?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: Racer X
Date: December 27, 2006 10:47PM
2nd oldest engine family (at least domesticly) Chevy SB, Buick SB/V6 then the Ford small block. And the old-school ford smallblock is no more AFAIK.

With today's turbo technology and control software/hardware, a turbo may be a better option. But both would give the hp/torque numbers to make it a screamer. The turbo would probably give better fuel economy if you keep your foot out of it. I know of a number of people with the old T-Types or GNs that got in the high 20s on the freeway, and that was with a 4-speed auto and only 1 overdrive gear. The newer 6 speeds with a double overdrive could probably get low 30s. My 99 Sable barely gets 25, and that is in overdrive and cruise on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2006 10:51PM by Racer X.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: Speedy
Date: December 27, 2006 11:01PM
High MPG Diesel hybrid. 60+ MPG. They'll sell like hot cakes.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: BigGuynRusty
Date: December 27, 2006 11:10PM
Quote
Racer X
Anyone remember the downsized Turbo 200 metric transmissions GM put behind V8s in the late 70's? Possibly the biggest silent recall in GM's history. They extended the warranty on them for the life of the car I believe.

OMFG!! The T200 was the worst of the wors, Made until the mid 1980's. Stamped (yes stamped) sheetmetal gears, not machined out of steel. If you lived in a cold area, and the car was in high idle and you put it in reverse or drive, it would puke it's guts out. The T200 was used behind the 350 V8 in the Z28 Camaro. Lots, and lots of warranty $$$$ went into that chunk of crap.
Major GM problrms.:
No corporate rear drive platform.
No corporate high performance engine.
No corporate high performance look.

I love the TurboV6 idea, but too expensive for a corporate hiperf engine.
They need something like the Hemi, which is cheap to make at the first tier 5.7L engine, and still plenty strong at 345 hp and 375 lb.-ft of torque You can step up to the SRT 6.1L giant killer, at 425 hp and 420 lb.-ft of torque.
Mopar left tons of power on the table, and is super reliable.
Also, GM has got to make an aggressive looking vehicle, I know a car is done right when a girl says, "That car/truck looks too mean!". The new GTO was a complete failure because it looked like it was designed by a 10 year-old barbie collector. A V8 with single exhaust, and daisy wheels is not a way to impress muscle car guys, or girls! Also, ot looked exactly like a fat Chevy Cavalier.

BGnR



"Good heavens, Miss Sakamoto! You're beautiful!"
"If we dig precious things from the land, we will invite disaster."
"Near the day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky."
"A container of ashes might one day be thrown from the sky, which could burn the land and boil the oceans."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: jdc
Date: December 27, 2006 11:13PM
Quote
BigGuynRusty
Too Late.

BGnR

pfft, too ugly

looks like a nissan 240





Edited 999 time(s). Last edit at 12:08PM by jdc.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: Racer X
Date: December 27, 2006 11:35PM
Daisy wheels? They have left over polycast snowlake wheels from the Trans Ams?



hey, Edelbrock is now making aluminum Buick 455 Performer RPM heads (now there are at least 3 suppliers for aftermarket new heads) and new, beefier 455 blocks are being cast. Maybe an aluminum 7.4 liter 'Vetter eater/hemi killer? That 6 speed overdrive slushbox might even last until the warranty is up.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2006 11:38PM by Racer X.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: BigGuynRusty
Date: December 27, 2006 11:40PM
Quote
Racer X
Daisy wheels? They have left over polycast snowlake wheels from the Trans Ams?


Those are more masculine then the GTO Daisy Cutters,
This is the focus groups that GM is listening too.:
[www.ifilm.com]

BGnR



"Good heavens, Miss Sakamoto! You're beautiful!"
"If we dig precious things from the land, we will invite disaster."
"Near the day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky."
"A container of ashes might one day be thrown from the sky, which could burn the land and boil the oceans."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: Racer X
Date: December 27, 2006 11:44PM
You just know that the big blue guy wanted to get the heck out of there and bang a plushie.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: deckeda
Date: December 27, 2006 11:48PM
Making available engines with power was never a real problem for GM. Having a good car to put them in has been for many years.

