surreal1272

Good point(could not make out the vents) but that 7.3 second time is not from a 3.6L V6 CTS though. There is nothing in that video that indicates that it is a 3.6L. It also cements my point that the base model gauge, whether in a CTS or an ATS, is just cheap looking and does not belong in either car, much less a $53K CTS. BUUUUUUURRRRNNNNNNN!!! (Kelso - That 70's Show) (I was hoping for something a little less drastic than an entire head on fire.. but I guess that is about all that is available..lol) Yeah, real big burn there. I was wrong and admitted it, which is more than can be said for some around here . Someone else certainly didn't know the difference when confronted on it. He just offered up weak excuses whereas Drew offered solid facts and proof, and I appreciate that from him.

Well, hopefully they will address that in the next refresh. It's a little thing to some but to me it is something I have to look at every time I am behind the wheel and it would drive me nuts.

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. Am I really that unclear in my posts? Is it just me or is it the reading comprehension around this place lately....? Do you drive like that all the time? Do you floor it at every light and let the engine wind up to red-line through every gear every time the light turns green? Does the typical Camry or Impala driver drive that way even some of the time? If you're like me, your engine rarely touches the red-line. Even then, probably less than 1% of the time will it ever even exceed 5,000 rpm. So, for "every day" driving, the way that 99.9999% of driving is done... having the horsepower peak at a much lower RPM would be an advantage during that 99.9999% of the time. It would allow engines to turn lower RPM at cruising and better fuel economy. And here's the kicker. If I'm wrong, then Ecoboost has no reason to exist. Ecoboost allows for smaller displacement engines to produce power at a lower RPM. Turbo-DI small displacement engines are the replacement for the bigger, slower spinning, OHV torque engines, not the OHC engines that only produce HP at or near red-line. Excellent points and it certainly contradicts the OHC claims made by some here. Oh and reading comprehension does come at a premium. I have been guilty of it myself but some do so more than others.

Good point(could not make out the vents) but that 7.3 second time is not from a 3.6L V6 CTS though. There is nothing in that video that indicates that it is a 3.6L. It also cements my point that the base model gauge, whether in a CTS or an ATS, is just cheap looking and does not belong in either car, much less a $53K CTS. Yes, you only get the premium TFT screen on the Premium trim CTS 3.6. The Luxury and Performance trim CTS 3.6 come with this base cluster. It's the same car in both runs in that video. I can't explain the reason for the difference in the runs except for user error or perhaps a different terrain (was the first run on flat while the second run on a slight incline? we don't know) Thanks for clarifying that Drew. I have not gone to Cadillac's page until today to see those interior shots for each trim level. That makes no sense to have that cheap looking cluster in an ATS, much less the more expensive CTS. Sorry. I just really hate that cluster. It's like they ripped out a cluster from 1990's Oldsmobile and put a little screen at the bottom to make it seem "modern". It kills an otherwise great car. It is that bad to me.

Good point(could not make out the vents) but that 7.3 second time is not from a 3.6L V6 CTS though. There is nothing in that video that indicates that it is a 3.6L. It also cements my point that the base model gauge, whether in a CTS or an ATS, is just cheap looking and does not belong in either car, much less a $53K CTS.

And one has to ask how someone goes from -95 votes to +461 in less than a day. Must be nice to have someone do your dirty work for you.

Yes, if you are a real car person, especially when they are two completely different sets of gauges. That's like me not knowing the difference between a Fusion and Mustang gauge cluster Sorry if you don't get that and yes I do say so.

The Recaro cloth seats with Miko Suede Sport inserts are standard and very comfortable, at least to me personally when I sat in them, which is something I notice immediately with my troublesome back. And although I prefer leather, it is the last thing you want in any G-force producing machine. So it's hardly just entry level 'cloth' seats. But yeah, a bit too much as a daily driver, but when compared to the 2SS, it is in the same relative universe of extreme performance, with one focused slightly more. But leather is better.

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.