Frisky Dingo

My point is, which your post perfectly makes clear, is that Cadillac is relying on a price advantage in comparison. The fact that you need to go up a trim to get a powertain that is conclusively superior to it's rivals isn't a good thing, imo. While the CTS 2.0T may enjoy a relatively level playing field in terms of power, refinement, efficiency, etc, the 36 certainly doesn't. A little bit of extra kick and their new 8AT isn't going to be enough to keep it from being overshadowed by it's rivals in my eyes. Also, when you start optioning the cars equally, the Cadiallacs pricing advantage gets eroded in many cases. As just one one example, an Audi S6 and CTS V Sport are only separated by only 2 grand when similarly equipped. And the S6 has AWD, a V8, and a proper DCT. And that kind of pricing level, the CTS isn't even an option for me, or virtually anyone else looking in this segment, and I think you know that. I'm confused by you saying "A proper DCT". The Cadillac 8-speed is as fast or faster than even Porsche's DCT.... or is the "how" more important than the results? If results don't matter, then sure, go for the DCT.. but don't claim that a DCT is better simply for being a DCT. If I select the V-Sport Premium and add 19" wheels (to make it fair) it comes in at $73k, yet I have to option the S6 up to $80k just to get the same level of tech that the Vsport has... so I'm still not seeing the vast Audi advantage you are (aside from AWD, which is a valid need in certain areas). You call it "going up a trim" but really it is just selecting a horsepower level at a specific price. The people going for raw horsepower pick the engine first and the trim second. The fact remains that at the pricing levels of the "buy-up" engines from Germany, you get V-Sport power from Cadillac. SMK likes to point at the Benz E400 and compare it to the Cadillac 3.6 for some reason, when for the same price as the E400, one can get a CTS V-Sport. It simply doesn't make sense to me to be okay with buying up to an E400, but objecting to buying up to a V-Sport. More examples? You can get the base CTS V-Sport for $64k (base plus 19s), but to get the same level of equipment in a BMW 535i, you have to option it up to $68k and you're still substantially down on power. 300hp v 420hp... no contest. Select the V-Sport Premium for $70k, match it option for option to a 535i, and you be paying $70k for a BMW with a 120hp deficit behind the Cadillac. If you go for the 550i, for the same price, you end up sacrificing tech to get the performance. Match the tech of the 550i to the V-Sport premium, and you're paying at least $7k more. You don't think it's fair to compare the V-Sport to the non-"Sport" models of the German sport-sedans? Fine. Starting with a 528i in blue (everything but basic black or white is an upcharge, blue seems popular in my area), we'll add heated seats, Driver Assist (rear camera, park sensors, heads up display), Premium package (Sat Radio and keyless entry), and SmartPhone integration ($200 just to plug in your phone), that gets you to $57k for a 240hp RWD BMW. Head over to Cadillac and select the base V6 for $54k, you get everything included in the above packages, plus cooled seats and another 95 horsepower. If you're fine with a 4-cylinder, stick with the CTS 2.0T, spend the same $57k as the 528i and get even more on the options list while still getting more power. It is very very easy to option the Germans up and over the base V-Sport prices.... or even just option up a lower powered car well over the price of the higher powered car from Cadillac. Unless you're buying a truly base price German trim (which almost no one does, they're not often even stocked), you're simply going to pay more for less at a German brand. I built an S6 Premium with options and a CTS V-Sport out to as identical in options as I could, and there was only a 2 grand price difference in favor of the Cadillac. But that was but one example. In others, there is a larger price advantage in favor of Cadillac. The 5 Series, in particular, does represent rather poor value, more poor as you go lower in engine trims. As for the 8AT, it's overhyped to put it mildly. I've experienced in several vehicles now, and while GM may like to tout that it's as quick as a DCT or PDK during full=throttle upshifts, it's a whole different story in part-throttle upshifts, downshifts, seamlessness, and response to using paddles. I just don't find it to be an impressive transmission. It's fine in mundane applications, in cars like the Z06, Cadillacs, etc, it needs to be replaced with a proper dual clutch auto. That's my opinion (as well as that of many others, journalists included) and I'm sticking to it. If you disagree, fine by me. I think you have a very strong bias for GM products, fwiw, so it doesn't surprise me.

