smk4565

Poor interior packaging by Cadillac, likely do to the FWD chassis. Although the CTS also has a small interior for its exterior dimensions. I always thought you wanted the most interior space for an exterior dimension. Cadillac could also make the CTS front drive, price it at $29k, and sell 100,000 units a year, but that isn't exactly winning. All they did with the SRX is cheap it out and drop the price down to get sales. Cadillac gave up on the rear drive crossover SUV market, they gave up trying to match BMW and Mercedes in the mid-size (and mid-price) market. I don't think Cadillac needs to outsell Mercedes everywhere, but I do think Cadillac needs sales in all parts of the globe. I'd like to see high end and profitable sales too. Cadillac should be a car people aspire to own. I don't see what is so hard about Cadillac making small-medium-large sedans priced $35k-$50k-$80k. BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, Audi all do this, Infiniti covers the lower two, Jaguar does the top two. I'd like to see Cadillac build a lineup that matches the imports on size and price, and have some sales success. Even 3rd place in USA, 5th globally would be pretty good.

Did they confirm 35 mpg? I read there was no official EPA estimate or rating yet. Only the legendary Sonata does 35 mpg.

SRX is sized more like an X5 or ML-class. SRX and the RX sell because they appeal to the lowest common denominator of the luxury market. Sales does not necessarily equal prestige or profit. The Camry lights up every car on the sales chart, no one thinks the Camry is the best sedan in the USA. SRX may also sell because it is new, I am curious to see how it sells in year 3 or 4.

Exactly, Cadillac has chosen to compete with Lincoln and the bottom of the Lexus lineup, and wishes not to compete with the big league models. Sad. For all the great stuff the United States has engineered, we can't build a car that competes in the big leagues. And we had Duesenberg and Pierce Arrow, Cadillacs of the 1920s and 30s. We (and Rolls-Royce) were the big leagues long ago, it would be nice to see that once again.

Never a good sign when you take out more wheelbase than length. Weight will be interesting.

We need to know what it will cost.

I like the exterior, it looks quite good from the front and front 3/4 angle. The trunk looks better than the current car, but it has a bit too much Bangle-butt for my liking. I also like the interior overall, it has more style and finally a Nav screen. I do have a couple complaints about the interior. The wood trim is terrible, it looks worse than the fake stuff Buick has, GM needs to find a new fake-wood shop or else buy real or use something else. My other complaint is the overuse of blue lighting and the blue stitching on the brown seats. The color scheme of that interior clashes, but that is perhaps fixed by alternate interior color combinations. The engine seems like nothing special, there are more powerful currently for sale, and 35 mpg is the standard, so we'll have to see if the Malibu can hit better than 35 mpg. Otherwise the powertrain is just class average, although a lot of buyers in this class won't really care or notice the difference between 10-15 hp or 2-3 mpg. At least with the new Malibu, it looks like GM is willing to put up a fight to the Sonata and Optima.

I do think the Impala should switch to rear drive, basically taking the spot the G8 had, but rather than a car imported for Australia, design it here and give it an proper interior. It would give Chevy something similar to the Charger/300 and make it different than a LaCorsse. But if they make this with a 330 hp V6 standard, that is more than not just Buicks, but more than the ATS, CTS, XTS, and SRX. I don't think Cadillac dealers will be too happy if a Chevy Impala has a better engine than any of their sedans.

Sounds like a Fiero, so no, bad idea. And you have to have power steering, and I doubt a car with an aluminum chassis could be sold in the $20s. Cadillac can't even use aluminum at their price point.

I don't know, it looks the same as the current car that has 25% of it's sales going to Avis and Enterprise. The Malibu doesn't look better than the Sonata or Optima. The Accord coupe looks pretty good, but comparing 2 door to 4 isn't really fair. The Malibu has the 200/Avenger, Legacy and Camry beat in styling, but I wouldn't make it the clear cut winner of the class.

About the Sonata, at idle you can't tell the engine is running, even with the radio and HVAC off. The engine is very quiet and vibration free. The Audi 2.0T vibrates the whole car at stop lights. In normal driving I thought the Sonata 2.4L was quite good, north of 4,000 rpm maybe it wasn't as smooth as an Audi, but I didn't do much aggressive driving with it. The 2008 Malibu was a pretty big leap forward from the 04-07 Malibu, and the current car has already gotten lost in the back of the pack. The 2013 Malibu doesn't seem like enough of an improvement over the current car. It seems like less of a leap forward form the teasers we have seen. My worry is they didn't push the bar high enough, especially if they just recycle the Regal's powertrains which already lag behind the Accord/Camry/Sonata/Altima.

