bcs296

Astra Redline anybody?

Times are different now. Traction/stability control are huge steps forward. Combine with some real good snow tires and to me, the FWD advantage disappears.

This might be true that specifically, shift quality won't be any different, but under hard throttle you're going to feel the shifts with a 4 speed a lot more than with a 6 speed. The 4 speed has huge spacing in between gears compared to a 6 speed.

Well then you disagree with Edmunds' idea of what makes a better truck because they basically said the Silverado did everything better EXCEPT when it came to performance, where it was obliterated. As much as that might be a right or wrong evaluation of the two trucks, I knew (and you had to have known also) that Edmunds would do this as will C&D and MT. It's too bad GM doesn't care more about these things. You may say that people don't really care about reviews such as this or that they don't affect sales in the long run but I'm not sure I agree. There are plenty of people out there who think similarly to the testers. GM aftermarket? I would guess that MOST truck owners don't modify their trucks. Even still, it's ridiculous that people should have to go out and spend $2k on mods just to have equivalent performance to the Tundra. And they still aren't going to have a 6 speed. I'm really getting tired of hearing how great the 4L60E is. It WAS great. I suppose it IS good for a 4 speed. And yes, I have a truck with a 4L60E. IT'S STILL A 4 SPEED. Welcome to 1980.

This is quite simple. These models are flat out inappropriate for Europe. Whoever made this decision should be fired. These are the kind of bad management decisions that GM needs to eliminate or at least minimize.

It's really too bad that GM had to issue a recall over this. No recorded injuries and anyone who gets hurt because they weren't wearing their seatbelt only has themselves to blame. Regardless, it's great to see it at only a 1/5 scale compared to the Tundra recall.

Here's my crosspost from the thread in Other Guys about this comparison. GM deserved that. No reason for that 4 speed in there. This is 2007, not the 1980's. I would be willing to bet that the 6.0 liter with the 6 speed would be every bit as quick as the Tundra. Throw the Escalade powertrain in there and it's game over for Toyota. Too bad GM always has to leave something out. They fixed everything else in the Silverado but powertrains took a backseat as a result. I also would have liked to see a Sierra in the test. Isn't it a few hundred pounds lighter than the Silvy? It's really just sad that it's not going to be until MY08 (if we're lucky) that these trucks get the 6 speed. They really milked that 4 speed for all that it's worth and then some.

GM deserved that. No reason for that 4 speed in there. This is 2007, not the 1980's. I would be willing to bet that the 6.0 liter with the 6 speed would be every bit as quick as the Tundra. Throw the Escalade powertrain in there and it's game over for Toyota. Too bad GM always has to leave something out. They fixed everything else in the Silverado but powertrains took a backseat as a result. I also would have liked to see a Sierra in the test. Isn't it a few hundred pounds lighter than the Silvy?

Hey, here's a news flash for you. FWD is dead. I think it should be considered that most of these Q tips that are buying the DTS were also driving the Deville back when it was RWD.

I would PAY MONEY to knock that CR asshole out. That guy shopping for the Camry would be next, and then the CBS commentator right after. How about that 500k+ recall Toyota just pulled?

DAMN RIGHT! It's about ******* time too! The LSX engines have been the only respectable pushrod engines from GM for way too long. And who cares what they are called, they are going bye bye.

Definitely a disappointment.

I will be comfortable when the GMT900's get the 6 speed standard.

It has a multi-lobe cam similar to Honda's VTEC. What makes it a disaster is the fact that it has an even WORSE powerband than Honda 4 cylinders similar in size. Completely torqueless and thanks to poor design of its multiple lobes, full throttle shifts in the 6speed Celica GTS always land the engine rpms out of the "powerful" cam.

That would be a 5 cylinder.

252 is weak. That is what the Malibu should have a year ago, or at least now.

Well, Lexus currently sells eight models, so that makes the first eight. The other two? Well that would be the Camry and the Tundra of course.

It's not just you. It is much smaller for me too and I find it rather annoying.

