Jump to content
regfootball

DRIVEN: 2019 Chevrolet Blazer LT AWD 3.6

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

 From my perspective:

Cadillac shouldn't  be playing at this level.
ATS...nope
CTS...nope.
CTS-V: YES!
CT6 and CT6-Vs: YES!
Escalade: YES!
XT5:NOPE
XT6: MAYBE
XT4: ARE YOU MAD???!!!  NO WAY!!!

I'm almost 100% onboard with you here. I think the ATS was a very nicely done product/design, but I agree that Cadillac should NOT be in this segment- same for the XT4. If nothing else- they're too small for 'Cadillac's. This is why I've been vehemently hopeful that the downturn in the sedan segment would end up with the cancellation of the CT4. Cadillac doesn't have the volume to spread down to the ATS level and still justify the investment, I would have to guess. And while I'm sure the XT4 is generating profit (ATS also), I still believe that Cadillac's market position should 'prevent' them from going there. While the XT5 I'll allow, I would have cast my vote to roll the XT4 money into the XT5 & the 3-row XT5 (XT6). And that's also where I think Cadillac should have gone- made the XT6 an 'XT5 ESV'. WTH is it a completely new design??

The proliferation of so many models per brand cannot continue long-term, ESPECIALLY when you have a reputed upcoming period of EV transition, where the IC & EV version of the same brand/segment share so little. Pare down the lineups.

Edited by balthazar
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, balthazar said:

I'm almost 100% onboard with you here. I think the ATS was a very nicely done product/design, but I agree that Cadillac should NOT be in this segment- same for the XT4. If nothing else- they're too small for 'Cadillac's. This is why I've been vehemently hopeful that the downturn in the sedan segment would end up with the cancellation of the CT4. Cadillac doesn't have the volume to spread down to the ATS level and still justify the investment, I would have to guess. And while I'm sure the XT4 is generating profit (ATS also), I still believe that Cadillac's market position should 'prevent' them from going there. While the XT5 I'll allow, I would have cast my vote to roll the XT4 money into the XT5 & the 3-row XT5 (XT6). And that's also where I think Cadillac should have gone- made the XT6 an 'XT5 ESV'.

The proliferation of so many models per brand cannot continue long-term, ESPECIALLY when you have a reputed upcoming period of EV transition, where the IC & EV version of the same brand/segment share so little. Pare down the lineups.

I made a quick, dramatic post about what vehicles and markets Id want Cadillac to be in without really thinking about it too deeply, but yeah, what you said here is what I believe in as well. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

WHY THE HELL CAN I GET ANDROID/AppleCar on the Chevy, but not the Honda 

uh... you can. It comes on all trims except the base model. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, balthazar said:

I'm almost 100% onboard with you here. I think the ATS was a very nicely done product/design, but I agree that Cadillac should NOT be in this segment- same for the XT4. If nothing else- they're too small for 'Cadillac's. This is why I've been vehemently hopeful that the downturn in the sedan segment would end up with the cancellation of the CT4. Cadillac doesn't have the volume to spread down to the ATS level and still justify the investment, I would have to guess. And while I'm sure the XT4 is generating profit (ATS also), I still believe that Cadillac's market position should 'prevent' them from going there. While the XT5 I'll allow, I would have cast my vote to roll the XT4 money into the XT5 & the 3-row XT5 (XT6). And that's also where I think Cadillac should have gone- made the XT6 an 'XT5 ESV'. WTH is it a completely new design??

The proliferation of so many models per brand cannot continue long-term, ESPECIALLY when you have a reputed upcoming period of EV transition, where the IC & EV version of the same brand/segment share so little. Pare down the lineups.

I cannot get with this idea that Cadillac should pretty much start at CTS-V. Come on. No other luxury brand starts at CTS-V levels. The CTS-V is discounted due to acceptance. It would be like Superman crossing over.. showing up on the door steps of Avenger's Mansions... and not after beating the SHAT outta Thor, Iron Man, and the Hulk.. deciding to just be in the same position as sad and BS position that they are putting Spidey in within the new MCU because he's the new guy in Marvel.

YES!!! Cadillac is DC and BMW/Benz are Marvel. LOL. 

