cp-the-nerd

I'm sure your grand cherokee drives just fine for an SUV/CUV. I'm speaking *comparatively* here. Charger R/T or Cherokee V8 for dynamics? Charger, obviously. That's what I'm saying.

I literally made the enthusiast case for sedans on a car enthusiast website and stated my opinion that the landslide in sales is depressing to me, the pushback in this thread is confusing to say the least.

If you like big bloated vehicles for throwing your crap in the back, that's fine and dandy, but we're watching more enthusiast oriented cars get pushed out of the market every day and I'm disheartened by it.

6 minutes ago, Stew said:

But that just isn't true, the vast majority of CUVs these days drive as well as their sedan counterparts. 

So crossovers with hundreds of extra pounds in curb weight, higher center of gravity, and more wind resistance drive the same as equivalent sedans? No. That's objectively false and you can see the difference in acceleration, handling, and dynamics in every review. It's basic physics, and I'm surprised it's even debatable.

18 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Try getting a box of decent size in one of the trunks with the useless small decklids... the trunk may have a decent amount of space, but the opening is poor on many sedans.    Of the various midsize rentals I've driven in the last couple of years, the Passat had the most usable trunk.   

I can't imagine a family finding an Impala very practical compared to a minivan or SUV.   Friends of mine with kids all seem to have minivans , crew cab pickups, SUVs or a mix of the 3.. 

You edited out the second part of my comment that addresses the car vs crossover perceived necessity.

You're talking to someone that owned a midsize car for 8 years and used it for every vacation and for moving twice. I fit two keyboards, two stands, an amplifier, and an entire drumset in my Malibu. If the argument is cargo access, then I'll take a new Regal GS 10 times over before a loaded Equinox or midlevel Traverse.

4 minutes ago, Stew said:

It is sad to see sedan sales fall, but current CUVs and SUVs are not the flaccid driving pieces they used to be decades ago. 

Compared to the equivalent sedan, yes they are. That's the point I was making.

10 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

People want practicality and space... most sedans have useless, small trunks and are too close to the ground, crossovers and SUVs are much easier to get in and out of...

I'll grant you ease of ingress/egress, but the "useless, small trunk" comment is an exaggeration. Even compacts have plenty of functional space. If a family of four can't vacation with an Impala, they're bringing too much crap.

I'm not saying crossovers and SUVs don't have use or appeal, I'm just saying the perceived necessity is vastly overblown. Just like people buying full size pick-up trucks who don't tow, need 4WD, or use the bed.

The landslide of sedan sales is so depressing. Modern cars drive so damn well and people just want flaccid, less efficient crossovers en masse.

On 7/29/2017 at 0:32 AM, riviera74 said:

Even though the Vortec V6 is still in pickup trucks, is there any idea of where the LGX 3.6 V6 is in cars now?

Not sure what this question is asking. The LGX V6 is used in the CTS, ATS, CT6, XT5, Acadia, Lacrosse, 2018 Regal GS, Camaro, and 2017 Colorado/Canyon. The gen 5 truck V6 (4.3L) is only used in the Silverado/Sierra.

The LFX 3.6L is still used in the Impala and XTS, as well as these new full-size crossovers (Traverse and Enclave) but it's coded "LFY" because it has start/stop added.

1 hour ago, regfootball said:

i do see your point.  i think though the 3.6 should be replaced with like a 2.7 or 3.0t v6   smoothness plus turbo lunge.  

I'm not opposed to this. Personally, I was perplexed GM built a nearly all-new V6 and kept almost identical displacement (it went from 217 ci to 223 ci). I thought GM would bore it out to something like 3.8L to create an ideal low cost volume engine to straddle the output of the 2.0T and 3.0T. I know the block supports up to 4.0L.

1 hour ago, Stew said:

Not really, a certain Caddy lover was telling us how awesome the new ATS is going to be lol. 

Who are you referring to? If this is somehow a reference to me, I stated that a new sedan and crossover would be debuting next year with the new design language. I assumed the model would be the ATS replacement and it happens to be an ATS/CTS replacement.

