Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

Trailblazer SS review.

Old Dec 12, 2005 | 01:32 PM
  #91  
96_Camaro_B4C's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
Re: Trailblazer SS review.

Originally Posted by Threxx
It's in this month's issue (the one with Civic as COTR)

The article is titled:
Cadillac STS-v meets Mercedes-Benz CLS55 AMG
Blown Away
Thanks. I don't subscribe anymore, so I have to wait until it is published online. It didn't come up yet when I searched for it just now.
Old Dec 12, 2005 | 04:36 PM
  #92  
Z284ever's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Re: Trailblazer SS review.

Originally Posted by teal98
Hmm. But you are an IRS guy. Check out Carroll Shelby's comments in the Jan 06 R/T on IRS on his namesake Mustang. I do take his comments with a grain of salt, since he'd be trying to sell what he's got.
Got a chance to read it earlier. Well, just my opinion, but Shelby's comments sound like a crock 'o crappolla. IRS would add $5,000 to the GT500???? IRS benefits are as he says ..."BS"? Why didn't he insist that the Ford GT get a live rear axle then?
He then goes on to imply- no actually say - that the 150 lbs that the convertible top adds to the GT500 ,(bringing this porky pig Mustang to over 4,000 lbs ), is a good thing because it improves the car's weight balance. OMG!

Also in the story, SVT chief engineer, Jay O'neill (I think), says it would be impossible to get ideal suspension geometry with an IRS on the GT500 because of the way the Mustang is currently packaged.....hope they get it figured out by '09, when Mustang gets IRS.

Last edited by Z284ever; Dec 12, 2005 at 08:11 PM.
Old Dec 12, 2005 | 05:09 PM
  #93  
poSSum's Avatar
Disciple
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,479
Re: Trailblazer SS review.

Originally Posted by Z284ever
He then goes on to imply- no actually say - that the 150 lbs that the convertible top adds to the GT500 ,(bringing this porky pig Mustang to over 4,000 lbs ), is a good thing because it improves the car's weight balance. OMG
Weight gain notwithstanding, my convertible does have slightly better weight balance, 0.6% more on the rear than my hardtop. Putting the top down moves 15 lbs, or 0.4%, to the rear axle .... so there is some truth to what he says.

I was never able to get my previous hardtop to autoX as well as the convertible, I'm hoping I'll be able to get the 1LE to step it up a notch.
Old Dec 12, 2005 | 08:36 PM
  #94  
Z284ever's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Re: Trailblazer SS review.

Originally Posted by poSSum
Ditto. And it needs to be able to tow a trailer with some authority. I expect to have mine within a month.

Cool! What color?

BTW, I think in one of your posts you said that you drove one in BG. What did it drive like?
Old Dec 13, 2005 | 02:16 AM
  #95  
teal98's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Re: Trailblazer SS review.

Originally Posted by Z284ever
Got a chance to read it earlier. Well, just my opinion, but Shelby's comments sound like a crock 'o crappolla. IRS would add $5,000 to the GT500???? IRS benefits are as he says ..."BS"? Why didn't he insist that the Ford GT get a live rear axle then?
He then goes on to imply- no actually say - that the 150 lbs that the convertible top adds to the GT500 ,(bringing this porky pig Mustang to over 4,000 lbs ), is a good thing because it improves the car's weight balance. OMG!
I figured you might have that reaction

I'm happy to see a new Camaro, with or without IRS. If the pictures of the chassis and body have anything in common with the actual car, it looks like a winner.
Old Dec 13, 2005 | 07:56 AM
  #96  
poSSum's Avatar
Disciple
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,479
Re: Trailblazer SS review.

Originally Posted by Z284ever
Cool! What color?

BTW, I think in one of your posts you said that you drove one in BG. What did it drive like?
Black. Is there any other color?

I only drove it around the NCM, but the sound of the V8 was "right" and it did feel tighter than our Envoy. I'm putting a lot of trust into Scott's comments about how well it handled at Spring Mountain.

I really like what they did with the look too. I was looking for a picture of our Envoy sans mouldings, badging and roof rack so show, but I don't have any good ones. The cleaned up front and rear fascias work for me too.

To keep everyone happy my wife will be getting an AWD Vibe. We should be set then until the 5th gen convertible is available.
Old Dec 15, 2005 | 10:34 AM
  #97  
Z284ever's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Re: Trailblazer SS review.

