smk4565

I know they sell 1.4 million cars in the whole line, that is what I said, although this year it looks like they are on pace for 1.6 million. I also said the A8 is a weak seller, Audi lives on the volume of the cars below the A6 in most parts of the world and the A6 in China sells well. The A6 was the number 1 selling luxury car in China in 2012, they sold 138,000 of them. They are now selling about 14,000 A6's per month in China. The A8 on the other hand is pretty much a non-factor in most parts of the world, China is its best market too with 18,500 sold in 2012. But in the USA the A8 sells about 5,000 cars a year, and in Europe they are down from 10,700 per year in 2006 to just 5,400 last year (financial crisis I suppose). I'm sure the A8 has a decent profit margin on it because they do rip parts of other VW products, mainly the A6.

2000 a month? That is what the ATS and XTS sell per month. The S-class sells 2,000 per month in the USA. Keep in mind that Audi, Lexus and BMW all have starting prices in the $70k range to undercut the S-class class and they still manage to sell about 500 each per month, 1,000 on a good month. Cadillac can't undercut the A8 or 7-series in price, otherwise they'll be with the Hyundai Equus in price, and that is not where they should be.

The A8 though has a V8 and a W12, neither of which are found in any of the VW cars, they are found in Bentleys, though modified. The A8 interior is pretty good too, also not found in a VW. It does ride on the VW modular platform thing, but the A8 is aluminum unlike other Audi or VW models. So there is a lot to make the A8 unique, but it is still outsold by the Panamera, 7-series and LS460 most months, and the S-class outsells it like 5 to 1.

Audi has already sold 1.4 million cars this year, in the United States they have only sold like 120,000 this year, Audi could sell zero cars in the USA and turn a profit. The American market isn't that important to Audi, but crucial to Cadillac who has little global presence. Plus the A8 platform is used for Bentley which has crazy markup, so they get to recycle some engineering there. Halo effect does work, and is needed not only to sell more of your lower end cars, but also to expand globally. Cadillac needs the Omega car, but if they botch it and it is one and done product it won't have the desired Halo effect. Whether or not Cadillac can pull off a success here is the question, but I look forward to seeing the debut.

They should raise the gas tax, but not on diesel, if diesel was the same price as 87 octane and cheaper than premium gas, people would buy more diesels too.

V-TECH!!!! MUGEN!!!!! TYPE-R!!!! FTW!!!!

It could cost over $1 billion to develop a new model on a new platform. Some car companies spend more. But lets suppose GM spends $1 billion on the Omega/LTS. If they sell 300 per month at a profit of $10,000 per car (over a 10% margin which is better than what Audi or Mercedes operate at) Cadillac over a 6 year life cycle would make $216 Million in profit, against the cost of $1 billion, a loss of $784 million. They can't only sell 300 a month. Surely though some at GM has "built the business case" which makes you wonder if the budget is more like $500 million, in a hope that if they sell 500 a month they could break even on it.

I'd be surprised if they aren't competing with the Hyundai Equus, Lexus LS460 and the 6 cylinder A8. More in that $70k range of 2nd tier big luxury sedans. Even the 7-series is an ambitious target, and none of these cars are giving the S-class much competition right now. If they parts bin the engines and interior of the LTS and price it over $80k they are going to get ELR like sales volume. Even the A8 only sells about 400-500 cars a month, and it is an established car from a growing brand.

If the X6 and 5-series Gran Turismo couldn't bring BMW down, then I doubt M-sport packages will. BMW drivers love getting a 328i that looks like an M3 because they want it to look fast and show off in it. I don't know that Mercedes really needs to call anything AMG-Sport, since they already offer "sport" styling on the C-class and E-class and you can get AMG wheels as an option on pretty much any car they make. The trim packages are already there, plus Mercedes is a luxury car maker first. The more exciting news is the C-class diesel and plug-in hybrid are going to be sold in the USA next summer, about time we get a diesel C-class here.

What is amazing about DCU is that they don't seem to care about the year of the car. I work for a bank, and we and I think everyone else in Pittsburgh price new car loans at a lower rate, and used cars are higher then as the car gets older the rate goes up a bit. 6 year 1.99% is unheard of, especially on a used car.

The Honda products look like more of the boring same. Toyota finally updated the Tacoma/Tundra and the corresponding SUVs, so that is about time. That current crop of truck is way outdated. The Supra is the big news, I do think they need to bring that back, I assume that will be co-developed with BMW, so it could be good, as long as it isn't overweight like most BMWs.

