Option Packages exclusive to future Cadillacs

[dwightlooi]

Here are three option packages I hope Cadillac will offer on all their products which (I believe) will set them apart from the Japanese and German competition in an uniquely American way.

Smart Glass Package -- $3000 (electrically adjustable tint and privacy glass with 99.9% UVA/UVB blocking)

• World's most advanced automotive glass green house
• All side windows are acoustic sandwiches (like that you find on a Malibu's front windows) but with a few additional tricks
• It has three films on the inside of the acoustic sandwich layer.
• Electrochromic dimming allows the side, moonroof and rear glass to be varied from 5% to 95% tint with a touch of a button or dial
• Automatic mode allows automatic tint reduction at night and at low ambient lighting situations, plus automatic tint augmentation when high beamed from the rear
• Privacy glass allows the side, moonrood and rear glass to go from clear to frosted with a touch of a button
• 99.9% UVA/UVB blocking film keeps the tan off your skin (will be hugely popular in asia where women spend billions on skin lightening cosmetics)
• Fail-safe; unlike conventional tints, if the system fails or power is lost, the glass are clear.
• All courtesy of 3M & DuPont

Cadillac Signature Upholstery -- $3000 (Genuine American Luxury Hides all around)

• Designed to be as distinctively Cadillac and American as Connolly hide is to Aston Martins.
• Genuine California Napa Leather on seats and door panels
• Real Stitched, non-reflective, black Texan Nubuck leather dash, headliner and pillars
• Genuine Tempurpedic Memory Foam seat cushions out of Kentucky

Threat Warning Receiver Package -- $1500 (OE integrated radar and Lidar detection and warning)

• Most advanced X, K, Ka & Ku band radar and Laser receivers placed within the same "sharkfin" mast as the satellite radio antenna.
• Displays on car's multi-functional screen in instrument cluster and/or HUD (if equipped) instead of separate display
• Precise Graphic Indication emitters by number and bearing (Front, Side & rear)
• Audible warning which cuts in through the audio system (user defeatable)
• No wiring, no box on the mirror, nothing exposed
• Receives traffic and weather alert emitters as well
• Smart GPS based database indicates fixed red-light cameras and photo speed traps, mutes audible warnings if vehicle speed is at or under the speed limit for the road
• Real time traffic collision alert (based on real time traffic data from Nav System)
• Free "Please obey all traffic laws" sticker
• Developed in partnership with Valentine Research Inc.

None of these are technically challenging; the technology and materials have been there for decades. And, most importantly, the competition hasn't offered them yet.

Edited May 20, 2013 by dwightlooi

[Drew Dowdell]

make the memory foam cushions out of soy or natural latex or you'll have warranty issues down the road...... just read discussion forums for Tempurpedics for examples of the foam breaking down quickly

[hyperv6]

Glass I would like some advancement in glass like more acoustic dampening for Cadillac. As for the tint they would have to limit it at all times to legal tint or they need to lighten it up when in drive. DOT would never let them sell it if they could do a dark tint well beyond legal or smart on the road. I am also not sure how many would pay $3000K for glass unless it was a whole roof sun roof and even then it would be limited.

Upholstery I am good with that. To be honest the new XTS drivers seat is amazing already and if you want to call the leather some trademarked name that is fine but make it something real not something Ricardo Montalbon sounded good saying. NAPA leather is that the kind that is blue and yellow and Michael Waltrip uses in his stock car? Tempurpedic? Why don't you just get a drive numbers seat and you can dial your number up?

To be honest I would love to see them offer a wider choice of interior options that you can tailor fit the new LTS line and make it to order. In this line it would add cost to a very expensive car and give an option similar to what Rolls and Ferrari offer to their customer. People in this class are used to waiting for their cars. Of course this would only be on the Ultra model LTS only not the regular line.

Lazer/radar detector? Oh you really have no clue how the legal department would laugh anyone out on this one at GM. There is no way GM would add anything like this to a car that would one endorse speeding and two is not legal in Canada and several states like Virginia etc. Also the Insurance companies would rebel and add to the cost of the insurance. GM already does a dance with the 600 HP Corvette that they can claim is for street use but the power should only be used off road in closed course condition.

Part of one is fine with qualifications, the second one is fine and number three is just not going to happen. LOL!

