XTS Hybrid? Don't Count On It

TT 3.0L?

Yes

Good news!

It's good to see that the obsession over fuel economy is coming to an end.

I am not against fuel economy, nobody is. I am not even against Hybrids or electrics. But, like everything else they should make economic sense. At $4 a gallon, even $8 a gallon, systems that gets to 10 extra MPG at a cost of $4000~8000 simply does not. The same goes for this government's expenditure on solar and wind -- complete and utter waste of money and a building block for fiscal disaster.

What we need is technology that gets the best return on fuel economy for each dollar spent and which does not add significantly to the price of the vehicle. That, plus the rapid and full development of US/Canadian coal, oil and gas resources in the near term, coupled with the a migration to nuclear generation and electric distribution 50~75 years from today.

The obsession over fuel economy is far from over.. We are entering a phase where the MFG are better understanding and reacting to the market and to those who want what kind of cars.

The fact is GM has found that using the things they have in the Cruze Eco to be the most popular with the public. The MPG is up the cost is down and the mojority of the market is happy. The fact is MPG to a buyer is more important than even quality. http://www.autoblog....n-buying-a-car/

This is how the game will play out. Brands like Benz, BMW, Bently Cadillac etc will not be centered so much on the hybrid formula. These companies will produce more and more Tubo 4 and 6 cars with lots of power. They also will still offer the V8 in select performance models. Over the next 5-10 years engines like the W16 and V12 will grow smaller and smaller to the point it will be rare for one to be offered.

These companies will not be offering what I would call a high milage model they will make what they have more efficent. The reason being is CAFE since most who can afford these cars do not really care so much about the enviroment or MPG,

I really wonder now how well the Cadillac version of the Volt would do since many of the other hybrid luxury brands really are not attracting much attention. Lexus just dropped their 250H model.

The fact is if electric cars and hybrids are going to make it and the goverment does not back down on the CAFE we are going to have some major issues if the Goverment does not fund these programs as the MFG can' keep making these system and taking a hit on each one. On the other hand I sure as Hell don't want my tax money supporting products that people don't want in numbers great enought to support them.

This thing is just a whole catch 22 till the technology becomes better for batteries and cheaper. I do see things improving but by 2025? Not really.

As for coal and gas we need to change some people in office to do so. Right now in this area there is a big fight to prevent gas and coal being expanded for many reasons and all not too legit. In fact the gas drilling alone in Ohio has lowered the unemployment and there are many who are working hard to shut it down.

Either way a Hybrid XTS should not be in the cards. A powerful but efficent TT V6 would play well to this market.

After driving the Lacrosse Hybrid I can say I would rather pass on it. I am not a big fan of this start stop engine system. While it works to a point I would rather leave it alone. I also see many issue once it gets old and needs repairs. These cars will be a major issue on the used car market. In fact I see them being avoided in the later years as was the 8/6/4 Cadillac.

But the 8//6/4 is a good example of an idea that will work once technology catches up like the V8 cylinder deactivation system GM has. What was once horrid today is very good and noticed by the average driver.

Nor surprising, as luxury hybrids don't sell well. On a smaller car like an MKZ or Lexus ES it may work, but not at the XTS's price point, nor the demographic that will buy it. A diesel makes more sense, especially for the livery market that wants durability and better fuel mileage. But I suspect the XTS for it's lifespan has only the 3.6 V6 and 6-speed auto combo.

What we need is technology that gets the best return on fuel economy for each dollar spent and which does not add significantly to the price of the vehicle. That, plus the rapid and full development of US/Canadian coal, oil and gas resources in the near term, coupled with the a migration to nuclear generation and electric distribution 50~75 years from today.

Coal pollutes more and provides less energy than oil or natural gas. As for shifting to nuclear energy and upgrading the electric grid, I am with you 1000%. Our grid is about 60-70 years old in a lot of the USA and it needs major upgrades. The grid needs to be more efficient and more reliable and be much better protected against blackouts and brownouts. That should be our energy policy right now and for the next 50 years.

