dwightlooi

420 hp @ 5,300 rpm, 420 lb-ft @ 2,200~5,200 rpm goes a long way and is really a sweet spot for performance vehicles particularly so when its from a four banger. XT4-V# * XT5-V/ * XT6-V/ * CT6-V/ * Escalade (as the base engine) Camaro RS Buick Regal GNX * Silverado Z71 GMC Terrain Denali R * GMC Acadia Denali R * * AWD w/ Ford 8F57 8-speed Automatic transmission

It is NOT that Cadillac doesn't have an identity. It is that its identity keeps changing! Through the 90s, Cadillacs were comfort barges just like every other American luxury marque. Then Cadillacs were the High Value Luxury with stupid cars like the BTS followed by the CTS Then Cadillacs were the Performance Luxury with the ATS and 3rd Gen CTS Now, Cadillacs are the balanced luxury -- a mixture of above average performance with above average comfort for above average value. It should have been very simple for GM -- Buick is Comfort Luxury to take on Lexus and serve Chinese likings, Caddy is Performance Luxury to beat BMW. But GM's wavering has complicated their own game.

Back to the topic... my opinion is VERY SIMPLE:- 320hp CT4-V and 355hp CT5-V should where the V/ previously used on the VSport models. The high performance CT4-V and CT5-V can wear the V# used on the current CTS-V and ATS-V cars. Cadillac can call both V/ and V# cars CTS-V models This will not hurt the CTS-V brand, it'll be subtle yet very easy to differential by anyone who cares. I also believe that a 420 hp version of the 2.7T four banger is the one engine GM really stands to benefit from across the greatest number of models, and that it is EASILY attainable.

There are two alternatives... (1) You eliminate all wage floors, taxes, regulations, social safety nets and everything else and have absolute capitalism and zero immigration control. In that case, US workers will be able to match 50 cents an hour wages if they have to and if demand and supply allows it. Absolute and comparative advantages that you learned in economics 101 applies again because labor efficiency is measured in man-hours not dollars. (2) You tariff the hell out of imports to eliminate any price advantage they enjoy from being in a lower cost country. But, we have done the opposite because our leaders have NEVER represented the interest of the country, just the interest of their Globalist corporate donors. Let me give you an example. The EU is a net exporter of cars, the USA is a net importer of cars. Why? Is it because they make better cars or their workers do a better job? Or is it, at least in part, because EU tariffs US car exports to the EU at 10%, whereas the US tariffs EU cars only at 2.5%?

Why would you want that? Just reduce capacity, sell less and make more money! The point of any business is to make money. It is not to make a lot of things. Profitability is king. Profitability was why Porsche ALMOST got rich enough to take over Volkswagen. In the end they over stretched and got reverse swallowed, but the fact that a 250,000 car manufacturer was even in a position to buy a 10,000,000 car conglomerate 40x its size serves well to illustrate the point. As far as economies of scale, once you get to a certain volume, there is practically no difference in your unit costs. GM sells about 3,000,000 cars whereas Mazda sells about 300,000 cars. But, the amount of money each manufacturer will have to pay for an alternator, a spark plug or an upholstered seat is for all intents and purposes about the same.

I'll tell you this... The USA is a high cost country. You cannot design, engineer and make cars in a high cost ####ry while trying to be a value leader in the automotive industry. You can bean count all you want; you'll still lose the affordable end of the market to cheap imports and your bean counted products still won't sell as luxury exports. That was GM and the other US manufacturer's folly in the 80s and 90s. USA manufacturers, operating in a high cost country, can be a Porsche, a BMW, a Mercedes, a Rolls-Royce or a Ferrari, but they cannot be a Hyundai or a Geely. This necessarily means that they MUST shed marketshare and focus on the premium end of the industry. It's very simple logic, but one which nobody seems to understand for decades.

Then they are a bunch of fools! Brand equity is EVERYTHING. Without brand equity BMW is just another unreliable german car and Lexus is just a Toyota with nicer leather.

