Ideal Cadillac Lineup

[Z-06]

What do you think an ideal Cadillac Lineup should be?

Please include:

1. Vehicle Type (sedan, coupe, roadster, etc.) and (entry level sedan, mid-size, etc.)
2. Price Bracket for the vehicle type
3. Engines and transmission options for each vehicle type
4. Drive wheels configuration for each vehicle type (FWD, RWD, 4x4, AWD)

Let us get our creative juices flowing.

[smk4565]

Sounds fun. I don't love the ATS name or any alphabet soup name, but I'll stick with them since that is what they have. For transmission, 8-speed automatic standard on all Cadillacs.

THE CARS

ATS: small sedan, coupe, convertible near 182 inches long

$33,000-$45,000 ($2,000 more for convertible)

RWD or AWD 2.0 turbo 4 with 260 hp, 3.6 V6 with 320 hp, 2.0 turbo diesel (e-Assist optional)

ATS-V sedan/coupe $59,000, 430 hp twin turbo V6

CTS: mid-size sedan, coupe wagon near 191 inches long

$44,000-60,000

RWD or AWD. 2.0 turbo 4, 3.6 V6, 3.0 turbo diesel V6, twin turbo 4.0 DOHC V8 (e-Assist optional)

CTS-V sedan/coupe $79,000, twin turbo 5.0 DOHC V8 with eAssist

Fleetwood: full size sedan SWB 199 inches long, LWB 205 inches long. Aluminum chassis and body

$85,000-130,000

RWD or AWD

3.0L turbo diesel V6, 3.6 twin turbo V6, 4.0 twin turbo DOHC V8, 5.0 twin turbo DOHC V8 (eAssist standard on all)

Eldorado: small to mid size Grand Tourer coupe/convertible on aluminum chassis (XK, SL, 911 competitor)

$75-110,000

RWD

3.6 V6, 4.0 V8, 5.0 V8 (all twin-turbo, DOHC, with eAssist)

(ATS-V and CTS-V offer manual transmission also)

THE TRUCKS

BRX: small SUV on ATS platform

$35-50,000

RWD or AWD. 2.0T, 3.6 V6 w/ eAssist

SRX mid-size SUV on CTS platform

$46-65,000

RWD or AWD

3.6 V6 and turbo 4.0 V8 (eAssist optional)

Escalade: large SUV continues on based of the Tahoe, but the whole GMT900 line likely needs rethought with CAFE (weight reduction)

$60-80,000

RWD or AWD

3.0 turbo diesel V6, 4.0 turbo V8 with e-Assist

Edited June 17, 2011 by smk4565

[Z-06]

Good Starting Point smk. There are some configurations that I would defer to, nevertheless a valid lineup.

[riviera74]

I like those ideas, SMK4565, but I doubt there will ever be a Fleetwood or an Eldorado again. Types of car, yes. As for the Escalade, I suspect that the GMT900 successor will probably dump a few hundred pounds in order to upgrade MPG across the board. Prices might be a bit high, but if GM makes a Cadillac-exclusive interior that shames the Germans (and Japanese) luxury marques, that would be worth the premium prices.

Interiors really matter now. GM cannot afford to cheapen them or F*** them up.

[smk4565]

They probably won't call it Fleetwood, probably ZTS or something lame. Cadillac's model names have little brand equity, they are remind me of Lincoln and Acura. I'd rather them use real names, but interiors are a big key. Cadillac interiors of late seem cramped and small. I'd like to see the ATS with the same interior room of a CTS, and the CTS get bigger on the inside with no change to the exterior dimensions.

GMT900 successor will have to get lighter, maybe smaller. Given the success of the Ecoboost F150, I can see the next-gen Tahoe/Escalade having a turbo V6, hybrid technology will have to be in the mix. Between CAFE and gas prices or $4 or more a gallon, the GMT900 is going to have to see changes.

My whole Cadillac line is what I'd like to see for 2015. Factoring in increased CAFE, higher gas prices, and what the competition is doing, I think eAssist or some form of hybrid is needed on every model line. Not that I think Lincoln is a big threat, but the next MKZ hybrid is expected to have 47 mpg city. That will attract some buyers, and Cadillac has to have an answer for that.

[Z-06]

Anyone else who would like to dig in?

[Camino LS6]

I would end truck-based Cadillacs.

[z28luvr01]

I'd go with a lineup similar to SMKs, though I'd probably use some different hardware.

