cp-the-nerd

Unless this is a supercharger kit for all 5.3L GM trucks, I really don't understand this sport truck. The LT1 is way too close to this in output, last year's unveiling of the Tahoe sport with 6.2L/10A made way more sense.

If you put a full intake and exhaust on an otherwise stock Silverado 6.2L, you'd be making 455 horsepower right there.

You posted the September sales sheet.

Well you're wrong, but don't let that stop you. 

Turbo performance varies significantly with temperature fluxuation and heatsoak no matter what the mfr does in the tune. Using premium 3 months of the year to mitigate losses to fuel economy and power, not to mention possible pre-ignition in worst conditions, is worth the minor added cost.

I'd prefer the thread wasn't derailed any further over something so irrelevant, so make another thread if you want to argue premium benefits in turbo engines.

It's not just how it's programmed. Turbocharging is all about temperature management, and there's tons of real-world evidence that in high temps, regular recommendations go right out the window.

You guys put way too much stock in minimum recommended octane. It's literally a selling point to say your economy car recommends regular. Doesn't mean premium makes no difference.

Basically all turbocharged engines benefit from using premium. In the case of my wife's Cruze, we use premium in the summer and switch to regular the rest of the year when temp isn't a factor.

We knew it was hot and humid in the south so we filled with premium for the week.

2017 Cruze Hatchback Premier (1.4T/6A)
Odo - 8051 mi

We just took the Cruze on a 1,000 mile road trip (from Baltimore to Myrtle Beach and back) and this was my first extended, in-depth experience driving and living with the car for a week. I'll break down the review into sections if you want to skip around.

Fuel Economy (EPA rated 28 city/37 highway):
*Premium gas/mobil 1 oil used. Manual recommends regular gas, dexos approved synthetic oil.

On our trip, we achieved 39.3 mpg leaving Baltimore and 41.0 mpg coming back, based on the gauge cluster. My wife reports that it's fairly accurate, if optimistic by an mpg. Hand calculation is pretty much out the window because we have to hit 3 different gas stations with wildly different pump shut-offs and then we burn half a tank around town for the week. Sorry, I'm just not that invested when I know we can trust the gauge cluster.

We did not hypermile whatsoever, just used cruise control as much as possible. We passed slow traffic and drove aggressively when the situation called for it. No sitting behind slow traffic or drafting large trucks to fluff the numbers. We drove 7-10 over the speed limit, with most of the journey being 65 and 70 mph zones.

- From what I can tell, 75 mph seems to be the 40 mpg cutoff. 
- 60 to 70 mph is the sweet spot for crushing the EPA highway rating.
- The gauge cluster's "Best 50 mile average mpg" indicated we set a new high score of 49 mpg.

Engine/Transmission
1.4T DI VVT is rated 153 hp/177 tq
C&D test numbers for the premier hatchback auto: 0-60 in 7.7 sec, 1/4 mile in 16 @ 84 mph.

In my experience, the direct-injected 1.4T provides more than adequate acceleration and feels peppy. The tires will peel out a bit when floored from a stop, and the engine offers strong torque for low-stress highway merging or passing even with 2 people and probably 150 lbs of luggage. I also drove with 4 adult occupants and acceleration remained adequate around town without revving hard. At full throttle, the engine starts getting out of breath above 5500 rpm.

The transmission is more eco-tuned than I'd like, but the logic is a far cry from the mess of GM's first 6-speeds. Downshifting to accelerate takes a bit of prodding, but the downshift is drama free with a progressive surge of turbo torque that follows. After 6 hours on the road, we hit stop and go traffic briefly and under 25 mph the transmission tripped over itself a few times noticeably enough for my wife to point it out. Can't really be replicated on demand.

Steering/Handling

The electric power system in the Cruze has good heft to it, and the predictable turn-in seems to mask the electric numbness.

It's easy to drive, which is a comment I found myself coming back to frequently in my thoughts behind the wheel. It's not sporty, but it nails easy driving and commuting. The tires are all-season performance firestone firehawk GTs in 225/45R17 size. They handle securely, but make a lot of road noise in an otherwise quiet car. Michelins or Continentals will make a world of difference.

Brakes

One of the weak points of the car is the brake pedal. It sits an inch further forward than the gas pedal, which is very awkward in use. There's also too much play between gentle slowing and heavy braking. It feels like you're pushing through the floor to stop quickly.

Mechanically, the car has 4-wheel disk brakes, and they stop the car with authority. Pedal placement and feel is really the problem.

