ehaase

As sceptical as I am about global warming, many, including most politicians believe this, and I would not be surprised if the average car sold in 2015 would be the size of a Cobalt with a 1.5L hybrid motor. We wouldn't suffer having to drive such vehicles, but it sure wouldn't be fun.

The Flex is 5 inches wider, but doesn't have much more shoulder or hip room than the Taurus X.

The Lambda's appear to have quite a bit more shoulder and hip room than the Flex, but the Flex appears to have more leg room in the second and third rows. The Flex will only be a little wider and longer than the Taurus X. I like the Taurus X the best in this market, as it's not overweight like the others.

My parents moved to Mississippi when I was 19. We had lived in Virginia and North Carolina previously. When I graduated from college at age 22, I got a job with the federal government in Daytona Beach, Florida. I requested a hardship transfer to Mississippi when I was 29 because of my father's declining health, although I hated to leave Daytona. Since then, both parents have died. Although Mississippi is not my cup of tea by a long shot, I stayed here because my career with the government has done well here and because the cost of living and the traffic in the areas I prefer (either the east or west coasts) are much worse.

A V-12 Cadillac will just stir up the environmentalists who are clamoring for 40 percent higher CAFE across the board.

The phase out of Oldsmobile just makes me sad how GM angered so many Americans with the shoddiness of its vehicles during the 1970's and 1980's and how many Americans won't give GM another chance, unless Toyota, Honda, and BMW make a lot of catastrophic mistakes. The phase out of Oldsmobile also makes me sad that GM wasted so much money on the Saturn brand. The 1991 Saturn S series should have ben the 1991 Cavalier.

My employer is sending me to Long Island, NY this week on business, and I am going to spend an extra day there driving around and sightseeing. I am also going to South Florida April 7 for a few days.

The market for large FWD cars has been shrinking for years. I favor keeping FWD for mid size cars and smaller and using RWD for large and luxury cars. I agree with turbo200; it would cost GM too much money to develop a new large FWD platform for the DTS and Lucerne. It is more cost effective to move them to Zeta. Anyone who wants a large FWD Buick can buy an Enclave.

I have read that the Matrix replacement will use Toyota's 2.4L instead of the 1.8. If the next Vibe gets this engine, it certainly would more pleasant to drive, but won't get 30 mpg in the city.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=3309

None of the above. The XLR and STS need to be more successful before developing a $100K+ Cadillac.

