smk4565

When Cadillac tried with the STS-V, XLR and XLR-V to go into the $77-100k price range, they fell flat on their face. This is why the DTS and STS both cost $46k, Cadillac fears that high price class. The Alante tried to go up there years ago, and failed also. The other problem, is GM wants to parts bin everything, and their parts bin doesn't have what a Range Rover (or S-class) type of buyer wants. Cadillac doesn't have the platforms, engines, transmissions, technology or brand cache to attack the ultra luxury classes. GMC also does not have what is needed to go after a Range Rover type vehicle. That's what I said--GM doesn't MAKE anything of that class. They can price whatever they want, but if what they manufacture doesn't actually belong in that class, it doesn't matter. Agreed with that. GM never made anything that belonged up there even though they had a few lame attempts.

Agreed. Cadillac could move up market, and should, they are the luxury brand, the top brand and smallest volume brand. Plus they could bring image to GM by being an elite brand. But I don't know why they want to push Buick and GMC up to overlap Cadillac. And GM should look at how the economy is and will be. Unemployment is high, wages are flat, education and healthcare costs rise. Most people can't afford a $35k car, and many in Gen Y are about urban living, walking, and saving the environment. I think the future is more at the low end of the market, the bulk of GM's focus should be there.

When Cadillac tried with the STS-V, XLR and XLR-V to go into the $77-100k price range, they fell flat on their face. This is why the DTS and STS both cost $46k, Cadillac fears that high price class. The Alante tried to go up there years ago, and failed also. The other problem, is GM wants to parts bin everything, and their parts bin doesn't have what a Range Rover (or S-class) type of buyer wants. Cadillac doesn't have the platforms, engines, transmissions, technology or brand cache to attack the ultra luxury classes. GMC also does not have what is needed to go after a Range Rover type vehicle.

Drew, you should take it to the Starlite car cruise in Wexford. July 8th is Buick/Oldsmobile/Cadillac night. I hope the Aurora becomes a future classic so I can take it to a car cruise one day.

Cadillac can't even play there, GMC sure won't be able to. The average income for a Range Rover buyer is around $300,000. Far more than the $129kk income seen for Cadillac buyers, and even significantly more than the Mercedes average income of $174,000. Range Rover is way up there.

They aren't? What is better off road than a Range Rover?

We've heard this before, multiple times. Yet GMC has always directly overlapped Chevy in price, and GMC offers work trucks with zero equipment at all, at sometimes prices below the Chevy trucks. The Denali line is the only thing about GMC that is more upscale than Chevy. But to me the Denalis are just body cladding, chrome wheels and wood trim tacked on top of the base model's plastic. It isn't like the GMC Denali's have a really high level of luxury or fit and finish. It is like trying to make a luxury car out of the Impala, no matter how much chrome and wood you add on to the existing Impala, it isn't going to be nicer than a CTS. You have to design it with luxury in mind, not dress up a base model.

I never knew it went away. But I like that they detail the inside and outside of the car and have a low interest rate. But most of these certified programs are fairly similar it seems.

Yes the Leaf is single purpose, but it still fits the needs of many drivers. And electricity is more readily available than gasoline, so I don't get the fear of not being able to recharge it. And really Ruess should be concerned with an Aveo and Impala that are pathetic, a Corvette that doesn't sell, and full size SUVs with sales dropping at a 20% rate.

I think to be a flop, the car has to be a one and done model cycle. So cars like the Sebring though terrible, had multiple generations, and the 200 replaced it, but is basically the same. Much like the Ion was around a long time and replaced the SL/SC cars. I think to be a real flop that has to be no second generation or close copy. So I'd look to cars like the Aztec, Cadillac XLR, Thunderbird, Blackwood, etc. These were cars that were on market for 2-5 years, sold in limited numbers, then cancelled with no replacement. Ridgeline and Subaru Tribeca saw redesigns or second generations, I think the Smart will stick around. Mercury Maruarder was really a trim level of the Grand Marquis which sold well. Chrysler Crossfire is a good one and done car. Cars like the Catera, Astra and GTO fell short of sales expectations. I think the grand champion is the Lincoln Blackwood though, they sold like 700 in a whole year.

Flop is different than bad car, the Sebring is a bad car, but not a flop. Biggest flops I'd say are: Lincoln Blackwood Lincoln Mark LT Pontiac Aztec Ford Excursion (massive environmental backlash also) Ford Thunderbird (perhaps a collectable now, but has less market life than the Lincoln LS and Jag S-type) Buick Terrezza Saturn Relay Saturn Astra Pontiac GTO Cadillac Catera Ford Freestyle Ford Five Hundred But I think the Lincoln Blackwood I have to put #1, that thing was pointless and didn't sell at all.

With the CTS soon to be the middle Cadillac priced in the high $30s, the XTS likely priced in the $45-55k range where the DTS resides, Buick can't really move any farther up market. Buick isn't a luxury brand, it is a medium brand, so if you want a car nicer than Buick, that is why GM has Cadillac.

This car is front wheel drive right, for $2200 you can buy an Aurora V8 and stick that in there and engine problem solved.

Hover cars. Where we're going, we don't need roads.

