smk4565

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.

Since the M3 will have a straight six, my guess is the ATS goes with a turbo V6. They want to be like BMW in the worst way it seems.

I think people just don't want to pay $25k or more for that Malibu Eco, especially when it looks similar to the current car that costs much less. Even after the '12 Malibu is gone, I think customers still won't want to spend over $25k for a Malibu eco and will just go to Ford, Hyundai, Nissan, or Toyota.

On the hybrid front, if the Mercedes E300 Bluetec hybrid is estimated at over 50 mpg. It's possible to have a fuel efficient luxury hybrid, but most are just marketing ploys and don't provide enough mpg gain to justify the price.

This looks like a mid-cycle refresh and not a new car. The exterior hardly changed, and they basically changed the dash design and some interior bits. And I don't know if Lexus noticed, but The S550 has over 500 lb-ft, quite a bit more than 367 lb-ft of this car, the F-sport seems not so sporty. The S550 gets 25 mpg also. For them to build a "sport" version of this car is a joke, this is a snooze mobile selling on badge alone at this point, as this customer base dies off they are in trouble, just like the Town Car and Deville of 15 years ago.

A used Jag XF is still a bit pricey for me, but I figure I will be car shopping in about 1 years time and see what I can afford. Reliability could come into question there, but I do love how they look, although the 2012 update corrected the dumb headlights and now they really have it nailed. My mom has a 124,000 mile Audi and she has spent under $500 in repairs on it (not counting oil changes and tires) and the interior and body are like new still. To quote the Sham-wow ad "it's made in Germany, and you know the Germans make good stuff." I don't much care for Audi or BMW, but would look at a used Mercedes. The STS V8 is a bit floaty, I didn't like driving that car, CTS is better, but I don't like the current CTS. I liked the original car more, it had better proportions and the console angled toward the driver, the interior materials came up short though. The ATS does a lot to get Cadillac back in the right direction, the current CTS I feel like they made it to compete with the Germans, but also the Lexus ES, Acura TL and Lincoln MKZ as well, they are trying to have the CTS wear too many hats, and it looks chunky and blocky. It needs to get streamlined like it used to be, and more of a driver's car. Volvo is mediocre FWD with dated engines, and their interiors don't impress me at all. I see them as a weak automaker, and Lincoln and Acura are teetering also, Cadillac should be able to clean up if they could get their act together.

And if the long term durability is good, they will get repeat business and positive press. They are on fire even with no track record, imagine what they will do with 10-20 years of a solid reputation. Honda and Toyota must be nervous.