XTS Hybrid? Don't Count On It

I realize no car sells on average at full retail; mercedes knocks $15K off the s-class to move them.

The point was- it was disingenuous to mention retail sticker price when talking about fleet sales.

>>"The XTS is over 1 foot longer than an E-class though"<<

202" inches isn't huge at all. BTW; E-sedan is 192", so that's LESS than a foot, not more.

But I really don't think that matters to the majority of buyers, so no; we don't agree here.

But all the talk about "targets" is immaterial- the buyers will decide, due to the huge amount of variables, what they will cross-shop, not the manufacturers.

I actually thought it was 204 inches, but I see it is 202. Still the E-class is within 1 inch of a CTS in about every direction. I would think the CTS would be greater competition for the XTS than the E-class, and I don't even see the CTS as that much of a competitor for it. The XTS is for people that want comfort and don't care about performance, and there is nothing wrong with that, a lot of buyers like that. Question is, will that type of buyer than can find a full size, comfortable, V6 sedan for $30-40,000 from other makes, pay $45-60k for a Cadillac because it has a high tech dashboard? Typically, buyers spending $50-60k are looking for performance or brand image, which a FWD Volvo or Acura couldn't offer either, and the DTS has seen sales is steady decline over the past 20 years.

Q: When will the real Cadillac flagship be at the local dealer? I like the XTS for what it is, but a flagship it is not. I hope we do not have to wait too long for that.

I actually thought it was 204 inches, but I see it is 202. Still the E-class is within 1 inch of a CTS in about every direction. I would think the CTS would be greater competition for the XTS than the E-class, and I don't even see the CTS as that much of a competitor for it..

One thing that is odd about the XTS is the short wheelbase...2 inches shorter than the CTS.

Still the E-class is within 1 inch of a CTS in about every direction. I would think the CTS would be greater competition for the XTS than the E-class, and I don't even see the CTS as that much of a competitor for it.

For someone who dotes on the spec sheet, this isn't consistent with your usual position.

IE; the CTS 'cannot compete' with the XTS on the simple fact that they are too far apart in overall length.

Kinda how you proclaimed the CTS didn't compete with the 3 series because they were 10" apart in overall length.

See; it's impossible.

I agree with Moltie on the wheelbase. Seeing the car in real-life profile photos, the wheelbase is clearly short for the body length. Its overall length is tacked onto the platform. How can that be good for stability, let alone eye-pleasing proportions?

I'd rather have a Chrysler 300C V8 and save $20k... or if I wanted to spend close to $60k like a loaded XTS, I could have a truly hot 300C SRT-8!

Still the E-class is within 1 inch of a CTS in about every direction. I would think the CTS would be greater competition for the XTS than the E-class, and I don't even see the CTS as that much of a competitor for it.

For someone who dotes on the spec sheet, this isn't consistent with your usual position.

IE; the CTS 'cannot compete' with the XTS on the simple fact that they are too far apart in overall length.

Kinda how you proclaimed the CTS didn't compete with the 3 series because they were 10" apart in overall length.

See; it's impossible.

And that is why I said the CTS isn't much of a competitor for the XTS, but the E-class is even less so. Typical E-class buyers probably wouldn't consider a Cadillac. But someone in a Cadillac showroom already may consider the cheaper, better handling, and quicker CTS. Although I do think the XTS is going to get the 70+ crowd that is scared by the CTS's RWD tomfoolery.

I agree with Moltie on the wheelbase. Seeing the car in real-life profile photos, the wheelbase is clearly short for the body length. Its overall length is tacked onto the platform. How can that be good for stability, let alone eye-pleasing proportions?

I'd rather have a Chrysler 300C V8 and save $20k... or if I wanted to spend close to $60k like a loaded XTS, I could have a truly hot 300C SRT-8!

Wheelbase is short because it is FWD family sedan. If looking for a big luxo cruiser, for $60k one could get an Equus which has more gizmos (it has a refrigerator after all) and 429 hp sent through 8 gears to the proper wheels. Personally I'd take a Jaguar XF at that price due to the good looks and sporting credentials.

I have not been in love with the XTS via the pics. I don't hate it, but it's no CTS.

And I would not argue the wheelbase vs. overall length thing, either.

Will be interesting to see one in person, tho.

Sorry but a Hyundai Equus is a simulation of a luxury car. True luxury comes from history, of which Hyundai has none.

Sorry but a Hyundai Equus is a simulation of a luxury car. True luxury comes from history, of which Hyundai has none.

