Drew Dowdell

I'd put a candle on it... but I'm afraid of it catching on fire. :P :P :AH-HA_wink:

VW's VR series and W series.

was?? kidding.... :P

Good Morning kids! It's time for Sodomy with Satty!

fixed

I put this together from clips of a 30 minute review of the CTS. I was nearly done when Photoshop decided it's not registered on my system... so the final frame says STS rather then CTS.... but you get the idea. Fixed Link Opinions? Edit: Bah at yahoo hosting! Fixed it by switching to comcast.

I don't notice the less rich feel of the dash in my CTS compaired to a 525 because I'm usually busy watching the 525 get smaller in my rear-view mirror.

I would think that it might actually help Lambda.

See if Toyota is hiring... maybe they can "manage" there....

Too easy. What else does this "manufacturer" produce in small volumes today?

This is what I think of when I hear Eldorado:

Hey Motortrend! Why buy and Acura TL when you can get a RWD CTS for the same dough?

You're on. I've long though I had enough knack for writing automotive advertising, that I could have saved Oldsmobile if I were old enough.

"The world once trembled at the sound of our engines. Well they will tremble again at the sound of our silence. Introducing the new 2006 Buick Lucerne with Quiet Tuning. Buick - Beyond Precision" with apologies to Tom Clancy

There... I said it.

It's a Freestar mated with a Quest.

The Trabant

It does downshift.... it downshifts out of not in to overdrive.

Then a 91, yes.... by 94 they got pretty good. Top of the line models especially. I had the 4 bucket seats in mine. Most comfortable and supportive seats I've been in. Edit: Chrysler has to beat my '94... not at '91

It was my understanding that both the 3.6 and 2.8 were designed from the get go to accept a turbo. Thusly the naturally aspirated ones are a little over built, but GM can just throw a turbo on without any hassle.

I have driven all those engines. 1. Stratus rental car with an I4 while my Cutlass was at the dealer. 2. Multiple Sebring convertibles with the 2.7, including the one which died on me on the Florida Turnpike while at a 75mph cruise.... the car had about 3,000 miles on it, I picked it up with 2100 miles on it. 3. A 300 with a 2.7. 4. A 300 with a 3.5. 5. A company Jeep with the 4.0 began leaking around 12,000 miles. 6. Observations of the neighbor's Jeep which leaks oil all over the pavement in front of my house. It's a 98ish Wrangler with the 4.0, but I can't remember it not leaking. The Stratus was a fairly beat to hell rental. I'm perfectly willing to admit that perhaps I didn't give it a fair shake, but there has yet to be a Chrysler I4 that has changed my mind. My opinions of the 2.7 are based on just the Sebring Convertible and the 300. I don't know what it would be like in a lighter car, but both of those are just too much car for that engine. Sure it puts out respectible numbers for it's size, but it is just not enough engine for those cars. The 3.5 I found to be nothing great. I picked up this rental with 250 miles on the clock. It's got the punch and the power, but it seemed to be on par with a S/C 3800 in terms of refinement. I'm not a 3800 hater, but I do believe it has served it's company well and now needs to retire. Two co-workers blew the 3.5s in their Intrepids in 2005. I have no problems with the performance of the 4.0. It does an ok job at what it's ment to do. It's not a sports car engine, and don't I expect it to perform like one. What I have a problem with is the big oil stains in front of my house that make it look like the Valdez crashed on my curb. Frankly, I'd love to be a Chrysler fan. I love the looks of the 300C from the outside. I hate the ergonomics of the inside. The cruise control location alone gives me pause at the rental car place. I'd love to love the Sebring convertible. Few days go by where I don't miss my Cutlass Convertible 2+2. The 3.4 DOHC had punch. Chirping the tires in 2nd was very easy. It was a big, comfortable, convertible with balls. The Sebring isn't as roomy, doesn't have as much trunk space, doesn't have as much engine, and has about the same quality interior..... yet the Cutlass came out in 1991. When Chrysler can meet/beat a 1994 Oldsmobile convertible in terms of performance, interior space, trunk space, and interior design... GM will lose a customer, because I'll be trading my CTS in on that. So yeah... no speculation here.

It's probably the gearing. Like I said, 1-4th feel great in the CTS, it's 5th and 6th that are the issue. BTW, the Saab 9-3 now has the 2.8 as well.... or is that the turbo version?

Complete wrong. Overdrive means that in the top gear <top two for 6-speeds>, the engine is turning at a slower RPM then the drive shaft. For example, for every .90 turns of the crankshaft the driveshaft makes one full turn. Generally, this is for cruising and the engine is near the lowest point on it's powerband. This is how the Corvette acheives 28mpg at 60 because it loafs along at 1700rpm in 6th. To pass a person, the transmission or driver must shift out of overdrive to bring the engine back into the heart of it's powerband. This is where you get your acceleration. That the Ford 500 hunts for gears is troublesome to me. Is this the same 6-speed GM intends to use? I know GM and Ford were supposed to have a partnership on a 6-speed. I always hated how the Sable would hunt for gears when I would borrow my ex-BF's mother's car.

What are they replacing it with? The killer of that 200hp 188ft/lbs torque is that you have to spin the engine to 5800rpm and 4850rpm respectively to get that. With the 3800 you got 225 ft/lbs at 4,000 RPM, and a substantial amount of that was available at 2000 rpm. Don't compair HP per litre. It isn't a convincing argument.... unless you're another one of those that wants to dump the S2000 engine into an LX car. :rolleyes:

overdrive.... not overdrives