loki

use an updated 2mode-6speed with the 5.3L? or if the 2mode is astonishing, just put a mule out with the 4.3L hahahhaa....turbo.

what is classified as very decent? city / hwy...

what will the gas options be? 2.5L and the 4.3? eh. yay options!!!!

haspy berfday!

dfelt, in GM engines, most of the last~5 year old engines and newer get higher power out of e-85. look at the ecotec3 v6 and v8... also seen is a a couple to ~10 hp/lbft in the 4cyl ecotecs... not trying to be a dick, just showing you that the ratings with e-85 aren't lower. but i'd say you're right with engines not programed to know the difference and alter it's fuel map, i assume

but, but.... a V8?! cummins doesn't make V8's!!!!! hehe

It began as a mandate, pushed by subsidies, with engines that can't utilize it properly. Also, the price difference of it and 'gas' wasn't enough to make it a clear choice.

that's awesome Dwight. guessing "about 280 lb-ft @ 6000 rpm 280 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm", 280@6K is HP though. may not be high reving horsepower, but if it's more civil idling and low rpm torque (like the 3.8 is famous/infamous for)...using good transmissions would pay dividends for this engine, more so than the LFX. seems like why some others on here loved the high-value engines, just hated they didn't get life with a 6speed auto behind it to show they could.... live with the competition just fine power and MPG wise...and while being smaller/lighter than the competition too. i've not driven the 3.5L or 3.9L more than once, and that's been awhile. your technical insight is always an interest to me.

actually... perhaps 'derate' the 3.6 torque peak to 4K and the more normal 5.2K and.. would you lose more than 5% ft/lbs or hp? if this is easy to calculate, to more directly compare to the 3.1 3.4 and 3.8 generation

i'd rock that 3.6L as a daily driver if offered. be a great smaller truck engine(if the 4.3L wasn't used) remember this? 2009–2012 3.7 L (223 cu in) LLR I5 242 hp (180 kW) @ 5600 RPM 242 lb·ft (328 N·m) @ 4600 RPM[ slap a 6-8 speed behind it. Dwight, because of weight/size i'm guessing a possible extra mpg above the LFX could happen in something like the impala? do you think your 2.0L would replace the 1.8L in the cruze and such?

what did the fiero's have stock in HP? 150? would the ecotec3 5.3L be too much? lol ..but perhaps this is for another topic.

no safety inspections here in IL. $100 per year for plates. In MO, you can get 1or 2 year plates but there is an inspection done (at a shop of your choice) every time you renew. no emmisions tests. working lights should be a basic test to pass or fail a car meant for driving to be licensed.

fair or free trade can't happen in the monetary climate we have.. anyone hear the NPR news (couple weks ago) about how Abe(japan) was inflating the yen and was causing toyota to have that 90+% increase in profits? if you want honest trade, start looking at the money(replacements) you use everyday.

i agree with reg. generally. are young people... under 25? as in maybe just out of college, maybe not a great amount of work experience, and trying to pay off other things they can't live w/o and "can't live w/o"....

still rockin the 99MC. slowly the clear is ripping off the hood, and primer spots else where are enlarging.

i'd recommend polk, been using them in my MC for several years. have you used crutchfield to look at options and what fits in your truck? my polks are driven by a pioneer from...07'? prolly older than that, idk. on a volume scale of 0 to 62, can belt out quite clean music from before the 00's rage of minimizing dynamic range...like queen, foreigner, cars,...up to about 55 volume. modern songs can come in at 45 pretty well sometimes. out of 5 1/4" and 6 1/2' speakers. my dad has a 91 silv(c1500) ext cab. and i'd recommend perhaps concentrating on the door speakers being the ~6 1/2 inch i think, and if you want a sub, get a good 8, maybe 10 at most cause the cab isn't huge. h/u wise, i'm just familiar with pioneer, though their cea 2000or is it 2006...? standards for RMS power, kill pioneer's internal amp rating from ..22 to 14, i think. some other manufacturers have thier's up to 18 i think. more watts = clearer music, or louder...... takes a quality product(speaker) to do both well. hope this info is a good place to start.

i'd guess it's gasoline refinery inconsistancies played a part...?

basically. aren't there millions of 3.8's, 2.8, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.9's out there? sadly fwd, but if these can get nearly a 50% increase in hp (based on the 4.3L increase). but it's just a dream. why get a 4cylinder if a 3.0L v6 with 210+ hp and 200+lb feet.. and w/o advancing VVL for 4 cylinder's like dwight showed, ... i still think v6's are in demand, but are just being marginalized to 'sport models'.

i kinda wish gm would make a small to mid 3L v6 with the gen 5 tech. could make it a retrofit for the high value engines. max ~250 hp and decent boost in economy.... but i'm sure the hp overlap and small market would kill this idea. boo hoo.. haha

should improve light load MPG slighty, right?

Thanks! got something i didn't expect, ... went to see monsters U with family and a friend, and had logan's for supper. iz ghewd!

no doubt it's a great car, but w/i ~10% of a vette w/o a v8? are they trying to limit the crowd for these new, when they obviously should have the most markup to see what the public wants anyway?

the rx350h? or is that not awd?

Dwight, i found it. Base 4.3-liter V-6 rated 285 horsepower at 5,300 rpm, 297 pounds-feet of torque at 5,300 rpm (297 hp, 330 lbs.-ft. using E85 fuel). Optional 5.3-liter V-8 rated 355 hp at 5,600 rpm, 383 lbs.-ft. at 5,600 rpm (380 hp, 416 lbs.-ft. on E85). will the lt1 have an e-85 rating of ~490hp.....for track performance fun?

not using an lt1 at that price is not surprising cause of it's newness, but also a bad move... wasn't the first 2 years of the GTO using the ls1 when the ls3 ls2 just came out?