Lincoln Drops MKX Price to $38,995

[smk4565]

 

 

 

If GM is going to make a 2.0T the base engine in the CT6, I don't see why they wouldn't make a turbo 4 the base engine in the Traverse/Acadia/Enclave replacements, with the 3.6 liter V6 making 330 hp the optional engine.

The Lambda triplets need a dose of torque, and a NA 3.6L is not adequate to make it an optional engine.

 

 

 

 

Just curious.. when exactly are the Lambdas in need of torque??? With the old ass 3.6L and 288HP they seem to be quite good family haulers. 

 

 

I guess I was not clear, so in the context of the discussion of an I4 turbo as standard and the 3.6L as an option, it is not adequate, because the I4 already has far more torque.

 

Crossover consumers, and probably most car buyers don't understand torque is what matters.  All they know is horsepower because that is what manufacturers advertise.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

If the ATS, CTS and CT6 are made to do with standard 4-cylinder power, then I don't see why a Chevy or Buick should have a standard V6, even if it is an SUV.   The Explorer has a turbo 4, wouldn't surprise me if the next Lambdas go that route.  Then they can charge people more for the V6, even it if it only the 3.6 NA.  If Lincoln can charge $2,000 for an ecoboost that adds 30 hp, I am sure GM can charge $1,000 for a V6.

 The 2.7 L adds about 100ftlbs of torque, which is what you want and need in a 4500 lb CUV.

 

Explorer made the mistake of only 2.0L with their turbo.  They learned their lesson.  New Explorer offers much more torque in the 2.3L now.

[smk4565]

Maybe GM could turbo the 2.5 liter 4-cylinder, that should be good for 300 hp/300 lb-ft easily and then they can basically you could drop the V6 from the Thetas, Lambas, Lacrosse, Impala, etc.  The V6 would be Camaro and Cadillac only.  Really the 335 hp V6 could be the base engine in the Tahoe/Yukon.  Hooray for CAFE!

[Drew Dowdell]

There's been no moderator action.

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

 

 

 

If GM is going to make a 2.0T the base engine in the CT6, I don't see why they wouldn't make a turbo 4 the base engine in the Traverse/Acadia/Enclave replacements, with the 3.6 liter V6 making 330 hp the optional engine.

The Lambda triplets need a dose of torque, and a NA 3.6L is not adequate to make it an optional engine.

 

 

 

 

Just curious.. when exactly are the Lambdas in need of torque??? With the old ass 3.6L and 288HP they seem to be quite good family haulers. 

 

 

I guess I was not clear, so in the context of the discussion of an I4 turbo as standard and the 3.6L as an option, it is not adequate, because the I4 already has far more torque.

 

Crossover consumers, and probably most car buyers don't understand torque is what matters.  All they know is horsepower because that is what manufacturers advertise.

 

 

I hope to Christ that U are not suggesting that I don't kno the relevance of what torque is and what it is useful in and pertaining to a motor vehicle. 

 

The Lambdas have done well.. and move quite well with the 288HP and 270lbs of TORQUE pushing its 4700 lbs. NOW... if U are gonna go RACING your 4700 lb Large Crossover on a track... then I see your point 

[smk4565]

I know you know what torque is, but I imagine a lot of Lincoln and Buick buyers don't. So if they see $2000 premium for 30 HP, they may not realize that torque matters more than HP.

The 2.0t has more torque than the current Lambdas, if they did a 2.5 liter turbo I could see the day when the lambdas are 4 cylinder only. Volvo has already gone that route, not that Volvo is really the gold standard of anything, but I bet even a Tahoe has a base 4 cylinder in 2025.

Edited June 24, 2015 by smk4565

[El Kabong]

There's been no moderator action.

Uh... whuh?

[ccap41]

The 3.6 engines are perfectly fine as a regular trim. If they weren't they wouldn't have been the massive sellers they've been over the years. But we all know what's what

I'm not disagreeing but I am surprised they never even had a second engine option for either the Acadia Denali or top trim Buick Enclave. Mostly the Denali stood out to me but I would think if a GMC got a second engine then a Buick would as well. Keep it away from Chevy in hopes of an upsell of the other two..

I know you know what torque is, but I imagine a lot of Lincoln and Buick buyers don't. So if they see $2000 premium for 30 HP, they may not realize that torque matters more than HP.

The 2.0t has more torque than the current Lambdas, if they did a 2.5 liter turbo I could see the day when the lambdas are 4 cylinder only. Volvo has already gone that route, not that Volvo is really the gold standard of anything, but I bet even a Tahoe has a base 4 cylinder in 2025.

I'm pretty sure you're correct, average buyer doesn't know anything about torque and its importance.

