Drew Dowdell

Well if that's the case, Balth already knows my soul year cars. GM E/K/B bodies from upper divisions in the 80s and the mid-80s Continental. I even own one. [sharedmedia=garage:vehicles:70] Edit: I really need to update my garage entry with new pics.

So it's okay for a Jeep to be marketed for it's off-road potential, even though nobody uses them for that, but it's not okay for BMW to market the X3's sporty driving dynamics? Got it. Nice double standards there. Regarding the price, it's in line with all the other small lux utes, the vast majority of it performs much, much better than. Even the glorified Equinox that is the SRX runs into the mid-50's. Again, different aspects. The way vehicles are marketed and the reason for people buying them are quite different.... even if the reasons people give for buying a particular vehicle aren't ultimately used. SMK stated "The X3 can run with an Ecboost Mustang or a Camaro V6 in a 0-60 sprint"..... and I replied that X3 buyers don't care about stop light drag races........ I'll add that at $54k, there are a lot of better ways to beat a V6 Camaro from a stop light than buying an X3. The target market of the X3 (Upper middle management, female) absolutely do not care about 0-60. The fact that the vast majority of X3s sold are 28i or 28d drives home that point (still not slouches, but not barn burners either). Regardless of what the BMW marketing department says the X3 can do, people aren't buying them for 0-60. There is huge list of better choices for $54k to get Camaro V6 beating results.... including quite a few at BMW. Jeep is a whole different story. People buy Jeeps because they "need to go in snow".... nevermind that an Impreza, CX5, or Trax would accomplish the same thing, people go for Grand Cherokees (or any Jeep) primarily for the aura of unstoppableness. People buy Jeeps for 4x4 even if the most use it gets is when they hop a curb at the mall. For years Jeep has sold on this capability in spite of questionable reliability. ... and I wouldn't buy the current SRX at $54k either. Well, it goes without saying that there are far better performance vehicles for 54K. It's very hard to get the impression that's what you meant however, when in the very next sentence you bring up the Grand Cherokee. Because that reads like you implying spending 54K for this is foolish when that same money buys a Grand Cherokee. As for why people buy them, while it certainly isn't for stoplight races against sports cars, you are underestimating how many people DO buy BMW SUV/SAV/CUV's for their driving dynamics. Trust me, there was plenty of bitching about the new X1's move to a FWD platform. There's also no shortage of owners with modded X1's, X3's, X5's and X6's or even who run them at the strip. Whether or not others buy them for that reason, it's pretty much impossible to argue that BMW's utility vehicles up to this point have had marked performance and dynamic advantages over their competitors, In some cases, even Porsche's. As for the X3 and it's price, if I were in the market for such a vehicle, it's hands down what I would buy. That said, I don't think I'd spend the money on one over the Grand Cherokee myself, and the first X3 was a pile of $h!. Now see? It sounds like we're largely on the same page. Yes I did bring up the Grand Cherokee Summit Hemi as a better way to spend ones $54k on a crossover. It's a lot more vehicle for the same price. It may not corner like the X3, but it will 0-60 just as fast, holds more people more comfortably, holds more cargo, can tow 7,500lbs, and is much better is snow when it gets deep. I don't have an issue with the lower end X3s. I know why they exist and I know why they sell. I just can't see optioning one all the way up to $54k and citing performance as the reason for it. Shopping in this class, I'd opt for the 28d anyway. I think people do buy the higher end BMW SUVs for their performance characteristics, but I don't include the X1 or X3 in that. The X1 and X3 are geared mostly towards aspirational types to whom the badge is more important than the ultimate performance. As most of the X3s are sold as 28i or 28d, I think my hypothesis isn't unfounded. But for my money, I'd step down to a GC Overland with the Hemi... and even that would be if I really came into money. My actual purchase will be close, but not exactly the same to that.

I don't know what year my soul was born.

