Drew Dowdell

Let's just hope it wasn't the best part of you. Fingers crossed!

There has been basically zero investment (compared to petrol car R&D) in electric cars until the Pruis and Insight came out. Now we have electric cars with 200+ mile range and 0-60 sprints of 3 seconds.

Moto X Pure? Fap Turbo has one and he's Canadian.

FCA is very power train dependent. Tigershark + 9 speed only gets the sticker if you're gentle and know the little trick to get it into 9th gear. Hemi + 8 speed is the same way but for a different reason (fun to beat on at low speeds, only so much savings to be had at highway speeds), Pentastar 3.6 + 8 speed I always always blow away the highway EPA of 31mpg in a 300/Charger often get 35 - 36. I see 27mpg highway with the same powertrain in the AWD GC and Durango rated for 23/24... and like you, I'm not taking it slow. I haven't driven any of the transverse Pentastars with the 9-speed for long enough to get an impression. I've been disappointed in the Ford MPGs in the last few I've had. The only one that impressed me was the Excursion EL Ecoboost and only after I filled it with premium. GM is also very power train dependent. I'm not impressed with the Lacrosse, Regal, or Verano..... they just get the sticker if you drive it... like it's a Buick. My Encore does well above the EPA both city and highway. The Suburban blew me away with multiple 22+ mpg runs across Pennsylvania. The Lambdas are rated terribly and perform worse. The ATS-V, when you drive it as if it is a normal car, will get 33 - 34 mpg on the highway all day long... that number will drop significantly if you spool up the turbo though. The current Toyota Avalon is a sleeper in both power and MPG. Like the Chrysler LX cars, I get 35ish mpg highway. All of Hyundai's ratings still seem rather optimistic once getting in the real world, though the Genesis V6 does well. The old VW 2.5 5-cylinder had 4-cylinder power with V6 fuel economy. Rated for 29, got 27 at best.

Most shifters are "drive by wire" these days..... even the ones the look and feel like an old-school shifter.

Different projects and different timelines. The various V6es that came from Cadillac were supposed to be ready for the launch of the CT6, and they were originally supposed to go into that car first. Cadillac is doing more rolling changes year to year, so they went with the new V6es in all of the RWD models instead of waiting around for the CT6 to launch.

Because the 8-speed was always meant to go into all vehicles that can handle it. Well yes, buuuuuut now the Cadillacs have a truck transmission instead of the trucks having a premium Cadillac transmission. I know WE know the difference but it's the same type of situation that Ford did with Sync3. Why would they introduce it in a Ford not a Lincoln? I think the fact that it is one of the best automatic transmissions out there currently will smooth over that difficulty. I understand that and that putting it in their trucks first will help amortize the cost sooner and everything but it just seemed a little backwards.I can't wait will Ford catches up in this transmission game. Everything GM and Ram will have either 8 or 9spd transmissions by the time Ford gets their 9&10spds ready and GM will be utilizing them too. I don't think the amortization had anything to do with it. The trucks were ready to go and the engine updates for Cadillac weren't. You don't hold back on releasing the product to the trucks just so Cadillac can claim "First!".

Because the 8-speed was always meant to go into all vehicles that can handle it. Well yes, buuuuuut now the Cadillacs have a truck transmission instead of the trucks having a premium Cadillac transmission. I know WE know the difference but it's the same type of situation that Ford did with Sync3. Why would they introduce it in a Ford not a Lincoln? I think the fact that it is one of the best automatic transmissions out there currently will smooth over that difficulty.

Because the 8-speed was always meant to go into all vehicles that can handle it.

Almost all test mules have an "Oh Sh!T!!" button... even the petroleum based models.

I don't see anything as radical as the concept under the hefty bags. Picture a current model with a Chrysler 200 face. That's my guess.

It wasn't in the video, look at the Autoblog link that William posted.

Almost all diesels do beat the fuel economy ratings. It's because in the real world, one doesn't drive a diesel in the same manner one drives a gasser. But for consistency reasons, the way the cars are tested stays the same. I drive many different cars and there are power train setups from specific brands that I know will always beat the ratings, ones that always meet the ratings, and ones that always struggle to meet the ratings.

That kind of MPG doesn't surprise me. I always got 27mpg - 28mpg highway with my 2004 CTS. You have 1 more gear and a bit more slippery profile.

Interesting to hear, but I wonder... almost no one gets fuel economy in the real world the way they get fuel economy in the lab. It really is a Your Mileage May Vary type situation. I'm not surprised that manufacturers tune to the the specs of the test, they've done that for years, but installing a cheat program to detect the test is something very different.

The tan interior on the Canyon is an attempt to make the GMC a little more premium on options.

I've cleaned up a large number of posts that weren't relevant to the topic. Carry on... this time, on topic.

Thanks for the info. William and I will add it to our spreadsheet for the show.

I have to disagree wholeheartedly. Oil changes are messy, pain in the ass maintenance that everyone must perform 1 to 3 times annually. Even moreso given the fact that so many new cars have terrible packaging under the hood. In my own car, oil filter access requires removal of the intake tubing or contorting your arm up into the car between hot components from underneath. This development would essentially make oil changes as simple as changing an air intake filter. Rather than needing a whole bay in an auto shop and time on a lift, a technician could change the oil in the parking lot without setting foot in the vehicle. Any person with an ounce of motivation could perform an oil change themselves instead of putting it off (as people do) for 10,000+ miles risking engine damage because they don't have the equipment at home or can't fit the inconvenience of a dealer visit into their life. That's more GM design weirdness than anything. On the CTS with the same engine, the oil filter is on the top of the engine. It is a cartridge that you pull out.

I think the attacks on VW are for misleading consumers. Manufacturers may not like the law, but that doesn't mean they should be cheating to get around the law. Also, many consumers purchased TDIs after being told that the emissions were cleaned up, thus making the TDI a green alternative to a Hybrid. That turned out not to be the case.

Love it

So like changing an ink cartridge on a printer?

The MX5 is the top in the list of cars us real people can afford.

Lots cars missing from that list. The SS, the Mustang, the Viper (but it probably wouldn't have done well, it's a lot to handle while the others are easier), no Hellcats It's very likely that the two Cadillac's in this test are the same ones (same VINs) I drove just yesterday... but I drove them in the wrong order. After driving the CTS-V, the ATS-V feels like your grandmother's Camry with the parking brake stuck on....... still, I was able to keep right on the Vette lead car for everything but the long straights.

Lowering the carbon emissions is a good thing... but I'm not sure making an oil change quicker is that important to the grand scheme of things.