[hyperv6]

make the memory foam cushions out of soy or natural latex or you'll have warranty issues down the road...... just read discussion forums for Tempurpedics for examples of the foam breaking down quickly

Seat from in general has a limited life no matter what kind it is. The material breaks down with time and heat in the car. When it breaks down they like to call it dead foam. A guy from GM that did interior work said that the foam is the first thing to go and like car speakers it goes slow enough people never notice how bad it is. Speaker break down with age too and lose sound quality as a slow rate.

Not when doing an interior they always recommend replacing the foam no matter how good it looks. Many people fail to do this and end up with poor seat covering jobs. I have done several interiors and have replace the foam or in cases where I could not get foam supplemented the flat seat areas in the butt and back with new layers of foam. This helps add life back. It is not as good as a whole replacement part but if you can not get the right part you have to get creative. It is a old trick a old upholstery guy taught me. I have never had a complaint on any seats I have redone yet. I had to do this on the Fiero when I added leather. There are no new seat foam available for it and they have held up fine since I did them 7 years ago.

[Drew Dowdell]

I understand that. I'm just pointing out that a number of the memory foam mattress manufacturers are having problems with the foam breaking down much faster than expected.

[riviera74]

The Threat Warning package can be done more cheaply by simply buying a Valentine One from their website.

Remember when Navigation was a high-ticket item (about 8-10 years ago, they ran about $5000+)? Nowadays you can get it included in a $2000 package (hopefully with a backup camera like a Lexus ES350!). These days, a decent nav goes for $99-299 depending on size and feature set, as opposed to five times that ten years ago. As for the other two pakages, those should be a go.

[G. David Felt]

These are SWEET Packages that the public would love and clearly set apart Cadillac.

Nice Job Dwight!

[vonVeezelsnider]

I would pay for the leather package if it didn't have memory foam.

[G. David Felt]

I would pay for the leather package if it didn't have memory foam.

Why would you not want the memory foam? Seems a few others here are not real fans of it either, but while I think the beds are just OK, the pillows and seats I have used are really comfy compared to traditional foam.

[hyperv6]

I would like to see you address #1 and #3 in due respects to GM and DOT policy and law. If you want to present a realistic idea please address all the factors not just the ones that are convenient.

What would you do to make the glass legal for DOT and all 50 states? The government has standards and many local areas have max darkness regulations.

Second how would you get the detector past the GM legal department? Do you think there is anyway they would let GM endorse a option with the full intention of breaking the law.

There are no look holes on this device as it has one job and one job only. What if someone is using it crashes speeding and the lawyer representing the family stated that GM provided the device to let him speed. Far fetched it is not as automakers have been hit with worse and had to settle as it was cheaper than fighting.

I remember a guy who bought a 328 Ferrari a few years back that killed himself speeding the first night. His family sued because they said he was not informed of the performance nature of the car. They settled and Ferrari lost money. This is the stupidity you must defend yourself from when coming up with ideas. A Ford engineer told me once they do not fool proof cars they idiot proof them.

Edited May 21, 2013 by hyperv6

[balthazar]

Radar detectors are not illegal devices and they do not cause anyone to speed. Only VA & DC outlaw them entirely. It's no different than selling a 638 HP car that goes 205 MPH in a land where the max in most places is 65. It's also akin to putting 10-in touch screens into the dashes of cars where for years video screens in view of the driver were illegal & there is now constant focus on driver distraction. Face it, people have gotten tickets for a mere few miles over the posted limit. It's not so black & white as you paint it.

The tint thing is also akin to max speed capabilites. It would be possible to program a car, based on GPS location tech, to max tint while in motion to that state's legal limit. Many would see the advantage in darkening windows while parked to deter snooping/ potential theft/ keeping the vehicle cooler inside. It's not just designed for thwarting the cops...

[PurdueGuy]

Radar detectors are not illegal devices and they do not cause anyone to speed. Only VA & DC outlaw them entirely. It's no different than selling a 638 HP car that goes 205 MPH in a land where the max in most places is 65.

I'm sorry, but it's completely different. That 638 HP car can be driven within the speed limits. A car with an integrated radar detector can't be legally driven in VA or DC. Not gonna happen.