In order to get the best return for a gallon of fuel, the ICE must be made a lot more efficient so that we need less fuel to begin with. Most current engines only use about 20-25% of fuel to power the engine and rest is given off as heat. (Yes, diesels are somewhat better at this.) What if the ICE was 75-80% efficient and only gave off 20% as heat. We would reduce the need for fossil fuels and save billions of dollars over the life of the car. Hybrids do not address this issue at all. Electric cars ditch the ICE and get nearly 100% efficiency.

As for the XTS, there really is no need for a hybrid model. Has anyone seen an Escalade Hybrid except at the Cadillac dealer?! Not me.

showed a lexus hybrid we had today and same comments, anyone looking at one of the hybrids new is wowed by the tech and such and will pay the price for it new, but 2nd gen and later used, people are scared of the cost of the batteries and electrics and whether those systems still work right years down the road. i think the model that takes the biggest rap is the civic hybrid. that was such a bust.....most of honda's hybrids are.

there is an imbalance. the price of hybrids are too high to start and now the market is too soft on them when you trade em. it's tough to justify the first gen cost unless you simply lease. and then the second gen costs are unknown, how much do you get stuck with to fix? do you want to be a guinea pig?

the prius is an exception almost. They are fairly reliable, the first cost is cheap, and the value holds on Prius pretty well. From the little bit I have seen, if you have any other hybrid besides a Prius....be prepared to lose your ass. Even though the fuel is cheaper.

BTW the volt is the right idea. what chevy needs is to rush volt2 to market. 3 cylinder gas 1.0 litre. cut weight of entire vehicle to 3000 pounds or less. improve the electric side of it. get the price under 30. same size car. extend the range. they can do it!

Regfootball, the Volt has only been out for a year or less. I would say that GM can wait until at least 2015 or '16 for Volt 2.0 to be released.

To put it simply, our energy policy should strive for cheap and plentiful energy instead of "green" and exorbitant energy. There are plenty of solid, liquid and gaseous fossil fuel within our national boundaries and on this planet. We should tap it to the fullest and continue to use it as the primary source of power for as long as it is economical to do so -- and it will be the most economical source of power for at least 50 years, possibly a 100.

As so far as the ICE goes, the typical gasoline engine has a thermal efficiency of in the mid-20s. A typical automotive diesel is in the low-30s. You really don't need to get to 80 percent to yield wonderous results. In fact, you can't get to 80% with combustibles. Even a power station's gas turbines are about 40% efficient in a simple cycle and in the mid-50s if it is a 2-stage combined gas-and-steam setup. Realistically, you can't get much better than that as long as you are burning stuff and doing mechanical work to generate power.

Fuel cells do much better, the problem being that the hydrogen it uses does not just appear out of thin air. Hydrogen is NOT an energy source and will never be; it is at best an energy storage medium and pretty lousy one at that. Unlike fossil fuel you cannot mine or pump it out of the ground. The production of hydrogen uses energy and quite inefficiently. Today you either get it out of electrolysis for which you need lots of electric power. Or, you hydro crack it out of fossil fuel which... well... needs lots of fossil fuel. Once you are done making Hydrogen you can have it either as the lowest density gas in the universe --- requiring a huge amount of tank space to go a given distance. Or, you can have it as one of the coldest liquids in the universe at -423 deg F which requires a huge amount of insulation and/or refrigeration. This all makes hydrogen a lousy way to store and/or transport energy. That's why I believe that in the end we'll be moving power we make on high voltage cables and not hydrogen carrying trucks or pipelines.

Not entirely true about hydrogen anymore. There are now bio-electronic ways to produce hydrogen where the energy output in hydrogen far exceeds the energy input in electricity.

The new technologies all need to still be worked on but the fact is they are all still new and not ready for primetime.

The goverment used to really help develope these new technologies throught the space program. Many think we just went to the moon to prove we could beat the Russians but the fact was it was a way to develope new technologies like we did during WWII with out blowing the hell out of each other.

Today the goverment has slashed the space and similar programs and left us with a bunch of stumulas union jobs repaving highways. Or they pumped the money into green campain doaner companies that are not making much progress if any.

