Z-06

I don't know it will hang with me for another 11 or so years. I am planning for potentially replacing it.

Name: BMW 330i Performance M Package (2005)

Date Added: 19 December 2009 - 09:38 AM

Owner: Z-06

Short Description: It is like the child one never wanted to have, but one ends up loving it because of its adorability. The car fell in my hands by accident despite of not "wanting" it. But it changed my perception of BMWs from expensive cars bought by snobs to a thorough track-bred vehicle. I still think it is an overpriced under equipped machine, but when I pull the 45mph curve at 70 mph, I am not complaining.

View Vehicle

Name: Chevrolet Lumina (1998)

Date Added: 19 December 2009 - 08:54 AM

Owner: Z-06

Short Description: While my other cars may come and go, Lumi has been with me for 13 solid years and close to 257,000 miles. Over the time, she has slowed down on the miles she rakes, but her ability to jump on the interstate and cruise has not. Yeah, yeah she is a Dub-body and not one of GM's best, but she has been my long faithful partner.

View Vehicle

Welcome to the forum. I hope you have no issues driving on the wrong side of the road.

Happy GMC day.

Logical, I see no need for the 6 pot engine from stand point of performance and cost effectiveness.

 

A solid performer and a good design. I think it is more cohesive design compared to the CTS V-Sport. Given sedan body style is a compromise in itself, a very well executed executive sedan.

 

Like BV said, it is disappointing to not to have manual transmission, considering 1 in 7 Gen 2 CTS-V sedans were manual transmissions. Again, GM ignores those small numbers. In this case, it is even more disappointing as the profit margin on the car is higher.

Never say never. I could see them using it as a rolling change in a future year or with the addition of the coupe

 

It will be good news but I doubt it. I can see GM middle execs making business case of not having one. I wanted to see the 7-speed being used on more applications, given how marvelous it is.

A Mazda 3s Touring with the newly available 6spd manual is pretty appealing, though it's priced about the same as the 6 Touring. You do get slightly more luxuries in the 3, but I'd have a hard time picking it over the bigger, sexier 6. Once the '16 model is available with its gorgeous new interior (and assuming the 6 Touring keeps its 6spd manual option), it'll be even tougher. 

Yes, if you are comparing the 3 sedan vs. 6, it would be the 6. But the utility of the 3 hatch out-triumphs the bigger sibling.

It was more like a wealthy man's Accord coupe.  You'd think for a $90,000 price you would get more than 270 hp.

Did you say the same thing for the 850i? Because it was precisely 26hp more while being slower to 60 by 1.1 sec, yet costing a little more. It was out-handled and out-stopped by the wealthy man's Accord coupe.

For its time when it was introduced, the NSX was a precision knife. The problem was that Acura let it rot while others zoomed past it. 15 years is a long time for a car without major updates.

A solid performer and a good design. I think it is more cohesive design compared to the CTS V-Sport. Given sedan body style is a compromise in itself, a very well executed executive sedan.

Like BV said, it is disappointing to not to have manual transmission, considering 1 in 7 Gen 2 CTS-V sedans were manual transmissions. Again, GM ignores those small numbers. In this case, it is even more disappointing as the profit margin on the car is higher.

SMK, did you provide a positive perception to look forward for a GM product? Or that you have actually matured to wait for the final product prior to bashing it?

Regardless, I will give you one up.

Is it related to the latest FMVSS 214?

DRL

I will say that my 94 GMC LTE that has a 3 inch lift handled so much better when I went from the stock rims / tires to the low profile tires / rim combo. Everyone find what they like and I like the lower profile tires and larger rims for better handling.

So it is your feel of handling, which is based on personal preference, not the actual handling of the vehicle, which is based on physics and not based on personal preference.

The point I was trying to make is that better handling comes with the larger rims and while the tires for the larger rims are more expensive, that cost can be offset by buying the better tires.

 

I believe we would both agree that an 18" rim will give a better handling than a 15" rim. Then to deal with it since the cost from 90K 15" to 90K 18" tires I feel is minimal you get better handling plus long tire life.