The Cadillac line-up has needed an ATS since 2003. The CTS should have never been a tweener. It set the stage for the issues the brand has now. Cadillac should have abruptly made the transition into Sport/Lux on day one of 2002 or that day in 2001 when the debuted the CTS at Pebble Beach. It simply didn't have to reinvent itself in terms of luxury.. just update the line-up with better handling vehicles, no different than what Benz did around 20002. And before 1999.. no one I know put Benz above Cadillac. And BMW and Audi damn sure weren't. Stale product didn't mean also ran. It mean fix your fukking line-up to accommodate the new buyers

 

The DTS in the exact config as the CT6.. yes a BIG CADDY.. remember that most did not need for the FWD DTS to be continues since the preceding flagship, the Fleetwood had just died like 4 years ago. All the bells and whistles. No compromises, and at that time.. literally on the same level as the vaulted S-Class of the day. One by one they should have introduced the CTS in the same size the ATS has been.. The STS 2 years later in the same size the CTS is now. .. we would have been 4-5 years later, or 2004 the next gen DTS would be on ZETA, a brand new platform, as originally planned.. New DOHC engine called "Ultra.." in between all of that XLR, SRX, Escalades, BRX, XLRm. 

What I just typed is the original plan with a some time-line variations within the decade that was 1999-2009. 

CTS/CTC(oupe)/V

XLRm/V

STS/STC/V

DTS/DTC/V

XLR/V

BRX/V

SRX/V

Escalade/ESV/ETC/V

all avail in convertibles except CUV/SUVs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

uh... you can. It comes on all trims except the base model. 

uh.. exactly. I didn't see it when I tried to build a base model vs a V6 almost same priced Blazer. Again.. the BASE Blazer is $2500 less than the Passport.. the Chevy still comes with Android/Apple. GREAT SAFETY FEATURE for me. Like keeping my eyes on the road..

But No one is holding a gun someone's head and saying they have to buy it. Chevy's base is cheaper.. because Honda is offering a bigger engine. Chevy will end up being equal priced with equal powertrain, albeit more powerful powertrain, because CHEVY OFFERS INCENTIVES and HONDA DOESN'T.. most of the time.

Hey!!! Why are U not bitching at Honda for not offering.. OFFERING.. OFFERING.. a smaller more efficient and cheaper engine combo? WHY!? I like choices. Why are U OK with Honda not giving me a choice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

uh.. exactly. I didn't see it when I tried to build a base model vs a V6 almost same priced Blazer. Again.. the BASE Blazer is $2500 less than the Passport.. the Chevy still comes with Android/Apple. GREAT SAFETY FEATURE for me. Like keeping my eyes on the road..

But No one is holding a gun someone's head and saying they have to buy it. Chevy's base is cheaper.. because Honda is offering a bigger engine. Chevy will end up being equal priced with equal powertrain, albeit more powerful powertrain, because CHEVY OFFERS INCENTIVES and HONDA DOESN'T.. most of the time.

Hey!!! Why are U not bitching at Honda for not offering.. OFFERING.. OFFERING.. a smaller more efficient and cheaper engine combo? WHY!? I like choices. Why are U OK with Honda not giving me a choice?

$29.9 Seems to be the base price for this class of vehicle regardless of the powertrain offered.  At Ford, it is a 2.3T.  If Chevy put the 2.0T in there as a base engine, I wouldn't have such an issue with it. The 2.5 is a lame engine and has been for years. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thing is a joke. And it's yet another mediocre GM offering in what is becoming a quite extensive list of mediocre new GM offerings. I feel like they are really losing touch and are on the brink of a repeat of the bailout days. These borderline luxury segment prices for mainstream offerings are comical. Especially for a brand that actually has luxury nameplates within the corporate umbrella.

 

Edited by Frisky Dingo
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Frisky Dingo said:

This thing is a joke. And it's yet another mediocre GM offering in what is becoming a quite extensive list of new GM offerings. I feel like they are really losing touch and are on the brink of a repeat of the bailout days. These borderline luxury segment prices for mainstream offerings are comical. Especially for a brand that actually has luxury nameplates within the corporate umbrella.

 

About the only saving grace on these is that at least they are making them look different.   But otherwise I'm seeing a repeat of the GMT360 days. 

2 Wheelbases, 3 different engines, every brand gets one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

About the only saving grace on these is that at least they are making them look different.   But otherwise I'm seeing a repeat of the GMT360 days. 

2 Wheelbases, 3 different engines, every brand gets one.

The more things change with GM, the more they stay the same...every brand gets it's own versions.  They went so crazy w/ GMT360, surprised Pontiac and Cadillac didn't get variations of that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

The more things change with GM, the more they stay the same...every brand gets it's own versions.  They went so crazy w/ GMT360, surprised Pontiac and Cadillac didn't get variations of that...