For the Escalade, I'd put it on LWB Zeta. I think a blinged out Art & Science version of the Denali XT would make a fine Escalade.

[Robert Hall]

I would end truck-based Cadillacs.

Agreed..

I like SMK's line, I'd especially like to see the Fleetwood, Eldorado and de Ville names return, though most likely they will go with boring *TS names. A smaller-than-ATS entry-lux model may be needed to compete w/ the 1-series, A1/A3, A-class, CT, etc. Something around the size of the Spark or Aveo, like the radical city car concept last year..that would be an acceptable use of FWD in the line.

[Camino LS6]

I'd go with a lineup similar to SMKs, though I'd probably use some different hardware.

For the Escalade, I'd put it on LWB Zeta. I think a blinged out Art & Science version of the Denali XT would make a fine Escalade.

Yup.

Been a champion of this idea for some time now.

[Z-06]

What is interesting in smk's proposal is that he is offering no direct competition to S classe's 63, 600 and 65 cars in V recipe.

I personally do not think Caddy should go below ATS. That is where Buick should be with various Astra and Corsa body styles.

A couple of questions:

What about a Bentley sedan fighter?

A Mid engine sports car to go against Gallardo, R8, SLS and F458?

[Robert Hall]

What is interesting in smk's proposal is that he is offering no direct competition to S classe's 63, 600 and 65 cars in V recipe.

Yeah, a V version of his 'Fleetwood' makes sense...but those are very low volume...the S AMGs only sell in the 100s per year, right?

What about a Bentley sedan fighter?

Too ambitious at this point..

A Mid engine sports car to go against Gallardo, R8, and F458?

Too ambitious. Or that is where a super Corvette could go..(not to change the topic, but I still like the idea of a multi-model Corvette range--small entry level sports car (i.e. Solstice 2.0), a regular model in the current Vette niche, and a mid-engined supercar..)

Edited June 17, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[smk4565]

The Fleetwood in my line up could have a V-series version, I'd use the proposed 5.0 liter turbo V8 for it. So that engine is shared with the cts-v. That would put the car against the Quattroporte, A8, Supercharged XJ, etc. I know that puts Cadillac short of the S600 and AMG S-class but you can't compete with everything and a hyper powered huge.cadillas won't sell

[smk4565]

I also think a mid engine supercar is too ambitious. Cadillac won't sell any of them. I think they can sell a GT car like a Jaguar XK. They sold XLRs and the car wasn't very good. Make it a 2+2 with a legit interior and it could be successful.

[Z-06]

We cannot say "Standard of the World" and "Too Ambitious" in the same sentence. If Cadillac needs to be on TOP of the World, then those cars are essential, granted later down the lane for Cadillac.

Bentley competitor may be even economically feasible if it shares the platform with the Fleetwoood, thus making high price, low volume and high profitability more sense.

[PurdueGuy]

I can't see using the Fleetwood name. I prefer the "real" (non alphanumeric) names, but when I think Fleetwood, I think of an extra fat looking Deville with fender skirts. It just feels "old". I could see using some of the other classic Cadillac names, like Eldorado.

[FAPTurbo]

Fleetwood? Really? Will it have a velour interior and four-speaker cassette system as standard?

[riviera74]

I would end truck-based Cadillacs.

Uh, no. Here is why the Escalade should NOT be on Lambda: Buick Enclave. And a better reason: Escalades are more profitable because they are on GMT900, not Lambda.

[riviera74]

I would end truck-based Cadillacs.

Agreed..

I like SMK's line, I'd especially like to see the Fleetwood, Eldorado and de Ville names return, though most likely they will go with boring *TS names. A smaller-than-ATS entry-lux model may be needed to compete w/ the 1-series, A1/A3, A-class, CT, etc. Something around the size of the Spark or Aveo, like the radical city car concept last year..that would be an acceptable use of FWD in the line.

The reason Cadillac went with alphanumeric designations rather than names was to emphasize Cadillac, as opposed to DeVille and Eldorado. Also, most luxury marques use alphanumeric in order to emphasize the brand itself.

[smk4565]

The reason Cadillac went with alphanumeric designations rather than names was to emphasize Cadillac, as opposed to DeVille and Eldorado. Also, most luxury marques use alphanumeric in order to emphasize the brand itself.

Most luxury marks (read Japanese and American ones) use alpha-numeric because they want to copy BMW and Mercedes. Rolls, Bentley, Aston Martin, and Maserati use names, even Porsche uses names aside form the 911 which has been around nearly 40 years. Jaguar uses XK because they have been doing that since 1949. I don't like how similar Acura and Lincoln names are, and Cadillac is getting close to them. I think real names are more unique.

