Cory Wolfe

Name: Pontiac Firebird (1998) Date Added: 30 April 2015 - 12:12 AM Owner: blackviper8891 Short Description: Bought October 2014 - Currently own. View Vehicle

This is such a common thread across various forums that I thought could bring some extra discussion 'round these parts. The premise is simple and the title literally speaks for itself. So, as it says, what did you do to your car today? Me? I gave the Firebird a good detailing. Washed and waxed to its maximum shine for the all the mullets to embrace.

I have high hopes for the ATS-V. It's looks are more fitting to its intended purpose than the standard ATS, has the right powertrain, and is seemingly executed well. First drive's are promising thus far. I will be anxiously awaiting the flood of direct comparisons once they hit. M3, to be killed, or not to be killed. That is the ever-lingering question. Wait, did you just compare a Fiero to a GT40? Although, they both are mid-engined, so they are basically the same. Other than the 4 consecutive LeMans wins. Even as a supposed "joke", that comment makes no sense. Reading comprehension fail, for sure.

Not to stir the pot in yet another Cadillac thread (this is getting old), but have you seen this? Or looked up depreciation through a cost-to-own site such as KBB's? Or perused Cars.com or Autotrader listings for that matter? I think you'll see interesting things that may be slightly out of sync with what you want to see. Just saying... ANYHOW, that pricing seems appropriate given the previous model's pricing and the lower rung models' pricing, new vs. old. Perfecto.

I don't find it to be that dated looking. I think its a fairly timeless design that's held up well to time, now being 10 years since its release. Can't say that about most designs that originated from 2006.

Well, it's more staid and classy than the current semi-muscular fat guy sort of look. It's also pretty lacking in originality. Can't say I love it or loathe it.

So this is the Brembo caliper'd ELR I spied running around Milford last year. I guess a few changes are better than non. At least its separating itself a bit more from the Volt, performance wise. Still doesn't really justify the price, though.

Shame that you can only buy these in select states. I once pulled up next to a GM employee in one at a stoplight. He raced me... He lost, but not by much!

Some specs you missed: ATS ~ 2.0T / 6A : 21/30 - 272hp - 295 lb-ft - Regular fuel okay, premium recommended A4 ~ 2.0T / 8A : 24/32 - 211hp - 258 lb-ft - Premium fuel required Any fuel cost savings gained by the extra mpgs in the Audi are reversed and then pushed into the negative by the Premium fuel requirement..... even if you did run regular fuel which isn't recommended, your mpg will suffer substantially. The Cadillac ATS 2.0T can run regular fuel 100% of the time and you'll just see a small performance decrease. This is also where the Cadillac 2.5 liter comes in. It runs regular fuel just fine and has almost the same HP as the Audi 2.0T though a lot less torque... and gets the 22/33 mpg Except, in the real world, none of that really holds up. As premium is recommended for full power with Cadillac's 2.0t, those numbers are achieved using premium. The Audi's engine is well documented as being under-rated, and it shows. What looks like a massive difference in horsepower simply doesn't materialize in reality. Performance data shows the the A4 and ATS as having nearly identical acceleration times, both generally around 5.8 seconds. It's the same thing with the 328i, which also looks to be at a disadvantage on paper, yet is the quickest of the bunch by far. Edmunds even dyno'd the ATS and 328i back to back, finding the the BMW had an ever so slight advantage in power. It also happens to achieve the best fuel economy, also on premium. There is a slight cost savings using regular in the Cadillac, but it's not that big a difference, especially after factoring in real driver's actual MPG (to be honest, there's very little data on fueleconomy'gov's website, but owner's forums seem to back up that data after a quick search). So yes, on paper, the Cadillac looks like a winner. In reality, they're all about the same. Not such a bad thing, and honestly, the Germans set themselves up for it by under-rated everything.

Yeah, technically nearly any vehicle with HID's or better are going to have pricey headlights, retail priced. Replacement's for my lowly Toyota are $1025 a piece, without projectors or LEDs or swivelling. Doesn't mean it costs Toyota anywhere near that to manufacturer them.

Mmmm, yeah... I don't like it. That's all I have to say.

