Drew Dowdell

18 gallons.... just 14 mpg

I forgot they were packaging an I4 with it. In that case, they clearly want to come in with a low MSRP, probably around $55K. I think that is a mistake, because it steps right on the toes of the CTS. And that will probably be a large seller as well, and simply not enough engine for that large car. Bad move cadillac. Remember, the CT6 is a featherweight in its class. It weighs less than lower powered cars one to two size classes below it. The 2.0T in base form weighs 3647lbs and is motivated by 265hp and likely near 295 lb-ft of torque at 2500 - 5300 rpm (Buick Regal GS tune). For some perspective, the Regal GS with that same engine weighs in at 4022lbs. BMW 528i RWD with 240 hp and 260 lb-ft @ 1250 rpm is 3814 lbs BMW 535i AWD with 300 hp and 300 lb-ft @ 1300 rpm is 4233 lbs Mercedes E250 RWD with 195hp and 369 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm is 4167 lbs. (yes, I know it's a diesel, but for comparison purposes, it also has a 7.9 second 0-60) Mercedes E350 RWD with 302hp and 273 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm is 4001 lbs. Audi A6 2.0 with 252 hp and 273 lbs-ft of torque @ 1600 rpm is 3803 lbs in FWD form and 3957 lbs. in the more common Quattro form. So the base CT6 2.0T should feel faster than those other base cars by having up to a 350 lbs. weight advantage on top of the horsepower and torque advantage. Cmicasa got us the Cadillac CT6 weight a few months ago, and you can see for yourself, even when you start checking the boxes for V6s, Turbo V6es and AWD.... the CT6 will maintain its weight advantage over similarly equipped Germans a whole size class below. It's no small feat that the 400hp AWD CT6 weighs the less than the smaller E250 RWD or even the 535i xDrive... and it will matter when it comes time to test performance and handling. 2.0T Base RWD: 3,647 lbs. 2.0T Level 1 RWD: 3,683 lbs. 3.6L Level 1 AWD: 3,925 lbs. 3.6L Level 2 AWD: 3,961 lbs. 3.6L Level 3 AWD: 4,040 lbs. 3.0TT Level 2 AWD: 4,085 lbs. 3.0TT Level 3 AWD: 4,165 lbs. 3.6L Platinum AWD: 4,261 lbs. 3.0TT Platinum AWD: 4,385 lbs.

Rolling Coal is the dumbest of the dumb political statements out there.

The CT6 is going to have an interesting range of engines. Over the course of it's life, it will have 4-cylinder Turbo, 4-cylinder Plug-In Hybrid, Standard V6, Turbo V6 (more than one?), Turbo V8, and a diesel of some sort.

So the snow tire choice for the Buick seems to be between the Blizzack WS80 or the Michelin XICE X13

That's ok, neither does my Toronado.

I'm in Pittsburgh PA, but I have a very steep driveway and every road home is uphill. I live at the top of a ridge that is the tallest spot for a few miles around me. We call it our snow bump. There is some strange climate pattern here where in our little part of town, we'll get snow when the surrounding area gets rain, or we get a bit more snow than everyone around us. It's really a very very minor change in altitude, but I've been laughed at by people at work when I say I have to shovel my drive yet they only got a dusting. This disparity is pretty frequent.

I usually run 2 sets of tires, winter and all-seasons. However, we got through a pretty snowy winter last year with the AWD doing fine. I'm trying to decide if I'm going to get a set of winter tires now and a new set of all-seasons in the spring, or just go with the triple treads. I put snow tires on the CR-V and it's like a mountain goat in the snow.

The only Continental available is the OEM ContiProContact

I hear there are some 2014s still in stock and awaiting .... awaiting delivery.

Not available for my Buick :-( The only triple tread type tire available for the Encore is the Goodyear.

How good are they as a snow tire?

Woohoo! A least they'll keep the Routan!

December on sale date apparently.

This thread has gone on long enough.

Wings, your takeaway from the MT comparison is that the Mustang makes a better Accord than the Camaro does?...... okay.

You sat in a very early pre-production model.

You've driven the 2016 Camaro extensively then? Can you do a write up on it? I'm curious what parts you feel need more refining on a chassis derived from a Cadillac. *hands Wings a bottle of aleo vera* Here's some aleo for that BURN!!! (It helps heal burns, or skin damage in general - DOUBLE BURN FOR PRETENDING YOU DONT KNOW THE BENEFITS OF ALOE VERA ON THE SKIN!!!) Sorry cap, I proved drew wrong ::::as I hand over an un-opened bottle of aloe, with a grin:::::: You did no such thing. I asked for your experience with the Camaro, not a parrot of someone else's opinion. I have little faith in the majority of the motor press for any opinions... that's why I own my own site.

Oh, and the Mustang also has a weight disadvantage going forward.... much harder to make up for than gear ratios or power deficiencies.

You've driven the 2016 Camaro extensively then? Can you do a write up on it? I'm curious what parts you feel need more refining on a chassis derived from a Cadillac.

I think they are hidden in the grille, you won't see them on the front bumper.

Models getting cut, VW to shrink

It's fairly simple. Would the new mustang stack up against the current ATS-V Coupe in handling? Considering the league the ATS-V plays in, I'm betting not. I expect the new Camaro and the ATS coupe (which is wider than the ATS sedan remember) will have very very similar handling dynamics. That the SS is getting magnetic ride control means that the handling can be adjusted at the press of a button. Very dynamic and quite polished.

1mpg over the 80,000 miles is actually pretty huge. It ends up being around 200 - 215 gallons of gas over the life of the tires.

I do like that Citroen and Audi, BV