I really like the tint idea, but it would require clever programming to ensure it too wouldn't fall into the legal snafu category. There may come a time when the tint levels could be adjusted by sensed location and a database of legal limits, but I imagine early iterations would have to do something like not tint below the highest percentage that's legal in the country, except perhaps when in park, and then be able to black out the windows. Rear windows often can be tinted lower, so that may be allowed, though that would mean additional controls & programming.

[hyperv6]

If you note that all the ads with High HP cars are stated to be on closed courses and they state to always obey the local laws and speed limits to cover their buts. And yes they are illegal in Canada and other countries too.

What would they do with a detector? State it is for finding a cop if you need one/ Bath you are smarter than that.

While it is not illegal for GM to put them in a car or even the tint the corporate responsibility is to not encourage people to break the law.

As for the tint I wonder what law enforcement would say about it. Even in a parking lot how would they feel walking up to a car with tint enough in south LA to prevent them from at least seeing that there is anyone in the car. Generally if the windshield is clear they can account that there is someone in the car and they can take action to protect themselves. That is why we have limits on tint in most areas now. You can control it but the problems are still there for law enforcement.

I like both of these ideas but the realities are that there are things that would prevent them in the real world.

[dwightlooi]

I would like to see you address #1 and #3 in due respects to GM and DOT policy and law. If you want to present a realistic idea please address all the factors not just the ones that are convenient.

What would you do to make the glass legal for DOT and all 50 states? The government has standards and many local areas have max darkness regulations.

Second how would you get the detector past the GM legal department? Do you think there is anyway they would let GM endorse a option with the full intention of breaking the law.

There are no look holes on this device as it has one job and one job only. What if someone is using it crashes speeding and the lawyer representing the family stated that GM provided the device to let him speed. Far fetched it is not as automakers have been hit with worse and had to settle as it was cheaper than fighting.

I remember a guy who bought a 328 Ferrari a few years back that killed himself speeding the first night. His family sued because they said he was not informed of the performance nature of the car. They settled and Ferrari lost money. This is the stupidity you must defend yourself from when coming up with ideas. A Ford engineer told me once they do not fool proof cars they idiot proof them.

It's pretty simple actually...

Smart Glass Option

• There is no DOT regulation on allowable tint, period. However, states and even local municipalities may have laws governing what's legal and what's not.
• It is not illegal to sell any car with any tint anywhere in the USA; it may be illegal to drive one with tinted windows, but never to execute a sales transaction.
• The SMART GLASS OPTION is not a fixed tint. It can be operated with essentially no tint or pretty dark tint.
• It is as legal as a power rear sunshade even though some states prohibit their use -- just don't use it! If simply having the capability is illegal (it is not) then having newspaper in the car would be illegal too, because you can patch it on windows and block driver vision (nevermind that you haven't yet done so and have no such intention)!
• It is the responsibility of the owner to use certain darker settings only in locales that do not prohibit them -- All GM vehicles are capable of breaking the speed limit, it doesn't make the vehicle illegal or subject GM to legal liability; it is the responsibility of the driver to obey local laws and limit his tint level usage just like he limits how fast he drives.
• Because this is electronically controlled "SMART GLASS", GM can even add a menu option in CUE which allows the driver to automatically set the tint limits based on the "STATE". This can be turned off allowing full range usage, or by selecting a State it automatically set limiters on the darkest tint accessible based on a database of tint laws in 50 states. A legal warning of course accompanies this feature warning the driver to always obey local laws and that the data base may not reflect latest rule changes in your locale.

Threat Warning Receiver

• The TWR option is not offered new cars sold in Virginia and DC.
• If someone buys a used car and bring it to these states, they can turn off the functionality and/or have a dealer permanently disable it (via an OBD port update). This is no different from buying a car whose owner had a radar detector installed and removing it.
• In addition, because this is a really "smart" TWR system integrated with the car's navigation system and it's various OE displays, it is smart enough to actually display "TWR NOT AVAILABLE DUE TO STATE LAW" whenever you drive into VA or DC because it knows where you are!
• Finally, from a philosophical stand point, the moral argument is that the system is not intended to assist in breaking the law but to warn the driver not to break them by frequently reminding them of the presence of law enforcement devices.
• The aforementioned is especially true since it warns not just of radar and laser hits, but also red-light and/or speed cameras known to the database.
• In fact, the reverse argument -- that ignorance to the existence of such devices keeps the public safer -- is indefensible.
• To argue that, what you will be saying is that there shouldn't be "radar enforced" or "Redlight Camera Ahead" signs as is so frequently posted along our roadways. That you WANT drivers to break the law so you can fine them. This is completely indefensible both legally and morally.

