Drew Dowdell

The biggest thing keeping me from an Escalade EXT is the fuel bill. The current Escalades aren't that bad for what they are now that they have cylinder deactivation, but the prior model was an absolute pig when it came to MPG. The EXTs attract me, but I know I just couldn't stomach 15 mpg highway when I know the Avalanche can do 20mpg if I'm gentle on it. I'd miss the power, but not that much.

A few weeks ago, based on some findings on GM's order guide, we reported that GMC would soon be announcing Graphite and Graphite Performance editions of the GMC Yukon and Yukon XL. These new trims would mirror the RST and RST Performance Editions available on the Chevrolet Tahoe RST and Chevrolet Suburban RST. Today, the official release is out. For 2019, the Graphite Edition is an appearance package that offered darkened trim and grille, special wheels, and black roof rails. Stepping from Graphite to Graphite Performance Edition gains the buyer: 6.2L V-8 engine. 10-speed automatic transmission. Magnetic Ride Control. 22-inch six-spoke Gloss black wheels. Active two-speed transfer case (4WD models only). Trailer brake controller. 170-amp alternator. 3.23 axle ratio. High capacity air cleaner. Bose Active Noise Cancellation. Multi-color Head-up Display. 8-inch reconfigurable Driver Information Center. 8-inch Color Touch Screen Navigation with GMC Infotainment System. Both packages are only available on SLT level Yukons, but selecting the Performance Edition allows for Denali level performance previously not available on a Yukon SLT. Three colors will be available: Onyx Black, White Frost Tricoat, and Dark Sky Metallic. Both 2WD and 4WD will be available. Official pricing has not yet been announced, but based on Chevy's RST pricing we estimate a Yukon Graphite Edition 2WD to start around $59,600 and the performance edition to be around $62,300. 2019 GMC Yukon Graphite Edition 2019 GMC Yukon Graphite Performance Edition 2019 GMC Yukon Graphite Edition Wheels 2019 GMC Yukon Graphite Performance Edition Wheels GMC Press Release on Page 2 GMC Introduces 2019 Yukon Graphite Editions DETROIT — GMC is expanding its premium Yukon line with the addition of two 2019 Graphite Editions. The all-new Yukon Graphite Edition offers a darkened exterior appearance, while the Yukon Graphite Performance Edition adds vehicle performance upgrades. The Graphite Editions are exclusively available on SLT trim vehicles and can be ordered on either Yukon or Yukon XL in both 2WD and 4WD configurations. “The Yukon continues to lead the full-size SUV segment with premium features and an instantly recognizable and well-respected identity,” said Stu Pierce, senior marketing manager for GMC Trucks and Full-Size SUVs. “The all-new Graphite Edition builds on the commanding road presence and inherent capabilities of the Yukon and affords customers the opportunity to project a unique, yet distinctly GMC style.” The Yukon Graphite Edition includes 22-inch bright machined wheels with Carbon Flash Metallic pockets, black assist steps with gloss black accents, premium black chrome grille mesh insert and fog lamp surrounds, body-color grille surround, black roof rails, gloss black beltline moldings and additional black trim. The Graphite Performance Edition requires the Graphite Edition and further adds: 6.2L V-8 engine. 10-speed automatic transmission. Magnetic Ride Control. 22-inch six-spoke Gloss black wheels. Active two-speed transfer case (4WD models only). Trailer brake controller. 170-amp alternator. 3.23 axle ratio. High capacity air cleaner. Bose Active Noise Cancellation. Multi-color Head-up Display. 8-inch reconfigurable Driver Information Center. 8-inch Color Touch Screen Navigation with GMC Infotainment System. The 6.2L V-8 included with the Yukon Graphite Performance Edition features direct injection, Active Fuel Management and continuously variable valve timing for increased efficiency while providing 420 horsepower and 460 lb-ft of torque. The engine is paired to a 10-speed automatic transmission that further improves efficiency by reducing engine revolutions at highway speeds. These powertrain enhancements are complemented by Magnetic Ride Control, which uses sensors to “read” the road and can alter the damping rate of the shocks almost instantly. The combined power and torque, greater efficiency and composed ride provide a smooth and confident driving experience. The 2019 Yukon and Yukon XL Graphite Editions will be available this summer in the United States. Package pricing will be announced closer to the on-sale date. Graphite Editions are offered in three exterior colors: Onyx Black, White Frost Tricoat and Dark Sky Metallic. View full article

Does anyone remember what the Atlas 4-cylinder was like in the previous generation Colorado/Canyon? I just looked up the 2.9 liter version of that and it was a 185hp engine with 190 lb-ft of torque at 2800 rpm..... That was without direct injection even.