The first thing this country needs is a real energy policy that works for all of us and not just those with their own agendas. It is time to what is economicaly best for our country to progress but still invest in programs that develope and provide cheap technology for the private industry to expand into our daily lifes. God knows with out the space programs technologies we would be no where near advanced as we are today and I wonder how many lives would be much worse off or dead with out the advancements we have made.

It is time for those elected to do what is right for our country and stop the partisan BS.

A bit of a shame. Cadillac had the vehicle pegged as a techno tour-de-force in its concept form, so an advanced hybrid model would have made sense.

Okay.. Let's cut the political discussion here. We have a politics forum for this.

A bit of a shame. Cadillac had the vehicle pegged as a techno tour-de-force in its concept form, so an advanced hybrid model would have made sense.

Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed in this news. I think if GM melded some of the Voltec tech into the XTS, it could have propeled it in so many directions. My bet as to why the hybrid got canned; the rumors of the Omega RWD platform coming within the next couple to few years and replacing the XTS for the consumer market.

Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed in this news. I think if GM melded some of the Voltec tech into the XTS, it could have propeled it in so many directions. My bet as to why the hybrid got canned; the rumors of the Omega RWD platform coming within the next couple to few years and replacing the XTS for the consumer market.

Or, it can simply be that GM does not have a suitable Hybrid drive train for the XTS. The Volt's is too underpowered and not particularly adaptable use the 3.6 V6 as the ICE. A BAS-II system ala Buick LaCrosse does not do enough to be worth marketing. An all new system for the XTS does not not have enough volume to make a reasonable business case on its own. That, plus the low take rate of GM's Hybrid offerings, led to a decision to keep it simple and focus on the tradiational merits of a large luxury sedan -- isolation, comfort, room, refinement and, yes, amenities galore.

Maybe somebody can chop an XTS in silver with blanked-off grille opening, fully-skirted wheel openings, bicycle-width tires with full disc covers, lowered ride height and shaved side mirrors.

Here is a part of a story from Wards and a recent survey result on this topic.

According to the 2012 U.S. Automotive Industry Survey and Confidence Index by Booz & Co., alternative vehicle powertrains may take up as much as 10 percent of the total market by 2020, but only if the federal government continues to support development.

Without a helping hand from Uncle Sam, only 30 percent of the researchers, executives and consumers who participated in the survey believe alternative-fuel machines will be able to carve out that small slice of the market. Specifically, federal tax incentives for potential buyers could help push the technology forward in the future.

The simple issue here is is there really market for a more expensive XTS that only gets a few token MPG? I really don't see it worth the cost for the investment. In short it would be cheaper and easier to just offer some kind of turbo Diesel even with all the EPA emissions BS.

Most people here in this class do not care much about this technology and those who do are perfectly happy in their Prius. For the most companies like Fisker are going to fail because they have a limited product in a low volume market.

Unless Fisker is sold I see them failing in the near future. I do wonder if they had just stuck a GM V8 under the hood and left the hybrid junk out would they have had a better chance in this segment. It is hard enough to do a low volume car but to do one that has the many issues and added cost make it even more difficult.

The meat of this segment are made with mid priced cars and down. GM needs to really only worry much about the Malibu on down in the eyes of the public. On the remaining cars they only need to address what is needed to meet future CAFE.

Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed in this news. I think if GM melded some of the Voltec tech into the XTS, it could have propeled it in so many directions. My bet as to why the hybrid got canned; the rumors of the Omega RWD platform coming within the next couple to few years and replacing the XTS for the consumer market.

Or, it can simply be that GM does not have a suitable Hybrid drive train for the XTS. The Volt's is too underpowered and not particularly adaptable use the 3.6 V6 as the ICE. A BAS-II system ala Buick LaCrosse does not do enough to be worth marketing. An all new system for the XTS does not not have enough volume to make a reasonable business case on its own.

The XTS could have been the springboard for a new hybrid system that would then be spread to other vehicles, just like the CUE system.

