smk4565

By building a car good enough to sell over seas. With better product they can grow a little in the USA, but they need a global winner to get sales. Which is why they need a flagship car to be taken seriously over seas. You don't sell a flagship in volume. You sell 3-series and C-class size cars in volume... which is what Cadillac has in the ATS. That is what I meant, ATS, CTS and a flagship together that are good enough for people outside the USA to want to buy one. Even if the ATS is good, there is still no image behind it, they need the whole package.

People have talked about how the Allante and XLR failed, a car like this would be double the price (adjust Allante for inflation). If Cadillac can't make it at $75,000, they aren't going to make it at $150,000. Cadillac has too little street cred to try a move like this. People that own or are about to buy an Aston Martin, Ferrari or Lamborghini aren't even thinking about Cadillac, let alone walking into a dealership. The only way Cadillac could make a name for themselves with this is to top the Bugatti Veyron, and that would cost so much money and they would lose money on every one sold. And even if they built it, people would think it would just fall apart.

Most car magazines rank it lower, and it does sell worse than the Altima, Camry, Accord, Fusion and Sonata. And it isn't like the Malibu has any price mark ups to make it a big profit center. My guess would be the Malibu has the highest rental car sale percentage of that list of cars, on retail sales is is probably really trailing those 5.

Diesel > Ecoboost

It wouldn't sell. I agree with Hyper on this, they can't even break into the big sedan segment, going into a Ferrari/Lamborghini segment is not going to work. And I agree with Drew also, they can't get the Malibu right, they need to focus on the volume cars and if GM can't compete with a Fusion or Sonata, how are they going to compete with Ferrari? A Cadillac supercar would be cool, but it won't work right now. I do think they need a big sedan though, start there and with getting the ATS and CTS up to world class and then maybe in 5-10 years time evaluate a Cadillac sports car.

This car could have a top speed of 3 mph and still be fantastic. Although I am a little more partial to the DB9, I think that is the best looking Aston, but they all look spectacular.

It will be a Volt. What is funny is a $40,000 Volt doesn't sell well, so a $50,000 Volt with a Buick badge or a $60,000 Volt with a Cadillac badge could really struggle. I get GM is trying to broaden the range and use the technology but we saw when Lexus tried a hybrid Prius, that bombed and the Prius people actually buy. These eco cars are tough, because Prius buyers (and other greenies) don't care about performance or even style or equipment, they have that minimalist view to some degree. So basic and efficient they like. A hybrid battery car with lots of luxo goodies doesn't appeal to that segment, and people that spend $60k now on performance luxury sedans don't want an economy car.

By building a car good enough to sell over seas. With better product they can grow a little in the USA, but they need a global winner to get sales. Which is why they need a flagship car to be taken seriously over seas.

Without the beak, it would look the same as a Honda. GM does need to try to crush this brand and Lincoln. This is where Cadillac can get growth from, and to a lesser extent Buick.

The Mercedes-Nissan/Renault alliance doesn't mean the Nissan V6 is going to Mercedes. Mercedes is going to have Nissan build turbo fours (of Mercedes design) in Tennessee to be used n C-class production in Alabama and for use on future Infinitis. Then there will be platform sharing on the next Smart car and Renault Twingo, and Infiniti is supposed to get an A-class based car. There will also be joint powertrain development for 3-cyldiner engines for Smart and Renault. So the partnership is about compact cars and a Europe-only entry level van. I pulled this from egmcartech.com "All rear-wheel drive Benzes of the future will be based on their new global Mercedes Rear-wheel drive Architecture, or MRA. This means that it is subdivided into 93 different modules with the only two fixed points being the front and rear firewalls, leaving different axles and drivetrains to be applied." Right now Mercedes uses different platforms for the sedans, another for sports cars, another for the ML and GL. So this will allow them to put all the sedans and SUVs on a common platform to give them economies of scale needed. Cadillac could do the same with Alpha and Omega. If they make enough ways to vary length, width, etc, the ATS, CTS, big sedan, SRX, Escalade, etc could all be build off them.

Personally, I always thought GMC wasn't needed, but I doubt they are going anywhere. We are led to believe that GMC is profitable, as are the four brands that survived bankruptcy. So if all these brands are needed, and making money, then GM should have enough money to give Cadillac what they need. CTS and ATS will share a platform, Omega can be the second. Two exclusive platforms for Cadillac is very little to ask, especially when Alpha will probably produce a Chevy. Cadillac needs their own engine also, and other technologies and equipment not seen on other GM cars. They stuff on Cadillac can trickle down when they replace that model.

Ford doesn't have to print 2 brochures, run 2 websites, have 2 customer service lines, have 2 sets of office personnel or run 2 different marketing campaigns. If it is one brand, they should just have Chevy trucks and a Denali trim option, and close GMC dealerships down.

That's something I've never understood..why would they go for a very different Ford rather than a Chevy that is virtually identical to a GMC...People are weird. I still see no reason for GM to have two truck brands...Ford and Chrysler each have one truck brand and don't need a redundant brand--they offer their trucks in a wide range of trims from stripped to loaded, Chevy could do the same thing. Agreed. Then maybe the F150 won't spend the next 30 years kicking the Silverado's ass, as it has done for the past 30 years. I would guess the F150 is more profitable than the Silverado and Sierra combined are, because they advertise once for it and buy one set of parts for it, and they got people paying $1000 extra over the cost of a V8 for a V6.