I agree with those that say Escalade should not be on lambda. I don't like that it is basically a Tahoe, but it is a good business move as long as people are willing to pay for it. I think the GMT900 SUVs need a big rethink though, much like Ford did with the Explorer. There will have to be downsizing and/or weight loss and a change in powertrains for 2015.

[balthazar]

>>"Most luxury marks (read Japanese and American ones) use alpha-numeric because they want to copy BMW and Mercedes."<<

Cadillac was using numerics before there was a BMW or mercedes-benz. Cadillac proper names started in the '50s.

[riviera74]

Cadillac was using numerics before there was a BMW or mercedes-benz sold in the United States of America. Cadillac proper names started in the '50s.

Fixed it for you.

[balthazar]

Well, BMW didn't start building cars until 1928. Cadillac alpha-numerics predate that easily; the "V-63" line came out in 1923, so I'm not seeing your fix there. 'mercedes-benz' as a brand didn't exist until 1926, but I'm being a smartass there.

Regardless, neither BMW nor mercedes was worthy of emulation from Cadillac's standpoint anywhere prior the 1960s, IMO (later WRT BMW).

Edited June 19, 2011 by balthazar

[smk4565]

In the 90s Cadillac, Lincoln and Acura used regular names. Lexus used LS400 and ES300 because they wanted to be like Mercedes. Infiniti used one letter and two numbers so that was a little different. But then it seems that Acura and Cadillac wanted everything to be 3 letters, and Lincoln then followed. The 3 letter car names I just don't find very unique and they have little brand equity. "S-class" has been around for 40 years, everyone knows it. But MDX, MKX, RDX, SRX, RX are basically all the same.

[balthazar]

Whether it's 3 letters or 3 numbers and a letter- it's all the same meaningless glop.

Car isn't called "S-class", it's called 8 or 11 different alphanumeric combos, only each has an 'S' in it.

No where on the car is it labeled 'S-class', so each engine change, it's a different model. Not to mention when it used to be 350S.

Add to that the 'S' in the 'SL' and the 'SLK' (why the cheaper car has more letters is a puzzler) and 'SLS' and who can keep any of the mishmash straight.

Mercedees needs to bring in a new letter or two and work a bit of sensibility into it.

Same diff.

[riviera74]

Whether it's 3 letters or 3 numbers and a letter- it's all the same meaningless glop.

Car isn't called "S-class", it's called 8 or 11 different alphanumeric combos, only each has an 'S' in it.

No where on the car is it labeled 'S-class', so each engine change, it's a different model. Not to mention when it used to be 350S.

Add to that the 'S' in the 'SL' and the 'SLK' (why the cheaper car has more letters is a puzzler) and 'SLS' and who can keep any of the mishmash straight.

Mercedees needs to bring in a new letter or two and work a bit of sensibility into it.

Same diff.

Nobody said Mercedes-Benz's alphanumeric system actually made sense. Do I agree with Cadillac's decision to ditch names for alphanumerics? Not really. Then again, words do have different connotations around the world, even assuming the same language.

[Robert Hall]

Whether it's 3 letters or 3 numbers and a letter- it's all the same meaningless glop.

Car isn't called "S-class", it's called 8 or 11 different alphanumeric combos, only each has an 'S' in it.

No where on the car is it labeled 'S-class', so each engine change, it's a different model. Not to mention when it used to be 350S.

Add to that the 'S' in the 'SL' and the 'SLK' (why the cheaper car has more letters is a puzzler) and 'SLS' and who can keep any of the mishmash straight.

Mercedees needs to bring in a new letter or two and work a bit of sensibility into it.

Same diff.

Nobody said Mercedes-Benz's alphanumeric system actually made sense. Do I agree with Cadillac's decision to ditch names for alphanumerics? Not really. Then again, words do have different connotations around the world, even assuming the same language.

MB naming used to make sense....SL is for the German words for Sporting and Light, and SLK is Sporting, Light, and Short (Kurz)... C-class for Compact, E-class for Executive, etc. The 'E' in SE, SEL, SEC was for the German word for Injection like fuel injection, etc..the L in SEL was for longer (Lang)..

[balthazar]

Ford claims the 'E' in their E-350 also means 'executive'.

[Robert Hall]

Ford claims the 'E' in their E-350 also means 'executive'.

