smk4565

I would agree that being #1 in sales doesn't make a car the best one in the segment, especially in segments with fleet sales. But the E-class and 5-series are about tied for tops in that segment. I like the Jaguar XF, but it is V8 only, so that limits it on buyers. My main point was to refute the claim that Audi turned around, why can't Lincoln do the same. The A6, A8 and Q7 are all in the back of the class in sales, even the A4 sales at about the same rate as the Lincoln MKZ. Audi does a few things well, but they aren't exactly the model of luxury success for the USA. Globally, with A3's and 4-cylinder A6's and diesels they do well because they have fuel efficiency and lower price point than a Mercedes. I don't see Lincoln being successful by improving the sheet metal and interiors of the MKS and MKZ. A $40,000 Fusion is still a hard sell.

VAG was able to do it with Audi, so why can't Ford do it with Lincoln? Or, rephrasing the question, why is Ford management so incompetent in your opinion? Audi has a global market, and most of their global sales are at the lower end of the luxury market, on smaller cars. In the USA, Audi isn't having a ton of success, but they do alright. Lincoln doesn't have a chance internationally, so they have to make it in the USA. An E-class outsells an Audi A6 nearly 10 to 1, so Audi's plan isn't working in that regard. Audi does have good interiors across the board, this is something they do well, and their cars get fairly good mileage compared to other luxury brands, and they did a good job marketing Quattro. Audi also has had a ton of racing success at Le Mans, and VW owns Lamborghini and Bentley, so they can do an Audi R8 based off a Gallardo, or a put a Lambo V10 in an A8 sedan. Ford doesn't understand global luxury (see Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover, Aston Martin) first off. Secondly, they don't have other brands or racing pedigree for Lincoln. At best Lincoln can work on interiors and fuel economy, but I don't see that as being enough. When you have 270 hp, 34 mpg family sedans for $25,000, why spend $40k on a slower, thirstier Lincoln. Plus the technology and features on family compact sedans is catching up with the entry lux sedans.

Can't save Lincoln by doing their current strategy executed better. Taking the MKS and making it more gorgeous or changing the interior doesn't solve the obesity problem it has, or the nose heavy problem. Regardless of what they do to the MKZ and MKS on those platforms, the car won't be as good as a European car. The absolute best Lincoln can hope for is to build a better Acura. And Acura is in the dump also. Unless, they leverage the Ford Falcon and Mustang platforms and basically re-invent themselves. To fix Lincoln you need to blow it up and start over, at a cost of billions of dollars. That is a big gamble, which I don't see Ford making.

Revamped LNF could work. But the engine as it is now isn't fuel efficient enough. I don't know how the NVH is since I haven't driven one, but obviously that engine was designed with Pontiac, Saturn and Chevy Cobalt/HHR in mind. So I'd imagine that it wasn't designed to Cadillac specification. The fuel economy race will go all the way to the top. Audi just revealed an A8 hybrid that gets 37 mpg. And there are plug-ins and electric cars at high dollar amounts coming. I think for a luxury brand to make it they have to cover both ends. Some will want performance, some will want economy, and many will want both. So if Cadillac can do a CTS-V, but also a 40 mpg CTS, they are hitting both ends of the market.

The Solstice GXP engine is a bit 2007, I think GM should come up with a new turbo 4 for Cadillac. Adding eAssist to that and an 8-speed transmission gets the ATS and CTS above the 35 mpg mark. Then Cadillac can match up to the hybrids and diesels. Speaking of which, the CTS should get a diesel also. Just how the fuel economy race happened with compacts, and everyone wanting 40 mpg, that is going to start happening with luxury cars. Already 3 luxury brands have 40+ mpg, I'd imagine come 2015, that 7 brands have a 40 mpg car, Cadillac should be trying to be a leader in this, not a follower.