You already have people complaining about the prices. Add TT to each engine you add much more to the price tag. Also what would you use for the V sport then. Cadillac is offering a nice spread of V6 models that will hold a price that will give customers a choice. Most buyers will be happy with 335 HP as most people are fine at 300 HP in most cars. If they want more the 3.0 TT will be around 400 HP for the V sport when it arrives. You need to let them play the rest of the cards they hold and see the whole picture. A boosted six cylinder is the standard of this segment. Cadillac is trying to compete with less while having to try to overcome their inferior perception to buyers. That just won't cut it. They need to build a car that one ups the competition in every regard, not just one or two, and count on price to do the rest. They need more power, they need more luxury, and they need to be priced in line with their rivals. Bump the V Sport up to 470 hp, and put a 3.0 TT in the CTS below it with 375 hp. Most people being fine with 300 hp is irrelevant. By that logic, Cadillac shouldn't build the CTS-V . As always, it seems like they're just a few ingredients shy of the right recipe to show up the rest of the class. I'm unsure which Cadillac you're referring to, but if it is the CTS, you can get into a V-Sport for a couple grand less than the equivalent (or lesser) engine in the German cars. The list below, in order of price and excluding diesels or hybrids (because horsepower wonks don't care about those anyway). Every step of the way, Cadillac offers more horsepower for your dollar than the Germans. For example, if you're already going to spend at least $55k + options on a 300hp 6-cylinder 5-series, but ultimate power is important to you... spending an extra $5k (or less) to get into a CTS V-Sport seems like a no brainer to me. Or another example... I can't imagine going for an A6 3.0 Premium Plus with a few options for $61k when the V-Sport with those same options for the same money is one car lot over. What if you're bargain shopping your mid-size luxury vehicle? The lighter and more powerful CTS 2.0 rules the day over the 528i easily.... and even when upgrading the CTS to real leather seats, it is still $1k less than the BMW with plastic seats. CTS 2.0T - base price $45k - 268hp (Turbo 4) Audi A6 2.0T - base price $46 - 252hp (Turbo 4 - FWD) BMW 528 - base price $50k - 240hp (Turbo 4) MB E350 - base price $53k - 305hp (N/A V6) CTS 3.6 - base price $54k - 335hp (N/A V6) BMW 535i - base price $55k - 300hp (I6) Audi A6 3.0 - base price $57k - 333hp (S/C V6) CTS 3.6 TT - base price $60k - 420hp (Twin-Turbo V6) MB E400 - base price $63k - 329hp (Bi-Turbo V6) BMW 550i - base price $66k - 445hp (Twin-Turbo V8) Audi S6 - base price $70k - 450hp (Turbo V8) CTS-V 6.3 - base price $83k - 640hp (Supercharged V8) BMW M5 - base price $93k - 560hp (Twin-Turbo V8) MB E63 AMG - base price $101k - 577hp (Bi-Turbo V8) My point is, which your post perfectly makes clear, is that Cadillac is relying on a price advantage in comparison. The fact that you need to go up a trim to get a powertain that is conclusively superior to it's rivals isn't a good thing, imo. While the CTS 2.0T may enjoy a relatively level playing field in terms of power, refinement, efficiency, etc, the 36 certainly doesn't. A little bit of extra kick and their new 8AT isn't going to be enough to keep it from being overshadowed by it's rivals in my eyes. Also, when you start optioning the cars equally, the Cadiallacs pricing advantage gets eroded in many cases. As just one one example, an Audi S6 and CTS V Sport are only separated by only 2 grand when similarly equipped. And the S6 has AWD, a V8, and a proper DCT. And that kind of pricing level, the CTS isn't even an option for me, or virtually anyone else looking in this segment, and I think you know that.

