Drew Dowdell

Truck: GMC Sierra Crew Cab Denali. Just the 1500, don't need to be wheeling around a 2500 Sedan: CT6 PHEV Platinum Coupe: ATS-V Coupe SUV: Escalade platinum or Jeep Grand Cherokee Summit EcoDiesel Toy: Jeep Wrangler Unlimited

No, not if the ECU isn't mapped for higher octane.

It doesn't really matter, the spread between regular and premium usually is consistent. Around me it's typically 20 to 25 cents a gallon between the two no matter what the regular price is, any change in the dollar position only changes the cost per mile by extremely minor amounts as long as the spread between premium and regular is the same. The GM 6.2 is cheaper to run per mile on regular than the Ford 3.5 EB on premium which are both much cheaper to run than the Ford 3.5 EB on regular. To be clear, we're only talking about a penny per mile difference here... but over 50,000 miles, that's an extra $500 to run the Ecoboost on premium and $1000 to run it on regular, and these calculations are using highway miles. If you get fuel economy like Car and Driver did in that comparison test (both the Chevy and Ford got 16mpg), the cost per mile difference increases to about 2 cents per mile, or $1000 over 50,000 miles.

Yeah, GMC annoys me because of the All-Terrain package. I want that grille and not the chrome if possible, but I want the tan/cocoa interior. All-Terrain only comes with black interior and drops things like the max trailering package. Looks wise, I like the GMC the best, but combination of Looks + Packages, the Chevy wins because I can have everything just the way I want it. If I end up in the GMC, you'll know I compromised on something.. not because they don't offer it, but because of the lame package combination requirements. I'm not a big fan of the F-150's looks and sadly, the Ram looks so old to me now. But the basic requirements are - Crew Cab, Short Bed, 4x4, Trailering package, Heated Seats.

Well, 2016 could finally be the year of the truck for me.... this is what I'm looking at... I'll fill in the other categories later. All 4 are equipped and priced about the same. With the most expensive being the Ford, then the GMC, then the Chevy, then the Ram (which I can't package quite the way I want). You may or may not notice a pattern...

Yeah, I already ran the spreadsheet earlier in the thread showing that the GM 6.2 has a lower cost per mile to fuel than the 3.5 Ecoboost, no matter which fuel you put in the Ford.

The someone, somewhere, or some website, is fibbing.

Indeed, but sometimes the reverse is true. The EPA regards the Pruis as a mid-size even though it would only feel mid-size if you fill it with sand. BTW, Welcome back Mule.

Torque is what turbo's deliver. In spades. And not just a peak, but total average. That's what matters. And less total average when running regular instead of premium..... which is my point. The area under the curve is reduced. I still say someone needs to put these on the Dyno with both fuels to measure the changes. The 3.5 Ecoboost drops 40 lb-ft when switching from Premium (Lincoln Navigator) to Regular (Ford Expedition).

There's actually a thing you can plug into the OBD port and shut off AFM without reprogramming the ECU. Range Technology Active Fuel Management Disable Device I don't know what he's fussing about though, its there to save him money. It switches back to V8 mode with a flick of the foot. The only way I ever even know that it is 4-cylinder mode is if I have the DIC set to monitor fuel economy and I'm watching the gauge. It's absolutely imperceptible to me in the Suburban/Tahoe at least. Edit: It's not like it turns into a Civic with a fart can in 4-cylinder mode.... it only happens at a steady cruise when you're not on the gas.

The Regal is still a big seller in China, there is still the Opel/Holden/Vauxhall Insignia (Though for Holden, only sold in GS form). They sold 20k of them in the US up to end of November, 75k Insignias in Europe up till end of October, and 91k Regals in China up till end of November. That's 186k so far this year in just those markets, and I'm missing 4 months of data (December in all three markets, and November for Europe), meaning that total sales of Regal/Insignia are going to be over 200k this year. I don't think the Regal sedan is going anywhere. I do think they will bring the body style variants to other markets. What they probably need to do is move US Regal production back to Europe or over to China so they can consolidate production into two plants instead of three. I could see that happening after Envision breaks the China ice.

I never care about horsepower. Horsepower is just a measurement of torque at a specific RPM and obfuscates the details .... so skip the middle man and give me the torque.

I forgot nothing. I posted the equations. If your Fusion scrubs 5 horsepower while keeping the same max torque, then the torque curve starts to drop off a bit sooner in the RPM band than normal.... as I explained in my post.

You are forgetting that horsepower is a meaningless marketing term.

