ccap41

Personally, I think the Cruze just looks better enough to want to buy that but if you're trying to keep overall costs down the Sonic would be the better bet in saving thousands up front. Are you looking at the brand new Cruzes?

That's a really awesome picture, I dig it! Also, I know I've said it before but those wheels really make that car look great. I'm not much of an Intrepid fan but those wheels really make it look a lot better.

Wow, how I wish I didn't live in the mid west... Beautiful country up that way.

The footprint of the vehicle does matter though. That's one reason trucks continue to get larger is because as they get bigger and fuel economy stays roughly the same(with the larger engines, not the engines made for fuel economy(2.7 and 3.0 diesel) ) they aren't an issue. It's a ratio basically. "First, like the current 2012–16 rules, these new standards are size based. That means there’s a formula to calculate the required CAFE—within limits—for each car based on its “footprint,” which is the product of its wheelbase and track dimensions. In 2011, for example, the required CAFE mpg for the smallest car would not exceed 31.2, while even the largest car was assigned at least 24 mpg. For 2025, these car limits go up to 61.1 and 45.6. Truck mpg is calculated in similar fashion using a different formula. For 2011, the truck mpg ranged from 21.1 to 27.1. In the 2025 proposal, it spans 30.2 to 50.4 mpg. Notice that the formula has been adjusted so that the low end of the range rises less than the high end to help accommodate large trucks. Second, because these CAFE requirements are based on size, every car company actually ends up with a different CAFE requirement, depending on the mix and size of cars and trucks that it actually sells. For every model year, each company must calculate the CAFE requirement for all models it markets and then determine the sales-weighted average for its actual mix. Therefore, a company such as General Motors, with its heavy share of large pickups and SUVs, will have a lower CAFE requirement than Suzuki, which primarily produces smallish cars and SUVs." http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-cafe-numbers-game-making-sense-of-the-new-fuel-economy-regulations-feature "Here’s how it works. A 2010 Honda Accord has a wheelbase of 110.2 inches and a track of 62.6 inches. Multiplying those two figures yields a footprint of 47.9 square feet. If you plug that figure into the government’s formula, you get a target mpg of 35.9 for 2016. The smaller its footprint, the higher the fuel economy a given vehicle has to meet. A current Ford Focus would have to achieve 40.8 by 2016, while a Mercedes S-class will have a bogey of 31.8 mpg. The aforementioned 328i will have to hit 38.2 mpg." http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-automakers-will-meet-2016-cafe-standards

What kind of vehicles do you have? And what are you putting in them?

That's actually a very good point considering the wheelbases are probably similar with how freakin huge Bentlys are meaning a similar CAFE score. But a more modern engine will definitely produce less overall emissions and be cleaner.

It's quicker to 60 but slower through the 1/4. So it's a yes and no. I assume gearing played a major role in the differentiation between the two. CT6: 0-60: 6.1 1/4 mile: 14.7@92mph 300ft skidpad: 0.81g http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-cadillac-ct6-sedan-20t-luxury-test-review Ecoboost Mustang: 0-60: 6.3 1/4 mile: 14.5@98 300ft skidpad: 0.95g http://www.motortrend.com/news/2016-ford-mustang-ecoboost-first-test-review/ I put the road holding "ability" in for good measure because of how $h!ty the mustang handles and how superb the Cadillac does. *sarcasm*

Well by then it will be like Seat Belts as you may not have many options otherwise. This is an industry wide deal and it is going to be found nearly everywhere. And seat belts can be worn or not worn. (legal ramifications are another story)

I forgot about that. Nice call. http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/ford-builds-800-pounds-lighter-fusion ""There's not a one-size-fits-all approach to light-weighting," said Matt Zaluzec, Ford's technical leader for global materials and manufacturing research. "The Lightweight Concept gives us the platform to continue to explore the right mix of materials and applications for future vehicles.""

The gauges in the ATS look WAAAAAY better when lit up and in person. They look terrible when the vehicle is off and you're right, all they're really missing is a little chrome accent. I really like how you can manipulate what information you want and where you want it on that LCD display too. Really cool. It looks like you cannot do the same(it's at least less customizable) on the Mercedes and probably can on that BMW instrument cluster.

That was the first thing that I thought of too. Make EV versions of the C or E but don't make a third vehicle slotted between them.

