Drew Dowdell

1. Alfa 124 2. 2016 Jeep Renegade 25th Ann Edition 4x4 - 1.4T and 6-Speed manual (actually the superior powertrain choice over the 2.4 + 9-speed) 3. Eagle Talon DL with the 1.8 liter and 5-speed manual 4. 2016 MB C200d - 1.6 liter diesel with 6-speed manual transmission... and I even have a place in Germany to park it. 5. Buick Encore (Done!)

Yet this beats the S-Class from Mercedes Benze as according to MT, the 1999 S Class has a 228hp v6 and 232 torque. http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mercedes-benz/s-class/1999/specifications/ Yes at this time Cadillac still had V8's and the S-Class was only available in a V6. Where is MB prized V8, V12 engines then? They had the other engines too. You're only looking at the S320... Change the trim line on the drop down at the top of the page to see the other engines.

People like SMK like to point out that the Fleetwood only had 260hp, but neglect to mention they also have 340 lb ft of torque at like 2000 rpm. At 65, they can cruise in utter silence with the engine barely turning 1750. These only have 4 speed automatics yet get mid 20s fuel economy. If someone would put a modern 8 speed in one, theyd have even more hustle and fuel economy.

Yes. The D-Body line continued on in Arlington built on the same line as the B-Body. So now, the million dollar question for me that needs to be answered...for my own personal knowledge...Two Questions: Is that '90s Fleetwood Brougham D-Body related to the '90s Chevrolet Caprice B-Body in any way? And if so, what differs a '90s D-Body from a '90s B-Body? A D-Body is largely a longer wheelbase B-Body, as such, they share little in body structure but a lot in mechanicals. Many Caprice 9C1 parts (cop spec) are in the Cadillac by default.

Yes. The D-Body line continued on in Arlington built on the same line as the B-Body.

Probably just a C450 AMG loaded to the gills, comes to $61,730 I can't get an XTS V-Sport or CLS400 the way I want within the criteria.

Who the hell needs to compete with niche vehicles like the C63 and X5 M? Seriously? Why worry about the 0.5% volume? I love how you have to continually try to compare anything Cadillac does to the most expensive examples from the German competition, when that is just a fallacy argument. So why is there an ATS-V or CTS-V, those are .5% volume cars. Seeing as crossovers have over taken sedans in sales, there is not more volume in the crossover market than there is in the sedan market. Since BMW built their image on the M3 and M5, while Cadillac sold front wheel drive boats, one brand soared and the other sank. Same thing will happen with crossovers. The luxury crossovers with the prestige will draw appeal, people will buy the better performing vehicle as well. You have a serious issue confusing correlation and causation. People will buy the better performing vehicle when there is no cost differential, but any luxury CUV that can get to 60 in under 8 seconds will be fine. 8 seconds is about the time it takes a 1996 Roadmaster Sedan to get to 60 and that is beyond plenty for the typical buyer. Faster than that and most buyers become unwilling to pay more to go faster. Yes there is a subset like you who will, but get inside of that 8 second range and people start to become more concerned with MPG than with acceleration. Cadillac's problems in the 80's had virtually nothing to do with how sporty or not their cars were and everything to do with engine reliability issues. They were selling that 4100 boat anchor that ate intake gaskets, the 350 diesels, and the 8-6-4, but their sales volume was huge so they pissed off a lot more people who went and tried those expensive yet cheap feeling BMWs for the first time. Had GM not made those powertrain flubs, BMW might still be an obscure Euro brand like Volvo these days. Even for as bad as those Cadillac engines were, and the general slowness of the other GM cars, I still see far more of them from that era rolling around today than Germans of the same age. Those old BMWs, Benzes, and Audis were terrible terrible back then. They'd handle well (at least the BMW did), but their build quality was extremely sub-par. There is absolutely nothing "luxury" about a BMW 635 aside from its original price tag. Take away the handling and the badge and it might as well be an Accord coupe on the inside. Even the lowly Toronado had a better built dash with nicer materials and more advancements than the 6-series.... Digital dash, automatic temperature control, automatic head lamps, leather wrapped steering wheel with aluminum spokes, no exposed screw heads on the dash, no matte black plastic anywhere....