Lincoln nailed the interior of this car. Truly feels like a flagship sedan as long as it doesn't stray too much for the production car. The exterior is nice, but definitely has a "been done before" feel. The front clip doesn't really have any unique traits beyond the splattering of Lincoln emblem look-a-likes within the headlight and grill designs. Otherwise, very boring, almost old-Toyota-like in the lack of any design what-so-ever. The body... Let's be honest, is a rip-off of Bentley. Literally, line for line, it's nearly an exact copy. It doesn't look bad, as it and the Bentley it stole from have a stately presence, but it's been done. The rear is okay, I like the taillights and whatnot. Again, though, it doesn't feel special.

So, the Cadillac CT6, in all its glory, spread across the web. What do I think? Well, It's more stretched CTS than something truly original, not that it's a bad thing. It is a bit underwhelming, though. Classy, staid, inoffensive... Yes. Interesting? Not quite. Again, not necessarily a bad thing given the segment. Perhaps I just expected it to surprise me more. This is likely just a stepping stone to something even greater to slot above it in the future. The interior seems to have improved upon Cadillac's already great design language. It's now just a matter of how much did they really improve the CUE infotainment system. Overall, its nicely average in regards of looks. What I'm eager to see is how it performs relative to the competition with its massively lower weight, slightly smaller size, and smaller displacement engine line-up. That, and the price; Will Cadillac price it right and not try to punch above where its reputation sits? Cadillac is very much the underdog here, and they seem to be learning from the mistakes quickly enough. Let's hope this continues and Johan doesn't muck it up.

You know... This isn't quite what I was expecting. Having chased the prototypes in person, I was thinking it would look differently. First impressions are, mixed, to say the least. That was what I thought last night, though. Today, things are different, and in a fairly good way. To elaborate, we have the age old problem of press photography and GM's horrible addiction of doctoring the photos. After the live shots began to show up across the internet, this Malibu started to look more attractive. Having let those sit and digest for a bit, I've come to conclusion that this is a proper follow-up to the 2008-2012 model. If fact, I feel much the same way I do now as I did back then. When that model was first shown there were a lot of mixed feelings about it. It was radically different, with some odd choices here and there. With time, though, it became one of the more timeless designs of the segment. Whether this one will follow in that model's footsteps directly or not remains to be seen. But, most notably, it has promise. It still looks a little awkward from certain angles, and I do wish Chevrolet would pick a grill and stick with it (Seriously, I though we were moving away from the horizontal bar), yet it still has presence. It's sleek, with flowing lines, great details, and a swept back tail reminiscent of the Audi A7 (The one thing I was expecting and was delivered). The interior, by all means, is a massive improvement. While it doesn't differ much from the Volt's new innards, its fairly pleasing to look at unlike the last one (and all Malibus since the nameplates reincarnation) and seems to have fixed the rear seat issues. Power-train-wise, the biggest announcement is the class-leading hybrid (atleast per GM's lofty specs). If it lives up to expectations and doesn't fall flat on its face like the Fusion, this will surely help the Malibu regain some of its losses over the years. The other two combinations are rather lackluster, but should be fine with the assured weight loss regimen it's been placed on.

I'm actually really excited about this. I can see the promise in the design language and am relieved to know the next one isn't going to be another rehash of a 10 year-old design. The details are also pretty juicy. More body-styles? Yes! Turbocharged power-trains? Yes! Type-R?! Oh lord, hallelujah!!!. This is definitely the biggest surprise of the show thus far.

I'm having mixed feelings... Sure, it's great that Kia decided to not fix what wasn't broken and ruin their best-seller, but I'm a little disappointed in the finished product. It's just a little too familiar to the outgoing car and feels a little water-down from the original. The teaser shots had my attention, but the full imagery leaves me cold. I feel like something is missing, overall. Still, it was one of the better looking offerings in the class, so with the minimal changes, it still is... Minus the "wow".

Only Toyota could mange to turn a good-looking car into a frightening thing of my nightmares. That is one gawdawful maw.