9 hours ago, riviera74 said:

The more I look at that 3.6L DOHC V6, the more I miss the 3800/3900 series V6.  Flat torque curve for days and more torque than horsepower.  Too bad GM will not derive a V6 from the Vortec V8s they still have since those V6 engines may not do as well from an MPG standpoint as the European-derived 3.6L.  I have my doubts a turbo 4cyl will power the Lambdas forward as well since the Lambdas are comparatively heavy.

GM already has a V6 based on the gen 5 Vortec V8s. The Silverado's base engine is a direct injected 4.3L V6 rated at 285 horsepower and 310 lb-ft of torque with VVT and cylinder deactivation. I had hoped for quite some time that GM would use that engine in other applications like the large crossovers, but it didn't happen.

I agree that the LFX 3.6L V6 is the wrong engine for the job, but the newer LGX 3.6L V6 is a much different animal despite similar displacement and paper specs. The engine is about 90% new and features broader variable timing and greater power delivery. It propels both the new GMC Acadia and the Colorado/Canyon to 60 mph in around 6 and a half seconds, and the Colorado ran high 14s for Car & Driver. In testing, they found the towing ability to be excellent.

Sad. And the naming scheme roll-out is embarrassing.

Cadillac: "We're introducing the CT6 and XT5 to start the new naming system."

Person: "What about the ATS, CTS, and XTS?"

Cadillac: "We'll build them till 2019."

Person: "With the old names?"

Cadillac: "I don't understand the question."

Brand development has gone nowhere since the move out of detroit, and the gorgeous design potential from yearly concepts has simply been left on the back burner while the current aging design language (that peaked on the 2014 CTS) has been beaten to death in the CT6 and XT5.

2 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Pretty much...Where is OCNblu when we need a good crank around here?

Meanwhile here in the United States, our Fascist coke-head in chief and his meth addicted followers want us to move backwards to coal.

"Fascist coke-head in chief and his meth addicted followers"

First off, you don't appear understand the word fascism. Second, you just insulted half of America. Seriously pathetic, and every time one of you high-and-mighty democrats say something so ignorant and condescending, moderates move further right and conservatives like myself are reminded why we voted Trump.

The political section of this site is closed due in no small part to anti-conservative trolling and ad hominem bait threads, so keep your political bashing to yourself.

56 minutes ago, dfelt said:

While I agree that Diesel is a bad investment for any company now, I think GM already had gone down the road to far to turn back or just shut it down and so you have this car.  I doubt GM will do another.

In regards to HCCI, I have not seen anything that continues to show success and durability in a HCCI Gas engine. I expect more Hybirds like the VOLT than HCCI engines over the next 5 years. Course many will be CUV's.

I know for sure that GM and Mazda are both working on HCCI engines. Last report I saw was it will be present in Mazda's next gen skyactive designs by 2020. Early systems will be highway-activated compression ignition for that big boost while cruising. What you'll see reflected in EPA ratings of something like the Mazda 3 or Cruze is a relatively normal ~30 mpg city, but 45-50 mpg highway.

HCCI and electronic valvetrains are the future of the internal combustion engine. Hybrid/electric vehicles are not even remotely sustainable on a large scale. It's simply beyond global mining capacity to supply the battery volume of even a quarter of the US auto market. Meanwhile, fossil fuel currently enjoys the greatest production and availability in human history, with new methods of accessing oil being discovered all the time. There's no reason to believe oil will be a scare resource at any time in the near future.

Another reason I think diesel is probably a bad investment–beyond the obvious–is that we're going to see HCCI (homogeneous charge compression ignition) featured in new gas engines in the next 5 years. This is essentially the application of diesel ignition to gasoline, and will yield similar highway fuel economy without all the downsides of diesel emissions and additional maintenance.

That leaves the only practical use of diesel being Trucks and commercial vehicles.

The LGX 3.6L V6 and 8-speed auto should be a sweet spot for daily performance and responsiveness for people that don't need all the upgrades of the V-Sport 3.6T.

I personally don't want a 2.0T in a vehicle like this. ATS? Sure. Malibu? No problem. 3700 lb luxury sedan? V6 or better. I bet if someone did a scientific real-world fuel economy test, you'd find rapidly diminishing fuel economy returns when using 2.0T versus V6 as weight goes over 3500 lbs. Not to mention the dynamics of moving a heavier car from a stop with 4-cylinder turbo lag.