Edited May 22, 2013 by dwightlooi

[hyperv6]

Sorry it still does not wash. GM would never make anything that would get as dark as you want to make it. Hell back when Neon lights under cars were popular my company sold a ton of them. plastered a large disclaimer that they are not legal in all areas for street use and to check local laws. Yet we still got people who called in to complain that they got a ticket and it was our fault. I can see GM now getting complaints on this.

Also add in that most police departments would not be happy with this as when they walk up on a car who ever inside can darken the tint and have what ever aimed at them.

I will give you it is a cool idea but not one that will ever become reality for practical reasons.

As for your radar defense it is utter and total BS. To say that this is not a unit to break the law is absolute BS. This is like saying you are not running a illegal bar but you are really renting bar stools and giving free bear away. The fact is the deterrent is of the unknown.

I used to use my Escorts etc back in the day but now knowing how laser works they pretty much are going to get you unless you are in a crowd or on a busy road. Many Laser has much fewer stray rays to send you a response. The Valentine is the best there is and it is far from fool proof with the new technology. Anymore traffic is pretty fast and I let some fool run blocker for me and tag back behind him. Even today that does not work as well with the abundance of air planes running time checks from the air. My father in law just got nailed for 86 MPH and he was only one of 5 they had pulled over at one time. They do have the death penalty here in Ohio for speeding LOL!

The red light and schools zones are revenue makers plain and simple. But then again I have little mercy for anyone running a red light or speeding in a school zone. I may drive fast but I do have limits and these are two areas I will not offend nor should anyone.

The fact is GM will not sit there and pound out how safe their cars are and add all these safety features that do everything from buzzing the seat if you are over the line to showing how save their trucks are taking your kid to day care only to provide a device knowingly that will enable and appeal to people that they can speed and break the law. There is no disclaimer for this one like a performance car where you can say for off road use only.

Also factor in that insurance companies will speak out loudly on this. They already would love to put the makers of these devices out of business imagine if a automaker joined ranks with them. They could easily up the insurance rates for said vehicle like they do for way too many performance models already.

This is a product best left to the companies already in the field that have great systems that can be installed remotely already. It also give the driver his choice if he wants one and which one he chooses.

The bottom line is no matter the thinking going over a posted speed limit is breaking the law. If you choose to do so you do it at your discretion and not endorsed by GM. GM makes the car and how you operate it is up to you and they will not condone any actions of anyone breaking any law speeding, running lights or even smuggling drugs. Just imagine if they sold cars with secret compartments to smuggle items.

The fact is GM needs to present an image of a good corporate citizen and a responsible company. They are too large and in a too widely held public area to do anything marginal in this manor. If this was such a good Idea cars like the Enzo, Veyron and even a 911 would have come with these years ago. I have seen some tuner cars that did include them years ago but even they no longer do so.

I am sad to say in this PC world and until we see real legal reform things like this just will not happen with large corporations.

Besides if GM really thought this a good idea they would have had this long ago. They already have and will again offer night vision and other driving aids but none are able to be brought into question on their intent.

I am not trying to pick on you but like I said before you have to factor all sides to your ideas and think how GM, GM engineers , GMs Marketing , GM's board and GM's legal department thinks. For Gods sake these are the same company that avoided use of the name Banshee on a production car several time as not to offend anyone. I am not debating the right or wrong here but I am presenting how GM would look at this and these ideas and shoot them down in flames. They have killed much better ideas before. You have to look at the big picture in these deals this is not high school where you say this is a cool idea and they are idiots for not doing it.

I even see it at work with my line. We deal with performance parts and we have to be careful on how we present things and how things are stated as we can be and have been attacked for everything from killing dogs to killing teenagers. We just sell the parts and what they do often gets kicked back to use if they do something stupid. Yes we killed a dog one time as the guy did not adjust his carburetor as he should have and it bleed over and burned his garage down. He tried to take us to court to build him a new garage and buy him a new dog. Trust me there are more stories I could tell and they get more silly as you go.

Sorry things are just not as simple as they once were.

