Jump to content
News
Reviews
Discussons
Activity
Create New...
Close

cp-the-nerd

New Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,267

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by cp-the-nerd

  1. cp-the-nerd
    The news keeps reporting it as a "dislike" button, but it's actually a sympathy button, when "liking" a status would be inappropriate to show support.
  2. cp-the-nerd
    For 2016, the Chevy SS and Holden Commodore get a last hurrah before ending production after the 2017 MY. The refresh includes a revised front clip, allegedly functional hood vents, a retuned LS3 with tweaked power figures, the quad-tipped dual mode exhaust that was so popular on the Camaro, new wheels, and a new color you can see above. IMO, the tweaks are welcome. The new bumper integrates the lower grille design much better and the new wheels are leaps and bounds more attractive than the out-of-place chromes that sold with the car thus far. It makes the car look about 5 years newer to my eyes. http://gmauthority.com/blog/2015/09/2016-chevrolet-ss-revealed-with-refreshed-looks/
  3. cp-the-nerd
    That's my thought exactly. And if the boosted 4-cylinder sound/feel puts you off, give the V6 a try. The pre-production models had a shockingly good exhaust note and induction sound. It will be nearly as fast as the old Z28, be twice the driver's car, and get at least 5 more MPG. All for around $30k. The new Camaro SS is simply NOT comparable to past SS models. It's just not. 455 hp and sports car reflexes? You couldn't buy cars as good as the upcoming $40k Camaro SS for ANY PRICE 15 years ago.
  4. cp-the-nerd
    Their complaints are mostly nitpicks so they have an excuse to keep BMW on top in their ranks. There's no way a car with a 5.8 second 0-60 from a 4-cylinder engine can be accused of being "overtaxed." The interior isn't over complicated either, they just need to make better CUE controls. You have two colors: red and black, and then you have a few textures. The CTS models I've sat in all impressed me with their interiors. If you want an over-complicated, over-rated interior, sit in a new Acura. Their push button shifter goes full retard and the cabin is a clusterf@#k of screens, controls, and strange design lines.
  5. cp-the-nerd
    It's supposed to be for trolling. If someone can't have a goddamned discussion without downvoting the other party, why are you here? I got 4 downvotes in the Malibu thread for having an unpopular opinion. I f@#king OWN A MALIBU, I'm clearly not brand bashing or trolling. I rarely downvote, and haven't done it in a while (if I recall correctly). Typically, the posts I downvote are so blatant the user should know why unless they're a complete narcissist.
  6. cp-the-nerd
    Downvotes are not a method of disagreement. Some people need to stop being f@#king children.
  7. cp-the-nerd
    You've driven 50,000+ miles since 2014? That's a ridiculous amount of driving!
  8. cp-the-nerd
    I kind of think GM should have abandoned the Malibu nameplate for this new midsizer. From 1997-2007, the Malibu was bad. It was ugly and it was cheap. The 2008 redesign breathed life back into the model and started winning people over (including myself), but the subsequent 2013 generation was a failure. You can't follow a comeback with an immediate failure. The damage is an unnecessary hurdle. Not true. The name isn't damaged one bit in the eyes of people who bought it... or people who didn't. The people who didn't buy just bought something else that may have fit their needs. The only people who see it as damaged are those who read magazine reviews and suddenly believed that they were in desperate need to carry around a few fat kids in the back. Bad press is bad press. People hear Honda Accord or (sigh) Toyota Camry and they think of quality, reliable cars--regardless of reality. Most people either have no opinion of the Chevy Malibu or think of the turd from the 90s and early 00s because their 60 year old Aunt owned a beige one. Ford has had major success with the Fusion nameplate by wiping the slate clean. GM could have done the same or pulled something else from their portfolio to generate more buzz about their revitalized midsize car.
  9. cp-the-nerd
