smk4565

I love this car, it looks good from every angle. The 1954 is still the best, but this is a close second. I wish they left GT off the name, it has enough letters already.

BMW has the 7-series (with a V12), so they do carry a flagship sedan. (and they have Rolls-Royce) A CTS-V is a jacked up version of the base Cadillac (or what was the base before the ATS gets here), that is like BMW calling the M3 their top end, halo car. I'm not saying Cadillac needs a mid-engine super car like the R8, but they at least need a proper big sedan. As for Jaguar, their 3 cars base at $53k, $73k, and $84k, and 2 of those go over $100,000. Plus they are more a boutique brand like Porsche and play at a pretty high price point. Really 2 of their 3 cars are halos, they have the full size executive sedan, plus a Grand Touring coupe. I am not against a Cadillac supercar, the Cien is my 2nd favorite Cadillac concept car ever, after the Evoq which unfortunately was watered down too much when it got to production. I think a Cadillac supercar would be awesome, probably wouldn't make business sense, but it would be awesome if done right. I was against a sedan to go after Bentley or Rolls because I know GM couldn't pull it off. And Cadillac first has to get to A8/7-series level and get positioned against the German trio. Forget about trying to compete with Bentley or Rolls.

WAA-PAH! You mean like the Escalade helps the image of the Tahoe, rriigghhttttt???? I always found the CTS coupe ugly, the back is too fat and too high. The CTS-V is just a jacked up version o the base car, it isn't a unique halo car like an Audi R8 or SLS AMG. And in the VW group they have Bentley, Lamborghini and the Bugatti Veyron in the stable as well. Escalade is a Tahoe, so no. The Genesis doesn't share a chassis and sheetmetal with a Sonata. Corvette for Camaro (or other Chevys) is a better analogy.

Correct. The Genesis/Equus do help the image of the Elantra, Santa Fe and Sonata though. If you look back, the Genesis sedan came out around January 2009, at the bottom point of the auto industry, and Hyundai sales really started to grow then. The Genesis brought some legitimacy to the brand, and got people shopping for a compact or family sedan to rethink Hyundai's image of the 80s or 90s. I have driven a Genesis twice, and it is a great car for the money, loads of V8 power and it is really quiet. But image does matter and most people aren't dropping $45k on a Hyundai, or $60k especially. That could take years or decades to overcome. I think Cadillac would benefit from a halo vehicle, whether it be a sedan or sports car. They are sort of like what Hyundai used to be, a trio of sedans and a couple SUVs, but no range topper or halo. Cadillac needs that cool car to attract people to the brand and get people excited, that will help improve their image and sell more ATS and CTS.

I would buy a Genesis over a 300, because I like the Hyundai interior and the engines are more powerful. But if only looking at 300's, I'd say the V6 is the better way to go, because 0-60 in 7 seconds or 6 seconds probably won't matter to you, but getting that extra 5 mpg probably will matter. If the V8 was DOHC and had an 8 speed transmission I would say that, but a pushrod and 5-speed is yesterdays news.

Well the Genesis line sells okay, but not well, Equus doesn't sell well at all, but it is going to take years to overcome the old perceptions of Hyundai. But I think they don't care that the Equus doesn't sell, because they are selling tons of Elantras and Sonatas.

Lexus without any history was able to move into the USA and overtake Cadillac and Lincoln in 10 years time. Brand image helps luxury cars, and that can be built up over time, but I don't think history matters too much. Image and perception matter. The Equus may not be as good as a big German sedan, but it is a legit luxury car. At least they gave it a proper platform and powertrain, and didn't build it off the Azera platform.

Wheelbase is short because it is FWD family sedan. If looking for a big luxo cruiser, for $60k one could get an Equus which has more gizmos (it has a refrigerator after all) and 429 hp sent through 8 gears to the proper wheels. Personally I'd take a Jaguar XF at that price due to the good looks and sporting credentials.

For someone who dotes on the spec sheet, this isn't consistent with your usual position. IE; the CTS 'cannot compete' with the XTS on the simple fact that they are too far apart in overall length. Kinda how you proclaimed the CTS didn't compete with the 3 series because they were 10" apart in overall length. See; it's impossible. And that is why I said the CTS isn't much of a competitor for the XTS, but the E-class is even less so. Typical E-class buyers probably wouldn't consider a Cadillac. But someone in a Cadillac showroom already may consider the cheaper, better handling, and quicker CTS. Although I do think the XTS is going to get the 70+ crowd that is scared by the CTS's RWD tomfoolery.

I actually thought it was 204 inches, but I see it is 202. Still the E-class is within 1 inch of a CTS in about every direction. I would think the CTS would be greater competition for the XTS than the E-class, and I don't even see the CTS as that much of a competitor for it. The XTS is for people that want comfort and don't care about performance, and there is nothing wrong with that, a lot of buyers like that. Question is, will that type of buyer than can find a full size, comfortable, V6 sedan for $30-40,000 from other makes, pay $45-60k for a Cadillac because it has a high tech dashboard? Typically, buyers spending $50-60k are looking for performance or brand image, which a FWD Volvo or Acura couldn't offer either, and the DTS has seen sales is steady decline over the past 20 years.

