oldshurst442

I dont get into sitcoms or television today. Game of Thrones...nope. Breaking Bad...nope. I cant even mention other shows as I dont know any... The last sitcom I was really into was 21/2 Men with Charlie Sheen. The only stuff I love watching, which is my alone time, is sports. Ill watch NFL football or NHL hockey feverishly. Ill record the games I wanna watch and when the family goes to sleep, Ill watch my sports alone since nobody in the family likes to watch pro sports on TV. Baseball. Im starting to watch many more baseball games. Excited as Montreal may get another chance sometime in the not tooo far future. Love baseball more than I do hockey. And I LOOOOOOVE hockey! Ill also watch Discovery Channel and History Channel stuff. Whatever that may be. Sometimes my son and daughter see that stuff with me. We will watch movies though together. All kinds of movies. My wife is into the trash reality TV. Big Brother. Big Brother Canada. Survivor. Amazing Race. Amazing Race Canada. So as a family, we will do that. Sometimes though, I cant do trash reality TV. So I do youtube instead.

I bought the complete series DVD of Cheers just before Christmas. I started watching them sometime in mid January. I finished watching all 11 years 2 weeks ago. It took me 7-8 weeks. Yeah...Id call that binge watching! It turns out, I had watched ALL the episodes back then. Did not miss one show...impressive. Now, I gotta be clear. When Cheers started, I was too young to start choosing what Im gonna watch, and my dad was not into Cheers back in 1982. But...I did discover Cheers after its 3rd season. Sometime when the 3rd season started, my family was watching Cheers religiously. The re-runs were the reason why I saw all the episodes back in the day. The only thing that I noticed was that I barely remember 2 intros. I know I saw them back in the day, but whime watching these new DVDs, my memory of them was faint. The rest...the memory of Cheers was very very vivid! I could honestly say, I STILL love Cheers!

So...are you watching?

Im guessin' the same stupid shyte that Vincent Vega is glarin' at... At least he's glaring at it with style... Here, you wanna see? No need for the gun tho! But you cant have it...catch my drift?

Interesting. But I just wanna put out another point of view. A hypothetical if you will. This engine is a successor to the one that is in the ATS, right? I know for a fact that one (of many) issue many journalists had with the ATS, and undoubtedly folks coming from Audi or BMW was that the 2.0T in the ATS was not as refined as the one offered in a Bimmer or Audi. Wasnt smooth. (A common complaint for GM 4 cylinders since, like...forever.) Well, this transmissions, as per the OP, and Ford apparently, is that it makes the LSY a refined powerplant. Ford may not have had use for it because the refinement improvements alone did not justify the costs and weight increases for their Ford branded vehicles, but seeing GM kept it for their Cadillac small CUV, maybe GM and Cadillac engineers decided that refinement was an upmost priority and since an XT4 doesnt really need tire melting torque to convince people to buy it, but silky smooth driving dynamics to lure folk from the German brands, then perhaps it was a wise decision? Because that is how I choose to view this decision. Because quite honestly, 237 horsepower and 258 ft.lbs of torque for a cute ute CUV in a segment that really doesnt care for power, nor would they understand it or feel or even want it, is good enough. And here I was, trying to find out what the XT4's competition is with a Car and Driver article that tested it that usually also mentions the competition, and the first thing in the title is: The 2019 Cadillac XT4 Is More Smooth Than Sporty They follow that up with: Cadillac continues to bifurcate its lineup into sporty sedans and milquetoast crossovers. https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a23143999/2019-cadillac-xt4-crossover-drive/ But...crossovers, especially little shytbox crossovers like these, ARE NOT ABOUT SPORTY...despite what some of us want to believe... And after looking at the competition's numbers, Porsche, Volvo, Alfa Romeo...all 3 have more HP and torque...but... like I said...crossovers, especially little shytbox crossovers like these, ARE NOT ABOUT SPORTY...despite what some of us want to believe... This is what Car and Driver said: Steering and suspension response is uncommunicative...par for the class. Porsche and M-B and BMW and Alfa Romeo is well represented... Midpack for performance times vis-a-vis the competition, in a segment that doesnt give a phoque about performance...despite Porsche and Alfa Romeo and BMW...in this segment...and an anemic XT4 is STILL midpack in performance times...BUT...ITS SMOOTH AND QUIET!!! Something that 4 cylinder GM cars NEVER were...and THIS is a Cadillac, where smoothness and quietness IS A MUST!!! For the FIRST time in like...forever!