Why do you think the 2.0 will be right on its ass? It's off by 60hp and most likely even has LRR tires on it as it is the fuel economy model. It seems like a 14.5 car. I know it makes more torque than the v6 but I can't see it running a 14.1-14.2 to the V6's 13.9-14.1. Two reasons: first, the CTS and ATS already existed with the 2.0T and outgoing LFX V6 side by side, and the acceleration differences are minimal. Motor Trend even found the CTS with both engines to be right on top of each other. Second, the 2016 CTS 2.0T AWD 8-speed auto was already tested by Car & Driver, it ran a 5.8 sec 0-60 and a 14.5 1/4 mile while weighing a bit over 3900 lbs. Assuming logically the Camaro will be a few tenths faster than that (500 lbs advantage), the 2.0T and LGX V6 will be 3 tenths apart at best. HAVE YOU BEEN READING MY DIARY!? I've been wishing and hoping for a Camaro 327 ever since rumors began swirling about the gen 6 Alpha Camaro over a year ago. It's the perfect blend of power for the street and livable fuel economy. The truck engine makes 355 hp/383 lb-ft, so a sporty intake manifold and free flowing exhaust would make around 380/380. Plus the heritage "327" marketing potential. I agree. I don't really care how they arrange the V6 and turbo-4 to make room for it, but it'd be an awesome alternative to the SS. These V8 Pony cars are just getting so expensive and capable, it's overkill and out of reach for a lot of people. Seems like they could build a 5.3 version with slightly smaller brakes, less aggressive rolling stock, no MRC, and a few other tidbits, and have a car that's a good 3K cheaper. That allows the options of tuning the V6 model down a bit to stay in the low-300hp range. As for the turbo-4, just put it in a Code 130R already.

I still wish GM would use a smaller displacement V8 in the Camaro. The V6 model could have dropped altogether this generation with a 5.3 V8 that made 350 hp. It should have been relatively easy to make it hit MPG goals, and I can't imagine it being more expensive than the V6 they are putting in there. On top of that, it'd sound better, have better tunability, perform better, be more compact, and offer something the competition doesn't.

You already have people complaining about the prices. Add TT to each engine you add much more to the price tag. Also what would you use for the V sport then. Cadillac is offering a nice spread of V6 models that will hold a price that will give customers a choice. Most buyers will be happy with 335 HP as most people are fine at 300 HP in most cars. If they want more the 3.0 TT will be around 400 HP for the V sport when it arrives. You need to let them play the rest of the cards they hold and see the whole picture. A boosted six cylinder is the standard of this segment. Cadillac is trying to compete with less while having to try to overcome their inferior perception to buyers. That just won't cut it. They need to build a car that one ups the competition in every regard, not just one or two, and count on price to do the rest. They need more power, they need more luxury, and they need to be priced in line with their rivals. Bump the V Sport up to 470 hp, and put a 3.0 TT in the CTS below it with 375 hp. Most people being fine with 300 hp is irrelevant. By that logic, Cadillac shouldn't build the CTS-V . As always, it seems like they're just a few ingredients shy of the right recipe to show up the rest of the class. The performance of the present engines in these cars are very competitive to even better than the others. The real issue is refinement and exclusivity. GM has tried to make the 3.0 a Cadillac engine but it is too close to the corporate 3.6. This will soon change when they get their own engines on line. I expect smoother and more sophisticated engines that will better define Cadillac's independence. Also when you pay more you should get more than a corporate engine. The engines are an example of where Cadillac is. They are good but not good enough. Then must not be close but they must be clearly better to win image and respect here. Better track times alone and other good comments are not enough. If you want to win in this segment and beat the champs you must knock them out. That is what the next 5 years will bring us. To win it must be unanimous in any kind of comparison. I agree with most of what you said, however the only engines from a competing make the Cadillac 3.6 favorably stands up to are those from Infiniti and Lexus. All 3 of the Germans' blown sixes wife the floor with it.