Then what would you call the Hyundai Genesis sedan?

Lexus without any history was able to move into the USA and overtake Cadillac and Lincoln in 10 years time. Brand image helps luxury cars, and that can be built up over time, but I don't think history matters too much. Image and perception matter. The Equus may not be as good as a big German sedan, but it is a legit luxury car. At least they gave it a proper platform and powertrain, and didn't build it off the Azera platform.

Maybe I cannot get over my brand snobbery. But I suspect both of Hyundai's big RWD cars are not selling well.

Maybe I cannot get over my brand snobbery. But I suspect both of Hyundai's big RWD cars are not selling well.

Well the Genesis line sells okay, but not well, Equus doesn't sell well at all, but it is going to take years to overcome the old perceptions of Hyundai. But I think they don't care that the Equus doesn't sell, because they are selling tons of Elantras and Sonatas.

...the Genesis line sells okay, but not well, Equus doesn't sell well at all...

Image and perception matter.

Lexus worked because it was based in Toyota. It gave the many happy Toyota owners a place to move up.

The issue with Hyundai is they have to over come they past. In a Sonata it is easy to take a chance at $20K. Now at $65K the risk are much greater and harder to justify.

With GM they have to live down the 70's, 80's and some 90's of crappy cars. Either way no matter how good the new cars are they will have to earn the trust and image back, you can not design this in.

This is where the ATS and new CTS are the right place to earn it back. People will take a chance on these cars where if you tried to start with the Omega like car few will bite on it at that price point.

Also Cadillac has to live down the anti American snobbery which there is little fix for other than winning other buyers over till they are left out in the cold.

At least Cadillac has hope and really good product coming. Lincoln on the other hand is what Cadillac was in the 90's using nothing but shared FWD platforms only. Cadillac will have one shared FWD but the rest is RWD and will be by far the best on the Alpha.

^QFT. Lincoln's problem is Ford Management: apparently they do NOT want to learn the lessons Cadillac had to learn in the '90s and Acura has to deal with now. Lincolns do not sell because they are upgraded Fords with no unique selling point.

Why should any (non-Ford) customer buy a Lincoln again?!

Lexus also did well because at the time Cadillac and Lincoln had seriously dropped the ball, making cars that were smaller versions of their 70's ones. As much as I liked driving one on the freeway, on something like Coldwater or Benedict Cañon a 80's deVille was nausea-inducing. Trust me, I've done it.

The Lexus hybrid sedan didn't do well because it was Lexus' Cimmaron (lite). It wasn't good looking or particularly luxurious, got good but not stellar mileage and didn't scream "I'm saving the planet and am better than you" like the Prius. The RXwhateverH is doing pretty well, at least in LA. Where, I think the ELR will sell very well. I just hope Beiber doesn't chrome his..

I think it's interesting that Lexus is going through their own "malaise era" and are desperately trying to convince the world that they're actually sporty..

...the Genesis line sells okay, but not well, Equus doesn't sell well at all...

Image and perception matter.

Correct. The Genesis/Equus do help the image of the Elantra, Santa Fe and Sonata though. If you look back, the Genesis sedan came out around January 2009, at the bottom point of the auto industry, and Hyundai sales really started to grow then. The Genesis brought some legitimacy to the brand, and got people shopping for a compact or family sedan to rethink Hyundai's image of the 80s or 90s.

I have driven a Genesis twice, and it is a great car for the money, loads of V8 power and it is really quiet. But image does matter and most people aren't dropping $45k on a Hyundai, or $60k especially. That could take years or decades to overcome.

I think Cadillac would benefit from a halo vehicle, whether it be a sedan or sports car. They are sort of like what Hyundai used to be, a trio of sedans and a couple SUVs, but no range topper or halo. Cadillac needs that cool car to attract people to the brand and get people excited, that will help improve their image and sell more ATS and CTS.

Cadillac needs that cool car to attract people to the brand and get people excited...

WAA-PAH!

The Genesis/Equus do help the image of the Elantra, Santa Fe and Sonata though.

You mean like the Escalade helps the image of the Tahoe, rriigghhttttt????

Lets also note Lexus while they have done ok still has fallen short of the class leaders like Benz and BMW in overal global image. They are in the room but have never lead the parade. This admission is from Mr Toyoda himself. He is overseeing that Lexus calls the shots and not Toyota and advanced their own image from being just a fancy Toyota. .

Lexus as sporty? They will never be the Cadillac V-series, much less BMW or Audi. Some malaise: it's just confusion on image. Dear Lexus, cry me a river.

