smk4565

Do people not remember what happened the last time Cadillac tried to sell a Chevrolet compact with no change to the powertrain? I think we all know what we got, let's not go down that road again. The other thing that is a bit worrying is SRX, XTS, Converj all FWD, and Escalade maybe joining them. That is a whole lot of FWD, and the big FWD luxury brands Acura and Lincoln are have one wheel in the grave. People don't want to pay $40k for a fancy Fusion or Accord, they won't want to pay $60k for a Volt. Sure a few people will buy it, but a few people bought the Allante and XLR, even the VW Phaeton. An plug-in hybrid or range extended electric or whatever you want to call it should be built on Alpha platform.

Bad move if it has the Volt powertrain. Cadillac doesn't need a slow, FWD, overweight compact that costs 60 grand. Great move if they get 0-60 times down to 7 seconds and make it handle like a CTS (read RWD). This goes to show Cadillac's poor product planning though. Why dress up a Chevy (the strategy that killed Lincoln) when you could electrify the ATS and make something fun, with performance cred and green cred.

I think it better to look toward a Grand Am or Grand Prix, although Pontiacs of 10-15 years ago tend to fall apart easily also. The Buick Regal I think is a good option because it is basically the same as the Grand Prix, but you have a better chance that it was a grandma car that was garage kept and better cared for. I think you could find an Olds Alero or 2000-2001 Chevy Monte Carlo also and it would be a bit more youthful of a car.

I think a Cadillac at 17 is a bit nuts, it may seem like a good idea at first because of features/horsepower per dollar, but it's just too tacky or flashy for a 17 year old. Plus the DTS is really big, and thirsty. The Northstar will run a long time, but on my Aurora I've replaced every engine mount, oxygen sensors (and they need replaced again), and if something breaks it is usually costly. Plus my car takes 7.5 quarts of oil and burns at least 2 between every oil change. Working part time at 17 he isn't going to like $100 oil changes and buying oil in between unless you go to a place with free top off. I do have the air suspension on my car, never a problem with that, and the original battery lasted over 9 years, so I was impressed with those aspects.

I agree with Reg on the Cien or XLR type car. Probably for Cadillac a front engine car makes more sense and make it AWD like a GT-R, so you get the performance. A mid-engine car would also be fast so either would be fine with me. This would also let Cadillac have the super car of GM, rather than the Corvette carrying that title, and the Corvette can go back to being a $45-65,000 sports car that is more attainable. I think the Corvette is a bit unfocused, it covers from $50-130,000, has an aging customer base and sinking sales. A Cadillac super car allows GM to reinvent the Corvette.

Everyone wants to copy Mercedes and Jaguar styling, or once Mercedes makes a 4-door coupe, everyone else wants one. The number of copy cats out there is sad, it would be nice if more companies had some creativity because it would challenge everyone to do better. As it is, a few companies innovate, and most just copy it or water it down, and it is boring. Toyota is so boring, from the Yaris to the Lexus LS460 and everything in between, boring, boring, boring.

I think a good thread would be the anti holy grail of cars, not counting the Cadillac Cimarron and Pontiac Aztek, because those are just too easy. No one mentioned the Aston Martin DB5 yet, that is a pretty legendary car.

Cadillac made a big error around 2005 with the STS, which then trickled on to the CTS. The STS was too large from the get go, and not athletic enough to go against the 5-series and E-class. The 2005 STS should have been aimed directly at the 5-series (thus 1st gen SRX smaller as well). Then instead of the CTS growing in size in 2008, the car could have shrunk down to 3-series size. But GM was under the impression that luxury cars (and especially Cadillacs) had to be large and they missed the market big time in 2005-2008 on the STS and SRX, and the CTS sold okay, but only about 50% of what a C-class or 3-series sold. The $4 billion Cadillac renaissance stalled at this point, then the bankruptcy hit and Cadillac today now for 2013 is trying to get to where they could have been in 2008. But better late than never.

I'd say the market is bigger than that of the CTS. Not only do small luxury cars sell well, but aside from the Germans, the Lexus IS is the only other car sized like a 3-series. There are a dozen or so mid-size luxury cars to do battle with. The small segment has fewer brands in it, thus I think opportunity exists for Cadillac to get small luxury sedan buyers who maybe don't want a BMW or Mercedes. I also don't think the ATS needs to be a sub CTS, because they can price it $33-43,000 and that is about where the first gen CTS lived as far as price point. This also allows Cadillac to push the CTS up to the $45-55,000 price point on a redesign.

