ccap41

Why Especially the Germans? The Silverado/Sierra, Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade, Blazer, Trailblazer. and Coloado/Canyon all have humps in the rear floor.

I've always done 5000 mile intervals on my vehicles with full synthetic. Just yesterday I changed the oil in my MKC and, I believe, this was the lowest I've seen the oil live monitor for 5000 miles and it was at 35%. Usually it's within a couple percent of 50%, give or take. 5000 miles is just a nice round number for me to track oil change intervals. With that said, I also go a little thicker than Ford asks, because I have trust issues and a tad thicker never hurt anything. I run 5w-40 instead of 5w-30. I also used one of the Seafoam top end spray cleaners to hopefully minimize and/or clean up some of the carbon buildup on the intake valves.

This is WAAAAY beyond that though. And, again, this isn't a high revving and low torque engine. This wasn't a question of preference, it was a question of what facts do you have to prove that these will be unreliable? Turbos have become more and more common since the 80's so I cannot imagine the technology surrounding the concept of turbo charging and engine has not advanced along with the oil that lubricates them. The day this engine was finalized, it should have been put into the Colorado/Canyon. It just seemed way too perfect for this application.

You were talking about the engine being too small and needing so much boost, hence the Silverado mention. It's ironic you don't trust the technology of small boosted engines but admire other technological advances in automobiles.

But where is the proof that the list of vehicles you mentioned plus, let's add in other small boosted engines, like the ones I mentioned, that they're not being properly maintained? I don't recall you being so fearful of the Silverado 2.7T.

How do you know this? Are you in those Facebook groups or forums? Do you check various CarFaxes for ones for sale? Outside of the STi, I don't hear of any constant issues with any of the mentioned vehicles adding the Focus ST/RS, Fiesta ST, Silverado 2.7T, and Civic Type R. Yes, every vehicle has its weak point but lubricating parts is VERY rarely one of them.

So with what Drew said, with the 25% oil life and being able to hear the engine(with the turbo cars), with you saying you hear THE SAME difference in your N/A V8, why the fear for this engine? You're assuming Average Joe and Jane are buying 40-50k Corollas and using them like any other vehicle. I don't see why you think the buyers of this wouldn't follow the proper oil change intervals yet you probably think the owners of 2.7T Silverados change their oil PROMPTLY at 25% oil life(5625 miles - 7500 mile interval - 25%). Also, this was a joke, hence the "ironically" thrown in there because you're obviously into new technology, yet think a small boosted engine will fail - as if they're not utilizing the most modern of engine/turbo/oil technologies.

You know trades happen all the time in sports, right? The idea is to benefit both parties, neither one is trying to get fleeced in the transaction but to both get pieces to help themselves.

Sounds like David is, ironically, afraid of new technology and assumes it will fail.

This all got me a little curious... The 1.0 Ecoboost makes 24psi from the factory(Overseas FiST). It's a little tougher to find boost pressure for engines that are utilized across a multitude of vehicles but I believe the GM 1.4T makes 16psi.

Silverado 2.7T utilizes 22psi from the factory. Civic Type R makes 23.2psi from the factory. I also don't think it should be assumed a 60k car gets taken care of better than a 40k car. Both are geared towards enthusiasts and I don't think it's unrealistic to think both would be, generally, maintained about the same by the owners.

What's your definition of this?

This is where I see the Honda brand going downhill. I don't think it would be a good merger for the Honda name but it would probably benefit GM. Long-term, I don't think it would necessarily work well.

I would guess that being able to scale up for multiple vehicles (GM and Honda) would also help bring down some of the costs, being able to amortize across a lot more units. Regardless if a Honda or GM sells, Both get a bit of the pie. I'm not sure why this is a bad thing. Two heads are always better than one. What's funny, is that sounds exactly like something he would have said. "The customer doesn't care if X engine is in XYZ vehicle, they just want it to work right and get the from A to B".

Kind of in the same manner say, you or Balth, wouldn't be caught dead in a European car...or anything that isn't GM?

