Drew Dowdell

I think more of the blame lies with the CAW than with the Canadian government.

Skoda is just a VW in Buick's clothing. Expect no arrogance difference.

Oh please, I can see Oshawa closing from here..... I don't know why the workers on site wouldn't see it.

You're right that it is an argument for displacement. These small displacement turbo engines are turning 3,000 rpm or more to maintain 70mph and at that speed the turbos are really spooled up....any time you're into the turbo, the fuel economy will suffer. GM seems to have tuned the Encore to get every last drop of fuel economy at 55 - 65 mph. At those speeds I will generally beat EPA highway. Set the cruise at 75 mph though and I see a significant drop in fuel economy. I can see a swing from 33mpg to 27mpg with just a 10 mph change in speed.

I've noticed a big difference in FE in the Encore over 65 mph. Above that and the engine is just working too hard just to maintain speed.

Oh, I don't know if I agree with that, Drew. Every Avalanche I saw on Chevy dealer's lots in 2012 and 2013, when I was actively looking to purchase one, was priced in the $48-$52k range, and these were the LT-trimmed models. The LTZ, the one I drooled for, was approaching $55-$57k. With the price that new 2016 crew cab pickups are selling at ($52k and up), I think the Avalanche would have continued to sell if it was updated along with the Suburban. I was hoping that the new mid-size twins were going to spawn an Avalanche-like model, hence the full-size Avalanche's departure. The Chevy Silverado High Desert concept tells me that the Avalanche isn't really dead with the GM designers Oh I know they typically sold new in the $55k and up range, but can you imagine them trying to add another $8k on top of that when the most recent ones came out? It's a great truck and a great concept, but at $63k for it to be equipped the way people like it you're already into Sierra Denali range.

This thread is no longer about the original topic and has moved on to personal attacks against fellow members, as such, I feel it's run its course.

gas prices aren't going to be skyrocketing anytime soon.. and yes, FCA should have done this the last time they redesigned the Ram. These are very high margin vehicles and even if they come in third behind GM and Ford, they'll still be ahead of Toyota and Nissan... which means a good chunk of profit for FCA.

Screenshots to my PM box please

Much of Benz's profits come from the fact that most of their volume is tarted up taxi cabs selling at a premium to gullible buyers in the US. I doubt they're make much, if any money, with these weird one-offs like the GLE Coupe. At least when you buy a CTS, you know it's not being used as a Yellow cab somewhere else en masse. Even the Escalade is based on a Chevy that is considered best in class with an 80 year history.

Not touching the political points of what you posted, but your technical points on E85 are incorrect or missing the point. If you tried to run peanut oil fuel through your gasoline engine you'd get less than ideal fuel economy also. E85 is a great fuel when it is put in engines it is designed for as the primary fuel. In Brazil they use sugar alcohol, essentially E100, in their cars. I don't know what the octane is, but it's gotta be over the 110 that E85 is here. The little 1.0 liter Chevy compacts run around with compression ratios equal to that in the V10 in the old M5 (basically, pretty darn high by industry standards). The loss of fuel economy and the political ramifications are unavoidable. We're forced to have that E15 blend in our gas for our cars engineered to run best on pure gasoline. This is the crux of the subsidized ethanol scam. I see no US automakers developing engines to run E85 or E100 in a way that compares to pure gasoline. But that's beside the point because our agricultural infrastructure cannot support corn production in a way that will replace gasoline in a significant manner without, again, wreaking havoc on food and produce costs. Meanwhile, we're at a point that so much agricultural production has adjusted for government ethanol subsidies and fuel supply, that we literally cannot stop what they've started without bursting the agricultural economic bubble. Again, for the 3rd time, the failure of E85 has nothing to do with the fuel itself and everything to do with the way it was implemented. Whether you see it or not, is irrelevant. Any manufacturer that participates in the Brazilian market makes an engine variant the runs on E100. There will not be a substantial fuel economy benefit running E85 in an engine designed for gasoline. I fully admit that. However, what E85 allows is for a substantial downsizing of displacement without sacrifice in total output. Lets take the old 3.9 liter Chevrolet Impala that was E85 capable. It was rated for 230 hp and 235 lb-ft of torque. It was rated at 17 city / 27 highway on gasoline and 13 / 20 on E85. That's a pretty large drop. But what if GM had built an Impala to run on E85 first and gasoline second? To get to that 230hp/235tq target they could have greatly downsized the engine. Instead of 3.9 liters, the high octane level of E85 would have allowed them to run as small as 1.6 liter turbo with the boost turned way up. I say 1.6T because GM can get 200hp out of one of these on standard pump gas today, getting another 30hp out of it by using 110 octane fuel is trivial. You'd still get all the torque of the big V6 but in the smaller, lighter, and less fuel sucking package of a 1.6T. Get that car out on the highway, and the fuel economy numbers would likely be in the mid-30 rather than high-20s. THAT is where you get the benefits of E85. All of these Ecoboosts and other DI Turbos running around could have been even smaller and still have the same performance, or remain the same size and get even better performance, had they been tuned from the start to run E85 first. It's it the government's fault that GM took the lazy route? As for producing the fuel... it doesn't have to come from corn, Brazil uses sugar cane. Alge and kelp farms off the coast of our ample coastline would have spawned a whole new industry. Logging industry waste, grass clippings, corn husks, brewery waste, sugar beets, switch grass, and many many other sources are usable to make E85.

