ccap41

Overall, I like it. It doesn't look like anything special and there's definitely zero "wow factor" to it. You'd think they wouldn't have wanted to succeed to Lincoln in the interior game..but they certainly did. It's definitely an upgrade from the current one but it isn't a game changer. Also, that green might not sell but boy-oh-boy is it pretty. I'm quite obsessed with dark "colors" lately. Dark green, dark blue, dark red... Love'm.

I'll never warm up to the C-pillar but it also wouldn't stop me from buying one.

IMO, if they want to target the performance/luxury market with a Corvette branded SUV I think their 3.0TT would be a great base engine and then the 4.2TT as the top engine. This is a performance-first brand, in my theoretical eyes. Looking at a Corvette, the base model is 455hp so 400hp/tq shouldn't sound too outrageous as a base for a Corvette-branded SUV. If they're just going to make any GM CUV but with a V8 then there's no point in giving Corvette its own legit brand. It would just be another badge-job. I understand it would theoretically come from an in-house-already chassis.

Sorry, I thought responding about the Macan was being civil.. I definitely wan't looking for a rant as a response. I thought we were just talkin' automobiles.

252hp 1600rpm - 4500rpm is their peak torque plateau. Don't forget these are German horsepowers. Have they ever not underrated them?

I'd love to see a Corvette SUV with none other than the n/a 3.6.

??‍♂️

The require more revs than I like. None of them are making peak torque under 3000rpm. In the case of the Tacoma its a hybrid response. It doesn't like to rev, at all, but at the same time it doesn't make much power down low, imo. For a smaller engine, I prefer forced induction for the simple part of low and mid range thrust. If it were a toy I would gladly enjoy something to freely rev. I've mentioned it before but as a Ford guy the 6.2 in the Camaro better suits my conservative driving style with its gobs of low end vs the 5.0 which wants more revs. Yeah, I feel like it is a wash in which item do you want to wait for? Turbos require boost and revving engines require a downshift.. Both take a second or two for the computers to sort out the input and realize the necessary output. Personally, on a daily driver, I like the lack of revs and it just feels like it isn't working as hard waiting for a turbo for a couple seconds going up hill or speeding up to pass. As for a toy.. It completely changes. I want it a manual and revs aren't a bad thing. They are thrilling and fun to hear going through the gears.

You're comparing V8 to turbo 4's.. and almost all turbo 4 engines now aren't high revving. GM's LTG makes peak power at 5600rpm Ford's 2.0T peaks at 5500rpm Jeep's new 2.0T peaks at 5200rpm BMW's 2.0T peaks from 5000-6500rpm FWIW, I complain about all n/a V6's. GM just happens to come up the most around here. I know I've also complained about the V6 in my dad's Taco as well.

N/A engines also don't have full torque at part throttle and have no turbo for additional boost, pun intended. So I fail to see how a lesser torque engine is better in any way, also at partial throttle.

How often do you do from brake to full throttle? That's a rare situation.

YA DON'T SAY?!?!? It also has almost identical amount of torque as my n/a 2.0 in my Focus did..which is basically zero.. in something weighing a couple hundred to a few hundred pounds more. (looking at the 1.4T's, there are two and if you have the more powerful one, it doesn't seem like a bad match but the weaker of the two seems pretty abysmal but regardless, anything running 17 second 1/4 mile times is well underpowered, imo)

Not for smallish inputs. Such as, going up a fairly steep hill or passing where you aren't trying to get up to 90mph to make the pass.

It isn't about which is faster. The 3.6 is faster in a straight line in every application that I could think of. It's about not needing a downshift to do the same thing the turbo engine can. IMO, I'd prefer the three quarters of a second of lag than the three quarters of a second downshift and RPMs.

Mmmmm torque

Everything has more torque than the GM n/a 3.6...

Yeah, this is a mid-size truck weighing on the light side of the half tons. I think I read a test where one weighed nearly 5200lbs. The 3.6 is a turd in that situation. The 5.7 would be a gem.

You're just assuming my tone the same way you assumed the engineers did this "knowingly". I legitimately do not think you know what an opinion is.

Hahaha, okay,.. I'll be certain to ask for your permission from here on out to post my opinion on a subject.

What more do you need for an opinion? An opinion is just that, an opinion. I'm not stating fact or claiming to do so.

That hatch is HOT.

He really doesn't let anything go, does he? 24 hours later and he's still talking about me. ??‍♂️

I don't necessarily think they are perfect but they do always tend to sound pretty great.

Yes, I am and was last year as well.

Definitely agree to disagree and I think the application make a huge difference to me. A strictly track-like toy is a fantastic place for a high revving engine as you rarely spend any time in the bottom of the rev range anyway but if it was a daily driver or just a cruiser, I would absolutely prefer the low end of a push rod or larger displacement engine. Also, too much instant torque can overwhelm the tires pulling out of a corner. A high revver with little bottom end actually has an advantage doing certain things.