regfootball

Verano sort of hits the skids. ATS did nicely and the Malibu made some nice gains, but prob at the expense of the Cruze.

down 23% but the article was quite upbeat!!!!!!!L O L

from the get go I thought it was bull$h! that the tzar decided we needed to sh-tcan pontiac and saturn but keep chrysler so fiat could ultimately do this. that said, it's probably better for Chrysler's position in the US now, otherwise they would still need to be put out to pasture.

I'd prefer to keep Chevy and gmc separate. But really I don't mind whatever you'll do.

Like

i wanted one......never got one!

love that fiero btw

considering the lack of interest in electrics at the prices they are being sold at, it is more likely for development in electrics to advance faster at Tesla than they would at a GM etc. So in that regard, it is probably a good thing Tesla is still around to sort of break new ground. Ultimately I think if GM would swing for the fences with it, they would be beyond most successful re inventing the automobile. I just hope someone does it before the government intervenes and tells everyone what to build for electrics and cars in general.

really want to hear your impressions on the 14 Regal. I always wanted a Regal, now with all the upgrades and the available AWD, it's damn hard to choose between the Regal and ATS if I had dough and was buying today!

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-buick-regal-turbo-awd-gs-awd-test-review http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-buick-regal-regal-gs-first-drive-review http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1309_2014_buick_regal_first_drive/ http://www.autoblog.com/2013/09/09/2014-buick-regal-gs-review-quick-spin/

nice theory for a heavy large blocky vehicle. does the same theory apply for a small, light, aerodynamic vehicle? prove that a 2.5 litre pushrod 4 will have greater net benefit than a DOHC 2.0 or say a 1.5 turbo three.

14 regal was testing quite well against the Audi and Volvo. I think I'd like to see a CLA vs Regal comparo

my question is, is it worth the extra jing over a tarted up Altima. I would guess yes?

that pic for some reason really hides a bunch of the clumsiness and actually makes it out to be quite fetching.

maybe GM will take the chance to sink massive resources into a brand spanking new platform for global use across mega many models.

mighty pricey Es-cop-ay

But is it good enough to be in a Mercedes or BMW? GM often does this "good enough" thinking or cuts corners because they think it is acceptable. But being better than previous Cadillacs isn't the goal, being better than Mercedes and BMW is the goal.I agree with Dwight, 2 versions of the 2.0T would make sense, that is what BMW is doing with the 3-series. Plus the 3-series has a diesel that if a buyer is looking for MPG as a top priority, the ATS is in trouble as the 328d and 2015 C250 Bluetec get 45 mpg. So perhaps 2.0 diesel is in order more so than two versions of a gas turbo four. Well, it is ... about the same as the Nissan Altima 2.5. Is that good enough to be in a Cadiilac? You decide. There's no way the GM 2.5 and Nissan 2.5 are the same NVH! I've driven the Altima and Malibu. The Altima is a buzz saw in comparison.

to me, its like what percent of the ATS will come with that motor. If it's ten percent, I think the 2.5 is just fine. Like I said, a lot of older Caddy fans are turbo averse. And they won't want a large six.

deceptively snazzy!

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/12/13/mercedes-cla-best-launch-20-years-tight-supply/ Caddy needs to go FWD again!!!!!! Mercedes seems to have filled the Cimarron market pretty well......... Dwight I agree, an mpg tuned turbo would be a good base engine. smk, i am seldom impressed with Merc and BMW

Interesting to compare notes. In my 2.5 test drive, I found the 2.5 to be decently acceptable for a base car. I believe for cheap lease cars and those who are turbo averse, the 2.5 is fine. I thought the NVh overall was alright. Perhaps Cadillac should offer the 2.0t standard by next year but if they do that, they should bump up the tune on the cars Above the base car. Overall the ATS is really good. While I don't think the 2.5 should be widely available, if it allows some entry into the brand I think it's fine in limited application. Someone like my dad would not want a turbo. Plus, the mpg on the 2.5 is about 15-20 percent higher real world than the turbo. The ATS I tested did not have CUE. A 2.5 ATS rwd is the perfect cheap small getabout for a well to do widowed older woman with a small garage. Etc. or a nice commuter for someone who doesn't want a cheap midsize bit still wants mpg.

Beautiful dog. Sorry to hear. Hard when friends pass away.

I do think Jeep tends to hold some continuity. Dodge Dart is sort of like Neon II. I think Dodge and Chrysler had sort of charted a new boat when they moved into bed with Mercedes, and then that fell apart. They had big success with cab forward. Chrysler's problem I think is not really having a lot of memorable blockbuster models. GM you know has several, Ford even has a few. A VW Golf is a VW Golf. I think a good question here is do people prefer this in the spy photos or the last 200 concept? Both are alright, but I can see why Chrysler moved to the longer greenhouse as it is trendy right now.

the iron duke of old had about 100hp and 140 torque, and delivered solid mpg. The 2.5 even if it is detuned and the torque curve tuned down a bit, will achieve a combined EPA of 23-25 I would guess, and will as fast as a lot of sedans. It may not be best suited in 4WD, but even so it will probably outrun the colorado.