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
    someday maybe this be my toy
  2. regfootball
    this metro area has 1 yellow stinger available in inventory. Didn't Kia have some issue with the Stingers with yellow paint? https://www.motor1.com/news/252396/kia-stinger-sunset-yellow-paint/
  3. regfootball
    The value equation on the Stinger will be good once the car hits discount phase. And I do like it as a choice in the market that wants to find buyers interested in DRIVING. Fewer and fewer of those choices these days. I think if merely the rear door opening for the window didn't have such a similar kink as the Optima, I would see it more as its own car.
  4. regfootball
    yeah, i really have grown to like the lines on the car. The front end of course old or new version will have friends and foes. wouldn't it be nice with just cloth heated seats and a moonroof, and a 2.0? configging a 2019 right now just for fun. The RS package has very limited options and looks cool, but the LT has more value features now, and you can actually on some exterior colors get an interior color besides black.
  5. regfootball
    got rear ended but i was given a rental while the car is getting fixed. But. Its another Malibu......... not at all a fan of silver, usually, but this is sort of growing on me. The cloth and the smaller touch screen I am trying to decide what i think.
  6. regfootball
    A good Chrysler crossfire would be a nice vintage find. Hey or an XLR
  7. regfootball
    The CT6 is larger, but the CT6 has a 'big hood'.....CT6 has a large back seat but not entirely as much as one would believe with the wheelbase and size of the car. A car like the S class has always bragged about leg room in the back seat being a big deal. So maybe not in midsize class, but for sure in the lux class, it is fair to say that if someone is looking at a luxury car, leg room is a big consideration. CAFE and government pressure to keep making vehicles smaller is why mainstreams cars are getting whacked in size. If you want size, then you must pay (suburban, big crossovers, etc.)
  8. regfootball
    You’re right about the Regal interior. It does come off better in the tan combo. The 6 is one of that cars strong points. I just keep seeing The 6 get praised so much in buff books and the whole ‘when the Mazda 6 gets a turbo it will the king ‘ and they finally put something other than their mid pack base engine in there and it isn’t near as fast as GM’s ubiquitous 2.0. That was sort of the main point. Buicks handling is not sporting material but it’s a decently quiet cruiser. I think the new Camry with sport package and v6 got some decent buff book reviews lately so yes that is a completely legit question. I want to see this new Altima coming out. Accord is fugly and deceptively tight inside. New Altima with turbo is worth waiting to see imo I never said the Buick with 2.0 was a sport sedan. I was merely pointing out that Mazda’s turbo is still not fast after all this time waiting for it If you’re looking at 35k for a Mazda it’s maybe time to look into a near Lux marque or just get a CPO Audi or BMW. And mazda JUST NOW getting CarPlay SMH
  9. regfootball
    mid sized sedans often get tested for fit of kid car seats too. Surprisingly, many of them are tight for getting car seats behind the fronts and having good access through the door. One car that is large but deceptively tight in the back, is the Fusion. Its not wholly uncomfortable, its just not as efficient as one would think considering how large the car is.
  10. regfootball
    EVERY YEAR, when at the auto show, and in the Cadillac section, it is brutally clear one huge reason why Cadillac doesn't make sales. Nearly everyone bitches about the useless back seat of the ATS, and even people comment on the cramp front quarters of the CTS (although that is more sort of due to console design). Cadillac used to have the original CTS be a tweener above the 3 series. The ATS fails in back seat room compared to 3 series and Mercedes, just by a noticeable enough amount to make a difference between usable and not usable. CTS is in a higher price class so it seems woefully small inside in comparison to perceived value vs sticker. Cadillac's heritage calling card, up until the last 10-15 years or so was spaciousness = luxury. Until they return to providing space expected in each class they will lose sales once people arrive at the test drive and put the car on for size.
  11. regfootball
    bingo. But now the new LSY in the XT4, i would love to see if it makes it to the Malibu. Improved NVH, and maybe if they added some tune to it. NOW you're talkin. The Mazda6 is tighter than Malibu, especially in the back. The front is comparable but the Mazda6 rear seat is the weak spot. Just enough tighter that adults won't like it IMO. One of the reasons besides bad NVH (at least back in 2014 or whatever) I crossed off the Mazda6 pretty quickly. I end up in the back seat often enough that it makes a diff to me.. Especially on long trips.
  12. regfootball
    Per Car and Driver 2018 Mazda6 signature C/D TEST RESULTS: Zero to 60 mph: 6.4 sec Zero to 100 mph: 16.0 sec Zero to 130 mph: 33.3 sec Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 6.7 sec Top gear, 30–50 mph: 3.2 sec Top gear, 50–70 mph: 4.2 sec Standing ¼-mile: 14.9 sec @ 97 mph Top speed (drag limited, mfr’s claim): 149 mph Braking, 70–0 mph: 184 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 g C/D FUEL ECONOMY: Observed: 21 mpg 75-mph highway driving: 36 mpg Highway range: 590 miles 2018 Buick Regal Sportback FWD (just sayin) Mazda continues to underwhelm, all the time, time to stop glorifying their run of the mill C/D TEST RESULTS: Zero to 60 mph: 5.6 sec Zero to 100 mph: 13.8 sec Zero to 130 mph: 28.8 sec Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 6.1 sec Top gear, 30–50 mph: 2.9 sec Top gear, 50–70 mph: 4.0 sec Standing ¼-mile: 14.2 sec @ 101 mph Top speed (governor limited): 131 mph Braking, 70–0 mph: 162 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.87 g C/D FUEL ECONOMY: Observed: 24 mpg 75-mph highway driving: 31 mpg Highway range: 490 miles
  13. regfootball
    Stinger to me looks far too much like Optima 2.0 and the interior space utilization is suspect. Not a fan of the dash either. I myself wouldn't look at a K900 until I see how good of deals occur on CPO used CT6 twin turbos the next year or two.....
