Drew Dowdell

the Colorado is coming no?

I'll get a gallery up for you later today.

perhaps, but the real game changer in the segment is going to be neither of these. The Mazda 6 diesel is rumored to come in right around the $26k price point as well.

But again, that isn't an apples to apples comparison. A base Jetta TDI automatic is $24,940 and you're still sitting on plastic seats. No Chevy MyLink equivalent, No leather, less twisty engine, no power seats, 16" wheels instead of 17".... I think Chevy priced it ok. It will be more work for the salesman, but the pricing isn't out of line for what you get.

Is it just me? I see this in Buick dealerships more than Chevy..

Guys, let's compare apples to apples here. Keep in mind that the Cruze diesel automatic (42mpg) beats the Cruze Eco automatic in highway EPA (39mpg) and has a 135 lb-ft more torque standard and then 152 lb-ft more in the 10 second boost mode. ... so 42mpg plus better than than a FWD Northstar torque with that torque coming on at a much much lower RPM. The Cruze diesel sounds like it will be a different animal than the Jetta TDI. Rather than a super sipper with "meh" acceleration, the Cruze sounds like it could have V6 like scoot with TDI like fuel economy. It is likely to be an LTZ level car, so you can't compare it to base model ECO or base model Jetta TDI.

No, it was a light year this year.

the XTS and SRX have vestigial ones.

The latest tweetdeck is bunk. You have to go to get version 0.38.2 that runs on Adobe air. I've never used Hootsuite.

Why such a slow rollout? The diesel will greatly out perform the EPA highway rating though, especially after break in period is over.

Have you driven it yet?

Well simply put, their own test results do not match what everyone else in the real world seems to be getting. I can make a Cruze Eco get 16mpg too, but I can also make it get 51mpg.

Without describing how they did their testing I'm forced back to my old mantra of "prove it CR". I don't trust any report that comes from them any more because they have too much of an agenda.

Actually, the reverse is true... When pushed (WOT) the efficiency of any engine delivering the same horsepower output is roughly the same. It takes X amount of fuel to be burned in Y amount of air to produce Z amount of power. It is when the engine is operating at low loads that differences are at their greatest. When cruising down the freeway at a steady 65 mph the engine only needs to produce 30~40 hp. The throttle plate is used to intentionally choke the engine such that no matter how well it breathes when unleashes it is always operating and a very low aspirational efficiency at cruise. Basically, the motor is sucking vacuum -- air at lower psi than atmospheric pressure. A smaller engine has the benefit of operating at a higher load and larger throttle opening than a bigger engine. A 1.0 engine capable of 70 hp may be operating with the throttle half open whereas a 6.0 liter engine may only be operating with a throttle that is 5~6% open. This has a direct effect on effective compression ratio because a nearly closed throttle makes the engine suck a higher degree of vacuum which means less molecues per unit piston displacement and less effective compression. This is the primary benefit of a small displacement engine and the primary benefit of say cylinder deactivation -- to allow the engine to operate with less vacuum. Compression is essential to good combustion efficiency and energy extraction from fuel. All less being equal, a 1.0 liter engine will be more efficient than a 2.0 liter predominantly because of this. The problem is that all else being equal a 1.0 liter engine also produces about half as much maximum power as a 2.0 liter. If you can accept this that's all well and good. And the 1.0 liter engine will be more efficient. However, if the objective is to produce the same approximate performance and power. Say 150 hp. A 1.0 liter engine is not going to give you that unless you do one of two things... you can rev the crap out of it or you can turbocharged the hell out of it. Now here it becomes interesting... High RPM 75 lb-ft @ 10,500 rpm = 150 hp You'll still be driving around with 75 lb-ft and probably peaking rather high in the rev range To make the car tractable you need to lower your gearing Lowering gearing directly impacts fuel economy negatively Turbocharge it 1.0 liter w/ 22~25 psi of boost = 150 hp 22~25 psi of boost requires ~8:1 compression At cruise, when boost is off, you are now running the engine at about 3~3.5 points lower compression This negatively impacts fuel economy At the end of the day, the market is littered with examples of engine which adopted either approach but fail to match or exceed the fuel economy ratings of larger displacement engines of comparable output. BMW M3's 4.0 V8 vs GM's 6.2 liter V8 is one example of high revving, small displacement engine grossly under performing a larger displacement engine with low specific output. The Cruze's 1.4T vs Focus's 20 or Civic's 1.8 is an example of high consumption and costs from a lower displacement engine relying on turbocharging compared to larger engines of the same power class. At the end of the day the market is 180 degrees in opposition to you as there is more to it than just numbers. Again you bring up the 4.0 BMW but you also have to use the understanding they need the 4.0 Liters in many markets to beat the tax issues. Contrary to how you make it there is much more to this game than just engineering numbers. The fact is GM and most other companies can not and will not sell a large displacement engine in many markets. While we may enjoy it here GM has to play the game globally with many of the smaller engines and to do so they will have to do it with smaller engines with power adders. If you care about displacement taxes, 4.0 is too big anyway. In anycase, it didn't matter to Mercedes with its 5.5 then 6.3 power plants of the same period. In Europe, where displacement taxes are prevalent, if you care about these things you won't be in the market for an M3 or a C63. And, no, manufacturers are not all going the small and forcefed route. Only the misguided ones do that and then if they are smart quickly reverse course. Misguided - GM, Ford, Chrysler, BMW, Mercedes, Kia, Hyundai, Audi, VW, Volvo, Porsche Not Misguided - Honda, Toyota, Jaguar/Land Rover Not sure which way they're going - Nissan has any of the misguided ones reversed course? Not that I've seen.

