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.

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.

yeah the video definitely brings back the 'cab forward' aesthetic prominently in 3d. i bet the DTS looks 20 years old next to this.

yup. that vid did it for me too. the length of the vehicle and cab forward styling and trunk shaping and greenhouse really stand out in that. i still think the headlights and grille aand front in general needs to be amped up and made much more aggressive.

all your previous comments apply. i bet the starting price is very attractive for a basic getabout. i just got done telling my dad today to look at a kia sorento, after the local GM dealer pissed him off telling him there were no discounts on the equinox and probably not any available for a couple months. sportage might be something i can look at in the future.

yes for only two years. but it also had the 4 speed. plus, the 3.6 has issues the first couple years.

don't laugh, but one fallback option i have considered to replace the aztek is with either a late gen rendezvoux or something like an uplander / montana. NOT FOREVER! just for a couple years. the RDV had the 3.5 for awhile and i am not sure but the CSV's even had the 3.9 i think. so i am interested in the relaibility as well. of course if they still have the crappy 4 speed auto then its probably not worth a look again either.

i sat in one at the dealer for a long time yesterday, and a lot of what you say is true. it might be hard to get past some of those deals.

Re reading an interesting point, about the CTS having a longer wheelbase......why isn't this xts on sigma ? Well the cts and sts are cramped. So using epsilon with the wheel well jammed into the front seat creates Dts style room. Sigma also prob not az wide as they want. Caddy is ashamed to have dts in showroom anymore, wants to end northstar, eps platform large caddy is a stopgap. Zeta needs to be reengineered with premium suspension and awd and rushed to market for a proper flagship caddy.

your chop IS still better

i would love to hang out by a VW dealership and poach people buying loaded Jettas. I would show them what they could buy that 9-3 for right now. The 9-3 is a nice car! but even after this, what i am wondering is, how much saab's future issues are killing their sales right now.....

Saab may be shut down, or not. Does it make sense to buy one? good / bad? dealer here has new 9-3, MSRP's 35k advertised for about 22 and change...... that is a super price for any new car. BUT WILL YOU BE STRANDED? and what about.... RESALE?

you know, i decided to give the car a second look again. to me, where i started to warm a bit with was when i saw it in a video. they rotated the car all around. to me, when i saw it in 3d, it started to look better. not more dynamic, but it really did help to see the 'fullness' of the car in 3d. and just now, looking at the pathetic a8 picture in this thread again......what i think here is at play is not so much the detailing or any wow touches on the car. i think they really have tried to force and sneak a whole proportion change past us like the guys here have been mapiing out in those images. that is what really becomes evident in the video. in that way, maybe the car is futuristic. i got the sense from the video that there are likely few cars that have as long a greenhouse. this car is indeed stretched out. so maybe that's why the hood is sooooo high, it has to give mass but its got no lenth. its the only way they could balance the car out in the front quarter view. i would love to see the silhoutte of the DTS imposed inch for inch on this XTS, i bet its rather shocking the proportion difference. the XTS is all greenhouse. The DTS is all hood and trunk. in this regard, the XTS is a big time game changer for what we all now believe to be the geezers cadillac. someone made a comment on another website that 50+ folks STILL buy 80% of the lux cars or something and in reality made the valid point that this bunch many of them still want floaters. so if this is the new big cadillac floater, maybe it will sell. I don't know. I do know this, if this car were on the market right now, this would be the caddy my dad would flock to. LArge, FWD based, of course his other 2 cars right now are a seville and a DTS. He loves his DTS and he would probably get this XTS if it were out there. It would be a logical progression for him. In that respect to him, i think someone like him would be fine with the styling. I still think it needs work. But i really didn't get the proportions thing until i saw it in video. I still think the interior was mailed in. I bet those rear seats are stright from the LaCrosse with show car upholstery.

if they barely have 50% with so many brands, i would say its time to cut a lot of the underperforming brands. we really only need maybe 2 or 3 asian brands, IMHO, since they are all so dull and interchangeable. Honda gets a pass from me because they are the most innovative, have the most history, and sell other things besides cars. after that, i could see Hyundai and Kia sticking. After that I would say Mazda, Subaru and Nissan are marginal contributors. Anything else like toyota and the others could be gone asap if you ask me.

there's your new career, travel photography. !

the XTS concept looks like a stretched Jetta sedan with a cadillac nose grafted on it (from the front quarter view). wow. this car sucks. i'm sorry, but it does. GM ought to be ashamed of such a half assed effort on this. if it were a model besides a cadillac flagship maybe you could excuse the bland design. and the back quarter view is a little more interesting. maybe the sheer size of the car makes it more dynamic. if it had a longer wheelbase and a longer hood before the windshield it could possibly rescue it. but the short wheel base is doing more harm than anything. there is no originality or detail in the front or rear end. look at the new cts coupe from the top rear, its got lots of innovation on where the elements stop and start and the shapes and the angles of everything. this is just a big hunk of mass with a sweeping side groove on a generic cadillac facade and tail. the interior is far too restrained, the new focus interior has more detail. there is nothing special about the wheel wells around the tires. just BLAH!

yeah, that one, the one that is INTERESTING!

this in no way fits into a company that badly needs a flagship that should be futuristic looking in 3 years when it hits. dear GOD the C&G chop (who did that one) is FAR better than this! I like Mr. Lutz but honestly to let this crap out of the design center for a concept he oughta be called out for mailing it in. I know GM was short on cash, but...... everyone's gonna have a field day with this one. i know the geezer set may like this, but that's about all. some of the interior detailing is ok like parts of the center stack and the suede armrest (which should get nicely stained and smelly from arm oil and god knows what other fluids and oils will find its way onto that stuff over the life of the vehicle). someone better get me Mr. What acres on the phone so i can give him an earful on why this is a half assed effort.

the old w body is so cool, just like a frosty mug you pour by pulling on the beer tapper door handles....... the old gem still looks great.

i read a test drive of a new avenger lately where they basically went open season on the car, saying it was that bad.

wow, which is the bigger dud, this or the 2012 focus? now i won't have feel bad if i buy a current focus or an HHR.

not liking it. they wasted time on this?

thanks for all the info.

you biked off a cliff?... and.... you're back?

great segway into what i looked at this afternoon on a lot cruise. a brand new Kia Sorento. the previous Sorento was true frame SUV. the new one is a crossover. thing is, the sales are all going to the unibody crossover rigs, better road manners and better interior space. People want a tall wagon with cargo and people room and they want it to drive close to a car. Nobody goes off road, they just want to look it. Just like all the dorks who buy the North Face clothing. By the way, MAJORLY impressed by the Sorento. for 22 and change for the fwd 4 popper / 6 speed......i'd likely get it over the equinox due to the interior and cargo space. Even if it is a Kia. I still like the Equinox and Terrain and especially their center stacks (huge misaligned panels and all). I was shocked how semi decent it looked inside and out without getting into it. Hope it doesn't have rust on it in a few months like some poster on Edmunds.com posted about his new Kia Forte. To digress, but the Sorento if its playing in the same price class as the Equinox, has what looks like a lot more room and available third row and what looks to be a really decent interior. I was in a CX7 yesterday, they really spruced that one up too. Why do people drop huge bucks on the CRV and RAV when there are SO MANY BETTER CHOICES!?!?!?!