Cadillac does not have a 30 mpg vehicle. Their 7 closest competitors do. That is a problem for Cadillac. Mercedes has a lot of guzzlers, but they also operate at a higher end of the market, where the consumer doesn't care as much. Plus they have a lot of high power engines. But Mercedes has high mileage cars in Europe, they can import those here to have high milage offerings, and it looks like they will over the next couple years. Mercedes also doesn't have a sales problem, they are having a huge year in the US and globally. Mercedes sales have grown in recent decades, where as Cadillac's best year was 1976. It's been 35 years of decline. The $35-50k luxury market has a lot of hybrids and diesels, and turbo 4's. BMW has a 36 mpg 3-series, a 32-34 mpg (depending on EPA rating) 5-series. Cadillac is missing an opportunity for sales by not making anything that gets better than 27 mpg. If they want to survive here and go global, they need a 35 mpg ATS and CTS, maybe even a 40 mpg CTS.

By making one sedan with average fuel economy and 2 thirsty SUV's, Cadillac's mileage looks good?

I must say I like the Hyundai Veloster a lot. With that the Accent and Elantra, Hyundai has a mighty strong presence in the compact market. The Fiesta and Focus are really good and appealing also. I think the Civic and Corolla are in trouble because they are so boring. It used to be that every compact car was boring, and the Civic and Corolla dominated because they were better built, longer lasting. But now a lot of these cars are well built, and small cars aren't boring anymore.

Luxury car makes top mpg: Acura 22/31 mpg Audi 30/42 mpg BMW 24/34 mpg (528i estimated, EPA figure not available) Infiniti 27/32 mpg Lexus 43/40 mpg (also have 35/34 and 32/28) Lincoln 41/36 mpg Mercedes 22/33 mpg Cadillac 18/27 mpg. Their 7 closest competitors have a 30 mpg car, three of them have a 40 mpg car.

Looks kind of like the Lexus HS250h, which is also an ugly car. But give credit to them for adding that rear arm rest. I think Chevy followed the right Asian brand. Hyundai is the future, Toyota is the past. A front drive family can't really handle more than 260-270 hp, and the buyer of this car doesn't even want more than that. They care more about fuel economy, and Hyundai has it right, with a 4, turbo 4, and hybrid 4.

I think for a long time, GM (and even the entire auto market) has needed a luxury compact rather than all the sport compacts that are out there. There is definitely a market for a smaller, cheaper version of an ES350/Avalon/MKZ sort of car with some luxury and smooth ride. Although, I get a big Pontiac G6 vibe from the Verano because of the headlights and slab sides, which cheapens the car for me.

So why doesn't Cadillac replace the transmission? I don't think they are unable to produce an 8-speed, but I do think the cost cutter culture still reigns supreme, and I'm sure they believe that a 6-speed is "good enough." And here in lies what holds Cadillac back. That "it's good enough" mentality of GM that works for Chevy doesn't work for Cadillac.

That engine drinks fuel. If the CTS turbo 4 was 0-60 in 6.2 seconds and 24/34 mpg, it would be appealing as a base engine, because the average buyer doesn't care that much about robust acceleration. Even a 3.6 liter CTS is barely quicker than a 528i, and at a loss of 6-7 mpg, poor trade off.

BMW's inline-sixes tend to be underrated, and they have more torque. 230 lb-ft @ 2600 rpm vs. 223 lb-ft @ 5700 rpm for the CTS 3.0. Those two factors could be why the 240-hp 528i accelerates to 60 mph as quickly as the 304-hp CTS 3.6 does (in addition to having two extra gears). And actually for 2012 the 528i will have a 4 cylinder turbo that makes 240 hp @ 5,000 rpm, and 260 lb-ft. 30% more torque than the 3.0 I6, and north of 32 mpg, so that is a pretty appealing base engine.

And hopefully they go after the Germans for real, instead of just talking about it. CTS should take over the price range of the STS/STS-V or go even higher.

The good thing about the CTS-V is having 3 body styles so it appeals to a wider base of people. However, I wonder if the V wagon will be short lived if sales are too low. On the lack of rear arm rest on CTS coupes, that shows the cost cutter that lives with in GM. If they cost cut on something passengers can touch, I know they cost cut on places the consumer doesn't see. So the CTS-V is what it is, its and entry level luxury car with a big engine. It is the same formula used on a Shelby Mustang or SRT Charger, just with a slightly better starting point. So if you want an entry level car with a big engine, it is the car for you.

