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

smk4565

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    13,686

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

 Content Type 

Everything posted by smk4565

  1. smk4565
    I think the Mercedes transmission in comfort mode still kicks down to 1st if you floor it. I will try it later on. I always use sport mode because my car has a dead pedal feel on initial tip in.
  2. smk4565
    I am in agreement with everyone else on the 10-speed. I was surprised to see them put it in production so soon when they just started using 8 speeds. So that was unexpected. I also wondered why Cadillac or Corvette wouldn't get it first. Unless they wanted to work the bugs out first on a car with a less discerning buyer. I wonder if there will be a fwd version of the 10 speed anytime soon. Because a transmission like that has more benefit to a small engine like a 150 HP to maximize the powerband.
  3. smk4565
    I'd take a 90s Ferrari 355 over an NSX. The NSX is lame, always was lame. I'll pass on a $200,000 car with a turbocharged Accord V6.
  4. smk4565
    3.0TT isn't the fastest CT6. 4.0TT is coming.Right and I all along said they need a Dohc V8, I'd like to see it in a CTS VSport or Escalade too. But there were several people on CT6 threads a few months back saying the TT V6 would outrun their German V8s because of lower weight, and I knew that wouldn't be the case and it isn't.The German three also all offer a 6 liter 12 cylinder. That might not be for the CT6 to worry about but they need to remember that on CT8. You just looooooove cherry picking. The RWD S550 with a twin turbo V8 is 0.1 seconds faster than an AWD CT6 3.0TT. A statistical tie.. Cadillac caught a RWD 4.7 liter Bi-Turbo Benz V8 using an AWD 3.0 liter twin-turbo V6 and did so with a 49hp and 116 lb-ft of torque deficit. yes, the weight matters. It's funny that you only see the 0.1 seconds while I see all of the extra grunt Mercedes has to use just to catch a Cadillac V6. Mercedes is throwing a lot more metal to get to 4.9 seconds than Cadillac is to get to 5.0. Astonishingly, that also means that the CT6 AWD 3.0TT is only 0.3 seconds slower to 60 than the S65 V12... The fastest S-Class is the S63 though, because it has AWD. It's best 0 - 60 is 4.6 seconds. That gives Cadillac lots of room to maneuver. If they cared about the 0.1 seconds that much, then the 3.6TT is just an email from JDN away. Then there is the 4.0TT also coming and that's not even the V-series model. S550 with or without awd has been clocked at 4.8 seconds, the coupe for some reason is 4.5 seconds, even though it doesn't weigh any less. The 9-speed cars are faster though, I think when the sedan switches transmissions it will be closer to 4.6 seconds. But if we want to cherry pick, an Audi A8L 4.0 (not an S8) can do 0-60 in 4.0 seconds and posts better fuel economy than a CT6. 29 mpg highway on the V8 Audi, 26 on the CT6, both are 18 city. But as I said, many thought the 3.0TT V6 would outrun the Germans, it doesn't. I'll listen to and agree with that the 3.0TT V6 is a nice mid-level engine choice on a Cadillac sedan or could be good on a large crossover. And I know the V8 is coming, I hope it comes soon.
  5. smk4565
    3.0TT isn't the fastest CT6. 4.0TT is coming.Right and I all along said they need a Dohc V8, I'd like to see it in a CTS VSport or Escalade too. But there were several people on CT6 threads a few months back saying the TT V6 would outrun their German V8s because of lower weight, and I knew that wouldn't be the case and it isn't.The German three also all offer a 6 liter 12 cylinder. That might not be for the CT6 to worry about but they need to remember that on CT8.
  6. smk4565
    Until they price the Continental we can't compare it to a CT6. If the Continental is CT6 money, forget it, the Continental will be dead on arrival. But if a 400 hp all wheel drive Continental is $48,000 and a 400 hp CT6 awd is $78,000 then maybe the Continental has an argument. Speaking of the CT6, Car and Driver tested the 3.0 TT Platinum model, and the 0-60 time was 5.0 seconds. So even the fastest CT6 is slower than the S550, all that talk about weight loss is meaningless when you don't have low end torque. The CT6 was 4,371 lbs, vs 4,620 for a BMW 750 with all wheel drive. So we are talking about 150 lb weight savings, but the 750i has a V8.
  7. smk4565
    Interesting points from Reg about the CT6. I would have expected better space and materials in the interior, although hearing his review doesn't surprise me. It is a theme with all their cars. The Mazda 6 has a really good interior for the money, better than most Lincolns or Acuras. As far as the Continental goes, they haven't priced it yet, so we don't really know if it has good value or not. The Continental might be priced below the CTS and XTS, then maybe it doesn't look so bad. Cadillac chassis and powertrakn engineers have stepped their game up in recent years, the interior people have not. And the marketing department is non-existant. The CT6 could out perform a Tesla Model S come with a 10 year warranty and somehow the marketing guys wouldn't figure out how to sell it.
