balthazar

Not a diehard Corvette fan, but I'm not aware of "bad press" due to the current engine. Any negative commentary WRT having an IBC withers immediately in the face of its performance, so those are NOT remotely potential Corvette buyers, just stone-throwers; their minds are not going to be changed. Also not aware that the Corevtte's 'survival' in in question. There was a LOT more weight to bad press for the Corvette in the late '70s, when it had 180 HP and couldn't get out of its own way. Today it's nothing but semantics.

Corvette is a halo car, a world-class aspirational performance icon. Leave 'expanding the sales numbers' to the Cruze/Spark/etc vehicles. Corvette management must NEVER place sales as a priority. It did; when Chevrolet had no V8 to offer. I won't say 'it wasn't competitive' because there almost was none, but it certainly didn't perform like the sports car it was fashioned as, until the 8 arrived.

wildmanjoe ~ >>"The low pro's nowadays already let the driver feel every bump, dip and dead prostitute in the road, so ride couldn't be that much worse."<< True; a byproduct of short stiff sidewalls. However, all the rags want to preach about is hhaannddlliinngg, as if econoboxes are carving canyons at 2AM X-mas night instead of slogging thru rush-hour at an average speed of 30 MPH. >>"I see WRX's with tall and skinny tires driving around here in the winter from time to time as well."<< You see WRX's like THAT driving around? Natch; that's a singular-purpose tire (traction in snow/ice), it has zero business in real world commuter conditions. Aren't a lot of them steel-studded, too? >>"Even if the tires were wide, a taller one would mean fewer revolution per mile and better mileage, at least in theory, plus the advantage of the car not looking like a pregnant rollerskate."<< Now we're talking about lesser distinctions. A '12 honda Fit "Sport" wears 185/55 R16s, which are 24.0" tall. If it were a -say- 185/75R16, it would increase to 26.9" tall. What this does effectively is reduce the final drive ratio, making the vehicle accelerate slower. The previous tire change would reduce a -say- 3.25 gear to 2.89. Now you have to swap gears to retain the original acceleration rates, which decreases MPG in gears below 1:1 / OD. On top of that, a 75-series tire here will only set the rag jockeys a-moaning and a-whining about the hhaannddlliinngg (the taller tire will also be heavier, increasing unsprung weight, also affecting handling). Compromises. Rims on average have of course gotten taller & taller over the last couple decades. Overall tire heights have conversely gone down quite a bit. A 1960's 8.25x15 equates to a 205/80R15, which is 27.9". I don't believe that's at all commonplace on cars today- a LaCrosse for example wears 235/50R17s : 26.25" tall. All that aside, I get your point; you're wondering on getting narrower tires on the smaller cars, instead of the mini-steamrollers the "Sport" models often have. I could see that as long as overall heights didn't move much- so they'd have to get narrower. THAT WAY, they'd be lighter, have lower rolling & wind resistances, and retain all performance stats. Handling at 75% & above would decrease, but not as much as the above scenarios I posted. At this level of distinction, I believe it boils down to marketing/perception ("fat tires look cooler/handle better").

Those purpose-built MPG rigs have 1 goal only- MPG. Ride comfort, traction, handling, etc doesn't even make the list. Besides, low-profile rubber band tires are considered 'sporty'; tall skinny tires look cheap/puny. You knew all this, tho, WMJ. BTW, the Fit wears 16"ers, the Isetta wears 10"ers. Even as a vintage guy, both seem appropriate here. Isetta is what; one-third the size of the fit?

wow, that is pretty... weird. Conceptually it's interesting, but that concept is beyond BMW to pull off. I only remember the 'neon' grille; that I like. I thought that whole 'my rims are 3" too wide for my tires" thing was already dead. Looks like an accident waiting to happen.

