Detroit 2010: Cadillac XTS Platinum Concept

[smk4565]

What is better, a CTS or a TL? A CTS or an MKZ? An Infiniti M or Acura RL? A 5-series or a Volvo S80?

[turbo200]

The XTS is AWD.

i'm not sure what you're trying to say.

actually, i think what you're saying is you can confirm AWD will come standard.

back to the serious matter at hand , if AWD is standard, i won't applaud caddy, since that is the only logical choice. if it turns out AWD is not standard on XTS, then it will be oh no they didn't slap myself on the head moment yet again. this is after all a caddy, and buick has this exact same car......soooooo there are two points for me to consider in this matter. in order for me to make sense of this keeping the brands alive deal and GM becoming better at product imaging and not competing with itself, the cadillac should offer some real substance over larosse and compete in a different category...you know how audi does with the A3 by offering better interior materials, more equipment standard, more equipment choices overall, and more engine choies. so first point, it should be differentiated from the lacrosse because otherwise this is a tedious exercise like the Terrain. second point is to compete in the luxury category, this generic FWD based product had better offer a pretty compelling package....now that i've repeated that point several times i won't emphasize it once again

[pow]

"Domestic" in this case refers to all of Europe much like we in the U.S. would consider the Impala a domestic even though it's built in Canada. To people in the EU, where it's built is more important than the nationality of the brand.

People in the EU will buy from the EU before buying import. Hence your Spanish made Fiesta and Focus. If the XTS were sold in the EU badged as an Opel but built in Oshawa it wouldn't do as well as if it were badged as a Cadillac but built in Frankfurt.

The day they start importing Insignias from Canada into the EU, the Insignia will lose it's status there.

edit: and I don't disagree about the STS's handling, but that wasn't because it was FWD... as the Audi proves.

You can't generalize all of the EU car-buying populace that way. Based on how unpopular the Cadillac BLS was, I'd argue that in Europe, a NA-built Opel will do far, far better than an EU-built Cadillac. Vehicles like the X5 and ML are built in NA, and those vehicles sell competitively in Europe. The next Ford Kuga will be imported from NA to the EU.

In Europe, it's more about how appropriate the vehicle is to a country than where it's made.

[turbo200]

The XTS really does nothing that one couldn't get from a Lincoln MKS right now.

the veracity of this line is disturbing.

to be fair, xts offers a better design inside and out. driving dynamics more or less we can expet to be similar...and that's the disappointment. at least xts looks a lot better in and out. that v8 is looking more necessary [and standard hybrid powertrain]

[turbo200]

'Stiffening the platform' is not going to overcome 'bad balance',

exactly. yet it's done in order to give the sensation of a more controlled ride and better handling....sacrificing ride quality

[balthazar]

^ I think we are discussing based on different definitions of 'ride'.

turbo200 ~ >>"cadillac should offer some real substance over larosse {XTS: check} and compete in a different category {XTS: check} ...you know how audi does with the A3 by offering better interior materials{XTS: check}, more equipment standard {XTS: check}, more equipment choices overall {XTS: check}, and more engine choies. so first point, it should be differentiated from the lacrosse... {XTS: check}"<<

-- -- -- -- --

Mr Noodles ~>>"The XTS really does nothing that one couldn't get from a Lincoln MKS right now."<<

The s-class V8 really does nothing that one couldn't get from a BMW 7-series V8 right now.

So why have both, right?

>>"But if you seek a good V6, the Ford Taurus has a 365 hp V6 right now. Why wait 2-3 years for Cadillac to offer me a 350 hp V6?"<<

Or why look at a BMW sedan with 330 HP over the Ford, right ?

Edited January 18, 2010 by balthazar

[Lamar]

IMHO, the styling could be greatly improved by an extra 4-6 inches of wheelbase ahead of the front doors..that would lengthen the nose and reduce the bad FWD proportions.

Unless there's an XLWB version of Epsilon II in the works, that would require an entirely new platform.

[ZL-1]

The CTS has gained some leverage in the market, though. I say the current-gen CTS and the upcoming ATS will do decently in Europe. I don't see them taking the market by storm, obviously, but ...

