smk4565

Taurus only has 102 cubic feet of interior room, the Chrysler 300 and Toyota Avalon 106 cu ft and the Genesis has 109 cu ft. The Lacrosse isn't a small car, it just isn't as big on the inside as some of the competitors. GM cars are not all that space efficient. But for people that complain the LaCrosse is small, where else do they go really, to the Avalon for that extra 5 cu ft of room? It isn't like people shopping Buicks can go look at an S-class to get a huge car, unless they want a used S-class, which will no doubt last longer than a new Buick, so maybe that isn't such a bad idea.

Was it ever alive to begin with?

The XTS only has a 111 inch wheelbase, though, not really big car territory...and it is narrow. True it is a short wheelbase, but the car overall is 200+ inches long, and that is bigger than most of what is out there. The Taurus/MKS are 204 inches long, but even the Genesis and 300C are only about 196 inches long, granted they are roomy inside because of the RWD and width. Big car territory is now the LaCrosse/XTS and Taurus, unless you want to pony up the money for an S-class. Hyundai Equus is big, but still over $60k.

More information on the 45% sales increase can be found on notgonnahappen.com

A smaller SUV can be a good idea, but the problem is the SRX has a lower price than the X3. Had the SRX stayed on Sigma and be priced where it used to be, it would allow for an X3 fighter under it. But by making the SRX cheaper than an X3, it doesn't give Cadillac much room to work with. Unless the new SUV is built on Alpha and the SRX goes back to RWD and a new platform for Generation 3. In which case the Gen 3 SRX would need V8 power as well as diesel power to compete with the M-class and X5.

The Lacrosse is nearly as large as the Lucerne, and has more available equipment. I haven't looked at the numbers, but my guess is interior volume on the LaCrosse is about the same as the Lucerne, since the Lucerne platform is pretty dated. And the Taurus/MKS is about all that is bigger, the Avalon is not, and GM has the XTS coming for a bigger, nicer Buick.

Ford seems to be really upset that they don't have Jaguar and Aston Martin and now wants every car to copy that styling. This reminds me of the XJ a lot from the side. They can style it anyway they want, it is still a Fusion, they are still dying.

The 140S has some good styling cues, I like how it looks from behind and the tail light design. But it reminds me of the ELR in how the driver seems to sit near the front of the car, and there is a lot of C piller and tail end and the high butt thing that is plaguing recent GM design. The 130R thing is a disaster, looks even more upright than a 1-series (which isn't a good looking car).

47/44 mpg is amazing, makes the Malibu Eco look like the Malibu Thirsty. I think the car looks good but at the same time I don't like how they ripped the Aston Martin Rapide grill. But credit to Ford for being aggressive, go big or go home and they went big.

The trunk is small, but that wouldn't turn me away. The ugly decklid and spoiler is what I don't like, and the back of the car does look a bit short and stubby, but many cars now have short stubby trunks. ATS on the inside and outside overall looks pretty good but it doesn't look great, I like it, but don't love it. It is good that the car is lightweight and RWD, but I'm not convinced it is better than the Germans yet. The German cars give off a more expensive look and feel, and until the ATS gets on the road, we don't really know how it matches up against the 3-series.

Unless the new MKZ is rear drive with the 5.0 liter V8 from the Mustang GT, this is a snooze car, and we can all move along, there is nothing to see here.

Agreed with SAmadei, the car does share styling cues from Chevy sedans, the grille is plain, I don't like the sweep back headlight fad, I too think it is awful. It is just a so-so looking car, it doesn't really wow me into thinking I want one. It isn't really classy or sophisticated looking like some Audis and it isn't aggressive like a CTS. And it has that high trunk thing going on. The Hyundai Veloster has similar air vents/navigation set up also.

Agreed with Cubical, the front end does remind me of the 2013 Malibu how the hood raises. The first gen CTS, even the current really share no styling cues with other GM product, the ATS seems to have Chevy cues all through it. As if the same team designed it, the Cruze and Malibu and ran out of ideas so they just shared.

The chrome wheels are a bit Chrysler 300C, in photos it looks a bit tacky, but I'd have to see it in person. I still don't like the headlights and I think the front end is a bit too rounded off. That "softened" Art and Science look is boring, not a fan of the black plastic around the fog lights either. It isn't a bad looking car in any way, but it just doesn't look like an expensive luxury car, and reminds me of a Chevy in some ways.

The way it drives is what really matters. The ATS interior is pretty similar to the SRX interior, so I suppose Cadillac is being consistent, but a gripe of mine about the SRX aside from drivetrain is that it reminds me of a Chevy/GMC. It seems like GM has the same designers working on every car and they all start to look the same, there isn't enough difference between the brands.

I too think it looks a little soft, it doesn't stand out that much. But they went for broad appeal, so that is okay, and red is a dumb color, so it may look better in other colors. What I like is the low weight, with the FE3 suspension it should be pretty nimble. I also like the variety of color, wood, and material choices for the interior, that should help appeal to a broad customer base of young and old. Too many cars offer black leather and silver trim, or tan leather and wood, and that's it. Nice to see multiple woods, aluminum and carbon fiber. The interior layout looks good too, it isn't anything fancy looking but looks functional. What I do not like is the headlights that sweep back toward the windshield, the front end reminds me of a Cruze sort of. I also don't like how the spoiler integrates to the trunk, that carve out almost Bangle-like tail looks bad, and I don't like inset or center placed exhaust either. #1 complaint is the center stack and HVAC vents is out of the Equinox. This is Cadillac, you can't go to the Equinox parts bin. The trunk is tiny, interior sounds smaller than what the 3-series or A4 might give, but I'd have to sit in them to compare. Overall I'd say a solid double, they got themselves in scoring position, but still have work to do.

Price is a little steep, but it could gain value over time if preserved. But to spend that much money you'd almost have to drive it all the time, the car is too bad ass to sit in a garage. If only they had 2 for sale, one to preserve and one to drive.

I don't like how the hood seems to slope downward so much or the blacked out front bumper in the grille, I think they could have made that cross bar thing more prominent like it is on the Charger. But I like the rest of the exterior. On the inside, overall I like it, I like the creativity on the storage areas under the front seat or in the glove compartment. My one gripe is so many cars now have an integrated console, with HVAC and radio/sat-nav controls all in one, this has that cheap rubber separator that reminds me of a 90s GM car. I prefer a Focus or Elantra to this, but the Dart in pictures looks far better than any of the Japanese compacts or the Jetta.

What about this chassis with a twin-turbo V8?

Agreed, that is awesome. Cheers for sure, at $35k it is still worth it. This is my favorite Chevy of the 90s, probably my favorite Chevy of the past 25 years.

I read earlier that they could get the E-class under 2800 lbs, but putting a wimpy hybrid powertrain in it is dumb. Use the 302 hp V6 instead.

Well Cadillac is offering 0%, so they are even more aggressive on that front. Mercedes will win, they have been on a roll lately.

$25k isn't too much, CR-V's and Escapes sell for that (maybe not base trim but reasonably equipped). Small does not have to equal cheap. There are people that don't need a lot of room but want a nice vehicle.

My guess is a Lotus Exige whoops this thing in handling and will cost $30-40k less. I just don't see Acura making a good sports car, somehow it will end up on an Accord platform turned backward so it is rear engine/rear drive, rather than front engine/front drive. And the concept will no doubt have some mythical engine and the real car will get the Accord V6 with turbo and the CRZ's hybrid system.

I actually sort of like these, and this one is in good shape. Although I like the Allante more, and you could probably find one for a price similar to what Reatta's go for. I like the 1980s Mercdes SL as well.