.... As far as the CT5-V and CT4-V is concerned, the point isn't whether. a $49K CT5 with 355 hp or a $39K CT4 with 320hp is a selleable product. The point is that they should not be called a CT5-V# and CT4-V# which destroys the hard won Cadillac-V brand for no good reason. As I suggested, if GM wants to ditch the clumsy VSport moniker the weak sauce sport models should carry a V/ badge while the proper performance models can carry a V# badge.

...

BTW, the "Blackwing" 4.2T is another WEAK SAUCE engine. I say that empirically because 119~131 bhp/liter is... meh... and really not worth the complexity, mass and cost of turbocharging. Look at it this way. The 500 hp and 550 hp BW is basically a 238 hp 2.0T or 260 hp 2.0T engine in terms of specific output. Not very impressive. The BW is NOT a tri-power engine; it doesn;t have the 3-stage cam switching valvetrain making it a little out of step with the GM's latest high feature Inline fours. Again, not very impressive. It does not share the turbos, pistons, valves and other internals with the other GM products, reducing economies of scale and increasing costs. Again, not very impressive. Finally, like the new 2.0T and 3.0T engines it spends everywhere on the tachnometer above 4,000 rpm running out of breathe which means it is not very enticing when pushed. The more spirited version engine makes 627 lb-ft but "only 550 hp @ 5700. What that means is that torque has fallen to 507 lb-ft by 5,700 rpm -- 120 lb-ft off its peak of 627 lb-ft @ 4,000 rpm. An engine that pulls weaker and weaker as the revs build is not very entertaining. Again, not very impressive. I would have based the Blackwing on two 2.7T Inline 4s siamesed at the crank at 90 degrees to create a 5.5L V8 (the 2.7T is actually 2.727cc). The engine shares the Tripower valvetrain, pistons, rods, valves and turbos with the 2.7T. The engine will make 620 hp @ 5,000 rpm and 700 lb-ft @ 1,500 rpm in the luxury cruiser applications. The "V" engine upgrades to two G25-660 turbos, big air-to-water ICs, forged internals and officially makes an "ambiguous" ENOUGH horsepower for the AWD CT6-V, XT7-V and whatever the Escalar V ends up being called. Unofficial tests will reveal that the engine makes about 1000 hp @ 5,800 rpm with 920 lb-ft @ 2,600~5,600 rpm. For all the insane output, the engine has cylinder deactivation, start/stop and 2-stage valve lift control. Just to add to the pun, the drive mode knob should have three positions GREEN, PLUSH and HASTE. GREEN: Operates permanently in 4-cylinder mode delivering 310 or 500 hp, with start-stop active and disconnects the front wheels. PLUSH: Operates with a boost limiter for 500 or 700 hp, with 4-cylinder mode automatically engaged in cruise, with start-stop and AWD active. HASTE: Unlocks full boost for 620 or 1000 hp with cylinder deactivation and start-stop disabled.

As I said, AS IT STANDS TODAY, the CT5 is a total disappointment. Besides, it'll be hilarious to watch them spin whatever they try to call it. What will it be? CT5-NOT-FAKE-V? It could have been very subtle, very logical and very easy to understand. Just use give them the CT5-V/ badge; the same "V/" badge the Vsport uses. Basically, while there is no longer a VSport moniker and all performance models are called CT5-V. The V/ badging denote the WEAK SAUCE cars from the real V# cars with the checkered flag badge. What I suspect is that GM marketing and the Cadillac BU knows that they do not and will not have a real V# for another year and whats to leverage what they got for immediate revenue production. They slap on the V badge hoping that it'll get them a few additional sales which they may not otherwise get.

