balthazar

'40 Buick, factory built pick-up truck, 1 of 4.

Want to take a stab at pegging your stance somewhere between these 2 posts?

I'd guess that's the face Kermit makes when FAP asks Kermit to check his underwear for onion chunks.

Point being, the 1.5T, with 24 more TRQ and 300 less lbs, must scoot away from a same-spec '09 as mine, yet mine moves perfectly fine away from a stop sign. I can out-accel 3 other lanes of cars if I want to, with regularity.

There's a (tired) '09 Malibu 2.4L in the driveway here. 169 HP / 160 TRQ vs. the 1.5T's 160/184, but the '09 is about 300 lbs heavier. I have a serious lead foot and I can tell you the '09 is in no way a "dog" but nor is it a racy perf sedan... but it's not supposed to be. I've given it the pedal hard on occasion, because I sometimes still drive like an idiot, and it goes fine FOR WHAT IT IS/ the segment. "Unliveable" is a ludicrous, out-of-place assessment. I think most people understand what these cars are built for. - - - - - What I fail to grasp here / above is "willing to give it a try". You test drove it, right? Unless something is mechanically amiss, what changed?? My observation here is of a long history in Reg's reviews where the tide of opinion on the same product always sours over time. This seems to be yet another example of such. Not trying to pile on, just my observation.

How about we add them together; HP + TRQ = 'power total'?

There certainly have been more small block transplants into Mercedes of various vintages than the other way around. - - - - - An interesting contrast ~ • the current MBAMGGT black series offers a 6.2L SC V8, rated at 622 HP and 468 TRQ. This is the top V8 from Daimler according to what I googled up. • the GM LT4 is a 6.2L SC V8, rated at 650 HP and 650 TRQ. • the GM LT5 is a 6.2L SC V8, rated at 755 HP and 715 TRQ (slated for 2019). I'm expecting that this, also, is an incredibly daft/ face-palming criteria to judge motor vehicle engines by.

It won't be needing any $1300 headlights tho, would it?

I said a 3900 lb truck, not 5000. And Malibu 1.5 TRQ is rated at 2500-3000, not 2000.

I 'chipped' a truck I owned once. A bit heavier than the 3200 lb Malibu at 3900, but it gave the truck 30 lb-ft more and you just could never be sure it was any different (other than the premium fuel it required). You're not going to notice any difference in 0-60 with 15 more HP, especially from the outfield you're coming at this from. But again- this is not a criteria for this class of car, it just isn't.

^ I'm sure there are people that would argue that theory, too. You forgot the PRIMARY reason the quantity of those swaps is made.

Now I'm confused - same car is either "Perfectly adequate" or an "undriveable unhappy dog". Gosh- which is it?? ( )

It's definitely top shelf. Defining "best" is going to vary with opinion/bias & criteria.

How many people beat on an Accord daily with multiple 0-60 runs?? How is it we're hung up on family shuttle pods 0-60 times? Reviewers shouldn't even bother to test that. It makes about as much sense as giving the Malibu a 130 MPH top end- it'll never get utilized. And "undrivable" - is that even remotely applicable here?

^ I think this sums up the best approach. Some things are nearly impossible to have incorrect on WP- like a sports win or the first year for Product X- agreed. But in accounts of an event, especially when the entry pulls bits from multiple sources on the same event... who knows FOR SURE which account of that bit is accurate? The historical event I've been researching has numerous published accounts already out there, but even the few reliable ones are riddled with inaccuracies, myths and fabrications. Yep; my own research and analysis has shown this up. As I read & re-read these few 'reliable' sources, more and more of the erroneous bubbles to the surface. If one is an enthusiast about a historical event, then those errors are difficult to stomach.

Moltar- you mentioned Wikipedia in another thread ; anyone question the site's rule of only using published sources for information - like everything published is somehow peer-reviewed. I guess there's little other way of doing things; assumedly users will discount the grossly inaccurate sources, but this relies on a strange, amorphous 'community think' where anonymous strangers all have the 'better good' of the 'internet encyclopedia' at heart. I mean, whats supposed to happen when all the published sources are widely inaccurate?

^ Having owned one of these generations ('60 Bonneville) I can attest that interior room is not as much as you'd expect... in the least. Caddy did have another 4" wheelbase tho.

^ At first glance; no, but sure; there differences. The C-class is as roomy as an ATS inside!

Pffft- you know consumers don't know or care about drive wheels. The average schlub in the MB mega-dealer sees 2 identical-size sedans.

CLA is more like a much cheaper '2+2' sedan version of the c-class sedan (since it's within 2 inches of the c-class's length).

"The air's electric, sparking power, loaded, loaded." ~ Dave's favorite song, he sings it all day long.

No doubt the perception there is NOT "the best or nothing". Don't expect to see mention of nissan or renault platforms, either.

CLA ~ wheelbase: 106.3, overall: 182.3, frt legroom: 40.2, rear: 27.1, total: 67.3 C-class ~ wheelbase: 111.8, overall: 184.5, frt legroom: 41.7, rear: 35.2, total: 76.9 ATS ~ wheelbase: 109.3, overall: 182.8, frt legroom: 42.5, rear: 33.5, total: 76 ATS has 8.7" more total legroom than the CLA with only 3" more wheelbase, and the same total legroom as the c-class with 2.5" LESS wheelbase. Mercedes has noticeably poorer interior packaging than Cadillac here. Yet, when you read about this size class luxury models having poor legroom, all you ever hear is about the ATS. Guess no reviewer has EVER tried to get a human inside the rear of a CLA.

CLA is front wheel drive. It's one of the reasons it has such dreadful interior packaging.

1916 :