smk4565

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.

XTS is priced where I thought it would be, contiues where the DTS was.

I think it is excellent. You take 212 inch long Crown Vics off the road getting 15 mpg, and replace with a 186 inch van with more interior space and perhaps 25 mpg. Less congestion, less pollution, less fuel consumption. And I like the interior with the TV screen in back and the low-annoyance horn.

More size, more powerful, more technology, more money. Yep, it's a Mercedes.

The Malibu Eco just finished 6th our of 6 in a family sedan comparison in Car and Driver. And that didn't include the 2013 Altima or Fusion. The Malibu is probably only the 8th best mid-size sedan and possibly 9th with a revised Subaru Legacy on the way too. So I would agree that the Malibu could easily be lost in the shuffle.

I think what I don't like most about it, is that isn't very original. As many have stated it looks like a lot of other cars. And maybe that is a safe way to go for the target market of the middle-America older buyer, but nothing really wows me about this car. I like the Taurus interior more and that it has an Ecoboost 4 and a V6, but other than that I guess the Taurus is pretty boring too. I am more impressed with the Altima, 38 mpg beats the Malibu Eco and I like the Altima interior more than the Impala interior. The Altima looks like a serious player in the midsize segment, the Impala to me just doesn't do enough to stand out.

I like the grille, and the front overall looks good, but the headlights are too small and plain, and does remind me of a Honda Crosstour or an Acura TL from 2004. I wish they did something more than with the headlights to make the car stand out. The back looks like a Jetta or Sonata sort of, nothing new there, it doesn't even have a Chevy feel to it. Not a fan of the sweepsphere thing from the back door over the rear wheels, but I guess they felt they needed something to stand out. Interior looks nice for the class, but a little busy, I don't like the dual cockpit thing and how you have light tan over the gaugues, then dark brown behind that then light brown. It is if they wanted to copy the Jaguar XJ interior, but couldn't execute it right. Engines make sense although 195 to 303 hp is a big gap with nothing in between. Overall a solid B.

I like this a lot, and I don't care much for the current car. 38 mpg is amazing for a non-hybrid regular mid size sedan, beating out the Sonata by 3 mpg. I like the interior too, it is simple and nicely laid out, has a bit of Infiniti feel with the wood trim. Some of these new interiors are so busy and chaotic, I like this and the Passat for being luxurious for the class, but easy to understand also.

LaCrosse is cheaper than the ES and MKZ though, plus it is larger. Which is good for the LaCrosse because the old people that have been scared off by the MKZ and ES, and want a larger, and more cost effective alternative can go for the Buick. The MKZ and ES are also priced right against a lot of rear drive luxury cars that aren't just a dressed up family sedan. And there in lies the problem, they can put the interior off a Rolls Royce into an MKZ or ES350 but the car will still drive like a Fusion or Camry. (and I've driven an 07 MKZ, it felt like a Ford in every way)

Looks like they are trying to scare away the old people. But if they do that, they won't have any customers left.