[Blake Noble]

I see a simple workaround to make the Smart Glass function work for a big old stiff like hyper (lighten up son, I'm kidding): limit how dark the front windows and and windshield can go. For example, while the sunroof, rear passenger windows, and rear window can all reach a healthy dark tint, the front windows and windshield can only reach a tint roughly equal to half of that.

As for the Threat Warning Package, there is a workaround there too: simply offer it as a part number or an "aftermarket" system that can be dealer-instaled or third-party installed only. To further elaborate, you install an app and a system update to CUE and then install a new antenna. I think an integrated radar detector would sell like hotcakes.

[balthazar]

My '59 has a 'Speed Minder' feature : a dial to the right of the speedometer that you set so if you exceed your number, the unit buzzes to alert you. It's range is 30 MPH to 110 MPH.

[hyperv6]

My '59 has a 'Speed Minder' feature : a dial to the right of the speedometer that you set so if you exceed your number, the unit buzzes to alert you. It's range is 30 MPH to 110 MPH.

Those were the days!

No seat belts, back up lights and at times no out side rear view mirrors and you could drive across AZ with no fear of a ticket at over 100 MPH.

I still think it is funny how in all the places I have driven the one state with the most dense population is where you can drive farther faster than any where else.

I have had more triple digit time in CA than anywhere and generally I am just keeping with traffic.

[G. David Felt]

I remember the Speed Minders. My grandma had a 70 or 71 Gold Buick Skylark two door with white fake convertible top and the biggest v8 they put in it and I remember the first time I drove with her I kept hearing this noise and it was the red needle being set too low as she was deaf and never heard it and drove fast. She was fast on the gas and fast on the break and most people could not handle driving with her but she was a blast and still is at 96 years old. Love her like crazy. Awesome German old lady.

[G. David Felt]

Have to say that those days are coming to an end, My parents used to take my sister and I to California each summer. First day was Seattle to Redding California in about 7hrs. Second day Redding California to the beaches of Huntington California in about 7hrs also.

Now Washington state has way too many WSP piggy's and they bust ya for going over 60 by 1 or 2. Truly takes way to long to drive a good road trip now.

Crazy part is most I have to blame on the stupid idiots that need to play with their iPhone rather than shut-up and drive. Person had a green light and I had to honk twice for them to get moving as they were too focused on their freakin phone.

[balthazar]

I just thought it was interesting that GM back then "encouraged" people to wildly break the speed limit with an intentional, printed dial limit of 110 MPH.

The thought that people were not in any way mandated to test the Speed Minder at 110 is, of course, nonsense; everyone was required to touch that speed on a monthly basis, to insure proper operation of the feature thruout it's range. It's there, you MUST use it. Like '10' on your radio dial. Or your peak HP in top gear.

[dwightlooi]

As I said, the legality of these are not in question any more than the legality of all cars without a 75mph limiter or a kitchen knife without the ability to blunt itself when placed against human flesh.

Smart glass gives you the ability to break window tint laws in various states, but it does not compel you to do so and in fact offers you the means to easily adjust the "tint limit" settings to be in compliance.

How you want to view its intent is up to you. But, there is no question that it is legal if it is something that can be disabled for the two with laws against detectors. The same arguments against "seeing" photo, radar and cameras can be used against street signs saying "photo enforced" or "radar enforced".

[hyperv6]

As I said, the legality of these are not in question any more than the legality of all cars without a 75mph limiter or a kitchen knife without the ability to blunt itself when placed against human flesh.

Smart glass gives you the ability to break window tint laws in various states, but it does not compel you to do so and in fact offers you the means to easily adjust the "tint limit" settings to be in compliance.

How you want to view its intent is up to you. But, there is no question that it is legal if it is something that can be disabled for the two with laws against detectors. The same arguments against "seeing" photo, radar and cameras can be used against street signs saying "photo enforced" or "radar enforced".

Regardless of you want to dress this the tint has limited chance of consideration with GM. As for the detector it has zero chance based alone on their image as a responsible company. People are not held accountable but large corporations are.

Like I said neat idea but not realistic.

You can be sure that many in side many automakers have looked at this and considered it long ago but have you seen it implemented? Detectors are far from a new idea.

You need to come up with a new and better idea if you want it to be realistic. This time look at it from all sides not just one.

