hyperv6

As Paul Harvey says "and here's the rest of the story," Here is an example of what automakers are up against globally. This is what they also have to balance when building engines. This example is only from the largest auto market in the world right now and is having a greater effect on the auto MFG's all the time. In China they tried to steer people to smaller engines for better economy and less emissions by cutting the sales tax in half from 10% to 5%. that did not work. So they looked to taxing displacement just as several other markets to like in Europe, Japan etc. Here are the numbers the buyers in China see as of Jan 1 2012. 1.0-1.6 Liters 300-540 Yaun or $46-$82 dollars US. This was a drop of $18 dollars over what they had been paying. 1.6 - 2.0 360-540 Yaun or $55-$100 dollars US. This was a drop of approx. $46 over what they were paying. China now has 87% of the cars on the road at 2.0 or less. Now you can still buy a larger displacement vehicle but that will be subjected to a tax of a max of 5,400 Yuan or $821 dollars US. While that may not seem like much we also have to consider the pay scales in China are no where near what the average American makes. Also the price of a car in China alone is something more are able to afford but there are still millions unable to afford a car as of yet. These taxes are a make or break for what the average Chinese buyer can afford. Now looking at GM we have vehicles like the Regal, Malibu, Lacrosse, Verano, Cruze and more GM vehicles that are playing a major roll in this growing market. Their hand is forced not only by physics but by government regulations. This is the reason we have seen GM consider a 2.0 Turbo XTS for the Chinese market. With GM going global with most of their cars we will see more and more where we will have the same engines as other lands. We also will see more of the tricks they use to power up these smaller engines. Sure there are good and bad points to these and any engine package but the key is profit here. Paying attention and selling cars globally is the key to the future and anyone who is not doing so will get left behind and fade away. I do not see misguided I just see MFG's in a box and having to play the cards they are dealt. If it was so easy to meet all these needs and others with just a large displacement V8, V6 or 4 they would be doing it. When looking at issues as this you must factor in all the issues and facts not just what you want to use to make your point.

I suspect Chevy has something else based on the Gamma Planned. The Trax is nice but old looking and if GM would intro it here after the Encore the cries of badge engineering will come from all angles. The new smaller Nox is coming and I expect it will be much smaller and lighter. I do not expect it this small but I do expect it to match the Ford in size and mass. After that I would not be surprised to see something on the Gamma with a fresh face and it's own body to set itself away from the Buick. Right now the Trax and Encore are just closer than what GM is wanting to do anymore. I think it would be fun to see a Gamma based vehicle that is a cross between a jeep and a Geo tracker. Make something a little more fun. I know they should have made the Trax here and skipped the Encore but what is done is done and they have other plans.

So nearly everyone in the auto industry is wrong and you are correct? Who can debate with a mind like that LOL! When you are willing to include all factors and not just cherry pick what you need to support your hypnosis we then we can have a realistic debate.

