Jump to content
News
Reviews
Discussons
Activity
Create New...
Close

regfootball

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    21,726

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

 Content Type 

Everything posted by regfootball

  1. regfootball
    love that fiero btw
  2. regfootball
    considering the lack of interest in electrics at the prices they are being sold at, it is more likely for development in electrics to advance faster at Tesla than they would at a GM etc. So in that regard, it is probably a good thing Tesla is still around to sort of break new ground. Ultimately I think if GM would swing for the fences with it, they would be beyond most successful re inventing the automobile. I just hope someone does it before the government intervenes and tells everyone what to build for electrics and cars in general.
  3. regfootball
    really want to hear your impressions on the 14 Regal. I always wanted a Regal, now with all the upgrades and the available AWD, it's damn hard to choose between the Regal and ATS if I had dough and was buying today!
  4. regfootball
    http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-buick-regal-turbo-awd-gs-awd-test-review http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-buick-regal-regal-gs-first-drive-review http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1309_2014_buick_regal_first_drive/ http://www.autoblog.com/2013/09/09/2014-buick-regal-gs-review-quick-spin/
  5. regfootball
    nice theory for a heavy large blocky vehicle. does the same theory apply for a small, light, aerodynamic vehicle? prove that a 2.5 litre pushrod 4 will have greater net benefit than a DOHC 2.0 or say a 1.5 turbo three.
  6. regfootball
    14 regal was testing quite well against the Audi and Volvo. I think I'd like to see a CLA vs Regal comparo
  7. regfootball
    my question is, is it worth the extra jing over a tarted up Altima. I would guess yes?
  8. regfootball
    that pic for some reason really hides a bunch of the clumsiness and actually makes it out to be quite fetching.
  9. regfootball
    maybe GM will take the chance to sink massive resources into a brand spanking new platform for global use across mega many models.
  10. regfootball
    mighty pricey Es-cop-ay
  11. regfootball
    But is it good enough to be in a Mercedes or BMW? GM often does this "good enough" thinking or cuts corners because they think it is acceptable. But being better than previous Cadillacs isn't the goal, being better than Mercedes and BMW is the goal.I agree with Dwight, 2 versions of the 2.0T would make sense, that is what BMW is doing with the 3-series. Plus the 3-series has a diesel that if a buyer is looking for MPG as a top priority, the ATS is in trouble as the 328d and 2015 C250 Bluetec get 45 mpg. So perhaps 2.0 diesel is in order more so than two versions of a gas turbo four. Well, it is ... about the same as the Nissan Altima 2.5. Is that good enough to be in a Cadiilac? You decide. There's no way the GM 2.5 and Nissan 2.5 are the same NVH! I've driven the Altima and Malibu. The Altima is a buzz saw in comparison.
  12. regfootball
    to me, its like what percent of the ATS will come with that motor. If it's ten percent, I think the 2.5 is just fine. Like I said, a lot of older Caddy fans are turbo averse. And they won't want a large six.
  13. regfootball
  14. regfootball
    deceptively snazzy!
  15. regfootball
    http://www.autoblog.com/2013/12/13/mercedes-cla-best-launch-20-years-tight-supply/ Caddy needs to go FWD again!!!!!! Mercedes seems to have filled the Cimarron market pretty well......... Dwight I agree, an mpg tuned turbo would be a good base engine. smk, i am seldom impressed with Merc and BMW
  16. regfootball
    Interesting to compare notes. In my 2.5 test drive, I found the 2.5 to be decently acceptable for a base car. I believe for cheap lease cars and those who are turbo averse, the 2.5 is fine. I thought the NVh overall was alright. Perhaps Cadillac should offer the 2.0t standard by next year but if they do that, they should bump up the tune on the cars Above the base car. Overall the ATS is really good. While I don't think the 2.5 should be widely available, if it allows some entry into the brand I think it's fine in limited application. Someone like my dad would not want a turbo. Plus, the mpg on the 2.5 is about 15-20 percent higher real world than the turbo. The ATS I tested did not have CUE. A 2.5 ATS rwd is the perfect cheap small getabout for a well to do widowed older woman with a small garage. Etc. or a nice commuter for someone who doesn't want a cheap midsize bit still wants mpg.
  17. regfootball
    Beautiful dog. Sorry to hear. Hard when friends pass away.
  18. regfootball
    I do think Jeep tends to hold some continuity. Dodge Dart is sort of like Neon II. I think Dodge and Chrysler had sort of charted a new boat when they moved into bed with Mercedes, and then that fell apart. They had big success with cab forward. Chrysler's problem I think is not really having a lot of memorable blockbuster models. GM you know has several, Ford even has a few. A VW Golf is a VW Golf. I think a good question here is do people prefer this in the spy photos or the last 200 concept? Both are alright, but I can see why Chrysler moved to the longer greenhouse as it is trendy right now.
  19. regfootball
    the iron duke of old had about 100hp and 140 torque, and delivered solid mpg. The 2.5 even if it is detuned and the torque curve tuned down a bit, will achieve a combined EPA of 23-25 I would guess, and will as fast as a lot of sedans. It may not be best suited in 4WD, but even so it will probably outrun the colorado.
  20. regfootball
    i don't really see much in the way of any recognizable Chrysler cues, unless you look at the grille.
  21. regfootball
    well, the last colorado was no sales champ or mpg champ with the atlas, and it's simpler to cast an in line 4 block than a v block. the 2.5 engine is developed and each vehicle additional they sell with the engine writes the cost of it down even further. as far as the torque curve, i am sure they can retune the engine for truck duty just fine. most colorado buyers are looking for an economy car with a truck bed. the old S-10 4 banger was just fine as a car engine too. The big thing with the Chevy and the Colorado is just to get the truck back in the market again. Over time once people get used to it in the market again, and there is demand, it's extremely likely they will add the 4.3 as a top level option. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2007_Chevrolet_Colorado.shtml the old Atlas 4 had pathetic fuel economy. Perhaps one reason why sales of that truck were in the crapper. 16 and 22? LMAO
  22. regfootball
    in the new colorado, i think the engine choices are perfect. Although I could see the 4.3 being added as a top level option later. The 3.6 is a car engine and really for most people a midsize truck is intended to be a car anyways. Think Ridgeline. If you really need a truck for utility you'll get a full sizer. Really looking forward to seeing the real world FE of the 2.5 in it. The combined in the Malibu is 29 mpg. The old S10 iron duke had a rep of fabulous mpg yet enough power to do some light duty hauling. I think the new 2.5 is perfect as the volume motor. It'll be like having an economy car with a truck bed for the occasional Ikea haul etc. That's the type of engine that would kickstart popularity in that class again.
  23. regfootball
    I suppose they may have been trying to look like an A7 knockoff but the side glass really just looks like a current gen Avalon or a 2010 Mazda6 (which is better looking than this). There's some M45 in there also. The front end and greenhouse don't flow together totally. Front end design doesn't quite mesh to the rest of the car IMO. It's like they are trying to make an early 000's 300M front end to the rest of the car that is not the same. Overall it's still an improvement over what is there now.
  24. regfootball
    what is the diesel fuel blend there.....do they have a 'winter blend' diesel?
  25. regfootball
    cool! any idea what your mpg has averaged out to?
×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

I've whitelisted
Continue without support

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search