ccap41

Ouch, Chrysler... In a market that is booming with low fuel costs...to be down at all, let alone 21%, is rough news for them.

Allow me to ask for clarification on the above quoted portion. If the '16 e-class fits these superlatives, in your opinion is this random '16 model below, any different or lesser so? The hard angles and lines around the grill appear more aggressive, to me. Also, chrome around the fog lights, and grill are asking for attention. The body lines on the MB are much softer and "rounder". Whereas the above are more straight lines coming to sharper points and less bends. Neither is right or wrong, but in my opinions I find the MB to be classier looking and more subtle with the body lines, less chrome, less angles, and even the head lights are much more aggressive on the above car(which I think looks sharp BTW). To me, the best way to "clean up" the above car is just to ditch the tacky chrome around the fog lights and lower grill. I think that would make a huuuuge difference on that car. Make it body color or black.. but I think body color would look best. Also, in all fairness, I cannot tell from the pictures if the MB has chrome in the grill or if that is brushed/matte. It looks matte or brushed but, if I'm being honesty, it's difficult to tell.

Aren't most truly luxury items relatively bland and subtle for the price you pay for them? What about this is cheap in your eyes? The styling? Or have you sat in and gotten a chance to fiddle with the pieces that you actually feel? I guess I'm just confused how it can be cheap *at this stage of the game*.

A CTS-VSport.. no.. CTS-V is more mine Aren't those different classes of cars? Smaller vs mid size(or something like that). Couldn't a C400 be more comparable to..nothing Caddy has - yet. What could Cadillac throw in the ATS to make a V-Sport? Or is the 335hp in the ATS comparable? Honestly, I don't know. That's why I'm asking.

This is another example of why I've liked MB for awhile now. They do their non-AMG cars with very subtle-ness and high class. Not flashy or offensive in any way, just classy and simple. I dig it. I'd drive something like this every day. I'd definitely have to have the largest boosted engine though. I'd want it to seem sleeper-ish while holstering 400ish hp.

Me. Want.

And the same goes for the electronic device you are typing on here. There are options but that's not the bigger point here. Again, it's a world economy when it comes to vehicles. I am really not sure how to make this any clearer. I want a Mac I don't have a choice. I want a vehicle I have many choices.As for the world economy, when a country doesn't trade fairly with my country I don't like it. I don't know how to make that any clearer. That's a terrible comparison. You named a specific brand of computer and then just "vehicle" as broad as it gets. If you want a Mac you have one choice, if you want a Ferrari you have one choice as well(brand for brand). I do understand you wanting countries to trade FAIRLY with us, that makes sense. I can agree with that.

I remember when the mags were testing the last one the biggest holdup was the tires. Michelin had issues keeping a tire together past 280mph. I guess they've figures that out. Also, didn't the last super sport hit like 268 or something like that? I guess I lost track. Honestly don't find any interest in the Bugatti. The car doesn't have practical performance. The CTS-V, and Z06, and the Hellcats are all in the realm of insanity in their own right, but top speed of 250, 260, 290 mph? It's hard to even find a CONTROLLED setting to enjoy that. I can understand that but I enjoyed reading about it the same way I enjoy reading about the P1 and 918, just absolutely INSANE numbers that make no sense at all. I mean this new Buggati is rumored to hit 62mph in 2.2 seconds..W. T. F. And then how at top speed it only has enough fuel for a couple minutes and tires will only last like 15 minutes. Things are just bind blowing with cars like this that I enjoy learning about it. On another note, I don't think a Z06 is actually practical performance. Maybe practical to obtain but I'd wager top of 2nd gear you're breaking the law in every state. But I do think that's one reason I love reading about Mustangs/Camaros/Challengers/Vettes because their performance is still playable on the streets(less so now that they're 435+hp but you aren't exactly forced to take it to a track to at least out your foot on the floor for a few seconds. But yes, even in a controlled environment there are probably only 2 places to take a car 290mph. Even then, that's just a guess because i don't know. See, even that 290mph. The engineering that has to go in to every part to withstand that speeds is crazy to me.

I remember when the mags were testing the last one the biggest holdup was the tires. Michelin had issues keeping a tire together past 280mph. I guess they've figures that out. Also, didn't the last super sport hit like 268 or something like that?

