smk4565

Yes, and the Duramax isn't that economical. Excellent idea on Tahoe and Silverado. A diesel V6 could get those to 24 mpg highway I bet, that is as good as a Traverse. I guess while we are at it, it could go into the Traverse also, but that much torque would probably rip the transmission apart. GM would have to make a new one, I don't think and FWD transmission they have can handle over 300-350 lb-ft.

Ok, well still, you can't have a 450 hp Chevy, let alone a 600 hp Chevy when the ATS has a 195 hp or 200 hp 4-banger, the next gen CTS is getting a 4-banger and the XTS has 300 hp. And mega horsepower cars cost a lot, and Chevy is a value brand, and they need some volume. But I fear the "old GM" will rear its ugly head here and we will basically get a direct from Australia import that has the same flaws the GTO and G8 did. At least the G8 had a V6 model that wasn't crazy expensive, imaging if the G8 was only the GXP model, they would have sold 20 a month.

Diesel V6, more torque than any of these V8s and it would crush the ecoboost in fuel economy. 455 lb-ft and 27 mpg are the stats on Mercedes V6, GM could copy that, but I think Ram will beat them to it.

They still have to sell this car. If a 450 hp V8 is the base engine, they will charge $45-50,000 for it. They are about to charge $34k for an ATS 2.5 liter, a V6 Impala will probably be $30k, seeing as a 4-cylinder LaCrosse is over $30k. Figure they charge $50k for a base Corvette, so a Corvette engine in a full size sedan is going to cost that much. I don't see people spending $50k for a Chevrolet sedan, Cadillac struggles to get people to spend $50k for a sedan. And as Balthazar has mentioned, the hierarchy would be messed up. If Cadillac has the ATS, CTS, XTS in the $34-45,000 range for base prices, how do you put a Chevy up there and with a V8 when none of those 3 Cadillacs offer a V8 except for CTS-V. This is part of the problem with GM, Cadillac should be the grand daddy of them all, not behind Chevy.

Rumor is the Ram is getting a 3.0 liter diesel V6 with over 400 lb-ft of torque. The General should be looking at that. Pickups are about torque; the Mercedes diesel V6 puts out more torque than the 6.2 Vortec, the Hemi or Ford's Ecoboost, the 5.0 V8, even the 6.2 V8 in the Raptor. Why make a 6 liter engine to get 400 lb-ft when a 3 liter engine can make 450 and get 5-7 mpg more and be more durable.

F150 is the #1 selling pick up, and they sell more V6 than V8. Dodge is also putting a V6 Ram on sale (I just realized it isn't Dodge anymore, but to me it is). So GM has to look at what the top 2 competitors are going, and think we need a V6 also. I would look seriously at diesel power to get fuel economy up. A Mercedes ML350 diesel gets 20/27 mpg, and that is a 5,000 lb truck, I think it possible to get similar numbers out of a Silverado, especially with 8 gears to work with. And if they can remove weight out of the Silverado, that obviously helps. I do think they need a smaller pick up, the Colorado seemed too big, and also too expensive. It was like half as good as a Silverado at 90% the price. A smaller pick up for people that don't want a huge or thirsty vehicle makes sense. I still believe they can do that off an Equinox platform because that type of buyer is looking for easy to drive, with some versatility. They aren't looking to tow 10,000 pounds or haul payload.

The STS and DTS were fundamentally different too. If they make the CTS bigger (and softer), it is getting really close to what the STS was, which hopefully doesn't happen. I just don't see the point of a $45-60,000 front driver, a Buick, Avalon or ES350 can deliver the same driving experience of an XTS at a much lower price. And if you stretch out the CTS wheelbase and are smart you can make a big interior and put magnetic ride control standard. The CTS could easily beat the XTS is ride comfort and interior space, while also having the Nurburgring corning ability built in.

