MeanBuicks
Scaring the neighbors!
- Joined
- May 24, 2001
Yep. That's the truth. Here's a recent quip from Bob Lutz regarding the Buick Velite:
Fuel rules scrap some GM concept cars
concept grand national
- Thread starter wannabegnttype
- Start date
Yep. That's the truth. Here's a recent quip from Bob Lutz regarding the Buick Velite:
Fuel rules scrap some GM concept cars
The proposed fuel standards
have me a little confused.
Basicly are they not taking in the entire fleet of cars and trucks a manufacturer builds and increaseing the overall milage? I thought the one issue with GM was that with much of thier fleet being trucks, this new standard would hurt them in a big way compared to Toyota or Honda. Also I am not sure how the bogus cafe standards with ethanol come into play with the new proposed standards BUT, the way they read now, is that a flex-fuel vehicle gets credit since they assume it is only burning 15% gas/85% ethanol. (yes I know ethanol is less efficent blah blah blah.) Sooo why cant GM take the lead from one of thier companies, Saab, and build a turbo charged engine that automaticly increases boost when high octaine ethanol is present? (Saab Bio-Power) Also a v6 turbo in one of the proposed "supercars" would make better sense with the fuel standards than a V8. Isnt that what sort of got buick dabbeling in turbo engines in the first place back in the 70's?
What am I missing?
have me a little confused.
Basicly are they not taking in the entire fleet of cars and trucks a manufacturer builds and increaseing the overall milage? I thought the one issue with GM was that with much of thier fleet being trucks, this new standard would hurt them in a big way compared to Toyota or Honda. Also I am not sure how the bogus cafe standards with ethanol come into play with the new proposed standards BUT, the way they read now, is that a flex-fuel vehicle gets credit since they assume it is only burning 15% gas/85% ethanol. (yes I know ethanol is less efficent blah blah blah.) Sooo why cant GM take the lead from one of thier companies, Saab, and build a turbo charged engine that automaticly increases boost when high octaine ethanol is present? (Saab Bio-Power) Also a v6 turbo in one of the proposed "supercars" would make better sense with the fuel standards than a V8. Isnt that what sort of got buick dabbeling in turbo engines in the first place back in the 70's?
What am I missing?
turbofish38
Le Pétomane
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2002
That's funny. Seeing as it's the same company that kicked out the GN/GNX. And makes the Z/06. Show me one other company thats anymore logical.
The GN/GNX was 20 years ago. That was my point, Buick actually used some logic and ended up with a legendary car that would actually get decent milage considering the performance. The Z06? Yeah corvettes are nice but I dont think a vette will save a company. How about the Hummer. Yep that is a real logical move. Lets market a truck/suv that gets 10 MPG. Then follow that up with the H3. I think my minivan can outperform that thing, plus the milage is terrible. How about the GM theory of building the same vehicle and re-badging it 3 times, i.e Tahoe/yukon/escalade, basicly competing with each other. Not to mention other ventures such as the fiat debacle and the GMAC finance arm. IMHO they should spin off Hummer and saturn and possibly Saab and see if they stand on thier own. Saab maybee could.
In the end I would like to see some creativity now. Maybee a duramax in a suburban or tahoe and even a 1/2 ton truck. Or even a small turbo diesel in a light duty P/U or SUV. How about some of that turbo buick ingenuity from 20 years ago?
In the end I would like to see some creativity now. Maybee a duramax in a suburban or tahoe and even a 1/2 ton truck. Or even a small turbo diesel in a light duty P/U or SUV. How about some of that turbo buick ingenuity from 20 years ago?
turbofish38
Le Pétomane
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2002
I see you guys read the automotive news section of USA Today and the NYTimes. Dont blame GM for making Hummers and trucks. Blame those sheeple who actually buy those. Look at how many H2/H3 and SUVs GM sold over the last 5 years. You cant blame them for going to where to cash is. So what if they created the demand for those vehicles. You know damn well the guys at the top are only looking after thier own paychecks.If it wasn't for the fact that the Corvette nameplate has been around for 55 years now, they wouldn't even be building the Z/06. If there was a demand for cheap muscle cars like there was in the 60's than there sure as heck would have been 100,000 GNs built in 87 instead of 20,000. I dont care if you're GM or Toyota. You cant make money on niche cars. And a proto GNX is a niche car. Whats that comment on badge engineering, Jones? Everybody does it. Toyota slaps a Lexus badge on a Seqouia and calls it a 430 something. Nissan slaps a badge on Infinity. Where the heck did they get that idea from? Lets see VW cut off Audi and Porsche and see how long before they pass into oblivion. Get your head out of the dribble that the leftest press has been pumping into it. The next time your sitting at a traffic light look over at everybody who is driving anything but your definention of a muscle car. Those are the people to blame because GM wont build another GNX.:frown:
I guess you missed my point, or I did not explain it well enough.
I dont want another GNX/GN etc. What I was refering to was the quote by Bob Lutz and what he said about the Velite and caddy sixteen. He cited the fuel standards as not going ahead with the project. All I was indicating was back in the 70's when buick started looking into a turbo V6, didnt they do so because of fuel economy? basicly getting V8 performance out of a 6. I am on the outside looking in, but are they (GM) basicly at the same place today? I am not saying we need a niche car. You are right that wont work, but to me, some of the technology is right under thier noses. All I was originaly implying is why not revist that technology.