Most consumers shop via price classes, and most have no earthly idea which wheels are driving. CLA and ATS start within $1700 of each other, and both are entry-level models from luxury brands. Strict brand partisans aside, I can't see how you think they AREN'T frequently cross-shopped. If they are, that's not exactly a compliment for the ATS. You don't want those cars to be cross-shopped. That says to me that consumers think the ATS is only on par with what is basically a tarted up, squished Jetta with a three-pointed star on the snout... And it's losing even more sales in the process (CLA is easily outselling the ATS). Sales numbers may not worry you, but this route is more troubling than the sales race with its direct competitors. It's not very prestigious, either. You may want to rethink where you're going with that. Pricing of the 3series ($32,950) and ATS ($33,215) are both within throwing distance of the $30,000 CLA. The C-Class ($38,400)was the one to move up.. and it did so to distance itself from the CLA Pricing is moot. My point above (for Balthazar) is that I highly doubt these cars are being cross-shopped regardless of price. An Avalon is an 'entry-level' luxury sedan from Toyota that costs about the same, thus using the logic above, we must compare the rear seat legroom! It's an utterly ridiculous notion. Most importantly, if we're still foggy here... My second point is that, by lumping these cars into this cross-shopping propaganda, there are no possible positives to be made. The crappier faux-luxury Mercedes is winning the cross-shopping, if the cross-shopping is being done. Like I said, think about it... No, really... Think about it. Damn near same starting price and which car do people choose in that situation? The CLA. Do you really, truly, think that's happening? Didn't think so. First, see above. That's mostly for you. Now, we aren't talking about a Lexus GS or an Audi A6. Neither of those are worth the effort, and frankly, they're not better than their competition. Nor do I (or likely any of you) really care whether they sell well. Why don't I care? I'm not an Audi or Lexus enthusiast. I don't spend my time talking about them on a messaging board over at Audihumpers.com or Lexusphiles.com. I'm sure you get my point. We are here because we have a passion for the cars we talk about day in and day out. We want Cadillac and all of GM to succeed. We want the absolute best for our favorite vehicles. This is why I care about the sales numbers. You can sugar-coat it all you want with your justifications for abysmal sales, but the truth is, it's not good for anyone. GM, as a large company, can offset any losses with its massive girth. Do you or I really know that the CTS and ATS aren't hemorrhaging money? No, because GM doesn't release model by model earnings each quarter; they release company-wide earnings. Those Silverados and Cruzes are likely paying for Cadillac's learning curve right now. Cadillac may be earning more per unit with higher transaction prices, but that doesn't guarantee earnings when sales are down. For Cadillac's sake, we should care when sales have been free-falling for months on end. Not only that, we should care about what's keeping them from stopping this sales slump. What kind of armchair enthusiast sits there, making excuses, perfectly content to let the brand they're rooting for suffer?! "Sales are down, no worries, its those higher transaction prices. Niche status is the way to go, don't want to see too many of the same car on the road." I've never such silliness from a so-called group of enthusiasts. Where is the passion?

Most consumers shop via price classes, and most have no earthly idea which wheels are driving. CLA and ATS start within $1700 of each other, and both are entry-level models from luxury brands. Strict brand partisans aside, I can't see how you think they AREN'T frequently cross-shopped. If they are, that's not exactly a compliment for the ATS. You don't want those cars to be cross-shopped. That says to me that consumers think the ATS is only on par with what is basically a tarted up, squished Jetta with a three-pointed star on the snout... And it's losing even more sales in the process (CLA is easily outselling the ATS). Sales numbers may not worry you, but this route is more troubling than the sales race with its direct competitors. It's not very prestigious, either. You may want to rethink where you're going with that.

I would hope all manufacturers will support both as some have already stated they will (VW, Hyundai). Forgoing one over the other is just putting yourself on track to lose sales. I have to wonder why Toyota is being stubborn over the implementation of one or both systems. As the largest company, and seeing that nearly every other manufacturer is adapting to the systems, I can't see the logic in holding out. Now, for what it's worth, I am much more eager to hear about Android Auto as it is, by far, the better designed and implemented system. Sure, CarPlay adds some functionality, but Android Auto seems to add a whole additional ecosystem of sorts. Why go through the trouble to port some apps and basic functionality and not do anything with it aesthetically? What makes it all that better than existing applink suites already out there? I feel like Apple could have done so much more with CarPlay since they seem to reinvent everything else they venture into.