Congrats Cory! I know you've wanted this for a while.

The XT5 was likely a scheduling conflict. They happen from time to time. Both William and I have had cars swapped out on us last minute.

You guys don't want me to have the last word...

Not touching the political points of what you posted, but your technical points on E85 are incorrect or missing the point. If you tried to run peanut oil fuel through your gasoline engine you'd get less than ideal fuel economy also. E85 is a great fuel when it is put in engines it is designed for as the primary fuel. In Brazil they use sugar alcohol, essentially E100, in their cars. I don't know what the octane is, but it's gotta be over the 110 that E85 is here. The little 1.0 liter Chevy compacts run around with compression ratios equal to that in the V10 in the old M5 (basically, pretty darn high by industry standards).

Flush early, flush often.

E85 was just poorly implemented by the manufacturers. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. There just isn't a huge advantage in putting 110 octane fuel in a low compression 220 HP V6 pushrod. Put the same fuel in a 220 HP 1.6t with the boost turned way up and see some real fuel savings.

But why do they have to give them a car at all? That's my only issue with the whole thing. they don't. Tesla is far far worse about this than Ford, but they can get away with it (for now) because they're Tesla. If it was a one or two time thing due to scheduling obligations, that would be one thing... but refusing to participate is another. I also get the impression that there is some misunderstanding about how cars are reviewed in the press. If I were writing lately, I could call *any* of the major manufacturers and most of the small ones (not exotics... the Subarus, Mazdas, etc) and request a loan of any of their vehicles for a week. They know who CheersandGears.com is, and I would guess we have a reputation (even if I'm not aware of what that rep is). In about a month's time as scheduling allows, the car would be delivered to our home or office and we would test the car for a week. After a week, the company picks the car up. That's how 99.975% of the car reviews you read are created. None of the manufacturers are obligated to loan out a car, but nearly all of them do for the publicity of it. As a smaller publication, we are sometimes pushed aside for the likes of MT or C&D and I understand that... we're not big fish. But even as small as we are, it is very easy for myself or William to get a car. So why are other publications, ones that are much larger and with a much longer pedigree than us, having such difficulty with Ford? Quoting myself here, but I wanted to add to my comments. 2010 was the first time we attended one of the major auto shows as Press. GM actually offered to sponsor the trip for me, but I declined due to what I saw as an ethical boundary. However, I did participate in a number of the meetings. GM took a bunch of heat that year for sponsoring "small time" bloggers and twitter people to attend. Remember, in 2008 and 2009, blogging was still considered a relatively amatuer sport. I still remember the glaring looks from the "real" automotive press. The only other thing I had accepted from GM that year was a press loaner. Handing out press cars to us "small time" bloggers was virtually unheard of at the time... press cars went to MT or C&D...you know, "real publications with real editors". Only a few of the smaller websites would get cars back then, and even then, it was just the scraps. Over the years GM has provided many many press cars to both William and myself. The other manufactures aside from Ford have largely been similarly accommodating, one only has to look at the variety of cars that William has written reviews on to see that.. . I've only ever had 4 from Ford. Ford Fusion Hybrid (last gen), Ford F-350 SD (last gen), Ford Fiesta (original gen), and Ford Escape (last gen). I realize I haven't written in a while, but the total from GM for me has to be over 40 edit: This was the car I drove to Detroit. 2010 Cadillac Sportwagon Interactive Review We had a different format for reviews back then because we didn't have the article management system we have today.

