surreal1272

^ great words, Olds. 

 

Opinions on styling are exactly subjective. There just isn't a true way to measure style. The only way would be to poll EVERYBODY and that just isn't realistic in any way. That's why you adore cars I think are hideous and I adore cars you think are hideous. The closest possible way to measure would be sales and that's just ridiculous because there is no way everybody can buy the most beautiful cars. I guarantee you I wouldn't have bought an Escape, lol.

 

NOW I understand why Bong takes his words to heart. "Robert Cumberford is a former automotive designer for General Motors"   

 

Everything makes since now.   

So did you read his entire back story and not just the part where he worked for GM fifty years ago?

http://www.automobilemag.com/author/robert-cumberford/

As a matter of fact, he is just as honest about the new Camaro.

http://www.automobilemag.com/news/2016-chevrolet-camaro-design-analysis/

That's a really nice looking Nissan they got there.

 

 

Can't make out most of the cars in your pics.

'60s pic :: '68 Impala wagon: standard 6, LeSabre would only be an 8.

'70s pic :: Nova, Fury & Impala: standard 6, Cadillac would only be an 8.

 

I get your point, but just because they're not motoring thru your neighborhood, you can still get 'em. Lots of 'em.

Today, most are in trucks tho.

 

Yeah...most of them are in trucks...

Point is in my favour...

 

And now...watch this:

 

 

I think Ive made my point.

And...to boot...but I wouldnt bet all my money on what Im about to say just yet...but I think that electric vehicles in Quebec out sell V8 cars...cars is the keyword...

Yes...take all the V8 cars out there...Mustangs, Camaros, Vettes, Hemi 300Cs and Chargers, Challengers, Mercedes Benz S classes and the like and I think the Tesla Model S out sells all V8s in Quebec...

 

Your point being what exactly?  All those turbochargers, all that lack of displacement... and the simple reliable 5.0 gets the same or better fuel mileage in the real world... where ppl actually use their trucks.

 

Never mind the fact that is only accounting for ONE truck. Throw in GM and RAM and that V8 use just went back up tenfold.

 

 

Speaking of the CT6, Car and Driver tested the 3.0 TT Platinum model, and the 0-60 time was 5.0 seconds.  So even the fastest CT6 is slower than the S550, all that talk about weight loss is meaningless when you don't have low end torque.  The CT6 was 4,371 lbs, vs 4,620 for a BMW 750 with all wheel drive.  So we are talking about 150 lb weight savings, but the 750i has a V8.

3.0TT isn't the fastest CT6. 4.0TT is coming.

Right and I all along said they need a Dohc V8, I'd like to see it in a CTS VSport or Escalade too. But there were several people on CT6 threads a few months back saying the TT V6 would outrun their German V8s because of lower weight, and I knew that wouldn't be the case and it isn't.

The German three also all offer a 6 liter 12 cylinder. That might not be for the CT6 to worry about but they need to remember that on CT8.

 

And you have been told ALL ALONG that the V8 was coming. Also, the TTV6 hasn't been tested against those V8s yet (side by side anyway) so you might want to hold off on your many assumptions for now, especially given early tests showing your precious S Class being a whole .1 seconds "faster". Seriously. Do you not see the problem here?

Oh and a V12 is a waste when it has to carry the heft of those overpriced uber cars. Talk about wasted power.

Bummer but not surprising. 

I can also go after the CT6 for having a throughly ugly mug in platinum trim with a grille that has the EXACT same outline of a Mercedes Grille, just upsized for American chromy tastes, and mention how it also has S-Class controls, and how the interior is burdened with overbearing instances of the fat crest all over the place, and the steering wheel is perhaps the ugliest one yet in the GM stable, yet it's in a Cadillac. I wish they'd swap it for the Impala steering wheel...except it's the exact design of the last gen S-class.

 

Anyways, Cadillac has yet to deliver a true styling victory that one would expect from the El Miraj or Ciel concepts.

 

And the CT6 is only vastly superior if you're the one driving it with the intent of driving vigorously. Otherwise, It falls short on luxury against other rivals, has less space, and the value proposition erodes on the top trim. Yet the entire segment of buyers has been going away from that for the large part. It's proven by even how the XTS continues to outsell the CTS. And if they'd continued it, it'll outsell the CT6 as well.