You already have people complaining about the prices. Add TT to each engine you add much more to the price tag. Also what would you use for the V sport then. Cadillac is offering a nice spread of V6 models that will hold a price that will give customers a choice. Most buyers will be happy with 335 HP as most people are fine at 300 HP in most cars. If they want more the 3.0 TT will be around 400 HP for the V sport when it arrives. You need to let them play the rest of the cards they hold and see the whole picture. A boosted six cylinder is the standard of this segment. Cadillac is trying to compete with less while having to try to overcome their inferior perception to buyers. That just won't cut it. They need to build a car that one ups the competition in every regard, not just one or two, and count on price to do the rest. They need more power, they need more luxury, and they need to be priced in line with their rivals. Bump the V Sport up to 470 hp, and put a 3.0 TT in the CTS below it with 375 hp. Most people being fine with 300 hp is irrelevant. By that logic, Cadillac shouldn't build the CTS-V . As always, it seems like they're just a few ingredients shy of the right recipe to show up the rest of the class.

Not impressed with those numbers of the V6 at all. If that's all they could get out of an 'all new' engine, they should have just gone the forced induction route. Why they aren't putting a 3.0 V6 TT into everything they got baffles me.

I think it looks awesome with the aero kit. Honestly, this is how I'd want this car- 7MT vert. Track times be damned. You could actually enjoy it for what this car is- a monster-muscle GT.

Good call. I haven't driven the new Tacoma yet, but unless it's substantially better than the old truck, it can't hold a candle to the Twins.

This year was a very disappointing group. The lack of a GT3 just killed it. It really would have been that car's to lose.

I like it. I just wish they were putting the 8AT across the board. I'll be posting a review as soon as we get our first one in. A new Tacoma review is coming soon too, btw.

Both that Nissan and Mercedes rendering look really good to me. I don't see why they wouldn't do this. Pretty much all of the German brands are making vehicles upon vehicles that just just overlap and serve no real distinct purpose. Might as well continue the trend. That said, I wouldn't want it, and I don't think it'd sell really well.

The name 'N' is completely stupid and meaningless. They don't need a performance sub-brand, they need to continue to increase their refinement levels and work on their powertrains. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure Hyundai understand what makes a good sports car. The best trim level on the Gen Coupe was an automatic V6 Track. The 2.0T is gutless and the 6MT is hamstringed with overly conservstive programming that prevents you from really wringing the car out. Then there's the Veloster. One of the worst modern cars on sale today, imo. All the drawbacks of a sports car- flinty ride, excessive noise, diminished practicality- with none of the pros. The steering is lifeless, the handling is mushy, the engine sounds agricultural, the dual clutch trans is dimwitted and slow. Just a joke of a car. Then you had the R Spec Gen sedan that felt like steering a boat rather than a car.

It is an improvement, albeit a small one. It's still not aggressive enough to draw many buyers' looks. I for one have no problem with the looks, as they're fitting on a car like this. My problem lies with how GM packaged the car. They should have either built lower-end models so they could be competitive with Charger, or if they wanted to stick to an expensive one-car-fits-all approach, they should have found a way to get the new LT1 and trannys in there. As it stands, it's a fantastic car to drive, especially in 6MT form. It's a new BMW E39 M5. But with modern features and better reliability. I've given serious thought to buying one, but my employee price is still in the 42K ball park, and I just can't justify it. I'll wait for a GM corporate demo to pop up with a few thousand miles that I can get for cheap, and maybe make a move then.

Hell, almost half the list could have been Cadillacs- Ciel, Cien, Miraj, Sixteen.

Upvoting and downvoting is little kid $h!. This isn't Facebook.

Courtesy of Jalopnik. http://jalopnik.com/the-ten-greatest-concept-cars-that-were-never-produced-1731261716 I personally think the list is garbage. Cadillac in particular has numerous models that have all been left out. Not to mention countless others. Thoughts?

Thing is going to be a monster! I'm guessing power @ 625. I hope it hurries up and comes out. I still want the current car, and this will undoubtedly help the values come down some.

Just awful. It looks like a cross between the last Civic and Crosstour.