You think ANY X3 buyer is worried about drag racing a mustang? You think that is even on their radar? At $54k, you're at Jeep Grand Cherokee Summit V8 pricing.... a vehicle just as fast, far more capable off-road, more luxurious, and roomier. If you spend $53k on a BMW X3, you just have to admit that you're only after the badge. You are the most clearly biased, arrogant, condescending, closed-minded admin I have ever seen. You ask if any X3 buyer is worried about drag racing, and then in the same post talk about a Grand Cherokee's off-road capability as if anybody actually exploits it. Unbelievable. ?? A whole lot of people buy Grand Cherokees for their off-road abilities regardless of if they ever actually use them. The off-road capability of the GC is a marketing point that sells the vehicle and is a major selling point in the snow-belt. Approximately zero people buy an X3 so they can beat Ecoboost Mustangs at stop-light drag races... if a buyer is worried about that, they get a 3-series instead. Anyone else here think those are unfair, biased, or closed-minded statements to make? So it's okay for a Jeep to be marketed for it's off-road potential, even though nobody uses them for that, but it's not okay for BMW to market the X3's sporty driving dynamics? Got it. Nice double standards there. Regarding the price, it's in line with all the other small lux utes, the vast majority of it performs much, much better than. Even the glorified Equinox that is the SRX runs into the mid-50's. Again, different aspects. The way vehicles are marketed and the reason for people buying them are quite different.... even if the reasons people give for buying a particular vehicle aren't ultimately used. SMK stated "The X3 can run with an Ecboost Mustang or a Camaro V6 in a 0-60 sprint"..... and I replied that X3 buyers don't care about stop light drag races........ I'll add that at $54k, there are a lot of better ways to beat a V6 Camaro from a stop light than buying an X3. The target market of the X3 (Upper middle management, female) absolutely do not care about 0-60. The fact that the vast majority of X3s sold are 28i or 28d drives home that point (still not slouches, but not barn burners either). Regardless of what the BMW marketing department says the X3 can do, people aren't buying them for 0-60. There is huge list of better choices for $54k to get Camaro V6 beating results.... including quite a few at BMW. Jeep is a whole different story. People buy Jeeps because they "need to go in snow".... nevermind that an Impreza, CX5, or Trax would accomplish the same thing, people go for Grand Cherokees (or any Jeep) primarily for the aura of unstoppableness. People buy Jeeps for 4x4 even if the most use it gets is when they hop a curb at the mall. For years Jeep has sold on this capability in spite of questionable reliability. ... and I wouldn't buy the current SRX at $54k either.

Well there is something to be said for value for the money. There may be some vehicles in certain segments that are the absolute best in that class when there is no money factor. Your Aston Martin example is a good one. I picked the BRZ because I love its balance, its simplicity, and it's low cost. It's not the fastest, but its the best balance of fun for the $$ that I can find, to get the same balance of fun from the Zeta Camaro, one needs to step up to the SS versions. To be fair, I have yet to drive the new Alpha Camaro or the new MX-5 Miata, so those could potentially be there as well. The C-Class wins its segment for me because it's like buying an S-Class at half off (or two years of S-Class depreciation) and that's just too good of a deal to pass up. I left off commercial vans because I gather that most here haven't been able to drive all of the current crop... the criteria for judging them is also quite different.

It's not even all encompassing.... if you feel like I missed a segment, let me know.

The X3 is a puff case and could not hold a match to my AWD SS Trailblazer. Driving dynamic, interior room, fit n finish, etc. I have been in many of my coworkers X3's and they are badge snobs and I have to shake my head at the way overpriced garbage the auto's are. Their driving pedigree is vastly over rated. Lol, if you think your Trailblazer has better driving dynamics and fit and finish than an X3 (or anything in this class, really), you are ate up with stupidity. You Clearly have never Driven an SS Trailblazer or know anything about them so let me educate you. AWD SS Trailblazer is a Corvette with an SUV body. Limited production each year during the trailblazer product cycle. This is an SUV that has 400HP 400lbs of torque and has no problem hitting 150mph, stable tight and can eat up roads. An X3 cannot compare to it. I"m not so sure about the interior build quality compared to a modern BMW, but the chassis was apparently tuned by Saab for their own version and was apparently surprisingly capable at high speeds. All the same, the taller body and center of gravity make it unlikely that it would out-handle the shorter wheelbase, shorter height, lighter X3.