No on both counts sir. Bigger wheels means more mass, more moment of inertia, higher center of gravity, and higher stresses. Actually bigger wheels hurt handling not help.

Now if you have a 10-inch rim wheel-tire combo having the same diameter to that of a 20-inch rim wheel-tire combo, the smaller wheel may be worse in handling than the larger wheel due to too much tire flex.

The ideal rim size will vary depending on vehicle physical characteristics. The rule of thumb is between 16 to 19 inches for the sweet spot on handling.

Great. Now I hope you do not have an itch for the next 7 years. Who am I kidding!!

Actually the 2.4 Solstice Coupe is rarer than the GXP. I do not remember now, but approx. 1,200 coupes were made, 400 were the 2.4.

I remember posting those numbers here a while back.

Nice truck. Didn't get the Green?

Good luck and happy miles.

The offroad suspension package and 22 may not go well.

Happy Birthday dude.

Getting rid of the Beetle?

 

 

So yes, development-wise AMG just puts a lipstick on a pig unlike M, RS, V treatments do, even F did with RC-F, wherein they actually spend R&D time and money to create something unique.

 

All 2 of the Lexus F models which still use the 5.0 liter V8 from 5 years ago.  The RC-F is using 2008 IS F running gear, great R&D spend there.  Audi has the RS5 with an 2008 R8 engine, and the RS7 used the same 4.0 twin turbo V8 in the S8 and the Bentley Continental.  AMG has 4 engines, the V12, 5.5 V8, 4.0 V8 and 2.0 four.  Oddly enough Daimler's CEO just challenged Audi and BMW to enter Formula 1 next year, that would be their chance to prove it on the race track who has the best engineering.  Lexus or Cadillac could jump in if they want.

 

Alright SMK, as usual you are going to make an AssMK of yourself.

First, if you read your favorite magazine Car and Driver you will realize there have been a lot of modifications to the RC-F's engine compared to the one that was introduced in IS-F. The engine has no other uses in Lexus lineup so it is unique. Your flawed logic is - if the displacement is same means the engine is unchanged. Second the car, for whatever logic Lexus had, is made from structural components of three different vehicles. This takes a lot of time, unlike AMG, which puts a lipstick on every pig Chevroletdez Benz produces.

Third, if you want to bring the age of RS5 engine, how long was 6.2 in service? From 2005 to 2013 that is a long time.

Again as I have stated in the past, AMG gives a perception of using variety of engines, when it introduces the next vanilla engine while phasing the existing engine. The 5.5 is on its way out while the 4.0 is being introduced. AMG will milk the bigger engine till it makes the other one universal. And I did state the other two engines in my post. Please read carefully, granted you do have adult ADD.

It took Mercedes 7 years to win the F1 championship since returning to F1 with possibly biggest budget. And Dieter is jumping all over for just one win when Ferrari, Williams, Benneton, Sauber have won more championships than Mercedes's possible podium finishes. F1 has nothing to do with our discussions.

You just want to prove your cheerleading knowledge and how good a humper of Chevroletdes Benz you are. The fact is you get your butt hurt when anyone says anything about your favorite brand just shows your level of ignorance and fanboi-ism.

 

 

This is good news - competition is always good. I like how fast Toyota is reacting. Let us see how GM raises the ante.

 

One thing GM does not have compared to Toyota is manual transmission for the 4-cylinder and V6 with 4x4.

 

 

For real. When you only offer the manual transmission on base models with no options, it shouldn't be any surprise it doesn't sell. If the US market had the options of the European market, I bet the take rate for manual transmissions would increase greatly. 

 

Not only that, but also in US the manufacturers encourage dealers to move the metal on the lot rather than encouraging to build and wait. And dealers want to make quick bucks so no one ends up having a manual on the lot. They encourage customers to buy automatics by claiming them to better than manual transmissions.

Sure automatics are faster NOW. Mainly because they have more gears (the fact why manual transmissions were faster before when there were 3 or 4 speed autos). When manuals are now stuck in 6 gears while automatics are adding 9 or 10, that is not a surprising fact, is it? Launch control is offered and mostly pushed in automatics by the Germans.

