ccap41

People buying CUVs aren't after the "drive of a BMW". 99% of people buying CUVs are after the roominess, larger-than-a-car, and...other things have nothing to do with what us entusiasts are after in a vehicle. So it might as well be a Ford Escape or Toyota Rav4 with an expensive badge to the customer. Those consumers probably don't even know which wheels are powered or by what engine if powering said weels(I4, V6, I6). I couldn't imagine spending 54k for something the same size(or very similar) as my Escape.Yes Yes Yes.. The interior is going to be a major step up from a Ford but 33k more than what I paid? Nope. For how the average CUV driver drives their CUV? Nope.

I read something like this at Motor Trend last night. Very intriguing.

Or....one could say that they are just too damn scary fast today. ...touche'...

It's just WAAAAAY to time intensive of work to try and real-world test everything. Plus, there would be no consistancy. Too many factors effect fuel mileage.

I'm more in the sound-snob bunch. Between sound and how the power actually feels while driving make a good engine to me. To what blackviper8891 said, the only real 4cyl that has sounded good to me is those flat 4's. Burble is about the best description to me, they burble with aftermarket exhaust. Now there are SOME 4cyls that don't sound bad but that doesn't mean they sound good. A lot of Ford's 4cyl that I've heard sound like crap to me. The new RS sounds pretty good though(from the one video I've hears/saw). But the high end 4cyl do tend to sound a little better, like the CLA AMG. That's another one that sounds pretty good..for a 4cyl.. Also, I'm completely in love with the 4.6 in the Mustangs. Be it 2, 3, or 4V they all souns wonderful to my hears. Yet, none of them really have a lot of the low end, daily driving balls that I prefer in an engine. My current 2.0T doesn't have the top end but plenty of low end tq that I use on a dialy basis. I love the powerband in my 2.0T. As for displacement.. the number shouldn't mean anything if it isn't delievered correctly. For me, I want a lot of low end and mid range. Rarely is my foot on the floor for anything I'm driving daily. So, for instance, if I had some beefy 454 under the hood but(go with me here) it revved like the new 5.2 Ford and had nothing below 3200rpm..then I don't care for it nearly as much as a little 2000cc producing instant torque at 1500rpm. But sound-wise.. V8 no doubt about it.

Ya know, I always assumed we were the same age, but I didn't actually have proof until now. I'll race your stock fox body in my stock Monte Carlo SS! Both are slower than 4-cylinder family cars now... Haha I always had the feeling too. I think it was your tech-ness and taste in other things portrayed somebody roughly the same age as myself. I didn't know it was actually late 80's thought. Decent years..lol Oh jeez. It's amazing how quick average cars have gotten. I mean our average cars would make those pretty sweet 80's cars look stupid.. and we don't drive anything extragagant. They were just damn slow back then! lol

Trains can and do stall if they're overloaded heading up a grade. The metal shavings make me think it could be wheel spin, but I have also seen similar things happening due to overloaded/overheating/failing traction motors that heat up the rail to the point where is melts. I did an image search and found this caption that went with the picture: The photo shows what happens when a train with multiple engines has the brakes applied, but one engine does not get a signal to shut down. Thanks for finding more info on that. I completely forgot after balthazar said that to look into it later. Whatever it was it must have been an intense situation. Even if it was "just" wheelspin.. if a train can't get up a hill I have ot believe that gets pretty scary.

Well, I'm with the OP on 1988. Personally, I've almost always hated 80's and 90's cars. Nothing really appealed to me until the latter half of the 90's. But this is actually a thing I've thought a lot about because my friends and I have asked eachother this before at work while wasting time(when we used to work together). We always thought it'd be cool to own something from the year we were born. But late 80's?!?! Eh. Not a huge fan of anything from then. I've always just been like.. I'd buy a Fox Bodied Mustang.. Which in the "real world" I still would. A CLEAN Fox is gorgeous...but most aren't clean.. I wouldn't even make it all stupid fast like they are capable of. I would just make it look extremely clean and original with a few minor mods to make it not slow lol. Well today.. I looked up 1988 a little more and came across a GEM. I never knew this was built in 1988 and I still could never own one but in this case.. 1988 Ferrari F40. You have a FANTASTIC year for cars!

lol of course it doesn't get the benefit of the doubt from you! YOU'RE A GM FANBOY! lol well the GT350 isn't the one with the Sport Cup 2's. The R is.