Edited June 24, 2015 by ccap41

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

I hope to Christ that U are not suggesting that I don't kno the relevance of what torque is and what it is useful in and pertaining to a motor vehicle. 

 

The Lambdas have done well.. and move quite well with the 288HP and 270lbs of TORQUE pushing its 4700 lbs. NOW... if U are gonna go RACING your 4700 lb Large Crossover on a track... then I see your point 

 

 

He does have a point.  You have really spin up the rpm in the 3.6 in the lambdas to get to that torque.  That hurts fuel economy and makes them feel a little sluggish. 

[ccap41]

 

 

 

I hope to Christ that U are not suggesting that I don't kno the relevance of what torque is and what it is useful in and pertaining to a motor vehicle. 

 

The Lambdas have done well.. and move quite well with the 288HP and 270lbs of TORQUE pushing its 4700 lbs. NOW... if U are gonna go RACING your 4700 lb Large Crossover on a track... then I see your point 

 

 

He does have a point.  You have really spin up the rpm in the 3.6 in the lambdas to get to that torque.  That hurts fuel economy and makes them feel a little sluggish. 

 

I did notice this in my friend's dad's Acadia. It will scoot for a large vehicle, you just have to work the throttle a little more than I would like personally. It needs those RPMs.

[Drew Dowdell]

I mean this with all honesty, that Enclave interior is just nasty.  Look at those awkward center stack shapes.

 

I mean, I know this is a GM site, first and foremost, and I won't get many on my side, but the new MKX simply has no competition from GM.  Plain and simple.

 

And this pick is not even the Black Label.

 

 

This is not a GM site.

 

And yes there is competition from GM... this is one of the best sellers in the segment. 

 

[cp-the-nerd]

 

 

 

I hope to Christ that U are not suggesting that I don't kno the relevance of what torque is and what it is useful in and pertaining to a motor vehicle. 

 

The Lambdas have done well.. and move quite well with the 288HP and 270lbs of TORQUE pushing its 4700 lbs. NOW... if U are gonna go RACING your 4700 lb Large Crossover on a track... then I see your point 

 

 

He does have a point.  You have really spin up the rpm in the 3.6 in the lambdas to get to that torque.  That hurts fuel economy and makes them feel a little sluggish. 

 

 

It's also in the tune. Trying to get 17/24 mpg from the EPA test on the Lambdas was a mistake. With a few tweaks they'd drive much better without becoming gas guzzlers. Regardless, they'll be much better if the LGX makes it under the hood of the next gen. 284 lb-ft doesn't sound like a big difference, but I bet the new engine is making more torque everywhere in the powerband, plus it's a safe bet the Lambda platform is going on a diet and getting an 8-speed like everything else.

[El Kabong]

It's just progress, man. The Lambdas are an old but intrinsically good design. Given what GM has developed since they debuted it would be silly to think that the new ones won't be equally solid and also have class-leading tech and engineering behind them.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

I mean this with all honesty, that Enclave interior is just nasty.  Look at those awkward center stack shapes.

 

I mean, I know this is a GM site, first and foremost, and I won't get many on my side, but the new MKX simply has no competition from GM.  Plain and simple.

 

And this pick is not even the Black Label.

 

 

This is not a GM site.

 

And yes there is competition from GM... this is one of the best sellers in the segment. 

 

cadi_srx_int_co_lthr_big_04.jpg

 

 

Wait, I thought Lincoln "competes with Buick"

 

[El Kabong]

We covered the Buick interior already. The Caddy is just icing on the cake.

[Drew Dowdell]

I mean this with all honesty, that Enclave interior is just nasty. Look at those awkward center stack shapes.

I mean, I know this is a GM site, first and foremost, and I won't get many on my side, but the new MKX simply has no competition from GM. Plain and simple.

And this pick is not even the Black Label.

This is not a GM site.

And yes there is competition from GM... this is one of the best sellers in the segment.

cadi_srx_int_co_lthr_big_04.jpg

Wait, I thought Lincoln "competes with Buick"

Quite limiting to think that only one brand from company X can compete with another brand from company Y.

Buick is intentionally an overlap brand

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

^

Understood.  I was being a bit of a thorn.

 

But truly, the SRX is closer to the MKC in size.  But where it falls far short of the MKX, aside from interior room, is power, suspension, features, etc.  Black Label takes it up several notches with premium materials.  Variable dampening changes the ride quite a bit, as does a high output engine option, as does luxury features like park-in and park-out for every parking situation, etc.

 

So i say again, GM does not really have a premium, mid sized, personally luxury CUV that can hang with the MKX.