Econoline.

[Carguy]

ATS. Cpe,sdn,Conv. RWD,AWD $27.500-40.000.

2.0L DI Turbo I4 270HP

3.0L DI Turbo V6 330HP

ATSV 4.0L DI Turbo V8 500HP. $47.500

CTS. Sdn,Wgn. RWD,AWD $32.500-50.000

3.0L DI Turbo V6 330HP

4.0L DI Turbo V8 390HP

CTSV 5.0L DI Turbo V8 560HP. $57.500

ETC Cpe,Conv. RWD,AWD $50.500-60.000.

3.0L DI Turbo V6 350HP

4.0L DI Turbo V8 420HP

STS Sdn.Wgn.RWD,AWD $52.500-65.000

4.0L DI Turbo V8 420HP

5.0L DI Turbo V8 480HP

STSV 6.0L DI Turbo V12 700HP. $100.000

ULS Premium Sdn. RWD,AWD $65.000-90.000.

5.0L DI Turbo V8 480HP

6.0L DI Turbo V12 650HP

XLR Premium Conv. $87.500-110.000.

5.0L DI Turbo V8 480HP

6.0L DI Turbo V12 650HP

XLRV 6.0L DI Turbo V12 700HP. $125.000

The Coupe,convertible versions of sedan models would end with C instead of S.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Carguy

[Lamar]

Four sedan lines, Carguy?

[Robert Hall]

Four sedan lines, Carguy?

I see that as possible..they had 3 sedan lines up until this year, the XTS is coming to replace the DTS, the ATS is being added, and a flagship RWD sedan has been rumored forever, so 4 sizes of sedans seems likely in a few years..

[Lamar]

I see that as possible..they had 3 sedan lines up until this year, the XTS is coming to replace the DTS, the ATS is being added, and a flagship RWD sedan has been rumored forever, so 4 sizes of sedans seems likely in a few years..

I know Lexus does it, but that's because the ES is the weird one in the group and is positioned below the "entry-level" IS. The way I see it, the XTS will end up being the weird one in the Cadillac stable if that happens.

But as Carguy had posted, his lineup consisted of 4 RWD sedans. Positioning seems weird that way, with STS and ULS both essentially occupying the top spot.

[Robert Hall]

I see that as possible..they had 3 sedan lines up until this year, the XTS is coming to replace the DTS, the ATS is being added, and a flagship RWD sedan has been rumored forever, so 4 sizes of sedans seems likely in a few years..

I know Lexus does it, but that's because the ES is the weird one in the group and is positioned below the "entry-level" IS. The way I see it, the XTS will end up being the weird one in the Cadillac stable if that happens.

But as Carguy had posted, his lineup consisted of 4 RWD sedans. Positioning seems weird that way, with STS and ULS both essentially occupying the top spot.

Ah..I missed that they were all RWD...I suspect there will be at least 3 RWD ones eventually, with the XTS being the ES/LaCrosse/MKS/ competitor and Avis staple...

[Carguy]

Four sedan lines, Carguy?

With Cadillac talking about a $150K premium model sedan there needs to be more then three sedans to take up the range. I see my ULS as a Sixteen type of model that would be built to order and very limited. Perhaps bring on a modern A&S version of tail fins on this long and elegant model! The return of the larger then life Cadillac!

[Lamar]

Four sedan lines, Carguy?

With Cadillac talking about a $150K premium model sedan there needs to be more then three sedans to take up the range. I see my ULS as a Sixteen type of model that would be built to order and very limited. Perhaps bring on a modern A&S version of tail fins on this long and elegant model! The return of the larger then life Cadillac!

No problem. I was confused, though, because you have the ULS priced so low (starting at 65k).

[Carguy]

Four sedan lines, Carguy?

With Cadillac talking about a $150K premium model sedan there needs to be more then three sedans to take up the range. I see my ULS as a Sixteen type of model that would be built to order and very limited. Perhaps bring on a modern A&S version of tail fins on this long and elegant model! The return of the larger then life Cadillac!

No problem. I was confused, though, because you have the ULS priced so low (starting at 65k).

One can dream Bro! :smilies-38096:

[Robert Hall]

Four sedan lines, Carguy?

With Cadillac talking about a $150K premium model sedan there needs to be more then three sedans to take up the range. I see my ULS as a Sixteen type of model that would be built to order and very limited. Perhaps bring on a modern A&S version of tail fins on this long and elegant model! The return of the larger then life Cadillac!

