Cadillac Making Some Changes To The V-Series

Excitement! 

Two things come to mind, one is you could buy the platinum with the detuned twin turbo V8 and then update the programming I am wondering and when will they roll out the V-Series for the CUV / SUV product line?

These cars will be kickass but their names will be terrible. They do not flow whatsoever.

CT5-V   CT4-V

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

These cars will be kickass but their names will be terrible. They do not flow whatsoever.

CT5-V   CT4-V

Totally agree, we need to bring back the rich historical names and then have the V still.

? Imagine an Elmiraji V

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

These cars will be kickass but their names will be terrible. They do not flow whatsoever.

CT5-V   CT4-V

My expectation (purely my own hypothesis) is that it will be officially branded CT5 V-Series/Sport rather than just V. 

Otherwise, you're right.

I like C3PO myself

43 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Totally agree, we need to bring back the rich historical names and then have the V still.

? Imagine an Elmiraji V

Cadillac has so many kickass concept names too bad they don't use them.

Honestly too, I still like STS, CTS, XLR, DTS, etc its just that the offerings became twisted.  The CTS got larger.  The STS became underwhelming.  

So this signals that the 550 hp CT6 will be the top of that line which I assume means the CT5-V will get the same 550 hp engine.  

I think Cadillac’s low sales volume on sedans/coupes hurts their ability to do a lot of performance cars or high performance cars.   The CT6 is a car that might sell 20,000 globally per year, and the V-series might be 1,000 per year, so how much time and effort are they going to put into that.  

I guess when Americans have a love for sedans like back in the 1980s and 1990s, then Cadillac will sell more than a few thousand V-series sedans.

Maybe an XT4-V with a 350 hp version of the new 2.0t and some aggressive bodywork?

2 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Maybe an XT4-V with a 350 hp version of the new 2.0t and some aggressive bodywork?

that would be a cool ride.  I would even go for just 30-40 more hp and torque vs what is listed, but the XT4 actually has pretty good combined mpg for a 2.0 litre and a crossover and word is it uses 87 octane just fine.  Evidently the NVH is much better on the new 2.0.  I want to see how the CT5 turns out now.

I have a feeling that they’re pivoting V towards their crossovers and part of that is dumbing down V performance, and calling their VSports their full on V Series.

which actually may be the smartest thing done to V brand in a long time. 

They need it to sell, not be some exclusivity factor that is non-existent outside the U.S.

If Cadillac had put these crossovers on a rear drive chassis then you could have the 550 hp V8 in the XT5 and even XT4.  Now I think demand for a V8 XT4 would be tiny, so I would understand making that a front drive crossover for the sheeple that buy $40k small crossovers.  XT5 and up should be rear drive all the way so they can put a V8 in there.  

10 hours ago, smk4565 said:

If Cadillac had put these crossovers on a rear drive chassis then you could have the 550 hp V8 in the XT5 and even XT4.  Now I think demand for a V8 XT4 would be tiny, so I would understand making that a front drive crossover for the sheeple that buy $40k small crossovers.  XT5 and up should be rear drive all the way so they can put a V8 in there.  

Why isn't MB held to this same standard for the CLA/GLA AMG? Or Audi for the RS3?

26 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Why isn't MB held to this same standard for the CLA/GLA AMG?  

Because those are just entry level novelties?  M-Bs serious SUVs (GLE, GLS, and G) aren't based on transverse engine FWD platforms...

(Of course, that is a distinction lost on the indifferent consumers that lease these things, only enthusiasts care if something is transverse FWD or RWD). 

2 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Because those are just entry level novelties?  M-Bs serious SUVs (GLE, GLS, and G) aren't based on transverse engine FWD platforms...

The XT4 is the competitor to the GLA.   Both transverse engines. 

1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The XT4 is the competitor to the GLA.   Both transverse engines. 

Yes, just lease appliances....

2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Why isn't MB held to this same standard for the CLA/GLA AMG? Or Audi for the RS3?