Red Jewel Tintcoat

http://forums.trailvoy.com/showthread.php?t=2950&page=5
Old Dec 15, 2005 | 10:51 AM
  #98  
Darth Xed's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
Re: Trailblazer SS review.

Originally Posted by Z284ever

That looks really, really good!

Thanks for posting.

Only down side to it is that I hate paying an upcharge for a paint color... :blah:
Old Dec 15, 2005 | 12:05 PM
  #99  
muckz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,402
From: Toronto, ON Canada
Re: Trailblazer SS review.

Originally Posted by Threxx
Anybody catch the STS-V comparison in MT this past month? The CLS AMG model absolutely destroyed it performance-wise. GM has always been known for its class-leading powertrains in terms of performance/power output but recently it seems some others have been giving them a hard time.
AMG has been producing some of the fastest and meanest machines on the planet! I think they nailed the formula for making exciting family vehicles. The trouble is, it costs an arm, a leg, and a house.

I still remember vividly the day I went to the track with my LT1 Z28. I ran 14.6 - 14.9 that day since the clutch started slipping. One time I ran against a stock C32 AMG (C-Class with 3.2 litre supercharged V6, delivering 349 HP). That sucker, with 5-speed auto transmission, ran 13.2 at 107 mph. I was blown away. Of course, it also cost twice the price of a brand new Z28.
Old Dec 15, 2005 | 01:23 PM
  #100  
Threxx's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 4,320
From: Memphis
Re: Trailblazer SS review.

Originally Posted by muckz
AMG has been producing some of the fastest and meanest machines on the planet! I think they nailed the formula for making exciting family vehicles. The trouble is, it costs an arm, a leg, and a house.

I still remember vividly the day I went to the track with my LT1 Z28. I ran 14.6 - 14.9 that day since the clutch started slipping. One time I ran against a stock C32 AMG (C-Class with 3.2 litre supercharged V6, delivering 349 HP). That sucker, with 5-speed auto transmission, ran 13.2 at 107 mph. I was blown away. Of course, it also cost twice the price of a brand new Z28.
Yeah they are expensive but consider that not only are you getting performance, but you are getting luxury features, ride, quality, etc along with that.

For IE you have Lexus who delivers top-notch comfort, service, and quality without the performance (Their V8s can run stock in the low 14s and the IS350 will run in the high 13s which is better than most people might assume of them but that still doesn't even begin to touch AMG). So I guess you can get luxury//performance seperately a reasonable price, but altogether it's $$$.
Old Dec 15, 2005 | 02:08 PM
  #101  
Chuck!'s Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 2,610
From: Cincinnati, OH
Re: Trailblazer SS review.

So is the TB SS capable of pulling say a third generation Camaro?
Old Dec 15, 2005 | 02:31 PM
  #102  
96_Camaro_B4C's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
Re: Trailblazer SS review.

Originally Posted by Chuck!
So is the TB SS capable of pulling say a third generation Camaro?
I'm going to go with 'yes.' It won't be too far off an LT1 Camaro in terms of acceleration.

The heavier (but six speed) SSR has done a 0-60 in ~5.6 seconds and run the 1/4 mile in 14.0@100 mph in Car and Driver.

I'd say just about any stock 3rd gen will lose to a TB SS.
Old Dec 15, 2005 | 03:00 PM
  #103  
dream '94 Z28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,646
From: Portland, OR
Re: Trailblazer SS review.

Originally Posted by Z284ever
Whoa!

I'm not a fan of red but that just put it in the running.
Old Dec 15, 2005 | 03:11 PM
  #104  
Threxx's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 4,320
From: Memphis
Re: Trailblazer SS review.

Originally Posted by 96_Camaro_B4C
I'm going to go with 'yes.' It won't be too far off an LT1 Camaro in terms of acceleration.

The heavier (but six speed) SSR has done a 0-60 in ~5.6 seconds and run the 1/4 mile in 14.0@100 mph in Car and Driver.

I'd say just about any stock 3rd gen will lose to a TB SS.
I sorta think he meant "towing".
Old Dec 15, 2005 | 03:21 PM
  #105  
96_Camaro_B4C's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
Re: Trailblazer SS review.

Originally Posted by Threxx
I sorta think he meant "towing".
Ah, yes, upon reading it again, I think you are correct. We had been talking about AMG acceleration and all that, plus the TB SS is a "high performance" SUV, and sometimes we say "pulling" or "walking" to mean "outaccelerating", so you see...

*sigh*

I am ashamed.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:40 AM.