I guess put it where you think and we get to debate it if it is not in the right slot. I'm kinda there with the C-Class... it has always been positioned against the 3-series, but it feels like it has grown out of that size class just slightly, the CLA might be the more appropriate Benz for that slot.... but I don't really like the CLA... so if the C-Class moved to mid-size, I'd put the 3-series or ATS in that spot. Lincoln, like Buick, straddles some price classes. The MKX is a strong entry for the mid-size lux, but it just isn't quite as good as the GLE. Where as some of the mid-sizers these days are well into the $30k+ territory and that theoretically means that an entry MKZ competes with a high end Accord or Avalon. The Lacrosse is another one that great car, but it is showing it's age, and I like the 300C better.

It's not what GM needs right now, but what GM might need in the future. Co-developing small engines and CVTs, and working together on battery tech would be good places to start for both companies. It's more about sharing costs of future development rather than sharing current technology.

From the OCA Facebook page.

You think ANY X3 buyer is worried about drag racing a mustang? You think that is even on their radar? At $54k, you're at Jeep Grand Cherokee Summit V8 pricing.... a vehicle just as fast, far more capable off-road, more luxurious, and roomier. If you spend $53k on a BMW X3, you just have to admit that you're only after the badge. You are the most clearly biased, arrogant, condescending, closed-minded admin I have ever seen. You ask if any X3 buyer is worried about drag racing, and then in the same post talk about a Grand Cherokee's off-road capability as if anybody actually exploits it. Unbelievable. ?? A whole lot of people buy Grand Cherokees for their off-road abilities regardless of if they ever actually use them. The off-road capability of the GC is a marketing point that sells the vehicle and is a major selling point in the snow-belt. Approximately zero people buy an X3 so they can beat Ecoboost Mustangs at stop-light drag races... if a buyer is worried about that, they get a 3-series instead. Anyone else here think those are unfair, biased, or closed-minded statements to make?

Since it was pointed out that I might have a strong bias towards GM products, it made me think about what my first choice for each of the respective vehicle segments would be and how many of those segments GM might win. B-Segment (subcompacts, super mini, city car) - None of the above really since the VW Up! isn't here, I haven't driven the new Spark yet, I didn't like the current Spark. Sonic if that counts in this segment and I'm forced to pick. C-Segment (compacts) - Mazda 3 C-Segment (Luxury Compact) - C-Class D-Segment (mid-size) - Chrysler 200c (I know it's not the journalists favorite, but I like the powertrain and interior) D-Segment (Luxury Mid-size) - Cadillac CTS or XTS E-Segment (full size, non-luxury) - Chrysler 300c F-Segment (full size, luxury) - S-Class S-Segment (sport coupes) - BRZ Crossovers/trucks/mpvs: M-Segment (minivans and multi-purpose vehicles) - Sedona J-Segment (Small) - CX3 J-Segment (Mid-size) - Jeep Grand Cherokee or Dodge Durango (Ford Explorer makes a strong case here too) J-Segment (Full Size) - GM SUVs J-Segment (Small Luxury) - GLC J-Segment (Mid-size Luxury) - GLE J-Segment (Full Size Luxury) - Escalade Pickup Trucks (Full Size) - Ram Ecodiesel Pickup Trucks (Mid Size) - Canyonado For a guy with a supposedly strong GM bias, I really didn't pick many GMs. Do your picks reflect your bias?

Imagine what they could do when they're not burdened with paying to fix Pre-BK screwups.

The change in Telsa's ranking reflects CR's quality more than any change in Tesla's quality. I said the same thing when CR had to pull their "recommended" rating for the Camry years ago, as it was originally issued without sufficient data. Regarding Tesla, it should surprise no one that a brand new company would have some teething issues with early units. The difference is how the company reacts to those issues. In Telsa's case, they have pretty much the best customer service in the industry, where if it were one of the big legacy manufacturers, they would deny deny deny until someone forced them to fix or recall.

