Drew Dowdell

The 3.0TT will be a lot torquier and have a broader torque band. The 3.0 has a 75 lb-ft advantage... that's nothing to sneeze at. Anecdote time: Before the original GLK came out, it wasn't originally going to be called that. What was it going to be called? Well think of M-B naming system at the time. There was the SL roadster, and then the smaller, cheaper roadster the SLK (K for Klein... as in smaller) They already had the ML, so naturally, the smaller cheaper entry should be the MLK in natural German logic. It took 6 months of pleading to Stuttgart by Mercedes-Benz USA to convince them that naming a car MLK would be a bad idea in the US.

I doubt Tesla minds for now either way. Their customers would drive from Water Gap to Cape May if they needed to.

So are you saying the N/A 3.6L couls eventually not even make it to the CT6? No. I didn't say that at all. Keep in mind that if this 3.6 is the CT6's base engine, that means the CT6 will be bigger than a 5-series yet lighter and with a 95 horsepower advantage over the base 5-er.

You channeling a bit of SMK there? ... 3 of the competitors have Forced Induction... the rest are Naturally Aspirated. "At these power levels" Jaguar, BMW, and Audi have forced induction. Infiniti, Lexus, Acura, M-B, Hyundai Genesis, Kia K900, 300C V6... and if you want to be nice and include Lincoln are all naturally aspirated. The key is the "at these power levels". If you want more power, you need to go either to a V8 or a Turbo-6... which Cadillac will be offering as well. It should be noted that a number of these competitors offer less powerful base engines... So if Cadillac is offering this 3.6 as the base engine, it will instantly have a an advantage. May be I should I have said it better, "are or will be force induced". Yes, number of them offer less powerful base engines, but so will Cadillac in the form of 2.0T or 2.5 depending on the application. So let's get back to your list. M-B does/will too with the 400 and 450 or whatever the heck they are going to name the 3.0L on one bright morning. Infiniti has forced induction lying in the wings as you saw at the Detroit release. Lincoln/Ford has the ecoboost 2.3, 2.7 and 3.5 engines. All the company has to do is plug one in a Lincoln. New - And Volvo is F-I too. So the only manufacturers remaining are Lexus and Acura, which to my understanding Lexus will have one soon. I do not consider Kia and Hyundai in this league because they do not offer multiple sausage lengths of "luxury" vehicles. Hence, non forced induced vehicles are or soon to be in minority. Back to my premise, GM has no F-I motor in 300 - 375 hp range like its competitors and to me that is a drawback especially since these engines started with clean slate. And no matter how much you look at the torque curve of a N/A motor producing 80% of torque of F-I motor, it will not match the F-I jolt. So no your perception of me being SMK is incorrect. I seldom make comments without looking at things comprehensively. Again, I go back to "at these power levels". The M-B 3.0TT will likely be more in line with the new Cadillac 3.0TT terms of power.. basically around 400 hp rather than 335 horsepower. The Infiniti turbo with be a Turbo-4 not a Turbo V6. Lincoln has Ecoboost, but is still offering the N/A V6. Lexus's turbo will be a Turbo-4. All of these will be either optional step up engines with the Turbo V6 or base engines with a Turbo-4. As nice as turbos are, a 335Hp N/A V6 is still > 240~280hp Turbo-4

It's going to be relatively low volume as is... Expect this engine to show up in the next Malibu... and possibly the next Terrain/Nox full redesign.

You channeling a bit of SMK there? ... 3 of the competitors have Forced Induction... the rest are Naturally Aspirated. "At these power levels" Jaguar, BMW, and Audi have forced induction. Infiniti, Lexus, Acura, M-B, Hyundai Genesis, Kia K900, 300C V6... and if you want to be nice and include Lincoln are all naturally aspirated. The key is the "at these power levels". If you want more power, you need to go either to a V8 or a Turbo-6... which Cadillac will be offering as well. It should be noted that a number of these competitors offer less powerful base engines... So if Cadillac is offering this 3.6 as the base engine, it will instantly have a an advantage.

Remember, these are Cadillac wide engines, not just CT6 engines. This 3.6 will go into everything at Cadillac that currently runs a 3.6 N/A. So you're looking at 3.6 N/A horsepower figures for the next CTS, ATS, SRX, and XTS refreshes (and I do expect XTS to survive a bit longer for fleet use). We also don't have torque curves yet... and I will be asking my contact at Cadillac for them... but apparently they've tuned this engine for better off the line punch. Yes you still have to rev the engine to get to the peak, but that's true of all DOHC N/A 6es (see what you've done SMK? we could have had torquey pushrods in there... but noooo.)

It took BMW 35 years to get where they are today. In 1980, they were selling really expensive, RWD VW Jettas that rusted into nothing at the first sight of snow.

I am Ecoboosted for the next two weeks. Anyone care to guess which Ford or Lincoln I have in the C&G East Coast Garage?

I feel like #4 is Bentley, but don't know the model.