*SIGH* Balthy's brother... I forgot to put the word 'brother' right after the word 'Balthy' to suggest that Im honouring his BROTHER's Firebird! *SIGH* I could hardly EVER get ANYTHING right! ?

Mostly Firebirds. To honour Balthy's 1968 1000 horsepower plus Firebird! From 1967-2002

I love it in black. Matte Black being the favorite. Preferably in 'M" guise of course. But it looks good in any colour, to my eyes at least! Me too, the 4dr over the 2dr But the 2dr is sexy too.

It took me awhile to warm up to the 6 Series Grand Coupe, partly because I did not want to admit that I could like a BMW. But in the end, I put all that bias aside, and saw it for what it truly was...a beautiful car. The 4 Series Grand Coupe is also nice. Its sleek. But one has to like that sorta thing in the first place (sloping, fastback, coupe styling on sedans) to truly enjoy the looks of it. But, that style, has been over done by many brands over the years, I must admit. That look has become generic. There was a time when it wasnt generic though. I dont understand one thing though. Why are designers afraid to go back to sleek designs, but with a trunk? Why must a fast-back look to a sedan automatically mean that there is not trunk lid? ( I like that modern fastback look, but cars in the 1990s did that sleek look better IMO) Or C pillar designs that are not copied from one another? I understand high belt lines are the culprit and the reason for those maybe for safety regulations...beams inside the doors, thicker A-Pillars for crumple zones to protect the cabin and the like... But that still does not change the fact that sleekness does not always mean no trunk lid, and the complete lack individuality concerning the shape of the windows back and front... All the cars I posted, (and there are many more), they all have a UNIQUE design to ALL the window area, front and back of the car that blends in beautifully with the roofline of the car, the doors and the side profile of the car... If you analyze the Olds Aurora with the Chrysler 300M, you would realize that the greenhouse, the roofline, the slopes, the windows the way they flow, the design of the profiles, are very very similar between the two....yet very very very different... I just dont get it with today's cars and CUVs/SUVs... I wouldnt be THAT much against CUVs had they not all looked the same...

Whiny little pansy...perhaps?

Come on Eileen, huh? Ive had Come Dancing in my head the past two days. I did not hear the song anywhere. It just popped in there just like that!

And it looks like you would be correct in your logic. As the CT5 would be the A5/S5's sportback's competitor. But you got to admit, the CT5 comes off more like an Accord than an S5 sportback. And I think it all comes down to that retarded Hofmeister kink...which I will state again...I like it. I also think that the hood of the CT5 looks to be a tad frumpy. Especially as compared to the S5. The S5 has the illusion of the front end to be longer than it actually is. Which accentuates the timeless design of a long hood/short deck theme. The CT5 does not pull that look off. The Escala has it, but the Escala is also a longer car with a much longer wheel base. The Accord also pulls off the long hood/short deck theme quite nicely too. Maybe on the CT5, the picture is too dark and we lose that effect? We should all see it in person before we continue to crucify the CT5...

Yup. Maybe the CT4 is more geared to be sold in China? And if they sell a dozen units here, well so be it?

Its really not that bad looking of a car. The front and back are almost....almost...stunning. Especially in that cherry red colour. The interior promises to be worthy of a Cadillac car. So...we are just a bunch of whiny little pansies bitchin' about nothing! Yes. The profile seems to look like a new Accord. The new Accord, to those who like sloping, fastback styling sedans, is quite striking and quite unique and quite pleasant to look at. The profile and silhouette only. Because the front and back of the Accord leaves a lot to be desired. I like it, but its ugly. But having that kind of sloping fastback resemble a Honda is not a bad feature. To those who like that kind of thing. Its just that I, want MORE for Cadillac. I DEMAND excellence for Cadillac as I hold Cadillac in very high regard. For me, its a shame that the stylists and designers for Cadillac dont seem to have that kind of pride that I hold for Cadillac, it seems.

aye yai yai That CT4... People complained about the ATS' lack of rear legroom space. So...how does Cadillac fix that with an even smaller car than the ATS? Maybe its smaller than the ATS? But how can it be a tad bigger than the ATS when the CT5 is believed to be a tad bigger than the ATS? I just dont buy into small Cadillacs. Dont like 'em. Dont want 'em!

I thought they downsized the CT5 from the CTS to become a tweener again like how the 1st and 2nd generations CTS were.