    I kind of think GM should have abandoned the Malibu nameplate for this new midsizer. From 1997-2007, the Malibu was bad. It was ugly and it was cheap. The 2008 redesign breathed life back into the model and started winning people over (including myself), but the subsequent 2013 generation was a failure. You can't follow a comeback with an immediate failure. The damage is an unnecessary hurdle. I agree that GM's advertising sucks. The only successful marketing campaign of late is the dumb-yet-effective "That's not a Buick" advertising. And that's fact, not opinion, I don't like the commercials. GMC's "Precision" is meh, but Cadillac and Chevrolet have GOT to get their sh*t together.
  10. cp-the-nerd
    C/D tested the Malibu turbo twice, before and after the refresh. Best run was 6.2 sec to 60 and 14.8 @ 97 mph. Motor Trend got roughly the same, the Regal GS 2.0T was a tick faster. I said CTS, not ATS.
  11. cp-the-nerd
    Did the 2.0T really have good acceleration? I thought the old 274 hp 2.0T utterly lacked the power to back up the rating, and this one has been tested significantly slower than the last gen's acceleration times, now taking 8 seconds to hit 60 mph. My 6 year old humble V6 crushes that. If you're paying $1000+ for better acceleration, the Sonata 2.0T totally misses the mark. Most reviews peg the 1.6T/7-speed model as the fastest.
  12. cp-the-nerd
    So food for thought: The 2016 CTS 2.0T AWD with the new 8-speed automatic was just tested by C&D. It weighed 3900 lbs (top trim with AWD) and still sprinted to 60 in a surprising 5.8 sec while running a 14.5 1/4 mile. The new Malibu turbo is expected to weigh around 3500 lbs, carries the same engine at a slightly lower tune (250 hp), and uses an 8-speed transaxle based on the CTS trans. Are we going to see a sub-6 second Malibu from factory?
  13. cp-the-nerd
    OMG. There are soooooooooooo many ignorant people when it comes to ANYTHING tire related. It's actually surprising..and scary. LMAO I stand corrected, he has his tires set to 45 psi because he follows the "4 psi below rule" that a custom shop taught him!! Where do these people come from?! Cut up your license before you kill us all... Did I mention this is a base 4-cylinder car? I'm sure he'll be back to ask why he's getting like 4 mpg below EPA and why it takes 12 seconds for him to merge onto the highway at full throttle.
  14. cp-the-nerd
    Actual post from the Malibu forum: "Has anyone calibrated the TPS sensor to 22" tires? I have 22's with 49 psi rating on my '11 2lt and the TPS sensor is constantly flashing on the dash. Help please." The dude has his tires set to 49 psi because that's what the max pressure says, doesn't like how the tire pressure sensors are shouting at him to stop being a f@#king moron.
  15. cp-the-nerd
    Every time they redesign the Camry, it essentially catches up to the outgoing generation of midsizers. I've seen several 2015 Camries up close and the build quality and body complexity is where the class was in 2012-2013. That doesn't sound like a big stretch, but consider that the 2012 Camry was already a redesign, one that barely caught up to the 08-10 vehicles like the Malibu, Fusion, and Sonata both in interior and exterior design. Having driven a 2014 SE V6 extensively, I know how much the underpinnings of the "new generation" Camry are lacking dynamically. The car sells on a Toyota reputation for quality and innovation that no longer exists. The V6 remains the best part of the car, but dates back to 2007. Surely if Toyota cared about its product, they could have designed two new engines since then.
  16. cp-the-nerd