Because they do not want to keep both the old 3.0T (LGW) [404hp/400lb-ft] and the new 3.0T [335hp/400lb-ft] in production? The new GM powertrain philosophy seems to be as much torque as possible, as soon as possible. Everything else doesn't matter. The new "Tripower" 2.0T (LSY) is a perfect illustration. The engine makes 258 lb-ft @ 1,500~4,000 rpm and 237 hp @ 5,000 rpm. This makes for a wheezy engine which spends the 3,000 rpm of the rev range running out of breathe. While 258 lb-ft @ 1,500 rpm may seem like a plus, one has to understand that it is actually a very minimal gain in response. The "old" 2.0T (LTG) engine reaches 260 lb-ft @ 1,700 rpm anyway on the way to 295 lb-ft @ 3,000~4,600 rpm. By not overly undersizing the turbo the LTG is able to breathe properly up to 5,500 rpm and deliver 272 hp @ 5,500 rpm at which point torque is back the 260 lb-ft. The "new" 2.0T (LSY) gives up the upper 1,500 rpm range of the torque plateau and fades above 4,000 rpm. In exchange, it gains the ability to hit 260 lb-ft about 200 rpm sooner. This is 100% a turbo sizing matter. It is completely independent of the 3-stage cam switching valve train or the addition of features like cylinder deactivation or Start/Stop. And, it sounds like s $h!ty deal to me.

Not putting all the eggs in the SUV/Crossover segment is a prudent move. Like most things, trends WILL change. Remember the 90s when SUVs were the fad? Then suddenly they weren't. Now CUVs are the fad and someday they won't be. For GM and Ford to basically abandon cars is a very dangerous move.

Here's the summary:- (1) The WEAK SAUCE CT4-V and the CT5-V are disgraces to and a total squandering of the Cadillac V brand. At the minimum, they should have kept the VSport's "V/" badging even if Cadillac is dropping the VSport name. (2) The CT4-V's 320hp 2.7T I4 is no more than an ECU retune of the Silverado Pickup Truck's 2.7T four banger engine making a "whopping" extra 10 hp. The CT5-V's 355hp 3.0T V6 is no more than an ECU retune of the 335hp 3.0T V6 in the "regular" CT5. Both of which make significantly less power than the existing 404hp 3.0T (LGW) engine in the CT6 Premium and Platinum cars, the 420hp 3.6T V6 in the CTS VSport or the 464hp 3.6T V6 in the ATS-V. This is before we even get to the fact that engines with tiny turbos which peak early and starts running out of breathe at 4,000 rpm (which are exactly what the these new Caddy power plants are designed to do) are decidedly uninteresting to drive -- its akin to the Peterblit driving experience! (3) The one engine GM could easily have built is a 420 hp rendition of the 2.7T I4. Based on the compressor and turbine maps simply going to a larger turbo like the Honeywell G25-550 will yield ~420hp @ 5,300 rpm / 420 lb-ft @ 2,200~5,200 rpm. This is without actually dropping compression ratio or increasing the 6,100 rpm rev limit. Going to 9.0:1 compression and a slightly larger turbo like the G25-660 will yield about 500 hp @ 5,800 rpm / 460 lb-ft @ 2,600~5,600 rpm. The former would have been a perfect fit for the CT4-V whereas the latter will work well in the CT5-V, 4 cylinders not withstanding. Such engines will also give GM the bragging rights to the "most powerful" production four cylinder engines in the world, snubbing the likes of the 375hp Mercedes-AMG M133 2.0T -- perhaps not in specific output, but certainly in performance and livability. (4) As it stands today, the CT5 is a total disappointment. Stylistically, the Mazda front end and the Honda Accord C-pillar does wonders to move Cadillac DOWN MARKET and nothing else. The new Vs do not even hold a candle to the outgoing VSports. As an owner of a 2014 CTS Vsport, I will not even consider the CT5. It may become necessary for me to cause additional US Trade deficits and fork over tariffs to buy German, or more likely seek out a used CTS-V.

