OT, I think this new camaro actually looks pretty slick

[Bill R.]

Here (http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060109/FREE/60109006/1057)

[Anthony (M5 in Calgary)]

Here (http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060109/FREE/60109006/1057)

Agreed, not like the half assed HHR. The new Challenger looks like they just re-struck the original tooling and made new fascias.

[stargazer_61]

Dodge Challenger (http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/01/07/detroit-2006-dodge-challenger-concept-unveiled/)

[ryan roopnarine]

cue adam sandler voice: "So, ya know what IROC stands for, don't you?"

i kid.
everybody could see this coming, bringing back the camaro, that is.

[dacoyote]

Dodge Challenger (http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/01/07/detroit-2006-dodge-challenger-concept-unveiled/)


WordPress
Error establishing a database connection to the database server at db.leftlanenews.com. This could mean your host's database server is down.

Service will return shortly...

[granit_silber]

Here (http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060109/FREE/60109006/1057)
I caught a glimpse of that one right before a commercial break. Glad to know what it is.
The charger looks awesome but something in the press release is bugging me.
Here's the quote:
The car features a 425 horsepower 6.1L Hemi, capable of propelling the car to 60 mph in just 4.5 seconds, and through the quarter mile in 13. Top speed is 174 mph.

Why is it that American car companies can't build a more fuel efficient engine? 425 hospower out of 6.1 liters? The BMW v-10 displaces only 5 liters and makes 82 more horsepower than the "Hemi". It seems like a big v-8 could put more power to the ground with a massaging of the electronics.
I mean for crying out loud the S50 puts out something like 346 bhp and has
2.3 liters less displacement!
Obviously, I'm missing something here. What is it?
-ashley

[Mitch90535im]

The Challenger reminds me more of my '70 Cuda than the 70 Challenger, except for the tail lights. Watching Barrett's the other night I couldn't believe a '70 Cuda went for over $300, especially one that wasn't even "straight".

http://www.bimmer.info/bmw/mitch90535im/70%20::Cuda.jpg

[dacoyote]

....
Obviously, I'm missing something here. What is it?


That it an american car.... It's like the hondas and the like... some of those have amazing power outa a little 6 banger....

[stargazer_61]

WordPress
Error establishing a database connection to the database server at db.leftlanenews.com. This could mean your host's database server is down.

Service will return shortly...

Hopefully it will be up soon. There were some great pictures of the inside and under the hood. I owned '71 & '74 Challengers back in the day and regret selling them even though they were difficult to find parts for.

[Jay 535i]

Looks awesome. Will never make it to production looking like that :(

[SRR2]

It's the best thing to come from GM in decades. They're gonna sell a whole lot of these.

[Jay 535i]

Guys, this is a concept car. From the article:

And while the Camaro exists solely in concept form for now, we expect a production version to follow, by 2009 at the latest.

GM will never, ever build a car that looks like this. Guaranteed. Heck, this car, being a concept, wasn't even designed with crash/pedestrian safety standards in mind. It's artwork -- nothing more.

[rob101]

That Dodge looks sweet, but alas we will never see one around here, you should have seen the old australian chargers, with a hemi Six pack that could beat most v8s. but hopefully we will get the SRT version of the 300C

[Zeuk in Oz]

Here (http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060109/FREE/60109006/1057)

Looks like a late 70s Toyota Celica to me - might be better in the flesh ! :D

Not a patch on an M6 !

[Chris]

Why is it that American car companies can't build a more fuel efficient engine? 425 hospower out of 6.1 liters? The BMW v-10 displaces only 5 liters and makes 82 more horsepower than the "Hemi". It seems like a big v-8 could put more power to the ground with a massaging of the electronics.
I mean for crying out loud the S50 puts out something like 346 bhp and has
2.3 liters less displacement!
Obviously, I'm missing something here. What is it?
-ashley

Don't be so blind. Different horses for courses. What is the problem that Chev has a 7.0L to get 500hp? Nothing, and look at how small (physically) and light the mighty small block Chev is to other smaller ohc competitors. It puts your ricer arguement to rest. I don't have figures, but what are fuel consumption between the new M6 and ZO6 'vette? Granted, that there are a lot more factors which contribute to fuel consumption than the engine alone, but gas usage always comes up in a negative way when bigger (usually American) engine are the focus of conversation.