I'm thinking more like 80/20. If they are seeking more interior room.. and the Omega platform is scalable.. they will go that way. In terms of exterior, but for the sake of the comparos.. say for the ATS/CTS...they need to be on par, if not exactly where the 3series is on the inside dimensions. and I mean EXACT or at least larger. Of course with the clowns that normally review these cars.. the ATS/CTS could stretch that interior out an extra inch larger than the 3/5Series, and suddenly the reviewers would then say that the car is so large there's an echo. All jokes aside.. I think the intent is for the CT4 (ATS) and CT5 (CTS I guess) will get interior dimensions enlarged via the ATS moving up to the CTS's current WB, and the CTS moving into the Omega platform. Similar to what BMW does with the 7, 6, and 5 all being on the same platform I just think they have to use the Alpha platform for the current cars for a bit longer. At least one big MCE before it switches to the new platform, but that means 6 to 7 years from now.

Lawd have mercy! I would so rock that car!

I think there is a 50/50 chance of the CTS going to Omega the next time around. They may need to for additional weight loss.

Indeed it is... It was the next closest competition to the Encore when we were shopping and I just couldn't sell it to Albert. He likes his lux.

I got the disdain for small cars, and my love for the big boats much in the same way. Grew up in my parent's Fiats, Subaru GL Wagon, VW Wagon, and Colt Vista wagon while admiring my Grandmother's Custom Cruiser .... power windows and air conditioning yo!

One could go out on a limb and THINK that the boys at Buick could add the 2.0LTurbo to the Lacrosse line-up if a Park Ave shows up. Its a foregone conclusion that an Omega based PA will show up. At that time, the Lacrosse would systematically lose its status as the top Buick. U are aware that at Cadillac currently.. the XTS starts out with a standard 3.6L with 304 hp 264 lb-ft of torque? The CT6 will start out with a base 2.0L Turbo with Automatic Stop/Start BTEW.. anyone else find it curious that Cadillac has this on their website pertaining to the 2.0Lturbo? (TBD - SAE certification pending) It does not state that the 2.0L has 268HP 295lb of torque.. which makes me wonder what they are up to. Can add the 2.0T? They would have to have built it that way in the first place for China. The only change would be needed is in the order book for US dealerships.

You haven't driven my Toronado.... Hmmm... let me amend that. It can be fun to drive a slow nimble car fast. The front bumper on an '81 Toronado prolly weighs 2200 pounds. Cappy that's not too bad for fuel mileage there. I forget what I was getting in my '11 Fiesta SE 1.6 manual. There is a thread buried in the annals here somewhere about it. Hey now... the whole car still weighs less than a new Lacrosse V6 AWD..... but lord, would it have hurt them to put on roll bars that weren't made of over-boiled spaghetti!?

You haven't driven my Toronado....

Either Paul doesn't know how horsepower is calculated (doubtful) or he is lying about something... either directly or through omission. Horsepower = (Torque * RPM) / 5252 Torque = (Horsepower * 5252) / RPM If horsepower has changed, then the torque curve has changed. Period. There is no getting around that. The peak may still be 320 lb-ft, but then that would mean the engine backs off the torque peak earlier in the RPM band. <Speculation) So instead of 320 lb-ft from 2000 rpm - 5500 rpm, the engine only produces that torque from 2000 RPM to 4000rpm </Speculation> There are far too many variable for me to make an educated guess as to the actual numbers, but I believe my basic premise is correct. Someone needs to put one on a dyno and test the difference. Edit: and while Paul may object to the numbers, the proof of the phenomenon happening is right there on Ford's and Lincoln's websites. Just look at the difference between the Lincoln Navigator and the Ford Expedition. One is rated with Premium and the other rated with Regular.

Not a bad little bug!

Your snipe wasn't at anyone in particular, and it was largely not factual. If you stick with facts, you can't go wrong here. I didn't edit your post or warn you... I simply corrected your false statement. Indeed, it probably will, I expect it should hit the 30mpg highway mark pretty easily. I did not make a false statement. I simply mentioned weight reduction. And my snipe was at a GM product, although not nearly in proportion to the plethora of Ford snipes. There is only "a plethora" of Ford snipes because you insist on perceiving any comment on a Ford product that isn't heaping praise on Ford to be a snipe. The fact remains that Ford made promises it couldn't keep. It promised that Ecoboost would be much more powerful and much more fuel efficient than a V8.... and so far it's only true if you ignore V8s not made by Ford. Even the heavy Ram Laramie Limited Hemi manages 21mpg highway, which is only 1mpg behind the comparable 3.5 Ecoboost. Ford made promises on this, and when the product was delivered, a bunch of us who aren't on Ford's payroll asked "Where's the beef?!". That isn't a snipe... it's asking for the results which were promised. As for your snipe: 1. GM didn't spend multiple billions to retool their plants to build the Alpha cars out of a different material. 2. The weight loss is remarkable when you consider the Alpha cars are still mostly steel. 3. No one claimed the Alpha cars were a feat of engineering. Omega, certainly moves things forward, but Alpha is just using stronger steel and less of it.