cp-the-nerd

That interior!! Wow! I love the minimalist clean-yet-rich appearance. That's the real homerun. The LGX V6 is clearly electronically limited for transverse applications, just as the LFX was. It's a bit disappointing they've pulled it all the way back to 310 hp and 270 lb-ft despite all the technology in this car's drivetrain.

High five for buying a pre-refresh Lacrosse. I think they're gorgeous, the best looking production buick in 50 years (sorry grand national). This is a 3.6L V6 model, correct? In the future, if you or your wife have any complaints about the powertrain (shifting or power response), give me a shout. A few tweaks to the tune can make a world of difference over factory. Really transformed my Malibu V6.

I would hope it's grander, Buick doesn't sell a car anywhere near that price point. Cadillac is another story.

Will the Genesis coupe remain a hyundai? It's not really luxurious like the RWD sedans are.

That might be the most strangely amazing thing I've seen in years.

Makes sense to me. People don't just flock to Hyundai for RWD luxury, so they get to the dealership lot and see two midsize cars and two full size cars with no obvious differentiation. It's gotta be an awkward situation from a sales perspective.

P.S. Your HHR SS weighs 3300 lbs from factory. My whole point revolves around WEIGHT vs displacement, and you're insisting on comparing your modded HHR to my experience with a 3700 lb Malibu Turbo as if that's apples to apples, yet this whole conversation is really about putting the 2.0T in a 4000+ lb truck! I'm not saying the 2.0T is bad or under-performing, which is the impression I'm getting from your responses.

Every actual Ford application of the 2.0T in large cars/crossovers disagrees with your assertion that the 2.0T would make a good option in the Colorado. I wasn't saying turbos lack bottom end, I was pointing out that it requires full boost to make it. There is some degree of lag when you're stopped and put your foot on the gas, it's just way more obvious with 4000 lbs of car to move.

Now you're justifying the 2.0T sport truck with mods. Stock for stock, a 2.0T RWD ATS is slower than the 3.6L RWD ATS, and all the reviewers I recall preferred the V6 other than the fact that Cadillac wont sell it with the manual transmission. If they build a Colorado/Canyon sport truck, it should be a Syclone successor with the 3.6TT.

Yes, that is what brought on my initial debate.

If we're talking about replacing the low cost N/A 2.5L with the 2.0T, I'm not seeing the financial case for GM because it wouldn't cost less to build than the V6. But I do think that driving feel and responsiveness maneuvering at low speeds would favor the 2.5L with its extra displacement. Obviously acceleration times and passing power would favor the 2.0T.

