smk4565

Interesting how you only focus on the 500+ HP rather than admit that MB will also produce some best effort at that cause their basic engine will start at 75kW or 101HP which is half of what the Chevy BOLT will be which is 150kW or 200HP. There won't be only 1 motor per car. The earlier reports were a 300 kw (400 hp) electric motor would be the base motor for rear drive vehicles. All wheel drive vehicles get another motor or two up front. So there could be a 101 hp motor on each front wheel, a 400 hp motor in the back, now you have 602 hp in an all wheel drive car, or put the 540 hp motor in back and you have 740 hp total. Perhaps also they want a few electric motors of different power levels for use in plug-in hybrids too. Mercedes like in house made stuff, they probably don't want to buy off some other maker, just like they don't buy transmissions from ZF or Aisin. Maybe they need the 101 hp electric motor to put on each front wheel of the mid-engine super car Tobias Moors wants to build. Put 2 of those up front, with a 600 hp V8 in back, and they can go Ferrari hunting.

A twin motor electric with over 500 HP is going to be awesome. Tesla very well could be the future, they are getting ready to fight the future. They aren't going to sit idle and let Tesla pass them by.

It's Mercedes. The naming problems of others do not apply to them. They were the first to create a one letter car and are above all criticisms of such things. They haven't even named it yet, or said exactly what these will be. One can speculate they are going right after Tesla though. Maybe they will make the E-wagen. Perhaps an E-wing with gullwing doors. The good thing about Mercedes is huge R&D budget and they aren't constrained as to what they can build or how many models they can have. A lot of the cars share drive trains and they only have like 4 platforms (not counting G-wagen) that they build a lot of variants off of. While the other guys talk about it, or show concept cars, Mercedes builds dream cars.

Because making an electric car on a platform designed for gas engine in the front and a drivetrain running down the middle doesn't make sense. If they make an electric car platform they can load the floor plan with batteries and electric motors. More interior room, and they have more flexibility with styling. They are making 10 plug-in hybrid versions of existing models though, for those that want an electrified C, E, S, GLE, GLC, etc.

The one car is supposed to be a sedan bigger than a C-class, but smaller than an E-class, for sure they would want that to cost under 50,000 Euro or whatever the threshold is for the German gov't tax credit or subsidy that they have for electric cars. They need volume to justify the platform. The 2nd sedan will be large, and I imagine be based on this:

Mercedes said they are not doing a sub-brand like BMW i, and are not copying them in that. I see this more as Tesla fighters. I am loving the prospect of a small to mid-size sedan with a 536 hp electric motor powering the rear wheels. I could see them doing some sort of GLA electric, that gives them a cheaper fwd electric car, that is better than the B-class. But the fun stuff will be the twin motor 500+ HP stuff like the Tesla Model S. And I think Dr. Thomas Weber will be missed.

Unrelated and zero correlation except in that fanboy mind of yours. The long term plan was to make the CTS closer to the STS size, hence one of the reasons why the STS was scratched.And why you left out the 640HP CTS-V (while including the 469 HP from the STS-V) I have not a clue except to prove that you love cherry picking. Oh and let's not forget one key thing here. They are two completely different platforms. Why is this blatant kind of misinformation allowed here? The STS-V at the time was nearly as powerful as a Corvette Z06, it was the 2nd most powerful car GM had ever made at the time. Hard to compare power from 10 years ago to today, when everyone went up. On size and base level price and power the 2 cars are similar. Also cancelling your mid-size (and top end at the time) name plate, in order to replace it with your entry level name plate makes no sense. Imagine BMW cancelling the 5-series, then making the 3-series a foot longer and $15,000 more expensive an saying the 3-series is now a $50,000 mid-size car. Would have been the stupidest move ever. Maybe the Cruze can replace the Malibu next and they can cancel the Malibu.

