smk4565

I don't like that they changed their normal testing procedures to value performance less (an area where Buick is weak) and value content more (an area where Buick is strong). It probably would have been closer with their normal scoring. It is a good win for Buick. By why pay $39-43k for a dressed up Camry or Malibu when you can get a 375 hp rear drive Genesis instead. The ES350's wood trim over the half the cupholder might be my most hated piece of interior design on any current car. The Lexus GS also has a tape player, obviously Lexus wants a big chunk of that AARP demographic that Buick goes after.

The Ecoboost's main benefit over the 5.3 V8 or Ford's 4.6 V8 is gas mileage. Rather than a 15/19 mpg V8 pickup, they can have a 16/22 mpg pickup with more power and torque. Small displacement V8s with turbos and all the latest technology can be used for the 400-500 hp engines while still meeting the government regulations.

1. Not possible, and GM only got 200 hp from 3.8 liters, getting 500 from 4.0 liters will be a challenge. 2. I agree with staying rear wheel drive. 3. They need dual clutch, maybe 7 gears. Someone brought up Ecoboost. An example is the 3.5 Ecoboost makes about 360 hp and 350 lb-ft depending on the car it is in, and the Silverado 5.3 liter makes 315 hp and 338 lb-ft. Smaller displacement turbo engines are going to replace really big displacement engines. GM needs to realize that sooner, rather than later, especially to hit CAFE. The Silverado should get turbo V6 gas and diesel engines to replace the 4.8 and 5.3 V8s.

The ZR-1 only beat the GT-R by 0.3 seconds and it costs $50,000 more. The Z06 which costs the same as the GT-R was 16 seconds slower. So faster at a fraction of the price doesn't hold up against the GT-R, plus the GT-R has a back seat. The Koenigsegg doesn't post a great Ring time because it loses grip in corners, and is designed for top speed and straight aways. The Koenigsegg can go 245 mph but on a tight track like the Nurburgring it is at a disadvantage. The CCX originally didn't have a spoiler either, since the CCX was only .5 seconds faster than the CCR, I am guessing that is a no rear spoiler car. Put a spoiler on the back and it would cut that lap time down a lot.

The Amish wagon probably has leaf springs as well. I agree, why mess with what works. Clearly keeping status quo is good enough, because the other automakers aren't coming up with new stuff.

Honda's SOHC is a 4 valve per cylinder engine though, and it is still OHC, which has more benefits than OHV. I think GM needs a DOHC V8, but I don't think GM sees it that way. My guess is the next Corvette will carry on with the 6.2 liter V8, and they will try to get some incremental increases in power, and slight reduction in emissions.

I agree with sports car for the common man so to speak. But the GM always wants to compare the Corvette to Porsche or Ferrarri, etc and the Vette always lags bigtime in interior, etc. I don't think they should chase the higher end cars, or use a V12, and there should not be a Cadillac version because it will fail. I think the biggest switch should be dump the leaf springs and work on the rear suspension on the C7, and try to make the car not as wide. Engine should be DOHC V8, because with 5 liters, naturally aspirated they could have 400 hp, turbo or supercharger gets them over 500 hp. They could get more power out of it for a ZR1 if needed, but with GM cutting budgets, and crying about CAFE, etc, I wonder if the ZR1 will return on the C7. Plus, if Cadillac wants to do battle with BMW, Benz, and even Hyundai, they need a DOHC V8 in the 4.4-5 liter range. And the F150 is getting a 400 hp DOHC V8 in the future, so the Silverado is going to look weak with it's 320 hp 5.3 liter and the 6 liter is thirsty.

A 6 liter V12 fits in an Aston Martin Vantage which is smaller than a Corvette. The Vette has had huge, long hood since the 1970s anyway, what is the difference on external engine dimensions. They could probably put any kind of engine they want under there. Notice too all the arguments for pushrods are cost, less complex, lower exterior dimension, etc. So the goal of the Corvette is to be cheap and not complex, not to be a world class sports car then? Porsche isn't picking the flat 6 in the 911 because it is cheap or easy to make. It isn't easy to make 400-480 hp from a 3.6 liter engine, yet they did it.

The M5's engine was developed 5 years ago. Look at BMW's 2009 engines by comparison. 4.4L V8: 555 hp @ 6000 rpm, and 500 lb-ft @ 1500 rpm. (12/18 mpg, but that is in a 5200 lb truck) An S65's 6.0 liter makes 612 hp and 738 lb-ft (electronically limited), so the CTS-V with a bigger engine gives up nearly 200 lb-ft. Pushrod loses.

With 8.3 liters. What would an 8.3 liter DOHC make? A Formula 1 engine is naturally aspirated and can make over 1,000 hp, although they limited revs to keep it to about 780 hp now. And that is from a 2.4 liter engine. Let's see a sub 3-liter pushrod make 750 hp.

Good concept, but it would be better if it wasn't a front drive V6 crossover being compared to a rocket. If they did it with the CTS-V that would be cool. And as long as they build the geezer DTS, Cadillac isn't reinvented.

M5 is naturally aspirated and 1.2 liters smaller engine. Compare the CTS-V to the X6M turbo engine. The X6 M does 0-60 in 4.3 seconds (same as a CTS-V manual) and it is 5000+ lb SUV. The M5 may get a 600-625 hp V10, so it might blow everything away. With DOHC BMW got 550 hp from a 4.4 liter, GM needed 6.2 liters to get that. DOHC makes more power per liter, and in this case, BMW's engine makes more low end torque. Vette should be a DOHC V8, front engine. Only 2 automakers still use pushrods, both filed for bankruptcy this year, hmmm.