Acceleration times aren't everything. The 2.5L is the absolute lightest the truck can get and it has 25% more displacement for moving the truck from a stop. That's a whole different scenario for a 2.0L turbo. That truck will weigh 100-200 lbs heavier and every time the turbo has to spool to catch up to your foot, you get a sag in power, basically an engine with 150 lb-ft of torque trying to move a two ton truck. Then the surge of turbo relief kicks in, it's just not ideal for heavy vehicles. The F150 2.7L ecoboost has two things in its favor: 35% more displacement and 2 more cylinders. You're looking at over 200 lb-ft of smooth torque even when the turbos are doing nothing. A turbo engine says "peak torque from 2000 rpm to 5000" or whatever, but in the real world, you have to brake-torque from a stop to get anywhere near that on takeoff. The difference between my Malibu 3.6L V6 and the new Malibu, Fusion, and Optima 2.0T is immediate responsiveness and effortless power during the times when a turbo lags. If it's noticeable in 3500-3600 lb sedans, it's total crap in a two ton truck. Not true I just happen to own a LNF 2.0 Turbo and a Malibu 3.6 and the 2.0 will our run the 3.6 in all aspects and no brake torque needed. In fact the major fault in the 2.0 is it can be difficult to hook the tires up as they want to spin from the get go. I have even set off the traction control at over 50 MPH to the point the wastegate pops and the traction control light comes on and the DIC has the Traction Loss message. So cut the lag BS as the new engines run 9.5 to one compression and with the duel scrolling the turbo is pretty much lag free as can be. To be honest the transmission kick down lags more than the engine in the BU vs my LNF. Note I do have the GM upgrade tune but the other turbo engines while lower on power are still as responsive and lag free. I wish more people would drive a modern turbo and stop thinking about the old Sunbird and GN lag. The engine in that truck would not add that much weight, the real issue is cost if you want a real negative. Also traction could be an issue with such low torque. But the low end torque per the GM engineer is why I get better MPG with the GM tune that added 55 HP. He said the car gets up to speed faster and by letting off the gas [the DI engine cuts fuel when coasting] it adds 1-2 MPG even with the added power and Torque. It was a surprise to them too but he confirmed I did not make a mistake in my MPG. Please anyone who has not spent time with the new Turbo engines learn them as they will be the norm in most vehicles. I used to hate them with a passion for the lag and lack of durability but today I love the new engines as the better materials and designs. The better oils and tuning, the better DI systems/electronic systems that love a Turbo are all making these engines what they can be today. It is sad but my FWD 2.0 will run as fast as any of my old muscle cars from the past in stock form even if they are on radials and my FWD lack of traction due to weight transfer. Just wait for the times on the new Turbo Camaro and you will be shocked what a small engine can achieve. With some minor tuning it will out run the V6 easily and it is no slouch. I'm not just making sh*t up. I've driven the 259 hp/295 lb-ft 2014 Malibu 2.0T, the Malibu 2.5L, Fusion SEL 2.0EB, Fusion S 2.5L, and Optima 2.0T. You can't tell me my first hand experience isn't true or that the Malibu 2.0T (which is a different engine than the LNF) is faster or better driving than my 3.6L V6. But frankly, we're getting off topic because you laser focused on the wrong part of my post and took it out of context. The midsize cars were just an example that illustrated the advantage of N/A power in general. I'm not calling for the death of the turbo. They can be fast, fun, and efficient. I'm saying don't saddle a tiny engine with an overweight vehicle and expect turbos to flawlessly replace displacement. Every review of a 2.0T in a heavy vehicle reflects my experiences magnified several times over. The Ford Edge, Explorer, and Taurus 2.0L Ecoboost are slower and poorer driving than the 3.5L Duratec (which has less torque). Hyundai/Kia's large crossovers with the 2.0T are total dogs, just begging for their 3.3L DI V6, again with a lower torque rating. I'm pretty positive a 2.0T Colorado would be underwhelming despite its torque advantage on paper.

Acceleration times aren't everything. The 2.5L is the absolute lightest the truck can get and it has 25% more displacement for moving the truck from a stop. That's a whole different scenario for a 2.0L turbo. That truck will weigh 100-200 lbs heavier and every time the turbo has to spool to catch up to your foot, you get a sag in power, basically an engine with 150 lb-ft of torque trying to move a two ton truck. Then the surge of turbo relief kicks in, it's just not ideal for heavy vehicles. The F150 2.7L ecoboost has two things in its favor: 35% more displacement and 2 more cylinders. You're looking at over 200 lb-ft of smooth torque even when the turbos are doing nothing. A turbo engine says "peak torque from 2000 rpm to 5000" or whatever, but in the real world, you have to brake-torque from a stop to get anywhere near that on takeoff. The difference between my Malibu 3.6L V6 and the new Malibu, Fusion, and Optima 2.0T is immediate responsiveness and effortless power during the times when a turbo lags. If it's noticeable in 3500-3600 lb sedans, it's total crap in a two ton truck.

How the hell did they sell almost 25,000 units of the Malibu?! Must have been some sort of fleet firesale before the next gen arrives in full swing. Great month overall.

Come on, guys. No tiny turbo in a 4000+ lb truck. That would drive like crap. Hasn't Ford shown that every time they put their 2.0T in a heavy turd? Taurus, Edge, Explorer. Even the MKC 2.0T is slow. All this truck needs when it's refreshed is the LGX or 4.3L ecotec3 V6 and the 8-speed auto.

Let's be real here: the Equus is LESS than the sum of its parts. The V8 is inefficient, the car is obese, and it falls all over itself in the turns. There is no engineering prowess behind that vehicle. It's a decade-old execution of luxury in a shiny wrapper. The svelte CT6 is playing in a different league of design, dynamics, efficiency, and technology. The non-turbo V6 will give up little to the Tau V8, the 3.0T will crush it. However, I will say I'm not sure why the 2.0T is there. It's a value leader trim that simply defies logic. Besides that, the Equus doesn't deserve mention along side this Cadillac.

