ZL-1

That's most likely what is implied in the article. My impressions after reading their writeup were: 1. There was a lot of back-and-forth changes/redefinitions regarding Alpha. 2. Cadillac signing on the architecture later in the development stages instead of at the very beginning meant some compromising had to happen, leading to point nr 1. 3. Listening to how these compromises had to be made, knowing that GM is taking a good look at the 3-Series (actually disassembling them - though I believe this is common industry practise), and having an outsider's view of GM's product development culture, it gts a bit scary. Still, I hope the ATS to be a very competent car, much like the CTS already is.

100% agreed. It would be a fairly simple way of making the Cadillac powerplant unique, as that idea of uniqueness is a driver of the sales price premium a brand such as Cadillac should command.

No, but it depends of where one is aiming. For example, my personal opinion is that the SRX should be on Alpha or Sigma. A unibody Escalade could be based on Lambda as a larger crossover is more about being imponent and ostentatious than about offering sports-car-like dynamics.

Yeah everybody benchmarks against something. But if what is reported on "the other GM fan website" about the Alpha program development is true, then I really don't know what to expect when the cars come out.

Let's hope this means very stable long-term financing so that production can resume and attention can be directed towards what matters: product development and the rebuilding of a good Marketing & Sales function.

Ah, OK; I thought the 3.0L was a version of the pre-LFX 3.6L.

silent

I believe there was some talk of a Gamma-based crossover for Opel.

Delta? Hmmm... Interesting... Isn't the NG Opel Antara supposed to move to Delta?

So could a 3.0L version of this be in the works? As both an entry-level V6 and the basis for turbocharged variants of this same engine family?

The return of the 2-door Regal.

:metal: :metal: :metal: :metal:

Thanks for the link! By fetching a mpg-to-litres online converter I got between 6.92L/100KM and 8.71L/100KM. Also, you mention in the article you linked that you were getting 23mpg in 100% city driving, which translates to 10.23L/100KM. I was doing the math at around 10.5L/100KM combined (around 22.4 US mpg), which is IIRC some 50% higher than the official figures as reported by Opel. Guess I was quite a bit on the pessimistic side...

From what I read (since I was considering an Astra with the same 1.4T-AT6 drivetrain) apprently the transmission is a little slow to downshift in order to put the engine in the boost-building RPM range, so it seems that there is some hesitation or that the car is thinking of what to do next before it gets some punch. But I've also read that once in boost the engine is quite livable with. I have a question: IIRC it was GM itself that stated when the engine was lauched that it is a 1.4L that delivers 1.8L-like power/performace returning the fuel economy of a 1.6L. What was your fuel economy and what kind of driving did you do: more stop-start traffic, more open road, level or with uphill/downhill stretches?

Black.

hole

Black Rolls Royce Phantom... Large is the proper word to describe it.

Removing the one-time items they did better (2.0 billion versus 1.7 billion) on the operating side, i.e. before interest and tax, than in Q1 2010. GM did lose money looking at cash from operations, which was negative, but it was due to the termination of in-transit financing agreements (does this mean that dealers now have to finance in-transit inventory?) which represented a USD 2.5 billion outflow (a one-time item). GM seems to at least (and at last!) have achieved some stability; even GME was essentially at breakeven; I'd say Q1 2011 was a good quarter.

Waterfall grille yes, as long as it's done in a way that fits the sleek upper grille opening of the GTC: no Verano/Enclave/Regal big grille, IMHO. And while we're at it why not make it black chrome to give the car a bit of added distinction?

I think GM and Cadillac themselves created that perception. I agree that profit and image, not volume should be Cadillac's drivers as a brand. I'd rather have seen a new product cycle of the SRX based on Sigma (and then eventually migrated to Alpha).

I read somewhere that BMW might go back to a soft top on the 3-series. Weight savings is the main reason, but I think that another reason is that "something" that a soft top convertible has that a retractable hardtop cannot duplicate.

I think it is for a different reason: GM has stated so many times that Cadillac is supposed to be going after MB and BMW, that people have expected the brand not to go after the Lexus RX instead of the X3 and X5... IMHO, that's what the complaints are about. Cadillac does deserve the credit of SRX sales voume being very interesting.

You are 100% wrong. Nobody gives a sh!t about seeing a 3 pointed star on a Sprinter when they go and buy a loaded E-Class or S-Class.

I'd like to see a 3-door Sonic/Aveo too. What I find interesting in the NA powertrain lineup is that the 1.4T is paired exclusively with a manual.

Yeah, agreed. And it would be slightly out-of-the-box with regards to Buick's image. A bit like the Regal was with the German engineering thing, offering only 4 cylinder engines. That was not exactly Buick's traditional type of offering. Why not drop the "let's be original for originality's sake" and just slap a Buick badge without any other changes. Call it the Verano GTC and offer the damn thing in NA