Actually, the reverse is true... When pushed (WOT) the efficiency of any engine delivering the same horsepower output is roughly the same. It takes X amount of fuel to be burned in Y amount of air to produce Z amount of power. It is when the engine is operating at low loads that differences are at their greatest. When cruising down the freeway at a steady 65 mph the engine only needs to produce 30~40 hp. The throttle plate is used to intentionally choke the engine such that no matter how well it breathes when unleashes it is always operating and a very low aspirational efficiency at cruise. Basically, the motor is sucking vacuum -- air at lower psi than atmospheric pressure. A smaller engine has the benefit of operating at a higher load and larger throttle opening than a bigger engine. A 1.0 engine capable of 70 hp may be operating with the throttle half open whereas a 6.0 liter engine may only be operating with a throttle that is 5~6% open. This has a direct effect on effective compression ratio because a nearly closed throttle makes the engine suck a higher degree of vacuum which means less molecues per unit piston displacement and less effective compression. This is the primary benefit of a small displacement engine and the primary benefit of say cylinder deactivation -- to allow the engine to operate with less vacuum. Compression is essential to good combustion efficiency and energy extraction from fuel. All less being equal, a 1.0 liter engine will be more efficient than a 2.0 liter predominantly because of this. The problem is that all else being equal a 1.0 liter engine also produces about half as much maximum power as a 2.0 liter. If you can accept this that's all well and good. And the 1.0 liter engine will be more efficient. However, if the objective is to produce the same approximate performance and power. Say 150 hp. A 1.0 liter engine is not going to give you that unless you do one of two things... you can rev the crap out of it or you can turbocharged the hell out of it. Now here it becomes interesting... High RPM 75 lb-ft @ 10,500 rpm = 150 hp You'll still be driving around with 75 lb-ft and probably peaking rather high in the rev range To make the car tractable you need to lower your gearing Lowering gearing directly impacts fuel economy negatively Turbocharge it 1.0 liter w/ 22~25 psi of boost = 150 hp 22~25 psi of boost requires ~8:1 compression At cruise, when boost is off, you are now running the engine at about 3~3.5 points lower compression This negatively impacts fuel economy At the end of the day, the market is littered with examples of engine which adopted either approach but fail to match or exceed the fuel economy ratings of larger displacement engines of comparable output. BMW M3's 4.0 V8 vs GM's 6.2 liter V8 is one example of high revving, small displacement engine grossly under performing a larger displacement engine with low specific output. The Cruze's 1.4T vs Focus's 20 or Civic's 1.8 is an example of high consumption and costs from a lower displacement engine relying on turbocharging compared to larger engines of the same power class. At the end of the day the market is 180 degrees in opposition to you as there is more to it than just numbers. Again you bring up the 4.0 BMW but you also have to use the understanding they need the 4.0 Liters in many markets to beat the tax issues. Contrary to how you make it there is much more to this game than just engineering numbers. The fact is GM and most other companies can not and will not sell a large displacement engine in many markets. While we may enjoy it here GM has to play the game globally with many of the smaller engines and to do so they will have to do it with smaller engines with power adders.

What gets lost with the Turbo engine while it may have the ability to get better MPG it also has the ability to get poorer MPG too. The engine is very efficient if drive properly but if driven hard it will drop the MPG fast just like a V8 and in many cases the extremes are even greater with the 4. Something else lost on many today is the fact the DI engines in at least GM's case will increase MPG with off throttle time. In other words if you can maintain speed off the throttle it will pick up a lot in mileage. This applies to all DI engines but the Turbo engines with more low end torque GM has found gives owners more off throttle time and they can pick up more mpg since they get up to speed easier. In normal everyday driving I seldom have to rev more than 3500 RPM and generally see MPG in greater numbers than the EPA listing on the window sticker. I think my city was stated as 19 MPG and I have never seen it that low ever. The lowest I have seen in winter driving it hard even using remote start was 21 MPG. This winter even with remote I am seeing no less than 23.8 and when it warms it jumps up one MPG. IN summer it easily reaches over 25 MPG and almost 26 city. Now note too my number will reflect two on ramps I take for a 3 mile jog on a short stretch of freeway and I will rev it there and see pretty high boost but it does not hurt me over all in MPG. The rest of my driving is stop and go on city streets and side roads. My V6 in the BU can not touch this or even come close in city. Highway it can almost match me. Terrain will match the city on the Bu but not the highway due to the greater mass of the vehicle. Not too the more mass the greater chance for less MPG with any turbo. But that is just common sense as with any engine.