Now Acura has a serious image issue, and Lincoln even more so (and Lincoln is already in a malaise).

Cadillac needs that cool car to attract people to the brand and get people excited...

WAA-PAH!

The Genesis/Equus do help the image of the Elantra, Santa Fe and Sonata though.

You mean like the Escalade helps the image of the Tahoe, rriigghhttttt????

I always found the CTS coupe ugly, the back is too fat and too high. The CTS-V is just a jacked up version o the base car, it isn't a unique halo car like an Audi R8 or SLS AMG. And in the VW group they have Bentley, Lamborghini and the Bugatti Veyron in the stable as well.

Escalade is a Tahoe, so no. The Genesis doesn't share a chassis and sheetmetal with a Sonata. Corvette for Camaro (or other Chevys) is a better analogy.

Cadillac needs that cool car to attract people to the brand and get people excited...

WAA-PAH!

The Genesis/Equus do help the image of the Elantra, Santa Fe and Sonata though.

You mean like the Escalade helps the image of the Tahoe, rriigghhttttt????

I always found the CTS coupe ugly, the back is too fat and too high. The CTS-V is just a jacked up version o the base car, it isn't a unique halo car like an Audi R8 or SLS AMG. And in the VW group they have Bentley, Lamborghini and the Bugatti Veyron in the stable as well.

Escalade is a Tahoe, so no. The Genesis doesn't share a chassis and sheetmetal with a Sonata. Corvette for Camaro (or other Chevys) is a better analogy.

Which BMW "halo" car is unique? All Ms are jacked up versions of base cars. Some of those base cars have manual windows. In fact BMW does not have any halo car, and so doesn't Jaguar.

You were vehemently against the idea of Caddy having uber sedan or a supercar to compete with Bentley and now you rave about how VW has zillions of halo cars. Seems like every post of yours is an excuse to bash GM in a guise of another competitor company having better product.

Which BMW "halo" car is unique? All Ms are jacked up versions of base cars. Some of those base cars have manual windows. In fact BMW does not have any halo car, and so doesn't Jaguar.

You were vehemently against the idea of Caddy having uber sedan or a supercar to compete with Bentley and now you rave about how VW has zillions of halo cars. Seems like every post of yours is an excuse to bash GM in a guise of another competitor company having better product.

BMW has the 7-series (with a V12), so they do carry a flagship sedan. (and they have Rolls-Royce) A CTS-V is a jacked up version of the base Cadillac (or what was the base before the ATS gets here), that is like BMW calling the M3 their top end, halo car. I'm not saying Cadillac needs a mid-engine super car like the R8, but they at least need a proper big sedan.

As for Jaguar, their 3 cars base at $53k, $73k, and $84k, and 2 of those go over $100,000. Plus they are more a boutique brand like Porsche and play at a pretty high price point. Really 2 of their 3 cars are halos, they have the full size executive sedan, plus a Grand Touring coupe.

I am not against a Cadillac supercar, the Cien is my 2nd favorite Cadillac concept car ever, after the Evoq which unfortunately was watered down too much when it got to production. I think a Cadillac supercar would be awesome, probably wouldn't make business sense, but it would be awesome if done right. I was against a sedan to go after Bentley or Rolls because I know GM couldn't pull it off. And Cadillac first has to get to A8/7-series level and get positioned against the German trio. Forget about trying to compete with Bentley or Rolls.

Everyone can complain about the CTS Coupe, but I love it. Especially the V version!

WAIT - you said :

cool car to attract people to the brand and get people excited

now you're talking about the boring, platform-sharing, '3rd sausage' 7-series. NO ONE gets either attracted to BMW or excited by the hoary old-man's 7-series.

The discussion was 'cool & exciting' - how did it get onto 'flagship sedan'??

Fact of the matter is, regardless of your personal opinion of the styling, the CTS-V has without question been BOTH exciting and drawn people to Cadillac.

The CTS coupe styling has been growing on me...even with the decklid being 2 inches long and 4 feet tall..

As far as the regular CTS, I've had a chance to drive a black on black '11 some the last few days, very nice...I'd only sat in them the before.

There is no simple formula in this class of car. The one common element is what the car does for the image of the owner. This is the look at me class and what the car says about you to others as wells yourself. Lets face it we all could get by with a Cruze but when you roll up in a high priced image car it says something that many people what their image to say. They also feel they have purchased leading technology.

BMW and Benz for the most live on the image of their name. Styling has never been their strong suit but the people see you roll up in a car with either name says you have wealth... or just a large car payment.

