smk4565

I think what Hyundai does works. Since 2008 they have been the best performing car company by far, so who can argue with that success.

What do we want? Diesels!!! When do we want them? Now!!!! So the choice is a 138 hp/140 lb-ft engine or a 161 hp/266 lb-ft engine that gets better mileage. Hmm, that is a tough choice. And put that engine in the Equinox also.

Low weight RWD platform is a good start, but it is only a start. The Germans have had boosted sixes and DI V8s for years, so that only gets Cadillac caught up. But by 2014, the bar may have moved again. Plus, Mercedes is planning a 2800 lb E-class, so is low weight where Cadillac really wants to pick its battles?

I don't think the CTS will become like the STS, but there is that risk. At the time Sigma came out, it was supposed to be as good as an E39 5-series, yet it wasn't. So we here Alpha is as good as an E46 3-series but we'll see. Maybe it is, maybe it out handles an E36 M3, only time will tell. I would be satisfied with the CTS if it had more interior room, better materials and build quality, and the exterior didn't look bulky and fat. The 1st Gen CTS had better proportions than the current one, they it got fat and blingy. Powertrain needs upgraded to, the CTS isn't that quick or fuel efficient compared to the Germans or Infiniti M-hybrid. CTS sold 5200 units in Dec. Last time I checked, 5200 is more than 800. Yes, but that is without the ATS in dealerships, and no STS in dealerships either. The CTS sells well now, but what if base price goes up $10,000 over night, and a cheaper car is offered. They want the CTS to get bigger and more expesnive, thus exactly what the STS was, and the STS was a dud. So my point was only that the CTS better be fantastic, and not another STS, because they can't afford STS sales volumes. But, was the STS better than the current CTS? No, it wasn't the STS worked when it was the first gen, by the time the current gen CTS was two years old the STS was outclassed So like how the ATS will outclass a CTS that has been on the market for 5 model years?

They just keep getting uglier and uglier. Lexus is clueless on design. Maybe they want to scare the old people off, problem is the young people won't buy it either.

I suppose GM just couldn't use the LaCrosse to compete w/ the MKS and ES, which is a more natural competitor for those models than something from Cadillac... I don't think Buick competes with Lincoln or Lexus. There in lies part of the problem. The LaCrosse competes with the Avalon, Taurus and Maxima. A Maxima can even hit $41,000, so can a SHO. I'd say the Chrysler 300 and Genesis are competitors also on size and price point, different drive wheels, but they would still get cross shopped I think. Since Buick is not a luxury car, Cadillac has to wear many hats, thus they need an XTS to cater to those in Florida that like pastel pearl paint jobs and seats you sink in to. I question if they really need to cater to this market though. Or if the CTS were as well executed as the E-class that it couldn't attract both those that want smooth ride and those that want performance. The Lacrosse and Enclave are most certainly luxury vehicles. They do quiet, power, and handling better than their counterparts at Lexus I still don't see Buick as luxury. A Nissan Maxima is $2,000 more than a LaCrosse, is that a luxruy car? The LaCrosse and Enclave are also full size vehicles, a car or SUV of that size from a luxury brand would cost far more. Enclave is the same size and seating capacity as an Escalade, yet the Escalade is $30,000 more. So if the Enclave is a true luxury SUV, then why are people buying Escaldes, or why aren't they charging $60k for an Enclave? The reason being the Envlace nor any Buick are luxury vehicles.

CTS sold 5200 units in Dec. Last time I checked, 5200 is more than 800. Yes, but that is without the ATS in dealerships, and no STS in dealerships either. The CTS sells well now, but what if base price goes up $10,000 over night, and a cheaper car is offered. They want the CTS to get bigger and more expesnive, thus exactly what the STS was, and the STS was a dud. So my point was only that the CTS better be fantastic, and not another STS, because they can't afford STS sales volumes.

Hyundai does not compete with BMW or Mercedes, I don't think they should even mention how the Genesis V8 has more horsepower than an E550. They should say how the Genesis V8 has 100 more hp than a CTS or G37 or Lincoln/Acura whatever. Hyundai shoud compare directly to other $35-45,000 cars because theirs is way better. And they should promote RWD like crazy to the fools buying Lincolns and Acuras.

If you look at sales of midsize to full size SUVs, luxury and non-luxury, the domestics outsell the imports. In general Americans prefer American SUVs to Japanese ones for example. The RX350 bucks the trend because it was one of the first luxury crossovers, probably the first. I agree profitability is most important. But they need to sell more than 700 CTS's a month like Audi does with the A6. Or like the STS used to sell. This new CTS has to blow the current CTS away, if it is just 10% better, and 10% bigger, they already sold that car from 2005-2011 and it failed.

New CTS will be a test to see if Cadillac can sell a $50-60K sedan in non-niche volumes. This has been a struggle for brands like Acura, Volvo, and Lincoln, but I think Cadillac can do it--think Escalade. Escalade is a truck though, and huge SUVs have had success in the high dollar range, although obviously popularity has declined over the past few years. CTS V6 has to sell at a similer price point as the STS V8, and we know how few STS V8s they were selling the past few years.