The CLA doesn't compete with anything Cadillac makes, so that's a pointless comment. Honestly, SMK brings up some valid points regarding the ATS. Beyond the biggest issue of Cadillac lacking a decent marketing campaign, the ATS is a flawed car. Before I dive into my reasoning for thinking such, let's get the positives out of the way. The ATS has what is probably the best chassis in its class and its only received rave reviews from everyone who's driven it in that regard. Also, the interior marked the first time Cadillac could say it had competitive appointments inside. And, for the most part, it's rear legroom is on par for the segment. Now, with all the ooey-gooey stuff out of the way, how do I justify my statement? Well... I don't think I've ever mentioned this, but I personally feel Cadillac dropped the ball styling-wise. It's not a failure, that's definitely not what I'm trying to say. It's just... too placid. It reminds me the most of the last STS in that sort of watered-down A&S kind of way. The best way I can explain this is to point you to the CTS, which the ATS effectively replaced in the line-up price-wise. The first gen was Cadillac's first foray into the A&S design principles and it was by-far the most unique car in its segment. Fast forward to the second gen and past the failed STS and you see Cadillac truly perfect A&S. That car had the right amount of boldness, its curves and creases perfectly complimenting each other. It was stunning. This brings me to the ATS that followed. It was, in essence, a watered-down, flattened, miniature CTS with its lights swept and grill halved. Again, it's not the failure that the STS was, it just doesn't invoke enough passion. With the refresh and its new schnoz, I feel like it's lost even more of that edge that once made Cadillac design's great (and still great with the current CTS). The ATS-V sort of remedies that, but its not the model that's going to drive sales. Compare the ATS to its competitors, which are vastly more interesting to look at (for better or worse) with one exception (Audi) and it becomes pretty obvious to me. The C-Class cribs all the right cues from the S-Class and is by far the most stunning in the class. The 3-Series has finally ditched the Bangle'd looks for what is perhaps its best look in ages. The A4 is, well, in the same boat as Cadillac with its look continuously being water-down. The IS... atleast has a look of its own; It certainly isn't boring. Now, I want to reiterate that the ATS looks fine in most ways. It just comes down to a look that doesn't sizzle as much as its competitors or its own bigger brother. My second point is regarding the power-train. Along the same lines as the styling, nothing is really that out of place besides the base 2.5L. On their own, each engine is competent enough for GM's brands that occupy a lower rung on the ladder. For a Cadillac that is competing to be the standard of the world? They're not enough. Sure, you could look at BMW, Mercedes, and Audi to see that all three offer 2.0L turbocharged I4's, but they all manage to make a better one. To put things into perspective, the quickest ATS with the 3.6 only manages to match the performance numbers of its competitors 4-bangers, while Cadillac's own 4-banger falls behind. Nevermind that Cadillac doesn't equip the ATS with an engine on-par with its competitors top-of-the-range engines (sans the performance variants the ATS-V will compete with). It's also worth noting Cadillac doesn't stand out in fuel-efficiency or choice of transmissions, either. It all just manages to be slightly less than what Cadillac really needs. Again, its not that any of it is bad, it's just not good enough. As for something that is truly bad, my third and final comment will be regarding technology. I'm not going to sugar coat this, either. While I feel Cadillac deserves some slack for its first total multimedia experience, CUE is awful. It is one of the most frustrating systems to use, not because its difficult to learn, but because it simply doesn't work. I would bet anything that 50% of people who walk out of a Cadillac showroom and choose to buy one of its competitors did so because of CUE. It's slow, buggy, and takes multiple taps for touches to register. A car with such a rewarding chassis should not have this distracting of an interface. It's absolutely horrid. The best compliment I can give it is, well, atleast its not MFT. Consider this: A little company by the name of Mazda built a better driver-oriented multimedia suite than Cadillac and the majority of the major automakers. Why couldn't Cadillac? This is, above all else, the ATS's biggest deterrent to buyers in my opinion. Forget the uninspired looks, the unwilling engines, or the nonexistent marketing; the problem is CUE.

This is, by far, the best description of Mercedes I've ever read:

According to Chris's page, its the Spark.

Aw, it's a Mercedes Mini-van. How cute. I hope we get this version so I can live out my old VW Eurovan fantasies: