LGT Owners, what car will you drive next?

Looked at the SS - finding a reasonable '15+ (want the adjustable suspension) is hard. I've heard the 6EAT is so-so (again, need an auto - don't want to shift in rush hour) - drove a '14, but wanted a '15+. The lack of a folding rear seat was REALLY disappointing

My understanding is a TCM tune really wakes up the auto. With that said, I'm not giving up my manual. Rolled over 11,000 miles on my SS a few days ago. Still loving it. Averaging about 15 mpg. Honestly, the lack of folding rear seat has barely been an issue for me. It has the center pass-through, and the trunk holds so much that you only need to use that for really long items. I took a 2-week road trip over Christmas -- loaded up with two suitcases, my laptop backpack, half a trunk of presents, skis and boots, two cases of the bottled water my wife likes, and a few other items I can't remember, and we still had room for my brother in the back seat the last day we were in NYC.

I would miss the fold down seats I use that feature quite a bit.

You probably wouldn't miss them, given the amount of trunk space.

sure a used one can be had much cheaper but that is only a good selling point if you never plan to get rid of it.

You really can't. 2014s with high miles are just getting down below $30k. It's rare to see 2015s below $35k, and low mileage 2016s and 2017s are still mostly $40k+.

At that price point there are many options, and 15 mpg WTH was Chevy thinking.

What other options with 400+ hp and four doors are there for $50k? The Stinger GT gets close for less, but no manual available.

As for 15 mpg, it's par for the course with a big V8. I have gotten higher on trips, but I like flooring it too much to get higher around town.

Classifying a V8 as "outdated" and "thirsty" doesn't make sense in my opinion. The "outdated" part can be countered by also saying that they are a bit more simple and easier to fix than a boosted counter part. Also, "performance" is thirsty regardless of whether it comes in a larger v8 or a turbo / twin turbo 4/6cyl motor--you mash that right pedal and your gas mileage is gonna suck when you are pushing 400hp.

Turbo / boosted vehicles seem to be gaming the EPA tests a bit right now which makes them seem a less thirsty, but take them out into the real world and they are pretty similar it seems.

There was some talk about Kia and Hyundai not being able to shake their old stigma. I think they've shaken the stigma about being totally shitty and unreliable cars--they are building good value cars for the money that aren't going to leave you stranded. But damn, I hopped into my sister-in-law's 2016 Hyundai Tucson the other day and man that thing feels like a total pile of shit. No comparison to something like a Honda CR-V or Toyota RAV-4.

There are cars that meet the performance specs without the V8, which IMO is outdated and unnecessarily thirsty.

I'm sure you can find a few turbo V6es with 415 hp. They're not going to be terribly reliable, though, or are going to require far more maintenance to stay reliable than my "outdated" pushrod V8. Check out the reliability ratings for the Taurus SHO. There is a reason Chevy smallblocks have been around forever: they are a tried and true method to make reliable power.

Also unless that trunk will fit a stack of 2x4s and a 6ft folding table, I would definitely miss the folding seats. I don't always want to hook my trailer up to go to the hardware store.

 

The point not being the car doesn't have some features of other cars, the point being for the price they should be there. What do fold down seats cost, really?

The folding seats aren't available on the SS because there is chassis bracing on the sides. The problem isn't cost, it's performance.

You're not going to be able to fit the 6' folding table (although I believe the 8' ones that fold in half will fit), but you will be able to fit a few 2x4s. I've done it before. More than a few and I borrow a truck.

I really only wanted an Audi A3/A6 when it's Quattro AWD was longitudinally fore and aft symmetrical. The moment that changed to TVM engine and Quattro, it no longer held any charm.

The A4 and A6 (and other series based on them, and A8) are still longitudinal, and still with Torsen diffs AFAIK. The A3 has always been transverse with a Haldex system.

I am guessing you already know this, but the Gen III/IV (LSx) and Gen V (LTx) SBC are drastically different then Gen I/II SBC. The LSx Gen III engines were a clean sheet design, the only part they share with the prior generation was the rear main seal. The Gen IV and Gen V have both had significant technology upgrades from the original Gen III LSx motors.

 

Comparing current SBC with original SBC and is like try to equate the current FA/FB with the original EA Subaru boxer engine from the 60's.

The LS may have been a clean-sheet design, but it shares the same architecture and (with the exception of EFI and of exotic dry-sump variants) same internal-to-block technology as the SBC has always had. The clean-sheet design was undertaken to update the architecture to take advantage of the new optimizations that have occurred as a result of CAD prototyping, not to blow up the old formula and start over.

The introduction of VVT, DI, and variable displacement in the LT series has resulted in significant reductions in reliability. One of the reasons I'm glad Holden was never able to update the Commodore platform from the LS series.

My point on the fuel economy seems lost

That's because it's not a very good one.