smk4565

In the past on Top Gear when they have made amphibious cars it is always a VW camper van or pick up, but no car is closer to a boat than an 80s Town Car. Imagine a white Town Car with black landau roof, red paddle boat wheels and twin decorative black smoke stacks cruising down the Mississippi. Fantastic.

If they want a high tech luxury car shouldn't they be buying an S-class? And even a Focus or Veloster has Nav, voice commands, traffic and weather updates, bluetooth, etc. The Focus even has self park. A lot of this electronic stuff that is on iPad's and smart phones is in basic cars now. And I agree with Cubical, in that the 70+ crowd buying this car doesn't like electronics anyway.

Those 80's Town Car conversions are excellent. I always thought if I were on Top Gear and had to make an amphibious car, it would be an 80's Town Car in white with a Mississippi paddle boat theme.

Modern as in looking futuristic or as in will still look good 20 years from now? I think the Hyundai Veloster looks pretty modern.

The MKZ interior looks as good or maybe better than the MKS. Might as well save money and buy that over the MKS. And I agree that the MKS is too tall, the car (and Taurus) are just huge in all dimensions.

But will the XTS have a front bench for the highly desirable 6-passenger seating? In all seriousness though, I am not a fan of the switchgear below the Nav screen, it looks a bit too Ford Edge/Lincoln MKX for me. And the narrow, horizontal center air vent is a retro cue in an otherwise modern interior. But some may like that. To me the XTS interior is a bit boring, but the real key will be what the production build quality is.

Right, GM already builds the Lacrosse, that is their plush, quiet, full size sedan, why do they need another one? The purpose of keeping Buick around was to be that softer mid-luxury brand to compete with the Avalon, ES350, Lincolns, etc. Then Cadillac could be performance luxury. The CTS is just as quiet as a LaCrosse, so is the 3-series for that matter. Anything the XTS does in terms of quietness and ride, I think would be better on a rear drive platform. And if they want a nicer LaCrosse, then make a Park Avenue and sell it as a Buick. Cadillac should be going for Standard of the World, not fancy Buick.

But XTS will still body roll, a RWD car would ride smoother, and corner flatter. And I don't see why the CTS couldn't be more quiet than an XTS, drivetrain and platform don't have much to do with that. There are some pretty quiet rear drive cars out there.

New grille, new lights, more power, adaptive suspension, and the same problem. It is still a FWD Taurus for $45,000. It still won't sell.

I agree with Moltar's post. The 5-series, 7-series, and Ghost may have similarities but it is still 3 different wheelbases (technically 5 since the 7-series and Ghost have 2 lenghts) and different track width. The Ghost and 7-series share 20% of parts. But all 3 have rear drive which is what the luxury sedan segment is. If the Impala/LaCrosse/XTS all end up on the same platform with the same 3.6 liter v6, same transmission and the Cadillac just gets magnetic ride control (optional I assume), I don't see how you make the luxury car all that different than the standard car in driving dynamics. So then it becomes based on interior and features and you have why the Acura RL doesn't sell. It isn't worth the extra $25,000 for an Accord with a better interior and AWD. My belief is that the XTS will be in the $45-55,000 range to cover where the DTS/STS sit now, so it will be about $5,000 more than an MKS, and $10,000 more than a CTS (unless the CTS price goes up). Is the XTS really going to be $10,000 better than a CTS when it is a LaCrosse underneath, I don't think so. And it doesn't build reputation or brand image, it just maintains status quo of Cadillac being an old man's car.

Jeer. A bad car made crazy.

To the Lincoln with the bed in back. A Park Avenue pick up is like the mullet of cars. It is business in the front and party in the back.

But if the car was lighter, you wouldn't need a huge engine in the first place. Take the CTS sedan for example. A V6 CTS is 3850 lbs (base trim). A CTS-V is 4222 lbs, nearly 400 pounds is added. What if it was the opposite, and a CTS-V took off 400 lbs and weighed 3450 lbs. Then even with 420 hp it would be plenty fast. And imagine the handling advantage a 3450 lb CTS-V would have over a 4222 lb CTS-V.