Every so often we get glimpses of competitive cars like the Solstace/Sky. But then again how many people buy two-seaters? No matter how good those twins may be, they could never "save" GM. Same thing with Corvette, the upcoming Camaro or a possible "GNX". The masses don't buy those.

The big 3 still don't have cars that can compete in sophistication with the Camry or Accord. You gotta walk before you can run.

Or maybe GM still thinks that a performance model will lure us into the dealership where upon we'll happily buy a Lucerne instead. That's exactly the old-school marketing that got them where they are today.

I will always have some lust for an '80s GN and other musclecars old and new, but then as now, it takes more than black paint and a big motor to get me to buy.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: Racer X
Date: December 28, 2006 12:00AM
They need to build something spunky yet dependable.

I have a '99 sable with the 4 valve engine. That extra 55 horses make a world of difference. The problem is, they give people a bigger or more powerful engine, and then load the car or minivan down with 500 lbs of options, that add maybe 30% more parts to a vehicle. And those extra parts are the things that break. People don't break connecting rods, or crack intake manifolds. Its the little things that piss us off.

You know why the remote mirrors on my '71 Buick still work? No motors. basic control cables, and they frickin' work. And they weigh about 2 pounds each, including cables. Can't have power seats crap out if you don't have them. Sure they are nice, but they add maybe 150-200 pounds a pair. And lets face it, how often do you really reconfigure your seats? My power door locks are switches and solenoids added to the standard door latch mechanism. even is the plain and simple design failed, you can still pull up on the knob. In my wife's Topaz, they have a screw actuator. When that craps out, you need to use the interior or exterior handles, and fight against the mechanism. I had a Tempo with normal locks. Completly different mechanism. Dirt simple. Yet the option was completely different and needlessly complicated.


Anyone remember when the Viper came out? It was so refreshing. You looked at the dash and saw what needed to be there, and nothing more. You opened the hood, and saw an engine, and nothing that didn't need to be there. The fact that you could see all of the engine was a miracle. But Carol Shelby was in charge of that, and it was built by one person with vision, and not a commitee of accountants.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: deckeda
Date: December 28, 2006 12:13AM
I think what GM, if it truly wanted to play the game, would have to be willing to do what for example Honda does:

1) Design and build good stuff.
2) Be willing --- no, expect --- to throw a big portion of it away every 4-6 years and start over. Toss "perfectly good" designs away all in the name of getting something to market even better .

When GM gets something that works well, they hang onto it like the Holy Grail. Meanwhile, the rest of the world has moved beyond tilt steering wheels that have big clunky detents, for example. GM doesn't "sweat the details", as their old ads used to say. They hope you don't notice them and focus instead on the SS badge or whatever heritage they can ride on.

I just sold my '91 Accord SE. In that year, an SE was a fairly loaded car by default. And yet, with 250,xxx miles, everything --- even the small stuff --- still worked. It's not necessarily the extensive use of extra parts and features, but how they're designed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2006 12:16AM by deckeda.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: Racer X
Date: December 28, 2006 12:30AM
True. of the 4 Tempo/Topaz models we have had/have, 3 suffered the exact same turn signal switch breakage. And I have seen quite a few more that way in wrecking yards. They spanned at least a 6 year stretch that I have had personal experience with.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: mikebw
Date: December 28, 2006 12:35AM
The front end takes after the newer BMW coupes. Much to debate about when it comes to why certain manufacturers just don't seem to get things right. I agree about the engine to crap-accessory ratio though. You just can't seem to get a decently powered engine in a factory-stock car without being forced into a ton of extras that just go to negate the power you're really looking for in the first place. Of course, the manufacturer is probably looking to maintain some kind of hp/weight ratio, so in their mind the extras necessitate the larger engine.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: jdc
Date: December 28, 2006 12:39AM
i wasnt kidding about the 240sx, btw







Edited 999 time(s). Last edit at 12:08PM by jdc.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2006 12:40AM by jdc.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: spearmint
Date: December 28, 2006 12:43AM
Supercharge not Turbo. Right now not delay. Buick has it right. Great Cars.