Again, the XTS was pitched as a sumptuous, techno-cruiser for people that want a comfy ride and plenty of toys. Similar to the Phaeton. Not implementing a new hybrid system just feels like a missed opportunity.

Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed in this news. I think if GM melded some of the Voltec tech into the XTS, it could have propeled it in so many directions. My bet as to why the hybrid got canned; the rumors of the Omega RWD platform coming within the next couple to few years and replacing the XTS for the consumer market.

Or, it can simply be that GM does not have a suitable Hybrid drive train for the XTS. The Volt's is too underpowered and not particularly adaptable use the 3.6 V6 as the ICE. A BAS-II system ala Buick LaCrosse does not do enough to be worth marketing. An all new system for the XTS does not not have enough volume to make a reasonable business case on its own.

The XTS could have been the springboard for a new hybrid system that would then be spread to other vehicles, just like the CUE system.

Again, the XTS was pitched as a sumptuous, techno-cruiser for people that want a comfy ride and plenty of toys. Similar to the Phaeton. Not implementing a new hybrid system just feels like a missed opportunity.

They pitched it that way, but GM likes to over sell and under deliver. This car was never going to be more than a fancy LaCrosse. Although I think they are making the right move, because GM doesn't have a good hybrid system, they don't sell many hybrids to begin with, and the XTS target market won't buy it.

This is just one car, but maybe it is a sign that we don't necessarily have to give up real cars to get to the future. Some of us said when the concept came out that it would be much better off with the 3.6L as motivation, that the hybrid junk is better left in the dustbin. And it seems that GM agrees.

GM is in the business of selling cars that make a profit. Alt fuel vehicles do not make a profit, by and large. They are an engineering money pit. And people do not want them. How much clearer does it need to be?

Things like the new suspension and other tech items will be leading enough.

I just don't see a hybrid system in this car being a big seller. for the most I see it as something the would limit sales if you had no choice in the matter. If it was offered as an option I see it as something GM would have spent a lot of money on and would have had few takers.

On board connectivity is what the entire industry is looking at. This is the hot button for all and in the higher class cars be the major playing card. People today are loaded with electric items and they want a vehicle with a good system that will link up with a push of a button. The system in my GMC is great but I expect these will get only better with each year,

I think GM would be best off handling the Hybrid system much like Toyota and The Prius. US a mid class car that is not too expensive but cost enought to cover the cost so they do not lose money.

Most people paying $60K are saying gee I wish I was saving more money on gas and few are eviro types. If they were most would not have a large SUV or sports car as a second or third car.

In Toyota's case, they could bet the farm that the Prius would be successful because at the same time they started selling pickup trucks and SUVs in large quantities (and presumably large profits). While it is true that the Tundra has never sold in numbers that would scare GM or Ford trucks, that decision partially subsidized the Prius until gas prices spiked and demand caught up.

For GM, there really is no need for an XTS hybrid because few hybrids other than the Prius sell in large enough numbers to be justified with few if any subsidies. Just ask Honda. Volt 2.0 in five years might be able to be scaled up to Cadillac price levels, but then GM will have to compete with the Fiskers and Teslas of the world (assuming they survive). The real elephant in the room is that the batteries are not good enough for long-term propulsion use anyways, hence why the EV-1 failed so miserably. Also, no one has made an electric car that could survive Detroit/Minneapolis winters without requiring long daily charges and very limited distances on pure electricity.

Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed in this news. I think if GM melded some of the Voltec tech into the XTS, it could have propeled it in so many directions. My bet as to why the hybrid got canned; the rumors of the Omega RWD platform coming within the next couple to few years and replacing the XTS for the consumer market.

Or, it can simply be that GM does not have a suitable Hybrid drive train for the XTS. The Volt's is too underpowered and not particularly adaptable use the 3.6 V6 as the ICE. A BAS-II system ala Buick LaCrosse does not do enough to be worth marketing. An all new system for the XTS does not not have enough volume to make a reasonable business case on its own. That, plus the low take rate of GM's Hybrid offerings, led to a decision to keep it simple and focus on the tradiational merits of a large luxury sedan -- isolation, comfort, room, refinement and, yes, amenities galore.