[smk4565]

The SRX is 190.3 inches long and 75.2 inches wide.  The MKX is 186.7 inches long and 76 inches wide.    The SRX is a foot longer than an MKC, SRX longer than the Lexus RX350 also.  I'd imagine the XT5 will be similar size to that 190-192 inch length, so that Cadillac can later slot a 182 inch long crossover below it.

[cp-the-nerd]

^

Understood.  I was being a bit of a thorn.

 

But truly, the SRX is closer to the MKC in size.  But where it falls far short of the MKX, aside from interior room, is power, suspension, features, etc.  Black Label takes it up several notches with premium materials.  Variable dampening changes the ride quite a bit, as does a high output engine option, as does luxury features like park-in and park-out for every parking situation, etc.

 

So i say again, GM does not really have a premium, mid sized, personally luxury CUV that can hang with the MKX.

 

You seem to be overlooking some key details about the SRX. It already HAS an active damping suspension, the interior goes up in quality with equipment levels, including real wood trim, and the kicker is that the SRX offers REAL torque-vectoring AWD with an eLSD.

 

The black label Lincolns are nice, and so is the optional turbo V6, but don't sit here and tell us how inferior GM products are when you clearly didn't research them. If you compare the volume selling trim levels, you'll have equal 300+ hp engines, equally luxurious interiors, and trade back and forth on certain features.

[surreal1272]

 

^

Understood.  I was being a bit of a thorn.

 

But truly, the SRX is closer to the MKC in size.  But where it falls far short of the MKX, aside from interior room, is power, suspension, features, etc.  Black Label takes it up several notches with premium materials.  Variable dampening changes the ride quite a bit, as does a high output engine option, as does luxury features like park-in and park-out for every parking situation, etc.

 

So i say again, GM does not really have a premium, mid sized, personally luxury CUV that can hang with the MKX.

 

You seem to be overlooking some key details about the SRX. It already HAS an active damping suspension, the interior goes up in quality with equipment levels, including real wood trim, and the kicker is that the SRX offers REAL torque-vectoring AWD with an eLSD.

 

The black label Lincolns are nice, and so is the optional turbo V6, but don't sit here and tell us how inferior GM products are when you clearly didn't research them. If you compare the volume selling trim levels, you'll have equal 300+ hp engines, equally luxurious interiors, and trade back and forth on certain features.

 

They also have a similar parking assist feature as well and someone seems to forget that the SRX is 6 years old so of course it will be lacking a certain newness compared to a 2016 MKX. It's redesign cannot come soon enough though because it just doesn't fit in with Cadillac's newer crop of cars.

[cp-the-nerd]

 

 

^

Understood.  I was being a bit of a thorn.

 

But truly, the SRX is closer to the MKC in size.  But where it falls far short of the MKX, aside from interior room, is power, suspension, features, etc.  Black Label takes it up several notches with premium materials.  Variable dampening changes the ride quite a bit, as does a high output engine option, as does luxury features like park-in and park-out for every parking situation, etc.

 

So i say again, GM does not really have a premium, mid sized, personally luxury CUV that can hang with the MKX.

 

You seem to be overlooking some key details about the SRX. It already HAS an active damping suspension, the interior goes up in quality with equipment levels, including real wood trim, and the kicker is that the SRX offers REAL torque-vectoring AWD with an eLSD.

 

The black label Lincolns are nice, and so is the optional turbo V6, but don't sit here and tell us how inferior GM products are when you clearly didn't research them. If you compare the volume selling trim levels, you'll have equal 300+ hp engines, equally luxurious interiors, and trade back and forth on certain features.

 

They also have a similar parking assist feature as well and someone seems to forget that the SRX is 6 years old so of course it will be lacking a certain newness compared to a 2016 MKX. It's redesign cannot come soon enough though because it just doesn't fit in with Cadillac's newer crop of cars.

 

 

That's the real kicker, isn't it? Cadillac engineered the SRX more than half a decade ago, and it only falls short by lacking an optional engine and interior glam packages. I can't wait to bring this thread back up when the SRX replacement is unveiled in the next 6 months.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

^

Understood.  I was being a bit of a thorn.

 

But truly, the SRX is closer to the MKC in size.  But where it falls far short of the MKX, aside from interior room, is power, suspension, features, etc.  Black Label takes it up several notches with premium materials.  Variable dampening changes the ride quite a bit, as does a high output engine option, as does luxury features like park-in and park-out for every parking situation, etc.

 

So i say again, GM does not really have a premium, mid sized, personally luxury CUV that can hang with the MKX.

 

You seem to be overlooking some key details about the SRX. It already HAS an active damping suspension, the interior goes up in quality with equipment levels, including real wood trim, and the kicker is that the SRX offers REAL torque-vectoring AWD with an eLSD.

