smk4565

You have to wonder if it is time to close the Chrysler brand. Make the 200 the Dodge Avenger, and sell more Caravans and Chargers.

The S-class has a .23 CD, so apparently this is an aerodynamic shape. I imagine the AMG sport package will liven it up a bit, but the E-class was never a flashy looking car. I think this car looks better than the current car and the interior is light years ahead. The W212 interior I think is boring, it is well made, but not interesting. This car is definitely not cheap when you look at all the color and trim choices, aluminum switches, the auto pilot features, self parking, the optional 1,350 watt stereo, etc.

The tail lights are actually closer to an 08 C-class, aside from the current cars. I'd rather have seen them flip the tail light, make it more narrow at the top and wider at the bottom. Or make it more of a rectangle. I think the back end looks good as it is, but it also looks like the other 2 sedans. And to Drew's point they seem to be dragging their feet on the I-6, which makes no sense when it would share parts with the I-4 and have cost savings. The 3.0 turbo V6 is derived from the 3.5 V6, which dates back to 2010.

The challenge will be keeping the car on the ground, they will need a lot of down force. Challenge 2 is tires that don't burst. Making a 1,500 hp engine will be the easy part.

It looks like an E-class. I like that the headlights have 2 light bars and 2 LED squares or whatever they are since the E-class used to have the dual headlight set up, it pays tribute to that. I wish it looked a little more different than the C and S though, maybe use wider rear tail lights or something. A+ interior. I am more curious for the engines because I want the inline six. The turbo 4 in the C300 will be slow in this car, but CAFE will probably force it in. The 255 hp diesel six would be nice, but the VW diesel scandal will probably kill that. .23 drag coefficient for this car, which is remarkable.

Mercedes didn't rake in anything, they spent $38 billion to buy Chrysler and sold it for $7.4 billion. It was a bad idea from the start, cultures were too different, products too different. Daimler is better off without them, they can focus on their own car brand and their commercial truck brands.

I think the plan is for the Equinox to become this size and Chevy will get a Trailer blazer or something mid-size. The Terrain will be the XT5 size so bigger than Envision. That would keep overlap down on the GMC-Buick lots, with only Acadia and Enclave over lapping. I also think that most crossover buyers could care less where it comes form, as long as they sit up high, have all wheel drive and a nav screen with some apps they will be happy.

CT6, XT5, etc aren't even on sale yet and Johan has been on the job a year or two now. Even if they trademarked CT1 through CT100 he could have still pushed for word names if he wanted. I think he likes alpha-numerics because it he is a marketing guru and marketing gurus like to look smart when they design naming conventions. I think the type of executive does matter somewhat. Rick Wagoner was a finance guy, and look at how GM produced the lowest cost products possible under his tenure. He was about cutting product cost to feed the UAW labor cost and "managing the downward spiral." If you put an engineer at the top they are going to focus on engineering and product. Does Mercedes have an engineer running things? If not then does an engineer EVER get final say on a product in ANY company? I only ask this because last time I checked, Dieter Zetsche was not an engineer. And again, he did not come up with number scheme so why bother even mentioning it? You have been wrong on so many things here SMK, it is just baffling that you keep beating the same dead horse here. From being incorrect about platform origins to nitpicking naming schemes in Cadillacs, it is just baffling. Dieter Zetsche is an engineer, he has a PhD in engineering actually. Remember "Ask Dr. Z" But he is just the Daimler CEO. Probably the person what would have more influence on Mercedes cars would be Prof. Dr. Thomas Weber, and oh wait, he has a PhD in mechanical engineering. Tobias Moers, CEO of AMG, also has an engineering degree. Head of Daimler trucks Dr. Wolfgang Bernhard, masters in engineering, masters in business, PhD in economics. And Mercedes, Freightliner, and Western Star make the best trucks. We'll see if Cadillacs marketing guys can beat Daimler's engineers, around 2020 all will be revealed. Sorry but I remember how those "engineers" treated Chrysler and then left them for dead with their "hand me down" platforms and tech. They have as much crap on their hands as the old guard at GM. They being engineers make it worse if you ask me because they did not act like engineers where Chrysler was concerned. They acted like bean counters with slick PR. Sound familiar? Jurgen Schrempp was Chairman and CEO from 1995-2005, sort of the dark days of Mercedes. He had an engineering background too, but he wasn't a very good CEO. Dr. Z is a really good CEO. Chrysler was pretty much beyond saving, and they did give Chrysler the Crossfire and the LX platform, and the Grand Cherokee is still based on a derived ML-class platform. Notice Chryslers only decent cars are derived from mid 2000s Mercedes. Perhaps the problem with that merger is Chrysler was still developing their own engines, transmissions and cars, the Crossfire was the only Chrysler with a Mercedes engine/transmission and chassis. IT was a failed merger, but if Chrysler didn't have Mercedes or Fiat platforms, they wouldn't have anything to sell except Ram trucks and a minivan.