Read the last few paragraphs for the vision environmentalist have of the car of the future. http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic.../703140301/1148 Neil Winton: European industry deflecting climate hysteria, for now GENEVA, Switzerland -- Climate change hysteria has erupted across Europe and although experts believe the automotive industry can ride out the storm, structural changes can't be held at bay for long. The industry's hope is that while politicians and environmental lobbyists demand ever tighter fuel economy that could undermine the viability of the German premium car makers, any regulatory regime that finally emerges next year in the European Union might allow some semblance of normality to remain. But you can forget business as usual. The media sessions before this year's Geneva International Motor Show underlined the fact that an industry in denial had finally got the message. Major car shows usually echo to bragging about speed, acceleration, sex, torque, excitement and emotion. This year, the talk at the Geneva car show was of fuel economy, responsibility, and using technology to go the extra mile on a litre of fuel. General Motors chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner led the way with his keynote speech, saying a major element of his strategy was environmental and technology leadership. The Geneva Car Show closes March 18. Examples of practical vehicles that will lead any green revolution were thin on the ground though. Hybrid concepts were ubiquitous, but the only firm evidence of change shortly to be available at European dealerships was BMW's introduction of regenerative braking and Stop-Start on the 1-series and 5-series, while GM subsidiary Saab boasted about offering biofuel engines on all its cars. Regenerative braking puts energy generated by using the brakes, back into the car's systems, while Stop-Start automatically cuts out the engine when the vehicle stops in traffic, and reignites it when the accelerator is depressed again. Politicians in the European Union have global warming in general and the automotive industry in particular, in their sights. Cars are seen by Europe's political leaders as major contributors to global warming because of their emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), and there is likely to be a much tougher regime to regulate the CO2 emissions of European cars next year. Uniquely vulnerable Automotive manufacturers are uniquely vulnerable to any CO2 threat, according to Professor Karel Williams of Manchester University's Business School. "The amount of energy required to make a car move is so transparent, so obvious, and its "green" performance so easily measured, this single measure makes the industry peculiarly transparent," said Williams. "Oil companies and other huge corporations are also implicated, but its enemies can't sum up their business in terms of CO2 or miles per gallon," said Williams. In Brussels on March 9, European Union leaders agreed on a plan they said would combat global warming. This would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent from their 1990 levels by 2020, and raise to 20 percent the share of energy produced from renewable sources like wind or solar power, also by 2020. In Britain the main political parties are fighting each other to produce the most aggressive set of policies they say will combat climate change. The opposition Conservative party proposes a severe cut in air travel, which would restore some kind of World War II ration book mentality, only allowing one flight a year per person, with all subsequent flights attracting ever more penal levels of tax. Are humans warming the planet? And yet while the hysteria produces more eye-watering suggestions to penalize European pocket-books and raise petrol prices to the level of a luxury product, questions are being asked about the science which suggests human activity is warming the planet. In Britain on March 8, Channel 4 Television, a nationally networked TV station, broadcast a 1-1/2 hour long documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle," which questioned the conventional wisdom on climate change science, and quoted climate scientists saying that, far from instigating climate warming, increased levels of CO2 are in fact generated by a warming climate. Any warming was probably caused by the sun, these scientists said. The program also criticized former Vice-President Al Gore's Oscar winning film, "An Inconvenient Truth". The scientists included Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, and Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the University of London. "Swindle" inspired much heated debate on radio phone in shows on subsequent days. Even the state-funded BBC, which rarely gives air-time to views suggesting climate change science is open to question, was forced to give air-time to the debate on its news analysis programs. Huge scientific argument Professor Garel Rhys of the Cardiff University Centre for Automotive Research was quick to jump on this chink in the armor of those who say the link between humans and climate change is undisputed. "The TV program showed that there is a huge scientific argument going on with the claim that the CO2 comes after the warming and not before. If global warming is caused not by human activity but the sun, the more this side of the argument gets an airing, the more reluctant governments will be to get involved," said Rhys. "(The automotive) Industry won't want to squander huge amounts of money to cut CO2 if the science isn't right," Rhys said. The European Union has said average fuel economy must be cut to 130 grams per kilometre by 2012, although it has yet to detail how this will be levied on the automotive companies. The European Car Manufacturers Association said this would add about $5,260 to the cost of a car. Others say this it too high an estimate, and that $2,000 would be more accurate. Europe's car makers agreed, voluntarily, to limit the average output of cars to 140 g/km by 2008, the equivalent of about 39 miles per U.S. gallon. But although this represents a big improvement on the average figure of 185 g/km in 1995 and 161 g/km in 2004, the industry is expected to fail to reach the 2008 target. In 2006, the average was about 160 g/km. Germany cries foul Meanwhile Germany's car makers have been crying foul, with BMW's executives calling the CO2 debate "extremely emotional" and "hysterical", while luxury sports car manufacturer Porsche has talked about a looming "business war" in Europe over the issue. Germany's luxury car manufacturers like BMW, Mercedes, VW's Audi and especially Porsche, have become rich selling high-powered cars which gulp down fuel, and are in the eye of the storm of any move to curb CO2 emissions. Stephen Cheetham, auto analyst at stockbroker Sanford C Bernstein says the German premium manufacturers shouldn't worry too much. "European legislation aimed at reducing automotive CO2 emissions is inconclusive, and in our view unlikely to significantly crimp automotive premium brand growth or earnings power. German manufacturers have lobbying muscle, technology leadership and a proven ability to create smaller, more fuel efficient concepts," Cheetham said in a report. "In short, we do not believe that the shift towards lower carbon emissions will in practise represent a serious threat to the business model of the German premium brands," he said. Professor David Bailey of Birmingham University's Business School agrees. Get out of jail "I can't imagine Germany allowing a proposal to go through if it would damage the cause of their big, powerful car manufacturers. They will try and mould the regulations; there will be some kind of get-out-of-jail card and deals to be done. And the British government, it's got (VW's) Bentley and (BMW's) Rolls Royce, I can't imagine the U.K. allowing it either. There will be an average, across the fleet average (like the U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy-CAFÉ rules)," said Bailey. Bailey also pointed to the great progress already achieved by European manufacturers. "Average CO2 (from cars) is much less in Europe, they've already done a great deal. OK, they've not made the voluntary targets, but they've still done a lot," said Bailey. Industry sources say in the U.S. light vehicles manage an average of the equivalent of 230 g/km. This means that U.S. cars and light trucks have fuel economy roughly 44 percent worse than the Europeans. In more general terms, the impact of CO2 regulation is very different in the U.S. than in Europe, according to Manchester University's Williams, who says it is consumer led in the U.S. and driven by government in Europe. Competitive dynamic In the U.S. higher fuel prices have already changed what he calls the "competitive dynamic" - with Ford, GM and now Chrysler gas-guzzling capacity being taken out by market forces, and being replaced by Asian fuel efficient cars. "U.S. change is led by consumers; that's straightforward because they are getting what they want. In Europe it's ambiguous because it is led by government. The key question is: Will regulation change European's attitudes. Will people change their minds and accept cars with modest engine sizes with turbos and superchargers to deliver reasonable performance and moderate pollution. That's uncertain. The cult of performance has been the auto culture for 25 years," said Williams. "My feeling is that they will change," he said. Williams says the industry is now at a crossroads, with cars likely to become more practical, and consumer choices reflecting simple things like basic transportation needs rather than some ego driven desire to buy a car which supposedly might enhance a buyer's image. Car as a commodity Williams says this means the advent of the car as a commodity. "What we need to do is reinvent the car and make it less of a status symbol, more of a utility object. When do you buy a new refrigerator? When it breaks down of course. In the future you will want a car that lasts 10, 15 years." "I suspect the competition around the greening of the motor car will clear some of the manufacturers out of a substantial role in the business and will leave some in a much stronger position. It won't necessarily be the ones that are strong now that are left standing. Now Toyota, Honda, BMW are the leaders, but in the future if you reinvent the car around a more durable paradigm, more like bicycles or fridges. I wonder where BMW would stand in that order," Williams said. Neil Winton, European columnist for Autos Insider, is based in Sussex, England. E-mail him at [email protected]