Conclusion

My wife and I really like the car. I keep coming back to the "easy to drive" sentiment, fun wasn't the goal here and I already have a car for that. It's very happy commuting and eating up highway miles at 40 mpg. I was comfortable in the seats for 8 hours of driving, which is very rare. The acceleration power straddles base versus optional engines of other cars like the Civic and Mazda 3 without sacrifice to maximum fuel economy, which is a good balance that hasn't left us wanting.

With a set of good tires and perhaps a tune in the far future, this car will be hanging around well beyond the last payment.

On 9/16/2017 at 4:38 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

The ATS replacement.

I still think JDN is being cagey with words when he says that the number of sedans will be reduced. Yes, the XTS obviously will go, but I think the "sedans" part should be examined. The ATS and CTS aren't going to be combined into a single car, there will be vehicles in both slots... they just might not be sedans. Think new Regal Sportback, Kia Stinger, Tesla Model S as examples.

The way I read the press release, Cadillac says it's merging the ATS and CTS by creating a tweener in size and presumably price. The document went on to say a car smaller/less expensive than the ATS is in the product plan: a 1-Series/A3/CLA competitor.

I think the logic behind the wording is dubious, for sure, but the new smallest Cadillac (if it makes it out of the planning phase at all) is likely to be a significant departure from the ATS, whereas the CT5 will be meant to cover the current market of the ATS and CTS. Not being argumentative, just discussing.

The Toyota/Lexus 2.0T is a solid generation behind the industry. Maybe this is good because it distracts from the fact that their 3.5L V6 lags not just 3.0T engines in the industry, but also other N/A V6 performance cars.

I'm legitimately confused by Lexus's product plan top to bottom, from design to engineering.

The ATS wont live that long. The CTS/ATS replacement will likely be a 2019 model year, and it's almost guaranteed to be a 2.0T/3.0T powertrain, with a new hi-po V8 topping the range.

ATS 2.0T 8A
0-60: 5.7 sec
1/4 mi: 14.2 @ 98 mph

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/cadillac/ats/2017/2017-cadillac-ats-20t-first-test-review/

ATS 2.0T 6M
0-60: 5.7 sec
1/4 mi: 14.1 @ 101 mph

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-cadillac-ats-coupe-20t-manual-test-review

I could only find one test of the ATS V6/8A RWD. It was by C&D and it was slower than their test of the old V6/6A, which is clearly an aberration. Tests of the alpha Camaro V6 8A and 6M are both running high 13s and trapping 102-103 mph.

I like the styling, Genesis is developing a decent design language for itself. It highlights the RWD proportions well.

I knew this was loosely related to the Stinger, but when I looked at the interiors back to back, you can actually see that it shares all the hard points, ventilation, stereo speakers, infotainment screen, and appears to have some possible carryover switchgear.

They generally did a good job differentiating the interior design to hide this fact, but it's underwhelming to see direct sharing between a Kia and the first ground-up Genesis model.

With all that said, I look forward to seeing this car in action.

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

Who cares though? They made it public that they aren't chasing "dynamic" cars so be it transverse or longitudinally. Why fork out the cash for a different chassis for something so minute to their target audience? If they were pretending to be a sports sedan, you'd be spot on and I'd agree 100%. 

What are its shortcomings? It isn't a sport sedan(and they're not afraid to hide it)? lol 

Shortcomings: it's well over two tons and doesn't have chassis tech to hide it, it only has 6 forward gears, and doesn't have the engineering to put turbo V6 power down without some torque steer despite the AWD. Basically the same shortcomings as a 5-year-old XTS V-Sport, but one that simply goes a step further in luxury. If you're shopping in the $50-70k range, these things do matter when you test drive competitors and see what bespoke luxury engineering has to offer.

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

I'm not implying they could have at all. They just don't give a $h! to do that. What benefit would they have gotten by trying to make a sport sedan and then being one of like 10 entrants or go the route they did and they're more like 1 of 5. But like you said, they don't even have something to make as a sport sedan so what good would it have done them to hold onto their other $h! for X more years until they finish their D4 platform(or whatever the heck it's called)? 

Everything is kind of a placeholder until the next, better product comes down the line.. Who knows if Lincoln will ever make real "comeback cars". I think Ford/Lincoln are too big of pansies to allow them to really go nuts. 

You seem to think that Lincoln is the only company with a comfortable luxury barge and that it's not losing anything to accomplish this with a largely mass market FWD/AWD powertrain. There are $30k midsize cars with better transmissions.

Again, it's a nice car, the best Lincoln's had to offer in a long time. Don't oversell it with nonsense about "going their own way."