Isuzu and Saab did instead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

I cannot get with this idea that Cadillac should pretty much start at CTS-V. Come on. No other luxury brand starts at CTS-V levels.

Cadillac is not..well was not, your average luxury brand. It was much more than that. The Lasalle brand was created to sell at a price point lower than Cadillac that  Cadillac actually manufactured, right?

The brand stopped being produced because of WW2, right? But when WW2 ended, Buick just just took over that spot, right? And Cadillac just continued on being THE Standard of the World and in North America at least, was even more prestigious that Rolls Royce right?  Even producing a model that cost more to buy than Rolls Royce, right?  I mean, V16 Cadillacs of the 1930s were always in that Rolls Royce territory, along with Deusenbergs but after WW2, Cadillac was very much alone in that regard, right?  I mean, America was just about the only country that was not exactly decimated  by WW2 and thrived 10 fold after, right? Leaving Cadillac and with Lincoln, to be the choice for the world's most rich and powerful. And those folks were in America for the most part, right? 

JUST because the 1960s happened and that was the start for GM going haywire with all the brand overlapping and it went out of control in the 1970s and by the 1980s is was too late for Cadillac to right the ship that in 2019 going forward that Cadillac HAS to have a Cimarron sedan and Cimarron CUV in their line-up just to be like every other luxury brand does it today, right?

I want Cadillac to BE the Standard of the World.  Doing what other luxury brands like Acura, Lexus, BMW, Audi, Mercedes, Jaguar does it, does NOT mean that Cadillac NEEDS to.  

Rolls and Bentley are in the boutique level of luxury. Top top top tier.

Ferrari and Lamborghini are boutique sports car makers that will be producing boutique SUVs...

Porsche WAS a boutique sports car maker and now has become a full fledged SUV maker. Not even a boutique SUV maker as their Macan is based off of VW bones and sold in mainstream levels of sales in that slightly higher than Chevy Blazer prices...

Im sure there is a spot where Cadillac could and SHOULD thrive in. Somewhere where a Porsche Panamera resides in no lower and for now, as high as a Mercedes S Class Maybach. Until Cadillac gets enough steam to go higher than that. 

Of course awesome cars and cuvs with 50 000 dollar price tags from Cadillac could be sold, but those gotta be the best of the best vis-a-vis the competition. That means no lease queens with 2.0T engines. That means ATS V as THE base ATS and as the lowest Cadillac cars and CUVs go with luxury interior and performance. 

That means the CT5 should be at the very least a V sport in conception. As a base vehicle. 

THAT is what I envision Cadillac to be.  I dont want Cadillac to be the American version of the European version of BMW or Mercedes Benz.  I want Cadillac to be...CADILLAC. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

• The Lasalle brand was created to sell at a price point lower than Cadillac that  Cadillac actually manufactured, right? •
"actually manufactured" - what? LaSalles were not built by Cadillac. Or are you saying 'LaSalles sold cheaper than Cadillac did'?

• The brand stopped being produced because of WW2, right? But when WW2 ended, Buick just just took over that spot, right? •
Not quite, no. There was no '41 LaSalle, and it wasn't WWII that did it in. LaSalle was outselling both Cadillac & Lincoln in '40. If you look at the years '36-40 (discounting the recession year of '38), Cadillac's volume was pretty consistent at around 12K units/year. LaSalle's varied a lot more, but seemed to be on the upswing- over 20K in '37, 39 & 40.

Buick did overlap LaSalle in price range at the end of it's run, so it did have a dampening effect from below in that regard (LaSalle still sold very well- best year in '37). But Cadillac also edged downmarket a bit here by pricing the '41 Series 61 notably less than it's entry '40 car, and into the prior LaSalle price range (the lower 50%, too). Unlike the Packard 120 (that arguably saved Packard, tho at a terminal cost in the long run), the Series 61 was of no degradation to the brand's image, and was not heavily promoted. Volume was very low within the Cadillac brand.

By the last few years, LaSalle was using Cadillac engines IIRC, and the decision was to 'enfold' LaSalle into Cadillac. I'd have to bone up on the back story, but I believe there was some concern LaSalle was grabbing a bit of the Cadillac spotlight, as it were. In this era, Cadillac was still firmly holding the 'SOTW' banner high.

It's not viable to compare immediate pre- and post-war sales volume, too many strong variables involved, but Cadillac shot up to 61K in 1947.

Edited by balthazar
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, balthazar said:

The Lasalle brand was created to sell at a price point lower than Cadillac that  Cadillac actually manufactured, right? •
"actually manufactured" - what? LaSalles were not built by Cadillac. Or are you saying 'LaSalles sold cheaper than Cadillac did'?