Yeah, too bad that's #6 out of a class that really only has 11 players in reality. Also, while everyone is throwing the sales figures around, here's a juicy little tidbit that nobody knows or ever hears/talks about- GM counts their service loaners as monthly sales. In other words, they're inflated. That's 6 out of 13 in reality. Why you would exclude the Subaru and the Mazda is beyond me, other than the fact that you are saying it like that to support your point, which is a bit muddled at best Frisky. Sorry. Lol, I am counting the Subaru and Mazda. 1)Toyota Camry 2)Honda Accord 3)Nissan Altima 4)Ford Fusion 5)Hyundai Sonata 6)Chevy Malibu 7)Chrysler 200 8)Kia Optima 9)VW Passat 10)Mazda 6 11)Subaru Legacy What on earth is so hard to understand about this? I think I would include the Regal and CC as well, but that's just my personal opinion. Either way.. the top 5 have a pretty solid sales lead on the rest of the field. I personally wouldn't, but if you insist, they are closer than the rest of the vehicles in that list.

I'm sorry, are you really trying to insult me because of my profession?? Well so you are not the wash boy? To be honest I really did not know what you did nor really care. You have taken your shots too and I just return in kind. If I wanted to hurt your feeling I would have said something bad about your mother. I normally keep things on the respectful level till the other person stops being respectful in kind. I can disagree and get along with most people but when they start like you have here I really don't care anymore. First thing you need to do is not judge the new car with the past. The past has many issue that do not pertain to the new car. H second Honda and Toyota have a happy fan base and it will only take time and better product to over come that. Better product we have coming and time will just take that time. As for under powered? Till you drive the car you had better not pass judgment on what you have no clue of. You think you can really notice 7 FT LBS? This is what you feel and what moves the car from a stop not as much HP. You mechanical aptitude side does correlate with a Salesman. The truth is todays Malibu that is coming will be as good as any car in the segment. Changing minds takes time and not much anyone can do with that. While you may not be able to sell a Malibu many people must be able as there are a ton of them on the road. With the way you think I can see why you can't sell one. Judgmental Pessimism of a product does not lend to being a good salesman of a product. That's BS. All I said was that I didn't like how the car went backwards on power. And then you, and an Admin of all people jumped all on my $h! for no reason. Maybe you should go back and read this thread over, guy. YOU started with the insults and the disrespect. Heaven forbid someone have an opinion that you disagree with concerning a GM product. It's not like I said the car was going to be a POS or anything. I said I wished they didn't lower the power, and I thought it'd feel weak. If you have a problem with fine, you're entitled to your own thoughts on the matter. But either state as much in a respectful manner or just move along. As for my mechanical aptitude, I was an aircraft mechanic in the USAF, cars are a piece of cake. If you don't understand how easily (less!) peak torque being available 2K rpm earlier can easily be outweighed by losing 36hp, then I really don't know what to tell you. Malibus aren't bought as in-town commuters. They're bought as family cars. Meaning long drives over the open road should be taken into account. This thing will struggle at that task, especially with multiple occupants. That's just my opinion. If you don't like it, great. I think just about all the 4 cylinder offerings in this class aren't sufficient for such a task, but some are clearly more endowed than others. If, IF, it truly loses 300hp and it makes up the difference, awesome. I STILL think it would have been even BETTER, if they dropped weight, AND kept power levels closer to what they already have. GM needs to stop catching up to the rest of the class, and make a vehicle that clearly pushes beyond it. They did it with the Colorado. Imo, they did it with the first Cruze. But this car is not as impressive as it could have been from a powertrain perspective. As for your continued low shots at my profession, I'll feel you in on a little tidbit. The best sales people can mask their feelings toward a product and individual and focus on the sale. It's 101. I absolutely hate the Equinox and sell boat loads of them. That's how sales works. What I look for in a car is irrelevant to a buyer. And for the record, I quite like the current Malibu. But when measured against the class leaders in the areas that matter most to buyers, the car is at a disadvantage. That much is established fact at this point. As for your post I have seen what you have done here before and was not surprised with what you have done with me. I really don't take it personal and we will leave it like that. If Admin contacted you other must perceive your post different from you. Semantics of the words often can mean different things to other people but comments that you don't know $h! normally is worded in a better way. As for what you did in the past I appreciate your service but that does not always translate to the automotive sector as much. I know some great jet mechanics but they really do not understand the workings of Variable Timing on a Cam. Heck I