[Camino LS6]

Pot, meet kettle.

[dwightlooi]

As I said, the legality of these are not in question any more than the legality of all cars without a 75mph limiter or a kitchen knife without the ability to blunt itself when placed against human flesh.

Smart glass gives you the ability to break window tint laws in various states, but it does not compel you to do so and in fact offers you the means to easily adjust the "tint limit" settings to be in compliance.

How you want to view its intent is up to you. But, there is no question that it is legal if it is something that can be disabled for the two with laws against detectors. The same arguments against "seeing" photo, radar and cameras can be used against street signs saying "photo enforced" or "radar enforced".

Regardless of you want to dress this the tint has limited chance of consideration with GM. As for the detector it has zero chance based alone on their image as a responsible company. People are not held accountable but large corporations are.

Like I said neat idea but not realistic.

You can be sure that many in side many automakers have looked at this and considered it long ago but have you seen it implemented? Detectors are far from a new idea.

You need to come up with a new and better idea if you want it to be realistic. This time look at it from all sides not just one.

First of all, just because nobody has done it doesn't mean it cannot be done or shouldn't. It's the same as your argument for DOHC valvetrains -- everybody does it so it must be better. It is no different from "everybody believes in global warming so it must be true" or "they all say the world is flat so it must be". That kind of argument has very little substance.

Besides, it is not even true! Have you seen a Lexus RX300 with it's factory tinted windows and rear windshield? That's a fixed tint and they sell it even in states prohibiting ANY tinting. The loophole? Apparently, the law apparently makes it illegal to tint your windows AFTER you purchase the vehicle, but says nothing about factory tints. So, it's OK if it's OE.

Edited May 24, 2013 by dwightlooi

[hyperv6]

You get a MFG to agree to this to the degree as you list this and I will say you are right. Is that fair?

The fact is to all your arguments you only factor in part of what is involved. You always leave out the reality of public demands or interest and real life marketing. Sorry but you are generally diametrically apposed to what the entire industry is doing and I have a hunch they are taking in all the factors not just what is convenient. There is a hell of a lot of things that companies could do but the truth is MFG have many factors that prevent them from doing them more than just doing a cool idea or posting a bunch of numbers that many have no idea what they mean.

If you would do your homework you would easily learn that #1 laws are different around the country and from city to city. Some have no laws and others have a well in forced laws on the books. #2 if you continued your home work you would find that most MFG only will do a specific level of tint industry wide. In other words no limo tint from the factory. Generally most MFG will leave the tint enough that it is dark but with a light or sun light you can make out a silhouette. Law enforcement appreciates this and most MFG will do this as being a good corporate citizen. #3 most laws are enacted to permit the factory tints and have no issue with it but those tints that are darker are subject to testing and can have the law enforce on them.

For what it is worth I am not a global warming guy so at least we agree on one thing.

Send these ideas to a GM marketing guy and really see what his opinion of the probability of any of these ideas having a real chance outside the seats. I have the feeling you may be arguing with him too.

Edited May 24, 2013 by hyperv6

[dwightlooi]

Again, you are missing the point. There is NO legal barrier to this, period, simply because the tint is user variable and can be set to zero if so desired. Therefore, legally at least, you can sell a car so equipped as a no tint car as long as driver can turn the tint off. Yes, there is no mechanism to prevent him from insisting on using tint at a locale that legally prohibits it. But there is no mechanism to prevent him from insisting on putting on aftermarket tint or plastering newspaper on his windows on any car either. Usage in compliance with local laws is the responsibility of the driver, not the manufacturer of ANY product. That's firmly established case law in the USA. The fact that the system permits a user configurable tint limit and even one that sets recommended limits based on state law of a selected state is not a required compliance mechanism. It is simply a convenience feature in the same manner as a state "tint" law chart is if made available by tinting film manufacturer(s).

As far as being a "good corporate citizen" that is something that should be completely ignored. The reason corporations exist is to make profits within the legally permitted boundaries. And to do this they must give their customers what they want and are willing and able to pay for as long as it doesn't violate the law. To heed some unspoken, unwritten and/or imaginary accommodation with what the politicians and/or yanters in our society want breaks the very reason corporations exist. If the law makers or whoever don't like it, they can go make a law that prohibits it. There is no law on electrically variable glass on the books today, period. Until then, they can yant all they want or they can go campaign for votes to pass such a law.