LOL. Both actually.

I was under the impression that Lasalles were manufactured by the same factories that Cadillacs were produced in and yes, at lower prices that Cadillacs were sold at and because I thought that Cadillacs were manufactured in the same factories as Cadillacs were, I thought that Lasalles were just cheaper priced Cadillacs with a Lasalle badge on them instead of a Cadillac badge on them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

LOL. Both actually.

I was under the impression that Lasalles were manufactured by the same factories that Cadillacs were produced in and yes, at lower prices that Cadillacs were sold at and because I thought that Cadillacs were manufactured in the same factories as Cadillacs were, I thought that Lasalles were just cheaper priced Cadillacs with a Lasalle badge on them instead of a Cadillac badge on them. 

Who knows...even in the ancient black & white world GM did have some body and platform sharing between divisions. 

Edited by Robert Hall
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

About the only saving grace on these is that at least they are making them look different.   But otherwise I'm seeing a repeat of the GMT360 days. 

2 Wheelbases, 3 different engines, every brand gets one.

 

1 hour ago, Robert Hall said:

The more things change with GM, the more they stay the same...every brand gets it's own versions.  They went so crazy w/ GMT360, surprised Pontiac and Cadillac didn't get variations of that...

 

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Isuzu and Saab did instead. 

I'll have an article up in a bit, but the long story short is that another 3-row crossover was just spied for Buick.... so now Chevy, Buick, and Cadillac will each have two versions of the platform.   I'm still thinking there will be a GMC larger than the Acadia eventually and Cadillac will likely get a third version in an XT7.

Ugh....

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows...even in the ancient black & white world GM did have some body and platform sharing between divisions.

Somebody knows- my god; Thanos hasn't stricken all history past last week, has he?
• Not 'platforms'; chassis' & bodies. Unless your want to talk about Nash or Hudson after certain years.
There was no chassis sharing until I believe the new '68 A-Bodies. Breezy sources will tell you GM used 'A', 'B', etc bodies across the Divisions --and they did to some degree beginning about 1933-- and while non-enthusiasts might think that means they were interchangeable; they were NOT.
• Up until the 1970s (when Cadillac's volume became unwieldy), there was only 1 Cadillac plant at one time.

every brand gets it's own versions


Don't think of it as 4 brands with the same (guts) vehicle.

Instead, think of it as ONE vehicle with 4, unprecedentedly different trims (bodies & interiors). Who else offers this level of individuality on one model??

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

 

 

I'll have an article up in a bit, but the long story short is that another 3-row crossover was just spied for Buick.... so now Chevy, Buick, and Cadillac will each have two versions of the platform.   I'm still thinking there will be a GMC larger than the Acadia eventually and Cadillac will likely get a third version in an XT7.

Ugh....

GM just can't help themselves... new GM is like old GM still in that if we have a platform available, every dealer gets a variation... esp. something that is currently hot like midsize crossovers.  C1XX is the J-body or W-body etc of today..  same meat, different toppings. 

 

48 minutes ago, balthazar said:

 

There was no chassis sharing until I believe the new '68 A-Bodies.  


Don't think of it as 4 brands with the same (guts) vehicle.

Instead, think of it as ONE vehicle with 4, unprecedentedly different trims (bodies & interiors). Who else offers this level of individuality on one model??

I'd assume the '64 A-bodies had the same chassis...same wheelbase.  What point would it have been to have different chassis for each brand?  I know GM had a lot of duplication back then like different V8s at each brand, but I would have thought they would strive for some commonality for economies of scale in manufacturing, esp. with the dirty bits.

 I would think the '65 B-body chassis would have been similar across the brands also other than wheelbase variations...likewise for the C-bodies.

Anyway, back to present day..the one vehicle w/ different trims view is intriguing...what is a GM brand/division these days, beyond styling and trim?  Just a marketing organization mostly.. 

Edited by Robert Hall
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

 

 

I'll have an article up in a bit, but the long story short is that another 3-row crossover was just spied for Buick.... so now Chevy, Buick, and Cadillac will each have two versions of the platform.   I'm still thinking there will be a GMC larger than the Acadia eventually and Cadillac will likely get a third version in an XT7.

Ugh....