It might be a good thing that Benzes are engineered like any other... I had to call the fleet rep to deal with an issue with the power windows not sealing.

Well here's the original paperback on Amazon... http://amzn.to/1nRHrhh

The CT6 and S-Class are statistically identical. It is down 49hp and 112 lb-ft of torque compared to the Benz 4.7, and the only way you could tell the difference is with a high speed camera. The CT6 V8 is coming as well, along with a possible V-Sport. That was not my experience in the CLS400. Both Normal and comfort modes you started in 2... and 1st gear was far too jumpy for normal driving.

Yes... those real estate agents and newly promoted bank managers will get to their appointments that much faster now.

Well great that the repurchase went smoothly. What are you getting to replace it? The next Cruze diesel is a completely different engine and has been running around in the Astra and Mokka for a couple years now.

I've looked around and it seems like going rate is about $15. BTW, welcome back!

I'm pretty sure that was Drew actually. I don't think he would have just been making things up w/o some knowledge. (check the other ZL1 thread for his words). You are correct, there is no GT500 right now. Nor is there a Z28 but I don't think we should really compare two different style cars. If anything I think we can all agree the 1LE is way more GT350/R competitor than a ZL1 is. It wasn't me. It was a member of C&G who has since quit the site who stated that GM would have to wait a bit till it got access to the 10-Speed. I didn't challenge it because such agreements have been made in the past and I had no reason to think otherwise.

Pizza stones aren't specifically for the grill... they can be used in the oven, so don't spend extra money just because it says Weber on it. I have a good size rectangle one that I use both in the oven and the grill. Here's one for $35 on Amazon. They require planning because you have to pre-heat them for a while before putting the pizza on. Pizza stone tips 1. Bake it without food on it at 400 for 3 hours before using it, this is like cleaning the stone from any manufacturing residue. 2. NEVER EVER any soap! The stone will absorb the soap and potentially get into your food! Water and a clean paper towel is all you should ever use. 3. The darker it gets with time, the better... this is the seasoning... don't worry about getting every last speck of dough off of it. 4. just leave it in the oven most of the time even if you're not cooking things on it, it will help disperse the heat more evenly in the oven. Keep it on the lowest rack when baking without food on it. 5. Don't allow oil to get on the stone, it will absorb into the stone and then crack the stone on a future heat/cool cycle.

So the S-Class has two fewer gears than the CT6..... and the same number as the new Continental. Two speeds in reverse on a passenger car is just complexity for the sake of complexity. What? It still used all 9 forward gears(assumingit reacts like the current 7spds to). If you're stopped and hammer it you'll use 1st, the only time it is really needed anyway. That 2nd reverse gear(while I don't understand it) doesn't count in the forward gear count.Personally, after driving a Mercedes 7spd I don't see the complaint of comfort mode skipping 1st at all. I loved how smooth it accelerated from a stop because every vehicle I've been in 1st is always the harshest,loudest and(obviously) the shortest. Starting in 2nd by CHOICE is a great thing. If the trans didn't have 2 different modes and ONLY relied on initial throttle tip-in to decide to use 1st or 2nd I wouldn't like. But having the choice of different drive modes I don't understand the complaint. I'm mostly just twisting SMK. I really have no problem with the number of gears a car has as long as it delivers the performance I'm looking for at the price. SMK will latch on to some singular specification in an American brand car that is, in his eyes, proof that <American Brand X> is inferior to the Benz. Look how he harps on the Continental having a 6-speed when the Benzes with 7-speeds operate as 6-speeds 99.9999999% of the time. Look at how he is trying to twist the Cadillac 3.0TT into a failure because it is 0.1 seconds behind a Benz with a much larger and much more powerful engine (when its actually a huge win for Cadillac). He'll latch onto these numbers that are absolutely irrelevant to the sales process and try to spin them as gospel. What's also fun is watching him move the goal posts around the field when one or another of his favorite statistics no longer applies or changes things up by making apples to oranges comparisons (Cadillac 3.0TT v Audi 4.0TT while ignoring the Audi 3.0 S/C anyone?) No one is going to walk into a Cadillac dealership intent on buying a CT6 and then turn around and walk out without buying because it is 0.1 seconds slower to 60. No one is going to walk into a Lincoln dealership intent on buying a Continental and then walk out without buying because it has one fewer forward speed than an E-Class. No one is going to walk into a Cadillac dealership intent on buying an XT5 AWD and then turn around and walk out because of the direction the engine is facing. People become interested in a car for what a car looks like, a specific price, or a specific image they see in themselves...not because of dumb statistics like this. As for the Benz transmission specifically. I have no problems with it. It operates smoothly and as it should.

