smk4565

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.

The Maserati Lebaron was a joke. I am sure this will be better executed but it won't work. The Chrysler 300 platform isn't really on par with a CTS even, yet they want it to go against $80-180,000 sedans? This seems kind of like the Jaguar X-type mistake but at a higher price point. Quality and reliability isn't a strong point of Chrysler or Fiat either. I'm not sold on this idea either, if you were shopping for a $100,000 car why would you want a stretched Chrysler 300 with a Marerati V8.

54 mpg seems like a high target. But my guess is electric cars will somehow raise manufacturers averages. There will be some way to use creative math with electric cars to fudge the numbers of gas powered cars to get to the 54 mpg.

Please no X6, ZDX, or 4-door cross-coupe-fastback-hatch vehicle. They are pointless, they don't have the cargo space of a normal SUV, and they don't handle as well as a car. Cadillac needs to focus on their car lines.

I actually meant that the Escalade is a Chevy Tahoe underneath the same way that Lincolns and Acuras are Fords and Hondas. I think the Escalade will stay Tahoe based, but if it did move to Lambda, the same problem of having your top vehicle be a Chevy with chrome, wood and leather exists.

New SRX sells better than the old one because the old one was $10,000 more expensive and looked too long and too wagon like. Plus the new SRX is a better size. And yes, mostly women shop in this segment and they care more about soft, easy, predictable FWD, rather than the handling and performance advantage of RWD. Also consider the GLK and X3 are compacts, compared to more mid-size Lincoln/Lexus/Cadillac entrants to this segment. That "more room for the kids" argument helps the RX350 over an X3 also. But the segment may not always be like that, especially as mainstream crossovers get better and near the limit of FWD performance. Plus, Cadillac has no competitor to the M-class or X5, and there is probably more profit to be had at that price point than at the entry level one. SRX sells for now, but I wonder if the same formula will be working come 2018-2020. Acura and Lincoln have tumbled in recent years with that strategy, I don't like Cadillac going down that road and they are doing it with 3 of 5 current/future vehicles (Escalade, XTS, SRX).

X3 28i is 19/26 X3 35i is 16/23 Why? Gear Ratios, gear ratios, gear ratios. The BMW's ZF 8-speed tranny simply has a taller top gear. According to Fueleconomy.gov which lists official EPA rating,s the X3 35i gets 19/26 mpg. And yes the BMW/ZF 8-speed gives it an advantage, but that is what makes them BMW. They constantly work to offer the best engines and transmissions. Cadillac digs up the 6-speed out of a Malibu/Equinox, and puts in a gutless 3 liter V6 (again from the Equinox) and calls it a day. Until now when they realized the error and put the correct engine into the SRX. Cadillac can put an 8-speed in their cars, not one is stopping them. Then they can have advantageous gear ratios also.

8 more HP than the BMW but the SRX gives up 35 lb-ft and the BMW hits it's peak torque at 1300 rpm. But more importantly the X3 gets 3 mpg higher in city and highway. If the SRX were on the correct platform, not only would handling be improved, but it would open it up to better engines and transmissions. The SRX, MKZ and RX350 all offer basically the same drivetrain, but they get by with it because drivetrain and handling aren't important to most consumers in this segment. Fuel economy may be however. But all 3 of those SUVs can easily hit $45,000 and they offer about the same horsepower and fuel economy of a $29k Kia Sorrento. Over long term, I just don't see those 3 offering enough to differentiate themselves from mass volume SUVs. It is the same reason the Acura TL and Lincoln MKZ don't sell as well as a CTS, C-class or 3-series. At the end of the day, the MKZ is still a Fusion, just like the MKZ/SRX/RX350 have a lot of mass produced generic FWD underneath the sheet metal.