  14. regfootball
    Yeah. I had my ford phase. Just kinda don’t wanna anymore any time soon. The 2.7 will be like the traverse 2.0. They’ll sit on lots for awhile. Unless they incentivize and bonus tag the poop out of them.
  15. regfootball
    truck owners think if their grille is large and blunt, people will think they have a huge package. the 5.3 doesn't have the best rep and the 2.7 is a ford, and who wants a Ford......
  16. regfootball
    THAT DARN GMAUTHORITY! I swear I didn't see this till now! hence, the meat curtains "Why didn’t the fuel economy figures move more dramatically? Drag coefficient of an area. While the 2019 Silverado boasts a drag coefficient that is 7 percent improved over the old truck, its surface area has increased. The truck’s face has increased, which means the pickup has to cut a larger hole through the air, and that requires more energy to move the Silverado and cut through a greater resistance." Read more: http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/10/2019-silverado-fuel-economy-2-7l-turbo-engine-returns-21-mpg-combined/#ixzz5TgGOVwpv
  17. regfootball
    hey that story was from GM "authority" lol, i now am in full 100% agreement.
  18. regfootball
    https://www.quora.com/What-is-aerodynamic-efficiency-and-what-are-the-parameters-required-to-calculate-it if you google the term ‘aerodynamic effieciency’ It is not necessarily a term that relates to fuel efficiency as much as it does lift and drag. And there’s not a clear cut definition of it. So it might help the truck stay glued to the road. It’s a term that in this case may be used as a marketing buzz term as much as anything. It says imroving fuel fuel economy but it doesn’t say ‘vs the 2018’ it can merely mean having the curtains on the 2019 over the wheels increased aerodynamics vs not having them on the 2019. The front end got larger so to offset that, they needed to add the curtains to offset the drag of the front wheels they didn’t have on the 18 got it marketing and and communications folks love to create press releases that can make a claim sound like something that sometimes stretches truth So the Silverado has meat curtains. Ha
  19. regfootball
    The hood and grille are taller and higher. The overall roof. Maybe not. I don’t see aerodynamics on the 19 contributing to any fe improvements. Whom amongst you has seen these side by side and touched them. In person the new truck has a more imposing and massive front. if there are aerodynamic improvements to this truck it is likely they gained it more from the underside of the vehicle than anything else. .
  20. regfootball
    it may have slightly improved technical number for cd but the size of the front end is yes visually larger than the 18 edit, i have actually seen this thing up close a few times now, and sat in it, and seen next to an 18.
  21. regfootball
    I think what you posted, the 4 cylinder being a full second quicker than the v6 is important too. I see a LOT of comments to articles on chevy trucks where people say the 5.3 v8 is quite a bit slower than the 6.2, and so really, the v6 is not quick, the 5.3, the truck owners even bitch about. So the four cylinder is faster than the six and lets find out if its better for general driving than the 5.3. the 2.7 might be an efficient engine, but the new Silverado has a huge hood and grille and is quite the brick. Hard to get mpg improvements even with the weight cutting, when the shape is as defiant as any out there. Aerodynamics hurts highway mpg more than city I would think.
  22. regfootball
    I think all that is really happening is GM is just getting it into production into something, to justify the investment. Like Ford did with the Ecoboost v6's they just started stuffing them into a bunch of things and after awhile they sold enough to make it worth the while. So even if they eventually plan to sell more of them, i think they just are fine for now to get a few out into the wild for 'real world testing', and I do think the Colorado gets its eventually too. It would have been nice to see the highway mpg go up a couple. I really love the new Silverado and TBH if I were just leasing a cheap new one, the 4 cylinder will be ok for the likes of me who don't tow or haul. I would want to do a real world acceleration test first though. I would probably like the low end torque. http://www.autonews.com/article/20181010/BLOG06/181019878
  23. regfootball
    a 2019 lower trim 4 cylinder silverado for me would be just fine, if i want a truck. I never have had one. But i don't tow or haul, so i think the 4 banger would work ok.
  24. regfootball
    ^^^^ its pretty amazing how decent the new Pacifica is, that won me over for a van and it drives better than a lot of CUV's and sedans, its why there's one in my garage right now. the guts of the Pacifica would be alright for a large sedan and crossover as well. LHS anyone?
  25. regfootball
    many other brands were down so I don't think GM looks real bad here or anything. I think this is natural market cooling, and in part because i think we are seeing resistance to the more and more absurd MSRP's. But the market wanted expensive CUV's and trucks and maybe its time for the automakers to back of the heavy optioned and expensive vehicles and try to serve the lower ends of the market a little better now. And maybe some folks will move back to cheaper mid size sedans, or not. It's probably ok for housing and car sales to cool off a bit. The used market may heat up then, which is ok too. from Ward's auto Maybe its time to wake up that why in the hell did they downsize the Acadia topic again
×
×
  • 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