The CTS along with the whole Cadillac lineup has been a failure (although Kroyman's collapse did not help). Cadillac will have a 20 or 30 year uphill battle to establish itself over here, and the only chance of becoming successful is to consistently offer products that are and feel better than the competition offers.

I think it had more to do with the fact that Europeans are much more attune to what buying imported products does to their economy.

No, we just buy on quality, prestige and brand equity. Cadillac at this point in time has none here in Europe. We admire the old excessive 1950's 1960's Cadillacs, but we know they belong on that era. Nowadays, nothing much of interest comes out of Cadillac, at least not in terms of people thinking it's worthy of abandoning Audi/BMW/Mercedes.

[regfootball]

if this car is on eps, then it needs to have premium suspension, with the magneto shocks or whatever, premium brakes and steering. all changeable chassis components need to be premeire and need assisting techogimmickery, to disguise the fact that its not an engine aft, longitudinal platform.

[vonVeezelsnider]

Glad to hear it might have a longer wheelbase, that could help matters.

[smk4565]

to disguise the fact that its not an engine aft, longitudinal platform.

"Disguise" good word choice because that is what they are trying to do. Most luxury buyers are too smart to be fooled though. The whole thinking behind the XTS is very much like Cadillac's philosophy of the 80s and 90s. The XTS doesn't take the brand where it needs to go. That is why this car is failure even before it goes on sale.

[balthazar]

>>"The whole thinking behind the XTS is very much like Cadillac's philosophy of the 80s and 90s. "<<

The same " '80-90s philosophy" WRT to the XTS would've resulted in new wire wheel caps & new padded vinyl top grain on the current DTS. In other words- completely superficial changes on a tired vehicle.

How does the XTS fit that philosophy ??

[Drew Dowdell]

What defines "failure"?

Will it pry people out of V12 Benzes and BMWs? Doubtful, but then again it wasn't intended to do that ... ever.

Will it pry people out of lower end S-Classes and 7-series? Possible... even more so if gas creeps back up to $5 a gallon.

Could it grab someone like my grandmother who currently drives a 7-series but for years bought Park Aves? Certainly.

Could it pull in people who's jaw hurts from yawning so hard while driving their LS? Highly likely.

Will it ensure owner loyalty of any current STS or DTS driver? Most certainly, keeping current customers is as important as pulling new ones in. If Cadillac can do both with the same car, then great!

Do many people outside of car enthusiasts care about "FWD proportions"? As long as they aren't in the extreme, no not really.

Could anyone outside of car enthusiasts tell you from looking at the car that it was FWD, RWD, or AWD? highly unlikely

Would they care either way? Unless they are in the snowbelt or a car enthusiast, probably not.

Cars are mostly subjective purchases. If someone finds the car attractive, in their price range, and has the features they want/need, they'll buy it. Most don't care if it's FWD or RWD.

[Robert Hall]

How does the XTS fit that philosophy ??

By (presumably) building it on a common FWD transverse V6 platform shared w/ Buick and others... Just as the FWD '80s-90s C/K body was shared w/ Buick and others. It's the lowest common denominator thinking...not the stuff of flagships.

A Cadillac flagship for today should be special, not just another GM midsize FWD rental car underneath. Few here seem to understand that and keep apologizing for what will likely be just another DTS type car.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[balthazar]

Like Olds stated so well, only enthusiasts have any idea or hang preconceived notions on such 'intangibles' as platforms. Other that a tighter range of dimensions (& possibly 9/10ths power/handling limitations), a given platform can be made to exceed supposedly 'better' platforms quite easily.

In other words, maybe less than 1% know this, and only because they've been told.

If we were told the XTS was on a brand new platform made special for the XTS, yet it performed EXACTLY the same as the proposed one will, there'd be no issue (tho the results were the same).

How do I know the S-class doesn't ride on a stretched version of the 'fleet-special' C-class platform ?

Why would knowing this effect my potential purchase either way on an S-class ??

Who buys cars based on what platforms they're built off of ?

[Blake Noble]

I don't see the justification in defending this car. I really don't but, hey, whatever makes you happy.

