Z-06

Good job. Who provided the vehicles, manufacturers? Were any representatives of theirs on site with the journalists?

Good review. The car is well balanced for what it is. Toyota has balls to get this out even though it will not sell in large droves. Somehow I laud Toyota for recreating the small, RWD, fun-to-drive sports car market again. Too bad the car starts at almost 25% more than what Toyota promised.

Not a bad monitor for $50.

Drew, For your needs the T3i and those two lenses will be an excellent set up. It can even take video and has the same sensor, as my 7D.

I don't disagree. But I think it can be argued that BMW built its brand (in North America) on the back of the 3-Series and its predecessors. Infiniti had a flagship called the Q45. Nobody bought it and Infiniti was regarded as a lame-duck. The goodwill generated after the G35's debut in 2003 is what led Infiniti to become a real luxury car player. My belief is that the people that don't see Cadillac being an 'equal' brand because it lacks a flagship, won't see it being an 'equal' brand if it has one, either. Excellent one. One thing I would like to add is BMW, Infiniti started from scratch unlike Cadillac which has over 80 years of history of being a brand on cutting edge of technology, till GM decided to dilute it. So memories of "Cadillac of options", "Cadillac project" will haunt the brand if it does not deliver on the high end. Bottoms up approach is what Reuss is banking on. If ATS, CTS, and XTS are successful, not only here but around the world, business case can be made for the LTS to the bean counters. However, there is a need for diesel ASAP.

That is a good way to put it. Cadillac needs a third car of bigger size as the market demands, which is better than its competitors. Let the media call it Flagship, Battleship, Mothership or whatever. I honestly am not averse if it shares bones and muscles with other brands to make a business case for the product. However, it should be a Caddy first before being any other brand.

You got me there. I had to slaughter myself for coming up with this brilliant idea.

A C5 Z06 can still return 30 mpg highway and I have experience to prove it.

There is difference between losing sanity and losing everything and being on a crossroad with a bowl in hand. But anyways thought of two Z06s does not sound insane.

Don't lure me into another Z06 as the Lumina is getting tired after 215,000 miles.

One cannot deny that posibility, considering how robust and flexible the 2.0T is. the new 3 series interiors is actually quite stunning in most trims, the more you dig, you see some really neat details. and the 3 series interior is not duplicated in other BMW's. the new 3 interior is crafted insanely well with many tight gaps and insane textures and finishes and even subtle sweep lines and such in the plastics that you don't really get into until you're in the chair. Reg, sitting in a pre-production ATS and production F30 at NAIAS, I can say that if 3er interior and details are stunning, then ATS is 10 miles further.

Fixed. Yes this car is something that can seek balance of being a daily driver and track hopper. I somehow feel the need of a turbo motor with ~270 hp while sacrificing couple of mpg.

It was a no brainer that once the hp smoke vanished and 200 mph mirror shattered, ZL1 is just a better all round sports car than the GT500. The taut suspension, harnessed power and balanced demeanor just would ensure a better all-rounder. Do I hate the GT500? Not at all, in fact I love it because it is unabashed rawness compared to virtuoso racer of ZL1. Sometimes you need both in your garage. The priorities of both companies were different.

You mean like how Nissan GTR's 3.8V6 TT does not compete (annhilate) the V8 engines from BMW, MB, and Jaguar you are referring to?

Who said Cadillac was?

Why?

I am looking to see where the TT V6 is placed. As a direct competitor of 535 with ~330 hp or so, between 535 and 550 with ~375 hp or so.

That engine was developed with Venturi Motors as part of Fiat JV. I think Fiat is using that engine in the Jeep and the so called Ram 1500 diesel.

Travesty!

For trucks, in general, I think Reuss' strategy of looking at bigger picture makes sense. Variety has always been a spice of life for truck buyers. Discontinuing one of the three V8s, replacing a V6, adding a diesel and a turbo (since market has spoken) for powertrain will make sense for the 1500s. Adding a smaller Colorado with two four bangers and one V6 will be good. As far as style and utility is concerned, this is where GM needs to be the most innovative to keep the buyers and increase its market share.

Yes, and the Duramax isn't that economical. Excellent idea on Tahoe and Silverado. A diesel V6 could get those to 24 mpg highway I bet, that is as good as a Traverse. I guess while we are at it, it could go into the Traverse also, but that much torque would probably rip the transmission apart. GM would have to make a new one, I don't think and FWD transmission they have can handle over 300-350 lb-ft. Do you know that engine hauls a 7,200 to 8,400 lbs truck and still returns 22 mpg on highway? To me that is more efficient than the MB engine you are humping. EPA doesn't rate that engine, but Car and Driver got 14 mpg average from it (on a 2500, not a heavier 3500). You could get a Silverado diesel that weighs 5900 lbs, if it is 4 door, dually, long bed, then yes it probably is near 8,000 lbs. So weight reduction is an area for Chevy to look at. But the Duramax is an $8400 option, and I am not suggesting getting rid of it, it is a good engine for the 3500 trucks. I am saying add a 3 liter V6 diesel for the 1500 trucks and dump the 4.3 V6 and 4.8 V8s. That 4.3 V6 is from the 80s, time to say goodbye already. Car and Driver observed 19 mpg for the ML320 cdi that was rated 18 27. The numbers I have quoted are real life numbers of actual people who drive the truck. You just bolstered my point by pointing the lighter truck will be more efficient than the real numbers I quoted for heavier truck. The Baby Duramax 4.5L V8 has already been developed 4 years ago, why waste money on a new engine?

The 2012 update helps the exterior a lil bit. I agree, it is bland though, I wish they did more with it. I like the interior a lot though, the layout is similar to the S-class, and that is a good thing. The R-spec 429 hp V8 is pretty awesome though, I drove one, only around town at low speed unfortunately, but it is very quiet and you can tell very powerful. Get it.

I am not saying power can't overlap, obviously a Camaro and Corvette are going to have 400 hp engines because people buy them for speed. But GM can't keep doing high performance Chevys while Cadillac gets a bunch of 4-cylinders and the V6 from an Impala. I don't care if they drop a Corvette engine in a big Chevy sedan, they aren't going to sell that many anyway, they would need a V6 model to go against the V6 Charger. I am just saying GM can't forget about Cadillac, that is the crown jewel, Cadillac should do everything better than Chevy, that is why it is a Cadillac. You mean just like how VW has a V6 in Passat and A4 is stuck with a 4 banger? Or how Tuareg Hybrid has more HP than Audi Q7? Or how the engines are shared between VW, Audi, and Porsche?

Yes, and the Duramax isn't that economical. Excellent idea on Tahoe and Silverado. A diesel V6 could get those to 24 mpg highway I bet, that is as good as a Traverse. I guess while we are at it, it could go into the Traverse also, but that much torque would probably rip the transmission apart. GM would have to make a new one, I don't think and FWD transmission they have can handle over 300-350 lb-ft. Do you know that engine hauls a 7,200 to 8,400 lbs truck and still returns 22 mpg on highway? To me that is more efficient than the MB engine you are humping.

Baby Duramax needs to be revived. It should be also put in Suburban and Tahoe. As much as I love the big Duramax, it is just excessive for most of people's needs.