Da Good Life
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: Racer X
Date: December 28, 2006 01:23AM
If a car has turbo lag, the engine and turbo system weren't designed properly.

I can go into specifics, but it really isn't necessary.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: spearmint
Date: December 28, 2006 04:32AM
By design a turbo has to lag. Superchargers are always "on."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2006 04:34AM by spearmint.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: SteveJobs
Date: December 28, 2006 06:17AM
Have any of you driven the Cobalt SS Supercharged?
Fun little car.



******************************

******************************
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: BigGuynRusty
Date: December 28, 2006 08:42AM
The new Turbochargers have no lag, they also are free horsepower, unlike Superchargers which have tons of parasitic drag, about 20%.
Do some research Spearmint.
Still thinking Turbo Lag?
Here is an article about STS Turbo, a Rear Mounted Turbo!!!
[www.popularhotrodding.com]

Turbo lag is from the ancient times, before fuel injection, wastegates, and computer control.

BGnR



"Good heavens, Miss Sakamoto! You're beautiful!"
"If we dig precious things from the land, we will invite disaster."
"Near the day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky."
"A container of ashes might one day be thrown from the sky, which could burn the land and boil the oceans."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: December 28, 2006 08:47AM
My turbo-drivin' experience is limited to a Subaru, which appeared to have no lag whatsoever. Just power at will. :-)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: deckeda
Date: December 28, 2006 09:53AM
'Mint isn't wrong here.

Modern cars have minimal turbo lag mainly because the turbos are smaller and so spin up sooner and faster. But you'll never completely eliminate lag and get truly instantaneous response unless the turbo is designed to always be making contributory boost --- like a supercharger has to.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: December 28, 2006 10:33AM
Quote
BigGuynRusty
The new Turbochargers have no lag, they also are free horsepower

How I wish they were free. :-)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: Pat
Date: December 28, 2006 10:48AM
Twins, staged and variable vane turbos reduce lag, but do not eliminate it. Can't spool up without exhaust flow.

While there are systems that virtually eliminate lag, exhaust combustion being one, none are practical for everyday use, yet. At least that I know of.

And they are not horsepower free. All an engine is, is a pump. Any restriction in the intake or exhaust, takes power to overcome.

Racer X, are you saying that Navistar, @#$%&, Caterpillar, Daimler, etc have all designed their engines/turbos wrong? Hard to get a single turbo to perform throughout the RPM/load range. Especially when you also have to design around emissions. This is one of the reasons we'll see staged turbos this January in the International powered Ford pickups. Quicker response, without losing any of the meat for highway cruising. Also helps with emissions by providing boost at low RPMs/load. No more fuel dumping black clouds.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: BigGuynRusty
Date: December 28, 2006 10:50AM
Quote
deckeda
'Mint isn't wrong here.

Modern cars have minimal turbo lag mainly because the turbos are smaller and so spin up sooner and faster. But you'll never completely eliminate lag and get truly instantaneous response unless the turbo is designed to always be making contributory boost --- like a supercharger has to.

Turbo lag was caused by folks who didn't know what they were doing. It is a thing of the past since at least 1990, the Eclipse GSX proved that with its TC 4 cylinder and AWD, it was a beast. Along with its stable mates the Plymouth Laser, and Eagle Talon they were bad news for about anything on wheels. Really easy to pump these cars up to 600+ street horsepower, and all of it put to the ground!

A properly sized turbo can achieve its maximum boost setting at almost any rpm you desire, on a 6000rpm motor, this can be as low as about 2500rpm.

A supercharger on the other hand relies on engine rpm to come up to speed, so maximum boost wont 'come on' until higher rpm. If you buy a supercharger marketed as an 8psi kit, that generally is the maximum boost on a stock engine. But due to it exponential nature, boost will quickly drop with rpm. If your kit makes 8 psi at 6000 rpm, it will generally make less than 2.5 psi at 3000rpm.

Performance Differences
So far we have seen that due to the nature of the centrifugal compressor design, a turbo will reach its target boost level much quicker than a belt driven supercharger. Are there any other differences?

