Yes, so now they have moved to a QR code on the door pillar. Easier to find, but if you don't have a smartphone on you, it's hard to read. ... View more

There isn't anything wrong or "misnamed". These 3 letter designations are simply the RPO (regular production option) code for a component to go into a GM vehicle. They are part of a system with certain rules. It is certainly true that marketing and engineering teams do try to protect certain RPOs that have grown to become famous. But, recognize that the primary reason for an RPO is so that the right option is ordered for the right car and the assembly plant knows what to install on the line, usually defined by RPO. Understand that for engines, everything gets an "L" code because that means "engine". After that, every engine in the GM global system must live within the next two digits. There are only so many two digit codes, so not every variant gets its own code and when they go dormant for a period, they are reused. As long as the RPO uniquely defines the right engine to the right vehicle, everything is good. ... View more

MPH 168, your tests while interesting, are not the entire answer. Go look at what an OEM does to their fuel systems to handle ETHANOL concentrations above 10%. This typically means special fuel lines, stainless steel fuel rails, special injectors and so forth. Do you think they do this just for fun? Yes, some of the challenge is due to water because ethanol absorbs it. Do you really believe there is no water in the fuel distribution network and underground tanks? There is no water in the atmosphere that fills your fuel tank as the fuel is consumed? The OEMs make these decisions based on data and what is required for the products to live in the field. I speak from direct experience, not conjecture. Even at 10%, ethanol is often a problem for many engines. If you use the fuel quickly, it's not as great an issue. For small engines, boats, and cars that may sit for months without consuming a tank of fuel - it is a problem. It can be reduced somewhat by keeping the tanks full to remove air space and by using high grade fuel stabilizer with anti corrosion additives. E15 doesn't make life better for them. My small engines ate fuel lines with regularity with E10. Since I moved to E0 Rec fuel, no problem. If you like ethanol fuel - use it, but recognize the compromises and don't force it on those who don't want it. ... View more

There is one additional factor in the alcohol story. In the late 90's and early 2000's there was significant research being done into ethanol from cellulose materials. There were industrial processes in development that would use the cornstalks (and other waste materials) rather than the corn. It was a wonderful possibility to run our vehicles from waste. That is when the E85 flex fuel vehicles were developed and ethanol was subsidized in part to support the E85 vehicles while the cellulose based fuels were brought to market. Unfortunately those new processes appear to have not been commercially successful and we are back to corn based ethanol. ... View more

I would be extremely careful with the statement that "the vast majority of vehicles produced after 2001 are E15-tolerant". If you want to run E15, check your owner's manual. If it doesn't allow for E15, I wouldn't use it. I worked for an OEM and our engines that ran >E10 typically had upgraded materials in the fuel system and various engine components. Those engines were usually tested in various ways to verify that they really would work and would be durable with the permitted fuel blends. In my personal experience, the issues with E10 on older cars, boat engines, and small engines can be significant. These can be mitigated somewhat with additives and careful practices to minimize condensation in the fuel system. I wouldn't run E15 in any of my above equipment under any circumstance. ... View more

I have a "barn find" 1985 IROC-Z Camaro. I've been working on it for a while now. Sometimes it is a matter of just being in the right place at the right time, I wasn't hunting for one. This one was at a an estate sale where the original owner had died and his father was working to clear the estate. The story of how the car ended up in the garage was plausible. The car appeared complete. The original purchase / loan paperwork was in the console. The car had been parked for 25 + years. The license tags and tune up labels confirmed it. The body was in great condition with zero rust-rare in a Michigan car. Some research confirmed the equipment and that the parts were all there. The estate sale company ran an online auction and I purchased it at a fair price for a non-running car. It has taken much more work to resurrect it than I hoped, but I have the time to work on it and have it back on the road. So far, I haven't found anything that contradicts the original story of how the car came to be. I am in the continuous improvement phase, currently working on the interior. I thought it might be a good idea to capture the work required to bring it back to life, so I started a You Tube channel with the videos of my progress. If you're interested, take a look here: https://youtu.be/caekImsTTbY ... View more

Yes, the statement that these cars must meet "current emission standards" requires definition. Current standards for production cars are very strict and if you need to meet CARB requirements, it is usually tougher. For today's production cars, that means tightly controlled 3-way catalysts and full OBD-II diagnostics applied to engines with robust combustion systems. To execute those diagnostics usually means features like port fuel injection, because of OBD requirements to detect and turn off misfiring cylinders individually. There won't be any carbureted V8s. They'll need full evaporative emission systems and so forth. Odds are that powertrains will be restricted to current year mass manufactured production units that have a team of engineers working on emissions and OBD all day. The real catch will depend on how they intend to implement that. If they work toward the marine engine or heavy duty approach with certification on engine dynamometers, it may be possible. If they insist on full chassis dyno certification with fuel economy labels and full vehicle evaporative emission testing, the rules could make this uneconomical for a small volume builder. We'll need to wait and see. ... View more

I had a '73 Olds Toronado. It was a great car and surprisingly fun to drive for its size. It was front wheel drive with about 75% of the weight on the front end, yet enough power to light up the front tires at 10-15 MPH. With the torsion bar front suspension it handled well and didn't torque steer one bit. The 455 had true dual exhaust and was rated at about 270 HP. It responded well to a little more timing lead and a recurved distributor. For a 5000 lb car it would do 0-60 in the 7's and quarter in the 16's. I really ran it one time at Indianapolis Raceway Park on tuning night for time slips (I was out there to tune my Mustang, but hey...). It actually was as good as 4wd in the snow, never got it stuck, even in drifts up to the headlights. I bought it at the depth of the 1979-80 fuel scare for a really good price and drove it for another 100,000 + miles. I had a hitch shop make me a class III / IV receiver and I used it to pull a 6000 lb travel trailer all over the midwest. I wish I still had it, but in the mid-90's I moved to a subdivision and ran out of places to park it and it had to go. ... View more