The base Camaro SS is track ready. It has trans and differential coolers standard, it has brembo brakes standard, it has a limited slip differential standard. Everything it has shown in tests thus far is entirely ready for track abuse. GM fans don't have to say "wait for the 1LE" because the sub-$40k Camaro SS runs with the $50k GT350, which is WELL beyond reasonable expectation. And to be clear: the GT350 is $50k, not $47k. It has a destination charge and a gas guzzler tax, so the base price is $49,995. The one tested was a $57k track pack. The base Camaro actually stickers for $37,295 w/ destination and Motor Trend's test car had dual mode exhaust for $38k. I wouldn't blame someone for blowing their savings on a GT350. The Voodoo V8 is something special. VERY special. I felt the same about the LS7. If we're talking cold hard facts, GM waaayy over delivered, and Ford played it safe. I was hoping for more of a roadrunner V8 standard and careful attention to weight. Really, the Mustang only looks weak in the context of the Camaro.

If anyone uses the price config for the CTS on Cadillac's website, the new N/A V6 pricing is a huge mess. Starts at $55k for base, mid-level is nearly $60k, and tacking on the new "V-Sport" track package makes it cost more than the ACTUAL 3.6TT V-Sport. What the hell. I don't get how the CTS fits in with the CT6 pricing. If they're going aggressive with the CT6, they should have brought down the CTS volume-selling V6.

Mustang GT350 Track Pack ($57k) 0-60: 4.1 sec Lat G: 1.00g Figure 8: 24.2 @ .82g avg *** Camaro SS 6M ($38k as tested by MT) 0-60: 4.0 sec Lat G: 1.00g Figure 8: 24.1 @ .85g avg Try and tell me these cars aren't right on top of each other performance-wise. Without the track pack (lowers price to $50k), the GT350 presumably falls behind (no magnetic ride, unique shocks, strut tower brace, or track cooling). I called it. I looked at the equipment in the press releases and I didn't see the base GT350 beating the base Camaro SS without the track pack and they're dead even WITH Ford's track pack.

I see a lot of weird math trying to figure out the CT6 2.0T performance. Well why do math when Car & Driver already tested a 2016 CTS 2.0T/8A AWD and ran a 5.8 sec 0-60 with a 14.5 1/4 mile. Weighed 3900 lbs. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-cadillac-cts-test-review

I really like the exterior design of the TLX. I think it captures the understated edge and handsomeness of the most beloved generation of TL. With that said, I think this car falls short in a number of other areas. First and foremost is the interior. I do not like Acura interiors at any price point. The design is drab and mundane, the twin screen concept is a failure in execution, and the push button transmission answers a question nobody asked with the most clumsy solution in the auto industry. Second is in powertrains. There's nothing special here. The 4-cylinder is available in the Civic and Accord, the V6 fails to truly measure up to the 3.7L it replaces. Why no earthdreams 3.7L? That would have been a great powerplant for Acura. Cementing the lackluster appeal of the 3.5L V6 is the confused 9-speed with no manual transmission alternative. Where is the incentive to buy this over a loaded mainstream sedan? Even worse, at $45k, higher luxury alternatives are numerous. Even a Lincoln MKZ V6 becomes a strong contender.

"It is far better than CTS in every way, which makes me wonder how they will sell the S alongside the 6, unless the 6 price is at a price point far higher." The CTS is a midsize car, the CT6 is a fullsize. It's basically taking over for the XTS, which was a stop gap fullsize and will be phased out or relegated to fleet. Write up is appreciated. I'm personally not sold on the CT6 exterior design--it seems too safe compared to such gorgeous show cars like the El Miraj--but I quite like the interior, and I look forward to the new CUE layout finding its way into the refreshed ATS and CTS (or whatever their new CT_ names will be). The pricing will not be like the ELR, which is in a whole different segment, audience, and target volume. The CT6 will start in the $50-55k range.

It could be kinda cool if you did brakes, suspension, LS swap, and 6-speed manual. Cars were real garbage back then, so it would be a big undertaking.

New Death Cab for Cutie album. First 4 songs are some of the best music they've ever written, all it took was Zoey Daschanel dumping the lead singer. Womp.

Gonna restore the whole thing?