Jump to content
Create New...

Drew Dowdell

Editor-in-Chief
  • Posts

    56,001
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    547

Everything posted by Drew Dowdell

  1. Maybe they need a sub-brand instead. It's a shame they couldn't get the Rover name back.
  2. ... so about that hot new Cadillac coupe concept.... (nudging back on topic)
  3. I'm trying to imagine what Audi 's or Jaguar's grille would look like in that case...
  4. Well, that's what I've been told, but I also hold his passport in my safe, so...
  5. I have AAA also because I drive a 32 year old vehicle.
  6. I can change my own tire. I have AAA so I don't have to.
  7. Specifying a size is not a shortcut. You're not going to fit in a Corvette either, but that is by design..it wasn't Chevy taking a shortcut
  8. No. Longitudinal engines to NOT mean that Audi has a 55/45 weight split. The Audis have MORE engine in front of the front wheel center-line than any of the transverse mounted engined cars. Have you seen the schnoz on an A8 lately? The XTS AWD is 58/42.. not that different from the Audi in balance... but the overall balance doesn't tell the whole story. Audi can relocate the battery and a few cinder blocks to the trunk of the A8, but that doesn't negate the fact that you have 90% of the weight of the V8 hanging out in front of the front wheels. The XTS's overall balance may be further from the 50/50 ideal, but the engine's center of mass is closer to the middle of the car and not hanging cantilever out in front of the front wheels.
  9. In the US, aren't they more like 99% AWD? It doesn't matter if the Cadillac SRX has a 100% AWD take rate nor does it matter that the Cadillac XTS can send something like 75% of its torque to the rear wheels when the computer tells the AWD system to... they are still FWD. Audi isn't FWD because they have longitudinal engines... even though they are driving the front wheels just as much as the FWD Cadillacs do. </smk mode>
  10. Yea those. Memory failed me.
  11. 99% of Audi's 2014 lineup is fwd..shame they aren't world class. There is a valid argument that Cadillac is missing an X5 competitor, but the SRX is not intended to be that vehicle.
  12. A fairly false impression Reg. Much of that was caused by the transmission they were mated to which, while smooth, didn't match the performance characteristics of the higher power pushrod V6es. The first gen Equinox has plenty wrong with it, but the pushrod V6 plus 5peed auto was plenty class competative. The reason the 3800 would feel breathless is because it was a low end torque engine and the transmission didn't have enough gears to keep the rpms low.
  13. Purolator Pro 1
  14. I hope they aren't using real bees with all of the colony collapses happening around the world...
  15. The Q7 brutal? No, just a giant lump of car. In white they look rather whale like...
  16. Should get this for the little bugger that might be joining the fleet on Monday..
  17. Stick with a thicker synthetic oil.
  18. Well the buyers in the $37k luxury crossover segment have spoken rather clearly: they either don't care about rwd or prefer fwd. Mercedes' latest entry indicates that they have come to the same conclusion on the market.
  19. Why would you want Cadillac to lower sales to the level of the Germans in that segment?
  20. ... the question remains. Should Cadillac build what you want them to build.. or should they build what they can sell the most of at the $30k base price? The two are fairly mutually exclusive.
  21. The SRX is in the GLK/X3 size class and bases at $37k. There is room for a "BRX" starting at $30,995 on Delta. They could do it on Alpha, but being RWD hasn't done the GLK and X3 any favors.... the SRX and Lexus RX outsell them 4 to 1. The buyers of CUVs don't seem to have a preference for their cars being RWD. If they grew up driving CR-Vs, RAV-4s, and Equinoxes.... why would they?
  22. I only really notice the MKZ from the rear. From the front, it is too generic.
  23. I don't think that would get them to an Eldorado like car as they are so clearly aiming for here.
  24. It can be, but the 4.5L displacement makes it unlikely. Why go all the way down to 4.5L when the 6.2 already has enough cylinder wall thickness for a decent amount of boost? Also, why just 500hp if you are going to add two turbine-compressors and an intercooler assembly, especially when a naturally aspirated LT1 is already 460 hp? More likely though, its an engine that doesn't exist (yet) and they just coin those numbers because 500hp and 4.5L is more or less where the competition is. They also said the Volt would have a turbo I3 and Caddys may be getting a V16... all of which is utter rubbish when it comes to the actually production lineup. Or.. if you're already trying to make people think "Eldorado" with this concept, as it clearly is in a few visual ways.. the number 500 (both in HP and Torque notice) has significance to people who love that car. The same reason the Mustang runs with a 5.0 today and that they made a 427 Corvette. Cadillac clearly isn't going to be building a 500ci engine any time soon, but there are other ways to pay homage to the number. Why do it this way? To give Cadillac something special... and I would imagine that the torque coming from this engine would peak pretty low.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search