I would be fine with no gas guzzler tax on any car, and a higher per gallon tax. Although I think that doesn't push manufacturers to boost mileage as much. Because the tax makes you hit 22.5 mpg or have your price go up while your competitors might not. Although CAFE is supposed to push manufacturers up, although I don't know how well that works either. The higher gas tax per gallon I think would hurt businesses and individuals more, because they wouldn't be able to avoid it. But ultimately if gas costs more, consumers would gobble up fuel efficient or electric cars and flee the gas hogs. I definitely think it is stupid that a car that gets 19 mpg combined would get taxed, but an SUV that gets the same is exempt. That makes no sense, if anything it rewards people to buy less efficient SUVs. I agree with Drew's point on the Lamborghini, most of the gas guzzler taxed cars are high performance exotics that probably only log 2,000 miles a year, so they aren't using that much gas.

Digital Credit Union does 1.9% financing for up to 84 months on lease-buyout cars. Anyone can become a member for a $5 fee. A 7 year car loan?!?! And I thought the 6 year loans were sort of long. I can see the 6 year on a new car, as new cars cost a lot and people may keep it for 10 years. But 7 years on a used car seems insane, also at that rate.

Diesel cars should be fairly quiet too because the operate in a low rpm range for the most part. A lot of the BMW diesels are more quiet than the gas counterpart, maybe by only 1 dBA but still if you do a diesel right, it should be just as refined or quiet as a gas engine. And the fuel economy advantage is undeniable. Cadillac has low volume, but since the Germans have them, and the Germans set the tone in the luxury market, Cadillac should have them too. I think a diesel for the Impala is a no brainer, especially since it still has some fleet/commercial use. I'd also say Equinox and Terrain since the 4-cylinder models have no power anyway, the diesel would give it more torque and boost mpg. Really any SUV would benefit from a diesel option. The Malibu is a tough call, probably no one would buy a diesel Malibu, but the Malibu needs something to make it stand out, it gets clobbered by its competitors.

For $20k though you get the same engine in a Cadillac ATS that costs $35k! A Cruze is like 16-25k, I don't see a problem with a pickup being $20-30k, they have to offer bigger engines and it is a bigger vehicle. These are cheaper than an Equinox too, so I think the price is okay. I could agree with the argument that instead of the mid-size, they could have made the Colorado more like old school S10 size and sold it a cheaper price point for greater separation from the Silverado.

So SMK what you are saying is you want our life to be a socialist hell with forced inflation. Your thinking is just stupid like all the idiots who say we need $15 minimum wage as a living wage. Base minimum wages is to give young a chance to earn money and learn to work, not ever meant to be a living wage. This in it's own right forces inflation of increasing costs and no real gain long term. Education and performance to grow and get promoted is what it should always be about. Trucks and SUV's are the backbone of America work force. If you force your tax on them then everything else will be forced to go up and that pushes houses out of reach of more people. Even your apartments will cost more to rent due to increased cost. The Construction companies are not going to absorb these tax's and neither can America afford to adsorb these cost with stupid tax right off's. So more to your thinking, since most people cannot afford an E series MB, we need to add additional tax's to these expensive auto's to make this about sharing the wealth with everyone else. If you can afford to drive a luxury auto then you have to pay a luxury use tax. How do you like that thinking then? I never mentioned anything about minimum wage (although it should be $10 an hour) and I bought my car used, so it was no more expensive than a well optioned Focus or Cruze. But there is a sales tax in place, so the more expensive the car, the more tax the buyer pays. I don't see the Porsche Cayenne, Mercedes G63 AMG, Infiniti QX80, Escalade, Navigator, Yukon/Tahoe, Lexus LX570, Grand Cherokee SRT-8 and all the other gas hog SUVs as the backbone of the American workforce. Neither is the F150 Raptor, or a V8 King Ranch luxury truck or a Sierra Denali 6.2 liter. All I am saying is if you are going to put a gas guzzler tax on a CTS-V, then there should be a tax on an Escalade that gets worse mileage than the CTS-V. Likewise with BMW M5 that gets taxed, but the thirstier X5 M does not. The gas guzzler tax would not hurt the construction workers, because they could buy a Ram diesel or Pentastar for example that would not have a gas guzzler tax. The new Ford Transit with base V6 and the turbodiesel inline 5 probably will get high enough mileage to beat the car gas guzzler tax. That helps the businesses save money by not having a van that gets 13/18 mpg or whatever the Econoline got. Right now the gas guzzler tax threshold is 22.5 mpg, and the lower the mileage the higher the tax. If you put that on pickups, vans, and SUVs, every car maker would offer a pickup that beat 22.5 mpg. And using the equation a truck would have to get 17/24 mpg to avoid any tax, that isn't that hard to achieve. And I'd think if the F150 ecoboost and Ram Pentastar/diesel didn't have a tax and the Silverado did, then Chevy would have to price their truck lower to compensate, otherwise risk losing sales. So I don't think the end consumer would pay more, they would in the long run save on gas.