Very funny. You're going to have to be a little more realistic. The global economy is here and it's not going anywhere. I think most Americans know from history that isolationism isn't the answer.

I suggest you avoid taking this guy's comments too seriously. Since its introduction, the Northstar has had its warts but most live long, trouble free lives. The issues have been worked out over the past 14 years (ugh) and today's Northstars in the Lucerne, DTS, and RWD Caddies are very reliable. Back on topic, I really hope GM does some serious work to the Northstar to bring its power to higher levels. When the Northstar debuted in 1993, it simply blew all of its competition out of the water. I was always hoping that when the RWD Northstar came out in '04, it would repeat the blowout that occured back in '93 but unfortunately it was only a 20hp bump, proving to be "good enough" to be competitive. Come on, GM. The competition is pumping 360, 380hp these days and I know 4.6 liters has more in it. Let's see at least 360+.

Those are jobs that, for the most part, can't and won't be outsourced. Their work isn't in jeopardy so they CAN be well paid. Their work is always going to be needed in this country, so it is very valuable. I'm not arguing on this point -- I definitely agree. I recently read somewhere about how America has an astronomical number of management positions in which the people get paid three figure salaries to sit in an office and go to meetings all day. This is another crime and another area where the Big 2.5 could learn a thing or two from Toyota. When business is in the toilet, cuts have to be made. It happens every day and for some reason, union workers think it doesn't apply to them. This is one reason why I hate the unions. When business is sucking and a company can't afford to employ so many workers, they would typically have lay offs. People who work in the IT field for instance are often the first to go, and they are helpless against it even if they worked very hard to maintain the technological backbone of the company. But when a company like GM needs to make wage cuts or change the way it handles benefits in order to save its business, union workers will just whine and strike until GM gives them what they want at the price of the company's ability to save itself from bankruptcy. Notice they don't even have to worry about being LAID OFF thanks to the contracts. The business world would be a mess if everybody could just whine and strike until they got what they wanted. You might argue that striking forces management to reevaluate it's practices in order to turn business around. GM did that, and for once they realize that it needs products to succeed. In order to develop those good products, they need money. In order to make money, they need good products. It is a vicious circle but now GM has dug themselves into a hole over the past 20-30 years and unfortunately, the industry is more competitive than ever right now.

This sounds great and all, but I'll believe it when I see it. Too bad the 3.5 will be the best selling engine and it's the one getting a 4 speed. (Isn't it?)

American businesses cannot survive when their laborers are being paid $10-30 an hour while their competitors' workers are paid in the cents over in China, India, etc. There is simply no way to compete. The American standard of living is sliding, while that of developing countries is rising. This is more or less inevitable, but of course the union workers either deny that it is happening, or feel that it can continue to happen while they still make $25/hour and have full benefits. When these companies (GM for instance) need to make changes to compensate, the union strikes. So, said companies can either stop production and go out of business (which obviously never does or will happen), or spend themselves into oblivion on their overpaid workers and die anyway. This isn't the 1950's, 1960's, or 1970's anymore. I suppose the UAW will just keep losing members and GM will keep making plants outside of the U.S. until there are no manufacturing jobs left in the U.S. That's fine with me since I don't plan to go into that line of work, but it's still going to be a big hit to our economy, not to mention leave hundreds of thousands, if not millions, without jobs. It's too bad really, but if these workers can't accept the reality of the situation, then the issue will be dealt with in another way.

LOL, 5 and 6 speed auto's. Man, you are too funny. I mean really, like comedian funny. Maybe you should go on SNL or something. Who do you think you are dealing with here, GM or Toyota? 5 and 6 speed auto's... I'm still laughing. Why would GM do that when they could use technology from 25 years ago?

What makes that threat disappear if the UAW disappears? I don't see what is stopping unionization from occurring just because the UAW went away. Toyota could treat their workers decent because they *gasp* know how to run a company. Argue if you must, it's pointless. They are the ones making money hand over fist and on track to sell more cars than anybody else. GM? Well, not so much. What a concept. Maybe if GM knew how to run their business, they could be union-less too and save millions of dollars.