ccap41
New Member
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by ccap41
-
Exactly! That's all that really matters. What it makes you feel and how much the driver likes it. There are just too many variables to truly decide what makes one engine "better" than the other when there are hundreds of thousands of other parts that play a factor in the vehicle as well...the rest of the vehicle. One example: fuel economy? gearing + aero efficiency + wheel weight/tire drag play a major role so the engine might be efficient or not and the other parts of the vehicle could drag it down or prop it up to look better or worse than it is. None of us here could factually separate the GM 6.2 from the Ford 5.0 in which engine ALONE is the most efficient. There are too many factors in both trucks and cars to make the engines alone just another piece to the puzzle.
-
I don't even know what you're getting at here. I not once denied anything like that. You're in full rant-mode right now. Sorry I don't have a huge boner over the SBC, for the most part. It just doesn't do anything special to me. It doesn't make me want to hear it or go drive a 5.3 Silverado. 6.2's? Yes. I'd love to experience the 7.0 LS7.
-
How much smaller are they compared to say the 6.2 AMG? Yes, it is an opinion that them doing that makes it any better than any other V8. I'm not dissing the engines themselves but using that as an argument as to why they are great, is weak sauce.
-
They will always lead the way in redneck ownership as well. Were they all the personal opinions you just went on about? Or did I miss something factual in there? I have no real dog in this fight. I just don't think there is anything special about the SBC. I'd rather listen to the brash 6.2's from AMG, 5.2 from Ford, and the numerous flat plane crank Ferrari and Mclaren V8s. Are they "better"? You'd say no because of opinion but there's nothing that draws a definite line in the sand from the Chevy motor to other motors. But like I said, which one gives you the most feels? It sure seems like its the Chevy motor for you. I can't get enough of the 6.2 from AMG and the 5.2 from Ford. Without even driving them they get me all excited just hearing them! None of the other engines in the world will have the following of a SBC because its a truck motor too that sells hundreds of thousands of units per year. The volume alone gathers a great following before adding in the Camaro, Vette, and CTS-V. The Ford 5.0 and FCA 5.7 are the only ones that can compete on the level of following.
-
I think the only thing that makes one "best" is how it makes the driver feel while piloting the vehicle. They all have different characteristics and I think "value", hp per liter, sound, compactness, efficiency, durability all looked at individually are terrible. Combine them all and you'll never find a Ferrari or AMG v8 with 300,000 miles on it so they wouldn't even be considered..which wouldn't be accurate, imo. Deciding factor? How much irrational love for it do you have?
-
Nobody forced you to lease this vehicle. There are plenty of other vehicles to choose from. Heck, even a V6 would have suited him, most likely. For sure, those could be had with plenty of discounts and it would have been a little better in the fuel economy field while still being able to smoke the 1.5T with its 300hp 3.6L.
-
If you are that displeased with the acceleration why did you lease it in the first place? There are like 10 other options in that class alone. Also, being a dog means it is likely top or near the top in fuel economy so they advertise the hell out of that stuff. That's how it benefits GM. They have another engine for those who crave speed and power.
-
Oh, I see what you mean. Sounds like the Malibu just isn't your jam then. That's how every single 0-XXXmph run is you read from a review. I don't think flooring it through 1st and 2nd gear will ruin a vehicle every so often. They should be designed to take some abuse.