I think the prices are good, the base models are cheap, and the Colorado basically covers the same price range as the Malibu, which makes sense. I'd agree with dfelt though that most of these mid-size pickups are too close in size and price to the full size. They could have just made the new Colorado/Canyon a little bit smaller, which would probably help to keep the cost down a bit. A Crew Cab long box Colorado is longer than a Suburban, even the smallest Colorado is longer than a Tahoe, it isn't exactly mid-size, it is still a fairly big truck.

They should get ahead of the wave, rather than be at the back end of it. VW and Mercedes are having diesel success, Chevy could gain an advantage if they do it now, rather than wait til after Fiat puts diesels in Chryslers or for Ford to Ecoboost their whole lineup. A friend of mine has a diesel 5-series which is a fairly big and heavy car, and he is averaging 31-32 mpg in mixed driving. His old 535 with the gas engine he got about 19 mpg, so he loves the diesel, it is just as fast, it is quiet and way better mileage.

I would be okay with exempting heavy duty trucks from any tax, dual back tire trucks should be exempt, because those really are work vehicles, the moving vans, school buses dump trucks, etc.

The build quality may not have been great, but most Chryslers have lousy reliability and build quality also. The idea of the Pacifica, a sort of mid-size SUV that drove like a car with 2 rows of captains chairs and a folding 3rd row was good, the execution could have been better.

I like the SUV tax idea because it could fund road and bridge improvements that the government currently doesn't have, and it means they won't have to raise the gas tax to make up that shortfall. And it challenges automakers to build a better car. Toyota hasn't put a new engine in the Tundra in 8 years, and it isn't for lack of money or resources, Toyota just doesn't have to because all trucks get bad mileage and there is no penalty for it.

Audi makes RS models, they don't seem to sell many of them here, but I know even 5 years ago the RS6 had like 580 hp and that was the M5 and E63 still had only 500. Mercedes has had AMG trim packages for years, my car has AMG wheels, the sport body styling and the AMG engraved exhaust pipes, so that is nothing new. I don't think they need to call anything AMG Sport, that sounds lame, just offer cars with the AMG styling package as they already are. If they want to sell a C450 that is fine, but then why not just make all C400s have 367 hp, forget the lesser output engine so you don't have so many engine configurations. What is odd though is Mercedes is dropping the E550 and GL450 in favor of twin turbo V6 models. So on one hand they are dumping V8s (in the name of CAFE I'm sure) yet they want to do a sport line? I think just offer an AMG styling package option on all the models, because people might want a diesel E-class or the 2.0 turbo C-class with AMG wheels and the body kit. Audi has S-line trim packages, which is like shadow black window trim and a wheel upgrade or something. Sort of like the Lexus F-sport cars, it doesn't add any power, just trim and wheels.

I just picked Escalade as an example, the same could apply to the Infiniti QX-Armada, the Navigator, etc. There should be a gas guzzler tax on an vehicle that gets below 18 or 20 mpg EPA combined or whatever the number is now. I think they have tiers, where the worse the fuel economy the higher the tax which I am fine with. There is probably 2 million trucks a year sold that would then get taxed, at $2500 per truck that is $5 billion to go toward road funding so our roads aren't crap. For a Ferrari buyer, the $3,000 guzzler tax is nothing, they are going to buy the car anyway and it is only 1% of the sale price. But on a pick up, that $3,000 could be 10% of the sale price, which would force automakers to boost fuel economy to avoid it.

I think pick up truck buyers will buy pickups regardless of what gas prices are. I see a lot of trucks that are more for luxury than for construction, and I see lifted trucks modified for off road. Truck buyers will spend money on trucks and not seem to care if it gets bad mileage or if gas is expensive. Unless gas goes to $8-9 per gallon like in Europe, then sales will drop as people look for electric cars. Personally I think the gas guzzler tax should apply to trucks as well as cars. It is ridiculous that an XTS hearse has a gas guzzler tax, or an SRT Charger or a CTS-V, or any of the sports cars like Aston Martins and Ferraris that barely get driven, yet an Escalade is exempt. An Escalade isn't a work vehicle or a necessity, it is luxury/pleasure vehicle just like a sports car is. Pickups and big SUVs guzzle the most gas, put the same tax on the Tundra and watch how fast Toyota gets a new engine in there to avoid a $2500 tax on their truck. If every Silverado V8 had a $2500 tax on it, Chevy would have a 3.0 liter diesel V6 with an 8-speed in their as a no cost option within 6 months.

I drove a Pacifica a couple times, when they got the 4.0 V6 and 6-speed it was better than the earlier models, but with the Pentastar V6 and a 9 speed automatic then it would be even better. The outside look was good, the formula of 2 rows of bucket seats and a 3rd row bench for 2 made it comfortable to seat 6, I always liked that adults could sit in the second row and it wasn't like a cramped bench seat.