cp-the-nerd

Unless this is a supercharger kit for all 5.3L GM trucks, I really don't understand this sport truck. The LT1 is way too close to this in output, last year's unveiling of the Tahoe sport with 6.2L/10A made way more sense. If you put a full intake and exhaust on an otherwise stock Silverado 6.2L, you'd be making 455 horsepower right there.

You posted the September sales sheet.

Well you're wrong, but don't let that stop you. Turbo performance varies significantly with temperature fluxuation and heatsoak no matter what the mfr does in the tune. Using premium 3 months of the year to mitigate losses to fuel economy and power, not to mention possible pre-ignition in worst conditions, is worth the minor added cost. I'd prefer the thread wasn't derailed any further over something so irrelevant, so make another thread if you want to argue premium benefits in turbo engines.

It's not just how it's programmed. Turbocharging is all about temperature management, and there's tons of real-world evidence that in high temps, regular recommendations go right out the window. You guys put way too much stock in minimum recommended octane. It's literally a selling point to say your economy car recommends regular. Doesn't mean premium makes no difference.

Basically all turbocharged engines benefit from using premium. In the case of my wife's Cruze, we use premium in the summer and switch to regular the rest of the year when temp isn't a factor. We knew it was hot and humid in the south so we filled with premium for the week.

2017 Cruze Hatchback Premier (1.4T/6A) Odo - 8051 mi We just took the Cruze on a 1,000 mile road trip (from Baltimore to Myrtle Beach and back) and this was my first extended, in-depth experience driving and living with the car for a week. I'll break down the review into sections if you want to skip around. Fuel Economy (EPA rated 28 city/37 highway): *Premium gas/mobil 1 oil used. Manual recommends regular gas, dexos approved synthetic oil. On our trip, we achieved 39.3 mpg leaving Baltimore and 41.0 mpg coming back, based on the gauge cluster. My wife reports that it's fairly accurate, if optimistic by an mpg. Hand calculation is pretty much out the window because we have to hit 3 different gas stations with wildly different pump shut-offs and then we burn half a tank around town for the week. Sorry, I'm just not that invested when I know we can trust the gauge cluster. We did not hypermile whatsoever, just used cruise control as much as possible. We passed slow traffic and drove aggressively when the situation called for it. No sitting behind slow traffic or drafting large trucks to fluff the numbers. We drove 7-10 over the speed limit, with most of the journey being 65 and 70 mph zones. - From what I can tell, 75 mph seems to be the 40 mpg cutoff. - 60 to 70 mph is the sweet spot for crushing the EPA highway rating. - The gauge cluster's "Best 50 mile average mpg" indicated we set a new high score of 49 mpg. Engine/Transmission 1.4T DI VVT is rated 153 hp/177 tq C&D test numbers for the premier hatchback auto: 0-60 in 7.7 sec, 1/4 mile in 16 @ 84 mph. In my experience, the direct-injected 1.4T provides more than adequate acceleration and feels peppy. The tires will peel out a bit when floored from a stop, and the engine offers strong torque for low-stress highway merging or passing even with 2 people and probably 150 lbs of luggage. I also drove with 4 adult occupants and acceleration remained adequate around town without revving hard. At full throttle, the engine starts getting out of breath above 5500 rpm. The transmission is more eco-tuned than I'd like, but the logic is a far cry from the mess of GM's first 6-speeds. Downshifting to accelerate takes a bit of prodding, but the downshift is drama free with a progressive surge of turbo torque that follows. After 6 hours on the road, we hit stop and go traffic briefly and under 25 mph the transmission tripped over itself a few times noticeably enough for my wife to point it out. Can't really be replicated on demand. Steering/Handling The electric power system in the Cruze has good heft to it, and the predictable turn-in seems to mask the electric numbness. It's easy to drive, which is a comment I found myself coming back to frequently in my thoughts behind the wheel. It's not sporty, but it nails easy driving and commuting. The tires are all-season performance firestone firehawk GTs in 225/45R17 size. They handle securely, but make a lot of road noise in an otherwise quiet car. Michelins or Continentals will make a world of difference. Brakes One of the weak points of the car is the brake pedal. It sits an inch further forward than the gas pedal, which is very awkward in use. There's also too much play between gentle slowing and heavy braking. It feels like you're pushing through the floor to stop quickly. Mechanically, the car has 4-wheel disk brakes, and they stop the car with authority. Pedal placement and feel is really the problem. Conclusion My wife and I really like the car. I keep coming back to the "easy to drive" sentiment, fun wasn't the goal here and I already have a car for that. It's very happy commuting and eating up highway miles at 40 mpg. I was comfortable in the seats for 8 hours of driving, which is very rare. The acceleration power straddles base versus optional engines of other cars like the Civic and Mazda 3 without sacrifice to maximum fuel economy, which is a good balance that hasn't left us wanting. With a set of good tires and perhaps a tune in the far future, this car will be hanging around well beyond the last payment.