Everything in this class is virtually unhearable at speed. Even my old CRV can do that. Road and wind noise are bigger concerns

Initially, yes basically. While the price was not out of reach for those who wanted one, it was definitely a 1% solution. It was introduced in 2001 for $500. Sounds simple enough, right? Except you also had to have a Mac... and you also had to have a Mac with a Firewire port. The recently released iMac came with one, but only on certain versions. So the net result, if you wanted an iPod in 2001, you had to buy the iPod($500), and the certain iMac ($1500+) with the certain port, just so you could listen to 30 of your CDs (and no more) on a highly breakable device that wasn't compatible with anything else... including your car (almost no cars had Aux inputs at the time) So just like a Tesla today... a lot of people can technically afford one, but it is not a prudent financial move for the moment. But just like the iPod, the price of the technology behind tesla will come down... and the price behind a self driving car will come down too. As I've pointed out in other threads, a good amount of the technology to do it is already available in cars today.

Thought about it a bit more. In this class, it doesn't matter who Cadillac benchmarked. If they made it into the 37 dB - 38 db range, they will have just about maxed out. There is a lower limit to idle quietness and that limit is 35 db (A Lexus LS600h L which is powered on but without the gas motor running is 35.5 dB). There simply is no way to do better.

like all things, depends on the model. The Fiat based jeeps have been having some issues. The older stuff has been mostly okay.

#1 - I googled enough to find the answer. The term I googled for was "enclosed disk brake"... which is what it looked like to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ausco_Lambert_disc_brake The Ausco-Lambert disc brake[1] is an unusual brake where an axially-expanding shoe assembly is sandwiched between two linked rotating discs. It may be thought of as an "inside out" disc brake: instead of pads pinching a disc, the pads expand inside a hollow disc. http://www.moparmax.com/columns/magnante/ix_3-7.html

Wait... she's been driving a Lacrosse for a week, is really happy with it... and you think you'll get her a Verano? As I mentioned above, a Regal would be a reasonable compromise car, not the Verano. You can usually find some sweet deals on those as well.

So, the Verano greatly depends on which version she gets. The Turbo has different characteristics in ride, handling, and performance than the non-turbo.... and it is a not insignificant difference. The Lacrosse is much more consistent across the board assuming you get the V6. With the base powertrain (and I have a review coming of one shortly), I would not describe the Verano as sporty. It handles crisply, it has okay punch off the line but runs out of breath quickly. It has a premium feel inside, but in terms of the ride and drive, the most accurate way I can describe it is "Perky"... and that's the theme of my review of that car. The Turbo takes on a different character. The turbo engine is great, the handling more controlled. It feels like it can run with a low end Audi. The Lacrosse is an entirely different breed. It is made for gobbling up highway miles in the blink of an eye. It is so smooth and quiet at speed, she will have to pay close attention lest she start bringing home speeding tickets. The Regal is a precise blend of the two cars mentioned above.

Yay! I got 2 of them!

Is a Grand Cherokee really that much a downsize from a Mountaineer?

Just like iPods at the start.

But the CTS has motorized cup holder covers and electronic glove box release.

#5 - All of the above

Hey Esh. (We already have two Z's here, so I'll go with that instead) Where do you hail from? Make sure you add your cars to the garage, when you do, a thread just for your car will be automatically created.

Yay! I got one!

It was only a partial year for the Escalade. There were a few scattered on dealer lots in April, but they took till mid summer to get into full swing. They still can't build them fast enough to satisfy demand. ATP on Escalade is up nearly $20k over the previous model. Escalade sold 30,500 in 8 months when it took Benz 12 months to sell 26k. Yes.. for vehicles with $80k - $90k transaction prices... that's a blowout. I don't disagree that the Escalade is a successful product for Cadillac, it is usually 1 or 2 in sales in the segment and has been for the past 10 years, while stuff like the Navigator and LX570 have died on the vine. And the Escalade commands a high price as you stated, if you can be the highest priced in the segment and best selling, you are doing something right. What I don't get is why Cadillac doesn't use the formula that has worked with the Escalade on its cars. Instead we get alpha numerics, dull styling and the corporate V6. And I get that Americans buy big trucks so it is easier to convert a Tahoe to an Escalade and get sales than it would be to convert a Chevy sedan to a Cadillac, in that regard Cadillac needs its own chassis. You defy all logic! You praise the one vehicle that is most closely related to Chevrolet and then say if only Cadillac's other vehicles weren't converted Chevies..... Well guess what?! NONE OF CADILLAC'S CARS ARE! ATS and CTS are both on the Alpha platform which is Cadillac only. CT6 is on the Omega platform which is Cadillac only. It is launching with at least 2, probably more, Cadillac only engines and Cadillac/Corvette only transmissions. The XTS came first and then was stripped down to turn into the Impala, not the other way around. The SRX isn't based on anything elsewhere in the GM organization. It was built to share with the 9-4x which eventually died. The XTS, CTS, and ATS are all available with Cadillac only engines for those who care about that sort of thing.