Air extractors- GM has a track record of functional versions, too ('49 Buick, Trans Am, GNX, etc). Could be an aero benefit for rear wheel well pressure reduction. If this were a Malibu, I'd agree it'd be fake. >>"No one said the '14 dash looked like the '05...it was said that it resembled the early '90s dash. "<< I misread you, that you said the '14 dash looked like the '05 when you said the '12 looked like the '05. Apologies. '84-90 dash was cool in its day, to a degree, but it aged fast IMO & is nothing to emulate today.

'Intentionally ugly'? I don't think so. IMO, BMW has already scraped the bottom of the style barrel, and long ago. A white 5-series GT stopped momentarily today in front of my house, as I gazed in horror. No, this is where BMW thinks it's future lies; the world of Tron. I mean; they've locked themselves into the horizontal light/ pig nostril grilles now, they CAN'T change that. Meanwhile, they've done every possible manifestation of tails (some quite good, most quite pedestrian). Unfortunately, the rest of their vehicles are so bland & arbitrary, they are forced to pull out something like THIS just to get attention. Obviously the ELR will get 'street' sideviews, but I sure hope Cadillac finds a reason to keep the mega-hoops for production. It's a real slick design regardless of the power scenario (presently unknown).

^ How does someone tell that grilled vents are fake from a line drawing? '14 line-drawing dash looks nothing like the '05. That said, none of the 4 interiors shown in this thread are properly indicative of the Corvette image, IMO. I'd like to see something a lot more 'focused' and purpose-driven, stylistically..., more expressive, like the C2 was.

Which would everyone rather be seen in ?

same as always- to get some work done on the fleet. Specifically, I want to strip the 3 Pontiac triplets out back, get the COE finished up, then get back on the B-59. What- too much to ask??

annnnd, no one who offered a lux SUV -for example- 'broke any new ground' either, yet they still tumble out, don't they (bentley next- 40+ years too late). Electrics are the newest segment, and although they have a nearly 'see-thru' slice of the pie, and many have already failed, I don't see the segment going anywhere. Build a striking example of one and maybe people will start buying them more. Build a mutated turd like the ct200h and you get nothing, good day sir.

sumtin about those wearing white (mirrors, rims, bumpers) that says 'pure' work.

Is there any appeal there over a Passat with the same powertrain?

What are the rumored power figures for the 3.6TT?

Seeing more & more of what I am sure is people looking at their phones when the light turns green, just sitting there growing moss. I suppose they may instead be working their " infotainment systems"...

5000 units annually sounds fine to me. Cadillac should never be about chasing volume, but building the best they can (at a divisional profit).

I haven't followed the current Lincoln products much, but the TV ads are pretty nice. Of course, they need to back the upscale image there in the showroom. Linc would've been well ahead of today had they put the MKR in production right off. That, and getting a palatable naming scheme going.

What happened to that giant mutant insect single-arm wiper system that was so amazing, that was going to revolutionize obstructionless viewing?? 'Obsession' isn't a unilateral virtue; just ask a psychiatrist.

mercedees uses plenty of cheap parts bin stuff, they just use the same badge on it.

Not always the case. A 1902 Cadillac was $750, which equates to $19K today.

Only a marketing dork could concieve of " a new direction to promote familiarity". Another missing link is that the Q45 was a colossal sales flop, not a good basis for a new image whatsoever.

Wonder why the imports moved from CCs to liters? Used to be pretty much all the former, now no one uses CCs. Agree with Camino/ Olds that there's a very good opportunity to utilize the very proprietory CI in some instances. Homogenization is boring.

"But... what does the 'Q' SSTTAANNDD for??" ~ same people perplexed by 'CTS'.

American automakers switched to aclimate once the imports began becoming a major market factor, in a vain attempt to 'go along with the flow'. Its a puzzler in that --as liters-- its a more innaccurate system (every tenth of a liter equals 6 cubes). Thats besides the point that there seems to be a lot more intentional flubbing of displacment to market 'cool' dispalcements with liters, than ever happened with CI.

Thanks for the side-by-sides, Roger. Rolling back & forth over then all, I am liking the GMC the best... tho I would certainly will welcome an in-person inspection. Has a strong rugged look, but ergonomics can only be judged by interaction.