Well worded.

Off topic, but, I've seen one of those electric buses around Stl last summer. There were markings saying it was a test vehicle and it was free to use. I haven't seen one since but it's route could very well just be off enough I never see it. It was pretty crazy when it drove past and as a massive vehicle you could only hear tire noise.

Good lord this thing will be nuts.

Isn't the Fiesta made in China? It is, but not for US consumption. Spain, Germany, Mexico, China, India, Brazil... and more. The U.S. bound ones are made in Mexico. Thanks, Drew. I didn't know that answer lol.

I noticed on the Kia that you said it got great fuel economy but the engine felt sluggish with poor gearing.. Those things go hand in hand perfectly. lol.

After being in the Ex's Encore.. I think a case could have been made for even Cadillac to get a version to compete against the BMW X1 FWD based vehicle. I've driven an X1.. let me tell U.. the Encore.. no. the Trax.. is more than a match for it. No just kidding on the Trax, but the Encore in full trim is tho. GM.. thro some wider tires on that lil mofo.. Turbo 2.0L, add newest A&S, Cadillac Crest.. and aaaaaaaaaaaaaawaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy we go. I'm surprised that isn't a thing already actually. Maybe they just didn't want too many low hanging fruit before solidifying the top of the line up first. But, a little 2.0T putting out even 220hp would be a blast but you know it wouldn't be the 2.0T from their stable.. it'd be something more economical maybe turned up a little.

Good lord, I bet 70% of everything you own is built in China. Including the device you used to post that.

GM has been doing that for years now with their rain sensing systems. I don't know if it is only on Cadillacs but it's a great thought. I believe the pads will gently kiss the rotors every once in awhile just enough to keep it all dry. I'm also not sure on the rights to that system GM uses. For all I know it is patented well enough nobody else can touch it, I don't know.

Well you quoted at least two different sizes there. It looks to be slightly shorter than the current Nox/Terrain. Terrain is 185", Envision is 183", CR-V is 179". Envision is the same width as the Terrain. It looks like the AWD in the Envision is using the same twin-clutch setup as the new Lacrosse, meaning the AWD performance in snow should be excellent as should fuel economy. Okay, so it will basically still be in the same class as the rest of that group even if it is marginally longer. I had to "google" but my Escape is apparently 178". So it actually perfectly splits the Edge(188") and Escape(178") at 183". Interesting. I like that size range. I feel comfortable in vehicles that size. Get much larger and I don't feel comfortable in tight areas. Give me a more upscale small CUV with similar power as I have right now and me likey.

Plus there was a snow storm right....so there must have been snow and ice collected on the calipers and the discs...so by the time the computer reacted to stop regen braking and switch to conventional braking and by the time the friction gotthe snow and ice off, 4 seconds or so elapsed....and 4 seconds in ANY situation is a long time when you need to stop now...dont forget....although in the snow storm we had, the conditions were not that slippery, you are still braking in snow... I believe there are 3 levels of regen braking. Normal, Low and Off. But yeah...they should make a software program where the car detects this and switches automatically.... Regardless if its in the manual....who reads those anyway? I do...most dont...like CCAP said...we live in Canada...Tesla is supposed to be UNLIKE regualr dealerships in where the sales staff KNOWS the product...they should have VERBALLY mentioned it!!! This does NOT take away from me loving the car....its just strengthening my position in thinking that NO COMPANY truly gives a rat's ass about the customer....it will ALWAYS be the bottom line BEFORE the customer. Long gone are the days where the reverse was true... And thanx for your concerns. Yeah...we are both laughing at the situation now....Im disappointed in this little mis-communication, he even less...but he did have a scare. Sorry Olds but when one doesn't bother to read a manual on a car as new and unique as the Tesla S, then I don't have a whole lot of sympathy. You also don't know that they did not mention it to him and he just forgot. It has happened to me more times than I can count. Not calling your friends a liar by any means but we are all human and sometimes we forget things. I thought of that as well. Especially being a non-enthusiast a lot of things probably go over his head(in the car world - because he just doesn't care..like the vast majority of the world, I don't mean this in an offensive manner just that we're different than most with our automobiles)

I totally agree here, I thought I was the only one! The racetrack lighting looks awesome in pictures, but in real life it's WAY too bright from the LED lighting. Subtlety has never been Chrysler's strong suit, and the LX cars are a decade-long testament to that. Dropping the intensity in half would be a good start, I hate getting behind a Charger at a red light because the ass glows bright enough for sunglasses. Completely agree. I think the design is awesome but they are too freakin' bright. When the drivers' foot is off the pedal is about as bright as they should be while braking. They NEED to tone that down some.