It takes power to pump (compress) a large volume of air (700+cfm). The supercharger's power is derived directly from the crank shaft, where as a turbo's power comes from energy contained in the exhaust gasses. On a typical 8 psi supercharger, the power used can be in the neighborhood of 40-60hp! On a 1500hp engine, the power used by the supercharger can be as much as 300hp! This would leave only 1200hp to accelerate the car.

So what does this all mean? Basically an 8 psi turbo kit will produce more peak power due to the fact that a supercharger is using a fairly large amount of power just to get it spinning. What is more important for a street car is 'power under the curve' meaning the average horsepower produced. This is where the turbo really shines since you can have full boost at as little as 2500 rpm! This will make the turbo car feel like it has 50% more cubic inches (or more). The difference in torque at low rpm's can be as much as 100 lb ft in favor of the turbo due to the additional available boost.
Having run a Supercharged car for two years, I'll take a Turbo car instead.

BGnR



"Good heavens, Miss Sakamoto! You're beautiful!"
"If we dig precious things from the land, we will invite disaster."
"Near the day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky."
"A container of ashes might one day be thrown from the sky, which could burn the land and boil the oceans."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: Filliam H. Muffman
Date: December 28, 2006 12:45PM
I see the problem with a supercharger is that it is ALWAYS a parasitic load on the engine, even when you are cranking it over to start it. A well designed turbo system generally has about half the parasitic load on the engine while on cruise control on the freeway compared to a supercharger. The net result is that you almost always get much better mileage with a turbo than a supercharger.

The biggest positive I see to a supercharger is that it is much easier to put a poorly designed system on any car and get an increase in power. A poorly designed turbo can result in lower power output.



In tha 360. MRF User Map
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: SteveJobs
Date: December 28, 2006 12:52PM
Just super/turbo/nitrous your engine....that's all you need!



******************************

******************************
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: deckeda
Date: December 28, 2006 01:43PM
Turbo cars are two seconds of utter disappointment off-idle (assuming you aren't doing a hole shot or dropping the clutch) followed by a huge grin on your face.

Turbo cars cruising up at a constant speed are one half heartbeat of disappointment followed by a strong rush of power.

Note that in both cases you have turbo lag, just not as much to make most people care or even notice.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: voodoopenguin
Date: December 28, 2006 01:54PM
My present car has a turbo, in fact it has two. It is also 15 years old and I can assure you there is no lag at all. Put your foot down and it just goes whether it's just pootling or doing 70mph. I do know what turbo lag is having driven some earlier turbo cars and the occasional newer one but having a turbo does not automatically mean having any more lag than a non-turbo car.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: December 28, 2006 02:11PM
<adds "pootling" to vocabulary>
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: deckeda
Date: December 28, 2006 02:45PM
Due to a turbo's dependence on exhaust first happening, it's a physical impossibility for there to be zero lag, somewhere, sometime. How much and for how long (i.e. is it noticeable or objectionable) are other discussions I haven't been referring to at all.

voodoopenguin, you're stating that unnoticeable lag = no lag. In a practical or acceptable sense, OK.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: voodoopenguin
Date: December 28, 2006 03:09PM
Quote
deckeda
voodoopenguin, you're stating that unnoticeable lag = no lag. In a practical or acceptable sense, OK.

You are correct of course. I probably should have made it clearer. I suppose what I was trying to say was that with my experience of many, many vehicles over my 40 years of driving I have known lag from both turbo and non-turbo cars and with that experience I can say that my present 'fun' car, despite being 15 years old, so not the latest technology, has probably the least lag I have known. I realise that the turbos will take a finite amount of time to do their stuff but it doesn't seem any more than in most other non-turbo cars.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: voodoopenguin
Date: December 28, 2006 03:13PM
Quote
Greg the dogsitter
<adds "pootling" to vocabulary>

It's a good one.

Verb: pootle
Usage: Brit
1. Move in a leisurely unhurried way
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: Racer X
Date: December 28, 2006 03:29PM
Quote
deckeda
Turbo cars are two seconds of utter disappointment off-idle (assuming you aren't doing a hole shot or dropping the clutch) followed by a huge grin on your face.

