Drew Dowdell

But then a Chevy would have a better standard engine than a more expensive Cadillac ATS. And if the 2.5 liter four has adequate power for a Cadillac sports sedan, it must have enough for a Chevy comfort sedan. And a more expensive LaCrosse has a 4-cylinder without a turbo too. But I agree with you, I think the 2.0T is a better option, because that engine should get the same fuel economy as a 2.5L and Ford may put the 2.0 Ecoboost in everything they make and the Passat has a 2.0T. I also like the optional V6, this is a full size car and appeals to some older buyers who are comfortable with a V6. This is also why I don't like the XTS, it will have the same powertrain as an Impala. The Camaro comes with the 3.6 standard... by your reasoning that is a better car than a Cadillac then.

but yoi... the fuel economy on them....

You don't know what the spec of the 2.5 in the ATS will be. So how can you say that it isn't appropriate? Don't pre-judge. Edit: The 2.5 has something over a 7,000 rpm red line. I think there is more to this engine than we already know.

I take issue with the Cutlass Supreme Convertible being on this list. It was as structurally solid as any other convertible of its day and more so than the later Sebring convertible (I have never driven a Lebaron convertible to compare), one could buy it with one of the most powerful V6es offered by anyone at the time, and it had something that no other attainable convertible has been equipped with then or since: Rear leg room and ample trunk space. When the top was up, you had every bit amount of trunk space that any other Cutlass coupe had. The rear seats, especially when equipped as a 2x2, were often complimented on by friends saying "they were the most comfortable back seat they've ever sat in"

As tested its an expeensive commuter car, but a nice one. Albert really enjoyed it. Ill put more in the full review.

Yay for 2 - 4 million more unemployed, which is what you'd prefer.

Stress is relative to the way the engine is built. See the oldsmobile diesel for example. No turbo yet way too much stress for the head bolts *as built*. The designers of this 2.0t walked into the room knowing this was going to be a turbo charged engine and designed accordingly. Or do you really think that all of those million mile turbo diesel big rigs only survived the stress of the turbo because of xanax....

The press release says "The 2.0T has a wide torque curve, delivering 90 percent of its peak 260 lb-ft. of torque (353 Nm) from 1,500 rpm to 5,800 rpm" Doesn't that mean it has at least 260 lb-ft at 1,500 rpm?

You clearly haven't driven each one back to back. The 3.6 is shift happy because it often has less torque than the 2.0T and the torque always is at a much higher, stressful, RPM than the 2.0T no matter which version of the 3.6 we're talking.

Did they benchmark the S/C 3800 for that engine? Maybe GM should bring it back.

I guess you'd prefer to see GM liquidated Loki..... and Chrysler... and probably Ford too. No they wouldn't have been bought by another car company. Fiat couldn't have done the deal they did without the financing. No other car company, not VW, not Toyota, not Honda, not Nissan/Renault, not Benz could have swallowed GM with special financing much less on their own. I have no qualms with the Government giving GM and Chrysler money when they fell on hard times. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan have been getting government handouts from Japan and local governments in the US for YEARS now. The payout back to the government in income tax will more than make up for what we've lost on the deal. Incomes that wouldn't be there had GM succumbed and taken Chrysler and Ford with them while severely damaging Toyota and Honda in the process.

Saw this while I was in NY this week

ghastly.

thats not a leak, it's a bad photoshop You are correct. It will be smaller and lighter than the Equinox by a large margin.

Fail

SoCal - it will likely be over 200hp for the ATS. Turning the engine 90 degrees allows for better breathing. Additionally, this is an all new engine, I believe there was some power left on the table when they announced the spec for the Malibu. Even the old 2.4 liter Ecotec could do 180hp with direct injection. They can get more than that from a brand new engine with DI.

There is nothing stressed about the 2.0T, even the current one has more torque than a Northstar at a lower RPM.

I think most of you are off with your assessments.

Changing the LFX from transverse to longitudinal takes the power from 305 to 317. So I would expect the 2.5 to be over 200 in the ATS.

I think the 2.5 might see a hp bump for the ATS.

Finally some sanity!

The biggest single mistake that Acura ever made was canceling the Integra.

Look for the turbo to be between 260 and 280

190 hp is the non-turbo SoCal