What about the 2-mode?

I think the 2 mode would be great for the XLR.

One thing we all need to remember too is this car is not a M Series or AMG chanllanger. This car is ment to do the following.

Fill an empty showroom with a car that was well along in development before the new money came in.

To take the place of a very outdated DTS

To take on the profitable livery market that Lincoln abandoned.

With this said is there a great need for a hybrid version? the V6 will suit most and the coming turbo will help keep it interesting till the Omega finally make a bow. This is not the car Cadillac wants to show where they will be but it is a patch to let them hold on till they get the product they are working on now.

I just hope the public don't put more on this car than even Cadillac even expects.

Autoblog posted a review of the XTS, they liked the interior and the soft highway ride, but said the powertrain was a major disappointment. My guess is the current powertrain is all it gets, so the XTS could get uncompetitive quickly.

Got this in my email, a review on the XTS. Some good some bad, but over all a decent write up. I do wish this person stated the proper place for this car rather than just falling into the normal Lemmings way of saying this is the flagship car for now till something better comes that cadillac mgmt has alluded to. They do like the powertrain and the interior.

http://cars.about.co...-Xts-Review.htm

Pictures you find here:

http://cars.about.co...-photo-gallery/

I have read four reviews on the XTS, all like the interior, which is a good sign for future Cadillacs that materials and build quality seem to be up. All liked CUE, but complained about the slowness and fingerprints on the screen, so a few bugs to work out there perhaps. Personally I don't like the LCD or TFT screens for speedometers, but it seems many are going that way. All the reviews also brought up the steering, engine and transmission as weak points and drew it back to being based on Malibu/LaCrosse underpinnings.

The XTS seems to be typical of GM, they get a lot right, but miss in key areas and come up short. They can't seem to put together the total package. And no matter what you do with the interior, it is still a LaCrosse underneath. I think the cars.com review was the best, as the guy said would he buy an XTS over an A6 for equal money, heck no. And if you just want a soft cruiser, (and most old folks won't care about the technology) why not save $15,000 and get an Avalon, Azera, LaCrosse or ES350. I see this as the problem with the XTS (and MKS also) it doesn't really target a big demographic.

I have read four reviews on the XTS, all like the interior, which is a good sign for future Cadillacs that materials and build quality seem to be up. All liked CUE, but complained about the slowness and fingerprints on the screen, so a few bugs to work out there perhaps. Personally I don't like the LCD or TFT screens for speedometers, but it seems many are going that way. All the reviews also brought up the steering, engine and transmission as weak points and drew it back to being based on Malibu/LaCrosse underpinnings.

The XTS seems to be typical of GM, they get a lot right, but miss in key areas and come up short. They can't seem to put together the total package. And no matter what you do with the interior, it is still a LaCrosse underneath. I think the cars.com review was the best, as the guy said would he buy an XTS over an A6 for equal money, heck no. And if you just want a soft cruiser, (and most old folks won't care about the technology) why not save $15,000 and get an Avalon, Azera, LaCrosse or ES350. I see this as the problem with the XTS (and MKS also) it doesn't really target a big demographic.

I suspect this car is like most GM does and will get a new engine soon. How many times do we see a new car and an old engine or in the case of the old Impala with a new engine and tranny. The money involved has put GM in a place where they have yet to get the two together at the same time. The C7 Vette is waiting on the DI V8 as has been the SS sedan. The Verano came out with thumbs up on the car but many have to wait till the second year for the improved 2.5 and 2.0. The Malibu now is only the Eco due to the lack of the two new engines.

It has been a game of car cycles and engine cycles being off and I would expect in time GM will get them back in alignment.

Maybe they're doing it on purpose to try to keep first-year reliability up?

XTS isn't going to get another engine. They can't put a V8 in a front drive car (well they could but they don't have one and it is pointless), and a 4-cylinder is too weak for that much weight. The only option down the line would be a turbo V6, but GM hasn't seemed in much of a hurry to develop one. And more power means more torque steer, and it still doesn't solve the transmission, unless they make a new tranny as well.