Still lost as to why this is an issue or concern. Corner the CUV market. Why does that cause so much of an issue? And Cadillac should have everything that Chevy has.. but at the same time get its own unique vehicles. Makes zero sense to  create multiple platforms that don't get shared. OMEGA SHOULD BE AT CHEVY!!! Hope that causes some of U to burst into flames😂

47 minutes ago, balthazar said:


Don't think of it as 4 brands with the same (guts) vehicle.

Instead, think of it as ONE vehicle with 4, unprecedentedly different trims (bodies & interiors). Who else offers this level of individuality on one model??

YES.. That's exactly what it is. Not to mention its madly profitable. I don't think many of 'em know.. and quiet as its kept.. GM has somehow hit upon a formula that has yielded about $90 Billion in profits since BK.. they forget that GM without any efficiency lost $90 Billion before. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, balthazar said:

Who else offers this level of individuality on one model??

VW has MQB... that underpins everything from a Golf to the Atlas.  The difference there being that there is a huge difference between Golf and Atlas and nearly every car in between.  A Traverse is not drastically difference from an Enclave except in interior appointments. The Acadia and XT6 are on the same wheelbase, just that the XT6 has a few extra inches of length behind the rear wheel. 

VW also has MLB.... that one is used in VW, Audi, Porsche, and Bentley. But those cars are drastically different from each other also.

29 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

Still lost as to why this is an issue or concern. Corner the CUV market. Why does that cause so much of an issue? And Cadillac should have everything that Chevy has.. but at the same time get its own unique vehicles. Makes zero sense to  create multiple platforms that don't get shared. OMEGA SHOULD BE AT CHEVY!!! Hope that causes some of U to burst into flames😂

I don't mind platform sharing. I agree that Omega should have been used at Chevy and Buick as well... VSS (which is a combo of Alpha and Omega) will be.  What I mind is 6+ vehicles all of nearly the same dimensions overlapping each other in price, performance, and appointments. It's part of what got GM into trouble a decade ago.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, balthazar said:

Instead, think of it as ONE vehicle with 4, unprecedentedly different trims (bodies & interiors). Who else offers this level of individuality on one model??

But it is just one vehicle with different clothes on it.. What does one offer that the other two don't? Premium leather on the Caddy? They didn't give the Caddy's Super Cruise, like they should have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not as dumb as the 70's/80's/90's where they were so alike you could swap doors on them..

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

But it is just one vehicle with different clothes on it.. What does one offer that the other two don't? 

Different badging, different dealers (usually).  I'd assume the interior plastics are better than the Chevy, GMC or Buick and they have more interior color choices? 

Edited by Robert Hall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

Different badging, different dealers (usually).  I'd assume the interior plastics are better than the Chevy, GMC or Buick and they have more interior color choices? 

Clothes.. They just look different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, frogger said:

Not as dumb as the 70's/80's/90's where they were so alike you could swap doors on them..

True..they've improved since the infinite mediocrity of the 80s-90s X-bodies, A-bodies, J-bodies.....truly generic appliances.  Disposable, forgettable cars with no character, just cheap plastics and trivial brand differences.    These CUVs have distinct styling, but they are just as forgettable as past GM generics..just fodder for recycling in 10-15 years, nothing memorable.   Sad that GM doesn't aspire to do better.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

True..they've improved since the infinite mediocrity of the 80s-90s X-bodies, A-bodies, J-bodies.....truly generic appliances.  Disposable, forgettable cars with no character, just cheap plastics and trivial brand differences.    These CUVs have distinct styling, but they are just as forgettable as past GM generics..just fodder for recycling in 10-15 years, nothing memorable.   Sad that GM doesn't aspire to do better.

Right up to bankruptcy on some turds like their minivans and CUV's (Torrent) of the time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Social Stream