Yeah, it would be nice to still have OEMs make niche ICE vehicles XX years from now, even if the fuel prices are pretty nuts, just a nice option.

It peaks torque from 3000rpm to 5500rpm and redline is at 6500rpm. It isn't some crazy, high RPM, screaming engine. The engine in the Yaris is making 20psi and I doubt this is much off of that, and that's not some crazy boost pressure. The ATS-V and it's turbo charged engine is at 18psi from the factory.

This seems to be potentially awesome. It's quite a ways away from making it to personal vehicles but if all goes well, including the scaling up, this would be a great alternative to crude oil-based gasoline. https://www.motortrend.com/features/porsche-supercup-efuel-direct-air-carbon-capture/ "In the Magallanes region of Chile, strong williwaw winds power extreme low-pressure systems created by the meeting of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The wind power consistently available there is roughly four times greater than any place on the European continent, which is one reason the plant is in Chile and not in Europe. The project is a joint effort between HIF (Highly Innovative Fuels), Siemens Energy, ExxonMobil, and the Chilean oil and gas companies ENAP and Empresas Gasco. Once it reaches full commercial capacity in 2026, the plant will be able to produce 1 million tons of green methanol per year, of which a portion will be upconverted to 145 million gallons of gasoline. In the first year, a 3.4-megawatt Siemens Gamesa wind turbine will power a Siemens Silyzer 200 proton-exchange membrane to produce green hydrogen from water via electrolysis at 65 percent efficiency. Commercialization will up the wind power to 2.5 gigawatts (scaling up the electrolysis accordingly), and further efficiency improvements are expected within the next five years. A Global Thermostats system extracts CO2 from the air using an amine-based sorbent coating on a porous ceramic honeycomb matrix. CO2 is periodically "washed off" by low-temperature steam to yield 98 percent pure CO2. Green methanol is then formed by running the hydrogen and CO2 through a Johnson Matthey copper-zinc catalyst. Finally, the methanol is vaporized, superheated, and fed to a fluid-bed reactor where an ExxonMobil catalyst helps convert it to gasoline, with water as a byproduct. (This system seems simpler than the one in my October 2018 column.) The additives and blending required to ensure eFuel can serve as a "drop-in" replacement for crude-based gasoline lowers its carbon intensity figure to around 10, not zero. That still means burning it results in 90 percent less net carbon than standard gasoline, with identical performance properties. What does it cost? Porsche pegs the initial price at 10 euros per liter ($44.73 per gallon as of this writing!) but expects efficiencies of scale and technology to reduce that to $7.57/gallon by 2026. The automaker initially plans to run its race cars on eFuel in the Mobil 1 Porsche Supercup F1 support series but may eventually use it to fill new road cars at the factory as well as the vehicles used at Porsche Experience Centers. The eMethanol produced in the same plant might someday power the ships that deliver new Porsches. But the end game is to ensure there's a carbon-neutral fuel that can power the 70 percent of all Porsches ever built that are still on the road long after the new-car fleet is fully electrified."

I have little to no faith there will be a new DeLorean outside of maybe a few hundred built.

Not saying it's never happened but, when was the last time Toyota had issues with an engine failing consistently?

To go back to the original question, and I don't know what my original opinion was, but, I don't think competition will destroy Tesla. I believe they are very well established at this point, their sales are pretty great, they have great technology, and people love them. I believe they are too well established to fail, unless they make multiple major mistakes, which DOES happen. I also believe they will need to start to get out all-new vehicles out. I don't necessarily think they need a larger portfolio, but I think an all-new Model S should be a thing relatively shortly(1-2 years) with the rest of the lineup following suit. I don't think a truck was a bad idea but I think their design language choice for it may hold it back after the initial WOW-factor purchases.

Good lord that's an ugly automobile...

Sounds like everything else is selling quite well then... If there's a geographical area that EVs don't sell well, it would be the Midwest. You probably see way more electric vehicles than I do here. Everything is for sale, not sure what you mean by "nothing that seems available to sell."

My mistake, I missed the 2024 part of that, wasn't intentional. Also, ease up on the salt this morning... It's too early for that, lol.