These super high performance crossovers sell in such tiny numbers, they are really irrelevant.

Hi, have we met? I'm the obscure numbers guy. I'm just saying we need precision is all, mainly because the marketing departments at the manufacturers love to round up their measurements. I have no problem playing by the rules. We don't go around calling a 5.7 Chevy anything but a 350. Nor do we call the 5.7 hemi anything but a 345. I believe the concept is simple unless one is being deliberately obtuse or has a form of ocd. Perhaps a form of autism could also be at play. Well now you're converting metric to imperial too. In the first post, he said under 2.0 liters or 2000 CC... Which are the same thing. Since I knew the GM 2.0 turbo was under 2000 CC, I thought that would count since it's a 2.0 in name only. I'll make a new list under the clarified rules.

The GM 2.0 = 1998 CC Mitsubishi Eclipse 2.0T = 1998 CC Ford 2.0 Ecoboost = 1999 CC Mercedes 2.0T = 1991 CC I know they generally round up when expressing in liters, so I knew my choices were safe Yes, but it throws the whole premise of this series. Obviously 99% of 2.0 engines are under 2,000cc, but the limit is intended to encompass both limits. It must be under both units of measurement. Same when we get to 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, etc, etc. I will clarify this further in future threads. OK, I want to play but I am totally confused by this now. If the measure of unit is 2.0 liters or 2000CC does that mean it cannot be more or less? Or are you saying it has to be under 2.0 L and under 2000CC? 2.0 L is 2000 cc

Hi, have we met? I'm the obscure numbers guy. I'm just saying we need precision is all, mainly because the marketing departments at the manufacturers love to round up their measurements. I have no problem playing by the rules.

The GM 2.0 = 1998 CC Mitsubishi Eclipse 2.0T = 1998 CC Ford 2.0 Ecoboost = 1999 CC Mercedes 2.0T = 1991 CC I know they generally round up when expressing in liters, so I knew my choices were safe Yes, but it throws the whole premise of this series. Obviously 99% of 2.0 engines are under 2,000cc, but the limit is intended to encompass both limits. It must be under both units of measurement. Same when we get to 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, etc, etc. The engines measure 1.991 - 1.999 liters.... just because marketing calls them 2 liters doesn't make them 2 liters. So, if you're looking to be that precise, you can't measure by liters and must restrict by CC.

So the S-Class has two fewer gears than the CT6..... and the same number as the new Continental. Two speeds in reverse on a passenger car is just complexity for the sake of complexity.

The GM 2.0 = 1998 CC Mitsubishi Eclipse 2.0T = 1998 CC Ford 2.0 Ecoboost = 1999 CC Mercedes 2.0T = 1991 CC I know they generally round up when expressing in liters, so I knew my choices were safe

1. Cadillac ATS 2.0T AWD Coupe - This would probably be my daily 2. Mercedes Benz GLC 4Matic - My partner's daily 3. Ford Explorer 2.0 Ecoboost - I need the biggest interior volume I can find powered by two liters, this is probably it. 4. I'm still rather enamored by the Fiat 124 Changing this one out. I'd rather have a 2nd gen Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder Turbo 5. CT6