9 minutes ago, dfelt said:

I would not totally agree with you on this, look at Audi and how EVERYTHING is based on a FWD platform with AWD option and it has not hurt them.

My big issue with the Continental is for such a large supposed to be Luxury car, the interior space SUCKS. Especially back seat as there is NO SPACE for big guys. My personal test is set the front seat for myself to be comfy and then get in behind the seat and i have to open my legs to push up on the sides of the front seat and bend my neck and fold up as there is no head room or legroom.

Notice I said inferior FWD-based *transverse* platform. I did not simply say it's FWD-based and inherently inferior, which is how you responded to it. Audi sedans have longitudinally arranged engines and are dynamically superior to anything Lincoln builds. The Continental is no engineering marvel. It's overweight and drives reasonably well in spite of its shortcomings.

37 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

All of your excuses on why the Continental SHOULDN'T be a good car has nothing to do with why it IS a good car. While it isn't some ground breaking technological advancement(although those seats are pretty damn nifty) they went and did their own thing and said from the beginning what the goal of the car was, and it wasn't to be like another car. 

Outside of enthusiasts, nobody gives a fck what wheels drive your car. It isn't a sports sedan so why does it matter if it is FWD based or RWD based? I'd bet half of the buyers in this large, luxury car segment don't know if their luxury car is FWD or RWD based, they just get AWD if they want it. 

That's such a cop out argument. You're implying Lincoln *could have* built a sport sedan Continental but chose not to. No, they went the only direction they had available. It was either build a cushy, flashy Continental with a focus on creature comforts or drop the large luxury segment.

And again, you don't get trailblazing credit when you design a very derivative-looking car.

I said it was a good product for what it is. I just find it to still be something of a placeholder while we wait years for Lincoln's real comeback cars.

2 hours ago, ccap41 said:

Yep, follow the leader. 

Lincoln has attempted to set their own pace with the Continental. That's no sport sedan. We'll see how that fairs down the road. 

It's a bit disingenuous to lambaste Cadillac for "following the leader" and praise the Lincoln Continental in the same breath. Besides the widely accepted notion that the Continental is one of the most derivative designs in the luxury market, it's a car built entirely within the confines of what the "One Ford" strategy had available. Everyone knows this. It's on an inferior FWD-based transverse platform among longitudinal-engine luxury cars.

They can have credit for making a solid product that appears to be greater than the sum of its humble parts, but in no way are they a pioneering brand based on that product.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/kia/stinger/2018/2018-kia-stinger-gt-first-test-review/

The review is largely unremarkable. They like how the car drives and the blend of ride compliance while maintaining handling responsiveness. The 3.3T V6 makes good power and rarely feels burdened unless it gets caught in the lower revs. They have some gripes with the 8-speed transmission hesitation and steering. One point of surprise is how this RWD example weighed in just over 4000 lbs despite being touted as one of the first cars on Hyundai/Kia's new lighter RWD platform.

I personally find issue with the constant doting on Hyundai and Kia as being a "great first try," or a "good start" like they're patting them on the back and judging their product in a vacuum because they were terrible 10 years ago. Well I found an inconvenient comparison for them, the 2012 Hyundai Genesis R-Spec:

2012 Genesis R-Spec (Motor Trend test)
5.0L/8-speed auto
429 hp/376 tq
0-60: 4.8 sec
1/4 mi: 13.3 @ 107.1 mph
Braking: 109 ft
Grip: .87g
Figure 8: 26.3 sec
Weight: 4199 lb
Starting Price: $47,350 ($48, 785 as tested)

2018 Kia Stinger (Motor Trend test linked above)
3.3T/8-speed auto
365 hp/376 tq
0-60: 4.8 sec
1/4 mi: 13.3 @ 106.9 mph
Braking: 113 ft
Grip: .85g
Figure 8: 26.2 sec
Weight: 4005 lb
Estimated Price: $50,000 as tested ($40,000 base, whatever that includes)

New engine, new chassis, 6 years apart, and these two cars are on top of each other. Hyundai/Kia have progressed essentially nowhere in half a decade, and I'm done saying "great first try" because this isn't the company's first, second, or third RWD. Good looking car, reasonable performance. Nothing mind blowing.

I'm curious how this study takes into account whether a turbocharged engine is more or less efficient than the larger displacement naturally aspirated engine they replace. I generally agree that turbocharging is overrated for economy sake, and specifically when comparing real world driving to gaming the EPA tests, but there's a lack of specific information provided in Autoblog's summary of the research.