The Turbo V6 will be here very shortly.

the car will get a turbo six. but yet, the 3.6 is good enough.

Lexus ES but larger = XTS. Deville = XTS.

Let the ATS do the heavy lifting for Cadillac in the press, let the XTS infuse the cash again, like the SRX did.

The last rear drive STS did nothing for Caddy, Deville use to be the sales leader. let's see where the emphasis on posh goes. Between the CTS and ATS, let that get all the reviews.

I've sent XTS photos to my dad (DTS driver). Although he won't be buying any new Caddy's soon, he had nothing bad or unusual to say about the XTS.

MKS got a turbo in 2009, not like it helped any.

Not sure how much cash the XTS will infuse, and it does nothing for the brand image, which is the area Cadillac needs the most work.

The XTS will not harm Cadillac and it will being in cash flow to pay for the other cars in the line.

The MKS was made out to be the be all Lincoln when the GM has made it clear that they plan to sell this car for those who pine for an updated DTS and for Fleet sales taking the place of the Town Car.The only reason we have this car is most of the work was already done and they just had to finish it. If they did not being this car now we would still be years from a Flag ship and left with a large empty space in the show room.

For the most this car is the Chevy Captiva of Cadillac.

For the most this car will keep the lower volume cars like the ATS and CTS help retain value vs fleet selling them for added money. The Captiva is preserving the value of the Nox now since it is taking the fleet sales bullet for it.

For the most this car is the Chevy Captiva of Cadillac.

For the most this car will keep the lower volume cars like the ATS and CTS help retain value vs fleet selling them for added money. The Captiva is preserving the value of the Nox now since it is taking the fleet sales bullet for it.

Assessment essentially correct, I think. The issue here is that unfortunately Cadillac still needs such a helper of ATS/CTS resale values, when ideally (bold for emphasis) an Epsilon2-based car like this should be the new Buick LaCrosse and not a Cadillac...

Yes and as Cadillac gets to the new product they need and want cars like the XTS will be left to the profesional market as the Town Car was. Lincolns issue was they had no other cars. They whored the Town Car out and let the resale values plunge. The other models could not be protected as they were for the most just a Taurus. Even today Lincolns issues is their best car is nor more than what will be Cadillacs worst car a rehash of an older shared FWD.

Now that is not to say the XTSis a bad car it just will never be the best car nor should it be considered the best car Cadillac offers. GM really needs to bat down those who toss out the flag ship label on this car as it sets the wrong tone for the coming models. The new coming CTS, ATS and Omega are a different breed all together.

Well Cadillac's website lists the Audi A6 and Mercedes E-class as the competitors for the XTS, but I thought that was what the CTS was for? Once again the product planning fails. I don't get why they even list those, Cadillac can't seriously think this car competes with the E-class.

Well, as much as the XTS might have a "selective" appeal in the market, I will boldy (well, maybe not so boldly, as I think it's a sure bet) predict the XTS will be more reliable, cheaper to own, and at least equal in resale value at trade-in time v. the E-class.

The one thing that seems out of place in the XTS for the car's eventual customer base is CUE, imo. I'm just scared to death the old folks will be flummoxed by it. Cadillac is trying to put a high-tech system in a car that low-tech (by choice, not for lack of intelligence) customers are going to buy.

Agreed on CUE not being a good fit for the target demographic of the XTS, but I think they are trying to make an old person's car appeal to younger buyers by offering technology in it.

Not sure that it will be cheaper to own or more reliable than an E-class, or depreciate less. Mercedes was #6 in long term dependability in JD Power this year, Cadillac was slightly ahead, but Buick and Chevy behind (and there is a lot of Buick and Chevy in this car). We already know this car will be fleeted a lot also, the DTS and Town Car had miserable resale values, Mercedes usually hold value fairly well. But I also think people buying an E-class are concerned about "cheap to own" they want the best car on the market from the most prestigious brand. Although I don't see many people cross shopping the XTS with an E-class or A6 even.