  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      Nearly two years ago, I drove the then all-new Hyundai Kona crossover at a press event. It was a unique looking vehicle that was entering the growing subcompact crossover class. Out of the three Hyundai vehicles I drove, the Kona impressed me most with its performance and value for money. But if there is something I have learned over eight years with reviewing vehicles, is that I can’t take first impressions as final. It has been a long wait, but I finally got my hands on a 2020 Kona Ultimate AWD. Let’s see if my first impression can still hold up.
      The Outer Limits (of Exterior Design)
      You may be forgiven for thinking that the Kona has just arrived in a UFO from Planet Nine due to its shape. But Hyundai knew they needed to make a splash in what is becoming a very competitive class. Designers took some influence from the Jeep Cherokee with a rounded front end and the front lights being separated into daytime lights and headlights. Another design trait is the slit that sits between the grille and hood cutline. Finishing off the look is body cladding running along the lower edge and a bright green paint color only available on the turbo engine models. It may seem like an odd mashup of ideas, but it works surprisingly well.
      A Conventional Interior
      Some will be disappointed that Hyundai didn’t continue the wacky design for the Kona’s interior. But having an interior that is user friendly will always pull ahead of interesting design. That isn’t to say Hyundai hasn’t added some special touches such as vent surrounds and seat stitching matching the exterior color. Hard plastics are used throughout, but they don’t feel hollow or cheap when you run your hand across.
      There is a fair amount of space for those sitting upfront. Comfort is ok for short trips, but I found myself wanting more thigh support on longer trips. In the back, there is a large amount of headroom for most passengers. Legroom is a different story as tall people will find their knees pressed against the front seats. Cargo space is another area where the Kona is lacking. With the rear seats up, the Kona’s cargo area measures 19.2 cubic feet - about 0.1 cubic feet more than the Toyota C-HR. Fold them down and space increases to 45.8. This trails the likes of the Chevrolet Trax, Nissan Kicks, and Honda HR-V.
      The One To Still Be Beaten (Infotainment-wise)
      The Kona Ultimate comes equipped with an eight-inch touchscreen featuring Hyundai’s infotainment system. This system has consistently been one of my favorites as Hyundai nails the basics - simple interface, blazing-fast performance, and having features such as Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. My only complaint is that the design is starting to look dated when compared to other automakers and their updated infotainment. 
      Turbo Power!
      Two powertrains are available in the Kona. SE, SEL, and SEL Plus use the 2.0L four-cylinder offering 147 horsepower and 132 pound-feet of torque. It’s paired with a six-speed automatic. Limited and Ultimate come with the turbocharged 1.6L four producing 175 horsepower and 195 pound-feet. This is paired with a seven-speed dual-clutch transmission. Front or all-wheel drive is available for either engine.
      Zippy is the word to describe the performance of the turbo engine. The Kona easily accelerates away from a stop and has no issue with passing a slower vehicle. The dual-clutch transmission seems to stumble when leaving a stop, but does get itself together at higher speeds. I also found the transmission is slow to react when your floor the throttle, taking a few milliseconds to downshift.
      EPA fuel economy figures for the 1.6T with AWD are 26 City/29 Highway/27 Combined. My average for the week landed around 26.7 mpg, mostly due to cold weather during the week I had the Kona.
      Woah, This Crossover Handles
      If you wanted a subcompact crossover that handled decently, your choices were either the Mazda CX-3 or Toyota C-HR. The Kona enters the ring as the third choice, and possibly the best. On the backroads, the Kona feels quite agile and has almost no body roll. If I was to nitpick, the steering doesn’t have as much feel as you’ll find in the CX-3. But it feels noticeably better than the C-HR. Ride quality is impressive with most bumps being isolated from passengers sitting inside. Not too much wind and road noise come inside.
      Possibly the Best Subcompact Crossover At the Moment
      Hyundai has a very compelling package in the Kona. There is an excellent performance from the turbocharged engine, impressive driving dynamics, easy to use infotainment system, and a long list of standard equipment. There are some drawbacks with the small cargo area and rear legroom topping the list. If you need the space, a Honda HR-V would be my first pick. The dual-clutch transmission still needs a bit more work to iron out the hesitation issues I experienced. 
      That first impression I had still stands and moves the Kona not only being the best in the class at the moment, but also onto a very rarefied list; a vehicle I would considering buying.
      How I Would Configure A Kona: The only reason I see buying the Ultimate is for the adaptive cruise control as most of the other safety equipment such as blind spot monitoring, parking sensors, and forward collision avoidance are available on other models. So if I wanted the Turbo engine, then I would step down to the Limited at $26,100. For those who think that is a tad expensive still should consider the SEL Plus as it comes very well equipped for $23,950. You do sacrifice the turbo engine for the 2.0L four-cylinder which is fine if your planning to drive mostly around town. Add an additional $1,400 for all-wheel drive.
      Disclaimer: Hyundai Provided the Kona, Insurance, and One Tank of Gas
      Year: 2020
      Make: Hyundai
      Model: Kona
      Trim: Ultimate
      Engine: 1.6L Turbocharged DOHC 16-Valve GDI Four-Cylinder
      Driveline: Seven-Speed Dual-Clutch, All-Wheel Drive
      Horsepower @ RPM: 175 @ 5,500
      Torque @ RPM: 195 @ 1,500 - 4,500
      Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 26/29/27
      Curb Weight: 3,276 lbs
      Location of Manufacture: Ulsan, South Korea
      Base Price: $29,150
      As Tested Price: $ 30,380 (Includes $1,095.00 Destination Charge)
      Options:
      Carpeted Floor Mats - $135.00