No problem. I was confused, though, because you have the ULS priced so low (starting at 65k).

One can dream Bro! :smilies-38096:

For that price, it could target the Lexus LS, 7 series and S class..something light (4500lb) and smallish (about 200 inches)..now for a Sixteen-style uberlux $150k premium model I'd want to see something w/ a 130 inch wheelbase, 80 inch width, 230 inch overall length and a minimum of 5000lbs...

Edited June 24, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[dwightlooi]

Cadillac can do a car like the Sixteen. But it will be a Halo car and not a volume or profit driver. As such, the priority should be to get the ATS out followed by an STS/SLS replacement. The Sixteen can be Cadillac's Maybach, but it cannot be Cadillac's S-class. Like the Maybach, the Sixteen would be nice, but it is not necessary for the brand's success.

If they do build it, they may as well go overboard. A new block casting siamesing two LS7s will produce a 14-liter V16 engine with 1010 hp / 940 lb-ft engine -- 9 horses more than the original Bugatti Veyron. That's for all intents and purposes... enough.

[balthazar]

interesting; 1010 was the advertised HP for the Argonaut.

[riviera74]

ATS. Cpe,sdn,Conv. RWD,AWD $27.500-40.000.

2.0L DI Turbo I4 270HP

3.0L DI Turbo V6 330HP

ATSV 4.0L DI Turbo V8 500HP. $47.500

CTS. Sdn,Wgn. RWD,AWD $32.500-50.000

3.0L DI Turbo V6 330HP

4.0L DI Turbo V8 390HP

CTSV 5.0L DI Turbo V8 560HP. $57.500

ETC Cpe,Conv. RWD,AWD $50.500-60.000.

3.0L DI Turbo V6 350HP

4.0L DI Turbo V8 420HP

STS Sdn.Wgn.RWD,AWD $52.500-65.000

4.0L DI Turbo V8 420HP

5.0L DI Turbo V8 480HP

STSV 6.0L DI Turbo V12 700HP. $100.000

ULS Premium Sdn. RWD,AWD $65.000-90.000.

5.0L DI Turbo V8 480HP

6.0L DI Turbo V12 650HP

XLR Premium Conv. $87.500-110.000.

5.0L DI Turbo V8 480HP

6.0L DI Turbo V12 650HP

XLRV 6.0L DI Turbo V12 700HP. $125.000

The Coupe,convertible versions of sedan models would end with C instead of S.

I Really Like this. One question: where do the SRX and Escalade fit in ?

[Carguy]

ATS. Cpe,sdn,Conv. RWD,AWD $27.500-40.000.

2.0L DI Turbo I4 270HP

3.0L DI Turbo V6 330HP

ATSV 4.0L DI Turbo V8 500HP. $47.500

CTS. Sdn,Wgn. RWD,AWD $32.500-50.000

3.0L DI Turbo V6 330HP

4.0L DI Turbo V8 390HP

CTSV 5.0L DI Turbo V8 560HP. $57.500

ETC Cpe,Conv. RWD,AWD $50.500-60.000.

3.0L DI Turbo V6 350HP

4.0L DI Turbo V8 420HP

STS Sdn.Wgn.RWD,AWD $52.500-65.000

4.0L DI Turbo V8 420HP

5.0L DI Turbo V8 480HP

STSV 6.0L DI Turbo V12 700HP. $100.000

ULS Premium Sdn. RWD,AWD $65.000-90.000.

5.0L DI Turbo V8 480HP

6.0L DI Turbo V12 650HP

XLR Premium Conv. $87.500-110.000.

5.0L DI Turbo V8 480HP

6.0L DI Turbo V12 650HP

XLRV 6.0L DI Turbo V12 700HP. $125.000

The Coupe,convertible versions of sedan models would end with C instead of S.

I Really Like this. One question: where do the SRX and Escalade fit in ?

I would base the SRX renamed ERX again on the CTS platform. It would obviously be Alpha based for the next version using the listed ATS or CTS power train options. The Escalade renamed URX would be ether again based on the future Truck platform or a crossover version of the listed STS platform. It would use the DI turbo 5.0L V8 tuned for high levels of torque.

[pow]

I would add a Cadillac e-series line... with vehicles like a CTS-eV coupe!