Because a GLA is a size class smaller than the XT4.  Mercedes puts a 503 hp V8 in their SUV most closely sized to an XT4.  If Cadillac makes an XT3 I would have no problem with it being fwd. 

And I even said I get why the XT4 is front drive, they are going after Lincoln, Lexus, Acura buyers, or people trading up from a Terrain or Equinox and are Daimler with GM fwd handling crossovers.

My problem is really more with the XT5 and XT6/7 that are front drive and can’t take a V8.  Why is the Grand Cherokee the performance standard for an American SUV?  Cadillac should hold that title.

11 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Because a GLA is a size class smaller than the XT4.  Mercedes puts a 503 hp V8 in their SUV most closely sized to an XT4.  If Cadillac makes an XT3 I would have no problem with it being fwd. 

And I even said I get why the XT4 is front drive, they are going after Lincoln, Lexus, Acura buyers, or people trading up from a Terrain or Equinox and are Daimler with GM fwd handling crossovers.

My problem is really more with the XT5 and XT6/7 that are front drive and can’t take a V8.  Why is the Grand Cherokee the performance standard for an American SUV?  Cadillac should hold that title.

 

Mercedes doesn't make a size class equivalent to the XT4.  If you've got $35k to spend on a crossover, your choice is GLA or XT4... not GLC or XT4.   And in that regard, the XT4 wins with a roomier interior.  The GLA is really just a CLA hatchback on stilts, that's why its so tiny and a poor value. 

So they are making the V brand have less powerful versions of their V capable models. This is not really a good sign. A drop from 640HP in the CTS V to 550HP in the CT6 V is a massive drop! Will there be something above V in the future? V+ perhaps?

14 hours ago, smk4565 said:

If Cadillac had put these crossovers on a rear drive chassis then you could have the 550 hp V8 in the XT5 and even XT4.  Now I think demand for a V8 XT4 would be tiny, so I would understand making that a front drive crossover for the sheeple that buy $40k small crossovers.  XT5 and up should be rear drive all the way so they can put a V8 in there.  

Agreed! I could see a nice 500HP Turbo 3.6L V6 in a RWD based XT4 if they had had the BALLS to do that model on a version of Alpha! Oh well. :(

3 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Mercedes doesn't make a size class equivalent to the XT4.  If you've got $35k to spend on a crossover, your choice is GLA or XT4... not GLC or XT4.   And in that regard, the XT4 wins with a roomier interior.  The GLA is really just a CLA hatchback on stilts, that's why its so tiny and a poor value. 

You want another Mercedes SUV, they give you another SUV and Nurburgring tested to boot.

3 hours ago, Carguy said:

So they are making the V brand have less powerful versions of their V capable models. This is not really a good sign. A drop from 640HP in the CTS V to 550HP in the CT6 V is a massive drop! Will there be something above V in the future? V+ perhaps?

Agreed! I could see a nice 500HP Turbo 3.6L V6 in a RWD based XT4 if they had had the BALLS to do that model on a version of Alpha! Oh well.

They are taking 90 hp out of the top end V model, but if you put all wheel drive on the acceleration might not be that different.  But really Cadillac isn't the performance brand of GM, Chevrolet is.  This is the biggest mistake GM management has made with Cadillac.  The Corvette should be the "everyman's sports car" and be priced at $50-75,000 with a V6 base and V8 option and I could see a 600 hp Z06 at like $90k as the absolute limit.

Cadillac should have the $100k sports cars, the Camaro for example should stop at the 450 hp SS that loaded up is $50,000.  If you want more power than that, buy a Cadillac sports coupe.  But Cadillac doesn't make a sports coupe with over 450 hp because GM wants you to buy Chevrolets not Cadillacs.  Makes ZERO sense.

8 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

You want another Mercedes SUV, they give you another SUV and Nurburgring tested to boot.

NO. FREAKING. WAY.

They're going to give soccer moms all across the United States a SUV that's been 'Ring tested. That is going to be a got damn GAME CHANGER! 