(1) Actually, the USA is NOT party to all of the Geneva Conventions. More specifically, the USA is NOT a signatory to:- Protocol I (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts Protocol II (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts The USA is also NOT a party to the Ottawa Treaty prohibiting landmines and cluster munitions, either. Don't believe me? Look it up! In any case, even if the USA is there is no stopping the USA from withdrawing from treaties that is no longer in the national interest of the USA. Nobody has to be blown up; they do not have to cross the border. It is static defense; very different from having A10s cluster bomb the Caravans (for instance). There will be clear signs saying "Minefield AHEAD". We have as much right to mine our border as Korea has to mine theirs with North Korea. It is called National Defense. (2) Due process is what laws and regulations define them to be. It is perfectly constitutional for congress to pass a law saying that the USA will grant asylum ONLY to compromised US Spies and defectors from enemy regimes we are trying to undermine. And, that the due process is that they get to speak to a State Department Representative who will determine whether the applicant is a Spy or qualifying defector. If he is not, the due process is that he be deported to his country, the country he entered the USA from or to different country (who will accept him) within 30 days. (3) Detaining Kids is the RIGHT THING TO DO. Firstly, being of a certain age does not entitle a foreigner to enter or stay in the USA. Secondly, if you cannot ascertain the identity of the kid or whoever "claims" to be their parents, it is wrong and dangerous to release them to the custody or proximity of potential strangers -- who can be human traffickers. Thirdly IT IS standard policy and the proper practice for the Obama, Bush, Clinton, Papa Bush and Reagan administrations.

Just because YOU say so doesn't make it so. I have very clearly explained why they do not. You on the otherhand have offered no argument other than your insistence.

WRONG. (1) The Military is prohibited from being deployed to for implementing domestic against the American Populace. Defending the Border against FOREIGN INVADERS is neither domestic policy nor against the AMERICAN populace. (2) Due process is established by LAW and REGULATIONS. There is no due process that congress cannot eliminate and no due process they cannot add. The USA can and should pass laws and regulations that states very simply: "Employment, asset rental and transfer of property within the USA requires that the transferee(s) demonstrate legal presence within the USA or physical presence outside the USA. Facilitating asset acquisition or employment without such proof is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding $10,000 or a prison term no exceeding 6 months or both." In otherwords, if you want to take title to a house, get hired for a job or acquire property in the USA you must show a valid VISA, a permanent resident card, US Passport or ID establishing citizenship such as a Birth Certificate or Real ID. If you are executing a transaction while NOT physically in the USA, you must be able to demonstrate that you are outside the USA. Congress can ALSO pass a law stating "The granting of refugee status shall be the exclusive purvey of the State Department and not subject to judicial review as it is a tool of foreign policy and not a legal matter." Very simple really. (3) Actually, no. First of all, SCOTUS has NOT ruled that ILLEGAL ALIENS and FOREIGN INVADERS operating within US territory are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA. They clearly are not subjecting themselves to US laws and while we may be trying to subject them to such, their physical presence means that we have failed to do so. Secondly, SCOTUS can and do reverse their previous rulings hence SCOTUS can ALWAYS do something about it.

LOL... (1) Why do we even have a military if it cannot defend the borders of the country? And, which international treaty to which the USA is part of prohibits the construction of border defenses? (2) And, which international treaty or part of the US constitution requires that we provide FOREIGNERS with education, employment or shetler them from inquiry into their legal presence in our country? (3) That is for the SCOTUS to decide, not you are I. I take the position that the off-springs of FOREIGN INVADERS incurring and occupying US territory in violation of US laws are not "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and therefore not citizens. None of my propositions are extreme or unreasonable. In fact, that is what most countries do to keep their countries secure and to control immigration. What would be extreme would be to send troops door to door to root out illegal aliens, summarily execute them and make lampshades out of their skin -- you know, things the NAZIs did?

In the past, a country will DECLARE WAR on a neighboring state which permits, aids and abets a FOREIGN INVASION by allowing such a force to transit its territory and stage incursions from their side of the border.