 

And going after the conservative roofline is just hysterically nonsensical. How else do you maintain that traditional sedan stance?

 

But yeah, do continue. Some people just reach and reach and reach. I don't even particularly like the car for obvious reasons, but it's a hell of a lot better targeted at the buyers of these kinds of sedans.

The difference is though Sauve is that there are more publications (not just Automobile Magazine) having these types of issues with the Conti than they are with the CT6. I realize you don't like what he is saying because of his pro-GM rhetoric but, like he said, he did not write the criticism being levied at the Lincoln. You are going out of your way to kill the messenger in this case, is what I am saying.

I think the Conti is a good car for Lincoln but it will not be the home run some envisioned. It is far better than the MKZ it replaces but my biggest gripe with the car (the than it being FWD) is that the look does not leave a lasting impression on me like some others do. I feel that after a year or so, it will look dated on the outside and, once again, be a distant memory in the minds of a lot of buyers. I could be wrong but that is just the impression I get. I also hate the rear on that thing. Just don't like it. It kills a otherwise nice look on the rest of the car.

 

Goodbye Mags. You gave me eight great years.

Do i smell a "guess what I bought" thread"? coming?!?

 

I wish. I have been out of work for a couple of months so I had to sell the Magnum to cover my mortgage. Hopefully I'll have that very thing here in a few months but for now, I am sharing my wife's HHR.

Goodbye Mags. You gave me eight great years.

My current one which is a throwback of sorts. The picture on the desktop was done about eight years ago. It's a combination of Photoshop, Bryce 3D, and my old Talon. I was feeling a bit nostalgic this weekend.

My Mother passed, age 85..16 years after my Dad.   We were somewhat estranged, hadn't spoken much in recent months.   Just kind of numb right now, not sure what to think...flying back there in a couple days.

Condolences all around Moltar. 

I remember the van era from being a kid in the 70s, remember seeing lots of colorful ones around the Upper Ohio Valley ...my older brother briefly was into them, had a two tone green '70 Ford Econoline Club Wagon back in '78-79.. 

In the 70's, as a kid, i was practically raised in my dad's old van (a lot of traveling in it, I mean) which was a '72 Chevy Sport10 Van with a three on the tree. By the time I was eight, that van was ugly as all get out yet my dad kept it for another 8 years because it was bulletproof. The only out of service replacement was a radiator. It was a beast! If I can find a picture of it, I will post it (as soon as I figure out how to do that here).

 

 

 

Well, it turns out that there is a good reason for the relatively low sales start for the Camaro. No 4 cylinder until now (which will certainly account for a large amount of sales). 

 

http://www.motortrend.com/news/2016-chevrolet-camaro-convertible-20-turbo-first-drive-review/

 

 

I told U this in POST #18 of this very thread... 

 

Excuse me for not reading every single post as this article JUST came out Casa. Good grief man. After my initial question, I didn't come back to this page for a while. Sue me.

 

 

 

Jeeez. Think U need to slow your roll. I was just pointing out.. didn't think U would take it as if I was coming down on U. Relax

 

My "roll" is just fine, thank you very much. It's just that your post was not needed, except to re-affirm your own knowledge of it. Just saying.

 

Well, it turns out that there is a good reason for the relatively low sales start for the Camaro. No 4 cylinder until now (which will certainly account for a large amount of sales). 

 

http://www.motortrend.com/news/2016-chevrolet-camaro-convertible-20-turbo-first-drive-review/

 

 

I told U this in POST #18 of this very thread... 

 

Excuse me for not reading every single post as this article JUST came out Casa. Good grief man. After my initial question, I didn't come back to this page for a while. Sue me.

If I wanted to save a lil money... the Camaro SS is a nicer option than that German $h!

 

Very nice as well.