2006 STS base price $41,020 ($48,682 in 2016 dollars) 2016 CTS $46,555 Wheelbase: 116.4 Wheelbase: 114.6 Length: 196.3 Length: 195.5 Width: 72.6 Width: 72.2 Height: 57.6 Height: 57.2 Engines: Engines: 255 hp/252 lb-ft V6 268 hp/295 lb-ft I-4 320 hp/315 lb-ft V8 335 hp/285 lb-ft V6 469 hp/439 lb-ft V8 420 hp/430 lb-ft V6 It is awfully close for 2 different model cars from the same manufacturer, 10 years apart.

The 2003 CTS was about 6 or 7 inches longer than the current ATS. Put 5 inches of wheel base in an ATS and your leg room issues are solved, but then it is also going to be near the size of a Lexus GS.

Although, there is another path to success for Cadillac. Instead of trying to beat the Europeans in performance, which for the most part they have tried since the late 80s, and it hasn't worked. They could go the Lexus route and focus on quality and reliability. Buyers love peace or mind and worry free driving. Cadillac could offer an 8 year, unlimited mileage, bumper to bumper warranty on all cars. If the cars are well built and cheap to maintain, that shouldn't cost them that much. No other luxury maker offers that kind of warranty coverage. That is one way to steal sales from the Acura/Lexus buyer that believes their Honda or Toyota is the most reliable, never a repair cost type of vehicle. Those buyers are badge snobs too, but could be won over with a mega warranty.

ATS-V is relatively unknown to the masses, and imagine Mercedes if the C63 and E63 were there only AMG products, and there was no S-class, no SL, no G-wagen, no CLS, no AMG GT, no SLS Gullwing, etc. Putting a big V8 in a poor selling mid-size sedan like CTS doesn't really make it a halo for the brand. Same as the Charger Hellcat is not going to save Dodge and let them sell more Darts. They are in fact cancelling more products than they are introducing. I still think Cadillac needs an alpha crossover and an Omega crossover with V-series variants. The Alpha can be ATS size to compete with Porsche Macan, the Omega a 3 row to compete with Q7, X7, GLS, and in a way it would make the Escalade obsolete, with a 400 hp V6 base, 500 hp and 640 hp V8s optional in a chassis that is 1,000 lbs lighter than an Escalade.

Acura interiors are all garbage compared to a luxury car. They are similar to what you get in a Mazda 6. Lincoln interiors are a sea of plastic and Fusion parts as well. I would put the ATS and Q50 both behind Lexus or the Germans for interiors.

Olds has it right in that Cadillac has no halo product, other than Escalade. They need a smaller than XT5 crossover and a 3 row crossover because that is what the masses buy. However they also need halo product that defines the brand. GM has toyed with a mid-engine Corvette for 10-20 years, why not just make a mid-engine Cadillac super car, leave the Corvette front engine, rear drive. I actually think they should cap the Corvette at 500 hp and not run the price up to the $100k mark as they have done in the past. If you watch reviews on the Z06, most say it is worse than the Stingray because it has too much power, it can't even put it down. The Corvette should be what the Stingray is, and I'd argue a 400 hp twin turbo V6 version at $50k would open up a few more sales. If GM wants to build a 600 hp car, or a mid-engine car, give that to Cadillac. Cadillac first needs to be luxury, they should build a full size coupe and CT8, that are above Escalade Platinum in luxury, and build a mid-engine super car to compete with the Ferrari 488. Even if they lose money on all 3, at least they will start to change the image of the brand.

100% agree on the Camry, it has reputation and is a safe buy, but it isn't the best car. I think the Q50 has a better interior, and is roomier than an ATS. The Q50 has a 300 hp V6 for the price of the ATS 2.0T and they have a 400 hp V6 for not much more than the 335 hp V6 in the ATS. Better performance with the Q50 on paper. I have never driven a Q50, I have driven the G37, which is a bit too boy racer and noises for me, I think they missed the luxury side of the equation on the G37, but it was pretty good handling. Question still remains as to why the ATS is the 6th or 7th best seller in the segment, and I don't think it is the back seat leg room.

