surreal1272

And of course Wings misses the point entirely while exposing his clearly laid out double standard. Options and choices are only good when Ford offers them. Thanks for playing.

If I am going the 80's route for a domestic (not my favorite decade by a mile), then my wife will have this. and it will be parked right next to this (mine, mine, all mine)

And again he goes down vote happy. Such a shame that some have to act like 9 year olds with the down voting. Back to the subject. Regardless of how some feel about the pricing of the new Camaro, Chevy will have no problem moving them. It is seemingly better than the outgoing model in every way. And thanks again Down Voter for proving my point. This is why we can't have nice things.

And again he goes down vote happy. Such a shame that some have to act like 9 year olds with the down voting. Back to the subject. Regardless of how some feel about the pricing of the new Camaro, Chevy will have no problem moving them. It is seemingly better than the outgoing model in every way.

Until they see the rather large absence of options on that V6 Stang. Giving the consumer a CHOICE instead of a one shop bundle price, is always....ALWAYS better for the CONSUMER, assuming final price points with similar hardware, is similar. One price shopping is ALWAYS better for the manufacturer. Where did we go wrong as car lovers, where some believe that not giving customers a choice, is somehow a good thing. Funny, when I (and several others) mentioned choice in regards to trucks a while back (the GM twins plus the mid size twins vs. Ford F-Series), you (and several other Ford fans) were singing an entirely different tune. Of course, with the news of possibly a new Ranger coming back, that tunes has been altered a bit. Interesting how choice matters now but did not matter when Ford stopped offering choices in other categories. Do you intentionally just completely miss my point to make some other snipe? I clearly was talking about choice of OPTIONS.....not vehicle segments. And yes, more vehicle segments is ALWAYS a better choice, although some less so than others. More vehicles within a particular segment are called options to the rest of us, which you shunned not to long ago when talking about company profits and ATPs. Options=Choices in this case. BTW, it wasn't a snipe. It was stating a fact that has been brought up here before. Sorry my Ivy League education didn't make that clear enough for you the first time.

Could not have said it better myself. Edit: And I see some are taking full advantage of the down vote reinstatement. How typical.

It's more than just that. With these naturally aspirated DOHC V6es, I feel that customers are getting cheated a bit. They are being sold horsepower ratings that they will never see in the real world. Drew, you really need to qualify a remark like this. I know you are mostly referring to cam-cord V6 automobiles for the general masses, and that's fine, but there are many performance oriented vehicles that benefit with DOHC. But that is my whole point as well, in that the benefits of DOHC path for families of engines that automakers CHOSE to follow....are far more than just a marketing gimmick. Engineering is a balance act of trade-offs, and clearly, the scale tipped to the benefits of DOHC to invest in entire families of engines for your products. A few examples here and there of OHV offering benefits, should not and does not dictate where you invest your engineering $$$$. So yeah, marketing is part of that equation, but a small part. Here is a CTS w/ 3.6L accelerating. I don't know what you see, but what I don't see, is a driver waiting for the hp's to kick in that supposedly never do. What I do see, is a DOHC revving freely right out of the whole, and building momentum, well past where an OHV engine would fall flat. Just for the record, that is not a CTS. That is an ATS. And only a GM fan would notice. Or care. They both offer the same exact engine, which was the topic or at least my point regarding DOHC. Heck, in dim light, they look identical too. Get some glasses because any real car person (I have told you a million times that I am not a fan of any one company) would see that was not a CTS. I know it's not the equivalent to an Ivy League education, but how hard is it for anyone professing to know cars, to see that?

So you are okay with Ford doing bundles, is what you are saying. GM, on the other hand, "Oh where did we go wrong...". Until they see the rather large absence of options on that V6 Stang. Giving the consumer a CHOICE instead of a one shop bundle price, is always....ALWAYS better for the CONSUMER, assuming final price points with similar hardware, is similar. One price shopping is ALWAYS better for the manufacturer. Where did we go wrong as car lovers, where some believe that not giving customers a choice, is somehow a good thing. And I might add that Ford is offering very little in the way of choices if a buyer wants a V6 Mustang, which was my point to begin with. Again, it's okay when Ford offers little in the way of choice.