It's really weird they don't at least dress up the sedan model to Premier trim standards, given the high price. This model should attract some VW converts as well as a fair amount of hypermilers. Time will tell if this was a worthwhile investment for GM, but I'm leaning toward "unlikely."

I have respect for the genius of Elon Musk, but when you take away the smoke and mirrors of hype and green subsidies, the brand is not doing well. The cars aren't reliable, they can't get out of their own way to release new models, and the old models are barely warmed over with minor refreshes and updated battery packs.

This is the same consumer base that was confused by the fact that this was not the replacement for the Model S despite an abundance of information not saying anything of the sort.

1 hour ago, dfelt said:

To each their own. Call Jet what you want, you only get out of it what you put into it. I know for a fact that Jet Chips can and do perform but then when I rebuilt my V8 and bored it to a 402, I also went hot on the cam and ported and polished the heads. Once the engine work was done, I ran and tested it on the GM default mgmt. chip. Then I ordered up the Jet chip giving them all the info on the modifications of the motor. The new Chip clearly delivered a much appreciated boost.

Chips alone give little gain, but when added with better air sensors, throttle bodies, etc., they do their job. Basic Trifecta chip does about the same as a basic Jet chip using info supplied by GM yet if you look at the full picture, tweak other items that also can affect performance and use a chip programmer to tweak the code, you can get plenty of performance.

End result is this was not a plug for Jet, but more of the statement that they are various 3rd party products that can and do enhance engine performance beyond what GM has done. Heck you can even go with GM Performance kits that also will boost your fun.

Trifecta isn't a chip, it's an actual tune that you plug into the OBD port and load from a computer, and if you pay a fee they'll customize it specifically to your car and your mods with a data scan. It's completely different than a jet module, which hijacks the signal sent to the PCM (i.e. the wrong way to mod).

45 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Nice part is you can gain 25HP/Torque and up depending on stage 1 or 2 of performance chips from Jet and others. Some very cool and easy mods that can greatly unleash the potential of the engine. Course I would also change out the Airflow sensor at the same time so it can truly unleash the beast in the engine.

Jet chips are snake oil and their claims are bogus. Even with a professional dyno tune, you are unlikely to gain 25 horsepower on a stock N/A engine, much less a plug-in chip from a shady-ass company that claims to support 100s of vehicles. Listings for Jet chips used to advertise gains of like 5 mpg as well.

If you have a GM vehicle and want a "canned tune", the trusted name is Trifecta. They actually develop individual performance tunes for new cars and customize it for your car with scan data. Their claims are backed by dyno sheets of their test cars, and their gains are much more realistic than what Jet peddles with their plug-in chips.

2 hours ago, Stew said:

The Accord will be available as all lux with an adaptive suspension.  the Camry XSE has a suspension turned for performance as well, and the Fusion sport can be optioned up to mach rthe GS for less than a loaded GS.  massaging seats yay.  Just what Americans who can't even use an automatic shifter needs.  And headed and Ventilated seats are nowhere near as rare as you are making them to be.  And the Camry and the upcoming Accord will both even have HUDs.  The only real difference is that it has the hatch, but that does not mean it is not a direct competitor.  The Civic Coupe and Sedan SIs are direct competitors to STs and GTIs despite them having hatches.  You are going to be looking at 50ish grand for a loaded GS and that is really expensive for what it is.  If it didn't have the same engine as every other V6 GM it may warrant the way out of bounds price.  If Ford or FCA was offering this same exact car with their own top 6s (3.7 for the Ford and 3.6 pentastar for the Chrysler) all you GMophiles would be bitching it is too expensive. 

You're still wrong and just doing mental gymnastics to justify your argument. The new Regal GS has a *nurburgring-tuned* adaptive suspension. This is a trackable performance car. Totally, utterly different than a "sport-tuned" suspension offered in the Camry and the adaptive suspension in the Accord. NEITHER of those are sport sedans at all. They're not meant to be. Same with the Chrysler 200. You're doing these cars a disservice by labeling them something they aren't. Take them to a track and be prepared to have the car falling all over itself and throwing up warning lights.