 

The black label Lincolns are nice, and so is the optional turbo V6, but don't sit here and tell us how inferior GM products are when you clearly didn't research them. If you compare the volume selling trim levels, you'll have equal 300+ hp engines, equally luxurious interiors, and trade back and forth on certain features.

 

I did not say GM products are inferior.  Please don't get defensive. I am however, in this Lincoln thread, refusing to believe the constant negativity toward Lincoln that is displayed in many threads, by suggesting this MKX is superior.  And yes, I was wrong on the suspension, Everything else, I was correct on.

[El Kabong]

I mean this with all honesty, that Enclave interior is just nasty. Look at those awkward center stack shapes.

I mean, I know this is a GM site, first and foremost, and I won't get many on my side, but the new MKX simply has no competition from GM. Plain and simple.

And this pick is not even the Black Label.

"I never claimed GM products were inferior" he said.

"So easy to prove the difference" I said.

I anxiously await your votes

I did not say GM products are inferior. Please don't get defensive. I am however, in this Lincoln thread, refusing to believe the constant negativity toward Lincoln that is displayed in many threads, by suggesting this MKX is superior. And yes, I was wrong on the suspension, Everything else, I was correct on.

*sigh*

Edited June 24, 2015 by El Kabong

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

^

Understood.  I was being a bit of a thorn.

 

But truly, the SRX is closer to the MKC in size.  But where it falls far short of the MKX, aside from interior room, is power, suspension, features, etc.  Black Label takes it up several notches with premium materials.  Variable dampening changes the ride quite a bit, as does a high output engine option, as does luxury features like park-in and park-out for every parking situation, etc.

 

So i say again, GM does not really have a premium, mid sized, personally luxury CUV that can hang with the MKX.

 

You seem to be overlooking some key details about the SRX. It already HAS an active damping suspension, the interior goes up in quality with equipment levels, including real wood trim, and the kicker is that the SRX offers REAL torque-vectoring AWD with an eLSD.

 

The black label Lincolns are nice, and so is the optional turbo V6, but don't sit here and tell us how inferior GM products are when you clearly didn't research them. If you compare the volume selling trim levels, you'll have equal 300+ hp engines, equally luxurious interiors, and trade back and forth on certain features.

 

I did not say GM products are inferior.  Please don't get defensive. I am however, in this Lincoln thread, refusing to believe the constant negativity toward Lincoln that is displayed in many threads, by suggesting this MKX is superior.  And yes, I was wrong on the suspension, Everything else, I was correct on.

 

 

Well no... you suggested that GM has nothing to compete with the MKX.  I didn't address the relative "goodness" of either the SRX, nor the Enclave, nor the MKX.  I am simply pointing out that your assertion that "GM doesn't have anything to compete with the MKX" is incorrect. 

 

The MKX is a good vehicle, it is also one of the newest in its segment for about 6 months.  That doesn't mean that there is no competition.

[cp-the-nerd]

 

 

 

^

Understood.  I was being a bit of a thorn.

 

But truly, the SRX is closer to the MKC in size.  But where it falls far short of the MKX, aside from interior room, is power, suspension, features, etc.  Black Label takes it up several notches with premium materials.  Variable dampening changes the ride quite a bit, as does a high output engine option, as does luxury features like park-in and park-out for every parking situation, etc.

 

So i say again, GM does not really have a premium, mid sized, personally luxury CUV that can hang with the MKX.

 

You seem to be overlooking some key details about the SRX. It already HAS an active damping suspension, the interior goes up in quality with equipment levels, including real wood trim, and the kicker is that the SRX offers REAL torque-vectoring AWD with an eLSD.

 

The black label Lincolns are nice, and so is the optional turbo V6, but don't sit here and tell us how inferior GM products are when you clearly didn't research them. If you compare the volume selling trim levels, you'll have equal 300+ hp engines, equally luxurious interiors, and trade back and forth on certain features.

 

I did not say GM products are inferior.  Please don't get defensive. I am however, in this Lincoln thread, refusing to believe the constant negativity toward Lincoln that is displayed in many threads, by suggesting this MKX is superior.  And yes, I was wrong on the suspension, Everything else, I was correct on.

 

 

Well no... you suggested that GM has nothing to compete with the MKX.  I didn't address the relative "goodness" of either the SRX, nor the Enclave, nor the MKX.  I am simply pointing out that your assertion that "GM doesn't have anything to compete with the MKX" is incorrect. 

 

The MKX is a good vehicle, it is also one of the newest in its segment for about 6 months.  That doesn't mean that there is no competition.

 

 

I think that's sugarcoating it. He literally just said:

 

"I did not say GM products are inferior... I am however, in this Lincoln thread, refusing to believe the constant negativity toward Lincoln that is displayed in many threads, by suggesting this MKX is superior."