E-REV transmission

Two Volt motors for each axle (AWD)

300 hp, 546 lb-ft combined

24 kWH battery

2.0T SIDI 180 hp @ 3200 rpm range extender

4,300 lb curb weight

84 MPGe for 50 miles, electricity

35 MPG for 350 miles, gasoline

AT-PZEV emissions

0-60: 5.2 seconds

$59,000, before tax credit

[smk4565]

I think 3 car lines is satisfactory, small, medium, large. They can expand a line beyond a sedan to coupe, convertible, or wagon. If there is a 4th car line, it should be more of a specialty sports car.

[Lamar]

I think 3 car lines is satisfactory, small, medium, large. They can expand a line beyond a sedan to coupe, convertible, or wagon. If there is a 4th car line, it should be more of a specialty sports car.

I'm inclined to agree more here.

[riviera74]

I would base the SRX renamed ERX again on the CTS platform. It would obviously be Alpha based for the next version using the listed ATS or CTS power train options. The Escalade renamed URX would be ether again based on the future Truck platform or a crossover version of the listed STS platform. It would use the DI turbo 5.0L V8 tuned for high levels of torque.

Basing the ERX (nee SRX) on the XTS platform will bring back only lost sales . I know it was unique, but the first-generation SRX did not sell . The current one sells very well because that is what the market wants. As for your URX, I would leave it on GM's next truck platform since that is the most profitable.

[dwightlooi]

Basing the ERX (nee SRX) on the XTS platform will bring back only lost sales . I know it was unique, but the first-generation SRX did not sell . The current one sells very well because that is what the market wants. As for your URX, I would leave it on GM's next truck platform since that is the most profitable.

The SRX isn't quite the RX350. At least not in terms of sales, at least not yet. But it is making a lot of inroads. The biggest problem with the SRX isn't that its FWD. Its that it is about 300~400 lbs heavier than it ought to be. This lead to acceleration that is sufficiently lethargic that even the soccer moms felt it. Ditching the 3.0 for the 3.6 helped. This car really needs the LF3 (3.0 Bi-turbo) more than any other right now.

[riviera74]

Basing the ERX (nee SRX) on the XTS platform will bring back only lost sales . I know it was unique, but the first-generation SRX did not sell . The current one sells very well because that is what the market wants. As for your URX, I would leave it on GM's next truck platform since that is the most profitable.

The SRX isn't quite the RX350. At least not in terms of sales, at least not yet. But it is making a lot of inroads. The biggest problem with the SRX isn't that its FWD. Its that it is about 300~400 lbs heavier than it ought to be. This lead to acceleration that is sufficiently lethargic that even the soccer moms felt it. Ditching the 3.0 for the 3.6 helped. This car really needs the LF3 (3.0 Bi-turbo) more than any other right now.

I agree about the weight issue. Most cars could stand to lose 500 lbs. easily. The TT3L V6 should be the upgraded optional engine.

[pow]

Basing the ERX (nee SRX) on the XTS platform will bring back only lost sales . I know it was unique, but the first-generation SRX did not sell . The current one sells very well because that is what the market wants. As for your URX, I would leave it on GM's next truck platform since that is the most profitable.

The SRX isn't quite the RX350. At least not in terms of sales, at least not yet. But it is making a lot of inroads. The biggest problem with the SRX isn't that its FWD. Its that it is about 300~400 lbs heavier than it ought to be. This lead to acceleration that is sufficiently lethargic that even the soccer moms felt it. Ditching the 3.0 for the 3.6 helped. This car really needs the LF3 (3.0 Bi-turbo) more than any other right now.

It's also quite a guzzler compared to most its competitors. An RX450h-killing SRX Plug-In using an amped up version of the VUE Plug-In's powertrain would be great. A fifth of RX sales are for the 450h model.

Edited June 27, 2011 by pow

[dwightlooi]

It's also quite a guzzler compared to most its competitors. An RX450h-killing SRX Plug-In using an amped up version of the VUE Plug-In's powertrain would be great. A fifth of RX sales are for the 450h model.

Well, the 3.0 was a mistake... It was mismatched to the heavy SRX and was painfully slow while offering NO fuel economy advantage whatsoever over the 3.6. The 3.0 was 18/25 for the FWD. The 3.6 is also 18/25 for the FWD version. The car should have gotten the 3.6 to begin with. Good thing it is for 2012.

To be fair, it wasn't really a guzzler. The RX350 posts identical MPG numbers (18/25), it is just not as slow because it is lighter. That GM was able to hold the MPG numbers despite a 400 lbs weight deficit is actually... quite remarkable.

Edited June 27, 2011 by dwightlooi