    Why are you comparing apples to oranges? You're comparing a bunch of Turbo V6es to an NA V6. Cadillac has Turbo V6es also... and the minimum torque rating for them is 400 lb-ft. Why are the Germans 15lb-ft to 135 lb-ft behind Cadillac? I notice you leave out the E350 engine from your list because it doesn't fit your Cadillac bashing narrative as it has 273 lb-ft. While if one selects an E400 with 354 lb-ft for $63k, it gets absolutely destroyed by the CTS V-Sport with 420 lb-ft for $60k. To get close to Cadillac's 420 lb-ft you have to spend: $70k at Audi for an S6 and you'll still fall short in the torque department $65k at BMW for a 550i Even the XTS V-sport has more torque than those. Well it has to do with cost and positioning. As long as Cadillac uses the 3.6L as an up level engine, it's going to be compared to the 3.0T offered by others. The cost of entry for the GM 3.6T is over $60,000 and presumably the CT6 3.0T will be in that range or higher. I love that GM is sticking with an N/A V6, though I had hoped GM would bore out the new V6 to 3.8L while aiming for 350 hp and 300 lb-ft. The block was designed for a displacement range of 2.8L-4.0L so it would have been feasible. I'll keep an open mind as first drive reviews come out, they put a lot of money into this engine so it better have some payoff.
  17. cp-the-nerd
    Yeah, but you're from MD too, you know that mid May through August is non-stop A/C season. I'm not putting my windows down when it's 85-95 degrees and humid like a sauna.
  18. cp-the-nerd
    Because I take rubber to over 1g every time I put on a condom, fool.
  19. cp-the-nerd
    The 3.6L is brand new for 2016. It's never been put through a performance test.
  20. cp-the-nerd
    I'm just saying if I had a f@#kin dollar for every time you mentioned downvotes, I'd go buy something from this year's lightning lap.
  21. cp-the-nerd
    It's just two examples of brands that don't live up to the hype. I've been downvoted mercilessly for saying it, but it's true-the numbers are all there to back up what I say. It is also the major reason why you shouldn't read every press release that falls into your lap and take it at face value. Hey, I'd LOVE to be able to say that the Mustang is a great car. And in GT350 form I believe it will be the best ponycar that Ford is capable of making. But again, before you accuse me, take a good, hard look at the numbers. The EB is slow, the GT is tubby and, when optioned like most examples on the showroom floor will be, not exactly cheap. As for Lexus... Well, what can you say. Toyota zombies will buy anything they produce. Sad, because you just know that even a CTS-VSport sedan would probably light this thing up. LOL@downvote. Guessing it wasn't a Toyota-humper :D But on a serious note: you can talk about power, but don't forget that the weights have gone up over the years as well. Tire tech is the biggest difference between these numbers over the years IMO. Hey man, I'm going to be straight with you here: you're goading people into downvoting you. Leave out the trolling bits, it's getting played out. When people legit downvote you for nothing, rise above it rather than perpetuating awkward sh*t nobody wants to see on the forum. Don't blame one person either, because I've found myself cancelling out childish downvotes on both sides.
  22. cp-the-nerd
    I'm not surprised by the similarities between the ATS and CTS ratings. There's only 200 lbs separating the two models. The ratings probably go .5 mpg in the ATS's favor and this is just how the numbers rounded out.
  23. cp-the-nerd
    Nevermind, I found the updated EPA estimates on fueleconomy.gov. I was hoping for a bit better to be honest. 1 mpg bumps across the board. ATS RWD 2.0T/6M - 20/29/23 mpg **Carry-over powertrain, unchanged. 2.0T/8A - 22/31/26 mpg 3.6L/8A - 20/30/24 mpg ATS AWD 2.0T/8A - 22/30/25 mpg 3.6L/8A - 19/28/22 mpg CTS RWD 2.0T/8A - 21/31/25 mpg 3.6L/8A - 20/30/24 mpg CTS AWD 2.0T/8A - 21/29/24 mpg 3.6L/8A - 19/28/22 mpg
  24. cp-the-nerd
    I really want to see performance tests of the new ATS/CTS drivetrain lineup. The RWD 3.6L/8-speed needs to be down in the mid-upper 5 second range to 60 mph and low 14s in the 1/4 mile. GM put a lot of engineering into the all-new V6, and it needs to outshine the cheaper 2.0T/8-speed auto in a way that the LFX V6 couldn't do. I'm also curious what the fuel economy ratings will be for the '16s.
  25. cp-the-nerd
    I'm pretty sure haldex AWD is exclusive to FWD-based vehicles. The whole point of it is to simulate the performance advantages of RWD with torque vectoring.The CTS doesn't need it. Also, the CTS Vsport that shares the 3.6T engine doesn't currently offer AWD at all.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

I've whitelisted
Continue without support

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search