Actually it is very simple... (1) Deploy the US military for border defense. Increase the Combat Engineers headcount by 10x and task them to construct border fortifications. Lay a few mine fields, a few moats, lines of spikes and a scattering of booby traps. Turn the US-Mexican Border into the 38th Parallel. Anyone that doesn't come across border and custom check points literally risks life and limb, and if caught MUST be held indefinitely in CONCENTRATION CAMPS until deported. This WILL cut off the flow. (2) Create a total lack of opportunities and a climate of fear for in-country illegal aliens. Raid work places, universal immigration status inquiry during all law enforcement encounters. Draconian fines and jail time for employers hiring illegals and landlords renting to illegals. Ban school and university enrollment of illegal aliens. Ban bank accounts and property ownership by illegal aliens. Ban ID and Driver licenses for illegal aliens. Cut all all Health and Medical assistance to illegal aliens. This will eliminate the motivation. (3) Eliminate all hope of reprieve or legalization for Illegal Aliens. If a foreign national enters the USA illegally or overstays his/her visa by more than a year, he is banned from entry into the USA for 10 years and is forever banned from acquiring US employment Visas, permanent residency or Citizenship. End Birthright Citizenship for Illegal Aliens-- a person born in the USA to both parents who are foreigners illegally present in the USA is NOT a citizen of the USA. This will end all speculation or hope. Once we have done ALL OF THE ABOVE, we can have a conversation about what we should do about the ILLEGAL ALIENS currently in the USA. One possible compromise is a one time amnesty for previous immigration violations -- any illegal alien in the USA who comes forward and register will be able to LEAVE the USA and apply to enter legally without pass transgressions counting against them and a quota of agricultural or unskilled labor Visas will be added which they can apply for in addition to existing categories. Anyone who had been brought to the USA as young children may have the option to stay as foreign students and apply for residency like other foreign workers and students based on merit and employment.

What hurts American pocket books is FREE TRADE, or rather the tariff free imports from countries which may or may not allow tariff free access to their markets. That bleeds American Industry, American Jobs and American Wealth to other countries. A 25% tariff on Mexican and Chinese imports will not make everything 25% more expensive, it'll at most make Mexican and Chinese imports 25% more expensive. In reality it'll be less than 25% part of the tariffs will be absorbed by Mexican and Chinese exporters because they have to compete in the market with other goods which are not subjected to the 25% tariff. In addition, this WILL also be partially offset by increased US production and more US jobs which means more US wages and more money to spend by American workers and American companies. It WILL also be partially offset by increased imports from other trade partners not being targeted. Regardless, even a 25% increase in all consumer good prices does not make things crazy expensive; the de-industrialization of America is Crazy expensive (to the future of this nation). As far as Panama is concerned, we should NEVER have turned over sovereignty of the Canal and the Canal Zone to the Panamanians. The USA built the Canal, the USA owned the Canal and to give it up was a Jimmy carter folly, just like giving up ICANN to a supranational body was an Obama regime folly. I'll be looking forward to increased tariffs and the re-vitalization of US Manufacturing. It is about time the USA totally abandon the stupidity of Free Trade and adopt the proven stratagem of Mercantilism. I'll also be looking forward to the demise of Globalism as countries -- not just the USA -- adopt Nationalism and back away from the globalist order.

Then K12 public education is a total failure. Anyone, leaving school is going to file their taxes for the first time. If they don't even have the slightest understanding of a tax return and they don't know the very basic separations between human vs business entities, then 13 years of bullsh!t education has produced only morons unfit to even have a hotdog stand.

(1) Actually, I completely understand; you on the other hand do not. There is no legal and constitutional requirement. Donald J Trump is not legally or constitutionally required to disclose his income tax returns, period. The IRS is legally prohibited from disclosing private information to anyone including congress. This including any citizen's tax return, period. (2) A person's tax returns does not show where he got is money from, what he owns or any of that. Donald J Trump's tax return may, for instance, show that he made $1 billion from the Trump Organization by selling a certain % stake in the company for more than he invested in those shares. Or, that a dividend of $123 million was paid to him as an Owner of that organization. Or, that a salary was paid to him for services rendered. It will not show how, when or from whom the Trump Organization made any of its money, or with whom it did business with. Anyone including the ice cream man pushing his cart around ought to know this. If you don't understand it, please revisit K12 education. (3) If you don't like the fact Trump is not disclosing his returns you do not have to vote for him. That's your ONLY say in the matter.

