smk4565

The A4 has a far better interior than any Buick, the A4 interior is better than what is in the CTS. I'm not really an A4 fan, the A4 is worth it's price tag. The Infiniti G37 is a pretty good deal too to get 330 hp RWD and a 7 speed tranny. I had one as a rental once, and it is a fun to drive car, probably not something I'd buy because I don't care for the styling of it, but a good car none the less. I just don't think the Regal is worth a price tag that is similar to a G37 or A4 or even an MKZ or Acura.

Premium cache. Buick still has a smidgen of it. Hyundai never has. Also, good luck finding a Sonata 2.0T with a manual. Buick in 2010 had the highest average buyer age of any car brand at 62 years old. It is still an older person's car, not to mention Hyundai makes more expensive luxury cars than Buick. The top Buick sedan is a $30k LaCrosse, Hyundai has sedans priced well above that. I'd say the Hyundai brand has a better image than Buick.

Sonata 2.0T Limited: 274 hp, 33 mpg, $27,145 Regal GS: 270 hpm 28 mpg, $35,000+??? Why would anyone pay $8,000 more for a Regal? I agree with Camino that the car is pointless. I don't think the Regal with any engine is a bad car, but it is just too expensive for what you get. $30k for a 184 hp engine? No thanks.

It seems pricy to me. An Accent starts at $12,400 and also has 138 hp. Plus the Accent and Fiesta look better than the Sonic, I find the Sonic to have ugly in-your-face styling. Sonic seems to close to the Cruze in price, but perhaps there will be big incentives on it.

I also think a mid engine supercar is too ambitious. Cadillac won't sell any of them. I think they can sell a GT car like a Jaguar XK. They sold XLRs and the car wasn't very good. Make it a 2+2 with a legit interior and it could be successful.

The Fleetwood in my line up could have a V-series version, I'd use the proposed 5.0 liter turbo V8 for it. So that engine is shared with the cts-v. That would put the car against the Quattroporte, A8, Supercharged XJ, etc. I know that puts Cadillac short of the S600 and AMG S-class but you can't compete with everything and a hyper powered huge.cadillas won't sell

They probably won't call it Fleetwood, probably ZTS or something lame. Cadillac's model names have little brand equity, they are remind me of Lincoln and Acura. I'd rather them use real names, but interiors are a big key. Cadillac interiors of late seem cramped and small. I'd like to see the ATS with the same interior room of a CTS, and the CTS get bigger on the inside with no change to the exterior dimensions. GMT900 successor will have to get lighter, maybe smaller. Given the success of the Ecoboost F150, I can see the next-gen Tahoe/Escalade having a turbo V6, hybrid technology will have to be in the mix. Between CAFE and gas prices or $4 or more a gallon, the GMT900 is going to have to see changes. My whole Cadillac line is what I'd like to see for 2015. Factoring in increased CAFE, higher gas prices, and what the competition is doing, I think eAssist or some form of hybrid is needed on every model line. Not that I think Lincoln is a big threat, but the next MKZ hybrid is expected to have 47 mpg city. That will attract some buyers, and Cadillac has to have an answer for that.

Sounds fun. I don't love the ATS name or any alphabet soup name, but I'll stick with them since that is what they have. For transmission, 8-speed automatic standard on all Cadillacs. THE CARS ATS: small sedan, coupe, convertible near 182 inches long $33,000-$45,000 ($2,000 more for convertible) RWD or AWD 2.0 turbo 4 with 260 hp, 3.6 V6 with 320 hp, 2.0 turbo diesel (e-Assist optional) ATS-V sedan/coupe $59,000, 430 hp twin turbo V6 CTS: mid-size sedan, coupe wagon near 191 inches long $44,000-60,000 RWD or AWD. 2.0 turbo 4, 3.6 V6, 3.0 turbo diesel V6, twin turbo 4.0 DOHC V8 (e-Assist optional) CTS-V sedan/coupe $79,000, twin turbo 5.0 DOHC V8 with eAssist Fleetwood: full size sedan SWB 199 inches long, LWB 205 inches long. Aluminum chassis and body $85,000-130,000 RWD or AWD 3.0L turbo diesel V6, 3.6 twin turbo V6, 4.0 twin turbo DOHC V8, 5.0 twin turbo DOHC V8 (eAssist standard on all) Eldorado: small to mid size Grand Tourer coupe/convertible on aluminum chassis (XK, SL, 911 competitor) $75-110,000 RWD 3.6 V6, 4.0 V8, 5.0 V8 (all twin-turbo, DOHC, with eAssist) (ATS-V and CTS-V offer manual transmission also) THE TRUCKS BRX: small SUV on ATS platform $35-50,000 RWD or AWD. 2.0T, 3.6 V6 w/ eAssist SRX mid-size SUV on CTS platform $46-65,000 RWD or AWD 3.6 V6 and turbo 4.0 V8 (eAssist optional) Escalade: large SUV continues on based of the Tahoe, but the whole GMT900 line likely needs rethought with CAFE (weight reduction) $60-80,000 RWD or AWD 3.0 turbo diesel V6, 4.0 turbo V8 with e-Assist