 

That sentence wholeheartedly contradicts itself. He's been implying quite clearly and condescendingly that GM luxury crossovers are inferior to the MKX, but we wont understand because this is primarily a GM site.

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

 

 

I hope to Christ that U are not suggesting that I don't kno the relevance of what torque is and what it is useful in and pertaining to a motor vehicle. 

 

The Lambdas have done well.. and move quite well with the 288HP and 270lbs of TORQUE pushing its 4700 lbs. NOW... if U are gonna go RACING your 4700 lb Large Crossover on a track... then I see your point 

 

 

He does have a point.  You have really spin up the rpm in the 3.6 in the lambdas to get to that torque.  That hurts fuel economy and makes them feel a little sluggish. 

 

 

 

That's more to do with the throttle calibration than the actual torque. This applies to a bunch of GM vehicles. Soon as the throttle is adjusted by a matter of 10%... the issue of needing to up the RPMs seems to diminish

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

 

I mean this with all honesty, that Enclave interior is just nasty.  Look at those awkward center stack shapes.

 

I mean, I know this is a GM site, first and foremost, and I won't get many on my side, but the new MKX simply has no competition from GM.  Plain and simple.

 

And this pick is not even the Black Label.

 

 

This is not a GM site.

 

And yes there is competition from GM... this is one of the best sellers in the segment. 

 

cadi_srx_int_co_lthr_big_04.jpg

 

 

Wait, I thought Lincoln "competes with Buick"

 

 

 

 

It does. And after looking at the pic U posted I am completely oblivious as why U seem to think that this  interior is anything special. No pizzazz what so ever. That same center stack that has been a staple of Lincoln since the MKS debuted looks like a substitute for a chalkboard. Personally I think that not only is the interior of the Enclave better and more upscale looking, but it is PATHETIC that U have nothing else but that boring ass $h! to put up against what is essentially a 9 year old interior from the OLD GM.

 

Edited June 25, 2015 by Cmicasa the Great

[oldshurst442]

Casa...dont forget that the Lincoln interior...looks like my wife's Fusion...

Ill post the Titanium Fusion interior...So....although the Fusion interior does look elegant...its ad nauseam when Lincoln just uses the same interior for all of its cars practically...the MKZ also has this same look...to boot...lesser Ford vehicles also look the same as those Lincoln's.

 

The headlight switchgear....it looks the same...it probably is...and I know the MKZ also shares many Fusion parts...

Now...I aint the one to whine about parts bin sharing...I dont care for that...those are the arguments that paid off automotive journalists and fanboyz whine about...but in this case...even though that headlight switchgear is perfectly fine for my Fusion...and lets be honest...its perfectly fine for Lincoln to use also...the thing is...I look at that Lincoln...and alls I see is the same damned interior of my wife's $26 000 base 1.6 ecoboost SE Fusion interior...what I dont get with a certain poster...is...when you are a black tea pot...I wonder why you are being racist towards the kettle?

Edited June 25, 2015 by oldshurst442

[ccap41]

Casa...dont forget that the Lincoln interior...looks like my wife's Fusion...

Ill post the Titanium Fusion interior...So....although the Fusion interior does look elegant...its ad nauseam when Lincoln just uses the same interior for all of its cars practically...the MKZ also has this same look...to boot...lesser Ford vehicles also look the same as those Lincoln's.

 

The headlight switchgear....it looks the same...it probably is...and I know the MKZ also shares many Fusion parts...

Now...I aint the one to whine about parts bin sharing...I dont care for that...those are the arguments that paid off automotive journalists and fanboyz whine about...but in this case...even though that headlight switchgear is perfectly fine for my Fusion...and lets be honest...its perfectly fine for Lincoln to use also...the thing is...I look at that Lincoln...and alls I see is the same damned interior of my wife's $26 000 base 1.6 ecoboost SE Fusion interior...what I dont get with a certain poster...is...when you are a black tea pot...I wonder why you are being racist towards the kettle?

In all fairness the headlight switch looks the same on all three of those interiors, and one of them is a Buick..lol

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

 

 

I hope to Christ that U are not suggesting that I don't kno the relevance of what torque is and what it is useful in and pertaining to a motor vehicle. 

 

The Lambdas have done well.. and move quite well with the 288HP and 270lbs of TORQUE pushing its 4700 lbs. NOW... if U are gonna go RACING your 4700 lb Large Crossover on a track... then I see your point 

 

 

He does have a point.  You have really spin up the rpm in the 3.6 in the lambdas to get to that torque.  That hurts fuel economy and makes them feel a little sluggish. 