Well GM does not see it this way on the 1.6 turbo. They expect better MPG, better low end torque and they can sell it globally. Also what higher cost more maintenance? The only extra cost involves is it you would lose a part in the turbo system and at this point the parts failures just have not happened. On the HHR SS site we have many running strong will over 100,000 miles with no failure or issues. We found only a few with issues and even then they were under the factory warranty. Just as many 2.4 engines or more have failed on the site. So please do not create a issue with possibilities vs reality. Oil changes are really not any sooner and tune ups do not come any more often. Finally China and some other countries have tax laws that effect cars with over 1.6 liters engine size taxes. With that said GM is moving more and more to engines they can sell world wide and going less and less to engines that are for one market. The cost of building so many different engines cuts into profits. Governmental regulationsTaxation of automobiles is sometimes based on engine displacement, rather than the actual power output. Displacement is a basic fundamental of engine design, whereas power output depends a great deal on other factors, particularly on how the car manufacturer has tuned the engine from new. This has encouraged the development of other methods to increase engine power, such as variable valve timing and turbochargers. There are four major regulatory constraints for automobiles: the European, British, Japanese, and American. The method used in some European countries, and which predates the EU, has a level of taxation for engines over 1.0 litre, and another at the level of about 1.6 litres. The British system of taxation depends upon vehicle emissions for cars registered after 1 March 2001, but for cars registered before this date, it depends on engine size. Cars under 1549 cc qualify for a cheaper rate of tax . The Japanese method is similar to the European taxation by classes of displacement, plus a vehicle weight tax. The United States does not tax a vehicle based on the displacement of the engine (this is also true in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). Engine displacement is important in determining whether or not smaller vehicles need to be registered with the state and whether or not a license is required to operate such a vehicle. A common threshold is 50cc. In the Netherlands and in Sweden, road tax is based on vehicle weight. However, Swedish cars registered in 2008, or later, are taxed based on carbon dioxide emissions.[citation needed] Displacement is also used to distinguish categories of (heavier) and lighter motorbikes with respect to driving license and insurance requirements. In France and some other EU countries, mopeds of less than 50 cm3 displacement (and usually with a two-stroke engine), can be driven with minimum qualifications (previously, they could be driven by any person over 14). This led to all light motorbikes having a displacement of about 49.9 cm3. Some people tuned the engine by increasing the cylinder bore, increasing displacement; such mopeds cannot be driven legally on public roads since they do no longer conform to the original specifications and may go faster than 45 km/h. Wankel engines, due to the amount of power and emissions they create for their displacement, are generally taxed as 1.5 times their stated physical displacement (1.3 liters becomes effectively 2.0, 2.0 becomes effectively 3.0), although actual power outputs are far greater (the 1.3-litre 13B can produce power comparable to a 3.0 V6 engine, and the 2.0-litre 20B can produce power comparable to a 4.0 V8 engine).[citation needed] As such, racing regulations actually use a much higher conversion factor. It is not just by chance the engines sizes most mfg. use are all the same. You state a lot of numbers but you have to use all the numbers and facts involved and not just cherry pick what you want to really understand why things are done the way they are. .

Not really, at least not yet... They are moving about 500~800 a month and a tad under 7000 per year (2012). That is about on par with how many Camaros GM moves in the worst month in 2012. This is a sports coupe so demand tends to fall off after the first two years. The bright side is that they set a pretty modest target of 6000 cars so they are not saddling themselves with over capacity. Already Subaru is giving $400~600 in incentives to move their (more expensive) BRZ against the FRS -- not an auspicious thing for a 1st year coupe. The thing I don't get is that the market for sports coupes is modest enough as it is. Why they want to split the pie -- and the marketing -- between Fuji and Toyota is baffling. This should have been just a Subaru or just a Toyota. I would have preferred that it be a Toyota using a hypothetical "1AR-GE" engine. Basically the same 2.7 liter 1AR-FE Inline-4 in the RAV4, but with hotter cams and drinking premium to deliver about 220hp / 200 lb-ft. For a higher performance version, forget laggy turbos and simply the use a roots compressor on the 1AR engine. A "1AR-GZE" will be good for about 270 hp / 270 lb-ft with zero lag. The latter would be interesting. Again you need to think global! Cars like this and even the Miata live on a global scale and thrive. If you just take Miata, Prelude and Mini sale base just on NA they make little sense but on a global scale they have some very impressive numbers and profits. Even if GM does a small RWD coupe they will have to base it on a global package as the sales just in NA will be ok but they need larger numbers. Second you can not compare the Camaro or Mustang on this yet as they are in a class of their own and many who would buy them would never consider this car. This is why GM is looking into the sub Alpha car. Two different markets and two different customers. . As for Turbo engines there again you must look to the customers and what they want. Also lag is not what it once was like in the GN and Turbo T bird.