Exactly!

How to do it without hurting the manufacturers? Make dealerships worthy of making people want to go to them. Keep their dealership network but make them good. Don't make them hostile, dirty, crummy employees/salespeople. Beat the competition the way they know how(or should know how), great customer service. The best businesses/corporations out there all have one thing in common, great customer service. McDonald's, while employing idiots at times, know how to make a customer happy at the end of the day. Kiss the customer's ass and give them the free crap they feel entitled to(right or wrong) and boom customer leaves happy. Treat a potential 15-100k spending customer like they are about to spend 15-100k not like they're(the salesperson) about to receive a $200 commission check.

Maybe the dealership network should sell itself to the public and just make going to a dealership a good experience rather than one that people dread. Just be the best they can be as opposed to forcing their system on other companies.

See that argument falls apart as Tesla can do like everyone else was forced to do and sell dealer franchises like everyone else. Just because it is the old way of doing things doesn't mean it is the right way or fair way of doing things.

That is very good to know. Although I would still appreciate a switch to be able to turn it off. And if the system is as seamless as they make it sound, then I'll never turn it off.

I'd just like to try any start-stop system. I've never been in anything with one.

i think the rear seat hurts the sales with traditional Cadillac base. You still have a lot of those people you need to sell to. Those who grew up believing luxury meant a basic minimum amount of comfort / space. I hear people take pot shots at how small the ATS is when i go to the auto shows. We all tried to hide how much the rear seat problem hurt the outgoing Malibu and now look at the awesome press its getting for correcting a primary flaw.. interior SAE measurements always mislead. The ATS is plagued by many of the same typical GM rear seat packaging problems where the front seat is too low, the hardware is intrusive, and the floorpan (probably due to where the bracing is) has pitifully small actual footwell areas. Couple that with narrower greenhouses, fighter plane diving rooflines, ridiculously small and narrow door openings, and tank humps that stick out forward of the actual seat itself, even for the smaller, wedging yourself into an ATS backseat requires gymnastics training and inspires claustrophobia that an MRI tube could match. The ATS is the classe of car that one buys and has to show off to coworkers.....where you bring coworkers to lunch here and again. You're going to have the occasional 6 footer back there. I can't believe the high level execs at GM let that pass and go to production.....grounds for firing IMO when they should have demanded all of that be reengineered for more space. GM can't punt on these packaging issues very much more. If anything it shows piss poor engineering, can't meet structural demands and preserve ample space at the same time. They make a sturdy frame for the car to ring the 'Ring......but then its so overbuilt and bulky that there's no back seat space to indulge co workers in a chauffeur drive. Hold up.. Show off to co-workers?? There is nothing aspiring about owning one. Furthermore the idea that piss poor engineering is present due to an INCH less legroom in the rear sounds ridiculous. In fact.. the legroom of the ATS is only an issue NOW.. because the segment leader decided to go bigger. The 3Series is suddenly a family car.. which means that anything not sized exactly like in interior dimensions is lacking in engineering kno-how? Preposterous!!! Even worse is that people are supposedly buying these cars so they can "indulge Co-workers in a chauffeur drive" Its a non-issue because again.. the boys at Cadillac , like the boys at Chevy heard your whining and are making the change to mimic the size difference of the 3series. I fully believe that they will be capable of doing it while retaining the weight and handling superiority. Shouldn't it be though?It's a 35-70k Cadillac. I know if I bought a Cadillac, regardless of model, it should be show-off worthy to the majority of people who buy the mainstream chevy, ford, toyota, honda, etc. So it should be aspiring to own. You don't spend that kind of coin on something that you don't aspire to own. U kno what.. I should have thought from that perspective and not my own.. I personally see nothing aspirational about owning a entry level Sport Compact outside of the M3, ATS-V, or C63AMG. Maybe I should have said that That makes more sense, understandable then. Personally, I'm younger and working full time and going to school and Cadillac in general is aspirational at this point of my life.

Yes he is a GM fan. However, he has also been very upfront about their shortcomings so I maintain my stance on this. I do agree with you about the passenger perspective. Most don't care or just won't say anything but I've met a few over the years that were silly enough to say things like that. My response has always been "so, how long will it take you walk there?" Fair enough, I don't disagree, just don't 100% agree either.. Kind of neutral on that part of it. lol yeah I guess I have heard that before and responded very similarly, come to think of it. But none were in cars that had doors for the rear passengers. That would have had to have been in either mustang. Nobody complained once in though. It was just about getting in and out from a damn coupe which just plain sucks.