I don't know how they're going to keep them stocked. 

Well the GLB should have up to 400 hp in AMG trim, much more than you can get in a Cadillac crossover.   That part is for the few enthusiasts that are left out there.  Where are the V-series SUV's?

The 3-pointed star is all you need to sell to the soccer moms.

The First Generation SRX WAS a rear-drive CUV and few people bought it.  Once Cadillac switched to FWD, the SRX exploded in sales.  The XT5 continues in that trajectory.  Few buyers want a RWD CUV; not that many buyers want a RWD BOF SUV. 

If you believe that an V-series Escalade will sell, somebody will have to make that case.  I do not believe the sales will be there to justify that trim level.

On 9/20/2018 at 5:13 PM, smk4565 said:

So this signals that the 550 hp CT6 will be the top of that line which I assume means the CT5-V will get the same 550 hp engine.  

I think Cadillac’s low sales volume on sedans/coupes hurts their ability to do a lot of performance cars or high performance cars.   The CT6 is a car that might sell 20,000 globally per year, and the V-series might be 1,000 per year, so how much time and effort are they going to put into that.  

ACTUALLY.. this is not correct. I have actually talked to a client who works over at GM's plant over in White Marsh who told me that the engine is already being shown to have variants that are in the 700HP range. Strong possibility that due to the CT6 being essentially the 7series of Cadillac, and the CTS(5) being the 5Series of Cadillac.. that the formula will stand as the Mid-Sizer continuing to be the true large performance option while the larger vehicle (CT6) while powerful, will get a tuned down engine more geared for bragging rights within luxury. Furthermore... Cadillac bench-marked the S63 AMG's performance.. and despite.. chose not to go above it in HP (603) /Torque.. simply because it doesn't have to. The S-Class's FAT ASS is heavy.. about 700lbs heavier than the CT6 AWD Platinum. Similar thing can be said about the heavy 760i and B7 Alpina.. both boasting 600 HP but less torque than the BlackWing

anyway... 

I am 100% behind this name change.. and in fact questioned WHY they were calling the 550HP/627lb Torque version a Vsport while still having a 500HP version under it.. and a 400HP 3.0L.. and a probable 2.0L or 3.6L under those.. in the first place.

With that much torque.. and that much power.. PLUS AWD.. and a curb weight that is 55lbs less (CT6 3.0L vs CTS-V) than the my ’16 Vseries.. I am completely confident that this car will actually beat me in a drag race.. despite the loss of HP/Torque simply because of grip. I don’t know if U’ve ever tried to launch a 640HP VSeries and not spin a little bit, but its not easily done… same goes for my Z06 with the same RWD/LT4 setup. AWD system adds the needed traction that has enabled the German cars in this class to post lower acceleration numbers lately. With Track or Sport mode allowing for 40/60 front/rear in Tour mode to 20/80 in Sport and 50/50 in Snow/Ice. My assumption is that there will be a Track mode in for the Vseries… as the numbers I posted are from the current CT6 AWD system available.

CT6V = 550HP
CT6 Platinum Should be 500HP
CT6 VSport should be 400+HP

CT6-E Hybrid
CT6 everything below

11 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

The First Generation SRX WAS a rear-drive CUV and few people bought it.  Once Cadillac switched to FWD, the SRX exploded in sales.  The XT5 continues in that trajectory.  Few buyers want a RWD CUV; not that many buyers want a RWD BOF SUV. 

If you believe that an V-series Escalade will sell, somebody will have to make that case.  I do not believe the sales will be there to justify that trim level.