My point is, which your post perfectly makes clear, is that Cadillac is relying on a price advantage in comparison. The fact that you need to go up a trim to get a powertain that is conclusively superior to it's rivals isn't a good thing, imo. While the CTS 2.0T may enjoy a relatively level playing field in terms of power, refinement, efficiency, etc, the 36 certainly doesn't. A little bit of extra kick and their new 8AT isn't going to be enough to keep it from being overshadowed by it's rivals in my eyes. Also, when you start optioning the cars equally, the Cadiallacs pricing advantage gets eroded in many cases. As just one one example, an Audi S6 and CTS V Sport are only separated by only 2 grand when similarly equipped. And the S6 has AWD, a V8, and a proper DCT. And that kind of pricing level, the CTS isn't even an option for me, or virtually anyone else looking in this segment, and I think you know that. I'm confused by you saying "A proper DCT". The Cadillac 8-speed is as fast or faster than even Porsche's DCT.... or is the "how" more important than the results? If results don't matter, then sure, go for the DCT.. but don't claim that a DCT is better simply for being a DCT. If I select the V-Sport Premium and add 19" wheels (to make it fair) it comes in at $73k, yet I have to option the S6 up to $80k just to get the same level of tech that the Vsport has... so I'm still not seeing the vast Audi advantage you are (aside from AWD, which is a valid need in certain areas). You call it "going up a trim" but really it is just selecting a horsepower level at a specific price. The people going for raw horsepower pick the engine first and the trim second. The fact remains that at the pricing levels of the "buy-up" engines from Germany, you get V-Sport power from Cadillac. SMK likes to point at the Benz E400 and compare it to the Cadillac 3.6 for some reason, when for the same price as the E400, one can get a CTS V-Sport. It simply doesn't make sense to me to be okay with buying up to an E400, but objecting to buying up to a V-Sport. More examples? You can get the base CTS V-Sport for $64k (base plus 19s), but to get the same level of equipment in a BMW 535i, you have to option it up to $68k and you're still substantially down on power. 300hp v 420hp... no contest. Select the V-Sport Premium for $70k, match it option for option to a 535i, and you be paying $70k for a BMW with a 120hp deficit behind the Cadillac. If you go for the 550i, for the same price, you end up sacrificing tech to get the performance. Match the tech of the 550i to the V-Sport premium, and you're paying at least $7k more. You don't think it's fair to compare the V-Sport to the non-"Sport" models of the German sport-sedans? Fine. Starting with a 528i in blue (everything but basic black or white is an upcharge, blue seems popular in my area), we'll add heated seats, Driver Assist (rear camera, park sensors, heads up display), Premium package (Sat Radio and keyless entry), and SmartPhone integration ($200 just to plug in your phone), that gets you to $57k for a 240hp RWD BMW. Head over to Cadillac and select the base V6 for $54k, you get everything included in the above packages, plus cooled seats and another 95 horsepower. If you're fine with a 4-cylinder, stick with the CTS 2.0T, spend the same $57k as the 528i and get even more on the options list while still getting more power. It is very very easy to option the Germans up and over the base V-Sport prices.... or even just option up a lower powered car well over the price of the higher powered car from Cadillac. Unless you're buying a truly base price German trim (which almost no one does, they're not often even stocked), you're simply going to pay more for less at a German brand. I built an S6 Premium with options and a CTS V-Sport out to as identical in options as I could, and there was only a 2 grand price difference in favor of the Cadillac. But that was but one example. In others, there is a larger price advantage in favor of Cadillac. The 5 Series, in particular, does represent rather poor value, more poor as you go lower in engine trims. As for the 8AT, it's overhyped to put it mildly. I've experienced in several vehicles now, and while GM may like to tout that it's as quick as a DCT or PDK during full=throttle upshifts, it's a whole different story in part-throttle upshifts, downshifts, seamlessness, and response to using paddles. I just don't find it to be an impressive transmission. It's fine in mundane applications, in cars like the Z06, Cadillacs, etc, it needs to be replaced with a proper dual clutch auto. That's my opinion (as well as that of many others, journalists included) and I'm sticking to it. If you disagree, fine by me. I think you have a very strong bias for GM products, fwiw, so it doesn't surprise me. So the S6 base and the CTS V-Sport Premium have essentially the same base price. It's the standard features on the Cadillac that are the "gotcha" on the Audi. To get to the same level of features on the Audi S6 that come with the standard on the Cadillac V-Sport Premium, one has to add Driver Assistance Package ($2,550), Cold Weather Package ($500), Individual Contour Seating Package ($1,950), and Bose Sound System ($850), and Rear Side Airbags (astonishingly a $350 option on a $70k car), and only then has the S6 matched the level of equipment that comes standard with the V-Sport Premium. Adding that equipment to the S4 that gets you to $77,100...... so that's why I'm having trouble seeing the mere $2k difference you see between the two vehicles. Can you get an S6 for $70k? Yes, but look at all of the equipment and features you'll be giving up. Its interesting that you say I have a bias towards GM products. Primarily, I have more of a bias toward getting the most for my money and in this segment, Cadillac seems to win. However, you made me introspective, so I thought about the various segments and did a quick tally of what my personal first choice would be..... sadly, GM wins in only 5 segments. (Sonic, Canyonado, Tahoe/Yukon, Escalade, CTS and XTS V-Sports). If I listed the rest out, I'd be accused of having a bias towards FCA or Mercedes.