GM should be aiming higher with this car but they aren't even trying. You can point out the fancy gauges and interfaces, suede-covered interior and hybrid system all you want, but it is not, nor will it ever be, a serious high-end luxury car.

It's a little extreme to say it, but the saying "Polishing a turd" comes to mind.

[Drew Dowdell]

A Cadillac flagship for today should be special, not just another GM midsize FWD rental car underneath. Few here seem to understand that and keep apologizing for what will likely be just another DTS type car.

You mean like all of those "fleet special" cabs that underpin the E-class and S-class? Or the loss leader, VW Jetta competitor 3-series that underpin the M3.

Doesn't it bother you how the M3 is based on a car used in german rental fleets that only has a 2 liter engine, cloth seats and crank windows? Doesn't that change your perception of how good a car the M3 really is?

Doesn't it bother SMK that his beloved Jaguar XF is on a platform used by a lowly Ford thunderbird that belly flopped hard in the U.S.?

When you land in Frankfurt airport, does the value of the E-class in the U.S. dramatically diminish when you see all of those orange and cream colored E-class cabs sitting out in front?

[Robert Hall]

You mean like all of those "fleet special" cabs that underpin the E-class and S-class? Or the loss leader, VW Jetta competitor 3-series that underpin the M3.

Doesn't it bother you how the M3 is based on a car used in german rental fleets that only has a 2 liter engine, cloth seats and crank windows? Doesn't that change your perception of how good a car the M3 really is?

Doesn't it bother SMK that his beloved Jaguar XF is on a platform used by a lowly Ford thunderbird that belly flopped hard in the U.S.?

When you land in Frankfurt airport, does the value of the E-class in the U.S. dramatically diminish when you see all of those orange and cream colored E-class cabs sitting out in front?

Those examples don't bother me at all, since a RWD platform is superior to a FWD generic platform. And those examples are all examples of excellent RWD platforms--the 3 series has long considered to be the best compact RWD model out there, the DWE98 is nothing to sneeze at, and the E-class has long been an excellent all around car. They make good cabs because of their longevity and durability.

It was fun riding in a black E-Class cab in Italy, noting how similar it was to the red E-Class coupe in the carpoint at home.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I'll never consider a FWD transverse engine model as a world class 'flagship'. End of discussion.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Intrepidation]

[Drew Dowdell]

I don't see the justification in defending this car. I really don't but, hey, whatever makes you happy.

GM should be aiming higher with this car but they aren't even trying. You can point out the fancy gauges and interfaces, suede-covered interior and hybrid system all you want, but it is not, nor will it ever be, a serious high-end luxury car.

It's a little extreme to say it, but the saying "Polishing a turd" comes to mind.

The value in defending the car is that the attacks are unjustified. Cadillac produced a handsome car with all of the technogadgets people like SMK demand and people are in here harping on aspects of it that no one in the target market will care about.

[Drew Dowdell]

Those examples don't bother me at all, since a RWD platform is superior to a FWD generic platform.

Isn't RWD just as "generic"? Here in Pittsburgh you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a 3-series and we're soundly a GM town. I can't imagine what it's like in the "import" towns.

You don't get much more generic and ubiquitous than a Crown Vic.

[Robert Hall]

Isn't RWD just as "generic"? Here in Pittsburgh you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a 3-series and we're soundly a GM town. I can't imagine what it's like in the "import" towns.

I wouldn't call them generic...tons of 3-series here, but they are far outnumbered by FWD Corollas, Camrys, Altimas, Civics, Accords--all the vanilla generics the masses love.

FWD/transverse engine is fine for cheap subcompacts, compacts and mass market midsize. It has no place in 'premium' cars, IMHO.

FWD/transverse engine is all about mediocrity and average. Common and low. Can't Cadillac AIM HIGHER?? Aspire to something better than the usual generic crap??? Leave McDonalds to Chevy. Cadillac should be a premium steakhouse.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

FWD/transverse engine is fine for cheap subcompacts, compacts and mass market midsize. It has no place in 'premium' cars, IMHO.

I still fail to see how if the car is AWD, the orientation of the engine makes any difference to the percieved value of the car.