I looks to be in great condition, looks showroom new. I was never a fan of the bustle back design, but it at least makes the car unique. The 4.1 liter is a problem, many of these 80s luxury cars had little power, the Town Car for all that mass only had like 150 hp. If you want an 80s luxury car that can go, Mercedes 560SEL is one of the few that isn't slow by today's standards.

They do need more than 380 hp if the rest of the class is all well over 400 now, and the ATS-V is 2-3 years away. But what made BMW over the years was not being the most powerful car, it was being the best car in the corners. So I think 380 hp is not enough, but the goal shouldn't be to have the biggest most powerful engine in the class, but the best handling, steering, and braking. That is how BMW racks up so many awards and sells so many 3-series.

Why does Cadillac always have to undercut the Germans by $15k? That is what Hyundai does because they are Hyundai and building main stream cars with 2 sedans that try to give you most of what you get on a Lexus or Mercedes at a bargain price. Is Cadillac going after the Germans or does Cadillac want to compete with Hyundai and Lincoln. Although, right now, Hyundai is doing a better job of building a knock off, discount Mercedes than Cadillac is. At least they have a V8 rear driver, Cadillac gets the XTS.

Of course, light weight alloys and chassis refinement matters a lot. But, how does going for a heavier, more expensive and less powerful engine help? So the Regal should lose the 2.0T in favor of a 3.1 liter pushrod 4-cylinder? The Malibu and Lacrosse should get that also? How about the 4.8 liter pushrod V8 with 275 hp for the CTS rather than the 3.6 DOHC V6. Cadillac in the early 90s gained credibility with the Northstar engine. The 4.5 and 4.9 liter pushrod V8s were no match for Lexus or the Germans. The Northstar in the 90s was just as good as anything the imports could offer (aside from the German V12s) it was just too bad that Cadillac didn't have a rear driver or something smaller than the Eldorado, Seville, and Deville which were pretty much large and extra large.

The GT-R is a computer with AWD. That's why it can beat most other cars around the 'Ring. For analogy's sake, if the ZR1 is Ken Jennings, the GT-R is Watson. Good analogy, I like it. That is the Corvette's problem, it is the same formula they have used for 30-40 years. The ATS-V should not be like the Corvette, Camaro or any other American sports car that just crams in a big V8 from a pick up. The ATS-V needs to be Watson.

The GT-R as a twin turbo V6 and beats the ZR1 around the Nurburgring. I'm sure a turbo V6 can make the ATS-V powerful enough. The real important thing is handling, braking and steering.

Funny how times change...in the mid '90s, Chevy, Buick and Cadillac all had RWD V8 flagships, and Hyundai had vile 4cyl FWD generics only... Hyundai also currently has 36.6 mpg CAFE, so they already beat the 2015 standard. They can afford to put out some high powered V8s, because they don't need to increase fuel efficiency. GM has to get their fuel economy up. But I guess I was thinking of it as Chevy and Buick can't both build a car like the Genesis or 300C, and both build a big FWD sedan like the LaCrosse Impala. Really, Chevy should make the Impala rwd to go against the Charger, leave the Lacrosse FWD for the non performance crowd, then the Impala and LaCrosse are totally different and not competing against each other.

Horsepower to engine weight is not how I would classify an engine as superior. What about noise, vibration, harshness, fuel economy, displacement taxes, CO2 taxes etc. And if the pushrod was the superior valvetrain, why is there no pushrod 4 cylinder and only the Impala/Lucerne have a pushrod V6. GM fans want to say the pushrod V8 is better because it is what they have. GM thought the pushrod was superior in the 90s with the 3800 V6, then in 2004, the HF V6 came out, GM could have put that into Chevy/Buick/Pontiac, instead, the 3800 soldiered on and 3500 and 3900 V6s were released. In the case of all 3 pushrod V6s, they paled in comparison to what the imports had, the market share loss GM sedans suffered in the 1990s and 2000s was gigantic. If they put the pushrod V8 in the ATS-V (which wouldn't surprise me), they gain no credibility for being innovative. If I'm buying a V-series Cadillac, I don't want the engine out of a $30k Chevy. It better be special.

Lacrosse will e the top Buick going forward, and that is fine for a top end Buick. If you want a car nicer than that, that is why GM has Cadillac, or there is Lexus, Hyundai, Lincoln, etc. If however, the next Impala is basically what the Lacrosse is now, maybe I could see a rear drive Buick to replace the LaCrosse. Cadillac though should be loaded with rear drive. But Chevy, Buick, Cadillac can't all have rear drive V8 flagships to compete with the Genesis, GM has a hierarchy.

cheaper to build. This sums up Cadillac, not "standard of the world" Like MB never makes a decision on a cost basis if not they'd never make a profit. AMG engines are hand built and 6.2 V8 does not share parts with other Mercedes engines. You get the best of the best when you buy an AMG car. You can get $12,000 brakes on a CLS AMG, for example. A V-series Cadillac should also offer the best of the best, not the engine out of a $30k Silverado or Camaro.

So nearly half the profit were from one time sales, but still, making money is far better than losing money. GM is on track and going the right direction, but I'd still like to see the government paid off and a couple years of profit.