I'm not old enough to drive a Buick ................... Stereo Types are so ugly. It is just this type of thinking that GM is building the Verano to change. I think if you would drive one you would be shocked how much sportier it is than you think or expect.

Not a big fan here either but they will sell a ton of them.

For the price and performance the Eco Cruze is a much better choice. It strikes the best balance between price and economy. I expect anyone looking for better MPG and a Chevy just buy the Cruze as It really does hit over 50 MPG on the highway and is not bad around town. It may not be a rocket but you can get on the freeway without holding your breath you might be run over. I think Chevy would be best to make the BU get the best MPG it can get with what it has and just worry about gettng all the details right to make it best in class. Also with the Verano around if MPG was a factor it would even be a good or better option. As for the mild hybrids if people buy them good but if I were given the choice I would pass. The few MPG is not worth the hassle of the smaller trunk and possible expensive repairs later on. I keep cars too long to not consider this. Now if you lease or trade often that would not be a factor.

On factor you must consider now is the global market. Not only are the platforms going to be shared but the engines will be in most makets. With that being said many MFG will be using 1 liter, 1.6 Liter and guess what 2.0 LItet engines because of taxation in many countries. Displacment and weight will effect what engine size is and what it will be fitted in. The Turbocharger adds nothing to the tax or how it is based on. While we may not have that here yet in many other countries it is in effect and will be effecting what we buy and drive. It is not just by chance many companies are all making engines the same size.

If you drive 400 miles per day on a routine basis, then the Model S isn't for you. For the 99.9% of the population who don't, then it's a fine car that will deal with all sorts of real world driving conditions and easily handle the occasional day trip thanks to its network of Superchargers. Chances are, if you can afford a $60K luxury car, the time costs of spending 8 hours on the road in a day are too great. Six hours are about the limit for me, and even so, I'd need to stop for food. Anymore than that -- I'm flying. Yep....I'm not going to waste a day getting to my destination unless it's a road trip. Last year I went to a number of races (Indy 500, Sonoma, Fontana, Long Beach) and other trips (San Diego, San Francisco, Ohio, Denver) that I didn't want to waste vacation days on driving from Phoenix when flying + rental car is cheap enough....maybe it's easier for some in the East where everything is close together but the West is very spread out and driving long distances is dull and time consuming. I might take more road trips if I lived in LA or Chicago or the East Coast, but in Phoenix it's a minimum of 400 miles across the void to any place I'd be interested in going, so I usually always fly..

If you drive 400 miles per day on a routine basis, then the Model S isn't for you. For the 99.9% of the population who don't, then it's a fine car that will deal with all sorts of real world driving conditions and easily handle the occasional day trip thanks to its network of Superchargers. Chances are, if you can afford a $60K luxury car, the time costs of spending 8 hours on the road in a day are too great. Six hours are about the limit for me, and even so, I'd need to stop for food. Anymore than that -- I'm flying. Yep....I'm not going to waste a day getting to my destination unless it's a road trip. Last year I went to a number of races (Indy 500, Sonoma, Fontana, Long Beach) and other trips (San Diego, San Francisco, Ohio, Denver) that I didn't want to waste vacation days on driving from Phoenix when flying + rental car is cheap enough....maybe it's easier for some in the East where everything is close together but the West is very spread out and driving long distances is dull and time consuming. I might take more road trips if I lived in LA or Chicago or the East Coast, but in Phoenix it's a minimum of 400 miles across the void to any place I'd be interested in going, so I usually always fly.. Hell you have to be nuts to drive to anywhere from Phoenix to anywhere other than Vegas. Back east here in many cases with the way the airlines work you can get to many cities faster driving than flying. Direct flights to some cities are not alway cheap. Going to CA I will always fly but once I am there I drive. Too many places to stop and visit on the way to many of the places I go. I normally hit many of the Race shops and companies we deal with in CA, Give me a week and I can cover a lot of ground. I know the freeway system pretty good. Also the drive up the PCH is one not to be missed.