Happens to me all the time. Ive gotten many speeding tickets this way in which I just mash the peddle to get away from them as Im soooo bloody disgusted and mad and I dont want to be road ragin' because If I keep seeing them whether in front of me, beside me or in my rear view mirror, Id be ragin' and low and behold, a speed trap further down the highway...and if they would just be in the correct bloody lane to begin with...Id also be in the correct lane, yes left lane for me and right lane for them, Id be going the bloody speed limit to begin with therefore NO SPEEDING TICKET!!!! IM GLAD THAT IN CERTAIN STATES and in ONTARIO, they actually give tickets to people that are in the left lane but NOT going the maximum speed limit or passing anybody...but not in Quebec though....Quebec likes to be backwards! Washington state just passed a law that says you cannot be in the left lane if you are going more than 10mph below the posted speed limit. I am hoping this gets many scared drivers out of the left lane where they do not belong. That is great. There is a probem in Quebec though. We have a minimum and a maximum. 60 KM/H minimum and 100 KM/H maximum. Therefore technically, rolling 60 KM/H in the left lane is permitted. Some politicians want to do away with that minimum and maximum stuff though. And they are trying to make some sort of logical speed to be in the left lane....they are calling it the passing lane...but no speed requirement is acknowledged, only that you must pass vehicles on the left. And where the speed limit maximum is 70 KM/H, the roads are usually small and tight so going more than that you are really endangering yourself. Isn't that $h! just so stupid frustrating?!?! I'm glad it isn't just me that notices it, but I'm not glad that you've gotten ticketed for trying to avoid it..that's some crap luck right there. Sorry brother.. Illinois has a law where you're ONLY supposed to be in the left lane while passing and I think for a maximum of like a half mile but it isn't enforced. That is also only on interstates..my morning situation was simple 2 lane road with traffic going in both directions. I really like that idea of a minimum in each lane but I think that could get sketchy to enforce. The tools to measure speed better be damn accurate(to pinpoint which lane the driver is in) otherwise lawyers would have a hay-day with that.

So what are your opinions on the Z/28 then? If your only measurement to say it isn't worth the money is two straight line acceleration tests then that is why I refered to you as those two ignorant/oblivious fanboys because you're sounding like one.. You know damn well that car is made for way more than 0-100mph runs, like the Z/28(which is why I brought it up).

Jesus, man. Badstang? Deaner?

Ahhh you're just tryin to stir up the pot.. Just put the cover on and let it be. It'll be a good product when the timer goes off. Just trust the timer.

Why do you think the 2.0 will be right on its ass? It's off by 60hp and most likely even has LRR tires on it as it is the fuel economy model. It seems like a 14.5 car. I know it makes more torque than the v6 but I can't see it running a 14.1-14.2 to the V6's 13.9-14.1. Two reasons: first, the CTS and ATS already existed with the 2.0T and outgoing LFX V6 side by side, and the acceleration differences are minimal. Motor Trend even found the CTS with both engines to be right on top of each other. Second, the 2016 CTS 2.0T AWD 8-speed auto was already tested by Car & Driver, it ran a 5.8 sec 0-60 and a 14.5 1/4 mile while weighing a bit over 3900 lbs. Assuming logically the Camaro will be a few tenths faster than that (500 lbs advantage), the 2.0T and LGX V6 will be 3 tenths apart at best. HAVE YOU BEEN READING MY DIARY!? I've been wishing and hoping for a Camaro 327 ever since rumors began swirling about the gen 6 Alpha Camaro over a year ago. It's the perfect blend of power for the street and livable fuel economy. The truck engine makes 355 hp/383 lb-ft, so a sporty intake manifold and free flowing exhaust would make around 380/380. Plus the heritage "327" marketing potential. Alright, I can see that then. I gotcha I gotcha. Heck I think GM could even put the 5.3 in the Camaro just as it is. Leave it at 355/383 and call it a day(ya know..to save those dollars). Just leaving more room or the aftermarket.

Holy $h!.. They just kept digging themselves a deeper whole as they went.

Isn't that what every manufacturer does? MT has a "first drive review" and then a "first test review" on about every car they get minus the 200k exotics. That's just "the way she goes".Maybe. But consider this (because the writer in the R&T article spelled it out there as well): from the GT350's public debut to its first (non-instrumented) test took roughly eight months (ten when you add in publishing lag times).From the Camaro's debut this summer on Belle Island to first instrumented testing?... whole lot less. To me, that's a definite red flag. Yeah and the NSX is going to take another 7 years to debut but that doesn't make the car itself any less magnificant(supposedly, as it isn't finished yet lol). Didn't it take the Challenger something like 2 years after showing? That didn't make it any less of a car. So Chevy hid their car longer under a bed sheet longer than Ford did with their GT350. If you want to look at times(now I don't keep as close attention to all makes so that's why this is another Ford) but the GT showed recently and it will be racing this coming season at LeMans. If I recall, it was only about a month before the race last year so it's only about a 13 month show to race. Point being, there is no reason to look any further into show time to testing date. Every manufacturer does their time tables differently.

