cp-the-nerd

Ford guy posts a misleading article about crash ratings that paints the Mustang as the safest, then offers ignorant commentary. This is sure to spark a fair and thoughtful discussion. Perhaps GM made a mistake omitting the front collision alert entirely (available in the ATS), but don't put on some fake incredulous attitude about how you can't believe the Camaro doesn't have a feature that most of us don't want to begin with. The Camaro bested the Mustang in the small overlap test, Mustang performed best in the roof stress test. Statistically, the test you want to succeed in for actual safety reasons is the small overlap, and THAT is the test that reflects a newer platform.

That's the one my fiance wants to test drive next year when she's car shopping. The main candidates are either that or the new Cruze 5-door.

ATS was designed to be the lightest car in the class, the whole "every gram matters" philosophy they talked about. But some other guys got lighter, or got roomier and bigger while not adding any weight, and most of the ATS weight advantage in 2013 was in comparing an NA 4 cylinder ATS to a turbo 4 BMW and a V6 Mercedes. That is blatantly wrong. Engine for engine, the ATS is lighter than its competitors. The ATS 2.0T is lighter than the 3 Series 2.0T. Same with the V6. The example is saddled with basically every option plus AWD. The Lexus competition isn't even close and Audis basically need AWD just to compete so they're fat by default. An ATS 2.0T 6M weighs under 3500 lbs–Motor Trend tested one at 3460 lbs, C&D tested one at 3480 lbs–and the ATS V6 RWD weighs around 3550 lbs.

This has been available for about a month now.

Drove a 2016 Spark with manual transmission today. 2500 RPM at a little over 60 mph is actually quite good for a minicar, imo. I was pleased with the drive. No buzz bomb here! Unless you're doing all your driving in the city, do everything you can to buy a car more substantial than the Spark. The Sonic is a FAR superior car for not that much more money, and with the 1.4T/manual combo, it's a badass little gocart. I'm actually really into the 2017 refreshed design.

Right now an Encore is offered with the new engine in Sport Touring trim. With AWD it's $28,200. I agree it's a bit steep, and it's stupid that they're making the new 1.4T optional for an extra 15 horsepower and 30 lb-ft in a luxury car. Meanwhile, over at Chevy dealers there will be a Cruze hatchback with the "upgraded" 1.4T standard for lower price.

It's a real shame. The ELR was a true stunner of a car. I liked it even more after the mild refresh with the new crest and new wheels, along with a new sport mode that shaved about a second off 0-60 acceleration. The price was wrong from the beginning. At $55k it could have sold reasonably well. Overall, Cadillac's advertising has been ABYSMAL. I think it's the only real reason the cars are selling so poorly. 5 or so years ago, Cadillac ran CTS-V ads that were absolutely awesome. They made the car look badass and desirable. There was a V-coupe running a track with an exotic sports car talking about magnetic ride control, pioneered by GM. There was one with the V out-running a bunch of archers firing arrows, it was visceral and cool. I just recently saw an ATS-V commercial that builds you all up with awesome clips... then cuts to a base 2.0T and says "most powerful 4-cylinder turbo in its class" without saying anything real about the V! Like what the f@#k are they thinking?? Anyway, RIP beautiful. misguided Cadillac.

Anyone notice the total lack of coverage of the CTS and ATS with the 8-speed automatic and/or new V6? They've been out for a year, and previously for most journalists the only weakness of these cars dynamically came down to the carry-over 6-speed and the dated LFX V6 compared to germans with 7- and 8-speed transmissions and more powerful V6s. I was curious how potent the CTS would be with the speedy 8A and a power bump from a more refined, tech laden V6.

Surreal - I look for V6 Wagons on used car listings all the time! SO RARE. If I could find a RWD 3.6L V6 I'd probably trade in my Malibu tomorrow. Most of them are 3.0L and/or AWD. Both are deal breakers for me.

That's still a flawed argument, you could say that about every car in the Buick line up compared to the newest Chevy counterparts, yet Buick continues to make gains in the retail market. A Verano with the 1.5T mated to the 8-speed automatic would be a healthy advantage over the Cruze, and GM is certainly capable of luxury interiors above and beyond what they give to Chevy.

The same exact thing could have been said about the previous gen Cruze while the Verano was selling 3,000-4,000 units monthly. Luxury is always going to be frivolously more expensive.

The other side of the coin is this: we've seen 4-cylinder turbos come out of Fiat with underwhelming results before. Their 1.4T was rated 160 hp/184 tq and many of the cars using it can barely get out of their own way. I recall a Dart 1.4T with an automatic transmission testing slower than a Cruze automatic with 138 horsepower/148 lb-ft, and the cars were close enough in weight not to make a difference. Is this "hurricane" 4-cylinder going to make real power or spec sheet power?

So will the new base engine be a downsized 3.2L Pentastar to give more separation to the 300 hp 2.0T? I can't imagine people wanting to upgrade from a stout, smooth 300 horsepower V6 to a 300 horsepower 4-cylinder, regardless of torque or FE advantage.

All I see when people ask car questions–whether it's car buying or car modding–is that they have tons of preconceived bias that they want you to confirm, and will actively defend their ignorance when you disagree. A google search gives these people just enough information to be dangerous.