The thing  is that with the new AWD system they don't even need RWD anymore as a stand alone for performance. The XT5, Acadia, and from what I've read, XT4, all perform well in terms of handling with the new AWD system. All they all lack is a hi-po engine to legitimize their performance and a necessary VSport model. And I might be one of the few who says that their is absolutely no real need for a VSERIES SUV unless its a coupe style version of the XT6/7. I have no issue with a TTV8 under the hood of an XT5, but would be just as content with the 3.0L TTV6

5 hours ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

 

ACTUALLY.. this is not correct. I have actually talked to a client who works over at GM's plant over in White Marsh who told me that the engine is already being shown to have variants that are in the 700HP range. Strong possibility that due to the CT6 being essentially the 7series of Cadillac, and the CTS(5) being the 5Series of Cadillac.. that the formula will stand as the Mid-Sizer continuing to be the true large performance option while the larger vehicle (CT6) while powerful, will get a tuned down engine more geared for bragging rights within luxury. Furthermore... Cadillac bench-marked the S63 AMG's performance.. and despite.. chose not to go above it in HP (603) /Torque.. simply because it doesn't have to. The S-Class's FAT ASS is heavy.. about 700lbs heavier than the CT6 AWD Platinum. Similar thing can be said about the heavy 760i and B7 Alpina.. both boasting 600 HP but less torque than the BlackWing

anyway... 

I am 100% behind this name change.. and in fact questioned WHY they were calling the 550HP/627lb Torque version a Vsport while still having a 500HP version under it.. and a 400HP 3.0L.. and a probable 2.0L or 3.6L under those.. in the first place.

With that much torque.. and that much power.. PLUS AWD.. and a curb weight that is 55lbs less (CT6 3.0L vs CTS-V) than the my ’16 Vseries.. I am completely confident that this car will actually beat me in a drag race.. despite the loss of HP/Torque simply because of grip. I don’t know if U’ve ever tried to launch a 640HP VSeries and not spin a little bit, but its not easily done… same goes for my Z06 with the same RWD/LT4 setup. AWD system adds the needed traction that has enabled the German cars in this class to post lower acceleration numbers lately. With Track or Sport mode allowing for 40/60 front/rear in Tour mode to 20/80 in Sport and 50/50 in Snow/Ice. My assumption is that there will be a Track mode in for the Vseries… as the numbers I posted are from the current CT6 AWD system available.

CT6V = 550HP
CT6 Platinum Should be 500HP
CT6 VSport should be 400+HP

CT6-E Hybrid
CT6 everything below

 

To the first part, the M760i is probably under rated on power, I've seen 0-60 in 3.4 seconds recorded for it, it is plenty fast.  The current S63 is 4,806 lbs, while a turbo V6 CT6 is 4,385, when you add a V8 and bigger brakes, heavier duty transmission, etc, that weight will easily go over 4,500 lbs.  So we are talking more like a 300 lb difference, and maybe the 2021 S-class drops a little when it changes platforms.   Keep in mind there is an S73 likely coming to replace the S65, the S63 isn't the top of the line.

I agree with your 2nd point, I think the CT6-V will beat the CTS-V in a drag race due to traction.  There are 450 hp Audi's that can beat a CTS-V in a 0-60 sprint or at least come really close because of how well they launch off the line.   Anything over 500 hp really needs all wheel drive or it is pointless horsepower, save for the crazy high downforce exotic cars.  I would also imagine Cadillac to have drive modes since the M5 and the 4Matic+ AMG cars can send 100% torque to the back wheels or default back to a 35/65 sort of split.

3 hours ago, smk4565 said:

To the first part, the M760i is probably under rated on power, I've seen 0-60 in 3.4 seconds recorded for it, it is plenty fast.  The current S63 is 4,806 lbs, while a turbo V6 CT6 is 4,385, when you add a V8 and bigger brakes, heavier duty transmission, etc, that weight will easily go over 4,500 lbs.  So we are talking more like a 300 lb difference, and maybe the 2021 S-class drops a little when it changes platforms.   Keep in mind there is an S73 likely coming to replace the S65, the S63 isn't the top of the line.

I agree with your 2nd point, I think the CT6-V will beat the CTS-V in a drag race due to traction.  There are 450 hp Audi's that can beat a CTS-V in a 0-60 sprint or at least come really close because of how well they launch off the line.   Anything over 500 hp really needs all wheel drive or it is pointless horsepower, save for the crazy high downforce exotic cars.  I would also imagine Cadillac to have drive modes since the M5 and the 4Matic+ AMG cars can send 100% torque to the back wheels or default back to a 35/65 sort of split.