Honorable mention to the Bugatti Royale and Jaguar E-type, but this is it. To think they had a 320 hp, DOHC straight 8, 75 years ago (and up to 400 hp on some models) is just staggering.

gasbuddy.com mobile phone ap

Whoops, I did mean to look at July numbers. But In July the Genesis did even better than in June. Equus went up too, little by little, they are moving up.

Genesis rising. I think an opportunity for Hyundai exists with the Vera Cruz. It is still a vehicle from the past generation, given the new styling, new 2.0T and 333 hp V6 engines, and a Genesis-level interior, they could have a competitive luxury crossover at thousands less than Acura/Lincoln/Cadillac are offering.

The Escalade is tanking. That is a vehicle they may want to rethink on the next generation. It is too big and thirsty. Cadillac has become a 2 vehicle brand. Cruze and Equinox and Malibu are driving them, the small-mid-size vehicles with 4-cylinders are doing well.

I also first thought of Mercedes C-class when seen in profile view, however in a good way. I think the C-class (and any Benz sedan) looks quite good from side view. So far this looks promising to me. But I agree we need to see more to really judge it, teasers don't tell much.

54 mpg CAFE is coming. In 15 years time they will probably have an electric Silverado. But for now, they have to combat the Ecoboost engine, and for the a V6 diesel would make the Silverado stand out. GM needs to be a leader for a change, rather than wait for Ford to do it, have success then 3 years later offer it.

This and the Jaguar XK are two cars that I think look better as a hardtop coupe rather than convertible. The Soltice hardtop has a bit of a 1961 E-type vibe to it, which is maybe the best looking car ever. The only drawback to an otherwise excellent design is that cheapy radio antenna.

And Silverados don't have a lot of mark up? So maybe it is $2-3,000 extra, but a 3 liter diesel V6 can't be all that much more expensive than a gas V8. It can't cost more than the Hybrid system, and it would be more effective. If they can put a diesel in the Cruze and make it cost effective, they can do it with the Silverado.

Completely unrealistic. DuraMax is $7200 (then you get to add the Allison cost on). Even VW charges $4700 more for the TDI. V6 TD would be every bit of a $5000 option. The Duramax is a heavy duty engine though, and they wouldn't need a special transmission for 425 lb-ft of torque. Mercedes charges $1,000 extra for a diesel engine, so it must be possible.

I never said without a turbo. I think the base Silverado should be turbo V6, turbo diesel V6 as maybe a $1,000 extra. Then for V8s, it seems redundant to offer a 6.0 and 6.2 liter, but isn't the new Chevy V8 supposed to be 5.5 liters. Regardless, they only need one V8 for the light duty trucks.

Winning!!!

Some won't give up their V8s, but that is why the 6.2 liter V8 is there. And offered on the Tahoe/Escalade/Corvette, etc. The Turbo V6 could be put in a new (hopefully lighter) Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade as well. And CTS, ATS, Camaro can benefit from a boosted V6 also. They need a Mercedes style diesel V6, 240 hp and 455 lb-ft of torque, that can give 25 mpg highway. The 5.3 liter V8 has become like the 3800 or those 3.1 and 3.4 V6s. GM claimed people wanted a V6, not a 4-cylinder, then Camry and Accord 4-cylinders outsell them by leaps and bounds. Pick up sales are much lower than 10 years ago, gas will probably only go up, CAFE is an issue, so they have to boost fuel economy. The 5.3 V8 doesn't help them do that, but V6s do. Side note: I'd like to see a diesel V6 put in the CTS also, forget that torqueless 3.0 liter, a diesel would offer nearly twice as much torque and at least 5 more MPG.

They should offer a smaller diesel for non heavy duty pick ups. A turbo V6 is a no brainer, I am surprised it is taking this long. My question is why is the 5.3 liter V8 sticking around? They don't need an engine that is less powerful and more thirsty than the ecoboost. The pickups (non Heavy Duty) should be a turbo diesel V6, turbo gas V6, and the 6.0 or 6.2 liter V8 for those that want/need a V8. But like 50% of F150s are V6 sales, time to accept what the market wants and get away form dinosaur engines. GM clings to out dated engines like no other.

Well the Quattroporte's engine sounds excellent, but it should since it is form the Ferrari 430. But despite the awesome sound it makes, it isn't worth $100k when there are other better cars. And they are insane if they want the M157 to go near $200,000.

That can't be worth that much. $125k for a Chevelle/El Camino seems like a lot. That is a ZR1 or the price of a lot of good 50s and 60s era sports cars.