loki

so this contest...@ http://sites.amd.com/us/promo/processors/Pages/fx-entry.aspx think it'll be released by sept 9th?.. that's the friday after the contest ends. makes sense?

i think the rear is very batmobile, other than the fins. basically thinking the same thing. edit: it's pretty ugly. compared to what it started as.

i would think it's one or the other... for the diesel. displacement reducing...i remember the same thing, i think. still don't think they'd only have a "5.5L" only for trucks. i could see a 5.0 and a 6.0 maybe, but they may want to keep them the same to fight ford's 5.0 and 6.2, maybe. time will tell

it'll be interesting how they tune these upcoming engines. edit. and will they perform tricks like they did for the Cruze?

oh. sorry. lol. thought you were quoting it... i know dwight made estimates elsewhere, but a 5.3 should 340 -350 hp or so the 6.2L should be at least 450hp.... could be 500 in the corvette. it does leave room for the 3.6 to slide under the 5.3. really don't know why they'd have the 6.0L still in use unless it's for the hybrids.

no displacement change is..nice..? we know the DI engine for the C7 should be out so the v8's should get that quickly. seems like 3 v8's is kind of a waste...? they need to work on their grammar "A exclusive ".

it idles at a normal 750ish rpms in gear with and w/o the a/c on.

1999 MC w/3.1L under normal operating conditions and a/c on, the engine will rev to ~1300-1400 rpm if shifted to neutral. when the engine is "cold" this does not happen. is this normal?

i can agree to that, but that can't be changed. we had the metro/civic/(others?) that are/were damn close to numbers we're getting today... 40+ highway. if the same leaps in power that were made in the 40's to the 70's could be done for efficiency since then, do you think it would be less than, or better than what we have today? back in the 60's it was predicted ~50% of our power would be nuclear by...the 80's? while that didn't happen cause of regulations(some good, lots just stupid), do you think the better designs would not have come about if we had hit that goal that was predicted?

and then we have to remember about the discussion of the weight factor.. be it safety or gadgets... that's practically mandated, even though safety will never leave the market, it's still rated and some people will be swayed by 1 more star than the competitor they were looking at. .. then the "toys" might be a factor too.... if we do make it to ~50mpg avg in ~19 years, will the discussion about why we fought something like this be remembered? will we still loath some of the designs and the lack of strong styling be our nightmare to dream of "yester-year", say, today... will today look like the 60's to us to what might be in ~20years? and there will be the limit to power/displacement and efficiency we can get out of gas. then energy policy has to be looked at...every way is met with "artificial hindrances", except technology. it doesn't produce miracles, progress is good, but it's being steered by idiots, which can end up not progress.(see camino's attiude) lol

Cafe is one of the more talked about topics here, most of us agree it's not the way to do it. dwight has shown that not hitting that bench mark isn't that huge of a problem for consumers in the current system. congrats to mazda for standing up and saying no. hopefully they can prosper even if this goes through. GM, ford, etc, saying ok, isn't this just corporatism? coercion has no place in the "free market", which we don't have anyway.

Fast forward to 2011 and only one out of six new vehicles is powered by 8-Cylinder. if trucks and such are 50% of gm, ford, and chryco, there are ~9 total "brands"? obviusly that's not right but that's the simplified math. and even that can't be right with ford's ecoboost being in high demand. i'm guessing this isn't counting diesels...?

gm's role isn't to hire people. it's to make good cars that sell for a total profit. if it takes one person that's fine, if it takes 10,000 that's fine too.

it hits 60 in first, right? must be doing to 100...?

i'm just guessing... the corrola. but it's stuck with the whimpy 1.8L and a 4speed, Still. easy progress over that when you put a hybrid engine to a .."very good" 2.4L. right?

cool, hopefully i feel the same way. i've heard it's gotten some horrid reviews, and a movie "aficionado" friend of mine saw it and hated it.

Happy birthday!

congrats!

hm. all i can say is FCC grandfathers the words F#$k and F@6607 in a few songs the play on the radio, yet i've heard gun censored in the past, shot...sure lots of others, only depending on context, for some reason, give them power to "regulate" and there will be hypocrisy.

man, i saw the headline and thought, I used to have one! haha

There is no V8 version in existence or under development. However, if there is, it will displace 4752 cc (4.8 liter), sport a compact 60 degree Vee angle and probably require a balance shaft to be refined. It'll also probably make about 420~430 hp and 365~375 lb-ft on regular 87, perhaps 20 more on 91 octane. I know, I was speculating...GM is not ambitious enough to build a modern DOHC V8. And why would be 4752cc? How can you speculate such a precise number? adding 2 cylinders to the 3.6L V6 easy peasy.

just curious, is the 3.6L really advantageous over the 2.0L turbo in the srx, taking out the tranny variable...

just post the youtube link in here, it'll auto embed it.

always thought it be fun to have something quirky like this this is.... when i win some money.

Happy birthday!