smk4565

I saw it at the auto show on a platform and didn't care for it, but on the road the XTS has some presence to it. The front end is probably what the STS should have been all along, it has the Cadillac look and has a classy and modern look and the grille looks sharp, something that was a let down on the STS. Back end is a little stumpy, but overall the car looks pretty good. That being said,I still wouldn't want one because of the chassis and drivetrain. And there are some other $50k cars that look a better.

Daimler's total R&D budget is usually in the $6-7 Billion range, Mercedes-Benz cars usually gets $4-5 billion of that. Mercedes has far more money at their disposal than Cadillac, Lexus, Acura, Infiniti or Lincoln. And to Dwight's point about a 3.6 liter twin turbo not existing and having to be solely developed just for Cadillac, exactly, they should do it. They can add a Cadillac only bi-turbo V8 while they are at it. If they plan to go after the S-class in the near future, they better get some big guns ready. And it goes beyond the engine, it is the whole package, and if they parts bin something as big as the powertrain, they will parts bin elsewhere. The bean counters will love it, car buyers won't.

As far as manufacturers not investing in fuel efficiency, Mercedes last year said half of their $5.6 billion R&D budget on alternative powertrains and fuel efficiency. $2.8 billion dollars for a company that sold 1-1.5 million cars seems like a pretty large amount of money.

Who's to say what the Acadia, Silverado, etc get, if they get a 3.0 bi-turbo with 350 hp, the ATS could get a 3.6 liter bi-turbo with 450 hp. Then they are different and the ATS already has the 3.6 in it, they just have to add turbos. At least then the ATS has something unique. and a 3.6 twin turbo could be used in other Cadillacs. Cadillac can't truly compete with the Germans with the Chevy/Buick parts bin, they have to develop some exclusive things to set themselves apart from GM and get into the game with the Germans. On the ATS-V price, Car and Driver just drove an ATS 3.6 that cost $48,190. I just priced out an ATS 3.6 Premium RWD, added the optional wheels, cold weather package, sunroof and driver assist package and it came out to $53,705. An ATS-V can't be $50k when the ATS 3.6 is $50k, the V-series will add at least $10 grand, it not 15. CTS-V will see a big price spike, so it better be fantastic or the 5-series and E-class will crush it like they did the M37, GS350, STS, and even the A6 in this country.

A Twin turbo V6 is unique because GM doesn't even make a single turbo V6 right now, let alone a twin turbo. Using the engine from a Camaro may make the ATS different than BMW, but it makes it too much like a Camaro. Why pay $65,000 for an ATS-V when a $36,000 Camaro has the same engine. The ATS's interior isn't lined with silk and cashmere to justify that big a price gap. And a loaded ATS 3.6 is near $50k, the V-series will be over $60k. And I don't care if they use a V8, but it shouldn't be the engine out of a Camaro or Silverado. BMW and Audi also sell in countries where gas is $7 a gallon or taxes on displacement exist, etc. And they both are selling over 1 million cars a year, what they do seems to work.

.... because the engine is the only criterion in determining the value of the car.... Actually for me, that would make the choice rather easy. The Verano is a better car and you give up almost nothing in interior room or cargo space. Since the new Malibu seems not so good, you are probably right, the Verano is better. Engine isn't the only criteria, but one would think that a mid-size Malibu LTZ would be more car than a Verano, which is basically a fancy Cruze. On the flip size, the Verano trubo is only $2k less than a Regal Turbo, GM has a lot of models packed tight together at this price point. If the Verano dialed up the interior a bit I'd say it was worth the price, but the car's interior is a bit too much Cruze to justify $30k to me. And not that any of it matters, the Sonata Turbo Limited is $27,595 and better than any of those other cars.