Agreed, Lutz was a bit out there to be CEO, they did use him the right way. It would be nice if GM had a product guru that wasn't as radical (and sometimes senile) like Lutz was, that could run the show.

I heard on Autoline that by 2020 60-70% of Buicks sold in the USA could be made in China. They have to move Verano and Enclave production to there I'd imagine for that to happen. But GM could also use that as a scare tactic in negotiations with the UAW.

CT6, XT5, etc aren't even on sale yet and Johan has been on the job a year or two now. Even if they trademarked CT1 through CT100 he could have still pushed for word names if he wanted. I think he likes alpha-numerics because it he is a marketing guru and marketing gurus like to look smart when they design naming conventions. I think the type of executive does matter somewhat. Rick Wagoner was a finance guy, and look at how GM produced the lowest cost products possible under his tenure. He was about cutting product cost to feed the UAW labor cost and "managing the downward spiral." If you put an engineer at the top they are going to focus on engineering and product. Wagoner put Lutz in charge of product and that's when things started to turn around. A large part of GM's issue was the corporate culture. Prior to the BK, they were simply running out of cash to develop things properly. Even if the will was there to do it right, the cash wasn't. I didn't say the person at the top doesn't matter. They have to be competent and have an actual passion for the product, but they don't have to be an engineer. Wagoner, Henderson, Akerson... none had both the competence and passion for the product. Barra appears competent and passion for the product, and has the added benefit of having a cleaner slate to start with. I will agree with that, and Lutz did push for better products. If Lutz was CEO they would have even had better product. But the trio of econ/finance guys that only wanted to cut costs did GM no good. You don't need to be an engineer, but I think it helps when a "product guy" is in charge. Look at Apple when Jobs ran the show, when he was gone it was a disaster, when he was there they had the best products and profits were huge.

CT6, XT5, etc aren't even on sale yet and Johan has been on the job a year or two now. Even if they trademarked CT1 through CT100 he could have still pushed for word names if he wanted. I think he likes alpha-numerics because it he is a marketing guru and marketing gurus like to look smart when they design naming conventions. I think the type of executive does matter somewhat. Rick Wagoner was a finance guy, and look at how GM produced the lowest cost products possible under his tenure. He was about cutting product cost to feed the UAW labor cost and "managing the downward spiral." If you put an engineer at the top they are going to focus on engineering and product. Does Mercedes have an engineer running things? If not then does an engineer EVER get final say on a product in ANY company? I only ask this because last time I checked, Dieter Zetsche was not an engineer. And again, he did not come up with number scheme so why bother even mentioning it? You have been wrong on so many things here SMK, it is just baffling that you keep beating the same dead horse here. From being incorrect about platform origins to nitpicking naming schemes in Cadillacs, it is just baffling. Dieter Zetsche is an engineer, he has a PhD in engineering actually. Remember "Ask Dr. Z" But he is just the Daimler CEO. Probably the person what would have more influence on Mercedes cars would be Prof. Dr. Thomas Weber, and oh wait, he has a PhD in mechanical engineering. Tobias Moers, CEO of AMG, also has an engineering degree. Head of Daimler trucks Dr. Wolfgang Bernhard, masters in engineering, masters in business, PhD in economics. And Mercedes, Freightliner, and Western Star make the best trucks. We'll see if Cadillacs marketing guys can beat Daimler's engineers, around 2020 all will be revealed.

I think all 200,000 prospective Malibu buyers should buy a Subaru. Then GM can stop making the Malibu, and then we won't have to complain about how they screwed it up again. They have gotten it wrong 4 generations in a row, looks like they are about to make it 5 in a row.

CT6, XT5, etc aren't even on sale yet and Johan has been on the job a year or two now. Even if they trademarked CT1 through CT100 he could have still pushed for word names if he wanted. I think he likes alpha-numerics because it he is a marketing guru and marketing gurus like to look smart when they design naming conventions. I think the type of executive does matter somewhat. Rick Wagoner was a finance guy, and look at how GM produced the lowest cost products possible under his tenure. He was about cutting product cost to feed the UAW labor cost and "managing the downward spiral." If you put an engineer at the top they are going to focus on engineering and product.

GM market share has been declining since 1991 I think. But that is besides the point. Once upon a time the Lexus GS and LS, Infiniti Q45, BMW 5-series and 7-series, and Jaguars, all had rwd only, even the first generation CTS from 03-07 was rear drive only. But in the late 90s Mercedes put all wheel drive on the S-class and E-class. (BMW at this time also had an all-wheel drive 3-series) Then in the early 2000s, and showed up on the 5-series and 7-series, in the mid-2000s the Lexus GS got it, around 2007 the LS460 and 2008 CTS got awd. Look how Jaguar and Genesis sales struggled in the north in 2009-2013, forcing them to add all wheel drive since it was pretty much expected by the luxury buyer. This could happen in the mid-size segment, the Malibu can be a pioneer now, or wait 10-15 years and be last to the party like Jaguar was in the luxury game and watch sales dwindle.