ATS and CTS are important, the next CTS if it takes the low mass engineering of the ATS combined with the interior of the XTS could be a winner. But what is the difference between Infiniti and Audi, BMW, and Mercedes? The G37 and M37/45 are both good cars and are in the volume segments, yet no roadster/sports car and no flagship in their line. Infiniti lacks the full line and prestige the Germans have.

No car sells at full retail, no idea what Mercedes discounts for fleet or other use. But Mercedes in the first quarter 2012 had more net income ($1.4 billion) than GM or Ford, so the profit margin per car must be very high. GM sold 2.2 million vehicles in the first quarter, Daimler (with trucks) sold 420,00, yet made more money. Their business model works. I agree people mostly shop by size and of course body style and price point. The XTS is over 1 foot longer than an E-class though, and the Mercedes buyer is a bit more upscale than the Cadillac buyer. A Hyundai Equus is actually a better target for the XTS, other than the MKS and ES350 which is the same sort of car just smaller. Mercedes still has a flagship, they have the S-class, and the Pullman coming with the new model. Maybach isn't needed and was a money drain on Daimler.

It was the retail price with the value added tax that Mercedes and Cadillac list on their websites. I am not so opposed to Cadillac having a fleet/livery model, but it would be nice if it was a rear driver at least. Or at least have Cadillac call it what it is and compare it to the MKS and smaller ES350, and not make comparisons to the A6 or E350 on the Cadillac website. If you click the competitive comparison link on cadillac.com if by default brings up an A6 2.0T FWD and an E350. How is a mid-size rear drive sedan a direct competitor for a FWD large car? This is what is so frustrating about Cadillac, either they are really stupid, or they think the consumer is. Saying the XTS competes with the E350 is like saying the Toyota Avalon and ATS compete because they cost the same and have 4 doors, leather, and a V6. For Cadillac to really compete with the 3 German midsizers, they need the CTS to outdo the XTS interior, then get 8 gears and new V6 and V8 engines. And once the CTS has every bell and whistle from the XTS, a better chassis, better transmission, better engine, better steering and handling, what is the point of the XTS? It will become irrelevant like the STS became.

BMW and Benz are still the top luxury brands in Europe though. And German police and taxi companies must like the durability and longevity of Mercedes, because they could use an Opel, a Ford, or VW Passat but they choose not to use those cars despite being cheaper. An E250 diesel w/ automatic in Germany is 50,900 Euro with the VAT, a CTS 3.0 V6 automatic is 50,400 Euro with VAT. Mercedes does make a few E-class models with 4 cylinder and manual for the low 40s, but I wouldn't call that Chevy/Buick level. 42,000 Euros is still $52,000, granted 19% of that is tax, but it is actually cheaper to buy a Mercedes here than in Germany by the exchange rate and the taxes over there.

^^ Good points, but I don't think the XTS engine will change in a year or even at all during the life cycle. The Deville/DTS basically went 1994-2011 with the same engine, and this is the same sort of car. It is sold to buyers who aren't looking for performance.

That is too much red.

Very true. There are a lot of Toyota loyalists that will never go elsewhere. Lexus vehicles are reliable, and those buyers don't seem to care about style, performance, handling, good looks, etc, they just like the reliability of their appliance.

That does not appear to have much "sport" in it.

Agreed on CUE not being a good fit for the target demographic of the XTS, but I think they are trying to make an old person's car appeal to younger buyers by offering technology in it. Not sure that it will be cheaper to own or more reliable than an E-class, or depreciate less. Mercedes was #6 in long term dependability in JD Power this year, Cadillac was slightly ahead, but Buick and Chevy behind (and there is a lot of Buick and Chevy in this car). We already know this car will be fleeted a lot also, the DTS and Town Car had miserable resale values, Mercedes usually hold value fairly well. But I also think people buying an E-class are concerned about "cheap to own" they want the best car on the market from the most prestigious brand. Although I don't see many people cross shopping the XTS with an E-class or A6 even.

Well Cadillac's website lists the Audi A6 and Mercedes E-class as the competitors for the XTS, but I thought that was what the CTS was for? Once again the product planning fails. I don't get why they even list those, Cadillac can't seriously think this car competes with the E-class.

I like the new Escape, Ford has a really good design theme going now.

MKS got a turbo in 2009, not like it helped any. Not sure how much cash the XTS will infuse, and it does nothing for the brand image, which is the area Cadillac needs the most work.

Looks like it will be a blend of the current car and an oversized GS. Hopefully the horrible looks scare the old folks away and people stop buying this car. With carryover engines, it is going to look rather underpowered compared to the Germans. Actually, it will look underpowered compared to the Hyundais.

XTS isn't going to get another engine. They can't put a V8 in a front drive car (well they could but they don't have one and it is pointless), and a 4-cylinder is too weak for that much weight. The only option down the line would be a turbo V6, but GM hasn't seemed in much of a hurry to develop one. And more power means more torque steer, and it still doesn't solve the transmission, unless they make a new tranny as well.

In Caprice trim it looks much more rental grade than the G8 did. To me this car looks really cheap and not worth the money. You could find a slightly more used CTS for the same money and on the CTS they at least bothered to paint the door handles the same color as the rest of the car.