[RH77]

Editorial

I know that most of us are pretty informed here, but this bears venting.

So, I'm here catching some TV and get the latest ad genius from the General. What really gets me is the 1 more Hwy mPG (in a lower case M to denote the singular) that the all new Chevy Equinox gets over the Honda CR-V and Escape Hybrid. Plus the 600 mile hwy tank! Well, the FE problem is solved -- send home the technicians, let the ice caps re-freeze. It's covered.

They have been pulling this stuff, and to boot, insulting other automakers with this formula for while now... remember the Honda lawn mower and how they couldn't compete with it? Do they engineer this extra mile-per-gallon for the purposes of marketing only? Apparently there's always 1 more mPG to squeeze out. I say keep going and check back later when you have 10-15 more.

I think for a "Domestic" automaker, GM is doomed. Ford took no bail out money, improved quality to Camry standards in the Fusion even before the meltdown, and made cars (not necessarily trucks) that are more appealing to slap down a hard-earned payment. Clunkers program or not, Ford is positioned well.

Counterpoint/Solution: I'm currently driving a rented Impala LT, base engine, land yacht. The LZE 3500, rated at 224hp/220ft-lb has yielded 28.x MPG in mixed driving. Through maximizing torque, you're able to cruise at 950 RPM, 35-40 mph (full TC lockup and lug). That gets you 35 MPG. Where is this tech in smaller cars? It's even low-tech! So apparently, it's OHV stuff.

Looking back at the offerings from GM in the 4-Cylinder OHV department, we had the "Iron Duke" Tech-IV and most recently the 2.2L OHV. We've gotten caught-up in the buzzword "Overhead Cam and DOHC", which the EcoTec offered in '04, and the name "Quad-4", which cost me a bundle when a '90 Beretta blew up due to a failed head gasket at 80K miles.

The old pushrod engines achieved decent mileage, but could use a brush-up on smooth operation, confidence, and reliability. Who's to say we can't resurrect this type of engine, hook-up a 5-speed auto with aggressive torque conversion to run it in a low RPM situation, eliminate the timing belt/chain, and now you have reliable mileage maker -- heck give it a green name. Am I too far off on this one? Or, would a turbo just be easier? But turbos tend fail at 100K if not cooled down properly. Not good for that image of reliability. The parts are in the bin -- just put it together.

OK, I'm done saving GM from itself tonight. Let the debate continue...

RH77