That makes no sense. The Sierra and Silverado look the same (sans grille and badge change), drive the same, ride the same, handle the same, have the same equipment and features and cost the same. Why would a Sierra driver go to Ford for something different? Ford cut Mercury, I didn't see every Mercury driver flee to Chevrolet. And the ones that did leave the brand were probably going to leave even if Mercury had stayed. I'd like to see GM post profit of each brand to see who really makes the money. Really if you put 50% of GMT900 development cost on GMC, they are losing money.

If you look at the S-class range, it does it all. You can get 31 mpg, or 0-60 in 4 seconds, 4-matic and adjustable height suspension makes it work in snow or mud, it has ride, handling, technology, luxury, etc. It does everything well, so if Cadillac wants to go there, they need a car that does everything well.

If GMC is pure profit, then GM should have plenty of money to send Cadillac's way. I am not so convinced that GMC is the cash cow many think it is, they are basically running a whole separate marketing campaign to sell what Chevy already does. Buick sells the Verano, LaCrosse and Enclave which are all Chevy under the skin and the Regal came from Opel. And they are selling in China, so where is all GM's money going? And why would GM put money to mid-levels like Buick and GMC or money losing Opel, and keep it from Cadillac? Chevy because volume is GM's most important brand, but Cadillac is their icon and really should be the leader of GM. I suspect GM could afford to give Cadillac what it needs, but chooses not to. And if they can't afford to give Cadillac the money they need, they still have too many models and too many brands.

Cadillac shouldn't be a drain, they are supposed to be the crown jewel. If GM can't fund 4 brands, then GM didn't cut enough of them in bankruptcy. After Chevy, the #1 priority of GM (globally) needs to be Cadillac.

Mustang and Camaro are far from the luxury car market. And most big luxury sedans are not aggressively styled, they are more sedate and elegant. Plus I would say if Cadillac wants to sell an $80-100,000 sedan, there better not be many trade offs in it. At that price point buyers aren't going to want compromises.

I do think that Cadillac needs to decide if they are a Contender or a Pretender. They have talked for years, let's see action. I do believe they need a flagship car, look at how weak Lincoln, Acura and even Infiniti are without one. Infiniti has 2 strong cars in the G and M, yet they can't crack the German stronghold. It doesn't matter how good the ATS and CTS are, without any halo vehicles or image builders it is going to be a long road to standard of the world. But Cadillac also has to go big or go home here, they can't run another Allante or XLR-V out there to bomb. It needs to be done right, which will cost a load of money, but I think worth it for the brand in the long run.

Audi does run parts bin, but mainly off the 2.0T engine. The 3.0 supercharged V6 isn't really seen elsewhere, and the 4.0 V8 wasn't either until Bentley got a differently tuned version for the Continental this year. Audi does have an 8-speed transmission that VW doesn't have, and that modular platform thing is more for them and not VW. The A3 is the only Audi with a lot of VW gear in it. Most of Audi parts share is with Porsche, Bentley and Lamborghini, which isn't a bad thing. Audi also doesn't have the cache that BMW or Mercedes have, here or anywhere else really. Audi wins in China because the government loves them and they do cost less than Mercedes. I am not sure what parts bin Mercedes is sharing with. I didn't know the E-class got it's platform, engine, and transmission from a $25,000 family sedan. Mercedes and BMW are unique in that they don't have many global partnerships, aside from some strategic alliances.

"The way we're funding Cadillac has been from, sort of, everything else in GM. That leaves the brand with "very reduced scale in terms of individual architectures, engines, technology." I think that is the telling statement, Ruess is admitting that Cadillac is basically a parts bin brand. I don't think he wants it that way, but the financials dictate it. I believe he also knows that the parts bin isn't going to cut it in that upper echelon of sedans. And will the beancounters give the money for low economy of scale architectures, engines and technology.

GT-R and Porsche 911 turbo are different animals. Both have 500 hp sixes, but not really set for luxury car tune. Luxury sedans need the power, but with smoothness and refinement and quietness. V6 is where most buyers buy, that is why you need a good one (or inline with BMW). But someone like me who finds the 3.6 liter lacking torque and wants more power needs another option. TT V6 in the 350-375 hp range is a good option to get a quick car without crushing fuel (hopefully). A lot of buyers will like that. I'd still rather have a V8 than a V6 though.

Ecoboost in the F150 is what he is referring too. You could compete with a NA V8, especially a weakish one like Audi has, with a twin turbo V6. However, BMW and Mercedes have twin turbo V8s and Jaguar has a supercharged V8. And a V6 isn't competing with those.

And it's a V8...you can't compete w/ a V8 w/ a V6... Yes you can, Lincoln says so. When the MKS Ecoboost came out, they said it was better than the V8s from the imports. And the MKS has been very sucessful... oh wait, nevermind.

BMW V8 for 2013 is getting a power bump to 445 hp and 480 lb-ft of torque. So I don't think they are going after the 550i with this engine.