I think I've asked this before but this is more along the size of the Nox/Terrain/Escape/CR-V/etc. , right? 250hp/260tq sounds very stout if that's the case.

First, Very thankful no incidents occurred and everybody was okay. So... the way their brakes work is upon initially touching the brake pedal the motors just go into an aggressive regenerative braking mode until the pedal is pushed harder and in this situation because everything was so cold from essentially never being used they just didn't work right away? Or was it just that because they aren't used it was just all cold and snowy up in the brakes that the performance was junk and took a few seconds to heat up the brakes? I'm not trying to take away from how scary that would be driving and trying to slow down and for four seconds there is just no brakes. That would scare the hell out of me! I mean, I kind of agree that they need to convey this much better to the customers but it's kind of like traction control/stability control in the snow for every car, we aren't warned about how we could get stuck with them on but we know sometimes you can get through more snow with them turned off. That is something no dealer tells people but we know to do it. I think in this case because of WHERE he bought the car(anywhere in Canada) that the dealer should have just had common sense to give your partner a heads up. But maybe he just didn't know himself. It's such an odd scenario that as a dealer I could see myself not telling somebody about this completely innocently. I say this because I would think most of the time braking you'd still touch the brakes a little to at least keep them marginally warm and snow-free so when you need them they're just more ready. Odd scenario, Odd results, Glad everybody was okay!

I thought Olds would have started this thread! I love how people will cram an LS small lock into anything and everything. Props to the people doing the fabricating.

CX-5: It would, but compared to your Escape it would be a different type of fun. If you want to work the engine somewhat (reving it up a little bit to enjoy the power) then a CX-5 is perfect. But if you want some instantaneous power, then the Escape with the 2.0T is the better option. Cherokee: As I understand it, you have to be a steady 70 to 75 MPH on a flat road for ninth gear to engage. I have done it in this and the ProMaster City, and only got either one to eighth. Fuel economy, I think I got an average of 23 MPG. Does the Cherokee have an instant mpg readout? Just cuious what it was reading when cruising at 70-75mph. Also, how was the mileage in the CX-5? You never said if it was FWD or AWD, I'm assuming FWD..? I don't mind working the engine for some fun-time but if its like a passing situation the 2.0 really impresses me when I put my foot on the floor and I'm "afraid" the 2.5 in the Mazda just wouldn't really be enough. I'd REALLY like to drive one, along with the new Cherokee. Yeah, the trans thing seems odd to me. Why put in a transmission that doesn't even use all of its gears? I guess I could see for states with speed limits of 80mph, as long as it actually shifts into 9th then. Maley, Do you know at what speed the trans will finally shift into 9th? I'd definitely have to fiddle around with that because it would drive me nuts. Could you manually put it in 9th going 70/75mph?

Nice little write up. Good to hear a little first-hand experience with a few vehicle I could see myself in or considering in the next couple of years( ILX, Cherokee, CX-5). I know you said "The CX-5 is still a joy to drive thanks to the 2.5L Skyactiv-G four-cylinder providing more than enough power for any situation" but is the 184hp/185tq really enough..? I mean I know day to day it is plenty but would it keep an enthusiast "entertained" while not owning something sportier? That's why I went with the 2.0T in my Escape. At the time I couldn't find a CX-5 with a 2.5 in my price range and I knew the original 2.0 making something like 155hp would not cut it so I never drove a CX-5. I'm also really curious about the 9spd in the Cherokee. Is it really that difficult to get it into 9th? How fast do you have to go before it'll shift into 9th? Also, what are your experiences with the 3.2 and 9spd for fuel economy? It seems like it has potential to be be a very good combination but if it isn't using all of its gears...