 

 

 

That's more to do with the throttle calibration than the actual torque. This applies to a bunch of GM vehicles. Soon as the throttle is adjusted by a matter of 10%... the issue of needing to up the RPMs seems to diminish

 

 

Throttle tip in (how hard you have to push the pedal to get a reply from the engine) is much different than the torque curve, and changing that does not change the fact that you still have to spin the engine to a higher RPM to get the torque, it just means you move your foot a little less to do it.  It still kills fuel economy and changing the throttle tip in only makes it easier.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

 

 

 

^

Understood.  I was being a bit of a thorn.

 

But truly, the SRX is closer to the MKC in size.  But where it falls far short of the MKX, aside from interior room, is power, suspension, features, etc.  Black Label takes it up several notches with premium materials.  Variable dampening changes the ride quite a bit, as does a high output engine option, as does luxury features like park-in and park-out for every parking situation, etc.

 

So i say again, GM does not really have a premium, mid sized, personally luxury CUV that can hang with the MKX.

 

You seem to be overlooking some key details about the SRX. It already HAS an active damping suspension, the interior goes up in quality with equipment levels, including real wood trim, and the kicker is that the SRX offers REAL torque-vectoring AWD with an eLSD.

 

The black label Lincolns are nice, and so is the optional turbo V6, but don't sit here and tell us how inferior GM products are when you clearly didn't research them. If you compare the volume selling trim levels, you'll have equal 300+ hp engines, equally luxurious interiors, and trade back and forth on certain features.

 

I did not say GM products are inferior.  Please don't get defensive. I am however, in this Lincoln thread, refusing to believe the constant negativity toward Lincoln that is displayed in many threads, by suggesting this MKX is superior.  And yes, I was wrong on the suspension, Everything else, I was correct on.

 

 

Well no... you suggested that GM has nothing to compete with the MKX.  I didn't address the relative "goodness" of either the SRX, nor the Enclave, nor the MKX.  I am simply pointing out that your assertion that "GM doesn't have anything to compete with the MKX" is incorrect. 

 

The MKX is a good vehicle, it is also one of the newest in its segment for about 6 months.  That doesn't mean that there is no competition.

 

 

I think that's sugarcoating it. He literally just said:

 

"I did not say GM products are inferior... I am however, in this Lincoln thread, refusing to believe the constant negativity toward Lincoln that is displayed in many threads, by suggesting this MKX is superior."

 

That sentence wholeheartedly contradicts itself. He's been implying quite clearly and condescendingly that GM luxury crossovers are inferior to the MKX, but we wont understand because this is primarily a GM site.

 

No it does not contradict.

Products vs product.

 

Agreed?

[cp-the-nerd]

Does this look like peaky torque? I'm telling you guys, it's in the tune. It's overly aggressive torque management and to a lesser extent throttle response like Casa said. My Malibu is port injected and will roast the tires all the way through 1st gear and chirp the 1-2 shift. It's he most torquey V6 I've ever driven.

 

LFX SAE Dyno Chart (Transverse Application):

 

Link to high res chart: http://gmpowertrain.com/2014_images/charts_lg/lfx_chart_cadillac_srx.jpg

[Drew Dowdell]

Gearing maybe then?  It just feels like I have to spin the hell out of the engine to get anywhere.

[cp-the-nerd]

Gearing maybe then?  It just feels like I have to spin the hell out of the engine to get anywhere.

 

Lol am I talking to myself? It's the tune!! Tune, tune, tune! Give me 1 hour with an Enclave and it'll probably be able to do a burnout. You know, in case you want to lay down a patch when taking the kids to soccer practice. These cars are set up to pull timing for like 5 different reasons, it's asinine.

 

Has nothing to do with gearing. The transverse V6 cars all have the same transmission as me, the Lambdas even have a more aggressive final drive ratio.

[ccap41]

Gearing maybe then?  It just feels like I have to spin the hell out of the engine to get anywhere.

 

 

 

Gearing maybe then?  It just feels like I have to spin the hell out of the engine to get anywhere.

 

Lol am I talking to myself? It's the tune!! Tune, tune, tune! Give me 1 hour with an Enclave and it'll probably be able to do a burnout. You know, in case you want to lay down a patch when taking the kids to soccer practice. These cars are set up to pull timing for like 5 different reasons, it's asinine.

 

Has nothing to do with gearing. The transverse V6 cars all have the same transmission as me, the Lambdas even have a more aggressive final drive ratio.

 

I'm confused because your tune youre talking about transmission tuning correct? Not a tune for more power..right?

 

Also, 265tq isn't anything special in a 3 row SUV..so yes a lack of torque still, imo.