Are we being told that new 350-400 horsepower 3.0T engines are less efficient than recently defunct 250 hp N/A 3.0L engines? Are we comparing Ford's soon-to-be-retired 2.0L N/A (160 hp) to the Ecoboost 2.0T (240+ hp)? Well obviously the turbocharged version will fall flat.

I can submit a comparison of my own. My wife's former Cobalt Sport 2.4L VVT made roughly 170 hp/160 tq mated to a 4-speed automatic. This is quite comparable to her new Cruze Premier Hatchback 1.4T/6A, which makes 153 hp/177 lb-ft and offers similar straight line performance. Both are driven on the same 30 mile commute as well as day to day errands and are just a bit under 3,000 lbs. The Cruze is 8-10 mpg more efficient.

So a country with utterly lax industrial emissions laws wants to switch to mass lithium ion battery production to curb vehicle emissions which are only a fraction of the pollution problem. Anyone see where I'm going with this? Chinese birth laws are going to get real awkward when kids have two heads and three arms.

More irrelevant announcements about the distant future Lincoln product pipeline. In 2022, most luxury makers will have entirely fresh lineups compared to today.

You could literally say "Lincoln will have a sports car in 2022" and not even start designing it for another year, and yet that would be infinitely more exciting than the real announcement that they'll all have electric powertrains in 5 years. *Yawn.*

Suddenly Cadillac's new name scheme doesn't seem bad at all!

The interior is a jumbled mess with fake-looking glossy wood, buttons everywhere, and a dual screen infotainment system that by definition is over-complicating the driving experience and completely unnecessary.

Exterior is the latest in Honda's totally lost approach to design.

Not a fan. I can't believe the abysmal sales justified a refresh, but this is certainly not going to turn the model around. In 2015 it only sold double the volume of the Cadillac ELR, and the 2016 sales plummeted another 30%.

12 minutes ago, frogger said:

GM's Magnetic Ride Control is awesome, one of the best things they've produced..

GM didn't produce magnetic ride control. They license it from Delphi, which they owned at one time.

1 hour ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

^^^Cool.. we can go back to disagreeing. The Z06 is a beast.. even more so over my Z51 or a Grand Sport. Its just better. An upgrade on the Z06 as the ZR1.. for around $100K+ will be the ultimate slap in the face of anyone owing a so called exotic. Most likely it will be in the 700HP range and f@#k up anything moving. Z06 is already a car pulling in high 10s stock.. and ZR1 will be in the 9s. U can't more special than that without spending $1Mil. 

I'll hold off and simply buy the Mid-Engine in its second year I think tho.. unless they say its on sale date isn't til 2020.. and then I might have to upgrade in 2018-2019 to a Z06 or ZR1

No disrespect to the Corvette's outright performance, it's just that in the past Z06 was always meant weight-conscious and naturally aspirated. The C5 and C6 Z06 were both under 3200 lbs, the C7 Z06 is over 3500 lbs. That's a clear change in approach that defies the name's heritage. It's an incredible supercar nonetheless, even if overheating issues put a damper on the release.

Hearing the ZR1 is slated to be another supercharged 6.2L just seems mundane after rumors of DOHC and turbochargers (and knowing such an engine is well into development for Cadillac).

I take any engine speculation with a grain of salt at this point. The Corvette Z06 and ZR1 were both disappointing to me when the facts came out. Z06 because it was far more like the C6 ZR1 and it lost the unique charm and spirit of the C5/C6 Z06 models, and the upcoming ZR1 because it's just a C7 Z06 with a bigger blower and more aero.

I hope the mid engine Corvette and the eventual Z/28 Camaro are more special.

14 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Possibly depending on the person driving, their skills and your idea of what Handling means in regards to each auto. My Trailblazer SS AWD handles much better than the Taurus, Fusion and Focus. My skill as an experienced racer puts me even higher than most people driving my TB. All auto's are subjective to the type of auto it is and the driver and so many other things.

So it is hard to say an Apple is better than an Orange. This is a moving goal post trying to compare CUV's to Cars and depending on the experience of the driver.

No, *you* moved the goal post by throwing in a wildly inappropriate vehicle comparison. Is any random sedan as capable as the top performance SUVs? No, but that's such a dubious statement. Stew made the same logical mistake in trying to rationalize comparing the SRT Grand Cherokee against a Charger R/T. If you have to grant an SUV a vastly superior powertrain and a multitude of performance enhancements to win, you've bolstered OUR argument, not yours.

Fact: sedans have better dynamics and performance than crossovers. Opinion: we are sad to see the market abandoning better driving cars for bloated appliances.