Agreed.

For me personally, I could care less about a "an available front crash prevention system" so that would never deter me from buying something. Radar cruise control..? Possibly.

^ while I agree that it is pretty ignorant to assume at the same time it is pretty obvious that he will make anything GM look great even with their shortcomings on vehicles, because nothing is perfect... but anything GM is the best.. I think that is what Olds was getting at, but again, that'd be me assuming..lol I've been in the back of an ATS and the head room is tight but if somebody was giving me a ride somewhere I would never complain(and nobody's ever complained about mine. Even when people have had to get in the back of my Mustangs) about somebody else's car so I'd suck it up regardless so I don't know if the "friends and family" not complaining about something is always the best. Most people are just nice enough to not criticize other people's vehicles. That is one reason we rely on the professionals to review and dissect cars for us.

i think the rear seat hurts the sales with traditional Cadillac base. You still have a lot of those people you need to sell to. Those who grew up believing luxury meant a basic minimum amount of comfort / space. I hear people take pot shots at how small the ATS is when i go to the auto shows. We all tried to hide how much the rear seat problem hurt the outgoing Malibu and now look at the awesome press its getting for correcting a primary flaw.. interior SAE measurements always mislead. The ATS is plagued by many of the same typical GM rear seat packaging problems where the front seat is too low, the hardware is intrusive, and the floorpan (probably due to where the bracing is) has pitifully small actual footwell areas. Couple that with narrower greenhouses, fighter plane diving rooflines, ridiculously small and narrow door openings, and tank humps that stick out forward of the actual seat itself, even for the smaller, wedging yourself into an ATS backseat requires gymnastics training and inspires claustrophobia that an MRI tube could match. The ATS is the classe of car that one buys and has to show off to coworkers.....where you bring coworkers to lunch here and again. You're going to have the occasional 6 footer back there. I can't believe the high level execs at GM let that pass and go to production.....grounds for firing IMO when they should have demanded all of that be reengineered for more space. GM can't punt on these packaging issues very much more. If anything it shows piss poor engineering, can't meet structural demands and preserve ample space at the same time. They make a sturdy frame for the car to ring the 'Ring......but then its so overbuilt and bulky that there's no back seat space to indulge co workers in a chauffeur drive. Hold up.. Show off to co-workers?? There is nothing aspiring about owning one. Furthermore the idea that piss poor engineering is present due to an INCH less legroom in the rear sounds ridiculous. In fact.. the legroom of the ATS is only an issue NOW.. because the segment leader decided to go bigger. The 3Series is suddenly a family car.. which means that anything not sized exactly like in interior dimensions is lacking in engineering kno-how? Preposterous!!! Even worse is that people are supposedly buying these cars so they can "indulge Co-workers in a chauffeur drive" Its a non-issue because again.. the boys at Cadillac , like the boys at Chevy heard your whining and are making the change to mimic the size difference of the 3series. I fully believe that they will be capable of doing it while retaining the weight and handling superiority. Shouldn't it be though? It's a 35-70k Cadillac. I know if I bought a Cadillac, regardless of model, it should be show-off worthy to the majority of people who buy the mainstream chevy, ford, toyota, honda, etc. So it should be aspiring to own. You don't spend that kind of coin on something that you don't aspire to own.

ATS was designed to be the lightest car in the class, the whole "every gram matters" philosophy they talked about. But some other guys got lighter, or got roomier and bigger while not adding any weight, and most of the ATS weight advantage in 2013 was in comparing an NA 4 cylinder ATS to a turbo 4 BMW and a V6 Mercedes. Low weight is nice, it isn't the way to win buyers. If it drives like a tin can, or has no interior space, or a cheap interior, no one will care what it weighs. And in 2013 A comparable C300(middle engine out of 3 before jumping to AMG and V levels) weighed 3803lbs. 132lbs lighter than A C Class in 2013 and that C Class didn't change until 2016 so it wasn't like it was the last year of an era. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-mercedes-benz-c300-4matic-sedan-test-review

LOVE that Black Cherry color!