[hyperv6]

tintlaws.com 50 states 50 laws not counting the local laws that can vary from city to city. It does not matter if the car is OE or aftermarket tint it can put you at risk of being pulled over and ticketed if it does not meet the regulation. Generally most will meet the MFG tint levels as they are no where as dark as they could be and you can still see who and how many people are in the car.

You get GM to install this and the detectors and I will say I am wrong. Good Luck!

[smk4565]

Mercedes has the electrified self tinting glass, but it is only on used on sunroofs or roof panels. They are looking at doing it on rear side glass, but legal issues arise. Not only do states have different laws, but every country also. Could be hard to fight the legal battles in all those places, and probably not worth the hassle just to have tinted rear glass. Great technology for sunroof or glass roofs though, and I think consumers would pay for it there, where as rear side tint, not so much.

[Camino LS6]

Umm, you'd be hard-pressed to see "who and how many" in the back of my 1995 Tahoe. Yeah, and that is factory "deep tinted" glass (GM terminology, not mine).

I say why not do this - if the safety nazis scream, so what? That's free publicity.

Worrying about crap like this before there is any regulation is just stupid.

[Camino LS6]

Also, last time I checked police cars are equipped with a PA system.

"Driver, clear your windows"

I think that covers it.

[Camino LS6]

In fact, now that I think of it, this system would actually be safer for LEOs than any permanent tint because the officer can order the driver to kill the tint from the safety of the patrol car.

[Camino LS6]

...and if the driver refuses, Onstar could do it.

[Blake Noble]

I see a simple workaround to make the Smart Glass function work for a big old stiff like hyper (lighten up son, I'm kidding): limit how dark the front windows and and windshield can go. For example, while the sunroof, rear passenger windows, and rear window can all reach a healthy dark tint, the front windows and windshield can only reach a tint roughly equal to half of that.

As for the Threat Warning Package, there is a workaround there too: simply offer it as a part number or an "aftermarket" system that can be dealer-instaled or third-party installed only. To further elaborate, you install an app and a system update to CUE and then install a new antenna. I think an integrated radar detector would sell like hotcakes.

Ahem. I believe the reason why this post has been ignored is because I've solved many of the issues presented in this thread.

[hyperv6]

Right?

It is time to move on as till they go into to production he will never prove his point.

My only point is there are many more issued to building a car than too many here think are in play. Agree with them or not the many concerns petty or not can prevent many things from being optional. I never said it was right or wrong just the way it is.

Just look at all the safety things added to many cars even with no law requiring them anymore. Some are done for image many are to head of regulations that would add it and maybe more.

[Camino LS6]

[hyperv6]

Oh brother, we listen to enough of your piss and moan parties to have earned one of our own now and then. LOL!

Edited May 25, 2013 by hyperv6

[G. David Felt]

Party!!!!!

[Blake Noble]

Oookkkkaaaaayyyyyyy then ... right.

[Drew Dowdell]

We done?

[G. David Felt]

I think we could come up with some other nice Niche Packages Black out edition would be nice. All black Chrome, etc.

[hyperv6]

I think that is a good idea as it has worked in the past. While the old limited edition trim packages were pretty cheesy by todays standards I think some nice limited editions could be done today much like Chevy is doing with the Camaro.

In place of the old style designers like in the past use people like Foose and other present day independent designers to come up with packages that would appeal to the 50 and under crowd.

Use limited time paints. Special wheels and even toss in some special options. [Options that have a chance of getting past corporate approval.]

Even some special body modifications could be done easily.

At the right price point they could even do some tuner HSV limited editions over the V that would command a HSV like price over the standard model.

One thought would be even a light weight performance package with many light weight materials with even the new coming V engine. A Superleggera model like many of the Euro performance makers have done over the years. Lighter weight adds more performance than what an engine alone can do. It is still a very respected tradition with many makers over there. Lots more aluminum and carbon fiber, special seats etc. Make it so it would be attractive even at the higher price.

The key is to make these models worth the extra cost and limit them so they will be special to be seen.

I also would like to see on the LTS a deal where you can special order colors and interiors like Ferrari and other makers are now doing. Have a Cadillac custom house for those who want a one of a kind. They did it long ago and appeal to many in Hollywood and in business.