Corvette automatic gets 15/25 mpg, a Genesis R-spec has 429 hp and gets 16/25 mpg so pretty similar and the Genesis has more weight. The Porsche 911 Turbo S has 530 hp, 17/25 mpg and 0-60 and 0-60 in 3.1 seconds. Or the 911 Carrera S has 400 hp and 18/26 mpg. But still the American car performance formula is to add power by way of a big engine and then the car gets heavy. It would be interesting to explore a new direction of weight reduction. Perhaps go so far as making all V-series cars with a 100% carbon fiber body.

The inline six will provide Mercedes with a new level of BMW-ness, the E350 coupe will have long hood and proper RWD proportions AND no B-pillar for a true hardtop look. This is the only combination possible to build a car better than the Hyundai Sonata.

GM has been "wait til next year" for the past 10 years. When will "next year" finally arrive? The platform share works when the Chevy is $23,000 and the Buick Version is $28,000. With little price overlap it is a good strategy, and when not jumping multiple price points. For example, Malibu-Regal works, because they overlap slightly in price, but the Regal is one step above. If there was a Cadillac Malibu at $45-50,000 it would be a joke, because it is too many price levels above the Malibu. On luxury cars you need more than styling and interior trim to separate yourself from the mainstream stuff, that is where Lincoln and Acura to a degree fall flat. I see the XTS in the same way, they can put a fancy grille on and some leather on the inside, but it is still a Buick LaCrosse underneath.

Multiple cars on the same platforms for 4 brands was one of the reasons GM went bankrupt. They still do it with trucks and SUVs. All they learned was to price the platform shared car higher so it doesn't directly compete. GM does however do a better job than Ford of making 2 cars on the same platform appear different.

Here is an alternative, a 1988 Buick Park Avenue with pick up bed, and 3800 V6.

GT-R now makes 530 horsepower. And I'm not saying that everyone has to copy the GT-R, just that with a V6 you can still have a really fast car. The M3 with a six cylinder will still be the best sport sedan in the class, and they'll do it off technology and agility. GM tends to think performance = big V8 in a standard car, but it isn't 1968 anymore. I for a while have thought they should make V-series cars lighter, because weight is what kills performance. V-series, AMG, M, cars all get more powerful, but all add weight. Although Mercedes may change that with a 2,860 lb carbon fiber E-class. That is what the ATS-V should be, a 2900 lb car that really does handle like it is on rails.

Correct. That is why a tarted up Buick pushing into a high price point I don't see being a success. Especially once the Epsilon2 Impala comes out, then the Buick is a dressed up Impala, the Cadillac a dressed up Buick. And people that want a good engine and performance, probably aren't looking at Lincoln in the first place. (or Buick for that matter). Cadillac still has some prestige with the blue hairs, so that gives them an advantage the Lincolns don't quite have.

Was the MKS Ecoboost the saving grace of Lincoln? That pretty much went unnoticed in 2009, Buick/Cadillac doing the same sort of car in 2012 I don't think is going to set the world on fire.

The Nissan GT-R has a V6, it doesn't have any problems crushing V8 and even V12 super cars in straight lines or around the Nurburgring. There are obviously people that like V8s and would prefer that. If the ATS-V uses a V8 that could cause for some appeal. My belief though is the M3 will still best in class anyway. Lexus has a V8 in the IS-F and that car sucks. The BMW inline six is an awesome engine, I think it can match up to whatever anyone else has, and the M3 wins on chassis, suspension, and steering anyway. Many think the older M3 was better because it was lighter and more agile, and the V8 car has gotten a bit too big and muscle car like.

I prefer the 60's Continental to this one, I saw a late 50's Continental sedan at a car cruise this summer and it was huge. I think the Cadillacs of this era had better styling. My question is what is the cost to convert a car to have a bed. Especially on an old hearse with the flat floor, you might be able to recreate this car.

Straight sixes are still great engines. I look forward to a modern take on it. Perhaps an inline six turbo diesel is in the works as well.