GM's pushrod 4's died because they were uncompetitive and the imports had DOHC 4's in the 1980s that were better. Then GM's pushrod V6s died (except on the Impala/Lucerne) because the Imports have DOHC V6s through the 1990s and 2000s that are better. The pushrod V8 will die also, because right now, the imports have DOHC V8s that are better. GM uses the pushrods so they don't have to develop a new engine and because it is cheaper to make, they don't use it because it is a superior engine. But that is what led to GM's demise and bankruptcy. 20-30 years of being a step or 2 behind the competition and trying to pass off their mediocre product as being "good enough".

The Mercedes AMG 6.2 liter V8 weighs 438 pounds and puts out 493-525 hp depending on the car. The LS7 weighs 458 pounds and makes 500 hp, of course it is 7 liters. But the LS2 6.0 liter engine still weighed 448 pounds. The DOHC design isn't adding weight to the car, the Z06 would actually weigh less if they used Mercedes DOHC engine. The Mercedes S65 V12 weighs 486 pounds, only 28 more than the Z06's engine, but look at the power the V12 makes. The S65 makes 738 lb-ft of torque only because they had to electronically limit it to prevent it from tearing the transmission apart. Without a limiter that engine makes 885 lb-ft of torque.

They could fit a V12. The Mercedes SL and Aston Martin Vantage have V12s and they are similar size to the Vette. Although we all know there is about zero chance of GM making a V12.

It will be the same engines they currently have. Although the 7.0 liter may die off in favor of a 6.2 with a small supercharger for the Z06, and big supercharger for the ZR1, assuming the ZR1 returns. The engines will get recycled to keep cost down, and they have no other V8 to use because they canceled work on a new V8. Personally I'd rather see a 4.5-5.0 liter DOHC V8 making 500+ hp for the Z06, and a 400 hp "detuned" version for the base model. Ferrari has a 4.5 liter V8 that makes 562 hp. Actually, what I would like to see most is for Duesenberg to come back and blow all these cars away so America has the best car in the world again. The 1932 Duesenberg SJ has more torque (425 vs 424 lb-ft) than a 2009 Corvette. Why did Duesenberg 77 years ago have an engine as good as the Vette has now, oh right, they started using DOHC in 1929, the Vette isn't there yet.

Then get an 08 DTS, they go for like $23,000. It is amazing how much they depreciate in just 1-2 years. Or a 2008 STS, they got for about $23,000 also.

Some of the 3.0's have a sport package, which supposedly is a bit firmer. I drove a 3.0 without the sport package, so it felt a little soft and like it wanted to roll a little on windy back roads. The sport versions may feel a bit more planted. The 3.0 isn't a racer by any means, but it has enough acceleration for everyday driving and getting onto the freeway.

LaCrosse 3.0: 17/26 LaCrosse 3.6 17/27 ES350 3.5: 19/27 Avalon 3.5: 19/28 Taurus 3.5: 18/28 The 3.0 is the weakest and most thirsty engine of the bunch.

The 73 Olds Tornado was the first car sold to the public with airbags, then some Buicks and Cadillacs followed in 1974-1976. Ford and Chevy experimented with airbags on government fleet cars. GM (being such innovators of safety) deleted the shoulder seat belt from airbag cars, and they had 7 fatalities because of the airbag, and abandoned them in 1976. Mercedes S-class in 1980 had the first SRS system which used 3-point seatbelts that locked in place before the airbag deployed. And of course all cars use that system now. We can also thank Mercedes for safety cage with front/rear crumple zones, ABS, traction control, stability control, and brake assist.

Well GM did have the official car for the supercharged family. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80Sz7T8guB0

I have driven an X-type 3.0, it has it's pluses and minuses. I thought it rode rather smoothly, but it can get a bit floaty and itbounces and rolls too much. The awd makes it feel secure, but it also makes it feel sluggish, and I think hurts the handling a bit. Acceleration is adequate, it isn't a sporty car, but it will get to 60 quicker than a Buick or most run of the mill family sedans. I liked the interior. I agree that it is no where near as good as the German sedans it was positioned against, so resale value tanked. Since used ones can be found for $10-15k, it isn't a bad buy. I think you need the 3.0 though, the 2.5 must be dog slow, although neither are that fuel efficient, which is sad since the engines don't make much power.

GM can't compete in every market segment, they have to pick and choose their battles and try to win where they do compete. They shouldn't build a car like the SHO, just like I think they shouldn't bother with the Cadillac XTS, or most of GMC's lineup. I'd rather see them make a minivan, that is a large segment and they have no entry at all. Yet they make several full size SUVs that compete against each other. The SHO is $38-43,000, so it is more expensive than a LaCrosse or Lucerne, but it does 0-60 in 5.2 seconds. For people that want full size and performance it is a good car, but that isn't a large market. Most people wanting a sporty car are going to go with a G37, 3-series, CTS, etc. If Ford put the SHO's powertrain on the Fusion and priced it around $30,000, they'd have a strong seller.

The 3.0 is pointless if it gets equal or less gas mileage than the 3.6. The 2.4 gets good mileage, they could turbocharge that to get the 3.0 V6's power with more mpg. Ford is going to use 4 cylinder turbos to replace their 3.0 and 4.0 V6's.

Cadillac can't lease because their resale values are so bad. Cadillac sold 187,000 cars worldwide in 2008, while Mercedes and BMW sold over 1 million. Cadillac needs cars that can sell in Europe, not just the USA, that is why they can't compete. If they are only selling 50,000 CTS worldwide a year, it is hard to recoup development costs, where as BMW can spend tons on developing the 3-series because they can spread the cost over half a million units a year for 6 years. But profit is more important than volume, and that is another problem for GM. BMW made a $416 million profit in 2008 (although they were down 90%). Daimler had a 1.4 billion Euro profit in 2008. BMW and Benz sell good volume, and make profit, they are better run than GM is.