Im one of those folks... Im disappoint because it has Honda Accord aspirations rather than Cadillac ones (nah...no Escala in this) despite what @Cmicasa the Great says. But it aint a bad looking vehicle. I get why the CT5 could never be as sexy as the Escala. Shorter vehicle with a much shorter wheel base. Therefore one should never expect a midsizer to exude a certain type of look that a bigger, and longer wheel base car can achieve, but, Cadillac could have done the controversial C pillar design a tad better, a tad more coherent and hella more sexier because its a damned Cadillac!!! But I dont have a problem with that C Pillar design per se. I do have a problem with the CT5 imitating a Honda. Kudos to Honda for making a FWD appliance car look desirable. (I like the new Honda Accord) Or Ford for its Fusion. Or Chevy for its Impala and Malibu, etc... Boo to Cadillac for not making its new CT5 more prestigious in terms of looks. I mean, it takes a page out of Honda's playbook. Not a bad thing per se, but not good for Cadillac trying to be unique and expensive.... But I said I was one of those folk that would buy a new CT5... Well...I would buy one. I like the way it looks. But Im disappoint because once again, yet another model does not inspire Standard of the World... Maybe, its because its the nature of the segment the CT5 is in. I dont inspire to a Mercedes C Class or BMW 3 Series either... I dont inspire to the last couple of E Class generations nor do I inspire to the 5 Series either. The last 5 Series I insipred to was the E39... Because all those models I mentioned, the last 15 years, are nothing but lease queen specials (along with their CUV counterparts) that have over extended debt morons lease them trying to impress their Facebook friends with them taking selfies and talking about how perfect their life is... So...there is that why I may not be impressed with the CT5, because Cadillac and BMW and M-B know that most of those leased cars in that niche are just broken cigar morons that will lease them so they dont try hard to design a wow factor car because its not about the wow factor exterior, but more about the badge on the hood....

That's what SHE said! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kinda like this...yes?!

1957

To be fair, the Escala is NOT the new CT5. The Escala is to come... But yeah, although I dont feel let down for the same reasons you feel down about the CT5, I do feel let down. But a tiny bit, not as fully down you feel about it. Im just perplexed on why Cadillac felt the need to look like a FWD Honda Accord. And the FWD Accord looks to be longer and sleeker to boot. Which SHOULD be a Cadillac trait. *Sigh* Still waiting for that long, sleek, slick black Cadillac car to arrive. Well, the CT6 Blackwing is certainly that. But 1 model aint enough...

That...my friend I never knew!!! I owned a 1999 Olds Alero... I knew EXACTLY what truck you were referring too, and every time I used to see one on the road, there was always something puzzling to me, like a deja vu feeling... I did not know what was that familiarity feeling I had about that truck...but thanks to you...now I know!!! And I totally see it NOW that you pointed it out! You really dont know how happy you just made me feel!!! No...no sarcasm. I promise! You really made me happy!

Well..yes! Words on a screen...can be quite difficult to detect, um, sarcasm. PS: If you couldnt detect it, my apology is...um...sarcastic...

Give it a rest...I agree...especially when that particular Saturn has been out of production for over a decade. And no, just because it could be the same Saturn part number, it does not take away from the CT5 being a Cadillac. Its just a bloody window for God's sake.... PS: It may or may not be... It probably take MORE engineering dollars to purposely fit that old parts number piece into a newly engineered car on a completely different platform just to save a few nickels and dimes for an already available number than start with a clean slate piece. It looks the same, in the pictures. Its probably a whole different part. PSS: The reason why I say its a different part all together, GM would have to purposely engineering the roofline angles and slopes of the CT5 to be the EXACT identical roofline and slope to the ION, which would affect the platform...remember, the ION was a subcompact. The CT5 is a midsizer. One was a FWD unibody while the CT5 is a RWD unibody on two completely different platforms that have NOTHING in common. Maybe Im wrong, but when I read that certain platforms dont lend well to different wheelbases to house different types of vehicles, well, Im thinking that on a midsized RWD platform to get all the right ROUNDED ARCs and angles, widths and lengths, thickness... JUST to fit a window piece that went on a FWD subcompact, seems a tad ludicrous for me!

splitting hairs and being defensive... cool with me. Everything is all right! Not on the Tahoe using a version of a Silverado chassis and the 'Slade being on the Tahoe chassis... In which Cadillac, since the 3rd gen 'Slade has done a fantabulous job of using MAC lipstick on it... But your whole notion trying to troll Dfelt because he said this M-B was a pig with lipstick on it... Why even bring up the Escalade in the 1st place? Its OK...I really dont care about us bickering back and forth... Ive moved on from that. Sorry I even bothered with this discussion. Ill just refrain from posting in the future regarding sensless trolling...