Yawn. Looks pretty similar to the current one, which will appeal to current Camry buyers, but others will probably think the car looks a bit stale. Even the interior looks like a refreshed version of the old one. Same engines too. It is like they took the previous Camry, and told the engineers and designers to improve everything 10% and use no imagination in doing so. And this is the result.

Well, the new M5 does have 560 hp, and development of a triple turbo diesel M5 with ridiculous torque is well under way. I like the styling of new Mercedes models (although not a fan of the rear end of the CLS), but hard to pass up a Jaguar XK if buying on styling. Yeah it is slower than an AMG or V-series but on looks alone it kills all these cars.

Because Cadillac is run by General Motors, who likes to cut corners and save $$$. I think the interior could be better, it would look fine on a lower end ATS, but not on a car aimed at the German mid-sizers. I am not a fan of the piano black trim, but the regular gray looks really cheap also. Where's the real aluminum or some carbon fiber trim or something. But I must say I don't like how almost every car company does their performance line in all charcoal gray and black interiors. At least Jaguar (especially in the XJ) has a selection of leather colors and woods to pick from, more brands should follow suit.

Cadillac may be able to sell a few at $50k, but not many. Cadillac has never figured out how to sell a high dollar car. The Alante failed, XLR failed, STS-V (and really the whole STS line) failed also. The problem is Cadillac's current customer base doesn't spend over $50k on a car, and many of their conquests are Lincoln or bottom end Lexus drivers that also don't spend over $50k on a car. If Cadillac wants the $50-100k car shopper, they have to convert people that for years have been buying Mercedes, BMW, Porsche, and Jaguar. That customer set is not going to be wowed by a FWD compact with 150 hp, or even if with a 25% increase to the Volt's power, it is still 187 hp. Nor do they want a 17 foot long FWD barge with chrome and vertical tail lamps. All that is going to attract are people trading in Town Cars that are confused as to why Lincoln doesn't make it anymore. All these quick fixes and stop gaps are going to come back to haunt. If/when they ever do make a S-class fighter, how much credibility is it going to have when their line up is full of front drive, Chevy/Buick based cars. This is partly what hurt Pontiac, how could they be a performance brand (G8 and Solstice) when you have crap like the G3, G5, badge jobs like the Torrent and Montana, and a mediocre at best G6. Brands need image, and you think GM would have learned that after how they mishandled Olds, Pontiac, and Saturn.

Agreed with Oldsmoboi about the ELC name. And I agree with Oncblu about putting a good body on an otherwise underwhelming platform/powertrain.

I agree that sales matter but look at what sells in the $50k and higher luxury segment. Front wheel drive sure doesn't. Even at $40-50k look how the RL and MKS struggle and the DTS went from 100,000 sales a year to 25,000 a year. I support the idea of an electric Cadillac but it should not be a Chevy clone. Cadillac deserves better than to be a Volt trim level. Make an electric CTS, that would be much better. Cadillac has a second issue. They struggle big time selling high dollar cars (xlr, sts-v). Rumor is the ELR is $60,000, it has to be special. A volt isn't special otherwise it would sell.

I like it better as a hard top. Mid engine cars look a bit weird in convertible form, although the Audi R8 looks pretty good. But the great looking convertibles seem to be front engine with the longer hood, like an XK or SL.

Well my main point about the speed is the Delta and Epsilon platforms are not made for high speed travel or razor sharp handling. Same with the Accord and Camry platforms. That is why those platforms are bad to use on performance/luxury cars, and they the Germans are the luxury leaders. The problem with Lincoln and Acura is they offer the same performance as a Ford or Honda, Lincoln is basically a trim level that is why they run a risk of going out of business. Cadillac should not be a Buick or Cadillac trim level, and changing the sheet metal doesn't solve the problem.

An entirely absurd (and incorrect) statement. CTS, STS, SRX (either generation) and even an old 2001 Eldorado would like to have a word with you in the back SMK. Hell, a '96 Fleetwood as a top speed over 140mph. Just because the car has a top speed of 140 mph, doesn't mean it will be as stable at high speed autobahn cruising as an S-class, or handle the Nurburgring like a 3-series. On paper, Lexus sedans have good stats, but they don't perform or feel like a German car. Nor do the IS and GS sell like a 3-series or 5-series, because they just aren't as good.