The Fusion Sport isn't a true sport sedan either. It's not track-ready, and it's not track tuned. It's a cruiser with an engine/suspension package. It'll be faster than the GS in a straight line and handle reasonably well in normal conditions, which is enough to win over most casual buyers. Ford offers a summer tire package to generate benchracer stats that belie the dynamic mess it is under real handling duress.

No matter how you slice it, the Regal GS is above the Camry, Accord, and 200 in luxury appointments and performance. You are actively ignoring the facts here, pretending this is a Malibu with a V6 package.

The new Traverse and Enclave are really great-looking crossovers. The only downside I see holding them back is GM inexplicably chose to use the previous generation 3.6L V6 fitted with start/stop. Besides paper specs, there seems to be a great difference in power/torque delivery of the new high-tech LGX V6.

The Chevy Colorado with the LGX V6/8-speed is a full second faster from 0-60 than the older LFX V6/6-speed was. You don't get a full second improvement just from gear ratios. The GMC Acadia and Cadillac XT5 both use the newer LGX and accelerate significantly faster than previous generations of either vehicle.

7 minutes ago, Frisky Dingo said:

Fusion Sport is a joke to drive. It's a lot of power in a decent-for-a-family-sedan chassis. That's it.

Sadly, that's probably all it needs to outsell the Regal GS and win bench racing matches among casual enthusiasts, but I hope that's not the case.

Sonic, Impala, Lacrosse, and CT6 would all be a damn shame to lose. I hate crossover culture. This is how the second renaissance of performance will die.

The most painful loss is the CT6 because of the massive investment in the Omega platform and the sheer missed potential of a more dramatically styled sedan flagship. I'm still hoping a refreshed CT6 can help it shine. The Impala and Lacrosse are simply the finest big sedans for the money. They get 30+ mpg highway with great V6 engines and sit 4 people plus abundant luggage very comfortably. Totally underappreciated cars in favor of less efficient, bulky crossovers with crap dynamics.

I'm actually surprised the Sonic is already out the door. The model was a major success long after it was introduced, and owes at least some of the dwindling sales to its age losing competitiveness. A second generation could have been a truly outstanding car, especially if we saw a genuine performance model.

The Volt can easily be transitioned into a compact crossover. It's silly that a electric/hybrid car that good is a losing proposition for GM when an inferior car like the Prius rakes in endless sales volume.

2 hours ago, Stew said:

The Regal is a reskinned Malibu, the only real difference is the V6 and AWD.  base regals start at 25k, only slightly more expensive than starters for the midsize segment   Buick is reskinned chevies.  there is nothing that puts them in a different class.  they are not pure Luxury and even entry luxury is a stretch.  they ARE competitors just like the FWD Civic type R competes with the AWD Fusion RS and Golf Golf R. 

This is wildly inaccurate and misinformed. The Regal is not a reskinned Malibu. Besides the fact that the US Regal is a DIFFERENT BODY STYLE with a rear hatch-access trunk, the two cars share a platform but were separately developed. Entry luxury is not a stretch. If you ever sat in or drove an Encore, Verano, Regal, or Lacrosse, you wouldn't even suggest it. The Lacrosse also hasn't been a reskinned Chevy since 2010 when it moved to the epsilon II chassis, and the current Lacrosse remains the only GM full size on the redesigned E2XX platform.

You also implied all that separates the new Regal GS from a bunch of $30k family cars with uplevel engines is AWD. I guess you overlooked the heated/cooled/massaging sport seats, brembo brakes, and nurburgring-tuned adaptive suspension? Basically everything except the engine is out of the Camry and 200's league.

32 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

This think looks like a Kia from the front and a Honda Accord side/rear shape.  You will be able to get a Kia Stinger V6 for this kind of money, and that car has like 370 hp, and correct-wheel-drive.

Really a V6 Camry has just as much power and as good an interior and Toyota reliability and resale and it costs less.

Kia Stinger price comparison, fair enough. Dumping on the design, whatever. Suggesting a Camry V6 is a viable competitor? Give me a break.

The only thing similar between the two is engine output, and the interior is not "as good" or even close. Not to mention the double standard of thumbing your nose at the GS's exterior design while suggesting a car as ugly and over-wrought as the 2018 Camry XSE V6.