I'll tell you this... the XTS is a large FWD based sedan which means none of you will give it a chance.... but it is waaay more nimble than a big Cadillac sedan has any business being. In AWD form, it can send something like 70% of the torque to the limited slip differential in the rear.... and I have proof of it. ;-)

the XTS is not at all a float ride... not even close. the 300C, S-Class and E-Class are all more floaty than the XTS is. Please don't pre-judge the car if you haven't driven it. At our local Cadillac appreciation party where they had multiple ATS, etc for us to check out ( I posted the photo's in another thread) but I only drove the FWD with my dad and while he loved the car, I still felt it was a bit of a float ride. It could be due to me driving all SUV's and my Trailblazer SS that just rides like being on rails. But to me I thought it was better than old Devill's but still was a float ride in my opinion. It is on the firmer side of the middle of the class I think. It's not a sports car but it's not my '81 Oldsmobile either. But my point is, if the E-class has an acceptable level of firmness, than the XTS should be even better as it is a firmer ride. I've driven E-class, S-class, XTS, and 300c all back to back and the XTS is the firmest of the group (Not firmer than 300C SRT-8 though)

the XTS is not at all a float ride... not even close. the 300C, S-Class and E-Class are all more floaty than the XTS is. Please don't pre-judge the car if you haven't driven it.

After driving an XTS for almost a week, I'd say it will still be a sad day when that car goes away.... and I have a surprise for you folks who think that the AWD version can't run with the big boys. That doesn't mean that Cadillac shouldn't do an S-Class competitor, but there is no reason for the XTS to not also exist.

