ccap41

"Less than 24 hours after reports began to circulate that the long-rumored Jeep Wrangler–based pickup was seriously being considered for production, Automotive News has seemingly confirmed that the project is a go. The news, which comes tied to the announcement that Wrangler production will remain in Toledo, Ohio, was confirmed to AN by independent sources. According to the outlet, the vehicle is still under development and is slated to debut in either the 2017 or 2018 model year after the next-generation Wrangler. Car and Driver’s inquiries to various Jeep representatives for an official confirmation were met with a “no comment” response. Although FCA isn’t expected to make any additional official announcements or comments until the current round of talks with the UAW conclude, Sergio Marchionne divulged a small part of the plan to AN: “We found a solution that accommodates a variety of other interests to us because of the way in which we can move some product around,” the CEO said. “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist [to know] that the only way I can move around the Wrangler is to move it into the other Toledo plant.” Currently, the Toledo plant is made up of two facilities, one of which produces the body-on-frame Wrangler and one that assembles the unibody Jeep Cherokee. By shifting Cherokee production to another facility (such as the Belvidere, Illinois, plant that makes the Dart), the second Toledo line could then be retooled to assemble body-on-frame vehicles and bring the next-gen Wrangler online without stopping assembly. If a single Wrangler line was forced to retool, that could cause the off-road ute’s scorching-hot sales to cool off ..." http://blog.caranddriver.com/holy-toledo-jeep-wrangler-based-pickup-is-happening/

I wish I could help.. but I'm in Illinois.. What vehicle are you looking at?

..I believe I've received harassing PMs from a select 1 individual as well.. What's the old saying about throwing rocks in a glass house or something like that?

Okay, upon further review.. (I was on my phone last night and remembering lengths of like 6-8 cars and remembering the order I obviously just confused myself) I see it is right in the ballpark of the S Class, A8, 7 Series,XJ in overall body length.

"Arriving at dealerships this fall, the new 3.0-liter turbo-diesel V-6 will command a $1500 premium over the gasoline-powered supercharged V-6 Range Rover Sport. Dubbed Td6, it makes 254 horsepower at 4000 rpm and 440 lb-ft of torque at 1750 rpm. Interestingly, this 60-degree V-6 is a design that dates back to 2004 and the days when Ford owned Land Rover—in fact, Ford still builds the engine for Land Rover even though it doesn’t power any product with a Blue Oval." http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-range-rover-sport-td6-diesel-first-drive-review Why the hell does Ford not use this is something of their own????

^ Wings? A few? Or just Wings? And I didn't know he was an engine designer/engineer.. I knew he was an engineer but I never heard what area he worked in.

^ I would genuinely love to hear a few engineers of both sides discuss this topic.

That is true, I forget that we no longer get the "regular" 7 Series and S Class.

Exactly, 100% how I feel.

We're getting hot and humid again.. We had a crazy last two weeks though. Highs in the high 70's-low 80's with very little humidity. We didn't have our A/C on for almost two weeks, absolutely perfect weather.

My only argument comes back to what we talked about probably a few pages back and it is; which one is making that power on partial throttle, the way we do that 99% of our driving? THAT is what I'm really curious about. Because you're right, "A compact, lightweight, high tech (DI, VVT, Cylinder Shut-off), OHV V6 would serve 99% of consumers better than a DOHC unit of equal peak output." Unless there is a decent difference when it comes to partial throttle imputs. I would imagine with a DOHC setup there is more tuning possibilities and with that you could have less fuel used at crusing speeds(say 2000rpm for an example). I would think if a vehicle is making 90% of it's peak tq at that rpm compared to say 50% that one making 90% would also be using more fuel to do to, right(honestly asking)? So with a DOHC making less low end, usable power it is also using less fuel at the same time. I think that is one reason the EcoBoost motors get a bad rap because it is so easy to use a very large percentage of that available torque because of how early it comes on.

This is what drives me nuts. People assuming. I don't see an issue with keeping anonymous voting because you shouldn't have to "show your face" just to passively disagree with something. Most importantly, why the F do people care that much about it??? So I get a downvote for saying something ignorant, extreme fanboism or just being a dick? Then they/I deserve it. Insead of starting a pissing match..just a simple click of disagreement works. If somebody says something awesome, you agree with, or just funny but don't actually have something to respond to..just a simple click of a "thumbs up" works. To the ones who legitimately care(same people who probably count their FB "likes") and get upset or ruffled by a "downvote": grow a set, learn to post better, or make a legitimate argument as opposed to just an opinion you're trying to pass as a fact.