Engine can be on the roof for all I care, I just want the power and the handling, the comfort and the refinement. We've already extrapolated that the XTS will be balanced roughly the same as the A8, so what difference does the direction of the engine make?

[balthazar]

I don't think we can fairly say 'didn't even try'. That would've been a MCE on the current FWD, 275-HP gas DTS, not a unique in-n-out AWD 350-HP Hybrid.

I, too would love to see an all-out, Sixteen-esque monster, a modern-day Eldorado Brougham... but this car isn't that and wasn't intended to be. To look at it from that standpoint.. of course it's not going to measure up.

[Robert Hall]

I'll leave this topic, promise not to criticize this car further until I've seen it in person. I know I'm walking the fine line of coming off as loony as 68Panther. But I believe in RWD or RWD/AWD for performance, luxury and large cars.

Maybe it's generational, the younger folks are more accepting of FWD as that's what they've grown up around (and don't know better.. )

To the FWD apologists, I'll leave the topic with this thought---

What if the CTS had been on Epsilon instead of Sigma?

What if the rumored ATS ends up on the Delta II platform (FWD/transverse 4 or V6)?

Would you be defending such cars?

Edited January 18, 2010 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Lamar]

[Drew Dowdell]

I'll leave this topic, promise not to criticize this car until I've seen it in person. I know I'm walking the fine line of coming off as loony as 68Panther. But I believe in RWD or RWD/AWD for performance, luxury and large cars. Maybe it's generational, the younger folks are more accepting of FWD as that's what they've grown up around.

To the FWD apologists, I'll leave the topic with this thought---

What if the CTS had been on Epsilon instead of Sigma?

What if the rumored ATS ends up on the Delta II platform (FWD/transverse 4 or V6)?

Would you be defending such cars?

If the CTS was on EPII and AWD standard with the ability to direct the torque to the rear like the Regal GS does, I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as it continued to run with the Germans on handling performance. The CTS is also designed to be a sportier car than the XTS is intended.

If the ATS were to end up on Delta II with AWD standard and they have it out handle the Cobalt SS, as long as it looks like a Caddy like the XTS does, I don't have a problem with it happily smacking around A4s all day.

All of that because I don't care which way the engine is oriented... or even what fuel, if any, it burns, as long as it gives me the results I desire. Cadillac could produce a 10,000 rpm, 5 liter, diesel, 1 cylinder and I wouldn't care as long as it had the refinement and power I expected from the car.

[Intrepidation]

I was going to bring up a 68 reference but decided a going in circles photo was better.

[balthazar]

And I could give a lot more weight to the FWD-based AWD put-down position if just once I had read the same thing about the A8. Somehow, that vehicle is above comment. Or even some passionate calls for the Mini to have been RWD upon it's re-debut (or since).

Meanwhile, no one would blink twice if the S-class was FWD-based AWD.

3-series/ M3/ CTS point is legit of course, but as pointed out- that's a very different type of vehicle.

I am willing to be open-minded about the XTS until we see the final production version/specs... BECAUSE everything else looks very favorable to my eye. One great thing- the XTS SURE IS brewing up loads of conversation !!

[ocnblu]

The clueless individuals Cadillac is aiming at with this car may not care if the engine is transverse and it is based on a mass-market platform, but they can certainly see the proportions of the car. It certainly does not have the proportions of any other top tier luxury car.

[Drew Dowdell]

I'm starting to agree with Balthazar that had Cadillac called this a "new, exclusive to Cadillac, platform" and "uses an innovative new AWD Hybrid powertrain that can route the majority of torque to the rear wheels" and "due to production line flexibility can be built along side the Regal", we wouldn't be having this fight.

[Justin Bimmer]

Honesty and a poor reputation only gets you more grief.

[Intrepidation]

Remember guys, if this was a Zeta than we could make the same argument about how a platform used for a Chevy would be used for a Cadillac. It's just the proportions forward of the A-Pillar that still don't do it for me. I dunno, we'll see how it looks when more photos come out, and when the production car debuts.

[Robert Hall]

Remember guys, if this was a Zeta than we could make the same argument about how a platform used for a Chevy would be used for a Cadillac. It's just the proportions forward of the A-Pillar that still don't do it for me. I dunno, we'll see how it looks when more photos come out, and when the production car debuts.

