jporter12

Are you sure you're not yerrow Pauly? I'm not hating on the VQ' date=' just not making out with it. I'm not all that fond of many of the newer American engines, either. I have a Ford Duratec partially apart (in a Mazda 6) that I'm not liking on much, either. Unfortunately, in this day and age, I doubt we see engine designs that run for several decades any more, since technology is advancing much faster. ^^^This. Along with particulate emissions restrictions. The euro's have diesels down pat (as Pauly was saying) such as VW, and Benz. Even BMW is getting further into the diesel game. Look at the Audi LeMans Prototype cars! The boy's starting to learn!

I'm just here for the sammiches.

I think one of our customers ended up with one of the cars that you had tuned, a Lesabre T-type with the L67 swap. That thing ran well! This was back before I knew who DTM was. We had done a L67 swap for the same customer in another T-type and left it "stock", then he bought this one that was already done. They were both fun cars!

The VW TDI, at least from the late 90's on is awesome! Not overly powerful, but the fuel mileage and reliability is great!

Oh yeah, there was some "interesting" stuff happening with diesel in the early to mid 80's! GM took a couple gas engines and modified them to turn them into diesels. The Olds 350 diesels, and they did it with a v-6 as well. They were not very good, really. Ok, they were junk, bad idea! GM's small truck diesel was an Isuzu engine, the Ford was a Perkins/Mazda, then later a Mitsubishi. Yup, to each their own.

Rotary's are awesome! They just don't last long. Mazda had a big problem with the first couple years of RX-8's! The last coupe years of RX-7's that were turbo'd were nice! Very smooth, high revving...

They did, S-10 and Ranger. They didn't. I'm pretty sure that the EPA regs are a big reason we don't see many small diesels.

Actually, when getting the max power out of a N/A small block for example, more power is often mafe with a carb, from some of the stuff I've seen. That's a maybe! Forced induction, at lower boost levels, such as in a stock application, is just as relaible as N/A. When done right, forced induction is pretty much the same as increasing displacement. Again I say, the problems arise when people increse boost levels too much, which raises cylinder pressures, and breaks piston ring lands. We have a WRX STI at the shop that's a victim of this, along with the turbo having come apart. Side note: I was surprised to find out that the Syclone (turbo 4.3) engines use cast pistons. I've had to replace one. Actually, I think many stock forced induction engines have cast pistons.

Not that many Subarus are turbo'd, just FYI. I agree with you about diesels though. Most all of them these days are tubo'd, and run hundreds of thousands of miles. Where turbocharging becomes less reliable is when people go cranking up the boost, without making modifications to match, from just adding fuel (properly tuning) to better pistons and other reciprocating assy parts. I have noticed that diesels seem to tolerate really high boost levels better, maybe because they turn lower rpms, or they're already "over built" anyway?

I repair them for a living. I don't run them all out, or anything, but occasionally we get some in from a local dealer (higher end cars) and they pretty much expect them to be tested out, and they have said to do so, as long as we don't abuse them! The G6 I referref to is my mother in laws, was in for brakes today.

As for newer cars, I drove a G6 today with a N/A 2.4 in it, and I was surprized at how well it pulled. I was expecting much less.

That was a bit different though, seeing how it was built! When you factor in how "driveable" it is, and fuel economy, the EFI would win. EFI is more efficient, more efficiency=more power output, up to a certain point.

Is he really worth it though?

Thank the gubment. One good thing about all the epa and cafe crap, it caused the manufacturers to go with electronic fuel injection, which I believe is where the power increases have come from. If we were still "metering" fuel through carbs, we'd still be driving powerless cars.

Yea, I was talking more about the full sized cars. Maybe they're not that much lighter, but the engines are much more powerful.

I like inline 6's, but BMW isn't what I have in mind when it comes to inline 6's. The Skylike I drove was impressive. The reliability of the big 3's inlines says a lot. GM and their 250, Ford's 300, and the good ole slant 6 from Chrysler were all very reliable for their time. Ford even kept their's around until 96, when OBD2 and a new body style killed it for pickup use. Jeep problems? Say it isn't so!!! Eh, Fiat will make those problems all go away...

Man, where have I heard that before...? :scratchhead: From Wee-Wittle-Todd?

The thing is, the full-sized cars these days are lightweight enough that a V-6 is more than enough. This, along with the major advancements in engine tech means that V-6's are much more powerful than before. Hate to tell you Tom, but your thinking is about 25 years old! Add to the power levels the increased fuel economy, and it's a good thing that there are so many V-6's on the road today. Oh, and Jeeps suck! (My opinion, of course)

It has to do with the way Windows 7 handles the communications with the phone. xda-developers is a very good resource, at least it was for the Hero, when it was more popular. It helps to have some tech knowledge, or at least know someone that does.

^^^This. I'm not going to call them junk, unreliable, or wimpy, just nothing that has impressed me.

Fixed.

Other reason for me to have mine rooted. I don't use it for this very often, but it's awesome to be able to.

I'm just not as impressed with them as I am with something that has monster torque off the line, that throws you back in the seat.

I must have my red white and blue blinders on, because I just don't see this...

Damn! Beat me to it!