So what I'm getting from all of this is they built another friggin tweener class???? ~3-5 inches shorter than the big guys and ~3-5inches larger than the cls/a7/6 gran coupe Why?

Motor Trend did a 2013 S7(AWD)/6 Series Gran Coupe xDrive/CLS550 4Matic comparison test and they weighed the following... S7: 4435lbs 6 Series Gran Coupe xDrive: 4603lbs CLS550 4Matic: 4318lbs http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1304_audi_s7_bmw_650i_gran_coupe_xdrive_mercedes_benz_cls550_4matic/viewall.html Knowing how comparison tests always involve basically loaded up test cars I have to believe those would be compared to the top of the line CT6 as well :3.0TT Platinum AWD: 4,385 lbs.

A RWD S550 weighs 4600 lbs. C&D tested an S550 4matic coupe that weighed 4760 lbs. The A7 is the hatchback version of the midsized A6. If you measure up to the more appropriate A8, the base model weighs 4460 lbs. The V8 powered A8 with 420 hp weighs over 4600 lbs compared to the CT6 3.0T with similar power and 4300 lbs. So no, you're wrong. This isn't supposed to be an A8/S Class/7 Series competitor though, according to Cadillac. This is sligtly smaller along of the lines of the A7/CLS/6 Series.. right?

Whew. It's back! Thanks for the update, Drew

Agreed. That base weight(which will never really sell because there are always options added) is fantastic. I need to see how big this is in person to really get a grasp of how big to how light it is though. My guess is the same you said for the twin turbo motor. They have to add quite a bit of materials and OEM materials for things like that aren't usually the lightest because they're made to last. I'm excited to read/hear about both new 3.0tt setups from Detroit.

I think the Linconl interior looks "classier" and the Cadillac interior looks "sportier". Overall I think the Cadillac looks better(even though I don't like the super light grey in the picture - I've seen black in black or a dark brown that look gorgeour to me).

Aaaaaaand you just ruined it for me. lol

^ The chime..because like you said it is probably one of the easiest things to change..should just be programable. Make 5-10 little options. I cna't imagine that actually costing them much more at all and it can be a little "check this out" feature to your friends/family.

Fanastic 4 game sweep for my RedBirds over the Arizona D-Backs. That was much needed after losing 2 of 3 to..San Diego.. Both road series as well and the Diamondbacks are one of the best hitting teams statistically as well. We just ride the coattails of our pitching staff. Sub 3.00 team ERA.

You were both wrong, right? But you insulted him whilst also being wrong, right? Just checking.. :rolls eyes:

Good point(could not make out the vents) but that 7.3 second time is not from a 3.6L V6 CTS though. There is nothing in that video that indicates that it is a 3.6L. It also cements my point that the base model gauge, whether in a CTS or an ATS, is just cheap looking and does not belong in either car, much less a $53K CTS. BUUUUUUURRRRNNNNNNN!!! (Kelso - That 70's Show) (I was hoping for something a little less drastic than an entire head on fire.. but I guess that is about all that is available..lol) Yeah, real big burn there. I was wrong and admitted it, which is more than can be said for some around here . Someone else certainly didn't know the difference when confronted on it. He just offered up weak excuses whereas Drew offered solid facts and proof, and I appreciate that from him. Easy there.. Just jokin around.. Don't have to be so...grumpy... all the time. You must not be much of a car guy if you can't tell the difference between a CTS and ATS dash! lol

That is pretty crappy that massive price difference.. what 13, 14k? Turns out to still be more afordable, but much less so upon further review.

Good point(could not make out the vents) but that 7.3 second time is not from a 3.6L V6 CTS though. There is nothing in that video that indicates that it is a 3.6L. It also cements my point that the base model gauge, whether in a CTS or an ATS, is just cheap looking and does not belong in either car, much less a $53K CTS. BUUUUUUURRRRNNNNNNN!!! (Kelso - That 70's Show) (I was hoping for something a little less drastic than an entire head on fire.. but I guess that is about all that is available..lol)