I suppose GM just couldn't use the LaCrosse to compete w/ the MKS and ES, which is a more natural competitor for those models than something from Cadillac... I don't think Buick competes with Lincoln or Lexus. There in lies part of the problem. The LaCrosse competes with the Avalon, Taurus and Maxima. A Maxima can even hit $41,000, so can a SHO. I'd say the Chrysler 300 and Genesis are competitors also on size and price point, different drive wheels, but they would still get cross shopped I think. Since Buick is not a luxury car, Cadillac has to wear many hats, thus they need an XTS to cater to those in Florida that like pastel pearl paint jobs and seats you sink in to. I question if they really need to cater to this market though. Or if the CTS were as well executed as the E-class that it couldn't attract both those that want smooth ride and those that want performance.

SRX sells because it is cheap. It also sells because Americans are suckers for domestic SUVs in the same way they are suckers for Camry and Accords. On the plus side, it looks better than an RX350 or MKX and it has more power than either one also. Lexus may have it in build quality and technology , but the Lincoln and Acrua offerings don't have an interior as good as the SRX. The German midsize luxury SUVs are considerably more expensive than an SRX. To bring this back to the CTS, here is where the challenge will lie. When the CTS goes up in price to make way for the ATS, what happens to CTS sales? And then also, what happens with the XTS and CTS fully overlapped in price point?

Audis don't sell very well in the USA. They appeal to the luxury customer that wants sub-dued styling and AWD because they think it is safe, and perhaps like the fuel economy of a small displacement, boosted engine. There is a market for that type of car, but it isn't the biggest segment of buyers. And the A7 has a disappointing interior for what it costs, and a 310 hp 3.0 liter V6 at $77,000, I think not. The Cadillac press person even mentioned how the XTS has more interior room than an Audi A6 (which I would hope since the XTS is far bigger) but if they are looking to steal A6 sales, how many are there to steal. No one buys an A6, or an Acura RL or Volvo S80. But the XTS will get sales of the 70+ crowd that only buys American because there are no other big American cars left, expect for the terrible MKS.

CTS is the right size on the outside, but too small on the inside. I was at the Pittsburgh Auto show today and yesterday, sat in the E-class both days, it feels much more roomy than a CTS and the cars are the same size. Even a Sonata or Optima feels roomier than a CTS does. With better space management, I think the exterior of the CTS can stay the same size and interior can grow. The cramped interior needs to be addressed. I even heard many people saying the CTS was too small for them and they want a bigger car. I think the interior fools them into thinking the CTS is smaller than it actually is. I got a good look at the XTS, the lady said pricing was expected to be $45-60k. The XTS doesn't look as big as it is, which is good, because the MKS looks bigger than it is, and looks ridiculous. The interior looked nice (could not sit in it), but not as well made as an E-class or 5-series. It is better than a Lexus or Acura interior of that price range, but that isn't saying much. I can tell old guys that want a roomy car and don't want to drive over 55 mph will like the XTS. But that demographic isn't a big one, as witnessed by STS/DTS and MKS/Town Car sales. On a side note, the new M5 looks spectacular and the difference between that and a CTS-V is dramatic. The M5's brakes are more impressive than the whole CTS-V. CTS-V looks so tacky, and the build quality isn't very good either.

Not Sure but Ford sells about 50k Taurus a year and Buick a bit over 50k LaCrosse per year. And Nissan sells some number of Maximas, plus Volvo and Acuras, for some reason people want to buy FWD almost luxury cars, so enter the Azera.

Probably eXtreme Luxury Roadster or eXtra Luxury Roadster. I don't remeber DHS even existing.. I believe DHS was supposed to mean Deville High-level Sedan or maybe high luxury. It was sold 2000-2005 as the luxury trim of the Deville and it had the bench seat. The DTS had sporting credentials, aka floor mounted shifter.

There is also the POS, I mean BTS, the short lived sedan on the 9-3 Epsion platform. And BTS stood for Below The Standard.

Agreed, that new GS is horrible looking. This is sort of like how Acura hijacked all their cars with horrbile front end styling a few years ago. Lexus seems to be hitting everything with the ugly stick, because they want dramatic, but don't understand design.

This is pretty interesting, I like it. My only complaint is why isn't the sleep cabin add on thing taller? Or else why didn't they take an extended cab, then add that box on to make it extra luxurious.

Well it sure is red. I can't get excited much from cars of this era. Most are too big and too underpowered.

Seems pricey, although you do get a lot of equipment and a pretty powerful engine for this segment. It is close to the Genesis in pricing, that is surprising, because if you are going to spend that much, why not jsut buy the Genesis.

I am really curious to see how this car turns out. The Optima looks really good, a sporty rear dive version of that could be sweet. But if it is sort of generic like an Equus that would be a let down. Amazing that Hyundai/Kia will have 3 rear drive V8 sedans, and GM and Ford together make 2. (ATS, CTS, not counting the police only Caprice)

Awesome for sure. What's better than a V8 or V12, a jet turbine! Even the guy with the Veyron bragging about his quad turbo V16, can be trumped by the Jaguar owner that is like oh yeah, check it out, jet engine turbines.

Hopefully smaller is a sports car or roadster. And not a FWD city car.

A Fleetwood Brougham is not made with the chassis, suspension or steering or transmision to match the powerful engine. The S-class is tested on the Nurburgring and made for high performance driving. The original top speed of a 1879 Fleetwood was probably around 85-90 mph. This car is just a home made disaster. And boaty Fleetwoods should be driven by an older version of James May that likes simple highway cruising and thinks "powerrrrrrrrr" and speed are evil.