ccap41

Lol you're kidding, right? Why even post here if THAT get's deleted? Wtf was wrong it that?

So it is more of a Subjective decision rather than an objective decision? Gotcha. Let the fairness fly!

Legit question, Why can some get away going completely off topic and talking about posters in threads? Yet, other posts get deleted and/or edited? Sincerely yours, ConfusedPoster

I don't see any issues with Cadillac(or any manufacturer) having a little radical concepts. That's just kind of what they all have always done. Every car gets watered down come production because of a multitude of reason. Some are financial, some are government regulations, and some just aren't functional. This concept actually looks pretty close to a production vehicle and that's impressive to me because there are manufacturers like MB who released that Vision-something-or-whatever that looks fake as F. Nothing about that will be production.

You're not forced to add 20-25k in options on the Tesla. They're still expanding their charge network and improving the technology for reduced charge times.

Nice to see the expansion of their 8spd getting put to good use. I heard the epa ratings are more stringent for 2017 but even if this doesn't change, that's an improvement.

I read this the other day and I see no reason for any commercial use truck to not attempt EV or at least hybrid-ness. The only one that I didn't understand was the top one where they replace the bed with solar panels..but then it's basically just a useless single cab truck.. I would really like to see large companies like FedEx, UPS, USPS going more and more electric if their routes allow for it. I think that would be a big push in going more and more electric and on top of the vehicles themselves just getting more humans behind the wheels of them will benefit the other civilian EVs like the Bolt.

^ It's so glorious! If only it had a V8 to go with the awesomeness of it all.

I would somewhat disagree.. It depends how/where you're driving. 99% of the time the low to mid range is all we use but if you're an aggressive driver and take your car to the track you actually utilize the peak hp negating almost all benefit of having a torque monster. Once you're out of first gear on a track, be it drag racing or road course, you largely don't benefit from torque. Gobs of torque would help in minimizing downshifts though, which would be nice. I personally am a driver that suites EXACTLY what you say about hp/tq. I like the low end power and not having to rev the piss out of the vehicle to get it to go anywhere.

I definitely agree with you, pretty much across the board. It's really a power(tq) to weight ratio that we're looking for but if I'm being honest I don't know what a good ratio is. It really is more about acceleration rather than the power itself. Wouldn't about 225hp in a 3000lb car be more like a 14.0 car? Just thinking because of GTIs. They're 3200-3300lbs and 220hp/258tq and tested at low 14's(14.3 from C/D). Gearing plays a huge factor. Period. I'm glad it was brought up(not sure if I mentioned it in the op). That's one reason the Miata is such a great car. It isn't geared for commuting but geared to DRIVE.

If this wasn't a sports car and one of the tests was a very realistic 30-50mph run I would agree with you. But as a sporty car it should be able to hoon fairly well. I personally enjoy the looks of the Fiat quite a bit. I like the longer body than the Miata. When this was first shown I thought it looked hideous but it's grown on me really quick. I just wouldn't want the Fiat brand on the hood of my car over Mazda. It looks good but not that much better to buy it over a Mazda..let alone trying to find a dealership for it.

I definitely stole this from Autoblog but I thought it was a great little topic. I know it GREATLY varies based on the vehicle itself because a 5500lb SUV/Truck will need more power than a sub 3000lb car. With that said.. For the "average" 3000-4000lb vehicle I think I would want minimum 200-250hp as a daily. Something that can achieve nothing less than a 15.5 second quarter mile. I know that involves more than just hp but as it's been stated hp isn't everything. I will always want something a little fun even though a slow 15.5 isn't anything special it is quick enough to pass on demand, have a little fun with hard launches, and not aggravate me. As the vehicle weight grows I feel it is safe to assume more power is necessary to maintain the same goals listed above. The numbers probably jump to 300-350hp but it also is dependent on gearing. There are just so many variables when I stop and really think about this but that's why I thought it would be a great discussion piece. So, what is it? What's the minimum horsepower acceptable to you?

If they could cut the price in half on the ATS, I'll buy one. 2.0T, Performance Package, black/grey/white, please.

Ahhhhhh now THAT makes sense. HA. @surreal1272 no jokes, brother?

No. No jokes from here on out apparently. Enjoy the seriousness.

Stuff is already gettin' deleted? Can't a brother joke around anymore?

I actually think the half ton trucks are starting to push this. I'm pretty sure the F150 commercials talk up their 420 torques while GM still talks about horsepower in their Silverados/Sierras.

I honestly don't think it is some marketing ploy. I think it has waaaaay more to do with how the driver drives because if the driver is actually cruising at a certain speed or not flooring it at stop lights you really shouldn't be in the boost and it's almost like a n/a smaller engine. I can't imagine the CAFE regulations would have a loophole to where they can built smaller turbo engines that are just as inefficient as the older, larger n/a ones. That just doesn't make sense. I do think that the way manufacturers are trying to eliminate boost and produce gobs of low end tq is hurting mpg as boost is coming on so early and often now. I actually think a little lag would improve mileage to stay out of the boost for a tad longer. Show me a video of a 4 banger sounding like a V8, V10, or V12...

@Drew Dowdell Holy sh!t, I love that we can do this now! (the @name thing)

LOL You're joking, right? Have you heard of these vehicles called the Volt, Prius, or ANYTHING CHEAPER THAN 70k!

Why would they need a V8 to do what the V6 did? This kind of goes against everything CAFE related downsizing. I think we would have liked to HEAR a V8 in the ATS-V but that's nothing more than noises because it isn't like the TT3.6 needed anymore power or tq.

Some of those look good/great/acceptable and some of those look terrible as an actual truck. I mean if people buy the Ridgeline they'll buy the ones I don't like...so there's that... I like number 1 I don't like number 2(the split pictures) Number 3 looks okay but the hood seems like it starts very low and climbs up an awful lot. Number 4 isn't bad, I might just like it because it is black Number 5 I don't like. I don't like all of the plastic pieces going on(although I realize they are purposeful) Number 6 looks awesome but unrealistic, imo. Number 7 is my favorite. I think it looks realistic and still truck-like without being overly soft like the above mentioned ridgeline-like shape. Number 8 looks dumb Number 9 is the same as Number 5 Number 10 looks pretty good as well. Probably my number 3 choice in design behind #7 and #1.

I saw that but every time I click and save it I don't know how to get back to "my stream" . Edit: Nvm, I found it!