Drew Dowdell

Again, we're taking loaded Regal GS Vs. Base A4 here. A base A4 has a basic interior that is nothing flashy, certainly not knockout. Somewhere between 1% to 2% of drivers opt for a manual, so it's not even on the radar. What "more tech" does a base A4 offer that a Regal GS won't have? The GS has a more advanced suspension. Navi, Car play, the twinclutch AWD performs great and it sounds like it's enhanced for the GS. You get big brembo brakes.... For $40k the GS is going to be the better car. I'm not talking about the top end S4 models that are $20k more, that's Cadillac's fight to fight. So I stand by my statement... For $40k, the Regal GS offers more luxury and performance and any of the luxury Germans at the same price.

tl:dr Americans are dumb and like it that way.

The Q50 is a substantially less roomy car than the Maxima and it is plenty plenty fast enough for most drivers. What it think puts most people off the Maxima is it's looks.

Because a $40k C300 is not all that luxury. No Navi, no heated seats, no Carplay, plastic seats, and less power than a Chevy Cobalt SS. The standard features list of a $40k Regal GS is long.

I like a manual too, but having a manual or not is not going to have any effect on Accord or Regal GS sales. I wonder why you think the Honda would have the best handling and feel? It's suspension is nowhere near as advanced where the GS is adjustable. Even in the pedestrian models, the Regal had better balance and feel than an Accord or Camry. The lower trim Regal certainly competes with high end Camry and Accord, but not the GS. Neither the Camry nor Accord will hit the luxury level of the Regal, Honda certainly has been slacking on interiors lately. The Civic SI is a completely different class of car. You might as well also compare the GS to a Mustang if you're going to veer that far off course.

The source of the platform is irrelevant as long as it performs. The Regal interior is certainly entry luxury at least.

Complaining about not having a manual for a car like this is like complaining it doesn't have crank windows. When even BMW is considering giving on manuals for its cars, it's time to pack it in for the technology. The market has moved on and isn't buying it. The Fusion Sport is a good comparison to this car because of its power, but it doesn't have the handling of even the OLD Regal.... the Fusion sport might out accelerate the Regal GS, but introduce any turns to the mix and if the new GS is even equal to the old one, the difference will be clear.

I've been told that the 6 won't get it until the next total redesign, but I've been assured the CX-5 will have it late in the second model year of the current generation (so probably very late 2018 into early 2019)

Consumer reports has had a thing against big fuel inefficient vehicles for decades. They will always tell you that (Generic import 4-cylinder) is better than (generic bigger domestic V6 or V8). And if the two are the exact same car under different brands, they will tell you the import branded one is better (See Toyota Matrix vs. Pontiac Vibe, Chevy Prism vs Toyota Corolla, Mitsubishi Eclipse vs. Plymouth Laser). I do consider the second row seats in the Escalade/Suburban/Yukon to be too low, but I find that to be the case in nearly all SUV and Crossovers from every brand. I've never sat in a second row crossover / SUV and said "hey, these are great!"

For the record and perspective, the bigger and heavier Lacrosse AWD with this same engine and an 8-speed is a 5.8 second car. The ATS 3.6 V6 8-speed does it in 5.6. Regal GS AWD with the 9-speed should shave a couple off the Lacrosse, making it a 5.5 or 5.6 second car. If we're going to compare that to other sedans at around $40k, the C300 4-matic is a 6.0 - 6.4 second car depending on who you read. Think about that for a second to let it sink in... the Buick Lacrosse AWD is faster than the smaller and more expensive C-Class. The 330xi is a 5.5 second car with plastic seats for the same price as the GS. You'll get there 0.1 seconds faster in a base A4 Quattro, but then you're in a base model car instead of one with heated/cooled seats and all of the other performance goodies and convenience upgrades that come in a top spec Buick. Additionally, I've had great results in fuel economy with the latest GM 3.6 with cylinder deactivation. GM doesn't play to the test here and regularly beats the EPA rating with this engine. The AWD 2017 Lacrosse will match or beat my Encore's mpgs on a highway cruise. I never hit EPA in the older version of the 3.6. So for people who buy solely on 0-60 times in the entry luxury segment, that choice is clear. The only way you could justify otherwise is by being a badge snob.

Yup. If I can sell this one property soon, the first stop is replacing the CRV with an Avalanche as a long term vehicle, then we'll look into leasing one of these to replace the Encore.

We both like it. He gets the Regal he wants, I get the sports version I want. 310 hp is more than enough. He scared the crap out of me with his driving in a 295hp Durango this past weekend. He's too used the Encore's (lack of) power.

Cadillac owners in the 70's cared enough to sue GM about the Oldsmobile Rocket engines in their cars. At least GM is doing it the right way now... debuting the tech on Cadillac or Denali and then letting the other brands at it a year later.

I am disappoint. The new Camry looks better than this and that looks fairly bad too.

Who needs a vintage tow?

I wonder if they make a Benz logo set for @smk4565

I'm not talking on a test stand. I've said multiple times "in real world driving". But no, you are still incorrect. Steady 2000 rpm at partial throttle and 2000 rpm for a split second during WOT will not be producing the same power. The steady rpm one will be ingesting just enough fuel to maintain that rpm. That engine will be operating at a vacuum. At WOT it is ingesting a lot more fuel even though the only load on the engine is friction and intertia. It is operating close to atmospheric pressure as much as the intake flow will allow. More throttle = more fuel. More fuel = more power. If you know otherwise please email Mary Barra ASAP.