-
Well, their foot would be on the floor for a 0-60 run. They already have a 2.0T. You made it seem like you wanted something in between the two engines. 2017 Malibu 2.0T 16.4... That's as slow as my car..lol
-
But why would they spend more money for 100cc's of displacement when it isn't necessary? They do it here because it makes financial sense to not make multiple engines with very similar displacement with only a few hp/tq differences. Looking at similar gains as they got from the 1.4T to the 1.5T they got 10hp and 7tq. Assuming a similar gain from 1.5T to 1.6T and there's no good reason for them to spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars engineering, calibrating, and manufacturing a separate block or crank or cylinder(assuming only one variable would actually change) and then re-certifying it. If they made the 1.5 the same specs as Ford's 1.5 you'd have 179hp/177tq compared to 163hp/184tq. Depends what you're looking for more tq or more hp. Honda makes one as well but it's down to both of those on torque
-
Good 18 month review! I think the 1.5 displacement is 100% of China as that is their breaking point for taxes. That is why Ford dropped from 1.6 to 1.5 for their small turbo engines as well. Above 1.5 is a higher tax bracket. That's why we get them. It only makes sense for them to make one engine for multiple markets rather than multiples. I totally feel you on the winter driving consumption. My Escape did the same thing. It plummeted once it got real cold and it was winter blend fuel. It would grind my gears not having the option to turn off auto start-stop. I understand their reasoning.. but I don't like that it's forced upon us. Easy fix..different vehicle who gives the option. I totally understand the hot summer days where it's 90-100+ degrees outside and I wouldn't want the AC off for more than like 15 seconds.
-
-
-
Yeah it's not the easiest to find but it would be the same place RWD would be found. They don't advertise that either. But they all sure as heck know how to advertise AWD, lol. Ehhh I see it's place. I wish it wouldn't have been a funky coupe-like vehicle but either a traditional sedan or a hatchback so it has actual interior space for its exterior dimensions.
-
But if there's easy cash sitting on the table why wouldn't they make it work for both OR make a new 2.0T that can be used for the next decade+ anyway? Why make an SS version? You already answered that. If it costs them next to nothing to make, as you said performance variants appear to cost more than they actually do, but they can profit a bunch off of the few sales. Sounds like a no-brainer for every company. Unless it costs them more than you're saying it does to do...
-
I understand what you mean but if it really cost them next to nothing then why aren't there performance variations of almost every single vehicle out there, if it costs them nothing and they will just profit more? How come Chevy hasn't made a damn Cruze SS yet? They even have an engine to plug and play with. There's more to a performance car than just an engine. An engine designed for more power will always have stronger internals which cost more to produce and engineer along with transmission and all of your half-shafts and everything to the wheels.
-
You guys keep comparing based on price but the CLA performs more like a hot hatch than a Cruz’s Permier. So it’s more like an Autobaun GTI or Focus ST with, I think, the ST2 package and then you’re only looking at a couple grand difference rather than 10k. Isn’t interior packaging usually better on FWD vehicles? Exteriors look worse but I thought there was more room inside for the same length, width, height exterior than a RWD vehicle.
-
YES!
-
Nope, I don't like that. Mirrors, handles, door trim and window trim are too much for my tastes. It does help that this trim paints the bumper covers as opposed to leaving those chrome as well, like lower trims. But they swap the bumpers for door handles, mirrors, window trim, and door trim... Dirty chrome is the same as satin-y trim.
-
Yesish. Their performance is more along the lines of the ST/GTI/hot hatch which is 26k. and they have higher ratio transmissions than the other compact class as well raising costs probably significantly. I'm not saying there aren't profits to be had but I think 10k premium for "the same" is way off.
-
Yeah I just don't think I could ever convince myself of buying an Alfa.
-
I agree with pretty much all of that. All of the D3's chrome trims are over the top to me though. The Denali is the only one that it seems the most acceptable even though I think they add things like door handles and mirrors that I'd want body color.
-
It's more the amount of chrome rather than just chrome itself. Wheels and grille are okay, depending on the style of each.. A thick and large grille can be gaudy(the Escalade and F150 come to mind here - Denalis do chrome grilles very well). Then adding in the fake fender vents, door handles, window trim, running boards, and mirrors/mirror arms is just over the top. Absolutely perfect and almost exactly what I just described.
-
Completely agree. Plus, it'd be another package to make more money off of.
-
That looks absolutely terrible in so many way. If they all had chrome everything, yes. Cadillac was the only one offering chrome wheels, door handles, fake vents, and mirrors(okay, the arm extending out, not the entire mirror). I don't think Mercedes, BMW, Audi, or Land Rover even offered chrome wheels. Some probably ad chrome grilles but I think most were either body color or satin. The Navigator is the only other one on par with the ridiculous amount of chrome.