Those how buy Asian cars are ok with knock off Benz styling on a Toyota or odd styling on a fancey Honda bases Acura. These people are looking to save a buck but feel they are buying a high quality car. Preception here is what makes these owners happy and they feel they have improved their image and feel they are showing to be smart buy buying precieved quailty.

Cadillac is making up for lost time buy using technology and styling to attract people in the look at me crowd. It will still take time for the Quality and Image factor to be build back up. This will come in time and the attractive wrapers will give them a shot at drawing people in.

There are many other factors but these are just some of what is a draw. I hope in the future we can say people are buying a Cadillac because they want to be seen in a Cadillac. Cheap and suprifical as that may be it sells a lot of cars and that is the trump card here.

The XTS though doesn't help build image. It lacks a lot of features other big sedans have, nor the powertrain/mechanicals that the rest of the market has. Pretty much every BMW and Audi has an 8-speed now, Mercedes will soon have 9. Yet Cadillac has 6, like a Cruze or Elantra. One could buy an Audi S6 that does 0-60 in 3.7 seconds and is rated at 26 mpg highway, quicker than a CTS-V with fuel economy like a V6 CTS. The German cars are so good right now, Cadillac can't simply badge engineer out of the parts bin to catch up. And it probably isn't even Cadillac engineers fault, it is probably the bean counters not giving them what they need.

Maybach has FIVE.

Doesn't matter- number of gears doesn't sell one car over another. The buyers simply don't care.

Again- look at what RWD does for the 3-series- sales would likely sink like a stone IF people cared about these intangibles.

Maybach has FIVE.

Doesn't matter- number of gears doesn't sell one car over another. The buyers simply don't care.

Again- look at what RWD does for the 3-series- sales would likely sink like a stone IF people cared about these intangibles.

The Maybach was also developed in 2002 and is discontinued after 2012 model year. They may not choose over number of gears, but miles per gallon matters to many and new transmissions help that, as well as with acceleration. But it is more than the transmission, it is that Cadillacs are still built out of the parts bin, rather than developing what they really need to compete.

Once the CTS goes up in price to $45-60,000, the XTS becomes very pointless. The CTS will probably even be roomier because it will have a longer wheel base. I think if they take the XTS platinum interior and feature content and put it in the ATS and CTS they are onto something, but I fear Cadillac will hold back the CTS and ATS because they need to leave something on the XTS to justify its existence. We saw this before with the 08 CTS, they had the STS sitting there as dead weight, but they kept equipment such as lane departure warning off the CTS to justify the STS price premium. The XTS is detrimental to the brand.

Point is, mercedees developed a monster flagship with a 5-speed, when it's twin the s-class, with the same engine, had 6 or 7, and they never upgraded it. Either they didn't care, or they believed such things were UNIMPORTANT to the consumer. Either they are stupid, or they agree with me.

Once the CTS goes up in price to $45-60,000, the XTS becomes very pointless.

BS, because of price overlap??? There's plenty of overlap, for ex, between the c- & e-class, and they are much closer in purpose than the CTS & XTS.... Or are you admitting that FWD vs. RWD just doesn't matter that much after all???

Maybach has FIVE.

Doesn't matter- number of gears doesn't sell one car over another. The buyers simply don't care.

Again- look at what RWD does for the 3-series- sales would likely sink like a stone IF people cared about these intangibles.

The Maybach was also developed in 2002 and is discontinued after 2012 model year. They may not choose over number of gears, but miles per gallon matters to many and new transmissions help that, as well as with acceleration. But it is more than the transmission, it is that Cadillacs are still built out of the parts bin, rather than developing what they really need to compete.

Man you drowned your argument there. You want GM to be cutting edge, yet you are letting a Flagship Brand with "Halo" status to rot with 5 speeds only? May be if MB would have introduced 1000 speed transmission in Maybach it would have survived.

Furthermore, Audis, Porsches, Bentleys, and Bugattis are built on parts and bins of Skoda, VW and Seat why not start bitching about them? And MB is going to work on parts and bins of Ghosn's legacy brands, BMW wants 4 cylinders development with Hyundai. I think GM is way ahead of the game than these so-called technological stalwarts when it comes to sharing with lower siblings and making a better product.

You guys realize that the Maybach/AMG V12 makes over 800 lb-ft of torque, but is down tuned to 738 lb-ft of torque. That 5-speed was the only transmission that wouldn't be shredded apart by it. But Mercedes has now upgraded the 7-speed to handle the torque, so for 2013 model year the 5-speed is gone.