Could it be because Hertz, Avis, National, etc. keep buying lots of them?I agree with Turbo200; it is diappointing Cadillac hasn't decided on the next DTS, an entry level vehicle, or a $100,000 product (which I don't favor).

http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...G/70306036/1139 Senators ponder need to limit vehicle power Harry Stoffer | Automotive News / March 6, 2007 - 2:59 pm WASHINGTON -- Senators of both parties said today that the government may have to cool the American passion for high-powered cars and trucks -- in the name of saving fuel. The lawmakers, members of a key Senate committee, also said they don't trust the Bush administration to be tough enough in raising fuel economy standards. "I sense a lot of reluctance and foot-dragging," said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, during a hearing on fuel economy. Lawmakers should raise standards by passing a law rather than waiting for the administration to do so by regulation, said Snowe and some other members of the Senate Commerce Committee. Snowe and others have introduced a bill to require new cars and trucks to average 35 mpg by 2019 -- about 40 percent higher than today's combined average. President Bush has said he wants to cut gasoline consumption by 20 percent in 10 years. He envisions greater use of alternative fuels and increases of fuel economy standards by as much as 4 percent a year for new vehicles. But administration officials have acknowledged the fuel economy goal will be difficult to reach. And they want Congress to pass a law authorizing an overhaul of the fuel economy program for cars before standards are raised. The overhaul would mean setting different standards for different-sized cars, just as the administration has done for light trucks. The administration is gradually raising the truck standard from 20.7 mpg in 2004 to about 24.0 by 2011 and setting different targets for trucks of different sizes by 2011. The car standard has been at 27.5 mpg since 1990. Nicole Nason, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which handles fuel economy, made the same case today. She said the goal is to get manufacturers to add fuel-saving technologies to vehicles and to not limit consumer choice. But Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, ranking Republican on the committee, told her, "As long as you take that position you are never going to achieve" significant fuel savings. He is the sponsor of a bill to require cars to average 40 mpg by 2017. Similarly, Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said too much technology goes into satisfying consumers who want bigger and more powerful vehicles. "We have to set some enforceable standards," he said. Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said NHTSA should go ahead and set higher car standards now and worry about overhauling the program later. Despite the ominous tone of the hearing, Ken Cole of General Motors, one of more than a dozen of industry representatives in the audience, reacted calmly. "We're right in the beginning of the process," said Cole, GM's vice president for government relations. He said lawmakers and their staffs are reeducating themselves about fuel economy and policy options. But he did agree that the interest some lawmakers showed in limiting vehicle choice "might be troubling," to some people.