Just an eample. I have made many trips Cleveland to Columbus and back, Cleveland to Indy and back. San Deigo to LA and back in one day. more than one. These are all out of the Tesla S range. Even my trips from LA to San Fran in two days could not be done with out adding at the least one full day to recharge to complete the run. Many here on the east coast have made the run to the resorts off the coast of NC and SC these would no longer be one day runs. Many have also done the 1-2 day runs to FL and those are gone. With air fair going up again these are common car trips. While even I have never drove east to west I and many have gone North and South on each coast. I could not count the many trips from San Deigo to LA and back I have in one day and with the travel miles plus my driving in LA I could not do it. 400 miles are easy to rack up and then have to find a place to plug in for over 12 hours is not always in the cards even in LA. The option of High miles and having a car that will not hold you up no matter what for 12 hours if you can find a charging station let alone one that is open. We must consider many may have an interest in an electric cars but it must not alture their life in what they precieve as a negitive way. Time is money. SD to LA is 121 miles according to Google Maps. With a 265 mile range, Model S will do a round trip. As for LA to SF, that's 382 miles. But there are two solar-powered Supercharger locations along I-5 that will give you 150 miles of charge in half an hour, the time it takes to eat lunch. More Superchargers will be built across the country, so eventually you'll be able to drive from coast to coast for free. http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger It is not 121 in the real world if you drive from La Mesa to Santa Barbra and make side trip to other points like Pomona and the like. I have racked up more than 400 miles in one day just traveling between the metro areas and the surrounding areas. In Ohio the range would be lower with the colder months. If you ake use of the superchargers or fastr charge on any electric car your battery life will be reduced much faster. These are only quick fixes and should only be used now and then. I have done Indy in one day many times and it is 500 miles [go figure] to from my drive way to the speedway. on a long day like this the first problem is no charging stations here and the second in a day that I will be up 22 hours I have little time to sit for a half our on the way home. Same here for going to Charlotte or Martinsville to the races. It is nothing for us to drive to Charlotte NC and then to Martinsville in one day from Ohio. Often we go back to Mt Airy to spend the night. I know these are examples of race track trips but many others here do the same to Virgina Beach, Mertle Beach and many other vacation spots. East of the Mississippi many of these are day trips. That go well beyond the range of the car and most of us seldom stop to even eat for 30 min. While things are not bad on these new EV cars they are still not there range wise or charging time wise with out hurting the battery. As for charging stations here in the east they are not poping up fast and they will be few in numbers for a good while. What do you do if the rare one you find has a line of more than one car? In general peple today are in a instant world and nothing can be gotten of done fast enough. The gas car has set a standard and untill the other types of vehicles can match or beat them in all areas they will remain only a slow growth market. Growing but slow. As of now the Volt has the only system I could live with in a vehilcle that is used for more than just driving to work. The one thing we have yet to see is how the public reacts once the battery is gone. How will they deal with a car that is used up as the battery cost is not cheap and the car is worthless with out one. WIth that many miles what do you do? Do you spend the money on a worn out car or do you just trash the car when the battery is gone. This will effect cars like the leaf more since it was cheap. The Volt you could continue at the least driving it. The Teslas higher cost may make the new battery a better option. The Leaf in 10 years would just need to be raked up and burned.

I still suspect something is up at Chevy and Ford. Could we be seeing the 1/2 tons moving to a heavier weight class and a little larger to take advantage of the CAFE loop holes while the little smaller trucks will take the 1/2 ton class with better MPG? I read a while back a story on how the CAFE rules were could lead to larger trucks to take advantage on the loop holes. They said the goverments rules would backfire. The Ranger could be here real easy and GM is not far from the Colorado as it is. If there is no other plan of some kind where is the sense in this truck? As it is now I would buy a full size for nearly the same price as a loaded Colorado now. Just little value in the present Colorado vs the full size truck.