This is an odd decision. The Verano was a great seller for Buick until they let the car get stale without so much as a refresh in 5 years. It's incredibly reliable and quite good looking. I really wanted to get my fiance into one (especially now when you can get them super cheap) but the EPA estimates and blingy details put her off. Meanwhile, Chevy has a plethora of compact cars, and even Cadillac is looking into sub-ATS size options. If there was a place for redundancy and elimination in the line up, I would have said drop the Regal if for no other reason than consistently slow sales.

I've always liked the driver-centered cockpit feel of the ATS. I have the same reaction as you every time I sit in one, everything feels just right. The size keeps it intimate without being claustrophobic, and the driver's seat feels like buckling in as a pilot, not a passenger that happens to be driving.

Do you lift, dfelt???? Am I talking to a fellow gym rat and didn't know this whole time??? Need you both to kick my butt into the habit once I'm done all of this travel at the end of the month. I was taught to never ski while tired or you'll end up hurting yourself, and I imagine the same is true for lifting. I can't get over the exhaustion to go make myself more exhausted at the moment. I'm too antisocial for the gym. I do calisthenics workouts (body-weight exercises, for people less versed in fitness) and some minor freeweights at home, and I'm the strongest I've ever been in my life. I have a 40 lb weight vest and I do sets of 30 knuckle push ups and 10 pull-ups (wide grip and close grip), as well as a variety of situps (without the vest because it gets in the way). Nothing beats calisthenics, specifically push-ups, pull-ups, and sit-ups. I recommend it to ANYONE serious about developing cohesive core strength, not just getting "buff." I love knuckle push-ups for the range of motion, and it's perfect for developing fist-toughness and wrist support for kickboxing that I do.

Dude, the 2.5L makes 202 horsepower and 191 lb-ft. Ya know what.. You are absolutely correct. I have no clue where I read the 180hp.. Maybe I either read it wrong or they typed it wrong but you are correct. Thanks ya! ..I still don't want it though.. haha 180 hp/171 tq is the rating for GM's 2.4L DI from the Verano and Equinox. It's possible you saw a misprint. I was actually surprised to learn the 2.5L in the ATS was upgraded to the 8-speed automatic so it's probably nice and peppy. I know it's not winning many races, but Acura seems to get away with ~200 horsepower base engines in their ILX and TLX.

Dude, the 2.5L makes 202 horsepower and 191 lb-ft.

LGX V6 - "The 3.6 liter V6 LGX engine is GM’s new high-feature V6 engine. It is a clean-sheet design and shares little with the 3.6L six-cylinder LFX engine it replaces." http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-engines/lgx/ LTG 2.0T - "The LTG is not related to the outgoing 2.0 liter turbo Ecotec LHU, with even the blocks being different. Compared to the LHU, the LTG reduces overall engine friction by 16 percent." http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-engines/ltg/

The 2.0T in the Cadillac ATS and Chevy Malibu is not an improved LNF, it's a brand new engine. In the same sense that the 3.6L LGX in the Camaro and various Cadillacs is not a revised 3.6L LFX. It's rebuilt from the ground up. As far as the OP's question, I would avoid any 2013 models. The new 2.0T had some teething issues, so you have a much higher probability of finding a lemon with the first model year. Dealers that encounter the problem generally wind up dicking around for weeks or attempting to make cheap band-aid repairs that fail instead of just replacing the engine. Well it has much in common with the older engine. Yes it is not but it is not a totally different engine as the basics are still the same. Even the 3.6 while different still has much in common with the original 3.6 too. It is fair to call it an improved version of the original. To call it a totally new engine is really misleading. It's not misleading to call them new engines. They ARE new engines, they are not revisions.

The 2.0T in the Cadillac ATS and Chevy Malibu is not an improved LNF, it's a brand new engine. In the same sense that the 3.6L LGX in the Camaro and various Cadillacs is not a revised 3.6L LFX. It's rebuilt from the ground up. As far as the OP's question, I would avoid any 2013 models. The new 2.0T had some teething issues, so you have a much higher probability of finding a lemon with the first model year. Dealers that encounter the problem generally wind up dicking around for weeks or attempting to make cheap band-aid repairs that fail instead of just replacing the engine.

C'mon man. We all know every car can get marked up to ridiculous prices with pointless options. The base Camaro 2.0T is something like $27k, so already not cheap. The top turbo trim puts it at $31k. Loading it with every performance and aesthetic option is easily going to jack up the price to irrational levels. I know it can be done I just didn't expect to see one on a lot. Especially because that was the only new Camaro there. Just seemed more odd than anything to actually see one optioned like that on a dealer lot. It's certainly not the model I'd buy. That's the highest profit margin model, so they're probably hoping the newness will bring in buyers no matter what's under the hood. The V6 powered Camaro I keep building on the configurator when I'm bored has the highest trim below SS, RS pkg, and track braking/cooling for under $35k. Think of all the silly crap that must be on the $40,000+ turbo you saw!!

What the hell happened that tanked the 200 and Dart so abruptly after last year? They're down 62% and 37% respectively year over year, that's insane! The 200 in particular isn't bad at all, and for a year it was a runaway sales success for an FCA midsize car. I just can't imagine what clicked in buyers' minds that pushed people away in droves.

C'mon man. We all know every car can get marked up to ridiculous prices with pointless options. The base Camaro 2.0T is something like $27k, so already not cheap. The top turbo trim puts it at $31k. Loading it with every performance and aesthetic option is easily going to jack up the price to irrational levels.