The 403HP/400lbs CT6 TT3.0L pulls the 0-60 in 5 secs.. adding an additional 150HP and a WHOPPING 227 ft-lb torque will most likely have it in the sub 3.4 sec range. Also..  I'm of the crazy belief that adding two extra cylinders doesn't necessarily add 150 extra lbs. ALSO.. the 10 Speed is supposed to be lighter than the 8 Speed.. so again.. ,your incessant need to bolster Germany is squashed ..

Quote

 

Architectural features and packaging
Thousands of hours of computer-aided engineering analyses were made during the development of the Hydra-Matic 10-speed transmission, driving a comparatively compact design envelope comparable to the eight-speed automatic.

A one-piece aluminum case with an integral bell housing helps reduce weight and enhance powertrain stiffness, while a unique 260mm, integral turbine clutch torque converter design reduces complexity and helps make the converter thinner, which contributes to the transmission’s packaging.   GM Media

 

 

 also.. I didn't bring up the S65 for obvious reasons.. its $240K.. and despite the extra power from the V12.. it actually slower than the S63 and still carries a effin 7 Speed. 

5 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Anything over 500 hp really needs all wheel drive or it is pointless horsepower, save for the crazy high downforce exotic cars.

Downforce aerodynamics has zero impact on 0-60 times.

4 hours ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

The 403HP/400lbs CT6 TT3.0L pulls the 0-60 in 5 secs.. adding an additional 150HP and a WHOPPING 227 ft-lb torque will most likely have it in the sub 3.4 sec range. Also..  I'm of the crazy belief that adding two extra cylinders doesn't necessarily add 150 extra lbs. ALSO.. the 10 Speed is supposed to be lighter than the 8 Speed.. so again.. ,your incessant need to bolster Germany is squashed ..

 also.. I didn't bring up the S65 for obvious reasons.. its $240K.. and despite the extra power from the V12.. it actually slower than the S63 and still carries a effin 7 Speed. 

When you add power you add weight, I couldn’t find a CT6-V weight but 4,500+ lbs is what I’d expect.  I do agree that it will probably do 0-60 in that 3.4 second range.  Traction and torque will make it happen.

The S65 is slower 0-60 than the S63 but I’d imagine few cars beat an S65 from 100-150 mph.  But you do have emissions regulations, transmission durability is why they use the 7-speed, and not being able to get awd on the V12 are issues the S65 faces.  Mercedes knows this, the hybrid S73 is the answer to all those issues but they also have a loyal V12 customer base paying them $240k so they obviously are going to give them what they want.

3 hours ago, balthazar said:

Downforce aerodynamics has zero impact on 0-60 times.

If you have a McLaren with active aero or something like a 911 GT2 RS then yes you can use downforce and aero to have a 700 hp rear drive car.  But for a sedan or regular coupe you need AWD at these high power levels.  Or go mid engine like the Corvette is doing because they can’t get the power down with the horsepower it makes now.  But McLarens are mid engine too.  A front engine car with a lot of power like a V-series Cadillac needs all wheel drive.

That's NOT what you said. You said

Quote

There are 450 hp Audi's that can beat a CTS-V in a 0-60 sprint or at least come really close because of how well they launch off the line.   Anything over 500 hp really needs all wheel drive or it is pointless horsepower, save for the crazy high downforce exotic cars.

There's no airflow at 0 MPH.

Downforce aero aids don't become contributory until well after a car has traction. And most of them aren't effective until closer to 100 MPH. In fact, many are a detriment at lower speeds (below, say 60-75) because invariably they create drag. If they didn't, they wouldn't funnel airflow in a manner that creates pressure on a car's body.

11 hours ago, smk4565 said:

When you add power you add weight, I couldn’t find a CT6-V weight but 4,500+ lbs is what I’d expect.  I do agree that it will probably do 0-60 in that 3.4 second range.  Traction and torque will make it happen.