http://www.kerbeck.com/Here is what I have found at some of the larger dealers that like to specialize in Vette as of now on their own. It is not far from what I expect Chevy to want. They normally have one or two sales people that are dedicated to Vettes and know the product inside out and upside down. Now if needed they may be sell some other products but when any sales or inquiries come in they deal with the customers on a one to one baisis. They often have a private office and not some cubical and it is taylored to the Vette. These dealers also keep many Vettes on hand and often work deals with other dealers for product and often can make a buck or so in trades if it is a in demand model. They also work a lot with used Vettes and some classic models too. To be to the point they are part of the dealer but almost work as a dealer on their own with just Vettes. They also have a handfull of techs that are trained also inside and out on the Vette and when they touch your car it is far from the first Vette they have ever worked on. You car does not become an experiment on let see if we can fix it. My Neighbor used a dealer like this near Chicago in Indiana. They had a couple guys who were dedicated to Vettes and has cars from far away waiting for service since they were well known for working on them. He came across them on a trip to Chicago when his fuel pump died. They had to pull down some of the drivetrain because the tank mounted pump did not have a plate to get to it like a year later Vette does on the C5. The SRT thing is nothing new as Shelby, Calaway and many other have done the same thing and only worked with selected dealer to up the quality of care and service. You may want to check out Kerbeck Chevy as they run a divison at their dealer advertiesed as Kerbeck Corvette. They are the largest volume Vette dealer in the world. They have a Cadillac, Chevy. Buick and GMC dealershps and the Corvette dealer is almost like a dealer unto its self. I do not expect that Chevy will force dealers to go to this extreme but it gives an idea of how better to handle the car. One this to also consider is with future models and even with the C8 things may get even more advanced and more difficult to deal with, Many of the small dealers either can't or should not work on a ZR1 and even some of the new systems on the C7. The key is to have few issues and if there is a problem the dealer working on the car needs to get it right the first time and fast. At this point lord only knows what GM is working on and they may be looking at making things less painful for owners. I can remember when the first ZR1 came out and many dealers were lost on that car. GM did not do a great job of preparing dealers for issues and but many dealers made no attempt to learn anything as many never expected to see one of these cars. If they did it was a rude awakening. Nothing against the small dealers but it is in the best interest of GM, Corvette and even the small dealers to let those who are best able to deal with thses car in the future. Check this out. http://www.kerbeck.com/ I think most dealers could even do web sites where the focus would be on the cars and all aspects of ownership. The dealers could even make more money from stocking acessories, clothing and diecast. These are things these owners buy. Even GM could taylor track days and events where Pratt and Miller are racing. The key here is to enhance the entire program from the first contact to the customer to the sale and any service needs. Owning a Corvette is not just buying a car it will take the buyer will become a Covette owner. The Vette while still low cost has crossed into a space where if you want more than the traditional buyers you need to give them the whole experience. With sales where they are at they want and hope to find 13,000 more owners and most have never owned one before.

I guess you have no clue of the 10 models they are already working on and will have out buy 2016. I see no issue with this car taking much away. The S cost with all options are $105,000 and would not make it across country in less than a week. You might get to 60 fast but it may take you a lot longer to get to California. Also from what I have read the fit and finish of the Tesla in Autoweek is very poor for the price paid. Neither car is the answer but the ELR is more inline with working with the daily driving needs and single car needs of the real world driver. Cadillac will not only offer the market the ELR but we will also have a nice choice of the ATS, New CTS and LTS. Next the new Escalade, SRX and small SUV to be anouncesd. There will be more than just these according to the reports. People who need to travel across the U.S. usually fly. The Model S's range is plenty for any sane human being with a bladder. Just an eample. I have made many trips Cleveland to Columbus and back, Cleveland to Indy and back. San Deigo to LA and back in one day. more than one. These are all out of the Tesla S range. Even my trips from LA to San Fran in two days could not be done with out adding at the least one full day to recharge to complete the run. Many here on the east coast have made the run to the resorts off the coast of NC and SC these would no longer be one day runs. Many have also done the 1-2 day runs to FL and those are gone. With air fair going up again these are common car trips. While even I have never drove east to west I and many have gone North and South on each coast. I could not count the many trips from San Deigo to LA and back I have in one day and with the travel miles plus my driving in LA I could not do it. 400 miles are easy to rack up and then have to find a place to plug in for over 12 hours is not always in the cards even in LA. The option of High miles and having a car that will not hold you up no matter what for 12 hours if you can find a charging station let alone one that is open. We must consider many may have an interest in an electric cars but it must not alture their life in what they precieve as a negitive way. Time is money.

