ccap41

I'm pretty sure CAFE has to do with footprint and that's why vehicles have gotten larger and not smaller. @Drew Dowdell(It won't allow me to tag anybody else for some reason) but doesn't CAFE have to do with the footprint of the vehicle as well as the fuel economy? Isn't that why we need a CAFE score of like 50mpg and not literally 50mpg.

I think that might be it. The proportions just seem a tad off everywhere on the X7 compared to the X5. Granted, I've always though the X5 was one of the best proportioned and designed SUVs so there's that.

X5 looks way better to me. It's nothing major just a bunch of small tweaks that make it look better to me.

Wow, those are very similar. You're going to be disappointed in 100% of autos that aren't full size SUVs.

Good to know. Good to know. And I assume the CT6 is even larger than the Mazda6?

If you're too big for the back of a CT6 then why do you even care about the ATS and CTS, let alone a Mazda 6.I have to believe the CTS is larger than a Mazda6.

But MeRcEdEs iS tHe BeSt

And I'm not missing the point. I think you are. You ask about size for every vehicle no matter the class and then act surprised or like the automaker is oblivious to different size humans. Then go the next size up, CT6. There are vehicles that will fit you and you know from the outside which ones those are. ATS vs ATS-L is not an additional 16 inches of rear legroom. It's 3.3 inches. Which is still smaller than a CTS so if you already said the CTS was too small why are you even bringing up the ATS? If you are interested in an ATS-L, buy a CTS.

Buy said longer autos. They already make them. Why even ask about ones that are classified as "mid size" when you know you need longer autos? ATS-L(Chinese ATS) would absolutely not be in a class of "room no other luxury automaker has".

It makes zero sense for a major auto company to build around the 0.1% of the population. If they did that people 5' and under would struggle, which there are more people I run into that are 5' or less than over 6'6".

They absolutely are. They probably make a killing off them too because I see quite a few of them and I highly doubt they give any discounts on them. I hate them but it's a smart move on the dealers' side.

My local Chevy/GMC dealer sells new 1500's with wheels/tires and a small lift brand new. They're not terrible but they're definitely on the track to be true bro-dozers.

2500 size comparison

I have also looked at and sat in the new truck, parked next to the last gen.

It's like people think they can tell what is more aero efficient based solely on looks... Quick summary: 7% more aerodynamically efficient than the outgoing model. http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/07/2019-silverado-aero-enhancing-air-curtains-feature-spotlight/

Yeah... Let's hear all about only the GM vehicles... Moar Cruze! ??‍♂️

My top three would be CLS, Rebel, AT4 in no particular order.

It's not a bad option but I don't know why one would choose this over the 5.3 or Ford's 2.7.

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/2019-chevy-silverado-2-7-four-cylinder-23-mpg-fuel-economy/ "The 2019 Chevrolet Silverado is the first modern full-size pickup to get a four-cylinder engine option, and now we know how efficient the new mill will be. The all-new 2.7-liter, turbocharged power plant will yield an estimated 20 miles per gallon city, 23 mpg highway, and 20 mpg combined in rear-wheel-drive configuration, as paired to a standard eight-speed automatic transmission. Despite its healthy 310 horsepower and 348 pound-feet of torque, those fuel-efficiency figures may come across as slightly disappointing to some truck shoppers, as they aren't class-leading numbers compared to small-engine offerings from its main rivals, the Ford F-150 and Ram 1500. According to the data on FuelEconomy.gov, Ford's 2018 F-Series truck offers up to 20 mpg city, 26 highway and 22 mpg combined with its turbocharged 2.7-liter V6. The Blue Oval engine actually offers more horsepower (325) and more torque, some 400 pound-feet. The F-150's larger, naturally aspirated 3.3-liter V6, which Chevy says is a better comparison, still offers 19 city, 25 highway, 22 combined, but it's less powerful at 290 hp and 265 pound-feet. For its part, the new 2019 Ram 1500 offers a 3.6-liter V6 powertrain that generates 305 hp and 269 pound-feet. It also delivers EPA estimates of 20 mpg city, 25 hwy and 22 combined. The Ram truck stacks the efficiency deck somewhat, however, as it features Fiat Chrysler Automobiles' eTorque mild-hybrid assist, which also means the powertrain can deliver up to 359 pound-feet of torque in bursts. The Chevy Silverado 1500's new 2.7-liter turbo engine replaces General Motors' naturally aspirated 4.3-liter V6 in a high-volume Silverado LT and a new RST sport-truck variant. The long-serving six-cylinder remains available as a base engine elsewhere in the Silverado lineup. Despite the somewhat disappointing fuel mileage figures for Chevy's new four-cylinder, buyers should be happy with the powertrain's 2,280-pound payload rating, which is up to 600 pounds more than similarly equipped trucks from its cross-town rivals. However, the 2.7-liter's max tow rating of 7,200 pounds is slightly worse. ..."

I understand what you're saying but because of plastic they're allowed to make something that can hold 30% more while taking up the same area on the vehicle.

That's an interesting take on trucks in the EU. I completely see your point, too. Wouldn't a 70k Platinum F150 here be roughly 100k there?

??

I think the key phrase in the description is, "held 30% more oil in the same package space". So yes it's a different shape but that's probably because the aluminum can only be stamped in such a shape whereas plastics can be molded into basically anything.

ABSOLUTELY

Clarkson is the man and doesn't give a crap about offending people.