Actually there's sound logic in merging the Equinox and the Trax in the future. Different size niches, though. Other makers have a range of CUVs from subcompact to compact to midsize to fullsize, so there is room for a Chevy compact and a midsize, or a subcompact, compact and midsize.. A small Chevy CUV to compete w/ the RaV4, CR-V, Juke, etc has been needed for sometime, the Equinox slots in more w/ the Edge, Highlander, Pilot, Murano, etc. The current Equinox is a "tweener" by being only 2 row but being nearly as big as some 3-row CUVs. Chevy considers the Traverse to be the competitor to the Pilot and Highlander, not the Equinox. There is less than a $600 swing in base price between the Highlander, Pilot, Murano, Traverse, and Explorer. The Equinox at $24k base is priced exactly against the RAV-4 and CR-V, but is 7" - 10" larger in each external dimension and 300lb to 400lb heavier. Down is the direction I expect the Equinox to go in size. I'm not arguing against a small Chevy SUV, I'm just explaining why we won't see a Trax here with a base price of $22k when the Buick is only $2K more.

The 1.6T will have a higher cost compared to the 2.5. Displacement generally doesn't cost anything. A turbocharger, Intercooler, Bypass valve, duct work and the other associated hardware adds about $1000 to the cost of the vehicle. The 1.6T may not deliver better fuel economy in the end. The reason being that while a 1.6T has lower aspirational losses, it as inferior thermal efficiencies at cruise due to the reduced compression ratio. At a 200 hp target, the 1.6T will be running about 9:1 compression whereas a 2.5 will be running 11.3:1. At 160 hp you can run a 1.6T at about 10.5:1 compression, but you can also run a 2.5 liter with an Atkinson Cam which gives an longer power stroke than compression stroke and exemplary energy extraction from each drop of fuel (Most Hybrids uses an Atkinson cammed ICE). I am not convinced that 1.6T will generate better fuel economy numbers. After all the GM 1.4T did not generate better fuel economy numbers than the 2.0 Ford engine. Basically it comes down to this... 1.6T @ 200 hp vs 2.5 NA @ 200 hp 1.6T @ 160 hp vs 2.5 Atkinson @ 160 hp The 2.5T has lower costs and less maintenance worries down the road. For ANY given hp target, Naturally Aspirated, Atkinson cammed, engines have better fuel economy numbers than small displacement turbocharged engines of the same output. The 1.4T in the Cruze has better fuel economy than the 2.0 in the Focus and the 1.4T doesn't even have direct injection yet.

Good lord! $37k?! Would you buy one of these over a Terrain Denali or even a nicely equipped Traverse or Acadia? Heck, $37k gets you in the 2WD door at Benz, BMW, Cadillac, Audi, Land Rover, all of the Japanese Lux brands, and nicely equipped Hemi AWD models from Jeep and Dodge. Unless Kia was severely discounting these things, I would look just about everywhere else.

I'd watch a Dodge Charger SRT-8 v. Ford Taurus SHO v. Chevy... uh... well... we'll just move on..

replacement for the Neon SRT?

I guess I just don't understand why no turbo then... the recent turbos, from pretty much everyone, have turned out to be excellent machines.

Not really, at least not yet... They are moving about 500~800 a month and a tad under 7000 per year (2012). That is about on par with how many Camaros GM moves in the worst month in 2012. This is a sports coupe so demand tends to fall off after the first two years. The bright side is that they set a pretty modest target of 6000 cars so they are not saddling themselves with over capacity. Already Subaru is giving $400~600 in incentives to move their (more expensive) BRZ against the FRS -- not an auspicious thing for a 1st year coupe. The thing I don't get is that the market for sports coupes is modest enough as it is. Why they want to split the pie -- and the marketing -- between Fuji and Toyota is baffling. This should have been just a Subaru or just a Toyota. I would have preferred that it be a Toyota using a hypothetical "1AR-GE" engine. Basically the same 2.7 liter 1AR-FE Inline-4 in the RAV4, but with hotter cams and drinking premium to deliver about 220hp / 200 lb-ft. For a higher performance version, forget laggy turbos and simply the use a roots compressor on the 1AR engine. A "1AR-GZE" will be good for about 270 hp / 270 lb-ft with zero lag. The latter would be interesting. I think the only way to make the car work as-is is with a flat-four engine. They're worried about deck height restrictions now with adding a turbo, so I don't think any inline four will work standing up.