The S65 is slower 0-60 than the S63 but I’d imagine few cars beat an S65 from 100-150 mph.  But you do have emissions regulations, transmission durability is why they use the 7-speed, and not being able to get awd on the V12 are issues the S65 faces.  Mercedes knows this, the hybrid S73 is the answer to all those issues but they also have a loyal V12 customer base paying them $240k so they obviously are going to give them what they want.

Screw Mercedes. That is all

10 hours ago, balthazar said:

That's NOT what you said. You said

There's no airflow at 0 MPH.

Downforce aero aids don't become contributory until well after a car has traction. And most of them aren't effective until closer to 100 MPH. In fact, many are a detriment at lower speeds (below, say 60-75) because invariably they create drag. If they didn't, they wouldn't funnel airflow in a manner that creates pressure on a car's body.

A 2013 Audi S7 that has a 450 hp V8 does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds.   Car and Driver testes a 2018 CTS-V at 0-60 in 3.8 seconds.    That is all Quattro, and how a 5 year old car that is only slightly slower than a new CTS-V with a 190 hp advantage.  

And I know the car needs to go fast to have downforce work.  My point on high horsepower cars that don't have AWD are hardcore sports cars and track cars like McLarens, 911 GT2/GT3, ZR-1, LaFerrari, etc.  Those aren't daily driver type cars, they are made for a track where you can get up to speed and use the downforce to get the power down.  That is the only type of car you can make rwd with 600 hp that can work.  And those high power cars that do launch well have the engine in the back.

Something like a V-series sedan, needs all wheel drive. 

2 hours ago, smk4565 said:

...hardcore sports cars and track cars like McLarens, 911 GT2/GT3, ZR-1, LaFerrari, etc.  ...they are made for a track where you can get up to speed and use the downforce to get the power down.  That is the only type of car you can make rwd with 600 hp that can work.  

Quote

Car and Driver testes a 2018 CTS-V at 0-60 in 3.8 seconds.

Huh; dat.

Why is 0-60 this metric that keeps coming up, @smk4565? Why such a short sprint to talk about a drag race? 

You're talking about drag racing yet you choose the shortest possible metric. 

30 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Why is 0-60 this metric that keeps coming up, @smk4565? Why such a short sprint to talk about a drag race? 

You're talking about drag racing yet you choose the shortest possible metric. 

Understandable, though...0-60 has the been a standard measurement of performance by journos and in advertising for what, 6 decades or more?   Simple measurement of acceleration...quarter mile time might be relevant to people that actually drag race on racetracks, but 0-60 has real-world applicability, such as freeway ramp light-to-merge speed acceleration...  

2 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Understandable, though...0-60 has the been a standard measurement of performance by journos and in advertising for what, 6 decades or more?   Simple measurement of acceleration...quarter mile time might be relevant to people that actually drag race on racetracks, but 0-60 has real-world applicability, such as freeway ramp light-to-merge speed acceleration...  

The're all too damn close. It's more a measurement of traction than overall straight line performance. 

Non of which  you said requires brake torquing or using a launch control to get up to speed. I get what you're saying but when we're talking a tenth or two it's pretty stupid. 

I'd prefer 1/4 mile time w/ MPH. It still includes starting from a stop but there's more than 1 gear change to consider, the mph can say a lot about where the power is in the power band(3.5 EcoBoost vs 6.2GM), and aero plays a role at those speeds. 

Quarter mile doesn't have real-world applicability, though since it (usually) involves going beyond posted speed limits.  0-60 has more real world applicability.   How fast a car goes down a drag strip (or around a track like the Nurburgring ) has no applicability to reality in the US w/ it's low speed limits.    

13 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Understandable, though...0-60 has the been a standard measurement of performance by journos and in advertising for what, 6 decades or more?   Simple measurement of acceleration...quarter mile time might be relevant to people that actually drag race on racetracks, but 0-60 has real-world applicability, such as freeway ramp light-to-merge speed acceleration...  