On the Hummer/Tahoe/Yukon/Suburban issue, no I dont blame them for making profits on these. However, why not make a diesel version. Dont tell me it cant be done, or dont tell me there would not be a demand for these. Now with the new proposed fuel standards, trucks and cars may not be split apart. If a big portion of thier busness is light trucks and suv's this will hurt the average of the fleet. If the average milage was increased in this segment it would help, so to me a logical thing to do would be to put an engine in that gets better milage such as a diesel.
I stand corrected....
On the Hummer/Tahoe/Yukon/Suburban issue, no I dont blame them for making profits on these. However, why not make a diesel version. Dont tell me it cant be done, or dont tell me there would not be a demand for these. Now with the new proposed fuel standards, trucks and cars may not be split apart. If a big portion of thier busness is light trucks and suv's this will hurt the average of the fleet. If the average milage was increased in this segment it would help, so to me a logical thing to do would be to put an engine in that gets better milage such as a diesel.[/QUOTE]
It is my understanding that GM will be putting a 4.5 liter diesel engine in 1500 P/U and a few SUV's for the 2010 model year. Also it looks as if they have a caddy that will have a choice of diesel or gas engine with hybrid technology. I belive one of the Saturn models will get a 6 cylinder diesel as well. Kudos to GM. Logical thinking.
Also read the Dodge will have a smaller version of thcummins in the 1500 P/U as well.
On the Hummer/Tahoe/Yukon/Suburban issue, no I dont blame them for making profits on these. However, why not make a diesel version. Dont tell me it cant be done, or dont tell me there would not be a demand for these. Now with the new proposed fuel standards, trucks and cars may not be split apart. If a big portion of thier busness is light trucks and suv's this will hurt the average of the fleet. If the average milage was increased in this segment it would help, so to me a logical thing to do would be to put an engine in that gets better milage such as a diesel.[/QUOTE]
It is my understanding that GM will be putting a 4.5 liter diesel engine in 1500 P/U and a few SUV's for the 2010 model year. Also it looks as if they have a caddy that will have a choice of diesel or gas engine with hybrid technology. I belive one of the Saturn models will get a 6 cylinder diesel as well. Kudos to GM. Logical thinking.
Also read the Dodge will have a smaller version of thcummins in the 1500 P/U as well.
Have you guys seen the Pontiac G8 that is suppose to be coming out? Looks like a nice plaform from which to have a BUICK GN. With a grill and engine change and 2door version I think it could be a good re-introduction platform:
I like it better than the GTO for sure.
I like it better than the GTO for sure.
Ok, I was thinking about this:
How about this idea I came up with on Paint?
Pontiac G8 as a new GN? - TurboBuicks.com
I like that better than all the concepts.
How about this idea I came up with on Paint?
Pontiac G8 as a new GN? - TurboBuicks.com
I like that better than all the concepts.
Turbo6Smackdown
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
gnx? thats just a beat down cadillac... Looks like crap, and has NO styling cues from a real g body. GM wont remake a gn. Theyre not that smart. Plus if they did it, they'd ruin it anyways. The ONLY throwback that was worth a dam, was the t bird and the mustang. they were VERY close to their ancestors body lines. GM doesnt have the smarts to remake something with class again. I wish they did, but they dont, and they wont. So get it out of your heads guys. Lets just concentrate on the buicks we still have left, and not PART THEM OUT.
07
lets just say they brought back the gn gnx it would be a flop just like the gto
its just a name and that would it .look at the gto and that other hrr or what ever that junk was .if they want to bring back a name make it resemble the orignal . look at the mustang and the new challenger those cars are hot.
charger not so much .just my 2 pennys
lets just say they brought back the gn gnx it would be a flop just like the gto
its just a name and that would it .look at the gto and that other hrr or what ever that junk was .if they want to bring back a name make it resemble the orignal . look at the mustang and the new challenger those cars are hot.
charger not so much .just my 2 pennys
turbofish38
Le Pétomane
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2002
The new GTO could and did run circles around the old Goats. Pontiac did the right thing. And just how many V-8 Mustangs and Chargers were made? If any thing you could add those to your list of flops. The standard V-6 models out sell the V-8 by 6 to 1. You're problem is that you think everything should be a retro model if it carries a classic nameplate. Look further back in history. Here's my favorites. The Mustang2 with the Pinto suspension and the Challenger that was made in Japan by Mitsubishi. Both pretty stellar when you drag out the new GTO is a POS arguement. And I dont see where the Charger looks anything retro compared to the old one. Four doors are so lame when you're talking high performance.I dont understand the HHR remark. Its supposed to look like a 49 Suburban. Dont tell me your the type of person who judges the book by its cover? I could care less what they stuck the GNX name if they did. As long as its fast who cares what it looks like. The 1987 GNX was never a beauty queen either.
batmansbuick
Superhero
- Joined
- May 26, 2001
I agree with a post above, if they want power plus good gas mileage the LC2 was a good start. Im sure with todays tech they could get better mileage out of it and also more HP. I read last week the new Cadillac V-6 puts out 302hp with no power adder, more than a Mustang GT.