If it were Zeta, it would be a non argument since Zeta is RWD. Using a LWB Zeta for a Cadillac would be in line with the classical GM model---think 1977 or 1996 RWD B/C/D bodies. Under the skin, the only real differences (besides the engine in the '77) between a Caprice and a Fleetwood was the wheelbase.

[Robert Hall]

And I could give a lot more weight to the FWD-based AWD put-down position if just once I had read the same thing about the A8. Somehow, that vehicle is above comment.

As are the A4 and A6..they have north-south engine placement and the newest interations have rear-biased AWD. Superior to a FWD/transverse engine platform.

Or even some passionate calls for the Mini to have been RWD upon it's re-debut (or since).

That would make no sense, since the original Mini was FWD and is the perfect example of a well done FWD car.

Meanwhile, no one would blink twice if the S-class was FWD-based AWD.

That would be unthinkable, Mercedes would lose all credibility worldwide.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[FAPTurbo]

Remember guys, if this was a Zeta than we could make the same argument about how a platform used for a Chevy would be used for a Cadillac.

Exactly. Plus, if it were based on Sigma, then people would just say 'OLD PLATFORM IS OLD LOL.'

GM can't do it right for some people around here. Thankfully, the detractors represent just over 0.9000% of the population. This thing has all the gizmos and gadgets that people want, and more, and yet you're all still complaining. Sheesh.

This car is not for tossing around the Nurburgring, but instead cruising in style and opulence, and as a bonus, you'll look really good doing it, too.

[turbo200]

definitely turning into 68 in that i'm beating a dead horse. two more posts and my point will be exhausted i swear. just wanted to pitch this, olds, which was more entertaining/exclusive, cts or lax?

[Blake Noble]

I'm starting to agree with Balthazar that had Cadillac called this a "new, exclusive to Cadillac, platform" and "uses an innovative new AWD Hybrid powertrain that can route the majority of torque to the rear wheels" and "due to production line flexibility can be built along side the Regal", we wouldn't be having this fight.

No, we still would.

You can't bottle cow piss and expect everyone to believe it to be a bottle of 1787 Chateau d'Yquem just because of a few convenient labels.

Edited January 19, 2010 by whiteknight

[Drew Dowdell]

definitely turning into 68 in that i'm beating a dead horse. two more posts and my point will be exhausted i swear. just wanted to pitch this, olds, which was more entertaining/exclusive, cts or lax?

Exclusive? The first Cadillac Station wagon v. a Buick sedan... Which do you think? It had zero to do with drivetrain layout, but bodystyle instead.

The CTS and the Lacrosse are two different kinds of luxury. Neither kind is "better" than the other, they are simply two different points on the luxury spectrum. If I had $55k (the CTS-W's sticker price) in my pocket right now to spend on any GM vehicle, I'd pay $34k cash for the Lacrosse and put $21k down on a new Camaro.

The CTS, while slightly more entertaining than the Lacrosse, simply wasn't $21k more entertaining. The Lacrosse was easier to live with on a day to day basis and felt as solid and strong as any old S-class I've been in. read: tank like. There was nothing I could do in the CTS that I couldn't do in the Lacrosse and still remain within sight of whatever law I was breaking. If you're worried about being able to drift then I think Cadillac can live without you as a buyer.

The Lacrosse is not your grandmother's Buick. I followed an Altima coupe up a set of twisties and stayed on his butt the whole way. Yes it rolled a bit in the corners but that was more suspension tuning than anything else. The Camaro I'm driving now is an incredibly entertaining vehicle, but with a ride completely off the mark for the target audience of XTS. Yet none of these things has to do with drivetrain layout.

Again, we have an AWD vehicle that has the same weight balance as the A8. Where are the 14 pages of posts talking about how terrible the A8 drives? If the Cadillac handles equal to the A8 and better than the LS (which is probably the floater of the bunch), Cadillac has a car full of WIN.

[regfootball]

i've probably test driven 50 cars in the last 4-5 years, and funny, no lie, the two cars that stick in my mind as being among the most enjoyable to drive, the last gen CTS, and the Catera. (keep in mind i mostly only drive cars i might have a chance in hell of purchasing so 90% of them are fwd). Magnum/300 I enjoyed also.