Sadly to many IDIOTS cannot seem to get to 60 when merging onto the freeway and as such become a hazard as they merge in at 40 thinking they are being safe by going slower.  So wish they would not just license everyone. Driving school and testing needs to be harder not easier.

Driving is a Privilege earned not a right.

Sorry Cubical, I am off my soapbox now.

I say test every car set on a Gallon of gas for repeat 0-60 sprints to see how efficient it is with the fuel. Then we can see real world driving efficiency as I am also saying that the MPG is not really accurate in regards to real world driving.

I think we need a total change in how we rate ICE / PHEV / EV auto's for efficiency as well as speed.

Neither is perfect. 0-60 with all of the electronics they use to launch the cars and brake torquing them to 3000rpm isn't very "real world" either. 

I'm going to agree with ccap on 0-60 vs. 1/4 mile. There's a bunch of testing metrics that have almost nothing to do with 'real world' (top speed testing & ultimate lateral G's are 2), but rather than pitch to real world operations, the bevy of testing metrics gives product capabilities. Also to ccap's point- back when family vehicles could be separated by 10 secs to 60, 0-60 differences was a lot more tangible. In contrast, the range has condensed considerably at this point.

On a slight tangent : these testing metrics are less and less critical, which is why the ubiquitous 'ranking' in vehicle comparisons is the most pointless of all. 'Oooo! Brand X CUV is 0.2 seconds quicker to 60 ; WIN! Rank #1!' is laughable.

45 minutes ago, balthazar said:

On a slight tangent : these testing metrics are less and less critical, which is why the ubiquitous 'ranking' in vehicle comparisons is the most pointless of all. 'Oooo! Brand X CUV is 0.2 seconds quicker to 60 ; WIN! Rank #1!' is laughable.

I very much agree with that. Everything is pretty quick these days and most everything is leaps and bounds higher quality than just 10 years ago. I mean we have family cars and 1500 trucks running mid to low 14's that aren't considered performance vehicles. Those are just your average F150 with the 3.5 EB or Silverado 6.2 or Toyota Camry! 

The only stuff I do take more to heart is when they discuss responsiveness to infotainment systems. Having had a slow and crappy MyFordTouch and now a much quicker and smoother Sync3 I understand the differences and how some are much better than others so I do like to hear about that stuff. 

51 minutes ago, balthazar said:

I'm going to agree with ccap on 0-60 vs. 1/4 mile. There's a bunch of testing metrics that have almost nothing to do with 'real world' (top speed testing & ultimate lateral G's are 2), but rather than pitch to real world operations, the bevy of testing metrics gives product capabilities. Also to ccap's point- back when family vehicles could be separated by 10 secs to 60, 0-60 differences was a lot more tangible. In contrast, the range has condensed considerably at this point.

I actually think most every test has nothing to do with real-world driving. I can't think of one test that is very similar to anything we do daily. The closest might be the 30-50mph and 50-70mph acceleration. 

1 hour ago, dfelt said:

I say test every car set on a Gallon of gas for repeat 0-60 sprints to see how efficient it is with the fuel. Then we can see real world driving efficiency as I am also saying that the MPG is not really accurate in regards to real world driving.

I can't sense sarcasm or not.. but I'll act as if you're not being sarcastic. 

How is sprinting 0-60 and finding how much fuel it uses finding "real world efficiency"? That almost sounds the complete opposite of finding real world efficiency. 

44 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I can't sense sarcasm or not.. but I'll act as if you're not being sarcastic. 

How is sprinting 0-60 and finding how much fuel it uses finding "real world efficiency"? That almost sounds the complete opposite of finding real world efficiency. 

Yup, I was not being sarcastic.

When you think about real world driving, the jump rabbit starts by people. City stop n go driving with jump on a freeway on ramp to get off at the next exit rather than go through the neighborhood. I just think there is much more valid testing of how efficient an auto really is.

Based on reading members driving here, many rarely go highway driving versus city driving or commute driving. 