Isn't that what every manufacturer does? MT has a "first drive review" and then a "first test review" on about every car they get minus the 200k exotics. That's just "the way she goes".

I've never understood why when you pass somebody because they are going below the speed limit they then speed up not only AS you're passing them but then they speed up to where you would'nt have had to pass them. It happened this morning(if you didn't assume already). I was behind some a-hole(probably not really.. but they frustrated me so now they are an a-hole to me) who was first going 45 in a 50..wasn't bad because of where we were at. I was okay with that. Then we left town and because I'm an avid cruise control user I set my cruise at 52 then 53, then 54 thinking we would go the speed limit. I was behind the damn Chrysler 200(previous gen pos, imo) for about a mile slowly gaining on them at 54mph(in a 55) so I say screw it, I'll just pass them so I can at least go the speed limit. They then accelerate slowly as I pass them and I get back over and I slowed back down to 58 and they were behind me the whole time! If they would have at least gone the damn speed limit I would have been fine, I wasn't in a rush. But they weren't! THAT grinds my gears.

"Those could potentially include paying cash restitution to the affected car owners and forcing VW to buy new national ads admitting the company lied to customers." Ouchy. forced to admit vie national ads that they lied. Now that'd be embarassing!

Why do you think the 2.0 will be right on its ass? It's off by 60hp and most likely even has LRR tires on it as it is the fuel economy model. It seems like a 14.5 car. I know it makes more torque than the v6 but I can't see it running a 14.1-14.2 to the V6's 13.9-14.1.

Nice call! Well I said that because if it was a rebadged Fram E-core those used to not have an anti drain back valve. See I could see some of his issue being just a cheap filter with repeated use wearing down. Those cheap valves aren't made of the same material the higher quality ones are.

Actually, I don't think those "e-core"(as they are called, if I remember correctly) don't have the anti-drain valve. Those are the cheapest of the cheap. I would HOPE they would still use the regular PFXX filter if he's paying for an $80 oil change but that doesn't reall mean anything other than they could take an extra couple bucks by using the "e-core". Well I started a thread over at Bobistheoilguy.com because I'm on that forum as well.. I'll see if anybody has anything other than what I was thinking. Confirming or disproving.

That knocking sounds more like an oil filter issue not an oil issue. Cheap filters with cheap anti-drain back valves or none at all will allow more oil to drain back and you'll start your vehicle with little to no oil already in the system. What oil filter do you use? GM, My wife drives it mostly since I take the bus into work, so the local Cadillac dealership who also does my Escalade which also has the same knock does both Mobil 1 synthetic oil changes. $79 dollars everything else checked, washed, vacuumed and ready to go. The wife likes it so why bother with Grease monkey or Oil Can Henry. For the small difference, might as well keep it GM serviced. Not trying to be a jerk but that had nothing to do with what oil filter you're using. If it is their standard "pro" filter then it might not have any anti-drain back value. If it is the conventional one you can buy off any Walmart shelf then by the time you change your oil the valve may have wore out the slightest and allows oil to slowly drain over night while it is parked for extended periods. I understand what you are saying, I do know as I did crawl under both and check that they are stamped GM on the filters, so they are not a 3rd party filter, but the actual GM filter for the vehicle. Figure in todays world, might as well keep GM accountable for my auto. I guess what I'm saying is I would try a high end oil filter and see if it changes anything. Also, wouldn't AC Delco be a 3rd party? As far as I know GM doesn't produce their own filters they use AC Delco. But, I'm not saying AC Delco makes poor quality filters, just maybe they aren't suitable for your application as well as others.

That knocking sounds more like an oil filter issue not an oil issue. Cheap filters with cheap anti-drain back valves or none at all will allow more oil to drain back and you'll start your vehicle with little to no oil already in the system. What oil filter do you use? GM, My wife drives it mostly since I take the bus into work, so the local Cadillac dealership who also does my Escalade which also has the same knock does both Mobil 1 synthetic oil changes. $79 dollars everything else checked, washed, vacuumed and ready to go. The wife likes it so why bother with Grease monkey or Oil Can Henry. For the small difference, might as well keep it GM serviced. Not trying to be a jerk but that had nothing to do with what oil filter you're using. If it is their standard "pro" filter then it might not have any anti-drain back value. If it is the conventional one you can buy off any Walmart shelf then by the time you change your oil the valve may have wore out the slightest and allows oil to slowly drain over night while it is parked for extended periods.

Isn't the vehicle basically 9/10ths of a half ton anyway? Fantastic freakin' mileage. And as a truck I think the low end would just be how a truck should be driven anyway. Trucks shouldn't have 7000rpm redlines but a boat load of torque under 3000rpm.