smk4565

I think Hyundai's whole car line is pretty desirable right now. Genesis/Equus is about 3,000 cars a month, that isn't a stand alone brand. And they don't have the image to compete against luxury marques. I've driven a Genesis, it is nice car, I wouldn't have a problem buying one with the H badge on it.

The King has suspension, steering, chasis, and brakes that the others don't. If a lowly 4-cylinder 3-series can do 0-60 in 5.7 seconds, I am not worried about the speed an M3 will put forth.

The change it needs is a way to get the price down. The GS doing 0-60 in 6.7 seconds at 27 mpg is nothing. A 328i does 0-60 in 5.7 seconds and gets 36 mpg at the same price. Either the Buick needs more fuel economy and speed or less price, and I would vote for less price to go against the Azera and Maxima type cars.

Looks like a Camry.

I actually think they are fine with the way it is. Having the Genesis and Equus helps build image for the Hyundai brand and sell more at the lower end. Since the Genesis went on sale, the Hyundai brand has been doing really well. If it isn't a seperate dealer network, or even separate brand (like Ford-Lincoln in one dealer) I don't really see the point of trying to seperate it. Plus the cost, when the Genesis and Equus are low volume cars. It is confusing already that the coupe and sedan are both Genesis, if the brand is Genesis do they rename the coupe 3.8C, the sedan 3.8S and the Equus 5.0SE, that is lame.

Hooray for M Power, and especially Twin M Power Turbos!

I don't know how you really back up a claim of most dependable or how to dispute it. Chevy has always made that claim, Ford can't really disprove it. Ford shouldn't stir the pot, it just makes them look bad, unless they want to offer a mega warranty on F150 becaue they feel so strongly about the product. But neither of these is as tough as a Toyota Hilux. The ad is okay, but it isn't even all that great. The top 2 car ads are the Hyundai Veloster vs Cheetah, and the Kia Optima with Adriana Lima. The Ferris Buhler style CR-V ad is decent too, but it is pretty long.

Stop the insanity. I can't wait for this SUV fad to be over. Why does BMW need 4 SUVs and 5 counting the X1 that may come here? That is stupid. And the problem is most of the people supporting this "I want a new SUV that isn't an SUV, but is trendy to park at Starbucks" are the yuppie types that buy BMWs. What is happening to performance? Automakers want to make econoboxes and SUVs now, and kill sport sedans and coupes.

Agreed with Camino, GM does like to squander RWD platforms. They gave up fast on the Sigma SRX and STS, Zeta will be pretty short lived, who knows what they do with Alpha.

Cheers, this is perhaps the last time Cadillac was Cadillac. Although $60k or more is a bit steep.

Yes and rarely does GM do like Toyota and replace a Camry with a Camry or Corolla with Corolla. GM lets a car die on the vine, then kills it off waits 3 months and releases an entirely new product with a new name. Like minivans and GMT360s get killed to be later replaced by Lambdas and the current Equinox, which is nearly the size of the GMT360 Trailblazer.

3-series and G37 offer coupe and convertible, A5 and C-class coupes, Lexus IS convertible, if that is what the ATS wants to compete with, looks like they need a coupe and/or convertible. Their 5 closes competitors offer it. The BMW 6-series used to be smaller than the CTS, but now it is 1 inch longer, still in the mid-size segment though. But few luxury makes do a mid-size coupe.

Lambas are hurting, they seem to be fading away. Cadillac has no product, the Regal is overpriced for what it is. So not surprised to see Buick and Cadillac take a dip. GMC didn't do well, I still don't think they need that brand. What surprises me is that more people bought a Sonic than a Camaro. I know it is cheaper, but the Sonic is putting up solid numbers for that price segment.

Since the Supercharged XF makes 470 hp, I think they could just make the XFR at 550 hp. Do they really need 470, 510, and 550 hp options, seems like a lot for lower volume cars like Jaguar makes. I'd rather see the XFR bumped to 550 hp, and the XFR-S version being the same engine but lighter weight through carbon fiber, magnesium, titaniam, etc. More importantly, where is the XJR???

Mercedes makes a C-class coupe and E-class coupe so there is definately room for both. But why does the CTS have to go up in size? E-class wheelbase: 113.2" Length/Width/Height: 191.7"/73.0"/57.9" 3,825 lbs (base) CTS wheelbase: 113.4" Length/Width/Height: 191.3"/72.5"/58.0" 3,854 lbs (base) The CTS is the correct size, aside from the trunk is smaller than competitors. The CTS's price is the problem if the ATS is to be priced against the A4/3-series/C-class. And then do people want to pay $50-60k for a V6 CTS when the CTS was always Cadillac's cheapest car. Looks like the ATS coupe is on hold for a while, which is a shame. Cadillac must have some fears, otherwise they'd roll out more body styles and engines.