The XTS is an upgraded upscale Buick LaCrosse. Comparing the XTS to an Audi A6 or an E-class Mercedes is product suicide.

The real question in my mind is why GM cannot put new engines in alongside the new cars, requiring customers to wait a year. Why is that so?

Since Opel is where it seems all 4cyl and 6cyl work resides, why can't GM simply move Opel R&D to the USA, ditch Opel (and Vauxhall) entirely, and abandon the comatose automotive marketplace that is Europe?

^^ Good points, but I don't think the XTS engine will change in a year or even at all during the life cycle. The Deville/DTS basically went 1994-2011 with the same engine, and this is the same sort of car. It is sold to buyers who aren't looking for performance.

The CUE is here because this type system is being intro'd in all GM cars. While some will get a few changes CUE, Mylink and Intellilink are an option now and will be standard in nearly all GM cars in the near future.

As for the engine. I suspect we will see some upgrades once a new engine is readied. The fact is the 3.6 is about all they have ready right now. Even if they were to drop a FWD V8 Chevy in for some odd reason it would not happen till the DI V8 is out.

The XTS is going to be like the Benz that are sold in Europe as Taxis and police vehicles. While they are good cars they are not the kind of cars we get here. Many have lesser power and very non sport suspensions. We need to keep in mind Benz and BMW have their XTS like cars but they do not send them here. Benz and BMW are only a luxury brand here when they are to some extent Chevy, Buick, and Cadillac combined there. Many here forget this as we just see the top self stuff here for the most part. We only get hints at the 3 Series 4 cylinder hatchbacks etc.

BMW and Benz are still the top luxury brands in Europe though. And German police and taxi companies must like the durability and longevity of Mercedes, because they could use an Opel, a Ford, or VW Passat but they choose not to use those cars despite being cheaper. An E250 diesel w/ automatic in Germany is 50,900 Euro with the VAT, a CTS 3.0 V6 automatic is 50,400 Euro with VAT. Mercedes does make a few E-class models with 4 cylinder and manual for the low 40s, but I wouldn't call that Chevy/Buick level. 42,000 Euros is still $52,000, granted 19% of that is tax, but it is actually cheaper to buy a Mercedes here than in Germany by the exchange rate and the taxes over there.

^ are those retail prices, or fleet prices? Mercedees moves so many thousands upon thousands of fleet vehicles, undoubtedly they discount them heavily.

The puzzle is, why even go after the livery market unless you are chasing sales marks?

At least when Cadillac traditionally sold to the livery market, it was only a few thousand units/yr, not 100,000 or more.

^ are those retail prices, or fleet prices? Mercedees moves so many thousands upon thousands of fleet vehicles, undoubtedly they discount them heavily.

The puzzle is, why even go after the livery market unless you are chasing sales marks?

At least when Cadillac traditionally sold to the livery market, it was only a few thousand units/yr, not 100,000 or more.

It was the retail price with the value added tax that Mercedes and Cadillac list on their websites.

I am not so opposed to Cadillac having a fleet/livery model, but it would be nice if it was a rear driver at least. Or at least have Cadillac call it what it is and compare it to the MKS and smaller ES350, and not make comparisons to the A6 or E350 on the Cadillac website. If you click the competitive comparison link on cadillac.com if by default brings up an A6 2.0T FWD and an E350. How is a mid-size rear drive sedan a direct competitor for a FWD large car?

This is what is so frustrating about Cadillac, either they are really stupid, or they think the consumer is. Saying the XTS competes with the E350 is like saying the Toyota Avalon and ATS compete because they cost the same and have 4 doors, leather, and a V6. For Cadillac to really compete with the 3 German midsizers, they need the CTS to outdo the XTS interior, then get 8 gears and new V6 and V8 engines. And once the CTS has every bell and whistle from the XTS, a better chassis, better transmission, better engine, better steering and handling, what is the point of the XTS? It will become irrelevant like the STS became.