Of cousre, 500hp/L is impressive, if insignificant (maybe a bit like the Veryons top speed record?), but IMO, the 7.0L in the ZO6 impresses me just as much, even if it does need that amount of displacement to get that much power.

LS1 equiped Holden Commodores in Australia/NZ commonly get 10-12l per 100km, which is similar to what I get in my 525i:p

Check the Ford 4.6 dohc to the mighty 5.0 Windsor, which would you rather under your hood?

[rob101]

Don't be so blind. Different horses for courses. What is the problem that Chev has a 7.0L to get 500hp? Nothing, and look at how small (physically) and light the mighty small block Chev is to other smaller ohc competitors. It puts your ricer arguement to rest. I don't have figures, but what are fuel consumption between the new M6 and ZO6 'vette? Granted, that there are a lot more factors which contribute to fuel consumption than the engine alone, but gas usage always comes up in a negative way when bigger (usually American) engine are the focus of conversation.

Of cousre, 500hp/L is impressive, if insignificant (maybe a bit like the Veryons top speed record?), but IMO, the 7.0L in the ZO6 impresses me just as much, even if it does need that amount of displacement to get that much power.

LS1 equiped Holden Commodores in Australia/NZ commonly get 10-12l per 100km, which is similar to what I get in my 525i:p

Check the Ford 4.6 dohc to the mighty 5.0 Windsor, which would you rather under your hood?
ummm not a windsor noooooooooo, definitely the 4.6L. but if you were comparing a decent motor ie a chev with a 4.6L DOHC then yes i'd get a chev. 5.0L holden and windsor I think aren't the best that OHV v8 technology has to offer.

[Chris]

ummm not a windsor noooooooooo, definitely the 4.6L. but if you were comparing a decent motor ie a chev with a 4.6L DOHC then yes i'd get a chev. 5.0L holden and windsor I think aren't the best that OHV v8 technology has to offer.

Definately not, time has taken it's toll, but I still have a soft spot for the old EL/AU and VS V8s. *runs and hides*

[632 Regal]

A heavy ass 632 would look sweet in there with a shoe horn method of insertation. :D

[granit_silber]

Don't be so blind. Different horses for courses. What is the problem that Chev has a 7.0L to get 500hp? Nothing, and look at how small (physically) and light the mighty small block Chev is to other smaller ohc competitors. It puts your ricer arguement to rest. I don't have figures, but what are fuel consumption between the new M6 and ZO6 'vette? Granted, that there are a lot more factors which contribute to fuel consumption than the engine alone, but gas usage always comes up in a negative way when bigger (usually American) engine are the focus of conversation.

Of cousre, 500hp/L is impressive, if insignificant (maybe a bit like the Veryons top speed record?), but IMO, the 7.0L in the ZO6 impresses me just as much, even if it does need that amount of displacement to get that much power.

LS1 equiped Holden Commodores in Australia/NZ commonly get 10-12l per 100km, which is similar to what I get in my 525i:p

Check the Ford 4.6 dohc to the mighty 5.0 Windsor, which would you rather under your hood?

Chris,

First off calm down.
This was no "ricer argument". Of course different companies would have different visions of what an engine is supossed to do. My question is why does chevy/chrysler/Dodge NEED 6.1L to make 425 bhp. The question is about efficent use of combustion not gas mileage. To take your example of the bugatti. It has a an 8 liter engine and produces 1001bhp! That's 1.9 liter more than the 425bhp of the Dodge (granted it also has four turbos). It just seems that the "Big Three" could make better use of the displacement in their blocks (i.e. more hp per liter) that's all.
-ashley
ps the gas mileage for the corvette and M6 are within 4mpg of each other :)

[Traian]

Well, I don't think it's a need, the SRT-4 makes 215 hp from <2500cc, and the Ion Red Line, Cobalt SS and other little screamers like that are in a similar ballpark. I think it's more a tradition thing. It would be cool if Buick built a 5L, 500hp V10 screamer, but then where would that leave the people who want a old school Buick? Just an example there, I know noone mentioned buick, but well, you could stretch that example to any car. The other argument is that the American V8s are, I think, if not leaders, than at least world class in any efficiency term you care to choose: weight, fuel economy, cost... So then why should the M5's 500hp be superior to the Z06's 505? The V10 is definitely a more glorious piece of engineering though.