The weight definitely hurts. I only used the Camry as an example, but the Altima V6 and Sonata 2.0T are quick also. 0-60 in 6.7 seconds and 28 mpg isn't anything special, several cars in the mid to high $20s offer that. I wonder how they will price it. I just think they will end up asking over $35k for it, maybe near $40k optioned up. That is CTS money for a FWD Buick, no thanks.

The extra power is a nice surprise, makes it stand out from the pack a bit more. Although I would have thought it would be faster than 6.7 seconds to 60 mph, unless GM has a conservative time. I've seen 0-60 times for a Camry V6 as low as 5.9 seconds and it gets 29 mpg highway. Front wheel drive has about hit is performance limit, the Regal GS at $35k can't offer performance that has already been done, and by some cars costing less.

Cadillac's only car. 10-20 years of poor product planning, quick fixes, and stop gaps has left Cadillac with the CTS and a pair of SUVs, one that is a chromed up Chevy and another that seems awfully close. What Cadillac was in the large car era of the late 50's to early 80's, slowly died during the 80s and 90s, but the big floaty sedan market in general died. The past image of Cadillac is dead, I think they realized this in 2002 when they did the renaissance with Sigma. However, the execution wasn't good enough and Cadillac needs to reinvent itself again if it plans to survive.

A Maybach-Aston Martin combo car could be really sweet. But Maybach isn't needed, they don't sell, and it doesn't create brand image like a Bugatti Veyron. Mercedes has the S-class, which has spent most of the past 30-40 years being considered the best car in the world. They should drop Maybach and just offer an S-class Pulman limo with an extra fancy interior.

I don't get how you raise the price of a $50,000+ car that has the interior of a $23,000 car and has declining sales.

Seems that way, but those investments can be done with a 10-15 year loan and probably depreciated over 7 years for tax savings. So it isn't like the dealers have to put all that up front, but it does seem like Ford wants to weed out more dealers. The problem with this plan is that Lincoln's product line is so lame, it isn't going to attract people to the dealership in the first place.

Lower the price and the average buyer age will drop. The interior still needs improved, but a V6 Corvette at $42k could draw in more sales. The problem is the Corvette mainly appeals to current Corvette owners and guys that had muscle cars in the 60's and 70's. And that demographic is aging and shrinking. If the Corvette wants younger buyers, the car has to change some. Adding a smaller engine and lower price, along with new styling should help.

The problem list is really long. Brand identity is one, inconsistency of styling themes every 10 years is another. Platforms, marketing, bodies, size, pricing, you can pretty much name it and Lincoln does it wrong. I can't think of anything that Lincoln does better than the luxury car field, aside from the MKZ hybrid's gas mileage. There is nothing they excel in that brings in new buyers, or retains their old ones. To me the main problem is Lincoln is basically a Ford trim level, why pay $10-15k more for the Lincoln when the equal Ford basically has all the same stuff. The engineering behind the product is the main problem, restyling the current product is putting lipstick on a pig. The only way to save Lincoln is with amazing new product. They really need their own RWD chassis, maybe a second shared with the Mustang, and Ecoboost hybrids that are 300+ hp and 40 mpg good, and body panels that aren't off a Ford. They need smaller products too, small cars are the hot segment now, and Lincoln has nothing.

