Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Who at GM allows this crap?

3.5L 200HP

The new G6 has everything else going for it except for a weak ass engine! Last I checked Nissan was squeezing 240-285HP out of there 3.5L's and all GM can come up with is 200HP? Sure, I know, just use the same engine and platform as the Malibu but can't GM distinguish its supposedly performance driving excitement divison with something exciting?

Explain to me why they just didnt use the 3800, oh yeah, that would be the engine they shove in every other mid-size GM box. What happened to the Olds Intrigue engine? At least it was good for 215HP!

I wont even begin to discuss the SSR debacle!


but damn it if I can't help myself!

2004 SSR gets a weak ass engine and trashed by the automotive press for its porkiness and Hyundai-like acceleration. So GM steps up and throws the new 'Vette engine good for 6.0L's and 400HP. I'm sure all those '04 owners who paid a fat ADM are slicing their wrists over the depreciation and humiliation they are enduring.

Maybe I'll short some GM stock

knowing pontiac, there will be a higher hp version to step up to, so they didn't want to blow their wad right away.

as for the SSR, i'm sure current gto owners feel something similar.

GM seems to either hit the ball out of the park on vehices or end up shoving the bat sideways up their posterior while swinging for that home run.

I've long since given up on second-guessing why the GM does some of the things they do. You would think a company that came up with the CTS-V and the Corvette would be able to reach some sort of product consistency...

Removing that black box is probably good for a 10th of a second.

I could see them using that as the base engine, they should (IMO) offer the new "high feature) 3.6l DOHC 6 as the optional engine, 245/232.

Is there even an MTX with the G6?

Well... I agree that you should pull out all the stops from day 1 and keep charging at it until it's time to redesign 4-6 years later (NO car should go more than 6 years without a total redesign).

Ford hurt themselves by not doing a total redesign on the Taurus in 2000 and the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis in 2003. Ditto on the Focus... Get a totally redesigned Ranger out there. Don't play not to lose, play to win.

Put more into Mercury by not making a Lincoln of every Mercury... and give them some corporate unique vehicles... same with Lincoln... they had something going when they brought the LS out, and just let it die. They NEED an uplevel Continental that goes toe to toe with the 5-series and E-class.

The Duratec 3.5 should have been in production several years ago...

It's not a question of if Ford can do it, it's of question of if Ford has the guts to do it.

American car companies don't have the attitude that they need to compete.
One thing that I continually find myself saying about my VW is that "they really thought of everything when they built it". Do I need a visor so that the glare from the interior lights is blocked from the rearview mirror? Or a button that allows me to turn off the illumination for the volume/cruise controls on my steering wheel? Probably not. However, some engineer at veedub sat down and thought that it might be nice for the driver to have that option. What's more (and probably most important) is that the bean counters gave the engineer the freedom to build these things into the car. The problem with FoMoCo and GM (save Cadillac--thank god) is that they build non-offensive generic looking cars that don't offend their owners, run for 60,000 miles trouble free, which is just long enough for the average driver to get the 7 year itch and trade it in for another. For sure, there are naysayers that will toss in the argument that they can buy a 4 door cavvy or focus 6k less than, say, a Jetta, so why should they spend the extra. For those people, maybe that's ok. They don't think that Ford and Chev are out there to move units. "Oh, but the Focus has a 5 star gov't crash rating!!!" Yeah...so does the Freestar. The rest just meet or barely exceed the bare minimum gov't safety standards. Why? Ford can't put asses in Foci or Freestars without those government numbers. As long as its small car and people mover do well, their trucks and SUV can do as poorly as they want, and people will still buy both. The hellbent soccer moms who don't want an SUV will buy the freestar because it's big and cushy and has all sorts of nooks and crannies to put away the G.I. Joe with the kung-fu grip. Others will buy the focus because it's cheap transportation that will be a "good car" for a few years. The other side of Fords business unit does well because of the SUV mystique, and the need for work trucks. You will never see a well made, thoughtful, reliable car with "bank vault" doors made by Ford (at least on this side of the pond). However, there's a sucker born every minute, and that's what Ford counts on. Am I saying I'm a sucker for buying a contour? Yes. I was 19 when I bought it. I couldn't get a loan from the likes of toyota or honda at the time. The contour was a great car. It gave me 60 thousand trouble free miles. When I hit that mark, between the creaks and rattles, the warping dashboard, and the impending preventative maintenance (which doesn't bother me) the numbers weren't adding up, and I dropped it like a hot potato.

/rant