7 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Because Cadillac completely botched their naming system, AGAIN. 

Don't throw a "V" on something with a diesel-like power band(exaggeration). This is a stellar base engine that could be tuned down 'because hierarchy" but V still means sport, just like the V-Sport of old. 

Oh I agree there. Cadillac naming is a complete shit show and has been for years.

"Catera Touring Sedan"

"Deville Touring Sedan"

"Seville Touring Sedan"

The dawning of the age of forgettable Cadillacs.

2 hours ago, David said:

Even though I am not a turbo fan, I can easily see Cadillac using this Torque motor with a proper dual scroll Turbo and higher compression to give it the top end to go with the bottom end so it scoots off the line and still runs out.

I have not test drove this, but the engineering makes sense of using this motor in this manner. Have you test drove it yet?

I have not but it runs like an EcoBoost with a twin scroll, very quick spool up and runs out of steam up top because it’s made for a thick, beefy torque curve. 

2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Oh I agree there. Cadillac naming is a complete $h! show and has been for years.

Personally, I was okay with the ATS, CTS, XTS and I’m fine with the CT#, I just don’t like how close they changed them(then again the CTS has been around for quite awhile). I hate the trunk number system even more until they have a full EV where it makes sense. 

10 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I have not but it runs like an EcoBoost with a twin scroll, very quick spool up and runs out of steam up top because it’s made for a thick, beefy torque curve. 

So then we DO NOT know if it really runs out of steam up top since neither you or I have actually driven one nor anyone else we know. So just an assumption. Got it.

2 minutes ago, David said:

So then we DO NOT know if it really runs out of steam up top since neither you or I have actually driven one nor anyone else we know. So just an assumption. Got it.

Jesus, read a few reviews.. look at trap speeds. 

18 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Jesus, read a few reviews.. look at trap speeds. 

As we have all discussed, reviewers are like flowers everywhere. Personal opinion, so take it with a grain of salt.

27 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

 

Personally, I was okay with the ATS, CTS, XTS and I’m fine with the CT#, I just don’t like how close they changed them(then again the CTS has been around for quite awhile). I hate the trunk number system even more until they have a full EV where it makes sense. 

The naming system and the 400, 500, 600 numbers is all a disaster.  For example the Escalade gas and diesel engines have the same torque so they'd have the same number.  Also changing naming schemes and throwing model names away every 10 years is not a good idea.  That is why stuff like Camry and Corolla sell, those names have been around forever and people are familiar with them.  I would guess 60% of the buying public doesn't even know what an XT6 is.

They should also go back to word names.  If word names are a bad idea then the Escalade name should be dropped immediately and the product changed to XT7.  Also no other GM brand does an alpha-numeric naming scheme.

But you don’t like it when Cadillac does/uses things other GM brands do; you’ve said so a 1000 times.

15 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

I would guess 60% of the buying public doesn't even know what an XT6 is.

Prolly closer to 95%

• I had no problem with the 3-letter system- that started in the what- mid '90s? It's going on 30 yrs old at this point, and was consistent; it's not like Cadillac suddenly took the 'S' and stuck it at the beginning...
• Where I start to diverge is the apparent sidelining towards the German-esque 'dumbed down' naming scheme, where ascending numbers/letters have to align with the competition. About where the 'ATS' came in; the name by itself is fine, I don't like that consumers are presumably so stupid that anything outside the 'A' / '1' / 'A2' gets them all weepy.
• Also did not agree with the change from '-V Sport / -V' to '-V / '-V Blackwing'. First variant was excellent.
• The newton-meters thing doesn't bother me since none of the other players are literal with their displacement call-outs; all mechanical-related numbers (displacement) are made-up. Plus, I give Cadillac a pinch of credit for going where the industry is (supposedly) heading before any of the others do.

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

But you don’t like it when Cadillac does/uses things other GM brands do; you’ve said so a 1000 times.

I don't like when Cadillac uses Chevrolet switchgear or sells a $60k XT6 with basically the same V6 a GMC Acadia had 10 years ago.  And same goes for Lincoln or Acura that use Ford/Honda interior parts or an Accord V6 in a $55k MDX.  

Or Audi putting a VW 2.0L engine in an A5?

31 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Or Audi putting a VW 2.0L engine in an A5?

Now now Balth. It’s only wrong when Cadillac does it. 

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

I don't like when Cadillac uses Chevrolet switchgear or sells a $60k XT6 with basically the same V6 a GMC Acadia had 10 years ago.  And same goes for Lincoln or Acura that use Ford/Honda interior parts or an Accord V6 in a $55k MDX.  

How do you justify the crappy small engines Daimler puts in Sprinters and their cars? 

25 minutes ago, David said:

How do you justify the crappy small engines Daimler puts in Sprinters and their cars? 

Skip that. How about the crappy base four bangers they’ve used in their cars over the years? Point being it doesn’t matter the source of the engine. A bad engine is a bad engine. 

Edited February 19, 20214 yr by surreal1272

12 hours ago, David said:

As we have all discussed, reviewers are like flowers everywhere. Personal opinion, so take it with a grain of salt.

And if I said it was my opinion after driving the vehicle, you'd still say the same thing. "personal opinion, so take it with a grain of salt."

12 hours ago, smk4565 said:

I would guess 60% of the buying public doesn't even know what an XT6 is

I'd hope even more don't know. They already know what a Traverse, Enclave, and Acadia are. 

19 hours ago, David said:

How do you justify the crappy small engines Daimler puts in Sprinters and their cars? 

But a 2020 E-class doesn’t have an engine from a 2010 C-class.  The oldest Mercedes engine right now is the 4.7 turbo V8 in the SL550 which it is in its final year.  The next oldest is the 2.0 four that is from 2015 model year and they also just revised it for 2020 model year.  The mild hybrid I6 in most Mercedes is from 2019 and the 4.0 V8 2016 and that also just got a redo and mild hybrid added.

13 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

But a 2020 E-class doesn’t have an engine from a 2010 C-class.  The oldest Mercedes engine right now is the 4.7 turbo V8 in the SL550 which it is in its final year.  The next oldest is the 2.0 four that is from 2015 model year and they also just revised it for 2020 model year.  The mild hybrid I6 in most Mercedes is from 2019 and the 4.0 V8 2016 and that also just got a redo and mild hybrid added.

Right and you just skip right over the history of where all those engines started from in the past history of MB!

Got it, everything is new always as they create everything before everyone else.

MB, The ultimate GM of Europe! ?