[Chris]

Chris,

First off calm down.
This was no "ricer argument". Of course different companies would have different visions of what an engine is supossed to do. My question is why does chevy/chrysler/Dodge NEED 6.1L to make 425 bhp. The question is about efficent use of combustion not gas mileage. To take your example of the bugatti. It has a an 8 liter engine and produces 1001bhp! That's 1.9 liter more than the 425bhp of the Dodge (granted it also has four turbos). It just seems that the "Big Three" could make better use of the displacement in their blocks (i.e. more hp per liter) that's all.
-ashley
ps the gas mileage for the corvette and M6 are within 4mpg of each other :)

Sorry. My tone was a bit off, I misunderstood your views about the issue.
Fact is that the big three probably don't have the resources to come up with a completely new engine to fit what you're saying lol, but if its not broken, don't fix it. Then again, I don't think a Charger, Camaro or Corvette would be the same without large displacement engines.

[granit_silber]

Sorry. My tone was a bit off, I misunderstood your views about the issue.
Fact is that the big three probably don't have the resources to come up with a completely new engine to fit what you're saying lol, but if its not broken, don't fix it. Then again, I don't think a Charger, Camaro or Corvette would be the same without large displacement engines.
I guess my point was that the blocks seem underpowered for their size. You're probably right about the development costs and the limited resources of the big three right now. You're also right that those iconic muscle cars would not be the same without huge honkin engines. Maybe the legal department got in the way, or maybe chevy and chrysler are leaving buyers plenty of "mod room".

Either way I think both cars look awesome!
-ashley

[Bill R.]

consider, first off these big blocks are as efficient or more efficient on fuel economy while producing big torque numbers... secondly there is cost. The new m6 is priced at over 100k the corvetter z06 is 65k msrp.. for that 65 k you get 500hp and 475ft lbs of torqe at 4800 rpm.. so for 50 grand less you get more torque in the corvette at a lower rpm which is really what most people are going to use 90% of the time, lots of grunt taking off from stoplights serious power on the top end with 30mpg highway in the new corvette. Plus this 428 inch motor is going to be a lot less stressed than the new m6 motor.. if new corvette owners had to put a quart of oil in every 500 miles they'd be screaming their heads off.. I think you're misjudging the american car makers , they all have the capabilities to produce just as much or more horsepower per cubic inch as the european motors do. Why bother if you don't have to though. Also as a sidenote more efficient use of combustion is not derived by how much horsepower per cubic inch, its derived by how much fuel economy per horsepower. Any manufacturer can make high horsepower per inch, its how fast you spin it and how much air is pumped through.



I guess my point was that the blocks seem underpowered for their size. You're probably right about the development costs and the limited resources of the big three right now. You're also right that those iconic muscle cars would not be the same without huge honkin engines. Maybe the legal department got in the way, or maybe chevy and chrysler are leaving buyers plenty of "mod room".

Either way I think both cars look awesome!
-ashley

[ryan roopnarine]

go on, bill. tell us about the oil consumption issues in the M666. i, as well as many others, im sure, would be interested to hear about it.

[kyleN20]

thehnology is expensive, thus bmw's are expensive, no shock there. cheap engineering (ie: more displacment, more power) makes a car fast, and more noteably, cheap, then enw jeep GC SRT-8 is faster then the porsche cayanne turbo, and i can promis that the engine is alot cheaper to make, point and case

[rob101]

I hate to be a fence sitter, but there are good points to both attitudes to building a car (ie simple and conservative vs sophisticated and radical). after all it is well known that the m30b35 is a damn fine motor and that it was a design which evolved from a long time ago (late 70s i believe) as is the case with some american v8s. which brings me to my next point that of evolution vs. revolution, bmw will **** things up now and again when trying something a bit radical (nikasil etc.) but it has to happen, it takes time and money to develop things and if you want people to be able to afford to buy technology you can't blow ridiculous amounts of money exhausting every last avenue of development. American motor companies tend not to take such radical leaps forward in some aspects of the motorcar (as with engines we are discussing here). i think the main difference in the past with euro and american cars has been quality control, which is why most bmw engines tend to last about the same as each other (given the same maintenence) and US engine's maximum possible life can be more random. but that gap has been narrowing.

once again i side with neither side, but I believe simplier is better, but companies have to push forwards in order to gain a competitive advantage. and they all have different approaches to advancement.