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Nearly two years ago, I drove the then all-new Hyundai Kona crossover at a press event. It was a unique looking vehicle that was entering the growing subcompact crossover class. Out of the three Hyundai vehicles I drove, the Kona impressed me most with its performance and value for money. But if there is something I have learned over eight years with reviewing vehicles, is that I can’t take first impressions as final. It has been a long wait, but I finally got my hands on a 2020 Kona Ultimate AWD. Let’s see if my first impression can still hold up.
      The Outer Limits (of Exterior Design)
      You may be forgiven for thinking that the Kona has just arrived in a UFO from Planet Nine due to its shape. But Hyundai knew they needed to make a splash in what is becoming a very competitive class. Designers took some influence from the Jeep Cherokee with a rounded front end and the front lights being separated into daytime lights and headlights. Another design trait is the slit that sits between the grille and hood cutline. Finishing off the look is body cladding running along the lower edge and a bright green paint color only available on the turbo engine models. It may seem like an odd mashup of ideas, but it works surprisingly well.
      A Conventional Interior
      Some will be disappointed that Hyundai didn’t continue the wacky design for the Kona’s interior. But having an interior that is user friendly will always pull ahead of interesting design. That isn’t to say Hyundai hasn’t added some special touches such as vent surrounds and seat stitching matching the exterior color. Hard plastics are used throughout, but they don’t feel hollow or cheap when you run your hand across.
      There is a fair amount of space for those sitting upfront. Comfort is ok for short trips, but I found myself wanting more thigh support on longer trips. In the back, there is a large amount of headroom for most passengers. Legroom is a different story as tall people will find their knees pressed against the front seats. Cargo space is another area where the Kona is lacking. With the rear seats up, the Kona’s cargo area measures 19.2 cubic feet - about 0.1 cubic feet more than the Toyota C-HR. Fold them down and space increases to 45.8. This trails the likes of the Chevrolet Trax, Nissan Kicks, and Honda HR-V.
      The One To Still Be Beaten (Infotainment-wise)
      The Kona Ultimate comes equipped with an eight-inch touchscreen featuring Hyundai’s infotainment system. This system has consistently been one of my favorites as Hyundai nails the basics - simple interface, blazing-fast performance, and having features such as Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. My only complaint is that the design is starting to look dated when compared to other automakers and their updated infotainment. 
      Turbo Power!
      Two powertrains are available in the Kona. SE, SEL, and SEL Plus use the 2.0L four-cylinder offering 147 horsepower and 132 pound-feet of torque. It’s paired with a six-speed automatic. Limited and Ultimate come with the turbocharged 1.6L four producing 175 horsepower and 195 pound-feet. This is paired with a seven-speed dual-clutch transmission. Front or all-wheel drive is available for either engine.
      Zippy is the word to describe the performance of the turbo engine. The Kona easily accelerates away from a stop and has no issue with passing a slower vehicle. The dual-clutch transmission seems to stumble when leaving a stop, but does get itself together at higher speeds. I also found the transmission is slow to react when your floor the throttle, taking a few milliseconds to downshift.
      EPA fuel economy figures for the 1.6T with AWD are 26 City/29 Highway/27 Combined. My average for the week landed around 26.7 mpg, mostly due to cold weather during the week I had the Kona.
      Woah, This Crossover Handles
      If you wanted a subcompact crossover that handled decently, your choices were either the Mazda CX-3 or Toyota C-HR. The Kona enters the ring as the third choice, and possibly the best. On the backroads, the Kona feels quite agile and has almost no body roll. If I was to nitpick, the steering doesn’t have as much feel as you’ll find in the CX-3. But it feels noticeably better than the C-HR. Ride quality is impressive with most bumps being isolated from passengers sitting inside. Not too much wind and road noise come inside.
      Possibly the Best Subcompact Crossover At the Moment
      Hyundai has a very compelling package in the Kona. There is an excellent performance from the turbocharged engine, impressive driving dynamics, easy to use infotainment system, and a long list of standard equipment. There are some drawbacks with the small cargo area and rear legroom topping the list. If you need the space, a Honda HR-V would be my first pick. The dual-clutch transmission still needs a bit more work to iron out the hesitation issues I experienced. 
      That first impression I had still stands and moves the Kona not only being the best in the class at the moment, but also onto a very rarefied list; a vehicle I would considering buying.
      How I Would Configure A Kona: The only reason I see buying the Ultimate is for the adaptive cruise control as most of the other safety equipment such as blind spot monitoring, parking sensors, and forward collision avoidance are available on other models. So if I wanted the Turbo engine, then I would step down to the Limited at $26,100. For those who think that is a tad expensive still should consider the SEL Plus as it comes very well equipped for $23,950. You do sacrifice the turbo engine for the 2.0L four-cylinder which is fine if your planning to drive mostly around town. Add an additional $1,400 for all-wheel drive.
      Disclaimer: Hyundai Provided the Kona, Insurance, and One Tank of Gas
      Year: 2020
      Make: Hyundai
      Model: Kona
      Trim: Ultimate
      Engine: 1.6L Turbocharged DOHC 16-Valve GDI Four-Cylinder
      Driveline: Seven-Speed Dual-Clutch, All-Wheel Drive
      Horsepower @ RPM: 175 @ 5,500
      Torque @ RPM: 195 @ 1,500 - 4,500
      Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 26/29/27
      Curb Weight: 3,276 lbs
      Location of Manufacture: Ulsan, South Korea
      Base Price: $29,150
      As Tested Price: $ 30,380 (Includes $1,095.00 Destination Charge)
      Options:
      Carpeted Floor Mats - $135.00
    • By William Maley
      This week, Hagerty obtained a document from General Motors' executive director in charge of program management, Michelle Braun that says development on future car and truck programs has been paused due to the COVID-19 outbreak. But the document also mentions some intriguing information on upcoming powertrains for the C8 Corvette. Here are the details,
      Corvette Z06: 5.5L DOHC V8 known as the LT6 that will produce 650 horsepower and 600 pound-feet of torque. No mention of any type of forced-induction. Corvette Gran Sport: 6.2L OHC V8 with a hybrid system that's expected to produce 600 horsepower and 500 pound-feet of torque. Corvette ZR1: Twin-Turbo 5.5L DOHC V8, dubbed LT7. Output is expected to be 850 horsepower and 800 pound-feet. Corvette Zora: The powerhouse of the C8, it will take the Twin-Turbo LT7 and augment with a hybrid system. This is expected to produce 1,000 horsepower and 975 pound-feet of torque. Hagerty's report says the rollout of the new engines will begin in 2022 with the LT6, but the COVID-19 outbreak may push the plans back.
      Source: Hagerty