  8. smk4565
    The CTS shouldn't be 196 inches long though, the old one was 191 inches long. If they get any more size creep on the CTS, it will be the size of a 2nd gen Olds Aurora. What happened to mid-size? And it is wasted exterior space anyway, as current CTS is 5 inches longer than Gen 2, yet has less interior room. When you look at that list, the A6 and E-class are smaller than the CTS, but have more room.
  9. smk4565
    132 lbs lighter than the 2016 E400, and this has more equipment. So well done there. The transmission seems to be another big difference maker, E400 was 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, this is 4.5, even the last bi-turbo V8 E550 was about 4.5 0-60.
  10. smk4565
    The ATS is just poorly packaged, like many GM cars. A 2003-2007 era C-class was 178.2 inches long, yet had the same rear seat legroom and a larger trunk than the ATS does. The ATS is sized for the market 10 years ago on the inside, but by todays size on the outside. The ATS is 182.8 inches long, the 3-series sedan is 182.4 inches long. The ATS is 71.1 inches wide, the 3-series 71.3. The 3-series still has more rear seat room and a bigger trunk. Even the CTS isn't well packaged, it is as big as the STS was at this point, the longest car in the segment and it doesn't seem like the roomiest at all.
  11. smk4565
    I don't like that they traced curves for straight lines. And it looks like this new Encore was styled by Mazda or Subaru.
  12. smk4565
    The E43 was the answer I was looking for. I knew Mercedes couldn't kill the E550 and leave nothing but a 329 hp E400 and a 577 hp E63. There had to be middle ground, and something sportier than the mainstream E-class. What is notable about the E43 is peak torque hits at 2,500 rpm and holds til 5,000 rpm, and with the 9-speed and awd they will maximize the power. Where as Lexus GS-F makes peak torque at like 5,000 rpm and never lives in its power band. That S6 is really fast though, 400+ lb-ft at 1,400 rpm is pretty nuts. Audi is really good at low end torque and AWD launching, sort of the Nissan GT-R of the sedan luxury sedan world. But no doubt the E43 will run 4 rings around that nose heavy S6 in the corners.
  13. smk4565
    I like it a lot, I hope it comes in other interior colors, because I am not a fan of all black interiors or red seat belts. I was hoping they would have something to fill the void left by the departed E550, so this fits the bill quite nicely. It would be nice if there was a V8, but in today's world that isn't really happening, and the E63 will have a V8. I think this leaves room for an E400 with the 330 hp turbo V6 also, going from 241 hp to 396 seems like a big gap in power and likely price, they could put something in between there, unless that in-between is the plug-in hybrid which is coming. Part of me doesn't like them expanding the AMG line, but part of me does like the fact that they have more accessible AMG products and this car does do 0-60 in 4.5 seconds which I'd say makes it worthy of the AMG badge. Hopefully the E43 starts under $70k.
  14. smk4565
    The ATS is not too small, it is the same size as a 3-series which has sold like hot cakes for 20 years. The ATS is 4-5 inches longer than a mid 2000s C-class. Size isn't the problem, poor packaging and cheap dash are. On a related note to the dated GS with yesterday's IS-F power train, I saw a Lexus GX the other day with the 2015 grille and thought that is such a joke. The body panels from the A-piller back have not changed since 2002, it has a 4.7 liter V8 making 300 hp getting 14 mpg and people are still buying it. Why? And it looks to tall that it would tip over.
  15. smk4565
    One thing that Im disappointed in with the comparo test is that the BMW and M-B were not tested. I would have like to see not only how the Caddy fits in with the new offerings from BMW and M-B, but the Audi as well... I just googled the A6...it has only been on the market for 4 years...but it might as well be an eternity. The CTS is only 2 years younger, but Cadillac came to play hard with this generation CTS and the other two Germans are new. I agree with the interior of the A6...its awesome... The 2016 E-class dates back to summer of 2009, and is out of production now. No point in comparing it, since they just have left overs on the dealer lots now. The 2017 model is in production, but only has the 4-cylinder at launch. But there is much more coming, and a Maybach E-class is deep in the development stage, which will be untouchable in this segment.