Second, fuel economy. Because automatic transmissions can cheat the flawed EPA testing methodology by quickly shifting to higher gears, unlike manual transmissions, which have to be rowed to keep in the range EPA suggests in the test. I drove the 335i with the 8 speed Auto and 6 speed manual. During the 25 miles of driving each, I came ahead in the fuel economy by tactically changing gears to the optimum limit.

Third, the automobile manufacturers simply do not want to put efforts in the manual transmissions vehicles. Look at M5. The very BMW that bitches US customers do not like manual transmission for non-M models bitches that it has to develop M5 with manual transmissions for US customers; non US customers love their SMGs. And it ends up just putting manual transmission to appease US customers to make them leave it in disgust and get the SMG. Good tactical move by offering Car and Driver crappy manual to give it a hate recommendation.

As we have seen in the Audi, Toyota recall fiascoes it is easy to blame the consumers. The same goes for manual transmissions.

AMG co-develops their cars along side the development of the base car. AMG doesn't use the same transmission or 4Matic system as the other cars and they hand build the engines. Mercedes-AMG has a team in England that builds their Formula 1 car and in their down time they work on AMG road cars.

I don't change goal posts, I don't think it is unreasonable to release a sedan one year and release a coupe and performance version the next year. It should not take longer than 1 year for any car maker. Chevy doesn't release the Silverado in extended cab only and make you wait 2-3 years for a crew cab or standard cab.

First and again, AMG has one mass produced engine (two since it has the 4 banger and I am discounting the V12 for its dismal sales), which it puts in practically everything. So it is not unique. You can find that engine in a $65,000 C class to a $160,000 S class or in the GT.

Second, hand built engine has nothing to do with time lag between a regular model and an AMG.

Third, again don't spin your MB PR wheel too much, the transmission and 4-Matic are tweaked by AMG, not whole new animals.

So yes, development-wise AMG just puts a lipstick on a pig unlike M, RS, V treatments do, even F did with RC-F, wherein they actually spend R&D time and money to create something unique.

The ATS and CTS sedans are in model year 3 and 2 respectively. There is no reason the V-series and coupe versions of both shouldn't be on sale now, plus the ATS convertible should be on sale now. ATS and CTS should both have a diesel or hybrid by now also. This is Cadillac's own fault, and it is either due to inept management or lack of funding. I suggest their budget just doesn't allow for many models to be produced, because for 15 years they have had a 6 product line up or less, and V-series has been limited.

Hey SMK, you really have a short term memory loss don't you? How many times many people have stated here that M cars and RS cars do not come with the generic model release? Look at M5 and M3/4 they were in hiatus for 2 and 3 years, respectively after the vanilla cars were released. Then you will bring in AMG models release times like you have done before. But all AMG does is put a lipstick on the pig unlike M cars, which are genuinely engineered just like the V series vehicles are.

Stop running around circles of your changing goal posts.

 

I think 2015 model year should be doable for the CTS-V.  It shouldn't take 2 years after the initial car comes out to drop a bigger engine in and add some trim.  Model year 2 of the body style is reasonable, many cars are done like that, the base sedan comes out, in year 2 the coupe and sport version arrive, a couple years later a mid-cylce refresh.

 

SMK... are you able to ever make a post that doesn't contain some reference to the S-Class?

I guess not.

 

Unlike AMG studio, which just dumps a specialty vanilla engine in all the hi-performance cars while giving some nose job, carbon fiber lipstick and little botox in the suspension, M, RS, V and even F studios actually do more to aerodynamics, handling, and suspension tuning. Many times engines come unique to the car. CTS-V had its own engine when introduced. These things need time. A staggered launch helps the lineup fresh rather than dumping all models in one go. It also helps to improve any initial niggles to have a smooth launch for a model that is considered top of the line.

 

Per your Cadillac theory (Other luxury manufacturers do it so should Cadillac) - to the contrary - everyone else does it so should MB.