Cool!!! We may not always agree but I would not want to be intentionally rude. The web can at time be difficult to show intent. If your good I am good!

I am please to see they put a larger bed on it. As of yet I am not sold on this truck. Not sure what it is but it is either going to be too large or it may be the styling I have yet to see in person. I too would rather have a S 10 sized truck.

I am betting you will be pleases ! Nice ride.

If helps next time I could cut it all down to two letter to get to the point! Just kidding!!! We have all made our points and know were we are. Lets just see if they approve the RWD car now and argure if they did or did not do the right thing for production. Sorry I reworded it so it was not as harsh. I did not want it taken the wrong way.

Yes and reguardless of how the styling turns out least lets all hope this RWD project is one that does not remain stillborn. Ok your right ..... Feel better? LOL!

What part of my last statment is wrong? It is my opinion and my opinion only! It is no more wrong or right as any of the statments from you? Styling is subjective and there is no right or wrong to it no matter who you are. Styling is a factor of personal opinion and can not be measured in seconds or feet. I guess you could do it in Dollars if this car was to be built 100% as it was presented but that is not going to happen as with most show cars things will be changed. As far as I am concerend I am fine with any and all who want to praise this car but in turn do not expect me to change my feeling or statments just because a couple people here like it. Desent is good no matter if you agree or not. I have been on other web forums where time and time again there were as many Ugly quotes on this car too. To me I would not go that far as there are only a few things I would liked changes and two while I don't fully agree with them too they have a right to take it that far if they like. I just find it odd some get so defensive over a car that may even get to market and even if it does may end up not even look like the show car. Voicing opininon is great but trying to win a argument with no real out come is a little wacky! Just for the record and so my opinion does not get twisted any more than it has. #1 I do not hate the concept of the car and look forward to it. #2 I do not like the car as it is but with a simple change in B and C pilllars it would address my greatest issue. #3 I do not agree with some of the opinions but who am I to declare any of them wrong? We may disagree but from where I sit there is no right are wrong to be assesed. #4 As for the nose I just expect it to change as it no longer reflects the new face of Chevy. All the cars will change in the next couple years to the new face and if they do this car I expect it to also reflect the new face too. All the cool kids love it? Now that is funny! Now there is a real reason to change my mind? There is no win or lose here and it is time for some to accept the fact there are going to be some that will not agree on this. I am not alone on this and even if I were I still don't like the roof and green house on this car. I don't expect to change yours or anyone elses mind but I will continue to state what I think and how I feel. I have no issue with open debate as I think it only make for better feed back or may give GM a better idea if they are are on the right track. I do not think my comments alone were the only factor but I did note the C7 does have it own steering wheel and no longer will share it with any other Chevy. I know some did not agree with me but I know many others did. I stated this when ever it came up and finally they did give the Vette it's own wheel. I think this shows the power of the web and or feedback from the public. Time to just wait and see if for one they approve a new car like this and then argue over if they styled it correctly.

Sorry I don;t agree and will not agree. Styling s subjective and I just am not not in love with this one as it is.

I guess you have no clue of the 10 models they are already working on and will have out buy 2016. I see no issue with this car taking much away. The S cost with all options are $105,000 and would not make it across country in less than a week. You might get to 60 fast but it may take you a lot longer to get to California. Also from what I have read the fit and finish of the Tesla in Autoweek is very poor for the price paid. Neither car is the answer but the ELR is more inline with working with the daily driving needs and single car needs of the real world driver. Cadillac will not only offer the market the ELR but we will also have a nice choice of the ATS, New CTS and LTS. Next the new Escalade, SRX and small SUV to be anouncesd. There will be more than just these according to the reports.