  16. smk4565
    Seems pricy at first, but most 3 row crossovers cost more than this.
  17. smk4565
    I don't think Mazda wants any part of FCA. Power Wheels builds better small cars than FCA does. See, this is much more stylish and probably better handling than a Dart or Fiat 500.
  18. smk4565
    First of this is like a comparison test to find 3rd place as the two big guns of the segment aren't here. But that being said, I think the most telling thing about this companion is the top end Lexus GS-F is matched up against mid-level competitors and still loses on performance. And the GS-F isn't a cheap car either. They want CTS-V or RS6 or M5 type of money for a car that has no where near that level of performance. Lexus is still trotting out the 3.5 V6 and 5.0 V8 from the 2008 IS350 and IS-F, but it is 2016 and the GS. That is just plain sad. The CTS is probably the best of these three, the Audi is aging, and I'd still take the Audi's interior as the best in the group, but overall I think they picked the right winner. I would have liked to see the 550i in that mix to see what happened, even though there is a new 5-series in 2017. My complaint about the E-class is they don't really have a light performance model since they killed the E550. You have the 330 or 360 hp 3 liter V6 (depending on what they offer) and then a gap to the 577 hp E63. I don't like that they make buyers go to the CLS to get a V8 now. I hope they have something in the 400 hp range on the new E.
  19. smk4565
    This is just a Phantom body on a chassis so they don't have to use plastic panels and zebra swirl wrap. The SUV isn't going to look like this or like a Phantom wagon, Rolls-Royce will make it look elegant. My guess is they use a Range Rover shape, since probably a lot of Rolls-Royce owners also have a Range Rover. Another thing to remember is just how big a Phantom is. The short wheelbase Phantom is 230 inches long and 64.5 inches tall. A Cadillac XT5 is 66 inches tall, so the Phantom already is near crossover height, once they lift the suspension and ride height, plus put a taller body on it, I am sure they'll be around 70-72 inches tall, and a proper SUV height.
  20. smk4565
    Any car company is "better at it" than FCA. FCA is terrible with small and mid size cars. The 300/Charger work because the rear drive chassis is better than the fwd of the competition and they are the only rwd game in town. I don't think Mazda has any extra capacity. And I don't see them making a new factory to build something to compete with themselves.
  21. smk4565
    Not to mention the Lexus 5 liter V8 is a torqueless wonder. The GS-F makes like 380 lb-ft of torque. That car should cost $65-70,000 based on performance. Although it is still ugly inside and out.
  22. smk4565
    Looking at crossover sales, we know a lot of people aren't buying their vehicle due to driving characteristics. Oddly enough, the car that is leading the charge on self driving, is also the one with bi-turbo V8s and V12s. So maybe the best car in the world, will offer the best of both worlds.
  23. smk4565
    Or it makes sense since 30,000 people a year die in car accidents. Self driving cars would drastically reduce that with their collision avoidance systems. It wouldn't surprise me if in 2030 the government makes crash avoidance, and semi-autonomous features required just like airbags and seat belts are. They mandated stability control on every car, mandated back up cameras on every car, they could mandate auto-brake, active lane keep, and collision avoidance at the very least.
  24. smk4565
    My guess is this will be a failed car sales wise. However, it did run the Nurburgring in 7:39, that is a staggering time for a 4 door sedan.
  25. smk4565
    I'd like to see the ATS-V get the new Cadillac 4.2 liter V8. And use the 3.0TT engine as a mid-level ATS engine, even if they detune it to like 380 hp. Or this would be all on CT3 I suppose. 2.0T, 3.0 TT and 4.2 V8 on the CT3-V. Throw in some diesel or hybrid option and you are set. The Camaro SS has great performance, but I think also we are hitting a performance wall. It used to be very few cars could hit 60 in 4.5 seconds or less, that was Ferrari territory 15 years ago, but now there are dozens of cars with 4.5 seconds 0-60 times. The Camaro SS is really fast, it is as fast as a 2013 Corvette, so the numbers are impressive. But there gets to be a limit where it is hard to keep making cars faster, so eventually lines start to blur. Car and Driver recently had a comparo with a Mustang and a Corvette and the Mustang won. So these pony cars aren't just a big engine in a crap chassis anymore, the performance is trickling down into them, but at the same time I think that was a GT350 and was like $70,000. And I wouldn't want to pay $70k for a Mustang.
×
×
  • 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