Same engines as Aura.

What I get from reviewing sales figures each month is that most people willing to pay over $35,000 for a car (not crossover) want RWD, while buyers of mid sized and small cars are happy with FWD. What I also get is that the DTS is no longer an excellent seller. I also get that sales of large FWD cars have been declining for years now. Now whether Cadillac should get a version of Epsilon II to compete with the Lexus ES350 may be another issue worthy of debate, and I don't know the answer to that.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/...in2528226.shtml

Good sales aren't one of them.

The A4 sells well, but the A6 and A8 don't. Neither does the Volvo S80 sell well. It appears that luxury buyers prefer RWD.

I think it's interesting how much more costly meeting the proposed CAFE standards will be for GM than for Toyota and Honda. The Camaro and Corvette may get 26 on the highway, but they average about 22 when city is factored in. If CAFE goes up to 34 mpg, then GM will have sell an awful lot of 40 mpg cars to offset those 22 mpg V8 performance cars. I don't think GM has anything that averages 40 mpg on sale right now.

I find the Monte Carlo SS strangely intriguing. As GuionM noted elsewhere, it's faster than the Malibu SS 454 of the 1970's, the Buick Grand National of the 1980's, and the Camaro Z28 LT1 of the 1990's.

Articles like this keep me from getting too enthused about 400 hp Camaros and 650 hp Corvettes. http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...mplate=printart Bush fuel standards would cost industry $100 billion over seven years, Congress hears today David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau President Bush's fuel economy proposal would cost the automotive industry $100 billion between 2010 and 2017, U.S. Rep. Fred Upton, R-St. Joseph, testified today before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. General Motors Corp. alone would spend $40 billion in that period to attain the fuel mileage gains proposed by Bush in his January State of the Union address, Upton said he was told in a briefing by GM. The estimated tab would be $8.4 billion for Toyota Motor Corp. and $4 billion for Honda Motor Co., he said. Bush has called for reducing gasoline consumption 20 percent by 2017 and increasing fuel economy an average 4 percent annually beginning in 2009 for passenger cars and 2011 for light trucks. Upton was testifying in a series of hearings called by committee chair and U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn. Dingell has pledged to have at leasteight more hearings on fuel economy mandates and climate change over the next six weeks as he attempt to forge a compromise to Bush's plan yet still address the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. Auto executives will testify March 14. Former Vice President Al Gore will testify in both the House and Senate on March 21. Nicole Nason, chief of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, also testified today. She essentially took a step back from the 4 percent target, saying it was just a goal based on rough estimates and may not be achievable. NHTSA wants all automakers to provide the agency with their product plans for 2010-2017 so the agency can better assess the cost and other impacts on automakers of the fuel proposal as Bush outlined it.

The point is that GM is considering replacing V8 engines with turbocharged smaller engines if CAFE standards or gas prices go substantially up.

I think you've made your point over and over and over and over and over that you want GM to continue building large FWD cars, even though it probably won't.

I posted the article because I thought some of Lutz's comments about future engines was interesting. I sure would not want a G8 with a 270 hp turbo 4 cylinder, although a turbo V6 would be OK. I really don't think this Zeta Cadillac will be ultra luxury. I think it will be nothing more than a DTS replacement. I think Cadillac needs the CTS to become even more successful, especially in international markets, before it is ready to develop an S class competitor.