You guys realize that the Maybach/AMG V12 makes over 800 lb-ft of torque, but is down tuned to 738 lb-ft of torque. That 5-speed was the only transmission that wouldn't be shredded apart by it. But Mercedes has now upgraded the 7-speed to handle the torque, so for 2013 model year the 5-speed is gone.

Well according to you, MB is a leader in technology and spends billions of dollars in R&D. Sure being an industry standard, as you mention it umpteen times, it would have come up with a simple solution of adding 995 more gears to the existing 5 to overcome the 800 lb-ft torque problem in its "Halo" car. There again you drowned your argument there.

Once the CTS goes up in price to $45-60,000, the XTS becomes very pointless.

BS, because of price overlap??? There's plenty of overlap, for ex, between the c- & e-class, and they are much closer in purpose than the CTS & XTS.... Or are you admitting that FWD vs. RWD just doesn't matter that much after all???

There is $9,985 between a C350 and E350. There is $2,905 between the ATS 3.6 and the XTS 3.6, and they have to squeeze the CTS in between those two. Actually, a 3.6 CTS is cheaper than a 3.6 ATS that is supposed to be below it.

You guys realize that the Maybach/AMG V12 makes over 800 lb-ft of torque, but is down tuned to 738 lb-ft of torque. That 5-speed was the only transmission that wouldn't be shredded apart by it. But Mercedes has now upgraded the 7-speed to handle the torque, so for 2013 model year the 5-speed is gone.

Well according to you, MB is a leader in technology and spends billions of dollars in R&D. Sure being an industry standard, as you mention it umpteen times, it would have come up with a simple solution of adding 995 more gears to the existing 5 to overcome the 800 lb-ft torque problem in its "Halo" car. There again you drowned your argument there.

The Maybach came out 10 years ago, at the time it was leading edge, and even still, the rest of that car is ridiculously well appointed. But a few years ago they knew they would be dumping the car, no point on spending money on it. Let's see how the S-class Pullman turns out, and we'll see where the billions are going.

There is $9,985 between a C350 and E350. There is $2,905 between the ATS 3.6 and the XTS 3.6, and they have to squeeze the CTS in between those two. Actually, a 3.6 CTS is cheaper than a 3.6 ATS that is supposed to be below it.

One can also view the structure such that the XTS is parallel to the ATS and CTS, not the top of a hierarchy. Think Lexus--they have the IS, GS, LS hierarchy and the CT and ES in parallel tracks...

You guys realize that the Maybach/AMG V12 makes over 800 lb-ft of torque, but is down tuned to 738 lb-ft of torque. That 5-speed was the only transmission that wouldn't be shredded apart by it. But Mercedes has now upgraded the 7-speed to handle the torque, so for 2013 model year the 5-speed is gone.

Well according to you, MB is a leader in technology and spends billions of dollars in R&D. Sure being an industry standard, as you mention it umpteen times, it would have come up with a simple solution of adding 995 more gears to the existing 5 to overcome the 800 lb-ft torque problem in its "Halo" car. There again you drowned your argument there.

The Maybach came out 10 years ago, at the time it was leading edge, and even still, the rest of that car is ridiculously well appointed. But a few years ago they knew they would be dumping the car, no point on spending money on it. Let's see how the S-class Pullman turns out, and we'll see where the billions are going.

Even if it came 10 years ago, MB introduced 7 speeds 7 years ago. Why did it not introduce the transmission in its "halo" car instead of the vanilla S class? Thoughts of MB eliminating the brand did not turn till 2009, which means it had 4 years to add the 7 speed transmission before the decision. So I guess previous billions of dollars in R&D went to waste since we are still waiting for a pullman car to turn out and succeed when MB could not pull it off on its brand image on the Maybach? You do not apply that logic to GM's R&D on its cars as you guarantee they will be a failure even before conceptualization. Is it like how you envisioned XTS will be a barge, yet your favorite C&D loves the way it drives!

Only 44 Maybachs were sold in 2011, that is pathetic for a prestigious brand like MB which claims to be bleeding edge and top dog spender in R&D.

MB was putting a 5-speed in a $180,000 S65 when Saturn Vue had a 5-speed. That is blasphemy.

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?

The XTS is a Saab 9-5 that GM had an extra 2.5 years to work on the interior with.

Once the CTS goes up in price to $45-60,000, the XTS becomes very pointless.

