smk4565

300 hp in a front driver is already pushing it. So I would say in Impala SS doesn't make sense. if you want power and performance that is why rear drive cars exists. I just read in USA today that large cars are 3% of car sales and the average buyer of a large car is 65. So I can't see much volume on a high power Impala. It would be like a V8 Toyota Avalon, pointless.

Not sure how the SRX helps them become a world standard, when it competes with the RX350 and MKX, and the Germans have rear drive, more expensive SUVs. Plus the MKX is sold in North America only, and even 56% of Lexus brand sales are in the USA. Also not sure dfelt how the XTS is already a winner when it isn't on sale yet, and many are already saying it is here to handle fleet sales. ATS might be world class, and the next-gen CTS might be world class, but those are still 2 "might be's" and BMW and Mercedes have been world class for 30+ years. So while I see the ATS and CTS being steps in the right direction, they may not get Cadillac across the goal line.

Not sure you can be the "world standard" when you pretty much only sell in North America and even in the USA Cadillac is mid-pack in sales.

Too much power for a front wheel drive car, even with all wheel drive, I wonder how bad it will understeer. But I suppose people will by it because it will be low on weight and high on power and they will forget about the drive wheels.

Let's hope, the STS was a dud.

Looks promising so far, and agrees about the Benz look, I think they used those wheels to make it look more like a Benz. I just hope it doesn't get too big, the CTS is already bigger than an E-class. This car could make the XTS irrelevant (which I would love). This car will have a longer wheelbase, and possibly more interior room than an XTS, they could fit it with magnetic ride control, a better interior, and 8-speed transmission (if they ever get one). Then you have RWD ride and handling that beats the XTS, better fuel economy because of the turbo 4 and even the V6 with a better transmission and less mass to move around should do better on the CTS than XTS. I assume this CTS will be priced the same as the XTS in order to line up to the 5-series.

Ouch, what is up with the paint color?

Diesel is awesome! It has probably only done 12,000 miles though because the engine blew after that.

Nice 70s car. Not an era I like, but I like that dash curved to the driver. If you like big 70s cars, this is a classic example.

7 miles in 35 years is pretty insane. Cheers on keeping the car original as is. But it is an ugly car. They preserved the wrong car.

Hyundai is smart, they know what they are doing. And they have been on a roll for the past 3 years.

Good, Cadillac will get rid of that pickup truck they sell.

What is amazing is it is only 184 inches long and weighs 5,600 lbs. Even more amazing is that after 33 years of looking the same, Mercedes can still charge $110,000 for this thing. But where this vehicle will become cool and desirable is other cars all surrendered to the green movement, while this basically gives a middle finger to the environmentalists.

Cars do take a while to produce, and to build a brand takes even longer. But my complaint with Cadillac is why they didn't do more earlier on. Even if you say the management of the 80s was too clueless to see the imports coming, or how much of a threat Lexus would be, and give a pass on that. Fast forward to the late 90s when they realized they were in trouble, and decided to do Sigma. In 2003 when the first CTS came out, then STS, SRX, XLR, they should have been planning the replacements. Instead they re-did the CTS on the same chassis and killed the other 3 off. When Mercedes puts out a new S-class, they then go to work on the replacement, so that 6 years later they have another S-class to put on sale. Then they don't get caught with holes in the lineup or needing stop gaps.

GM spent a couple billion on Saturn, GM had money, they just wasted it.

Wait, GM in the 1980s when they ahd 40% domestic market share, and were the largest corporation in the world, didn't have any money? But Daimler-Benz had over $1 billion to spend on a redesign of the S-class and Toyota had $1 billion to spend on the Lexus LS400? How did they afford it?

First point is true, the XTS is another bridge, but GM has had that mentality for 30 years. Why didn't Cadillac start working on a flagship in the 80s when Lexus did with the LS400? Or why not in the early 2000s when they decided to launch Sigma? Cadillac needs to bring their future to the present ASAP. What segment wants a huge FWD luxury car? The 1,000 people that bought an MKS last month, most of which are all wheel drive, those few dozen non-fleet DTS buyers last year. There are only 3 front wheel drive cars with a base price over $40,000: the A6 2.0T, MKS and XTS.

I don't really have any interest in even driving one because it is dressed up Impala for old folks. I've driven the CTS 3.6 DI with FE2 suspension and it was fine, but didn't wow me in anyway, I thought a 5-series was much more agile, and rode just as well. The Genesis V8 was more quite and rode better than a CTS, but in the corners was a bit softer and you felt the weight. The XTS isn't going to be better in driving characteristics than a CTS, so I have no reason to bother with it. I wasn't impressed with the Epsilon 1 chassis, the G-body was far better. I guess the only reason I would drive an XTS or LaCrosse is to see how they compare to G-body cars like the Aurora and Seville STS of the early 2000s. But to be fair I wouldn't waste time driving a ES350 or Lincoln MKS or Acura either because all won't do what a rear drive car can do.

The Genesis is a stretch up market for Hyundai, so sales have been slow, but improving. In time Hyundai will start getting better sales, the car is far better than a Taurus, Avalon, Acura, Lincoln, or other front driver of equal price. More importantly, the Genesis gave Hyundai a flagship car that improved their image, and the Sonata, Elantra, Tuscon and Santa Fe are lighting up the sales chart. And the Genesis I think is there for the long haul, it won't be a one and done stop gap.

Even if they are looking for just a smooth ride and no handling, I still think rear drivers can deliver better than the XTS. And the MKS is a little bit cheaper and Lexus ES even cheaper than that. I think the old folks that bought the DTS will buy the XTS but I don't see the XTS hitting it big with baby boomers and younger, or anyone looking for good driving characteristics.

Retiring baby boomers? You mean the generation that largely ditched GM starting in the 70s and never returned? Agreed 100%. The baby boomers are buying imports for the most part, and are largely the reason GM went from 40% market share to 17% market share. Also the reason Cadillac went from #1 selling luxury car for 55 years in a row (in the USA) to 6th place last month. The baby boomers have been buying German and Japanese luxury. And to dfelt's point, a better driving charateristic than what? A water bed? Look at cars near $50k, E-class, 5-series, A6, XF, GS350, Genesis 5.0 R-Spec, all those would have better driving characteristics than an XTS. The XTS will be luckly outhandle the new Acura RLX.

The wood and leather look better than what Buick uses. However the design and layout of that interior is bad. I don't think Lexus uses cheap or low quality materials, but the execution is bad, on pretty much all models.

It is less bland than before, but the only reason the old Avalon sold was because it was super boring and old folks liked it. The seniors might be a little put off by this.

You can definitely tell it is a Lexus. Looks pretty ugly inside and out.

Looks pretty much the same as the RL has for the past 8 years. No one bought that car, no one will buy this one.