Drew it all comes down to development money. Honda just does not have the ability to do all the do on their own anymore and they are in need of a dance partner that can work with them but not expect to merge with them. GM is the perfect partner in that they are all about saving money but yet making better systems for cars. They really do not want to merge with Honda but they could make a good working relationship happen. I read a while back the major players that could do it all yet were Toyota, GM, Ford, Benz, VW. Just about everyone else needs to find a partner. Even these companies are willing to work with others to save cost as new systems like transmission, engines and platforms are so expensive today. Also the hybrid and EV technology has little profit but needs to continue to develop. The large companies can save a lot on this and help some of the smaller companies. But companies like Honda, Hyundai, BMW and others while strong independent companies they still will need help in the future working with others while remaining strong enough to remain independent. Other players like FCA, Mitsubishi, Mazda and others are prime for take over but right now most companies are putting the money back into themselves now and are not wanting to expand. Mazda is on the line between take over material or remaining independent. They have gained strength in my eyes and have move closer to do like Honda and remain independent but working with another partner. Just not sure who at this point. Ford would be natural but I am not sure Ford wants them again. Thing ended on a sour note there. Honda and GM have much in common and have respect for each other. I could see this deal growing into the future. What was clear to me after driving the Pilot and RLX was that Honda Motor Company takes the "Motor" part of their name most seriously, but then gives up after that. That may be where Honda can work a partnership..... get someone else to chip in for development costs in the powertrain and then Honda can put more development into the interiors.

Yeah, it's about time Mercedes updated the GLK.... the new GLC finally has the interior worthy of the badge. Doesn't seem like I can get it with Airmatic though :-(

Cadillac has 3 twin turbos in production now... you just refuse to see them on the options sheet because for some reason it isn't exactly the one you want.

Now subtract $8 billion and counting from the Audi column.

Here ya go:

You think ANY X3 buyer is worried about drag racing a mustang? You think that is even on their radar? At $54k, you're at Jeep Grand Cherokee Summit V8 pricing.... a vehicle just as fast, far more capable off-road, more luxurious, and roomier. If you spend $53k on a BMW X3, you just have to admit that you're only after the badge.

Wow! you can't beat that deal!

I agree with this. I see no reason why Cadillac is even using the NA 3.6L when they have the 3.0L TT capable of so much more. I would also argue that their 2.0LTT is also capable of being tuned to the same 335HP, but would most likely have more torque. I think they are playing up to the old desires of some buyers not wanting to have anything to do with Forced induction. Right now we have : LTG 272HP/295lbs LGX (335 hp and 284 lb-ft ) (WHY???) LGW (400HP) LF3 (420HP) LF4 (465HP) LT4 (640HP) Voltech/2.0L Hybrid (335 hp and 432 lb-ft) There has to be someone who looks at this and says "hey.. we have a lot of overlap, why don't we eliminate 2 of them?) I would certainly think the LGX stay in the other brands while making Cadillac completely and only Forced induction. As of now the LF3 has sat in Cadillacs only, and I truly believe that the development of the LF4 was to keep Cadillac from needing to go to the LT1 for its 460+HP needs. The LF4 can easily be tuned to over 500HP as the LF3 is easily tuned to over 500HP. Perhaps a revisit to the "Shortstar" V6 and upcoming TTV8 being called NorthStar or UltraStar would be in order. It doesn't make sense to not take the 2.0L up a notch to the 335HP range or detuning the 3.0L down to 350HP Again, the 3.0TT isn't in production yet.

I do like the flat-4 sound

Turbos help, but they still aren't up to granting instant torque at low rpm like a larger displacement does.