It would be good to have the following driving tests:

• Traditional City
• Traditional Highway
• Stop n Go driving for 1, 5 & 10 miles @ some designated speed.
• Towing Driving MPG
• Fully loaded Driving MPG
• Fully empty driver only MPG
• etc. etc. etc.

I just think that many people would get a better sense of fuel efficiency if they tested the more common driving use cases.

There is no need to measure a vehicle's towing fuel economy.. Even people that tow regularly still probably only have a small percentage of miles with a trailer hooked up and ones that REALLY tow regularly are already in a vehicle that doesn't require ratings. 

Look at the testing procedure.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

It's more in-depth than what you just wrote out. 

Also, we would be paying for those additional useless(imo) tests. This stuff costs money and for the few people that buy a vehicle and load it to max weight and drive 15mph over the speed limit and are surprised they get poor fuel economy..I could care less about them. 

32 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

There is no need to measure a vehicle's towing fuel economy.. Even people that tow regularly still probably only have a small percentage of miles with a trailer hooked up and ones that REALLY tow regularly are already in a vehicle that doesn't require ratings. 

Look at the testing procedure.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

It's more in-depth than what you just wrote out. 

24 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Also, we would be paying for those additional useless(imo) tests. This stuff costs money and for the few people that buy a vehicle and load it to max weight and drive 15mph over the speed limit and are surprised they get poor fuel economy..I could care less about them. 

I know the testing, my point being is that what they test and what people actually do is the difference of when people want to know real world results.

You can care less about stuff yourself, but some people actually do care and want to know how well an auto will handle from driver only to fully loaded in stop n go traffic as just one example.

Efficiency of vehicle use comes in many different use cases and I think what the use cases were way back when this was put together has changed greatly from what it is today.

Well I am not willing to pay for testing of a vehicle that is loaded to its max for no fckn reason. That's such a rare circumstance for 99% of people. 

37 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Well I am not willing to pay for testing of a vehicle that is loaded to its max for no fckn reason. That's such a rare circumstance for 99% of people. 

For cars no, but for all trucks / vans yes I think the customers should know what hit they will take to the MPG when loaded. I hear many times from people that have buyers remorse when they do not get the MPG empty let alone loaded. I think we can for both cars and trucks do a better job of explaining how life use cases will affect the MPG or MPe. Much of this can be extracted from taking the basic testing now and using software to compute the effects of driving, loaded versus unloaded.

48 minutes ago, dfelt said:

For cars no, but for all trucks / vans yes I think the customers should know what hit they will take to the MPG when loaded. I hear many times from people that have buyers remorse when they do not get the MPG empty let alone loaded. I think we can for both cars and trucks do a better job of explaining how life use cases will affect the MPG or MPe. Much of this can be extracted from taking the basic testing now and using software to compute the effects of driving, loaded versus unloaded.

Do you really think the public is THAT stupid that they don't know the difference between an empty and loaded vehicle? The girls that I'm friends with notice when they have a vehicle full of people vs when it's just them driving around. They're not car people in any way. 

6 hours ago, ccap41 said:

The're all too damn close. It's more a measurement of traction than overall straight line performance. 

Non of which  you said requires brake torquing or using a launch control to get up to speed. I get what you're saying but when we're talking a tenth or two it's pretty stupid. 

I'd prefer 1/4 mile time w/ MPH. It still includes starting from a stop but there's more than 1 gear change to consider, the mph can say a lot about where the power is in the power band(3.5 EcoBoost vs 6.2GM), and aero plays a role at those speeds. 

Just how irrelevant is 0-60?  Over the weekend I was moving about the city in the Encore. Guy pulls around in a Camaro SS with some sort of exhaust upgrade... making all sorts of noise. Light turns green and we're both off.  Of course he has a nose ahead of me, but then there is a bus in his lane and I get to keep going while he's on the brakes.   I could have been in my Toronado which measures 0-60 with a sundial and the outcome would have been the same.  

That's what 99% of driving is like.