Edited June 25, 2015 by ccap41

[ccap41]

Does this look like peaky torque? I'm telling you guys, it's in the tune. It's overly aggressive torque management and to a lesser extent throttle response like Casa said. My Malibu is port injected and will roast the tires all the way through 1st gear and chirp the 1-2 shift. It's he most torquey V6 I've ever driven.

 

LFX SAE Dyno Chart (Transverse Application):

 

Link to high res chart: http://gmpowertrain.com/2014_images/charts_lg/lfx_chart_cadillac_srx.jpg

The 3.6 in the Traverse/Enclave/Acadia according to Chevy's site is 288hp@6300rpm/270tq@3400rpm. So that graph isn't correct. I see it says it's for the SRX, they must have it tuned differently.

Edited June 25, 2015 by ccap41

[cp-the-nerd]

 

Gearing maybe then?  It just feels like I have to spin the hell out of the engine to get anywhere.

 

 

 

Gearing maybe then?  It just feels like I have to spin the hell out of the engine to get anywhere.

 

Lol am I talking to myself? It's the tune!! Tune, tune, tune! Give me 1 hour with an Enclave and it'll probably be able to do a burnout. You know, in case you want to lay down a patch when taking the kids to soccer practice. These cars are set up to pull timing for like 5 different reasons, it's asinine.

 

Has nothing to do with gearing. The transverse V6 cars all have the same transmission as me, the Lambdas even have a more aggressive final drive ratio.

 

I'm confused because your tune youre talking about transmission tuning correct? Not a tune for more power..right?

 

Also, 265tq isn't anything special in a 3 row SUV..so yes a lack of torque still, imo.

 

 

The debate is whether GM's 3.6L DI motors are peaky. It's a sensation caused by the powertrain tune, both the engine and transmission.

 

The graph isn't incorrect, I simply didn't think it was necessary to post multiple graphs for each iteration of the V6 and each vehicle application. The Lambdas have a tune with 270 lb-ft with a similarly flat torque curve. 90% of torque is available from like 2000 rpm to 6000 rpm.

[smk4565]

The one nice thing about that Ecoboost engine is it has 380 lb-ft of torque.  100 more than you get in an Enclave or SRX or Lexus RX.  Even the Volvo 2 liter makes like 320 hp and torque.  The boosted engines are going to take over.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

What an hp chart looks like is mostly dependent on the cam.

With a long cam you can achieve that pikes peak at 6K.

With a short cam, you are flattening out that peak, lowering the advertised number, and pushing a higher average sooner, which means better drivability.  I have used several dyno programs on the PC and sized many a cam in my day, and even customized my own profiles.  

And the key is how you balance it with the torque.    If you want your peak torque at 1500rpm instead of 2500, you move that pikes peak to the left.

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

Gearing maybe then?  It just feels like I have to spin the hell out of the engine to get anywhere.

 

 

 

Gearing maybe then?  It just feels like I have to spin the hell out of the engine to get anywhere.

 

Lol am I talking to myself? It's the tune!! Tune, tune, tune! Give me 1 hour with an Enclave and it'll probably be able to do a burnout. You know, in case you want to lay down a patch when taking the kids to soccer practice. These cars are set up to pull timing for like 5 different reasons, it's asinine.

 

Has nothing to do with gearing. The transverse V6 cars all have the same transmission as me, the Lambdas even have a more aggressive final drive ratio.

 

I'm confused because your tune youre talking about transmission tuning correct? Not a tune for more power..right?

 

Also, 265tq isn't anything special in a 3 row SUV..so yes a lack of torque still, imo.

 

 

The debate is whether GM's 3.6L DI motors are peaky. It's a sensation caused by the powertrain tune, both the engine and transmission.

 

The graph isn't incorrect, I simply didn't think it was necessary to post multiple graphs for each iteration of the V6 and each vehicle application. The Lambdas have a tune with 270 lb-ft with a similarly flat torque curve. 90% of torque is available from like 2000 rpm to 6000 rpm.

 

 

I'm asking honestly here.  Were does that 243lb-ft (270 * 0.90) go due to tuning? 

[cp-the-nerd]

A variety of circumstances command the engine to pull back timing, thereby reducing power and torque. There's also a lot of restrictions on power enrichment mode, so in order to get a good 12:1 AFR (on 10% ethanol) you have to rev above 5000 rpm and have your foot planted. For all I know, 1st and 2nd gear might be universally torque limited to drive more docile.

 

I'm not sure what your level of knowledge is here, but to put it simply, a modern computer controlled engine can literally be told to put out 1% of torque, max torque, or anything in between and from the driver's seat it doesn't feel electronically limited other than being sluggish off the line.