>>"It was the retail price with the value added tax..."<<

Right; they are NOT selling 250K fleet vehicles at full retail.

>>"...it would be nice if it was a rear driver at least. Or at least have Cadillac call it what it is and compare it to the MKS and smaller ES350, and not make comparisons to the A6 or E350 on the Cadillac website.

How is a mid-size rear drive sedan a direct competitor for a FWD large car?"<<

These minor things just don't matter to the average consumer OR the livery segment. A6 & e350 buyers don't care what wheels drive the car, and don't know, either.

Size differences, for the vast majority of buyers, are not prime criteria here, because they're too close, IMO.

>>"And once the CTS has every bell and whistle from the XTS, a better chassis, better transmission, better engine, better steering and handling, what is the point of the XTS? "<<

I dunno; I asked the same question about the s-class/maybach; melted sheet metal, bad 1970's 2-tone paint, worse handling, worse steering, worse braking, worse performance, a 5-speed !! auto vs. the s-class's 7...

Seriously, different cars to appeal to different buyers I assume is the thinking- the same as just about all other makes out there. Look at audi. Doesn't always work, but it usually does.

XTS has no relation to the abandoned STS.

Cadillac doesn't have a flagship, but mercedees just KILLED their's off. Now THAT'S frustrating.

Hmm.... maybe a flagship is not as important as some think anymore. I see the BMW line up and the 3 and 5 series are the money makers the most noted cars and their flag ship means little to most anymore.

I am not saying that Cadillac does not need a flagship but I do see the ATS and new CTS as the most important models as they will be the ones most people will be looking to. Most reviews will be done on them and the most money to be made on them, these will be the cars people will see daily and see as the face of Cadillac.

The new CTS will break new ground and I feel will set the tone for the entire line.

>>"It was the retail price with the value added tax..."<<

Right; they are NOT selling 250K fleet vehicles at full retail.

>>"...it would be nice if it was a rear driver at least. Or at least have Cadillac call it what it is and compare it to the MKS and smaller ES350, and not make comparisons to the A6 or E350 on the Cadillac website.

How is a mid-size rear drive sedan a direct competitor for a FWD large car?"<<

These minor things just don't matter to the average consumer OR the livery segment. A6 & e350 buyers don't care what wheels drive the car, and don't know, either.

Size differences, for the vast majority of buyers, are not prime criteria here, because they're too close, IMO.

Cadillac doesn't have a flagship, but mercedees just KILLED their's off. Now THAT'S frustrating.

No car sells at full retail, no idea what Mercedes discounts for fleet or other use. But Mercedes in the first quarter 2012 had more net income ($1.4 billion) than GM or Ford, so the profit margin per car must be very high. GM sold 2.2 million vehicles in the first quarter, Daimler (with trucks) sold 420,00, yet made more money. Their business model works.

I agree people mostly shop by size and of course body style and price point. The XTS is over 1 foot longer than an E-class though, and the Mercedes buyer is a bit more upscale than the Cadillac buyer. A Hyundai Equus is actually a better target for the XTS, other than the MKS and ES350 which is the same sort of car just smaller.

Mercedes still has a flagship, they have the S-class, and the Pullman coming with the new model. Maybach isn't needed and was a money drain on Daimler.

Hmm.... maybe a flagship is not as important as some think anymore. I see the BMW line up and the 3 and 5 series are the money makers the most noted cars and their flag ship means little to most anymore.

I am not saying that Cadillac does not need a flagship but I do see the ATS and new CTS as the most important models as they will be the ones most people will be looking to. Most reviews will be done on them and the most money to be made on them, these will be the cars people will see daily and see as the face of Cadillac.

The new CTS will break new ground and I feel will set the tone for the entire line.

ATS and CTS are important, the next CTS if it takes the low mass engineering of the ATS combined with the interior of the XTS could be a winner. But what is the difference between Infiniti and Audi, BMW, and Mercedes? The G37 and M37/45 are both good cars and are in the volume segments, yet no roadster/sports car and no flagship in their line. Infiniti lacks the full line and prestige the Germans have.