I too am surpsised the Ranger still had that many sales, that is a horrible vehicle, who is buying that thing? The Lincoln sales look pretty sad, but fitting since their product line is sad. Amazing how truck reliant Ford still is, 93,000 of their 136,000 sales were trucks/crossovers.

I'd say Jeers, 80s styling, especially on sedans just wasn't that good. The W126 S-class looks cool, and one of my favorite 80s cars that I see as a classic/collectible is the Mercdes SL, which was actually designed in the early 70s. But this was a bad era of automotive design. I guess the 70s was the worst, but 80s wasn't much better.

I like the idea of more diesels, once the German trio have a big offering, others will copy. And that will be good for consumers to get the option to pay a little more to get more torque and fuel economy. What Audi should do it put the V12 diesel in the A8, that thing makes like 750 lb-ft of torque, the A8's current engines are a bit gutless.

I would agree, it is sad to see their cars getting bigger and heavier. Everything gets heavier, but The 5-series was 187-190 inches long for a couple decades, now they are up to 193+. Not much but as their customers grow older, they seem to be softening things a bit to appeal to them. BMWs still sell in big numbers and things purists hate like SUVs sell well to the yuppie crowd. Even though they may have lost what they were, BMW is still better in driving experience than the FWD generics, or the vanilla pudding that Lexus is peddling. I guess in Infiniti has a couple sporty cars, but the G37 is more herky, jerky and rough in an attempt to feel sporty, rather than the seamless driving dynamic that a BMW can provide. That being said, as BMW softens, the opportunity is there for someone else to go hardcore performance.

But GM claimed to have met or surpassed BMW in the past, Lexus claimed the same, ditto for Audi. Yet none of them are BMW, the 3-series and 5-series whoop on the IS, GS, A4 and A6. I want to wait to see reviews on the ATS, especially from European testers, they will be most critical. Car and Driver loves BMW, if the ATS can win them over, then Cadillac is getting somewhere. Did you say EXITEMENT!!!! That should be reserved for Pontiac, Buick can't handle it.

Well no, the hybrid will be the Acura RL SH-SH-AWD-DIV6-h. And this is exciting, I always wanted a $60,000 Honda Accord, so I can't wait. Hard to tell if I want the RL more or the $90,000 NSX that won't outrun a Nissan 370Z.

It will be interesting to see how the ATS drives, hopefully better than the CTS. The CTS isn't bad, but it just doesn't feel nimble to me, and handling and steering are just not as precise as a 5-series (E60 generation, havn't driven the new one). I hope the ATS is sporty, as in 335i sporty, not Pontiac Grand Prix sporty, but the exterior of the ATS looks a bit soft and wimpy. The CTS looks too blocky and chunky. I don't get why Cadillac can't make a car sleek and streamlined and agressive looking, the orginal CTS pulled that off much better than the STS, 08 CTS and ATS have. On the roadster front, they need a convertible, but the Allante and XLR were failures, so I wonder if 3rd time is the charm or if they still haven't figured it out.

I also wonder about the torque load the Alpha chassis can handle, many cars now are designed for smaller engines. And if the 400 hp and torque level is the peak for Alpha then a turbo V6 could get them there. But if they can modify the platform or if it can handle power and torque in the 500 range then I see V8s. Genesis coupe is V6 only, if the Camaro were downsized they could go that route, but I have a hard time believing there won't be a V8 Camaro. Of course who thought we'd see a full size Cadillac without a V8. My guess is they find a way to make V8 Alpha cars, there are still customers that want V8s. On wheel bases, the Omega will be needed for bigger cars for sure. The S-class has a 126 inch wheelbase, Epsilon and Alpha can't fight that, and I don't think Sigma or Zeta can, plus they are old and/or heavy.

The Avenger and 200 are such terrible cars, but I suppose Avis and Enterprise will keep buying them. But Dodge does need something in bewteen the Dart and Charger. To me Chrysler and Dodge are still tremendous overlap, I am surprised that company turns profit.

The Volt is too expensive for what it is. It is Cruze/Civic/Elantra level in performance, size, features, etc at double the price as earlier stated. The electric range is not far enough and recharge time not quick enough. Draining a battery in 1 hour and needing 8 hours to recharge it isn't appealing. Battery technology just isn't good enough to make a car like the Volt desirable.