smk4565

The DTS's death was long overdue. That car is ancient by current luxury car standards. As is the Northstar and 4-speed auto. It was a great powertrain in the 90s, but it is 2011 now. Perhaps what is sad, is that the Deville/DTS is dying because Cadillac was unable to keep it current or modernize it. Where as a car like a 7-series or S-class has seen generation after generation and constant improvement. The XTS looks a bit tall and slab sided to me, it also looks rather bulky. The XTS seems like another GM car that will come out, sit on the market for 6 years with no update and become stale and cancelled.

This isn't just DOHC vs Pushrod. Because they aren't proposing a 4.8 liter DOHC V8 with 420 hp vs a 6.2 liter pushrod with 420 hp. That is sort of Mustang V8 vs Camaro V8 and which is preferred. This is considering a super high tech, high revving V8, and doing an engine like you'd find in a McLaren, Lexus LF-A or Koenigsegg. If they make the Corvette mid-engined, that is another drastic change. So really the debate is whether or not the Corvette's time has come. Can C7 be a front engine, rear drive, big V8 car, or does it become a mid-engine, 3 liter, 9,000 rpm car.

Right now, the ZR-1 gets beat by a $30,000 cheaper Nissan with a V6 (that is also more efficient). The Corvette formula still appeals to Corvette fans, but that is an aging bunch and the current car isn't appealing to non-Corvette drivers. I still like front engine, rear drive, I would go with a boosted V6 and a V8, make the car not so wide, with a better interior, and I think they can get more appeal. The potential risk I see here is the Corvette going after the Audi R8, Porsche 911, Ferrari California, Aston Martins, etc, and the Corvette isn't a mid-engine super car, nor is it a luxurious grand tourer. If they aim too high and try to sell Corvettes to people that are driving European exotics, the C7 will be a bust. Current price point is mostly good, I think the Corvette could even drop a little in price (unless way more content is standard). Interior and width hurt the current car. I think Chevy needs to stay close to the current formula, but with something new and different to pull new buyers in. The Corvette has basically been the same car for the past 10-15 years, save for a couple power increases and interior tweaks. The car is dated, why spend $60k on a new one, when a used one for half that price or less is basically the same. Chevy has to give people a reason to buy a new Corvette, while at the same time staying loyal to he fans.

Hart to do choice on a low volume car. I think the Corvette should stay front engine, rear drive as it always has. I like DOHC more, but if they want to keep the Corvette cheap (lower MSRP) than today's model, they can stick a pushrod in there. But then again, the Camaro offers that for people, unless the next generation Camaro is losing the V8. There is always the option of doing a mid-engine Cadillac supercar with a DOHC, twin-turbo V8. Mercedes had the SLR, now has the SLS AMG, Audi has the R8, and Lexus the LF-A, perhaps Cadillac wants a supercar too. The the Corvette can appeal to it's base, while the Cadillac appeals to the global crowd.

The Ferrari F40 had a 2.9 liter turbo V8 and it did okay. Koenigsegg has 900 hp and 250 mph out of a 4.7 liter V8. The Corvette can learn from those two, although I still think that cost of an engine like that will make it not feasible.

Those that have reservations can take comfort in the fact that an engine like this would be costly to develop and produce. Doing what is expensive and difficult isn't the way of GM. Plus Corvette sales are down, raising the price higher probably isn't going to help the Corvette recover, and the interior is the biggest short coming of the current car. To fix the interior and do an engine like this is going to drive the price up pretty high.

It isn't like the Transit or Dodge Caravan have all that much capability. Matching an Econoline in towing or cargo load may be possible for the Vito, but that is why they have the Sprinter. And they could roll out the Vito 55 AMG.

I like the turbo DOHC V8 idea, but I would go with something closer to 4 liters and not that high of a redline.

Prime example, over 400,000 miles on a Sprinter that says Dodge on the back, but has a 3-point star on the front. Sprinter That one even had the crappy 5-cylinder diesel, the new ones have the V6 which is better. The Mercedes vans would outlast the Ford and Chevy competition, if Mercedes launches a full scale commercial truck operation in the USA, they could really put a hurt to GM, Ford and Dodge, errr Ram.