I wouldn't be so sure about the more comfort... especially with the kids.

He's still here from time to time.

Love the look. I’d still go with a 5.3 over a 2.7 though

It’s an annual thing. I have to take allergy pills for about 3 months and then I’m good the rest of the year. The teaspoon of local honey trick is said to be just an old wives’ tale with no scientific basis, but I swear it works. Eh, what’s the harm though of trying it.

While the zoom may be good, it is still not true optical zoom, so it is difficult to get depth of field. IPhone and Pixel 2 can simulate it, but it works best when taking pictures of people instead of “things”. I dunno... I guess I’ll try the Z3 when it comes out. I’m not in a rush. My Nexus does really well with pictures for now.

I know. I’ve been watching for it. I”m waiting for the Z3 Force though, higher processor

It's only natural to expand it across the GM lineup. Eventually all cars will get this technology, Cadillac is just ahead of the game there. I expect Denali models and higher end Buicks will be next.

I like the new grille, it has more depth. I dislike the giant black plastic intake ports below that.

We're talking many many billions of dollars. MQB and MLB are probably the most expensive platforms out there but they pay off in their wide range of uses. There are some limitations to doing it this way as well, so it's not all roses. There are certain dimensions on MQB for example that must remain constant. Firewall to front wheel measurements is the same on all MQBs for example and that can limits styling and packaging.

VW's MQB was designed from the start to be modular. It takes an enormous amount of money to develop a platform with that level of modularity. However, if a platform isn't designed from the start to be that modular, it is pretty close to impossible to have that level of flexibility. You've gotta have the cash and about a decade worth of time to do the huge initial investment. VW has 3 platforms - MQB which is for FWD vehicles, MLB which is for front wheel drive vehicles with longitudinally mounted engines, and New Small Platform for the city cars. R8 is its own beast. Mercedes is moving to 4 platforms. GM has blurred the lines between platforms using common architectures.... that's why the new Equinox, Traverse, Lacrosse, XT4, and Regal are all technically different platforms, but they have so much shared that things get really confusing as to what is related to what. The XT4 is more related to Regal than it is to Equinox for example.

FCA has been doing this kind of platform re-arranging, but they are less flexible platforms. Some of that comes from the history of the company. I think it was 2016, but Jeep for one year had vehicles on platforms from at least 4 different companies (Patriot/Compass = Mitsubishi co-developed with DCA, Renegade and Cherokee = Fiat, Grand Cherokee = DCA developed with MB, Wrangler = origins from AMC and original Chrysler). That's a lot of legacy to just wipe away and start fresh.... especially when some of those are selling really really well. The 200's failure was one of positioning. It NEVER should have been an entry level mid-size. It should have been lined up right alongside the Regal in pricing and sold as such. Drop all the base model small screens, cloth seats, and lame base engine. That would have given Dart some breathing room as well. Chrysler should have been emulating Buick and Lexus for most models (except the LS/LX). The Pacifica should have been built with a crossover variant right from the start. Call it Aspen and match the pricing to the Enclave. Cherokee needed to be made into a Chrysler as well. Make it a lux version instead of an off-roader. Call it Voyager and price it up against Envision. Dodge could get the "nascar" version of a Cherokee to replace the Journey. New Compass could also go to Dodge as a "nascar" version. Call it a Nitro. Go ahead and try to tell me that my ideas wouldn't instantly double or triple Dodge and Chrysler sales..... So I've just filled out Dodge and Chrysler's crossover lineup using off the shelf FCA parts and it would likely have very minimal cost.... particularly compared to the billions they are sinking into trying to breath life back into Alfa Romeo and Maserati... while keeping Fiat on life support. Edit: And the entire Chrylser lineup could be sent to Europe or China as well. If it's a matter of national pride for Italy, badge them as Lancias.

Most likely, we are already past the point of changing the direction of the climate and will now likely need to do both.

That's as much of a coupe as my Toronado is a Super Duty Pickup.