Turbo cars cruising up at a constant speed are one half heartbeat of disappointment followed by a strong rush of power.

Note that in both cases you have turbo lag, just not as much to make most people care or even notice.

You need to come to Bowling Green KY, and Beach Bend Raceway in May when the Buick Gran Sport Club has their national meet. Those guys most certainly do not have 2 seconds of dissapointment when the T-types, GNs and GNXs launch. Many are essentially stock cars heavily tweaked and tuned, and they turn high twelves easy. And these are 20 year old cars just tuned far more precisely than the factory ever did.

The problem is that the auto manufacturers have to make a car that appeals to a really broad market, and grandma taling her precious grankids to the park wants a totally different "feel" to her Regal than I do.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: deckeda
Date: December 28, 2006 04:12PM
Quote
Racer X
Those guys most certainly do not have 2 seconds of dissapointment when the T-types, GNs and GNXs launch.

Remember, I said assuming you aren't doing a hole shot. Can't imagine those guys would let the car sit at idle, foot off the gas while lined up at the Christmas tree.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: Racer X
Date: December 28, 2006 04:38PM
some do (or did, the time I was there) A number of people have retrofitted 2 smaller turbos with either ceramic or titanium turbo wheels. That alone makes a huge difference.

And Pat, heavy duty diesel plants in trucks are a whole different scenario. I have 2 friends who are diesel mechanics, and a 3rd who was a diesel genset mechanic, and now manages several power generating plants for the local utility (PSE)

As a matter of fact, next winter's garage project is taking a huge turbo unit from a big cat and, with the help of the other 2 aerospace engineer buddies, build a turbine engine.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: SteveO
Date: December 29, 2006 09:49AM
Interesting thread and great discussion. Let's be sure everyone knows that GNX above is not designed by Buick but by a hot rod magazine as the article states, so before (or after) everyone gets all up in GM's stuff, uh, it's not THEIR doing.

I do agree with the opinions of many that GM lags vs. the competition in creating for lack of a better term, a family vehicle that people want. Their mini-vans suck out loud. And I am as perennially disappointed as the next guy when I see some of the stuff they [keep] churn[ing] out.

But really, guys, let's go ahead and give credit where it's due: the new Saturn Aura (and it's forthcoming sister, the Malibu) is getting decent reviews for all that it offers: styling (though a tad disappointing on the inside), mpg, etc. Yeah, it's an Opel. Opel is still GM, and that's okay. It works and people like it. About time GM woke up and brought it across the pond. What I'm looking forward to are more Holden vehicles (and styling) to be brought over as well. The new GTO should never have been called that imho; the Yak as in, "I want to yak all over the styling of this car" would have been a better moniker. But Holden does have a sedan that is just gorgeous and fast but unfortunately it gets horrific mpg IIRC. Perhaps this can be remedied in a US version.

GM's trucks and SUVs also have not great but overall decent styling and utility. They do trucks well, everyone knows that. Selling gas guzzlers is another matter; hopefully we'll see some mpg improvements trickle down in the near future, though.

By all accounts, the Soltice/Sky (esp. the performance versions) are hits despite being churned out in record time. (Yeah, the Solstice is a retread of an old concept car, but again, it works for the price on mostly off-the-shelf parts, so give credit.) Now if they could just revamp all their sedans...

Point being they ARE making progress. Incremental, yes, but these new vehicles are all steps in the right direction. As a serial Japanese import owner, I'm no General petter — I've never even owned a GM car. But as an auto aficionado I have to give them points for some solid effort and mostly solid execution.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/29/2006 10:03AM by SteveO.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: SteveO
Date: December 29, 2006 09:54AM
>The last real budget hotrod was the LX option on the old Fox-body Mustangs.

Yeah, baby. Look out! One of my favorite 'Stangs.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Buick GNX
Posted by: SteveJobs
Date: December 29, 2006 01:28PM
I liked the GMC Syclone.



******************************

******************************
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 59
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020