BMW should make a 3-series Grand Sedan then all will be right with the world.

If more people picked MPG over all wheel drive then Escape wouldn't outsell Focus and Fusion. And the Equinox wouldn't outsell the Malibu. Ford wouldn't sell 700,000 F150's if fuel economy was a primary concern of buyers, because I see a lot of pick ups that never tow or haul anything. An all wheel drive Malibu would outsell the entire Regal line, let alone a Regal wagon.

Neither of which are engineers. Which is why Cadillac is supposedly getting a an XT7 based on the new Enclave/Acadia/Traverse, an XT3 based off the new Equinox (which is moving down size since Chevy is getting a 4th crossover) and an XT2 GLA competitor, I guess that would be the Cadillac Traxx. Although if Johan and Uwe can use their marketing skills to sell a Cadillac face on a Chevy platform, more power to them. In their quest to make Cadillac stand alone, it seems as if Chevy will have 4 crossovers and Tahoe, Cadillac will have 4 crossovers and Escalade all sharing platforms. It works for Lexus, doesn't work for Lincoln or Acura though.

All the more reason for a Malibu LT with all wheel drive. So little competition out there. And the Malibu is oh so lost in the shuffle.

So if I were looking to buy an AWD sedan (which I am not, but my mom will only buy all wheel drive and hates Crossovers) I would have to buy a luxury car, or should I not be able to afford a luxury car, I would then be looking at Fusion, Chrysler 200 or Subaru. Lost sale for Chevy. All wheel drive is a feature that the people that want it, won't live without. It isn't like styling or an interior trim that probably isn't a deal breaker. I am not saying make the Malibu standard AWD, but make it an option.

They need new crossovers ASAP. But if it takes 2 years to do a 2-door ATS, I imagine it will take some time to develop a crossover. Cadillac is too slow at getting the product out. That has been a weakness for a while. This is also why the Cadillac crossovers should be built on Alpha and Omega, so you develop a sedan, coupe, crossover all within a a couple model years. If they have the same chassis and engines and transmissions, all they have to do is worry about the body shell and interior.

I agree with Oldshurst, let's bring back Lasalle, Seville, Eldorado and Fleetwood and as Trump would say, Make Cadillac Great Again! Cadillac was trying so hard to be like BMW, they forgot what worked for them, and what the American consumer wants. Americans like big vehicles with V8s or at least V6s. Look at the big SUV and pick up truck sales. The Corvette sells well, V8 Mustangs and Camaros sell, even the Charger sells, despite being rather dated and unreliable. People like cars with attitude and heritage, they like size, and with cheap gas they want horsepower. Cadillac tries to sell them alphabet soup with a 2.0T engine. Imagine if they changed the name of the Camaro and Corvette to CSC-4 and CSC-6 or the Fusion and Mustang to FS4 and FC6 (ford coupe 6) or something like that. It would be a mess, that is what Cadillac has done. These CT# naming schemes also pigeon hole you.

Truck: Chevy Colorado (I first thought Silverado, but I wouldn't want to drive something that big) Sedan: Tesla Model S (with ludicrous mode) Coupe: Corvette Stingray SUV: Jeep Grand Cherokee (probably diesel) Not sure about a toy, are Hover Boards made in the USA?

I do not understand how you can attack paying a premium for a desirable thing and then go to the wall for German luxury stuff. They are two sides of the same coin. SMK justifies it by having a short commute so burning less premium fuel as he says and renting a regular auto for road trips. Over all, I doubt SMK has even driven an electric auto and golf carts do not count. If you drive an electric, you can feel, see the desire in the instant 100% torque. Batteries is what is holding back this change over, but with the new 450 Amp Lithium Ion batteries, getting long range should become a thing of the past. I actually drove the BMW i3 once, only briefly, but the instant torque is nice and you can stop without using the brakes. A different kind of driving, it does have benefits, but it wasn't convincing enough to make me leave gasoline. A Tesla may be another story, when you have range and 500 or more hp. I think what Tesla has achieved is spectacular, and their car can beat an M5 or CTS-V at slightly more price. I think if the Bolt comes with a 150-200 mile range, same horsepower and acceleration of a Volt and similar price, that would be the car to buy, if you were looking for a green vehicle or gasoline alternative.

What about the relentless pursuit of perfection? And did they find it since they haven't given a power bump to that 3.5 liter V6 since 2006.