have had to explain to SAE Cert Mechanics that they have to clearance blocks to do a stroker engine. Everyone has their specialty and weakness nothing wrong with that. Enough personal crap. Here is the deal. Yes the car will lose 300 Pounds. The performance index is going to be about the same as it was if not better. GM will not make a slower or less performing car but it will get better MPG. As for the open road around town is where the power is more noticeable in stop and go traffic. On the open road the car is moving at a steady rate and really needs little power to keep it in motion. The turbo will help in higher altitudes as it will adjust to the needs etc. Power is missed in town when you are shooting for gaps in traffic and when you are 0-40 MPH. If you let them bring this out you will note the performance metrics will show this car will be as good as anything in class performance wise. You do understand that none of the cars in this class are able to meet the coming MPG CAFE standards. The cutting of weight and smaller engines while keeping the same performance will be done on all the models in this segment. The advancement of the Hybrid systems will become even more common. The coming system here sounds good but we really have not seen enough to praise or condemn it yet. By the way the Colorado kept the same engine but gained weight. Cutting power could not be done. The coming Cruze was already using the smaller engines. The Malibu still offers the 2.0 if you want it and is more than enough power to make nearly anyone happy. Note the power in that engine will make it run numbers better than a stock 1968 SS Chevelle. As for your profession there are good and bad sales people out there. Too often the turn over leaves many dealers hurting but too often the way they treat the staff it is their own fault. It is not just auto sales but sales in general that too often brings the worst out of some folks for survival. I don't know you and I can not judge you so I will not. As for what you think that is fine but get used to the fact that others here feel different. If you want to prove your point give us facts or at least info that backs up your point. Posting WTF and you don't know SH*T does not prove your point. Build a case with evidence to prove your point. You do that and there is no argument. But I feel and I think builds nothing and it is all just personal preference at this point. I am not the first person you have clashed with here and at the rate it has gone I will not be the last. Structured arguments and substantiated info goes much better in a debate. We do that here often and most of us get along fine. We may not agree but we still get along. At this point I have presented my side and am willing to let the first road test prove me right or wrong on the performance and sales to prove me right or wrong on the acceptance. A new car like this takes 2-3 years to show if it was a success and there is no argument in the end. The numbers will show how things went. Here is my first post- "I predict this car is still going to continue with poor sales. I really like the styling. I don't like how they are lowering power levels, though." Here is my second- I'm sorry, I still think this thing is going to feel pokey. I think anything under 180hp is too little for this class. Even with the weight loss, I can see this thing feeling labored, especially with 2-3 passengers and cargo. Heck, you can get more powerful engines in the Mazda 3 and Focus. As for the sales, I think the sales will increase very little, if at all. GM refuses to get aggressive on leasing programs, and coupled with ever increasing CUV market share, it sets the stage for mediocre sales. I can also all but guarantee there will be issues at launch with availability of certain trims, options, etc. That said, I'm still very much looking forward to seeing one in person and driving one. Here is yours- Drew it is clear he has no clue or even has driven one of the Eco DI Turbo engines as it has more low end Torque than some recent V8 models and a torque curve flatter than the Bonneville. It is post like this that lose credibility in the argument and he finishes himself off. So you can clearly see where I not only posted anything insulting until YOU did, I also did not even unduly criticize the car. In fact, I gave it compliments in my posts, and criticized others in the same class in them, as well. As for the rest of your post, I've always done most of my maintenance on my cars. They're not hard. If a mechanic doesn't understand variable valve timing, he needs to find another job. But regardless, my mechanical ability has no bearing on my posts. I haven't had trouble with anyone hear who has approached conversation in a level-headed and respectful manner. If you and Drew would do so, I wouldn't have had issues with you, either. I'm one of the least biased, open-minded, and experienced posters here and at MT, and you have to really get personal or just be an ignorant fanboy for me to take issue. And even then, so long as double standards aren't being used or others' reasonable opinions aren't attacked, I'll still let it ride. I don't have to give out facts when stating my opinion. That's what DEFINES an opinion. I'm sorry you seem to have a different definition of the term, and when it is acceptable to use. Just get over it already. Stop getting so bent out of shape over someone else's thoughts on a car you don't even own or had a hand in building. Holy crap.