BS, because of price overlap??? There's plenty of overlap, for ex, between the c- & e-class, and they are much closer in purpose than the CTS & XTS.... Or are you admitting that FWD vs. RWD just doesn't matter that much after all???

There is $9,985 between a C350 and E350. There is $2,905 between the ATS 3.6 and the XTS 3.6, and they have to squeeze the CTS in between those two. Actually, a 3.6 CTS is cheaper than a 3.6 ATS that is supposed to be below it.

Has pricing been announced for the 2013 CTS? The current CTS is only on the market another year.

There is $9,985 between a C350 and E350. There is $2,905 between the ATS 3.6 and the XTS 3.6, and they have to squeeze the CTS in between those two. Actually, a 3.6 CTS is cheaper than a 3.6 ATS that is supposed to be below it.

One can also view the structure such that the XTS is parallel to the ATS and CTS, not the top of a hierarchy. Think Lexus--they have the IS, GS, LS hierarchy and the CT and ES in parallel tracks...

That is a good point, however Lexus is also the brand most people here make fun of the most. I think it easier to have a parallel priced car on a hybrid hatchback or a different body style than just your main sedans. At least then it has something unique. The ES and IS overlap they get away with because it is entry level and 2 different cars. GM though has Buick to run a parallel track to the ATS, for those that don't want Nurburgring firm suspension.

Once the CTS goes up in price to $45-60,000, the XTS becomes very pointless.

BS, because of price overlap??? There's plenty of overlap, for ex, between the c- & e-class, and they are much closer in purpose than the CTS & XTS.... Or are you admitting that FWD vs. RWD just doesn't matter that much after all???

There is $9,985 between a C350 and E350. There is $2,905 between the ATS 3.6 and the XTS 3.6, and they have to squeeze the CTS in between those two. Actually, a 3.6 CTS is cheaper than a 3.6 ATS that is supposed to be below it.

Has pricing been announced for the 2013 CTS? The current CTS is only on the market another year.

No they have not, but if GM keeps stating the CTS is supposed to compete with a 5-series or E-class, the price has to go there. An E-class bases over $50k, but I know Cadillac won't go that high. A V6 CTS has to be more than a V6 ATS, so a V6 CTS must slot in the $43-49k area. Possibly the CTS will grow in size, and base at $44,995 so that it and the XTS share a starting price, just like the STS and DTS shared a price point, since that worked out so well.

Since the STS and DTS are gone as of right now, the XTS will have its place. The CTS is a fundamentally different car from the XTS. More importantly, the XTS is not properly aiming at an E350 or an A6 or a 5-series because it makes no sense to cross-shop the XTS with those. Even though I like the XTS as what it is, it should still be the replacement for the Lucerne, not the DTS/STS (which needed to be scrapped because of poor sales).

The real flagship will come in a couple of years. Sending Lucerne customers to Cadillac is probably a mistake. Then again, no Lucerne ever started at $45K. I do hope that the XTS interior finds its way to future CTS and ATS models, possibly for 2014/15.

Since the STS and DTS are gone as of right now, the XTS will have its place. The CTS is a fundamentally different car from the XTS.

The STS and DTS were fundamentally different too. If they make the CTS bigger (and softer), it is getting really close to what the STS was, which hopefully doesn't happen.

I just don't see the point of a $45-60,000 front driver, a Buick, Avalon or ES350 can deliver the same driving experience of an XTS at a much lower price. And if you stretch out the CTS wheelbase and are smart you can make a big interior and put magnetic ride control standard. The CTS could easily beat the XTS is ride comfort and interior space, while also having the Nurburgring corning ability built in.

You guys forget one thing. You're young, enthusiastic car guys. I was at a table (as a guest) at a Beverly Hills charity event last week and apropos of nothing two of the couples at the table started talking about having seen the XTS at some other event or something. They thought it was gorgeous. They loved CUE and the tech stuff and commented on how well done the car was, especially the interior. They got the other two couples at the table asking questions.

Granted, they're in their 60's but they're ambulatory and have the money to buy one like I have the money to buy a diet coke, and they were talking about Cadillac. With no apologies, no worries about resale and no RWD v/s FWD questions.

Baby boomers aren't dead yet and they have disposable income. A lot of them don't care if it's front drive, rear drive or driven my chickens on Red Bull as long as it gets them there quickly and looks good. I've seen the XTS in person and it's a winner. I think Cadillac has room for this car in the lineup until the big daddy comes up, and even perhaps after.

Design, and features you say, not drive wheels and trans gears?

Huh.

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?

[media=]