V8 sales are at an all time low though, and 4-cylinder engines are now making up about 55% of new car sales. So it seems to be what the majority of the public wants, or can afford. If we are talking Cadillac V-series engines, CAFE shouldn't be a concern, nor should cost to produce it. They should make the best engine they can and it has to be special, if it is the same thing you get in a Chevy, why pay V-series money for it. AMG cars cost a ton because they give you something special that you can't get elsewhere.

Well if you drive a Z06 hard you are probably getting 13 mpg. I was just going off EPA ratings because it is the fairest way to compare cars. If you drive a 911 around in 7th gear all day at 55 mph I am sure you can get 25 or better and edge out gently driving Z06 drivers. Obviously driving style and weather conditions are going to affect mpg.

A bit pricey I think for what it is. That is $2k more than a Turbo Malibu with the same engine. But I suppose a lot of cars are getting pricey.

Porsche's turbo flat six makes 530 hp and gets 17/25 mpg. I can't think of another 500 hp engine that gets 25 mpg. I don't really care if the ATS-V has a six or an eight, there are advantages to both. But, being that the 3-series is going with a six, I'd be inclined to follow the leader on this one. As far as cost goes, who cares what the engine costs, it's a Cadillac. Some AMG engines are upwards of $15,000, they just charge more for the car, and people it because it is special. A V-series Cadillac, or any Cadillac for that matter, should be special. And if you don't want to pay big bucks for special, then that is why Chevy and Buick are around.

If you're quoting the 0-60 in 3.7 seconds that C&D got in the S6, that has turned out to be false. It is actually 4.7 seconds to 62 mph.... so just about a full second behind the 3.9 the CTS-V does. Did they post a retraction on that? They also clocked the S6 at 1.2 seconds to 30 mph, quicker than the M5 can do it. I thought the S6 was faster than it should have been, but with AWD and that transmission it does launch quickly. But the S6 isn't the quickest Audi either, the RS6 is going to have 570-600 hp, with that AWD system we could be seeing 0-60 closer to 3 seconds flat. Because a Panamera Turbo S can do it in 3.5 or better, the RS6 is a bit smaller, and will have more power, same transmission.

Even if the ATS-V and CTS-V had the same engine (not that I think they will) the CTS should still be able to justify the additional price with additional luxury. BMW puts the same engine in the 335i as the 535i and each have a lot of buyers. Granted the M3 and M5 have different engines, but the M5 is way heavier than an M3. If the CTS-V is 600 lbs more than the ATS-V then it will need more power so they are close in acceleration. But if weights are closer, the CTS-V doesn't need as much power, a 420 hp Audi S6 is quicker than a 556 hp CTS-V so it isn't all about the engine.

C63 is 451 hp, but in the black series it is 510 hp E63 is 518, but 550 hp with the performance package. S63 with performance package is 564 hp and 664 lb-ft.

I wouldn't hold back the ATS to protect the CTS, the CTS just has to get better. Mercedes makes a V8 C-class and they still sell a crap ton of E-classes. There is nothing wrong with an ATS-V being quicker (especially on a track) than a CTS-V, the CTS is giving the customer more room and more luxury. The ATS right now offers much more performance than the XTS, doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone. The CTS-V just has to bring luxury and technology that the ATS doesn't have.

They could go higher, but you need reliability and smoothness and refinement also, this is Cadillac. If they can go closer to 500 hp and keep it smooth great, but it has to deliver torque more importantly. But if people like the ATS 2.0T, I think they'd like 2 of them put together even more.

The GL is a half inch less in height and 2 inches less in length than a regular Escalade, and the GL is wider, but mirrors can skew that number. The GL has a 5 inch longer wheelbase though. The Escalade does beat the GL in front legroom and head room by 1 inch, but the GL wins both easily in 2nd and 3rd row room. I've driven the GL, it is a big vehicle, too big for my liking anyway.

Or instead of a 4.0 V6 that sounds like something an SUV would use, they could make a 4.0 liter twin turbo V8 with around 440 hp that could be an ATS-V engine, or a CTS V8, or Escalade V8 or used in a flagship sedan, etc.

