ZL-1

Actually, according to a SAAB spokeswoman, the plan (her wording) is to pay eventually with some delay. I got people pissed off at me at SU, so I'm not going to comment any further with regard to this, except for the fact that as someone who likes SAAB and sees that GM actually gave SAAB a prety decent lifeline at the time of the sale, this whole situation stinks.

Persoanlly, I'd expect (and prefer) that the ATS to use somethign like the TTiD engine SAAB uses (rated at 180PS or 190PS), not the Cruze's single turbo engine.

watch

school

Cool pics! Thanks for sharing

Yeahj, agreed. And since diesel in the US means not only a price premium but also a higher dollar-per-gallon cost, a diesel Sonic probably won't fly. Having to pay more for the car and for each gallon of fuel can increase the break even miles a lot; here we pay less for diesel so it's easier to balance the initial MSRP disadvantage through lower fuel consumption and lower cost per gallon.

Could be a hint of what to expect in the ATS-V, but if it is to be 3.6L it has to be a heavily reworked block. There's a reason GM turbocharged the 2.8L version and not the 3.2L or the 3.6L versions of the HF V6. EDIT - But since there was a 2.8L installed on a 9-3 and doing 400hp (that car was once photographed at the Trollhättan parking lot), maybe the 3.0L can approach these numbers with ease. I'd want dwight's opinion on that. I'm sure he can tell you that GM went with the 2.8L version before instead of the 3.6L due to cylinder wall thickness, since they were (at least that's how it was explained to me) the same block, essentially with different bores. I am assuming that unless the LFX (is that the name of the new 3.6L?) is strong enough (which it could very well be), GM will go with a smaler displacement version, say something around 3.0L.

Could be a hint of what to expect in the ATS-V, but if it is to be 3.6L it has to be a heavily reworked block. There's a reason GM turbocharged the 2.8L version and not the 3.2L or the 3.6L versions of the HF V6. EDIT - But since there was a 2.8L installed on a 9-3 and doing 400hp (that car was once photographed at the Trollhättan parking lot), maybe the 3.0L can approach these numbers with ease.

IIRC our Aveo will get the 1.3-liter engine in 75PS and 95PS variants. Those would never sell in the US, IMHO and using the 2.0L is doubtful (car probably would become too nose-heavy). But maybe GM could federalize the 130PS 1.7CDTI engine used in the Astra and Corsa for US emissions standards if they saw a market for a diesel Sonic.

It's as the saying goes: sex sells. So a nice body makes the car appealing. EDIT - It's much more important how these good looks translate into the ATS, the NG CTS and the eventual RWD Omega-based flagship. I think that Oldsmoboi is most probably right about the pricing strategy. In general, it's easier to convince people to pay 50K for a Cadillac badge than for a bow-tie: actually, I think the ideal launch strategy for Voltec and for all major tech innovations GM chooses to introduce should be Cadillac --> Buick --> Chevrolet. GM needs to milk the market a bit more on the tech innovation front.

I have to say it looks a little too early 1970's to me... But it is a good hint that the Omega-based Cadillac is coming! Interesting too, that a 3.6L twin turbo V6 is in there. Given that they were using the 2.8L for turbocharged applications (most likely due to cylinder wall thickness - durability), has GM strengthened the 3.6L version of the block enough to allow for twin turbocharging?

gel

coconut

Personally, I would have kept the name Converj. The Escalade is something special (given its following) and this one is too (given its powertrain), so a non-3-letter name would fit perfectly. What I find hilarious is that Cadillac has no issues throwing a 3-letter name into this car, yet the upcoming small sedan is still refered to as "codenamed ATS"

Shown at the Seoul motor show or something like that?...

Ward's auto is wrong; the 2.0 diesel used in our Cruze produces 163PS. I think that translates into more than 147hp SAE. 163PS translates to approx 161HP according to one calculator site. From Autoblog.com Yep, in the online conversion I used, 163PS translates to 161hp DIN which most likely translates to those 160hp SAE. I'm not familiar to how the DIN to SAE conversion is done or even if there is a conversion 'rule'. In any case, that's a nice little engine!

Nice! IMHO the Converj is much better looking than the Volt, and I would expect that the ELR won't change much for production.

topic

Ward's auto is wrong; the 2.0 diesel used in our Cruze produces 163PS. I think that translates into more than 147hp SAE.

I really love the front-end styling of the Sierra when compared to the Yukon's... I think the Yukon should have been given this front-end look

Cliff

Calais

issue