Lincoln's problem isn't in styling or marketing, it is engineering. Fords for thousands less have the same mechanicals, and now most of the same luxury features, and some of the Fords look as good or better than the Lincolns. There really isn't much point to buy a Lincoln, unless you own a Lincoln and don't want to drive anything else. Why buy an overpriced Ford with old geezer brand image when there are 6-8 other luxury brands with better offerings. The MKS and MKT are too large also. Most people don't need a 205 inch long sedan or SUV/Wagon/Hearse vehicle. I can pretty much guarantee that the redesigns won't sell either.

I don't get how DOHC is slower and less powerful. There are DOHC cars that are more powerful and faster than a ZR-1 or Viper. A Pagani Huayra is DOHC yet has 100 hp more than a ZR-1 and weighs less. And vibration and harshness should not be acceptable in a Cadillac. Cadillac should be excellent at everything, not just average or acceptable. But you bring up a good point about volume, the Corvette is not a high end car like an Aston Martin or Ferrari. So it should have sales volume, I think they should keep it in the $45-65k range, so they can't put a high end engine in the car. Interior is the biggest problem, regardless of what engine is under the hood, the Corvette interior is a joke. If they want to push the Corvette up against the high dollar super cars, I think they do need a high tech engine, but I wouldn't position the car there. A Cadillac supercar would be a better choice for that.

GT-R has a back seat and you can drive it in snow because it has AWD.

I'd agree, the front seems a little off. I like the back end, it looks good form the side too. A revised front end could make that car really good looking. I think they designed that car while they were still mostly in copy cat mode. The Sonata/Elantra/Accent are forming more of an design theme for Hyundai and perhaps taking cues from those cars will help.

It simply comes down to not having the V8. I think had they wedged it in there, people would have had not choice but to take the Genesis more seriously. I also think the Genesis coupe should have had a different name from the sedan. The new Camaro would not have ever been taken as seriously if it was called the Impala coupe. With all the DOHC vs IBC discussion in another thread, I wonder if had Hyundai built a IBC V8, it would have fit in the Genesis coupe. I imagine a LSx powered Genesis would have been taken very seriously by many. True about the V8. If Hyundai put their 5.0 liter V8 in the coupe, it would be more powerful than a Mustang GT or Camaro SS, be lower in weight and likely better gas mileage as well. Hyundai also has 8 gears while Ford and Chevy only 6. The Genesis coupe is smaller than the Mustang and Camaro, it is only about as big as a Cruze, so I would think a turbo V6 would be the best option. The new Hyundai V6 has 333 hp, a turbo could get it to 380-390 easily, that is plenty for a car that size and weight. Hyundai wants no part of a pushrod, Chevy and Chrysler only still build them because they don't have the money to make something new from scratch.

That is an amazing time. My first thought was about the tires, and if they are racing tires, but from what I read, even though they are designed for a track, they are street legal road tires. So that is quite the achievement.

The Elantra is averaging 3 days on dealer lots before sales. I also have been seeing a lot of them lately. If the Genesis gets the 8-speed and 333 hp V6, that makes it a pretty appealing package. Add in the Volester (which may or may not sell, but I think it will), and Hyundai really does have the cheap coupe segment covered. I bet the Civic coupe is suffering because of it.

Same amount of people as now, I was only thinking of widening roads. Like making a highway with 2 lanes (in one direction) into 3 lanes. I was only thinking of improvements to the current road system, like using concrete rather than asphalt so it last longer and less construction means less travel delays. Now if they put a Mag-Lev system in that connects major cities, I think road and air travel will both be reduced, but that is another topic entirely. Unless revenue from a gas tax can help fund mag-lev.

I think Ackerson is right on this one. A gas tax increased to 50 cents, or even $1 a gallon is better than CAFE of 45-60 mpg. It would have to be implemented over time though, and most politicians would be afraid to vote for it. But a 50 cent tax (vs 18 cents) would push gas from the $3.80 it is now to $4.12. That isn't terrible, especially if consumers know it is coming and the increase is gradual. All pushing CAFE higher does is make cars more expensive to buy. If gas is cheap people will buy gas guzzlers, and there will be no demand for a replacement. If gas were $5 a gallon, people would buy high mileage cars, and there would be demand for electric or alternatives. I just read the other day how a Saudi Prince wants to keep oil relatively cheap because it keeps us hooked on oil long term. And perhaps in theory (though probably not in reality) with more gas taxes, we could develop a better road network (more lanes) and car pooling would increase, meaning better traffic flow and less sitting in traffic idling engines. So people's average gas mileage should improve, but that is probably wishful thinking.