ccap41

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But after driving the "much more powerful" Shelby on street and Laguna Seca, C/D estimated (no doubt via sneakiness and timing equipment) that it would hit 60 in 3.7-3.8 seconds (as you will see in the magazine, should you care to look). Similarly, they peg the quarter-mile times and traps at roughly Caddy ATS-V numbers. Thing is, the ATS-V's engine and driveline numbers (and the car's weight) are pretty similar for that of the Camaro SS... which is going to be lighter and torquier than the Shelby. Also, GM claims 0-60 in four flat for the eight-speed, and their numbers will probably be a bit conservative.Bottom Line: they may well be saying "ruh-roh" in Dearborn come Oct. 16 or so. And if not, perhaps they should be. So, are you looking at track times or straight line times? I think everybody and their brother know the GT350 is designed around a road course and not a drag strip. I'm kind of mind boggled by how you think an SS will compete or beat the GT350 in objective categories. Once they pump out a 1LE or some form of handling package, no doubt. It just isn't adding up the way they both stand today. The SS will be torquier which will give it great feel for driving daily but if you're $h!tin' n gettin' you're only utilizing that torque in first gear, after that you're sitting above 5-6000rpm and it means nothing as you're in your horsepower band.

Ha! I bet I got a lot more to look with the title rather than "Van Comparison test". Well, it is an unconventional test but there isn't much to read on these work horses that help suport our economy(s) more than we give them credit for. Ususally these just get one little instrumented test with one engine, usually the most powerful. Well, they brought us the diesel options for all three of the major players. They excluded the Nissan only because they don't have a diesel option. Well, here ya go! 2015 Ford Transit 150 Power Stroke vs. 2015 Mercedes-Benz Sprinter 2500 BlueTec vs.2014 Ram ProMaster 1500 EcoDiesel "We didn’t drive three full-size modern vans 430 miles just to gain admittance to the 43rd annual Van Nationals. We also drove them there (with a dorm room’s worth of furniture from IKEA) so we’d have a place to sleep away our drunkenness. Oh, right, and also to perform a comparison test of the newest big boys. After what seemed like a century of incremental improvements to the old-school American vans, our market is now awash with new European-derived big boxes, as well as little-sibling versions. We chose three of the new plus-size van-guard: the Mercedes-Benz Sprinter (now in its second generation here in the U.S.), the new-to-America Ford Transit, and a curious-looking thing called the Ram ProMaster. For the sake of intensified Euro-ness, we chose turbo-diesel engines as the exclusive power source.This choice effectively knocked Nissan’s NV2500 out of our test, since the company offers only gasoline V-6s and V-8s in its big hauler. Chevrolet has dropped its light-duty full-size Express van because it was dragging down the company’s fuel-economy average. Heavy-duty versions are still available, but the Express was deemed too out of step with the modern vans to include anyway. Advertisement - Continue reading below We specified windowless cargo versions of each entrant because they seemed somehow more in step with the custom vans we expected to encounter at the Nationals. Also, we weren’t running a shuttle service, and we didn’t want people looking through the windows at us as we snored. And then the Ford showed up with windows anyway. We chose low-roof models to diminish the commercial-van look (fat chance!), and no dualies or four-wheel-drive or super-extended models were allowed. The idea was to make them, as much as possible, candidates for modern van customizers. ..." http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/diesel-cargo-vans-compared-ford-transit-vs-mercedes-benz-sprinter-ram-promaster-comparison-test It was a weird read, imo. I was expecting more of a comparison like they do with cars and trucks. It seemed a little too broad yet it was still entertaining as there isn't much on these work horses. I also thought that 22-23mpg was pretty solid for these guys. It's basically doing truck work but not getting truck fuel economy. Also, I found it weird that the Ram had a 3.0 I4 when they have a 3.0 v6 already in house. Maybe just the displacement kind of threw me for a loop because they're both 3.0's.

Even if they run identical lap times on every track they get run on I don't think a single sole will worry about GT350 sales.

the only poblem is, he is not being nearly truthful hear. Most of the GM platforms are older than he lets on. The Impala for example, just hit a platform Buick has been using for a few years and before that was running a NINE year old design based on a platform more than 20 years. The Regal, 11-15 Cruze, were both based on platforms sold and designs sold in the rest of world for YEARS before they hit our shores. The Malibu, 13-15 was based on that older Regal platform. Alpha really is the only new car platform seen before 16. But look at what GM is pumping out NOW. They have a brand new Colorado/Canyon, '16 Cruze, '16 Malibu, Their half tons were done in '13..updated again for '16, '16 Camaro, CT6, XT5, Bolt, Volt.. What has Chrysler, Dodge, Ram, Jeep done in comparison? I mean I understand when you say those were on older platforms but everything I listed is no longer on those dated platforms and the Chrsler products still are and will be for some years yet. GM is no longer living under their bailout timeline and Chrysler is with too many of their products.

"Look at GM and Chrysler post bail out and GM is already to the point they have replaced most of their platforms with new platforms and are already into the second gen of refresh on some of theses models in the next one to two years. They even created a new Omega platform. Yet Chrysler is left with older and borrowed models. Even the RWD replacements were pushed back." I think this summed it all up VERY well. I know it put it into a different perspective to me. Thanks hyper.