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      This week, Hagerty obtained a document from General Motors' executive director in charge of program management, Michelle Braun that says development on future car and truck programs has been paused due to the COVID-19 outbreak. But the document also mentions some intriguing information on upcoming powertrains for the C8 Corvette. Here are the details,
      Corvette Z06: 5.5L DOHC V8 known as the LT6 that will produce 650 horsepower and 600 pound-feet of torque. No mention of any type of forced-induction. Corvette Gran Sport: 6.2L OHC V8 with a hybrid system that's expected to produce 600 horsepower and 500 pound-feet of torque. Corvette ZR1: Twin-Turbo 5.5L DOHC V8, dubbed LT7. Output is expected to be 850 horsepower and 800 pound-feet. Corvette Zora: The powerhouse of the C8, it will take the Twin-Turbo LT7 and augment with a hybrid system. This is expected to produce 1,000 horsepower and 975 pound-feet of torque. Hagerty's report says the rollout of the new engines will begin in 2022 with the LT6, but the COVID-19 outbreak may push the plans back.
      Source: Hagerty
    • By dfelt
      According to MotorTrend, fords Mach e while pissing off the mustang faithful has already sold out all production for America and Europe for the first year. As such with GM having a flexible EV platform and considerable new EVs coming over the next 3 years, this begs the question of Could GM produce a Camaro EV CUV and call it the Z28? With the first nine auto's off the EV platform to be a Cadillac, one has to wonder how GM might fit the sporty performance into their product line and having a performance CUV Camaro could be the magic ticket.
      To quote the MotorTrend story: we'd expect a Chevy Camaro electric SUV to at least match the 255 horsepower Ford is targeting for the base Mustang Mach-E. For higher-trim variants, Chevy would likely have to adopt a dual-motor all-wheel-drive setup to stay competitive with the 332-hp, 417-lb-ft Mach-E 4 and 459-hp, 612-lb-ft Mach-E GT.
      https://www.motortrend.com/news/chevrolet-camaro-e-28-renderings/


  • Recent Status Updates

  • Reader Rides

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...