Drew Dowdell

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

So we're agreed then. The S-Class doesn't have a 9-speed, it has an 8-speed with a vestigial gear that is hardly ever used and only serves to cause problems.... .like an appendix.

It's the nicest fusion money can buy. I do like these cars.

I wonder if a 4-cylinder is suddenly acceptable to SMK in this class now that the GLC has one.

Not really, because no one really drives in 0-60 mode. Commuting to work, my Buick Encore and a Tesla Model-S P90D have the same 0-60 times.... if we even get to 60 at all. That is True, but the thinking is if you want to compare auto to auto, zero to 60 in like auto's especially EV where you have 100% torque from zero makes them all pretty even so then the type of motor with amount of torque shows off the efficiency of the engineering so that you can give a consistent barometer on how the auto does. yes weight, aerodynamics, etc. all play a big role. I just think an EV zero to 60 is a solid gauge of an auto in comparison to petrol and the crazy RPM range of when you get full torque, full HP etc. It's an irrelevant metric to pretty much all drivers not named SMK. Look at the big deal SMK makes about 0.1 second in the S-Class over the CT6 as if it is some huge victory. It's not... it's a crushing defeat that a Cadillac V6 matches a Mercedes V8 that is 1.7 liters (more than one whole malibu engine!) larger. Furthermore, the Benz automatics skip first gear entirely unless you set the transmission to sports mode every time you get in the car. (I don't know the case on the CT6 yet). So in every day driving, you don't even get the published acceleration. The CLS I drove would even sneak back into "normal" mode after an extended period of tame driving so as not to waste gas. 0-60 might matter in a car like the Spark or even the Encore that has double digit 0-60 times, but 1/10th of one second in cars capable of anything under 6 seconds really is meaningless. I don't know about you Drew but I am always driving in 0-60 mode!!! Just got the record there are exactly two people who care about 0.1 of a second to either 60mph or 1/4 mile..whichever makes them win. My C350 did the skip first unless in sort mode and I liked it because 1st was so short it was just an unnecessary shift to feel. It was the smoothest trans I've ever driven with but it was still an unnecessary shift to be felt because in "comfort" mode you don't need the extra rpm for accelerating. I actually loved that trans. You'd be the better judge as you've driven WAAAAY more than I though. I'm definitely a comfort driver, but I am perfectly capable and skilled at putting the pedal down and keeping cool throughout. Those extra gears in the Benzes are pretty meaningless if they never get used by the blue-hairs that primarily drive the cars. I mean, what's the point of going around bragging about 7-speed or 9-speed transmissions when they don't operate that way most of the time? Yes the S-Class technically has a 9-speed, but 99.999999999% of the time it operates in 8-speed mode just like the CT6. It would be an interesting thing to do a 0-60 of the S-Class when it is not in sport mode and only using 8 of its gears as in normal driving and see how it stacks up against the CT6 3.0TT.... I'm betting it comes in slower than the Caddy....

Because it's the only metric certain people understand even if it is just as dumb a metric as peak horsepower expressed without RPM. Electric auto's could make the 0-60 metric the gold standard as Torque is 100% from zero and so then you do not have to worry about rpm, just how fast one can get there. Not really, because no one really drives in 0-60 mode. Commuting to work, my Buick Encore and a Tesla Model-S P90D have the same 0-60 times.... if we even get to 60 at all. That is True, but the thinking is if you want to compare auto to auto, zero to 60 in like auto's especially EV where you have 100% torque from zero makes them all pretty even so then the type of motor with amount of torque shows off the efficiency of the engineering so that you can give a consistent barometer on how the auto does. yes weight, aerodynamics, etc. all play a big role. I just think an EV zero to 60 is a solid gauge of an auto in comparison to petrol and the crazy RPM range of when you get full torque, full HP etc. It's an irrelevant metric to pretty much all drivers not named SMK. Look at the big deal SMK makes about 0.1 second in the S-Class over the CT6 as if it is some huge victory. It's not... it's a crushing defeat that a Cadillac V6 matches a Mercedes V8 that is 1.7 liters (more than one whole malibu engine!) larger. Furthermore, the Benz automatics skip first gear entirely unless you set the transmission to sports mode every time you get in the car. (I don't know the case on the CT6 yet). So in every day driving, you don't even get the published acceleration. The CLS I drove would even sneak back into "normal" mode after an extended period of tame driving so as not to waste gas. 0-60 might matter in a car like the Spark or even the Encore that has double digit 0-60 times, but 1/10th of one second in cars capable of anything under 6 seconds really is meaningless.