No one is buying their sedans, and they only have 1 crossover. I would say that the ATS and CTS are competitive, but the BMW and Mercedes counterparts are better the Audi A6 is always gets strong reviews, the Infiniti Q50 is better than an ATS at qual money. I hate Lexus styling, and the dated engines, Cadillac is probably making a better vehicle than the IS or GS or ES trio of sedans, but Lexus does a better job of branding and marketing. Cadillac builds a better product than Lincoln and Acura for sure, better than the Infiniti Q70. Overall that puts Cadillac middle of the pack I'd say.

What I put in bold is U being FULL OF $h!. Cadillac didn't tout the weight savings as a selling point.. they touted the handling capabilities due to lighter weight and chassis engineering as a selling point. The Escalade is an established vehicle in a segment that quite frankly it pretty much established. Even tho it was no the first (Nav) it was the one that became the icon way early on. ATS is brand new.. 1st generation. CTS literally segment jumped. Neither have all the variants that the competitors have either. From a sales point of view.. that could.. and I kno it seems crazy.. effect sales. I mean walking into a Cadillac dealership to buy a convertible ATS and not finding one could push that buyer to go over to BMW. People like U need to stop being stupid. My patience is thin And I have said for years Cadillac needs more models. Why is there no ATS and CTS convertible? They got a Camaro convertible out pretty fast, same chassis. Cadillac is like GM's step child that never gets what it needs, because they are too worried about building more Buicks. Buick got a convertible, Buick has 3 crossovers. Cadillac 1 crossover, 0 convertibles. That is a joke. Cadillac doesn't have a sports car above Corvette, yet BMW, Mercedes and Audi all have $100k+ sports cars. And why, some GM unwritten rule that nothing can be faster than a Corvette. They'll put a supercharged V8 in a Camaro, why not make a 600 hp ATS-V with all wheel drive, 10-speed automatic, awd and launch control. Where is the V8 full size sedan at Cadillac that was teased back in the Ed Whitacre era, the full size V8 coupe? We got the 4-banger CT6 instead, and the El Mirage, was in fact, a mirage. I agree about variants.. we all kno this. The Cadillac situation may be a bit different as the vehicles have to be executed even more stringently than the bread and butter ones. The ATS vs Camaro convertible thing I have no answer or logic for tho.. It is my opinion.. and some fact that Cadillac is waiting for the 2018-19 model year to fully build on the excellence it presented with the CTS, Escalade, XT5 and CT6. Baby steps.. blowing your entire load while teh world is not looking would be even worse than doing nothing at all. So Cadillac has the ability to make great cars now, but is going to wait until the 2019 model year to release them? I would imagine the GM shareholders wouldn't be happy that Cadillac could be bringing in better profits right now, but instead they have to wait another 2-3 years.

The current 3-series is smaller than a 2003 CTS. Pretty much every segment of car has size creep, look at a 90s Accord and a 2016 Accord for example. I think what is interesting is Cadillac got rid of the STS, because it wasn't selling, people said it was too big, too soft, or didn't have the performance to match the Germans. And now the CTS is the exact same length as the 2005-2010 STS, the turbo 4 makes comparable power to the STS V6, and the 3.6 V6 comparable power to the old Northstar V8. They turned the CTS into a carbon copy of a car GM itself deemed a failure.

So what's your opinion on the problem factors plaguing the Audi A4?Is it marketing / image problems there also? It was in the final year of it's model cycle last year. They sold 34,000 of them in 2014 and 37,000 of them in 2013. When it was fresher it sold better, but that car was under powered the past few years, the base car now has a 252 hp turbo. Better interior and more power always help. I think Audi reliability issues hurt that car also, and Audi styling looks a bit too like a VW and hasn't changed much recently, I think it is a bit boring. I didn't include the A5, but they sell about 15,000 of those per year, which is about what the Lexus RC sells. If you tack 15,000 units to the A5 and IS for their coupe counterparts, their numbers look pretty good. I think A4 loses sales to A3 also, because they are more similar than a CLA and C-class are for example. So the A4 is going through a similar pattern as the ATS, seeing as how the ATS is going on four years old? Interesting. The 2015 model year A4 went on sale in 2008. It was in its 8th model year! (mid-cycle refresh in 2012 on the A4) And why they let it go 8 years, I have no idea.