Well, it turns out that there is a good reason for the relatively low sales start for the Camaro. No 4 cylinder until now (which will certainly account for a large amount of sales). 

http://www.motortrend.com/news/2016-chevrolet-camaro-convertible-20-turbo-first-drive-review/

$64,100 (which may be slightly above the threshold) gets me a Porsche Cayman S instead of the Audi and in this color (just to be different about it). It's all about that beautiful handling. 

Anyone who says the Cadillac models don't look like one another is just lying to themselves. Sorry. There's nothing wrong with it, but no reasonable person would say there is anymore distinction between Cadillac models than Audi models. They're both pretty big offenders of the 'same sausage, different length' mentality. BMW is a little better, Jaguar is a little worse. MB's all look the EXACT SAME.

No one said that (that I'm aware of) Frisky. I merely stated that Audis were the worst offenders (especially when you throw in CUVs into the mix). I think BMWs are just as bad but again, that's just my opinion. 

 

 

An A6/S6 looks no more like an A4/S4 than a CTS does an ATS, XTS, or CT6. At a glance, the average person wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

Audi is a way bigger offender in the "lookalike" category than Cadillac, but you have a point.

 

I somewhat agree but the newest CTS and CT6 will be as easily mistaken as the A3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10..in my opinion.. The ATS definitely has a more different look to(two different generations. I think the next gen ATS or whatever they call it will fall in line and also be easily mistaken for a CTS/6 as well) it but I think the CTS and CT6 are about on par with the "Classes" at MB, the "Series" at BMW, and the #s at Audi in how similar they are to their siblings. 

 

Yeah, it's never been a big deal to me when a company go for keeping a familiar look across their lineup. That's part of brand recognition. I just think Audis are the hardest to tell apart from afar, whereas I don't have that kind of "issue" with Cadillacs. 

An A6/S6 looks no more like an A4/S4 than a CTS does an ATS, XTS, or CT6. At a glance, the average person wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

Audi is a way bigger offender in the "lookalike" category than Cadillac, but you have a point.

 

..because I want everybody to see how awesome this is...

 

 

And this because I thought it was comical.

 

 

 

I agree, it looks quite nice, and the materials were awesome.

 

But I like the way the MKX interior looks way more. Like wayyyy more. Like huuugely more.

 

 

Not exactly and apples to apples comparison though when one pic is an amateur shot (which reveals the many hands that have touched that screen) versus a staged studio shot. Just sayin'.

This is right up there with the old "Who's who of high school seniors" book that was peddled back in my day.

 

 

I'm guessing there are a LOT of V6 Mustangs in that count. It's the main reason why I'm not too concerned about the Camaro "only" moving 6-7,000 units per month.

 

All of my Mustang rentals have been the Ecoboost 4.

 

But that varies area to area. Most in the Phoenix area are V6 with a few Eco-Boosts sprinkled in for flavor.

 

Never mind. 

Some of you are looking at this comparo all wrong. It was more to highlight how far the Camaro has come by comparing it to the upper crust of performance world (luxury performance in the case of the M4 but I digress). Yes, it's a little silly but this has been done for decades so this style of journalism is not new. IT also highlights the difference paths the two countries have taken, in regards to performance in this CAFE age.

First off this is a luxury car vs a non-luxury car.  This is sort of like comparing an S-class coupe to a Porsche 911 and evaluating the two on luxury features and interior space only and picking a winner.  

 

That being said, the M division is showing some signs of weakness as of late.  The numb steering is plaguing a lot of BMW cars, and they keep making the cars bigger and heavier which does them no favors either.  They should have kept the old M3's 4.0 liter V8 and turbo charged it, at the same time keeping the M5's 5.0 liter V10 and turbo charging that.  Those were special engines and they dumped them for a higher boost 335i engine and higher boost 550i V8.  

 

And obviously AMG kept the V8 in the C63, now BMW has a pretty big power gap there.  And even to go a step farther, they could have taken the easy way out and used the S550 engine in the C63, it would have had plenty of power and torque, but they didn't do that.  They designed a sports car engine for the GT and C63, because they wanted a unique sound and characteristics for those cars.

To your first sentence, I say "duh". That was not the point though. The point was that the SS put that M4 to shame in the performance department, thus redefining the performance to dollar ratio argument. The SS is just proving to be that good and that should be respected.