I understand your point, and yes not everything is perfected. There was even a time where I would have enthusiastically agreed with your thoughts. That was before I was in the position of helping to make those choices. Automakers certainly lobby to try to shape regulations, they don't just get what they want. It is easy for someone in government to write a new regulation and say--"do this". It's quite another to make it happen, so it is often necessary to work to shape the many times contradictory regulations; especially in the age when most cars are on global platforms that must be capable of meeting requirements around the world. Most people that design cars strive to do a good job in the midst of all the complexity. To your point about bumpers, think about how you might design a bumper to take no damage at 5 mph-- probably big, strong and rigid. Then think about how to make that same bumper and its support structure progressively crush to protect the passengers in a higher speed crash without compromising the first part. Then add the European requirements that are aimed at protecting pedestrians if they are struck by the car (requirements to limit lower leg injury by the bumper and head injury due to hitting the hood). The bumper design is then not so simple. And, by the way, we want it to have a cool looking design and still meet its cost and mass targets. ... View more

I am familiar with the Woods car, but you need to consider its performance. Yes, technology is a choice; if you're happy with 1916 performance (35 mph?), you're welcome to use that level of technology. That level of electrification is still used in golf cars and some neighborhood electric vehicles (big lead battery, DC motor, rheostat control). Customers today want and expect many things in a vehicle. Manufacturers must build competitive vehicles that meet customer expectations - in cost, performance, comfort, range, and reliability (perhaps 15 or 20 years and 200,000 miles). Without the modern computer controlled inverter driven AC motor drives and advanced chemistry batteries, you cannot meet those customer expectations. By the way, while the 1965 Mustang was ground breaking in the market, remember that the basic vehicle was really a body and interior change on Falcon chassis architecture. That's not a bad thing and I say that as a Mustang owner. The point is that most things in the auto business actually are more evolutionary than meets the eye. If you ever had the chance to sit in the room with a vehicle chief engineer trying to make these choices, you might be surprised. Integrating any vehicle today is a very complex process because customers and regulators are very demanding, and if the company doesn't make money they will go under. ... View more

Well.... I am going to try to give you a perspective as someone who worked in product engineering for nearly 40 years for a very large OEM, with 15 years experience in hybrid and electric propulsion and vehicles. If you really get into this, you will find that in most cases the form follows the required functions. What most people don't understand about electric vehicles is their relative complexity. The usual mental model for the uninitiated is that it's just a battery and a motor--how hard can that be? And wow, you can just throw in wheel motors and everything is cool-- lots of space to do anything. First, wheel motors may come of age, but they are relatively complex and expensive and often place a lot of unsprung weight out at the wheels where you don't want it. Next, high quality electric cars are not simple. The magic that allows modern electric vehicles begins with high power variable frequency inverters to drive the motor(s) and advanced batteries. If you don't have wheel motors, you need a "drive unit" (think transmission) that contains motors and gears. This requires complex support systems for thermal management (cooling the power electronics and managing the battery), charging, control systems, HVAC systems, heavy copper cables, junction boxes, contactors, electronic controllers and so forth. All of these things require packaging space and many require air flow. You can move them around the car, but they must not intrude on passenger space-so most package under a conventional hood or trunk space. Take a look under the hood of a Bolt (EV) or a Prius (Hybrid) or one of their competitors and look at the amount of hardware required to make it go. Finally, an electric car needs to be integrated to meet all of the customer requirements for function and driving range (mass and aero) while complying with all the regulations by various government entities for crash, pedestrian protection and so forth. Vehicle integration in the electric world is just as challenging as in the conventional world, perhaps tougher. I do think we'll see more variation in designs over time, but certain facts of physics will limit that to a great extent. ... View more

I began using Stabil 35 years ago when I took my 1969 428 Mustang out for a late winter run and nearly burned it down due to all the fuel leaking from the float bowls onto the top of the engine.  The float bowl gaskets were shrunken and deteriorated due to the gas going bad over the winter.  Since then I have used Stabil in nearly everything (just not my daily drivers).  I worked for a very large auto OEM in the powertrain area and discussed Stabil with a respected fuel specialist. He said that the most important thing is that Stabil is an anti-oxidant and the oxidation is what causes fuel to break down.  He wished that the oil companies would blend it into all the fuels. Ethanol is another issue altogether.  You can look up a study by Mercury Marine on this topic.  The answer is to either drain the tanks OR fill them full so that there is little to no air space.  For me, it is generally difficult to drain tanks.  My answer for years has been to fill them.  Yes, you lose a little volatility over the winter, but it never seems to be a problem.  So, today I use Marine Grade Stabil in all my equipment-boats - carbed and fuel injected (up to 40 gallon tanks), lawn and yard equipment, 428 Mustang, emergency generator, etc. Marine grade has extra corrosion inhibitors to fight water. I leave gas in the generator for two years with a double dose, then if it isn't used, I'll drain it and burn it in another engine.  No problems ever from using the stabilizer. When I buy a can of fresh gas, the stabilizer goes in at the same time.  The ethanol will rot some fuel lines on small equipment, but that's not the fault of Stabil.   ... View more