The most flexible platform I can think of is VW's MQB. It can go as small as Audi TT all the way up to VW Atlas (or Passat if you're looking just at length). Now, the current C-Class is on a new highly modular platform that Mercedes is calling MRA, but the S-Class isn't on that yet. I would have thought the E-Class which was recently re-done would have been on MRA, but I cannot find any evidence of that. One would think if it were on a new wunder-platform, they'd advertise it. So far, the only car on MRA is the C-Class.

You're getting your terms mixed up, (not entirely your fault, the automotive media is mostly to blame). Architecture and platform are two different things. Two very different vehicles can share architecture but be on different platforms. Architecture is where the dirty bits are built in a way that they fit everything that shares the architecture. Think power window motors, HVAC controls (which are all computerized now), dashboards, even power steering pumps, or suspension components. Platform is the skeleton that underpins the car. You can switch out sections of the skeleton to make different parts of the car larger or smaller, but you can't do that too much without running into either poor crash test ratings on the large size cars or heavy weight on the lower sized cars. Some examples of shared architecture but different platforms would be the Equinox, Malibu, and Traverse.

That's what I think they should do. Big car platform and smaller car platform. Just like most other manufacturers do. I think Charger not going to Giorgio means that Giorgio can't be expanded to Charger/Challenger/300 sized cars. But that ALSO means it can't be expanded to Ghibli, which is 2 inches shorter than 300 and 2 inches longer than Challenger, nor can it be expanded to Quattroporte.

That would possibly make sense, but then that would mean Sergio wouldn't do it.

I didn't say it couldn't be stretched, but CTS would likely be the upper limit. Charger/300 are larger than that. The 300 is 3 inches longer and 3 inches wider. Moving to a CTS sized car would be a big move down for 300. If Dodge or Chrysler did get a car on the Giorgio platform (and they should) it should be more of a mid-sizer below the Charger/300. If I were Sergio. I would use make take the Charger / Challenger / 300 / and Ghibli and put them on a new platform above Giorgio. Alfa could get in on that one as well. That way everyone gets a piece of the action and there is very little overlap. You have family car (charger), Pony car (challenger), American soft luxury (300), European luxury (Ghibli), and European Sport (Alfa-whatever). In spite of FCA's protests to the contrary, I still insist that the Ghibli is a heavily re-worked LX car. There are far too many hardpoints on the two cars that are identical, too much shared hardware, that they are not at least partially related.

Sergio sacrificed Chrysler and Dodge in order to necromance Alfa and Maserati and try to keep Fiat (brand) alive. Fiat took over Chrysler Group in late 2009. At that point, Alfa had only 4 mainstream models and only one of those survived beyond 2011 (the MiTo... an Alfa-Romeo branded Fiat 500 competitor). By 2014, when the first of Sergio's 5-year plans was out, Alfa had only the MiTo and Giulietta (a Mazda 3 look-alike with Alfa styling). What was IT. A micro-car and a compact, neither of which were any more premium than their Fiat counterparts. Maserati had the Quattroporte and Grand Turismio ... and that was it for Maser... They sold 4,489 vehicles in 2009. These were two brands that were practically dead. Sergio starved Chrysler and Dodge of new and updated product in order to bring his dead Italian brands back and in the process killed the American brands. He even tried to revive Lancia at the expense of Chrysler. This latest 5 year plan highlights how much of a failure Sergio is as a CEO. He is willing to sacrifice entire brands from the US just to prop up his failed Italian brands. Yes, the Charger and 300 are both full size cars. It's like XTS (300) verse ATS (Guilia) In SUVs, the Stelvio the size of the Compass. They're not going to make a Grand Cherokee out of that.

No, shrinking the Charger down to Guilia size car would be the mistake. If they expanded the Alfas to be the size of their American counterparts... They'll be the weight of them as well.

There are models of 3-series that weigh more than my big old body-on-frame boat of an '81 Toronado with a 307 cubic inch iron block under the aircraft carrier sized steel hood. A 4-cylinder 330xi weighs more than a V6 '81 Toronado A 6-cylinder 340xi weighs more than a V8 '81 Toronado. And for all the tech and weight savings they put into the M5 carbon fiber and all.... it still weighs 500lbs more than my iron beast. Now, I'm not comparing performance at all of course.... but these are generally considered among the lightest cars in their class and they they all tip the scales more than some "old tech" Oldsmobile.