What I put in bold is U being FULL OF $h!. Cadillac didn't tout the weight savings as a selling point.. they touted the handling capabilities due to lighter weight and chassis engineering as a selling point. The Escalade is an established vehicle in a segment that quite frankly it pretty much established. Even tho it was no the first (Nav) it was the one that became the icon way early on. ATS is brand new.. 1st generation. CTS literally segment jumped. Neither have all the variants that the competitors have either. From a sales point of view.. that could.. and I kno it seems crazy.. effect sales. I mean walking into a Cadillac dealership to buy a convertible ATS and not finding one could push that buyer to go over to BMW. People like U need to stop being stupid. My patience is thin And I have said for years Cadillac needs more models. Why is there no ATS and CTS convertible? They got a Camaro convertible out pretty fast, same chassis. Cadillac is like GM's step child that never gets what it needs, because they are too worried about building more Buicks. Buick got a convertible, Buick has 3 crossovers. Cadillac 1 crossover, 0 convertibles. That is a joke. Cadillac doesn't have a sports car above Corvette, yet BMW, Mercedes and Audi all have $100k+ sports cars. And why, some GM unwritten rule that nothing can be faster than a Corvette. They'll put a supercharged V8 in a Camaro, why not make a 600 hp ATS-V with all wheel drive, 10-speed automatic, awd and launch control. Where is the V8 full size sedan at Cadillac that was teased back in the Ed Whitacre era, the full size V8 coupe? We got the 4-banger CT6 instead, and the El Mirage, was in fact, a mirage.

So what's your opinion on the problem factors plaguing the Audi A4? Is it marketing / image problems there also? It was in the final year of it's model cycle last year. They sold 34,000 of them in 2014 and 37,000 of them in 2013. When it was fresher it sold better, but that car was under powered the past few years, the base car now has a 252 hp turbo. Better interior and more power always help. I think Audi reliability issues hurt that car also, and Audi styling looks a bit too like a VW and hasn't changed much recently, I think it is a bit boring. I didn't include the A5, but they sell about 15,000 of those per year, which is about what the Lexus RC sells. If you tack 15,000 units to the A5 and IS for their coupe counterparts, their numbers look pretty good. I think A4 loses sales to A3 also, because they are more similar than a CLA and C-class are for example.

2015 sales volume: BMW 3/4-series: 140,609 M-B C-class: 86,080 Acura TLX: 47,080 Lexus IS: 46,430 Infiniti Q50: 43,874 Audi A4: 29,013 Cadillac ATS: 26,873 I doubt back seat space or trunk volume led to the numbers on that list. Other factors are at play there.

I have also said probably 100 times, I don't think the ATS back seat hurts sales. Even the smallest trunk in the class probably isn't hurting sales. The car has other problems that hurt it, and the badge and marketing are bigger issues than the back seat. Case in point, the CLA has an even more useless back seat than the ATS, and the CLA outsold it last year.

Then why did you compare the ATS with the c-class, when the c-class starts $6000 higher and the CLA is 2000 lower? Because they are both rear drive and Cadillac stated the mission of the ATS was to compete with the German trio of 3-series, A4, and C-class.

Interior looks better, although it looks like a Hyundai/Kia interior, I think Hyundai/Kia do pretty good interiors as of late. I think the2017 interior is a good improvement, but the exterior looks too angular, and the headlights too squared off and small. Looks too Asian for me.

Moving from an ATS to a CTS is only about a $10k jump, so that could be an easier move. But 3-series to 5-series could be $15-20,000. I think just saying if people can't fit in a small luxury car, go buy a bigger one doesn't make a lot of sense, most can't afford the price jump. I am 6'2" and I can fit just fine in a C300, there is no reason you can't make a small segment luxury car that is roomy enough for people over 6 feet tall.