Yeah, too bad that's #6 out of a class that really only has 11 players in reality. Also, while everyone is throwing the sales figures around, here's a juicy little tidbit that nobody knows or ever hears/talks about- GM counts their service loaners as monthly sales. In other words, they're inflated. That's 6 out of 13 in reality. Why you would exclude the Subaru and the Mazda is beyond me, other than the fact that you are saying it like that to support your point, which is a bit muddled at best Frisky. Sorry. Lol, I am counting the Subaru and Mazda. 1)Toyota Camry 2)Honda Accord 3)Nissan Altima 4)Ford Fusion 5)Hyundai Sonata 6)Chevy Malibu 7)Chrysler 200 8)Kia Optima 9)VW Passat 10)Mazda 6 11)Subaru Legacy What on earth is so hard to understand about this?

Ford doesn't that I'm aware of. Don't know FCA. Honda and Toyota don't.

Yeah, too bad that's #6 out of a class that really only has 11 players in reality. Also, while everyone is throwing the sales figures around, here's a juicy little tidbit that nobody knows or ever hears/talks about- GM counts their service loaners as monthly sales. In other words, they're inflated.

Well so you are not the wash boy? To be honest I really did not know what you did nor really care. You have taken your shots too and I just return in kind. If I wanted to hurt your feeling I would have said something bad about your mother. I normally keep things on the respectful level till the other person stops being respectful in kind. I can disagree and get along with most people but when they start like you have here I really don't care anymore. First thing you need to do is not judge the new car with the past. The past has many issue that do not pertain to the new car. H second Honda and Toyota have a happy fan base and it will only take time and better product to over come that. Better product we have coming and time will just take that time. As for under powered? Till you drive the car you had better not pass judgment on what you have no clue of. You think you can really notice 7 FT LBS? This is what you feel and what moves the car from a stop not as much HP. You mechanical aptitude side does correlate with a Salesman. The truth is todays Malibu that is coming will be as good as any car in the segment. Changing minds takes time and not much anyone can do with that. While you may not be able to sell a Malibu many people must be able as there are a ton of them on the road. With the way you think I can see why you can't sell one. Judgmental Pessimism of a product does not lend to being a good salesman of a product. That's BS. All I said was that I didn't like how the car went backwards on power. And then you, and an Admin of all people jumped all on my $h! for no reason. Maybe you should go back and read this thread over, guy. YOU started with the insults and the disrespect. Heaven forbid someone have an opinion that you disagree with concerning a GM product. It's not like I said the car was going to be a POS or anything. I said I wished they didn't lower the power, and I thought it'd feel weak. If you have a problem with fine, you're entitled to your own thoughts on the matter. But either state as much in a respectful manner or just move along. As for my mechanical aptitude, I was an aircraft mechanic in the USAF, cars are a piece of cake. If you don't understand how easily (less!) peak torque being available 2K rpm earlier can easily be outweighed by losing 36hp, then I really don't know what to tell you. Malibus aren't bought as in-town commuters. They're bought as family cars. Meaning long drives over the open road should be taken into account. This thing will struggle at that task, especially with multiple occupants. That's just my opinion. If you don't like it, great. I think just about all the 4 cylinder offerings in this class aren't sufficient for such a task, but some are clearly more endowed than others. If, IF, it truly loses 300hp and it makes up the difference, awesome. I STILL think it would have been even BETTER, if they dropped weight, AND kept power levels closer to what they already have. GM needs to stop catching up to the rest of the class, and make a vehicle that clearly pushes beyond it. They did it with the Colorado. Imo, they did it with the first Cruze. But this car is not as impressive as it could have been from a powertrain perspective. As for your continued low shots at my profession, I'll feel you in on a little tidbit. The best sales people can mask their feelings toward a product and individual and focus on the sale. It's 101. I absolutely hate the Equinox and sell boat loads of them. That's how sales works. What I look for in a car is irrelevant to a buyer. And for the record, I quite like the current Malibu. But when measured against the class leaders in the areas that matter most to buyers, the car is at a disadvantage. That much is established fact at this point.