Until they see the rather large absence of options on that V6 Stang. Giving the consumer a CHOICE instead of a one shop bundle price, is always....ALWAYS better for the CONSUMER, assuming final price points with similar hardware, is similar. One price shopping is ALWAYS better for the manufacturer. Where did we go wrong as car lovers, where some believe that not giving customers a choice, is somehow a good thing. Funny, when I (and several others) mentioned choice in regards to trucks a while back (the GM twins plus the mid size twins vs. Ford F-Series), you (and several other Ford fans) were singing an entirely different tune. Of course, with the news of possibly a new Ranger coming back, that tunes has been altered a bit. Interesting how choice matters now but did not matter when Ford stopped offering choices in other categories.

The used car dealership I worked at years ago would not touch Land Rovers of any variety, be it auction or a trade in. They were garbage on the used market then and it doesn't seem like it has improved much today.

When you put it next to the CTS cluster though, it stands out as an after thought to me. The rest of the interior is very nice but staring at that cluster is just too much for me. Just my opinion though. Now that I can better understand and yes it does not hold up to the CTS. I am hoping they have a Family Style / quality level of dashes as they move to the CT naming same for the CUV and SUV's. Nothing wrong with a little variation between their models but Cadillac just kind of skimmed over the cluster on this occasion. Hopefully the first refresh will address this.

When you put it next to the CTS cluster though, it stands out as an after thought to me. The rest of the interior is very nice but staring at that cluster is just too much for me. Just my opinion though.

It's more than just that. With these naturally aspirated DOHC V6es, I feel that customers are getting cheated a bit. They are being sold horsepower ratings that they will never see in the real world. Drew, you really need to qualify a remark like this. I know you are mostly referring to cam-cord V6 automobiles for the general masses, and that's fine, but there are many performance oriented vehicles that benefit with DOHC. But that is my whole point as well, in that the benefits of DOHC path for families of engines that automakers CHOSE to follow....are far more than just a marketing gimmick. Engineering is a balance act of trade-offs, and clearly, the scale tipped to the benefits of DOHC to invest in entire families of engines for your products. A few examples here and there of OHV offering benefits, should not and does not dictate where you invest your engineering $$$$. So yeah, marketing is part of that equation, but a small part. Here is a CTS w/ 3.6L accelerating. I don't know what you see, but what I don't see, is a driver waiting for the hp's to kick in that supposedly never do. What I do see, is a DOHC revving freely right out of the whole, and building momentum, well past where an OHV engine would fall flat. Just for the record, that is not a CTS. That is an ATS. :D Funny thing is that I noticed the error before I even started the video. That cheap ATS cluster gives it away every time. Such a shame on an otherwise nice car.

Until they see the rather large absence of options on that V6 Stang.

It's more than just that. With these naturally aspirated DOHC V6es, I feel that customers are getting cheated a bit. They are being sold horsepower ratings that they will never see in the real world. Drew, you really need to qualify a remark like this. I know you are mostly referring to cam-cord V6 automobiles for the general masses, and that's fine, but there are many performance oriented vehicles that benefit with DOHC. But that is my whole point as well, in that the benefits of DOHC path for families of engines that automakers CHOSE to follow....are far more than just a marketing gimmick. Engineering is a balance act of trade-offs, and clearly, the scale tipped to the benefits of DOHC to invest in entire families of engines for your products. A few examples here and there of OHV offering benefits, should not and does not dictate where you invest your engineering $$$$. So yeah, marketing is part of that equation, but a small part. Here is a CTS w/ 3.6L accelerating. I don't know what you see, but what I don't see, is a driver waiting for the hp's to kick in that supposedly never do. What I do see, is a DOHC revving freely right out of the whole, and building momentum, well past where an OHV engine would fall flat. Just for the record, that is not a CTS. That is an ATS.