The Enclave needs over 400 hp? Shouldn't Cadillac have the best engines at GM?

I should take a picture of the lineup of Sprinter vans that clearly didn't "run forever" down near the waterfront. Those are all Dodge Sprinters. If you put a 3-pointed star on something it runs forever.

I think it is a good idea to bring it here. There is the Transit at the compact van end, and the Sprinter and Econoline at the big end, and the Sprinter is really big. The middle size Vito could do well here, there is no minivan cargo van, except maybe for Dodge, and the utility companies will buy it. If no one else is going to go after the cargo van market (aside form Ford who doesn't have a mid-size van), Mercedes might was well take it over. Vito probably gets better mileage than even the Transit, and Mercedes run forever so businesses will like that durability.

ZDX is really terrible, even worse than the X6. The ZDX not only looks bad, but it doesn't have utility or cargo space. So you get small car space but SUV handling. But Acura is lost and since everything they make is basically $30-40k, they have to do odd stuff like the ZDX to find 5 models, because really they are all the same dumb car. Gimmicks don't last long, if you try to survive on that you are in trouble.

This thing is too big and heavy, not to mention ugly. Wagons don't sell in the USA, but this is worse than a wagon. It looks like a wagon but has SUV weight and handling, so it is like the worst of both worlds. I would guess the Honda Crosstour is a sales dud also. A 5-series wagon would sell better than this. And the 5-series sold well for years by being agile and the ultimate driving machine, they broke what worked. Maybe the product planners at BMW will get rid of garbage like this and the X6 and get back to 3-series, 5-series, 7-series and perhaps an 8-series coupe. On a side note, I like when automakers do what they know how to do. Porsche building an SUV bothers me, yet it is one of their top sellers so I know why they do it. I don't get why Lincoln needs a pick-up, Buick needs a minivan, Mini needs an SUV, BMW needs a 5-series Malibu Maxx, etc. IT is product planners getting greedy, rather than making your core products better. The 5-series GT is Crystal Pepsi, no one asked for it and no one wants it.

Aluminum body panels is a start, but obviously a lot of cars do that. To really see the weight savings you need the whole frame made of aluminum, which is of course very expensive. Electric steering saves fuel, but isn't hydraulic steering better?

I would guess that Cadillac gets 25% of GM's R&D dollars if they are lucky. And 50% probably goes to trucks and the rest of the car brands and lines have to squeak by on the remaining 25% Acording to Daimler's annual report, Mercedes passenger cars got $9.1 billion in R&D spending in 2009-2010. Mercedes trucks another $3.7 billion over 2 years, and Vans/Buses another $1.6 billion. Total of $14.4 billion over two years for Daimler, but Mercedes cars does enjoy 63% of Daimler's big budget. Anyone think GM will give Cadillac $9 billion in 2 years?

I know that was staggered, but they roll them out fairly often. Mercedes does spend around $6 billion a year in R&D, although it does go to more than just the car platforms. Mercedes spends nearly what all of GM does on R&D. I would guess that Cadillac gets 25% of GM's R&D dollars if they are lucky. In 2007 Mercedes actually spent more in R&D than GM, and GM had 8 brands to spread that across. All I'm saying is Mercedes has deep pockets and Cadillac does not. So Cadillac is forced to platform share, and the Alpha platform may be compromised. Maybe it will be great, but if it falls short of expectations and doesn't match up to the Germans, I won't be surprised either. I think I'd be more surprised if it is really good, rather than watered down.

ATS and Camaro could share, but that means the Camaro isn't the muscle car it is today. The Camaro then becomes more like the 3-series in size and driving dynamics (which is not a bad thing), and more like a Hyundai Genesis Coupe or Nissan 370Z kind of small sports car. But also note how much the Mustang and Camaro outsell the Genesis Coupe and 370Z. And do customers want a Camaro the size of a Cruze with 4 and 6 cylinder power only. But I think when you want to put a bigger car like the CTS on that platform, then a soft riding Buick, somewhere along the line you are trying to put square pegs in round holes. The challenge Cadillac has is overcoming Mercedes deep pockets. Because Mercedes can spend $2 billion on the C-class, $2B on the E-class/CLS, $2B on the S-class, and all of a sudden it is $6 billion for 3 platforms, although they do make 2 and 4 door of each line. But can Cadillac spend $6 billion for an ATS, CTS, and a real full size car? Probably not, that is why we get the XTS and a Tahoe with bling.