I am with Oldsmoboi on this one. Limo or hearse drivers aren't going to care about speed, and if you are in the back of a limo you can't hear the engine, and if you are in the back of a hearse you probably don't care about NVH characteristics. The Town Car V8 did have torque, but a transmission form the 80s as well. The MKT 2.0 has 260 lb-ft, less than the V8 but the transmission can make up for it. Fuel economy is the real thing here, many limos sit around idling or going at slow speeds in cities, so the 5 mpg extra is worth the slight drop in power. Plus, the Town Car had only 1 engine choice, the MKT has 3, so if you don't like the 2.0T and want that seat of your pants experience in an ugly, pointless SUV, they make a 3.5 Ecoboost also. If looking to be critical of the MKT 2.0 Ecoboost, I wouldn't pick on it having a little less power, I'd wonder why it only gets 28 mpg, but weight and aerodynamics are no doubt dragging it down big time. $49k is a lot also, if it was $49k for that 2.0T with a hybrid system getting more like 30 mpg combined they would have something more marketable to fleets.

A Hybrid could work, most of Rolls-Royce history was done with a V8, but at this point, I doubt any of their current or perspective customer base wants any less than a V12. Maybe bolt the BMW hybrid system on the the Rolls V12, but as stated, people buying a Phantom don't care about mpg or fuel cost. They just care that it took 127 hours to hand stitch the leather on the seats and that a man with white gloves spent a week polishing the chrome.

Jaguar is working on a 1.6 liter supercharged and turbo charged 4-cylinder with 500 hp and 10,000 rpm redline for the C-X75. Granted they are asking over $1,000,000 for that car but if they can get that much power from a 4, I'm sure Cadillac can get enough from a six to make the ATS-V fast. Nissan and Porsche both have a 6-cylinder car faster than the ZR-1 after all. Who's to say they don't use carbon fiber body panels on the ATS-V, AWD and launch control, and even with 6-cylinders don't end up with a car quicker than a base Corvette, or current CTS-V.

Mazda6 and Fusion are both being replaced with new models in the fall also, new Accord is on the way soon too. The new models probably won't need as many rebates, but at the same time, in a weak economy with 6-7 strong players in one segment, the incentives may be what sway people to pick one car over the other.

The BMW straight six is the smoothest engine I've ever driven, those aren't just good engines, they are great engines. But Toyota, GM, Ford, etc all need sixes that can work rwd or fwd, so that is why no one other than BMW will build one (unless Mercedes decides to again). I think M3 loyalists will like the return to the straight six, a lot didn't like the V8 and the car getting heavier. ATS-V I don't care if they do V6 or V8, but if it is the same V8 from a Silverado or even Camaro SS, why am I paying not just Cadillac price, but V-series price for the engine out of a $30k Chevy. The engine has to be worth the price premium, and I'd probably lean toward 6 cylinders because BMW is doing it, even though V8s are nice to have. I always liked the Northstar name, but because they let it soldier on for so many years without many updates, it might be a bit damaged now.

Even with the other trim levels, I can't see the Malibu outselling the Fusion, Camry, Accord, Altima and Sonata, even with the Malibu's heavy fleet sales. At retail it will be lucky to outsell the Optima even. Based on the reviews they brought a knife to a gun fight, and there are a lot of big guns in that fight.

I didn't realize that the GL outsold the Escalade last year until I read it about a week ago, and the new GL is even better. Mercedes quietly moved in and took charge of that full size luxury suv segment.

The Eco isn't even the top model, they said the turbo will start at $27,900, nearly $3k more than a Sonata Turbo (the best car of all time). I think Eco is wasted hype also, it gets worse mileage than a base Altima and gives up a lot to the Passat diesel. If people are frugal on money, they can just buy a cheaper car, and if they are frugal on gas because they want to protect the environment, the Sonata/Optima/Camry/Fusion hybrids all beat the Malibu there.