Generally physics don't lie. But engineering can counteract physics.

So there is the reality of the physics at work and how they are controlled by engineering.

The other aspect as it relates to cars are perception and hype and return on investment.

One good example is the G35. I don't think that car would have been as popular if it were a fwd chassis.

Then there is the Lexus IS that one lady at my church bought and it was promptly gone in a few months after winter because they never told her it was rwd. She had no idea.

but anyways, there is definitely something to the physics. go to the grocery store, and lean a 40 pound bag of softener salt in the upper basket of the cart, and lean it forward against the front side of the basket. Now, try to steer the cart. Now, lay the bag of salt flat on the bottom shelf atop the rear wheels.

it just depends how important it is to you. a buddy asked me in an email the other day about a used 35 vs a new altima. He wants the G35 because its a luxury car. i don't think he has any idea which wheels drive either car.

but as far as physics is concerned, if the mass of the powertrain is bounded within the wheelbase and track of the vehicle, and kept lower, inherently the car will have better dynamics. fwd cars of course with the engine hanging off the front axle, and all the weight, they gotta really stiffen the front end just to keep it up and stop a lot of nose dive. and all that weight hanging away from the bounds of wheelbase and track just add gyration to the car.

the load and structure paths of fwd transverse vs. rwd long are so different in terms of engineering the vehicle for crash and crush and crumple and rigidity design.

IMHO, a car like the fwd Regal w/ stick is appealing to me because it won't have the driveshaft and power robbing 90 degree turn in back. a four cyl turbo regal won't be so heavy in front and still be light overall and i am hoping that its plenty lively without needing the rwd. the manual trans won't rob power like the automatic. i don't like tail happy rwd cars anyways.

but to me, if you pay 60-70k for a car, i think it needs optimum vehicle dynamics inherently baked into the physics of the car.

so to me the XTS is destined to be a floater. that said, its the cadillac my dad would gravitate towards first. he's owned 2 deville/dts and a seville. so a floater for caddy's customer base may be ok as long as the proper flagship is not far down the road.

Edited January 19, 2010 by regfootball

[Drew Dowdell]

Again, 55/45 weight distribution like the A8.

[Lamar]

Exactly. Plus, if it were based on Sigma, then people would just say 'OLD PLATFORM IS OLD LOL.'

One, since Sigma has always been a Cadillac-only platform, no we/they wouldn't.

Two, since Sigma II is so underutilized but has already proven its worth as a luxury platform, no we/they wouldn't.

[smk4565]

I still fail to see how if the car is AWD, the orientation of the engine makes any difference to the percieved value of the car.

Engine can be on the roof for all I care, I just want the power and the handling, the comfort and the refinement. We've already extrapolated that the XTS will be balanced roughly the same as the A8, so what difference does the direction of the engine make?

Weight balance. Most BMW cars are between 52/48 and 49/51. A DTS has 63% of weight over the front axle. A Lincoln MKS awd has 59% of weight over the front axle. The Audi A8 has 56% up front, a little better because of the longitudinal engine, but still not near the ideal 50-50. When people drive it, they'll feel the difference. And what of those that don't like AWD, personally, I'd rather have RWD over AWD.

[FAPTurbo]

One, since Sigma has always been a Cadillac-only platform, no we/they wouldn't.

Two, since Sigma II is so underutilized but has already proven its worth as a luxury platform, no we/they wouldn't.

Oh c'mon, you know exactly who would complain about it being old.

[Blake Noble]

In response to my post in the screencap above, I had posted a picture of the '67 Cadillac Eldorado, which, yes, managed to get away with being a front-drive Cadillac.

Maybe if the XTS exuded the same thinking regarding style and spirit the Eldorado had, I could forgive it. The XTS doesn't have the charm those classic nose-pusher Eldos used to have; the XTS feels so cold and generic.

Edited January 19, 2010 by whiteknight

[Lamar]

@ FAPTurbo - Wow, how deep did you have to dig for that? I won't dig into his inaccuracies in that post since he and I have been on the same page for this thread.