The way I read the press release, Cadillac says it's merging the ATS and CTS by creating a tweener in size and presumably price. The document went on to say a car smaller/less expensive than the ATS is in the product plan: a 1-Series/A3/CLA competitor. I think the logic behind the wording is dubious, for sure, but the new smallest Cadillac (if it makes it out of the planning phase at all) is likely to be a significant departure from the ATS, whereas the CT5 will be meant to cover the current market of the ATS and CTS. Not being argumentative, just discussing.

The Toyota/Lexus 2.0T is a solid generation behind the industry. Maybe this is good because it distracts from the fact that their 3.5L V6 lags not just 3.0T engines in the industry, but also other N/A V6 performance cars. I'm legitimately confused by Lexus's product plan top to bottom, from design to engineering.

The ATS wont live that long. The CTS/ATS replacement will likely be a 2019 model year, and it's almost guaranteed to be a 2.0T/3.0T powertrain, with a new hi-po V8 topping the range.

ATS 2.0T 8A 0-60: 5.7 sec 1/4 mi: 14.2 @ 98 mph http://www.motortrend.com/cars/cadillac/ats/2017/2017-cadillac-ats-20t-first-test-review/ ATS 2.0T 6M 0-60: 5.7 sec 1/4 mi: 14.1 @ 101 mph http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-cadillac-ats-coupe-20t-manual-test-review I could only find one test of the ATS V6/8A RWD. It was by C&D and it was slower than their test of the old V6/6A, which is clearly an aberration. Tests of the alpha Camaro V6 8A and 6M are both running high 13s and trapping 102-103 mph.

I like the styling, Genesis is developing a decent design language for itself. It highlights the RWD proportions well. I knew this was loosely related to the Stinger, but when I looked at the interiors back to back, you can actually see that it shares all the hard points, ventilation, stereo speakers, infotainment screen, and appears to have some possible carryover switchgear. They generally did a good job differentiating the interior design to hide this fact, but it's underwhelming to see direct sharing between a Kia and the first ground-up Genesis model. With all that said, I look forward to seeing this car in action.

Shortcomings: it's well over two tons and doesn't have chassis tech to hide it, it only has 6 forward gears, and doesn't have the engineering to put turbo V6 power down without some torque steer despite the AWD. Basically the same shortcomings as a 5-year-old XTS V-Sport, but one that simply goes a step further in luxury. If you're shopping in the $50-70k range, these things do matter when you test drive competitors and see what bespoke luxury engineering has to offer. You seem to think that Lincoln is the only company with a comfortable luxury barge and that it's not losing anything to accomplish this with a largely mass market FWD/AWD powertrain. There are $30k midsize cars with better transmissions. Again, it's a nice car, the best Lincoln's had to offer in a long time. Don't oversell it with nonsense about "going their own way."

Notice I said inferior FWD-based *transverse* platform. I did not simply say it's FWD-based and inherently inferior, which is how you responded to it. Audi sedans have longitudinally arranged engines and are dynamically superior to anything Lincoln builds. The Continental is no engineering marvel. It's overweight and drives reasonably well in spite of its shortcomings.

That's such a cop out argument. You're implying Lincoln *could have* built a sport sedan Continental but chose not to. No, they went the only direction they had available. It was either build a cushy, flashy Continental with a focus on creature comforts or drop the large luxury segment. And again, you don't get trailblazing credit when you design a very derivative-looking car. I said it was a good product for what it is. I just find it to still be something of a placeholder while we wait years for Lincoln's real comeback cars.

It's a bit disingenuous to lambaste Cadillac for "following the leader" and praise the Lincoln Continental in the same breath. Besides the widely accepted notion that the Continental is one of the most derivative designs in the luxury market, it's a car built entirely within the confines of what the "One Ford" strategy had available. Everyone knows this. It's on an inferior FWD-based transverse platform among longitudinal-engine luxury cars. They can have credit for making a solid product that appears to be greater than the sum of its humble parts, but in no way are they a pioneering brand based on that product.