..still look tougher than a Colorado..

Aren't split rims dangerous as F? It's a really neat thing to have though if I had a shop of my own. Vintage tools are cool.

Nah, I think I'm good on bottle openers for now. But seriously, what is that?

Nice pics, Stew! What were you doing out there? Looks like you got to put the off-road-ness of the trucks to work in that top pic. Looked fairly muddy.

Honestly.. I'd still take a Tacoma over a Colorado.. But a Canyon over a Tacoma. The Colorado's front end just looks too dang soft for my liking. The Tacoma and Canyon have muscular angles and grills whereas the Colorado is all soft from the end of the hood down to the plastic 3inches off the ground. I just wish I wouldn't have let my subscription run out so I could have read this by now!

That headlight.. That headlight..

Okay, so it is a different transmission then. That makes more sense... Thank you for the info, cp. Well, had it been the same trans, I think it should have debuted in a Cadillac and moved across the board from there. I don't think they should have delayed the others as much as putting the money up to get the Cadillacs done first(trickle down as opposed to trickle up and over). Of course they would use it in other applications but you'd think there wouldn't be a time when a Chevy has a superior transmission than premium, German fighting, Cadillacs. And there was that time period.

While it is great to spread the trans around the entire GM lineup as much as possible I'm still kind of confused why it didn't debut in a Cadillac. Are those CTS or ATS mpg numbers, cp?

GM and Ford haven't built anything like that though. So while any big company "CAN" these companies AREN'T.

That is a really interesting picture, you can see more of the divots in the background on those rails. Yeah, I noticed that as well. When I first saw the pic I didn't know what happened(without reading the caption) and once I read that it just blew my mind how gnarly that is. first, wheelspin on a train is badass in itself then that they are producing so much heat that they can do that to the rails. I'm curious if this damages the wheels as well. Ps. I wish I didn't have to take a damn screenshot of it but the app wouldn't allow me to just save it.

I saw this pic yesterday and thought, "This is gnarly!" I thought I'd share. As a Cowboys fan I can still have a laugh at my own espense..

Yes, I understand what but going that route why wouldn't cadillac's drive lines have the priority to be updated and ready before the trucks because the trucks they went in weren't updated that year either. The 6.0 was redone for the '13 model year, right?

Because the 8-speed was always meant to go into all vehicles that can handle it. Well yes, buuuuuut now the Cadillacs have a truck transmission instead of the trucks having a premium Cadillac transmission. I know WE know the difference but it's the same type of situation that Ford did with Sync3. Why would they introduce it in a Ford not a Lincoln? I think the fact that it is one of the best automatic transmissions out there currently will smooth over that difficulty. I understand that and that putting it in their trucks first will help amortize the cost sooner and everything but it just seemed a little backwards. I can't wait will Ford catches up in this transmission game. Everything GM and Ram will have either 8 or 9spd transmissions by the time Ford gets their 9&10spds ready and GM will be utilizing them too.

Because the 8-speed was always meant to go into all vehicles that can handle it. Well yes, buuuuuut now the Cadillacs have a truck transmission instead of the trucks having a premium Cadillac transmission. I know WE know the difference but it's the same type of situation that Ford did with Sync3. Why would they introduce it in a Ford not a Lincoln?

Just realized GM put their 8spd in the Silverado before the ATS/CTS. Isn't this one of those things that should trickle down FROM Cadillac? Ps. Thank you Drew for editing the above post!

Cards took game 1. Very wide strike zone but it was called for both teams.

^ and they make sure it's good and covered up too(just a plastic engine cover). The early CTSs were easier to get to but those filter housings would tighten down on their own for some reason or it had to do with the metals expanding/contracting and they would be an absolute bitch to remove.

That is actually exactly what I was thinking. I don't like that the word "reveal" is used as if there will be a lot changed. I thought it was "revealed" last year..(or early this year..I don't remember).

"...do you have to take the wheel off?" LMAO!! I wish that was all! No, you have to take off the entire front bumper, not joking. As for your 2.4L vs 3.6L comment, I come across a pretty high percentage of V6 models on the street, I'd venture a guess as high as 15-25% V6 models. They're much better driving cars than the base engine, hydraulic steering and almost 100 more hp/tq go a long way. Lol I has a suspicion it was that bad of a process but I never really looked into it. We would have customers about once every two weeks want a bulb changed on a newer Malibu and we couldn't do it(not a full service shop). I'm amazed a simple service item like that would be designed to be covered up that poorly(or good - whichever way you want to look at it). I agree 100% that newer cars are tougher and tougher to do a simple oil change on because things are getting hidden and tucked away much more now. I mean there probably isn't a car made in 2016 that has a completely exposed oil pan. Trucks are about it but even those usually have some form of a skid plate. Oh I believe there are a lot out there it was just the cheap peple driving them trying to get the cheapest oil changes allllllll drove the 2.4. Who would have guessed, right? lol Oh jeez, 100hp/tq is a massive difference. I know I'd take the mpg hit for it. I took the mpg hit on my Escape getting the 240/270 2.0L over the 178/184 1.6L. Give me even more to make it a 100hp gap and YES PLEASE.