ccap41

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...

Everything from Ford comes with EcoBoost. Everything, even if you don't know it does!

Ahhh those shows drive me nuts.. they seem like the same episode every week. My dad is into all of those shows and they just bore me. To each their own.

I just started Breaking Bad after hearing countless great things about it. 1 Episode in and I'm hooked.

Were you also kind of town between the ctsv and ct6 with the 3.0tt? Or not because you were already thinking ctsv because you wanted an Escalade? I just remember the one I saw in the dealership from a few weeks back. It looks better in person than in pics, where it comes off as a bit plain compared to the latest German stuff. But like I said, in person it's got charisma in spades. I'm yet to see one in person but they look tough as balls in pictures so I can't imagine how gnarly it will look in person.

Is the Grand Cherokee Summit a more luxurious vehicle on the inside than the SRT? If so, I'd actually probably have that.. But who can say no to stupid amounts of power? Shoot, a Wrangler would be an awesome toy!! I'd want like nearly base model 6spd. Damn, when I said toy I tried to be all unique and something unconventional but I might want an ATSV and a GT350R as a toy.. But I kind of want something to tear up like the Polaris or a Wrangler.

Were you also kind of town between the ctsv and ct6 with the 3.0tt? Or not because you were already thinking ctsv because you wanted an Escalade?

1 Truck: F150: FX4 of some sort. I just don't want a chrome dipped truck. If this is a dream garage then money isn't an issue so give me the 5.0 and allow me to put some mild exhaust on her. I don't think It'd get red but This is exactly what I'd want, black grill/wheels, painted mirrors, 4 door, short bed... 1 Sedan: CTS-V 1 Coupe: GT350R 1 SUV/CUV: Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8 1 Toy: Polaris RZR Turbo ESP

They don't have to be a 1 make, you can pick your favorite truck, favorite sedan, etc. and make a blended all american Dream Garage. I'll get to mine a little later when I have time to get the pics uploaded to photobucket. ..otherwise you have three garages..

Torque is what turbo's deliver. In spades. And not just a peak, but total average. That's what matters. And less total average when running regular instead of premium..... which is my point. The area under the curve is reduced. I still say someone needs to put these on the Dyno with both fuels to measure the changes. The 3.5 Ecoboost drops 40 lb-ft when switching from Premium (Lincoln Navigator) to Regular (Ford Expedition). Still more torque average using a decade old engine than the latest GM Di big V8 is my point, when pumping regular. And that peak is found at only 2250 rpms. Far sooner than the V8. And honestly, just pump the premium. It only costs few $$ more. Oh, and strangely enough, the mileage is rated on 87 octane, so no, you are not giving up any. The 3.5 EcoBoost was out in 2005? What was it in back then? Okay Okay Okay, I have to stop you at "just pump the premium". Do the math and it's considerably more $$. 36 gallon tank, right? Let's say we average 19mpg with regular and 20mpg with premium, mixed driving through the whole year and the national average of about 12-15,000 miles. Let's split it to be fair. 13,500 miles. Well, regular is 1.99(national average) and premium is 2.51/ gal. 13,500miles/19mpg = 710.5 gallons * 1.99 = $1413.89 13,500miles/20mpg = 675 gallong * 2.51 = $1694.25 ~$280 dollars a year. That isn't a lot, but it is noticeable. Especially over the course of a 5-7 year loan.. $1400-1960 EXTRA to run PREMIUM. Per EPA fuel economy testing EVERY VEHICLE is tested on 93 octane. "The EPA has a specialized company manufacture small batches of consistent fuel, which is 93 octane (cars running 50-state certifications get a slightly different, 91-octane “California” blend)." http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-truth-about-epa-city-highway-mpg-estimates-measuring-fuel-economy-page-2

Pretty simple, only cars that can be bought NEW in 2015-2016 and are AMERICAN! Few categories to meet. 1 Truck 1 Sedan 1 Coupe 1 SUV/CUV 1 Wild Card! aka..toy! Could be any form of automobile just as long as it's made in America(or the company is). Doesn't have to be a car, truck, or suv. Could be a motorcycle, 4 wheeler, plane, I don't care as long as it is American! Whatcha got?

Flexibility. Boom. I feel like somebody is trying to pick it apart because it isn't full electric or pricey. Yes, full electric would keep running costs down but as in any Tesla thread probably ever some up, able to go where ever you want whenever you want. This is a perfect blend of both, IMO.

Ps(to my above post) I did't mean to insinuate a ZL1 was a cheap car. It was kind of two different thoughts that got blended. Originally I was thinking practical like a cheap 99-04 GT or LT1 Camaro then my brain switched to newer cars and well.. ZL1. 580hp. If I have a Chevy on one side of the garage, I'd like one on the other as well. I'm weird like that though.

Torque is what turbo's deliver. In spades. And not just a peak, but total average. That's what matters. And less total average when running regular instead of premium..... which is my point. The area under the curve is reduced. I still say someone needs to put these on the Dyno with both fuels to measure the changes. The 3.5 Ecoboost drops 40 lb-ft when switching from Premium (Lincoln Navigator) to Regular (Ford Expedition). There has to be some tuner shop/site that has put a before and after dyno up.. I'll try and look if I get time.

I think this is probably the perfect vehicle for 75% of the people on the roads. Not many people are carrying more than 4 people and traveling over 40 miles each way on a daily basis. I'd absolutely love to have something like this for daily commuting and just everyday stuff and then buy a cheap V8 toy car to make up for my fuel savings! A Volt on one side of the garage and a Camaro ZL1 on the other, yes please. I could deal with a garage like this: I think I'd rather have silver...