But why do they have to give them a car at all? That's my only issue with the whole thing. they don't. Tesla is far far worse about this than Ford, but they can get away with it (for now) because they're Tesla. If it was a one or two time thing due to scheduling obligations, that would be one thing... but refusing to participate is another. I also get the impression that there is some misunderstanding about how cars are reviewed in the press. If I were writing lately, I could call *any* of the major manufacturers and most of the small ones (not exotics... the Subarus, Mazdas, etc) and request a loan of any of their vehicles for a week. They know who CheersandGears.com is, and I would guess we have a reputation (even if I'm not aware of what that rep is). In about a month's time as scheduling allows, the car would be delivered to our home or office and we would test the car for a week. After a week, the company picks the car up. That's how 99.975% of the car reviews you read are created. None of the manufacturers are obligated to loan out a car, but nearly all of them do for the publicity of it. As a smaller publication, we are sometimes pushed aside for the likes of MT or C&D and I understand that... we're not big fish. But even as small as we are, it is very easy for myself or William to get a car. So why are other publications, ones that are much larger and with a much longer pedigree than us, having such difficulty with Ford?

Probably because they are tired of dealing it. I won't name the other publication that I know has experienced this with Ford because they chose not to make it public, but I know the journalist and I respect his integrity. And it's a fairly major publication.

I will be the first to admit that there is a sense of entitlement in the automotive press, (But not here at CheersandGears.com of course). But Olds, this isn't the first time Ford has refused to play in comparison tests.... not just at MT, but at other publications too. They are notoriously difficult about it. The only thing that MT did differently this time was call them out publically.

Seems kind of silly to blame MT for the fact that Ford won't give them a real test car. Seems kind of silly to try to belittle and to threaten a car company to comply... Sorry, but from the side I'm on, there was no belittling, and telling it like it is should be the norm for the press. Saying "we wanted to test a Focus, but Ford wouldn't give us one, so we got it from Hertz instead" is still good journalism. Telling Ford ahead of time that they intend to do it is good journalism as long as MT doesn't deliberately sabotage the rental car to make Ford look bad, I have no problem with it. I have reviewed and will continue to review rental cars as I get them. It also is a very different scenario than the hockey one you describe. Making up stuff and innuendo is not journalism. I don't see where MT did any of that here if the facts are taken at face value (and I have no reason to doubt them). MT explained why certain other cars were left out of the comparison, and they were valid reasons. Ford not showing up isn't a valid reason.

Which brings us back to square 1... From Motor Trend: That little tantrum statement sounds just as desperate as Ford's PR department not wanting to play... To which Ill repeat my original opinion on it.... The magazines exist for people to dream a little dream. The magazines exist for internet bravado and arm chair racing. The magazines exist for fanboys to cheer when the magazines say good things about their favorites. The magazines exist for fanboys to cry home to mommy when the magazines say bad things about their favorites. The magazines exist and are biased as hell. The magazines exist and forget their biases whenever it suits their agenda for that particular purpose. Magazines are full of shyte in other words... Especially when this statement: "Next time we’re taking whatever beater Hertz has to offer" sounds like a threat rather than an honest to goodness true journalism... A threat like that seems like the article will be a scathingly negative review... I think a threat like that makes Motor Trend even LESS credible than they already are... Motor Trend's words sometimes are worthless... And there is a reason for it. Ford is not Tesla. Tesla only gives out press cars in very specific instances. A Focus is not a Tesla... a Focus has a LOT of direct competition. If Ford no longer wants to be included in these comparisons, that's fine, but then don't complain when someone DOES go to Hertz to get their hands on the product to review. Edit: After my incident with the MKC, I simply chose not to write the review on it. I felt there was no way I could do that review in an unbiased manner. Not only had Lincoln PR made that rude insinuation, but it was on the same day and at the same time that I had received some bad news. The bad news has passed and I'm cooler of head now, but I have to be extra careful with myself when doing Lincoln reviews.

Approximately zero of that is any issue with the Avalanche. The buttresses at the rear of the cab on the Avalanche weren't just a styling detail, they were structural. Also, the bed and cab are a single piece, there is no separation like there is on all other trucks besides the Ridgeline. It would have to be a very specific and very extreme roll-over situation to crush the roof on one of these. Like landing upside down on a fallen tree after rolling down a cliff. The Ridgeline is unibody, so without the frame there, it probably wouldn't be stiff enough. In my years with the Avalanche, rattle from the mid-gate was never a problem... if it was, it was operator error. If I heard a rattle, I would get out and check because it meant that I didn't close a latch properly. Where I did have a rattle was in my sunroof. My guess is that the Avalanche's demise had to do with cost. The Suburban jumped from $43k base price to $49k base price, and the Avalanche would have needed to move with it. They probably couldn't justify the price of the Avalanche at that range.

Back to your corners everyone