RPM is not dictated by throttle alone. An engine at 10% throttle and 2000 with no load is producing less power than an identical engine at 90% throttle with a heavy load. The engine at 10% throttle is getting less air and fuel. The engine at 90% is getting more air and fuel. More air and fuel means more power output. It is the throttle's job to regulate air and fuel input. As for your statement about flooding the engine... That's also incorrect. In a carb, the air only picks up fuel as it passes through the carb and the carb mixes it accordingly. In a fuel injection car, there is a mass airflow sensor and TPS so the computer gets inputs from those two and adjusts the injection rates to match. The fact remains that it only takes about 10 - 20 hp to keep a car at a steady 60mph.

I have some great ideas for this list, but not done yet.

I don't disagree that FCA's other product lineup is pretty screwed... but that doesn't mean that the Durango is a bad or the Grand Cherokee is bad. Sergio is a terrible CEO... I've said that for a while.

Who cares? It is in the top echelon of performance for any SUV at that price and size. But all of the above that I typed out is for you to understand also. Peak torque and peak horsepower don't matter in everyday driving.

Again. That would be incorrect. Let's change the thought experiment a different way. You've just bought a new car, it has hyper accurate cruise control that can keep a perfect steady speed no matter the conditions outside the car (A Mercedes First!!) . Be it flat land, a steep hill, quicksand, or a crowd of ISIS fighters... that car is going to continue on at whatever speed you set it at and not a 100th of a mph different. For the sake of this experiment, we'll be going 60 mph... that means the torque converter is locked and there is no slip in the transmission at all. Crank to wheels is a solid connection. You've also pressed the Eco button, so the computer keeps the car in the highest gear possible with no downshifting until you hit full throttle You start your trip in the Pine Barrens... pretty flat land. You've set your cruise control at 60 mph and it will remain there until the end of the trip. Due to gearing and torque converter lock up, 60 mph will always mean the engine is turning 2000 rpm in its top gear. Your trip is taking you to Delaware Water Gap. As you approach the mountains, the cruise control does its thing and opens the throttle more to keep you at 60. The engine is still turning 2000 rpm, but now more fuel is entering the cylinder because the throttle is open wider. More fuel = more power. As the hills get steeper, the throttle opens wider... now ever more power, but still at 2000 rpm and 60 mph. Eventually you get to the steepest part of the hill, the throttle is almost all the way open. This is just about as much power as you're going to get at 2000 rpm. Now, you've hit full throttle at 2000 rpm, the only way to get more power is to spin the engine faster (i.e. pump more air and fuel through the engine), the computer kicks down a gear and you reach the very top. From the flat Pine Barrens till the point just before the transmission kicked down a gear, the engine remained at 2000 rpm, yet the throttle gradually opened from about 1/4 to full. Are you trying to say that the engine produced the same amount of power throughout that entire trip? After you crest the hill, the cruise cuts the throttle back to nearly closed. Now you're producing less power, but still turning 2000 rpm. If this were a direct injection engine, the injectors would be practically off. Are you still producing the same amount of torque at 2000 rpm with nearly zero fuel? Fuel injectors work by varying the amount of fuel squirted during each combustion cycle. If you know of a way to produce max torque with the fuel injectors off, you better patent that idea fast. Given the same car, same transmission gearing, etc, a 2.5 liter I4 and a 3.6 liter V6 (Think Cadillac ATS) will be making about the same horsepower at the same vehicle speed. It only takes a certain amount of power to move a passenger car along at a steady 60mph. Give and take a little for weight, gearing and aero, that number is around 10 - 20 hp. If you know your RPM at that speed, you can work backwards to see the torque (15hp, 2000rpm = 39 lb-ft of torque)... that's all your 400hp twin-electric-turbo Mercedes is producing. That's why cylinder deactivation can work and keep a Suburban at a steady speed with half the engine shut down. The Horsepower and Torque graphs that get passed around are only measurements at WOT. Less than WOT on that same engine will produce a lower amount of torque because less fuel is being used. Lower torque at a given RPM means lower horsepower.

No.. some people are saying it could be done with a 4-cylinder... and are incredibly wrong.

The LX platform today is so far removed from that old E-class that it is not remotely the same platform. In fact, even just the frame itself is not the same as the E-class platform... the platform was an American designed unit that "Shared components include the rear suspension design, front seat frames, wiring harnesses, steering column, the 5-speed automatic transmission's design and a derivative of the 4Matic all-wheel drive system.". Next you'll tell me that the original CTS was platform shared with an old BMW just because BMW allowed Cadillac to use GM's own transmission in it. So, we have rear suspension, seat frames, wiring harness, steering column, and 5-speed auto from an E-class in the 2005 300. The second generation in 2011 got a whole new wiring harness to deal with electronic shifting and the UConnect system, steering column (gone was the STUPID Mercedes cruise control lever), new seats with 12 way power adjusters, a completely revised suspension setup and a new AWD system. In 2012, they tossed out the 5-speed auto in favor of the 8-speed on V6 models. The Hemi got the 8-speed in 2015. So you tell me... what's left of the 2004 E-Class in the 2017 300C? "Shared components include the rear suspension design, front seat frames, wiring harnesses, steering column, the 5-speed automatic transmission's design and a derivative of the 4Matic all-wheel drive system.".... nothing.

No, that would be incorrect, especially on turbo engines, which in spite of your disclaimer below, is relevant. The whole point of the throttle is to regulate the amount of air and fuel gets to the cylinders. Holding steady at 2000 rpm with 1/4 throttle lets less fuel/air into the cylinder, thus less power. Ripping through 2000 rpm at full throttle puts a lot more fuel/air into the cylinder because..well.. the throttle is wide open and allows unrestricted access. If it's a turbo, then there is also a few extra PSI being pushed into that cylinder. The net result of that extra fuel/air is more power and an increase in RPM. Increase the fuel supply by 1% at 2000 rpm and you've increase power output enough to overcome inertia and increase RPM. No engine at 1/4 throttle at 2000 rpm is producing what the torque charts from a Dyno run indicate.