pow

Where do the emissions come from? Magic? I have a feeling it's the amount of fuel burnt. You're right that the more RPMs, the more cycles, but the fuel burned per cycle isn't the same on all cars, period.

Get a cup, place something circular in the middle, take a photograph of it from an angle, and try not to show a "gap"...

I fail to see how "the 2nd car has to emit the same degree of emissions more often" is a direct result of increased RPMs, if "both burn the same amount of fuel at a given HP."

You may mock all you want, but that's what buyers look for these days, and it'd be foolish for GM to shrug it all off. Thankfully, they havent with the GMT900. Negative KWs is during regen mode, I think.

No, I get your point. That's what I was trying to say earlier, "The EPA doesn't test at specific RPMs, but rather 'whatever it takes' the car to perform the testing routine, which specifies the speed it must travel during each second." And my point is, the playing field for the EPA emissions test (fuel consumption) is level, because all cars must perform the same routine. It takes into consideration that some engines require 4500 RPM to do the same amount of work as one that requires 3500 RPM. Evidence from EPA test results suggest that such an engine would not necessarily emit less emissions (or vice versa) while trying "to deliver the desired level of acceleration in normal driving." Your theory doesn't take into consideration the amount of fuel burned per revolution. And why is that?

I don't mind the column-mounted lever... in fact, the whole interior reminds me of the new ML's, with its spacious center console and column-mounted trigger gear selector.

The Suburban's has more legroom and a footwell.

Hope it comes with some form of rollover protection.

Resistance is calculated into the rollers based on the curb weight and aerodynamic factors.

As if the current third row was inhabitable in the first place. That'll probably be the GMT900's weak points -- lack of third row space, no folding third row, and if the general architecture remains the same, poor access to the 2nd row (B-pillar in the way). Apparently, the 3 inches of length is equivalent to 17 inches of crush space... so that's good.

That is disappointing, but still, 20 MPG combined is incredible for such a large vehicle. Most struggle to get that on the highway! Interestingly, the 4.8, without DOD, gets even better combined MPG.

Definitely a hit... I'm not in the market for one, but it's still good news -- better vehicle-to-vehicle crash compatibility, which is nice, because every soccer mom will have one in 2 years. :P

I think the interior looks "pretty good." Not as cool as the F-150 Lariat's or Navigator's, but certainly pleasing enough. I wonder how the base model will look without the wood, metal, leather, and color. The exterior looks fabulous, with the exception of the Grand Cherokee-like rear end. edit: Actually, the more I look at it, the nicer it seems. I can only imagine what the Escalade's interior will look like.

Fuel consumption is a direct function of CO2 emissions; the EPA measures the amount of carbon released during the simulation and converts the mathematical equivalent into MPGs. Re: "would said engines get equal fuel economy if their power was developed at lower RPMs AND also emit less emissions?", such an engine would not emit less emissions...

Satty S-coupe thing?

First-ever made-in-China Cadillac.

The EPA doesn't test at specific RPMs, but rather "whatever it takes" the car to perform the testing routine, which specifies the speed it must travel during each second. This includes idling and brisk acceleration. I don't know if theoretically, more RPMs = more fuel burned, but certainly there are engines that make most of their power at higher RPMs AND get excellent fuel economy.

Another vote for the HHR... it isn't that much more than a Pursuit, but it's a lot more practical.

9 AM EST time? PST? Nevermind, I'm waking up at 6 tomorrow... ;)

No one wants a midsized WRX.

So we're not getting rebadged Opels after all... should've figured it earlier that they're too expensive for American consumption.

Well, from a "premium" brand, akin to the valiant attempt at an entry-level luxury car and Cadillac, I suppose.

Freestar/Monterey - Good geometry, good dynamic rating, Good overall Caravan/T&C, w/ lumbar - Acceptable geometry, acceptable dynamic rating, Acceptable overall Odyssey - Acceptable geometry, marginal dynamic rating, Marginal overall Caravan/T&C, w/o lumbar - Acceptable geometry, poor dynamic rating, Poor overall CSVs - Acceptable geometry, poor dynamic rating, Poor overall Sienna - Acceptable geometry, poor dynamic rating, Poor overall Astro, Safari, Caravan w/ fixed restraints - Poor geometry, no test, Poor overall MPV, Quest, Sienna w/o lumbar - Marginal geometry, no test, Poor overall ARLINGTON, VA — Seat/head restraint combinations in the Ford Freestar and its twin Mercury Monterey earn good overall ratings. Those in some Dodge Grand Caravan/Chrysler Town & Country models are rated acceptable, based on recent evaluations by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety [see Addendum 1 (PDF)]. However, the seat/head restraints in most current minivan models are marginal or poor, indicating they wouldn't provide adequate protection from whiplash injuries for many people in rear-end collisions. The ratings are for seat/head restraint designs available in 14 current minivan models. Starting points for the ratings are measurements of head restraint geometry — the height of a restraint and its horizontal distance behind the back of the head of an average-size man. Seats with good or acceptable restraint geometry then are tested dynamically using a dummy that measures forces on the neck. This test simulates a collision in which a stationary vehicle is struck in the rear at 20 mph. Seats without good or acceptable geometry are rated poor overall because they cannot be positioned to protect many people. Among the seat/head restraints that were tested dynamically, those in the Honda Odyssey are rated marginal overall. All seats in the Chevrolet Uplander (also sold as Buick Terazza, Pontiac Montana SV6, and Saturn Relay) and some in the Grand Caravan/Town & Country and Toyota Sienna are rated poor. These ratings are in addition to the good overall rating for the seats in the Freestar/Monterey and the acceptable rating for the seats in some Grand Caravan/Town & Country models. All of these seat/head restraint combinations earn overall ratings based on both geometry and dynamic test results. Another minivan, the Kia Sedona, has been redesigned for the 2006 model year but isn't yet available. Results for the Sedona will be released early next year. "Automakers are improving the geometry of their head restraints, compared with the last time we evaluated them," says Institute chief operating officer Adrian Lund. "Still, in this group of minivans the Fords are the only models with good dynamic performance for all of their seat designs. Many of the seat/head restraints we evaluated didn't even get to the testing stage because of marginal or poor geometry. These cannot begin to protect most people in rear-end crashes." Some seats automatically earn poor ratings: The Institute doesn't test seats with head restraints that are rated marginal or poor for geometry because such seats cannot be positioned to protect many taller people. The seats that weren't tested in this group include all of those in the Chevrolet Astro, GMC Safari, Mazda MPV, and Nissan Quest plus some seats in the Grand Caravan and Toyota Sienna. "It's disappointing that so many minivan seats are rated poor for rear impact protection," Lund says. "Drivers of minivans spend a lot of time on urban and suburban roads where rear-end collisions are common in stop-and-go traffic. Moms often are behind the wheel, and women are more vulnerable to whiplash injuries so they especially need good seats and head restraints." More... http://www.iihs.org/news/2005/pr091805.html

Yep, no matter how fast the Z06 is, it's still a hyped-up sports car. The GT, on the other hand, is a rare supercar with pedigree. Both excellent vehicles, just in different classes.

Priuses are also very popular among old women. Yesterday I've seen four of them with senior drivers.