@ whiteknight - I would agree about the Eldorado compared to the XTS. After comparing Autoblog photos back and forth, the XTS does look too much like a LaCrosse dressed up for prom... which it is in a way.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Lamar

[turbo200]

Again, 55/45 weight distribution like the A8.

i know you keep using this like it is fact, but it is NOT. the lacrosse has a different weight distribution, quoted above, too lazy to look for it, think it's 56/44....so we're not guesstimating the XTS will have this balance.

next, though weight balance is something optimal for the overall feel of stability...it's just one of several contributing factors to an overall driving experience.

you keep using the A8 as your bogey for a great handling large sedan that has been critiqued well...that's fine, but it's not a fair comparison since you are ignoring casually the transverse application of the XTS' engine versus the different configuration of the Audi, allowing them to place the engine farther back, thus pushing the balance of the weight farther towards the rear. aside from good driving dynamics, the audi has better proportions than XTS because of the engine being placed lengthwise instead of side to side.

the best bogey for the XTS is it's platform mate that's also the same size, the lacrosse.

[Blake Noble]

@ whiteknight - I would agree about the Eldorado compared to the XTS. After comparing Autoblog photos back and forth, the XTS does look too much like a LaCrosse dressed up for prom... which it is in a way.

That's exactly what it is. The LaCrosse is great as it is, it does not need someone to keep it company across the street at Cadillac. The XTS only serves to dilute the Buick/Cadillac relationship, i.e. which brand goes where, does Buick continue to chase Acura and Lexus and leave Caddy to tackle the big Euro-Lux nameplates in every key area or does it even matter?

If the old fogeys want something to trade their DTSs in on, screw it, let 'em go for a LaCrosse. Hey, since the LaCrosse is really that damn good, it could happen. It wouldn't be like they would be stepping down at all. It wouldn't be out of the question to see a buyer like Olds's grandma trading in her 7-Series for a new LaCrosse, rather than Cadillac's touch-screen interior interpretation of it, seriously, since she's had 3 Park Aves and doesn't care if her wheels push or pull the car.

That's a real question everyone is ignoring: why doesn't GM see current DTS owners as potential LaCrosse prospects? Why does GM feel like they should keep 78 year-old DTS driving John Doe with one foot in the grave (yeah, not a good choice of words, but ...) at Cadillac and not see if he would rather have the LaCrosse? I don't think at age 70 a DTS buyer would really be putting Buick down as an "Old Person's Car". And I know it's not what Buick needs, but, hey if it can keep Buick and Cadillac from inbreeding like this then that's what should happen.

Edited January 19, 2010 by whiteknight

[Blake Noble]

Hey, lookithur what I found in the recently necromanced thread:

LEAVE THE FWD, TRANSVERSE V6 MARKET TO BUICK.

Said beautifully.

And this:

So....who are you going to target with the XTS?

/thread.

(And this dude too.)

Edited January 19, 2010 by whiteknight

[Drew Dowdell]

i know you keep using this like it is fact, but it is NOT. the lacrosse has a different weight distribution, quoted above, too lazy to look for it, think it's 56/44....so we're not guesstimating the XTS will have this balance.

next, though weight balance is something optimal for the overall feel of stability...it's just one of several contributing factors to an overall driving experience.

you keep using the A8 as your bogey for a great handling large sedan that has been critiqued well...that's fine, but it's not a fair comparison since you are ignoring casually the transverse application of the XTS' engine versus the different configuration of the Audi, allowing them to place the engine farther back, thus pushing the balance of the weight farther towards the rear. aside from good driving dynamics, the audi has better proportions than XTS because of the engine being placed lengthwise instead of side to side.

the best bogey for the XTS is it's platform mate that's also the same size, the lacrosse.

The Lacrosse FWD is 58/42, the Lacrosse AWD is 57/43.

With a longer rump and batteries in the trunk, the XTS could easily be 55/45. I've emailed a contact at Cadillac to see if they can shed any light on this.

If I'm ignoring the transverse v. longitudinal layout it's because most of the buyers will too. If the balance of the A8 and XTS are the same 55/45, what does the orientation of the engine matter?