BS, because of price overlap??? There's plenty of overlap, for ex, between the c- & e-class, and they are much closer in purpose than the CTS & XTS.... Or are you admitting that FWD vs. RWD just doesn't matter that much after all??? There is $9,985 between a C350 and E350. There is $2,905 between the ATS 3.6 and the XTS 3.6, and they have to squeeze the CTS in between those two. Actually, a 3.6 CTS is cheaper than a 3.6 ATS that is supposed to be below it. Has pricing been announced for the 2013 CTS? The current CTS is only on the market another year. No they have not, but if GM keeps stating the CTS is supposed to compete with a 5-series or E-class, the price has to go there. An E-class bases over $50k, but I know Cadillac won't go that high. A V6 CTS has to be more than a V6 ATS, so a V6 CTS must slot in the $43-49k area. Possibly the CTS will grow in size, and base at $44,995 so that it and the XTS share a starting price, just like the STS and DTS shared a price point, since that worked out so well.

One can also view the structure such that the XTS is parallel to the ATS and CTS, not the top of a hierarchy. Think Lexus--they have the IS, GS, LS hierarchy and the CT and ES in parallel tracks... That is a good point, however Lexus is also the brand most people here make fun of the most. I think it easier to have a parallel priced car on a hybrid hatchback or a different body style than just your main sedans. At least then it has something unique. The ES and IS overlap they get away with because it is entry level and 2 different cars. GM though has Buick to run a parallel track to the ATS, for those that don't want Nurburgring firm suspension.

Well according to you, MB is a leader in technology and spends billions of dollars in R&D. Sure being an industry standard, as you mention it umpteen times, it would have come up with a simple solution of adding 995 more gears to the existing 5 to overcome the 800 lb-ft torque problem in its "Halo" car. There again you drowned your argument there. The Maybach came out 10 years ago, at the time it was leading edge, and even still, the rest of that car is ridiculously well appointed. But a few years ago they knew they would be dumping the car, no point on spending money on it. Let's see how the S-class Pullman turns out, and we'll see where the billions are going.

BS, because of price overlap??? There's plenty of overlap, for ex, between the c- & e-class, and they are much closer in purpose than the CTS & XTS.... Or are you admitting that FWD vs. RWD just doesn't matter that much after all??? There is $9,985 between a C350 and E350. There is $2,905 between the ATS 3.6 and the XTS 3.6, and they have to squeeze the CTS in between those two. Actually, a 3.6 CTS is cheaper than a 3.6 ATS that is supposed to be below it.

You guys realize that the Maybach/AMG V12 makes over 800 lb-ft of torque, but is down tuned to 738 lb-ft of torque. That 5-speed was the only transmission that wouldn't be shredded apart by it. But Mercedes has now upgraded the 7-speed to handle the torque, so for 2013 model year the 5-speed is gone.

I like this vehicle and don't like SUVs. The interior is fantastic for the price point. I don't think it should have Range Rover in the name though, just Land Rover Evoque would make more sense. Range Rover is the big $90k SUV. But the interior is worthy of the Range Rover name.

The Maybach was also developed in 2002 and is discontinued after 2012 model year. They may not choose over number of gears, but miles per gallon matters to many and new transmissions help that, as well as with acceleration. But it is more than the transmission, it is that Cadillacs are still built out of the parts bin, rather than developing what they really need to compete. Once the CTS goes up in price to $45-60,000, the XTS becomes very pointless. The CTS will probably even be roomier because it will have a longer wheel base. I think if they take the XTS platinum interior and feature content and put it in the ATS and CTS they are onto something, but I fear Cadillac will hold back the CTS and ATS because they need to leave something on the XTS to justify its existence. We saw this before with the 08 CTS, they had the STS sitting there as dead weight, but they kept equipment such as lane departure warning off the CTS to justify the STS price premium. The XTS is detrimental to the brand.

The XTS though doesn't help build image. It lacks a lot of features other big sedans have, nor the powertrain/mechanicals that the rest of the market has. Pretty much every BMW and Audi has an 8-speed now, Mercedes will soon have 9. Yet Cadillac has 6, like a Cruze or Elantra. One could buy an Audi S6 that does 0-60 in 3.7 seconds and is rated at 26 mpg highway, quicker than a CTS-V with fuel economy like a V6 CTS. The German cars are so good right now, Cadillac can't simply badge engineer out of the parts bin to catch up. And it probably isn't even Cadillac engineers fault, it is probably the bean counters not giving them what they need.

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.