If the VW scandal has made anything clear, it's that you never take extreme performance claims by manufacturers without a huge helping of salt.

Because it's the only metric certain people understand even if it is just as dumb a metric as peak horsepower expressed without RPM. Electric auto's could make the 0-60 metric the gold standard as Torque is 100% from zero and so then you do not have to worry about rpm, just how fast one can get there. Not really, because no one really drives in 0-60 mode. Commuting to work, my Buick Encore and a Tesla Model-S P90D have the same 0-60 times.... if we even get to 60 at all.

Welcome back!

I dunno... we had been told repeatedly over the last few months that GM would not get access to the 10-speed for a while after its release.

Because it's the only metric certain people understand even if it is just as dumb a metric as peak horsepower expressed without RPM.

For the most part, I do not like most fish. However one of my favorite things to grill is Swordfish. I cover it in butter, lemon, and a bit of chive and grill it. Other than that, I like big sloppy cheeseburgers with various types of cheese and/or rub. I have a pizza stone and will sometimes grill pizza too with homemade dough.

Guys, keep in mind development cadences. The CTS-V, the Cadillac with the greatest similarities to the powertrain in the ZL1 would have needed to finish validation testing over 2 years ago to go into the 2015 model year car. SMK, the FWD automatic will be a 9-speed I believe. Also.... so much for GM having to wait a while before it gets access to the 10-Speed like some people told us would be the case.

3.0TT isn't the fastest CT6. 4.0TT is coming.Right and I all along said they need a Dohc V8, I'd like to see it in a CTS VSport or Escalade too. But there were several people on CT6 threads a few months back saying the TT V6 would outrun their German V8s because of lower weight, and I knew that wouldn't be the case and it isn't.The German three also all offer a 6 liter 12 cylinder. That might not be for the CT6 to worry about but they need to remember that on CT8. You just looooooove cherry picking. The RWD S550 with a twin turbo V8 is 0.1 seconds faster than an AWD CT6 3.0TT. A statistical tie.. Cadillac caught a RWD 4.7 liter Bi-Turbo Benz V8 using an AWD 3.0 liter twin-turbo V6 and did so with a 49hp and 116 lb-ft of torque deficit. yes, the weight matters. It's funny that you only see the 0.1 seconds while I see all of the extra grunt Mercedes has to use just to catch a Cadillac V6. Mercedes is throwing a lot more metal to get to 4.9 seconds than Cadillac is to get to 5.0. Astonishingly, that also means that the CT6 AWD 3.0TT is only 0.3 seconds slower to 60 than the S65 V12... The fastest S-Class is the S63 though, because it has AWD. It's best 0 - 60 is 4.6 seconds. That gives Cadillac lots of room to maneuver. If they cared about the 0.1 seconds that much, then the 3.6TT is just an email from JDN away. Then there is the 4.0TT also coming and that's not even the V-series model. S550 with or without awd has been clocked at 4.8 seconds, the coupe for some reason is 4.5 seconds, even though it doesn't weigh any less. The 9-speed cars are faster though, I think when the sedan switches transmissions it will be closer to 4.6 seconds. But if we want to cherry pick, an Audi A8L 4.0 (not an S8) can do 0-60 in 4.0 seconds and posts better fuel economy than a CT6. 29 mpg highway on the V8 Audi, 26 on the CT6, both are 18 city. But as I said, many thought the 3.0TT V6 would outrun the Germans, it doesn't. I'll listen to and agree with that the 3.0TT V6 is a nice mid-level engine choice on a Cadillac sedan or could be good on a large crossover. And I know the V8 is coming, I hope it comes soon. So when the CT6 4.0TT comes out, then we'll have to compare it to an A8L 4.0..... in the MEANTIME, the Audi A8 3.0 is clocked at 6.4 seconds while the CT6 3.0 is clocked at 5.0 seconds..... so yes, the 3.0TT CT6 very much outran that german. Edit: I've gotta take that back. Three glasses of wine in and I should have realized that the A8 3.0 at 6.4 seconds is a TDI which Audi can't even legally sell anymore. Edit 2: Don't post while drinking Drew... the GASSER Audi 3.0 has a 0-60 time of 5.5 seconds.... so my point stands.

disappointing, but not surprising