True that they can make multiple vehicles out of it. But they can't specialize it for one (or two) kinds of cars though. And the previous generation C-class cost $1.9 billion to develop and that was 10 years ago. Even since the 80s, each S-class cost over $1 billion by itself. I couldn't find the W221's cost, but the W220 S-class was over $1.6 billion to develop and that was late 90s money. I don't know if Cadillac has the funds to spend over $1 billion on the ATS alone, another $1 billion on the CTS, another $1 billion on a large car, etc. The problem GM runs into, is they want to make a 3-series killer, but they also want to build 4 other products off that platform. I think to kill the 3-series, it the platform has to be designed with one thing in mind.

A C-class is 3,527-3,615 lbs for the V6 models. If the 4-cylinder model goes on sale here (which I think it is) I assume that will be more in the 3,480 lbs range. A 328i is 3,428 lbs. I think the ATS needs to be in that 3500-3600 lb range, and should have a turbo 4-cylinder and DOHC V6. The Camaro should be in that weight range too, a Mustang is around 3,500 lbs and the Genesis coupe is even less. CTS can be 4,000 lbs, all those mid-sizer are now, but then again, with CAFE going higher and higher, automakers will be forced to cut weight.

GM does tend to cut costs or take short cuts when they can. So if they go that route with Alpha and compromise the platform to make it all things to all people it will be sad. What worries me, is they have to make it cheap enough for Chevy, build a small Cadillac, a mid-size Cadillac, possibly another car. The 3-series platform is purpose built, they don't have to compromise it. It would be unfortunate if the Alpha platform is not capble and the ATS and next-gen CTS are just mediocre. But only time will tell.

GMC is competition for Chevy as it stands now. Not being able to differentiate brands and having them compete with each other was part of what led GM to bankruptcy. GMC has volume now, but gas is rising. And GMC is a useless brand outside of North America. But as I said, I wouldn't kill it off, I would make it only for fleet/commercial use. That makes GMC the specialists on that and can maybe go after the Ford "work solutions" trucks.

Even though I think they could kill GMC and not miss a beat, I believe General Motors will keep GMC around for the foreseeable future. So the question is what to do with GMC because right now they are Chevy overlap. I see two paths: 1. Work grade trucks (fleet, contractor special, delivery vans, utility company vehicles, etc). This would range from a small pickup and Transit type van up to the full size pick up and vans, and the medium duty tucks for dump trucks and moving vans. This gives GMC a unique focus and takes that away from Chevy and Chevy can focus on the regular customer, not the business customer. 2. Denali trim crossovers, SUVs, Sierra, and van. The Canyon would have to die, the Savana could stay if it was more a conversion, luxury van. At least this way GMC has a luxury focus, and if a Silverado is $22k base, make the Sierra $35k base. Part of the higher price points could allow more diesel and hybrid technology as well. This would separate GMC and Chevy, but at the same time, Buick and Cadillac are in the luxury crossover business so overlap could occur there. I prefer plan 1.

The 528i weighs 3814 lbs, which is heavy, but not LaCrosse weight. The 528i also gets 32 mpg from a six cylinder. GM has 4-bangers that can't get 32 mpg. 535i will top 4,000 lbs, I think they made the 5-series too big, why make it bigger than it was, although now it is closer to the XF and A6 in size. I'm looking forward to when the XF gets on an aluminum chassis and gets the weight way down. Safety regs are killing new cars with weight gain. I'd like to see Cadillac build sedans off an aluminum chassis, but if they have to platform share with Chevy, Chevy can't get priced needed to offset aluminum.

Nissan and Infiniti Ford and Lincoln Honda and Acura Toyota/Scion and Lexus (the exception with a pair) Hyundai, Kia, BMW and Mercedes are alone. GM and Chrysler are the ones with multiple brands, that have overlap, and share dealerships. They were the two that went bankrupt. Personally, I think GMC is here to stay, at least for the next 10-15 years, but I think if you had 3 strong brands, all could support their own dealer network.