You clearly have ZERO understanding of business entities like LLCs or Corporations. Regardless of how much money the COMPANY is losing or earning, the personal tax returns of ANY of its shareholders will not reflect any of it. The owners' tax returns will only show an income if the COMPANY provided a dividend or if any of the shares were sold at a profit. Let me give you an example. I own 1442 shares of Boeing at $348 a share and they had a ~$12 billion profit on ~$101 billion in revenues. They did business with over 13,000 entities. My tax return has nothing whatsoever on any of that. I bought those shares in 2016 at about $150 a share and more than doubled my money. My tax return has nothing whatsoever on any of that, because I haven't sold the shares. Boeing did pay a dividend of $2.055 a share so I have $2963 of taxable income in my return for the dividend. That is all. Anyone's tax returns will not provide any reasonable assessment of that person's net worth, what he owns or who he does business with. It will most definitely not show any corrupt or illicit activity since not even an idiot will report those if it exists. It will only show the taxable income for that year (if any) reported to the IRS and the Franchise Tax Board. Whether the return is truthful is for the IRS to audit or determine (if they desire). It is nobody else's business or right to know and the IRS is legally prohibited from disclosing it (even to congress) -- that is the Law. If you don't know these you really need to go back to grade school.

Which is ALL THE MORE REASON we shouldn't buy from China. You do not pay off debts by running a deficit. In any case, whether you trade with China or not, the treasury bonds which China owns has a set due date and a repayment schedule. They cannot collect on them on their terms. Actually, Protectionism has ALWAYS worked even if the Fake News and the Globalist Liberals may have been telling you otherwise for decades. Free Trade -- in its purest form with no barriers on any side -- does only one thing. It favors developing and poor countries at the expense of developed and rich countries. In other words, Free Trade is a global wealth diffusion and redistribution mechanism which does not favor countries which already owns a concentration of wealth. It doesn't matter if US workers are 50% better at the job their are doing and better than ANY other worker if there are plenty of 3rd worlders who will do the job at one tenth or one 20th the wage. You CANNOT reconcile a desire for a good wage for your workers, benefit entitlements and environmental ideals on the one hand, and allow Free Trade on the other. Think about it. Let's say your city has a $50 minimum wage and mandates a $1000 a month healthcare package for its workers. The one next door allows people to work for 50 cents with no health benefits. Without barriers, any company making anything will do it in the city next door and sell the products to your city. All the money from your city will go to the city next door. Even ideologically, you can either have free trade or you can have wage and labor laws. You cannot have both. In order for Free Trade to work, you MUST allow American companies to hire anyone, pay them as little as they like, give them no benefits and no worker protection. You must also have open borders and free movement of labor. If you DO NOT, Free Trade will ALWAYS lead to unending deficits and outflow of wealth until the USA is no longer richer than the rest of the world. The Globalist don't care about that, they only seek to profit from facilitating that wealth transfer process. I am an American NATIONALIST, I care about that. What we have is not even Free Trade. What we have is UNEQUAL TRADE where other countries erect barriers and we unilaterally keep very low barriers. Our Trade Treaties are the kind countries typically sign when ENEMY TROOPS are on the CAPITOL LAWN. But we have been willingly signing it for decades because the Washington Swamp has not been on our side for decades. At the end of WWII the USA is the world's #1 manufacturer, #1 shipbuilder and #1 creditor. Today, everything is made elsewhere, US commercial shipbuilding is practically non-existent and we are the world's #1 debtor. That is the result of Free Trade. Now, let's look at where cars are made -- Germany, Japan and Korea. Where Ships are built -- Italy, France, Sweden, Germany Japan, Korea and China. Why do you think that is the case? BECAUSE these are ALL very protected or very subsidized industries (or both) by these countries. How the hell did you think Airbus got off the ground? Subsidies. How the hell do you think Japanese or French Shipbuilding exist today (wages are not really lower than US yards)? Subsidies. Why does the EU have a trade surplus? Why does the UK have a trade surplus? Tariffs and import prohibitions. PROTECTIONISM HAS ALWAYS WORKED. Trade is Business. Deficits are losses. Surplus are profit. No country or empire in the history of mankind has not been on the ascendancy when they have persistent surpluses. No country or empire in the history of mankind has not been in decline when they have persistent deficits. Mercantilism is Common Sense; it is not rocket science. You may be resigned to managing the decline and ordinarification of America. I am commited to Making America Great Again. That is why I am an AMERICAN NATIONALIST.