[Drew Dowdell]

I guess what I'm asking is why I'm not getting what that graph is advertising at the given RPM.  If the engine is rated for X torque at X rpm, but you'll only X * 0.50 torque at that RPM due to engine tuning, is that not a false rating?

[cp-the-nerd]

I guess what I'm asking is why I'm not getting what that graph is advertising at the given RPM.  If the engine is rated for X torque at X rpm, but you'll only X * 0.50 torque at that RPM due to engine tuning, is that not a false rating?

 

No, the amount of torque management is not consistent per RPM, it depends on a number of variables like I mentioned. The graph would be a clusterf@#k if they tried to present that information. The SAE cert is done under controlled conditions.

 

The charts are a reference tool anyway, not advertising material. Power output varies significantly from climate and elevation too.

Edited June 25, 2015 by cp-the-nerd

[ccap41]

Does this look like peaky torque? I'm telling you guys, it's in the tune. It's overly aggressive torque management and to a lesser extent throttle response like Casa said. My Malibu is port injected and will roast the tires all the way through 1st gear and chirp the 1-2 shift. It's he most torquey V6 I've ever driven.

 

LFX SAE Dyno Chart (Transverse Application):

 

Link to high res chart: http://gmpowertrain.com/2014_images/charts_lg/lfx_chart_cadillac_srx.jpg

Just for comparison sake.. Ford's 2.0T

 

[cp-the-nerd]

 

Does this look like peaky torque? I'm telling you guys, it's in the tune. It's overly aggressive torque management and to a lesser extent throttle response like Casa said. My Malibu is port injected and will roast the tires all the way through 1st gear and chirp the 1-2 shift. It's he most torquey V6 I've ever driven.

 

LFX SAE Dyno Chart (Transverse Application):

 

Link to high res chart: http://gmpowertrain.com/2014_images/charts_lg/lfx_chart_cadillac_srx.jpg

Just for comparison sake.. Ford's 2.0T

 

 

 

I recall that engine, despite all its low end torque, lacking quite a bit compared to the duratec 3.5L V6 in the Explorer and Edge.

 

Explorer 2.0L Ecoboost review:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1108_ford_explorer_ecoboost_test/

[ccap41]

I remember reading that actually.. And the two engines we're talking about deliever power almost completely opposite. One is a small turbo 4 making a lot of low end power and it loses steam up top and the other is a good size V6 that builds and builds power till redline.

 

I know tuning can fix A LOT of issues an ower has with their car but if we get in to the aftermarket world.. all of this new car talk means almost nothing because if you have enough money to modify a car..you can do anything you want. But, nonetheless, is your ability to tune your car less awesome. I love the aftermarket.  It is just hard to talk about that and new cars.. hopefully I'm making sense..lol

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

New Edge with new Twin scroll turbo has a much different torque and hp curve, and reviews have been very positive.

[cp-the-nerd]

I remember reading that actually.. And the two engines we're talking about deliever power almost completely opposite. One is a small turbo 4 making a lot of low end power and it loses steam up top and the other is a good size V6 that builds and builds power till redline.

 

I know tuning can fix A LOT of issues an ower has with their car but if we get in to the aftermarket world.. all of this new car talk means almost nothing because if you have enough money to modify a car..you can do anything you want. But, nonetheless, is your ability to tune your car less awesome. I love the aftermarket.  It is just hard to talk about that and new cars.. hopefully I'm making sense..lol

 

If you're saying the factory tune isn't an excuse, I agree. However, I get tired of hearing (quite often) that the GM V6 is peaky. It's not. I can find dyno charts all day of N/A engines that have 50% of peak torque until over 3000 rpm. Then peak at 4000-5000 and immediately fall off the table. I mean I guess GM is tuning for its audience with those cars, and we enthusiasts are the only ones offended by it, because they've sold like crazy for more than half a decade and power complaints are few and far between.

 

These vehicles are intriguing to me because there's so much left on the table. I bet I could get an LFX Impala or Equinox to crack 6 seconds 0-60 and run mid 14s on stock hardware, and I'm an amateur tuner. Few N/A vehicles have THAT much potential.

[cp-the-nerd]

New Edge with new Twin scroll turbo has a much different torque and hp curve, and reviews have been very positive.

 

I'm curious to see that engine in action. It snuck in under the radar because peak numbers are so similar to the single scroll version. Are there plans to get that motor in the current gen Focus ST? I think we'd see a good drop in acceleration times.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

New Edge with new Twin scroll turbo has a much different torque and hp curve, and reviews have been very positive.

 

I'm curious to see that engine in action. It snuck in under the radar because peak numbers are so similar to the single scroll version. Are there plans to get that motor in the current gen Focus ST? I think we'd see a good drop in acceleration times.

 

Twin scroll will proliferate.  It allows you a bit more low end and top end.