A la carte can be better but they can nickle and dime you to death if you're not careful. We're talking about Benz and BMW after all.

Why do you act like this is a big surprise? All cars are way too pricey these days. While it is a gamble on GM's part to price them like this, it appears that they are going to upsell it on the fact that it has more standard equipment than the Mustang. We will see if the gamble pays off. Why am I surprised that the new Camaro with a V8 is $4100 more than a V8 mustang? I pointed out that "I thought the Mustang was expensive". That was my point in the standard equipment though. They're doing kindof like what Ford does in their packaging where if you want(in this case a V8) you are forced to get other things with it. Random, made up, example. If I wanted HID headlights on my mustang. The odds are very good that it will be in a package that also adds X Y Z and it will end up costing a couple/few grand. That is what this is like. I think it is crappy. You want a V8, well there isn't a stripped down V8 anymore for Camaro.. I'm very intrigued in the V6 version actually. I still would never buy one but it intrigues me nontheless. I wish the 2.3 EcoBoost was a little more powerful so play with this. Fair enough but I do think you are over dramatizing it a bit. The way all the makes package their cars has been questionable to me for a long time though.

Why do you act like this is a big surprise? All cars are way too pricey these days. While it is a gamble on GM's part to price them like this, it appears that they are going to upsell it on the fact that it has more standard equipment than the Mustang. We will see if the gamble pays off.

Damn fine ride they have there. One of the few cars from the 80's that's still worth a damn IMO (a close second behind the GNX)..

So I guess empirical evidence is not enough huh? Oh and obviously the entire auto industry is not right or else they would all be using the SAME THING.

Audi Endurance racers used diesels. Corvette C7.R uses pushrods. NASCAR uses pushrods. Pushrod engines won the Indy 500 in Penskes, with Benz logos on the rocker covers. And let's not forget the Vipers that go out on the track. Say what you will about those cars and series-nobody accuses the cars of being fuel-swilling prunes. And yes, the torque is a big help on the track (except possibly for the Penske/Benzes, where the beef was they were TOO powerful). So you have a handful of examples out of hundreds. Congrats. Is there any particular reason why you want to dismiss now two sets of examples? Drew laid it out pretty well after you basically insulted his intelligence on the matter and you totally sidestepped that fact after he corrected you. That makes no sense Dingo.

I agree. Very bad idea when Buick is just making some headway in the market.

I'm just going to say this. How many Mustangs are out there with LS swaps and how Vette's are out there with 5.0 swaps? Nuff said (excuse my non-Ivy League educated wording). While I will completely agree that the super snake and applications like that shouldn't even be brought up. Vette and Mustang engine swaps aren't really comparable. Camaro and Mustang makes waaaaay more sense. Of course there aren't Vette owners wanting a lesser powerful Mustang engine. But Camaro owners..older Camaros wanting the newer 5.0 or Cobra 4.6 DOHC..is a lot more likely. But I will add that I never follow the "swap" crowd. It's never been my thing. I wouldn't put a Chevy V8 in a Ford and vise versa. Now I think it would be cool to have an 80's/90's Camaro/Mustang and swap for the modern 6.2/5.0. That would be cool. I guess the same could be said for the Older -> Newer Corvettes as well. That Vette owners don't want Stang motors was exactly my point ccap. Stang owners wanted a better motor so they started doing LS swaps. Vette owners have no need to downgrade. As a result, a Camaro owner will go LS long before putting a 4.6 or 5.0L under the hood.

I'm just going to say this. How many Mustangs are out there with LS swaps and how Vette's are out there with 5.0 swaps? Nuff said (excuse my non-Ivy League educated wording).

You may have just completely ruined the Avenir for me. It has a very similar body shape to the Panamera..which is one of the ugliest sedans on the market. $h! It looks ten times better than the Panamera. GM needs to just build the damn thing already.