I think refinement and fuel economy are more important than horsepower gains. I've driven a Sonata and found the engine to be more refined and quiet than the 4-bangers I've driven from Audi or Saab.

Can't build an SRX-V with a transverse mounted engine. Much like they can't do an XTS-V. Should have made all these rear wheel drive, then 550 hp is fair game on all of them.

If money was no object, I'd be torn between the Jaguar XF and Jaguar XJ, supercharged of course.

It looks nice, and has some Equinox look to the front so it blends well with other Chevys and it looks similar to the current car. My only concern is it looks too similar to the current car, and it shares some similarities with the Regal. This is a car that could blend in, or people may not realize it is new/updated, and think it is just the same old car carrying on. They played it very safe and took no chances, time will tell if that was the best strategy.

Drop a diesel in that sucker.

Exactly, I thought the reason they sold it in other countries was to work bugs out and have a flawless launch. Steering wheel falling off is a pretty big problem. Car & Driver just did a small car comparison and the Cruze was 4th out of 5. Civic and Corolla weren't in that, since they are dated and getting redone soon. I can see the Cruze being back of the pack by 2012, and a rental sedan like the Cobalt with deep discounts by 2013. And when is the new one, 2016 or beyond? Then GM will replace it with a new car with a new name.

Agreed, the Hyundai Elantra has bluetooth. I was surprised that wasn't already standard on the SRX.

Good move, should have had the 3.6 liter from the start. The old SRX had the 3.6 and a V8, they really downgraded engines for the redesign.

Cadillac does need to up their game in interiors, and in engineering, but they have the ability to do that. And I think Cadillac can make more dramatic looking or visually appealing cars than the Germans. Jaguar and Aston Martin have that ability to make beautiful cars, that aren't in your face offensive, they are pretty yet elegant, I think Cadillac can do that also. VW took the Jetta downmarket, but the new Toureg is $60k, and the interior in that is better than the Escalade and blows away the SRX. It depends on what end of the VW spectrum you look at. Yet people seem to have a high opinion of VW, perhaps because it is German or is usually priced above a Toyota or Ford or Chevy. Overall I think VW is a bit overrated, but according to Forbes and JD power they rate very high on appeal.

To extend my point, Forbes just published a list of auto brands that Americans think are the best. The top brands were (in order): Porsche, Lexus, BMW, Jaguar, Mercedes, Acura, Audi, Volkswagen 5 out of 8 German, that is what the people aspire to own. That type of car works. Cadillac needs to build similar, size, price, fuel efficiency, and reliability as the Germans. But with Art & Science style and more comfortable interiors. The Germans, and Lexus/Acura for that matter aren't strong in design or creativity, Cadillac can beat them there.

All three German luxury brands sell over 1 million units a year by being utter fleet whores outside of the U.S. and selling stripped down models with 180hp 4-cylinder engines.... is that what you want Cadillac to do? Yet transaction prices on the German cars are still higher than what Cadillac gets. In China, the Cadillac SLS has a base price 10,000 RMB lower than a C260. Although the SLS can be optioned up higher than the C-class goes, it is still under E-class pricing, and the E300 is the top end E-class there. The Chinese E-class is pretty well stocked with equipment, if Cadillac had the same feature/content list I think they would be in good shape. And yes, Cadillac should put diesel and turbo 4's in cars for countries with high traffic congestion, high gas prices or CO2 taxes. Especially in ATS and CTS sized cars, and have more powerful engines as an option. Cadillac has to model what the Germans are doing because they need volume. The other option is to go up in price, but and go high price/low volume, but I don't think they can get the high prices. I don't see people paying $60,000 for a V6 CTS or $90,000 for an XTS. And Cadillac doesn't have an SLS AMG or Audi R8 type of specialty car they can charge $190k for.

$45k for a 300C loaded up, an SRT8 will likely be around $50k. The interior may be much improved over the old car, but the old car had a bad interior. The 2011 300C in my opinion is still behind the LaCrosse, Taurus, Genesis, and even an Avalon or Maxima in interior. If you want to go fast for $50k and have a bad interior, just buy a Corvette. At least that won't lose half its value in 2 years. This car is more expensive than a CTS with that interior. Yes it does 0-60 in 4.6 seconds, but I'd bet a V6 CTS can out handle it. All this car is, is a 6.4 liter engine in a $30k car, and a mediocre $30k car at that. This is typical Chrysler, all they know how to do is build an uncompetitive product and then cram a huge engine into it in hopes of getting a few people in love with muscle car nostalgia to buy it. Why don't they take that $13 billion the government gave them and get to 35 mpg CAFE, because right now they are last place of all automakers.

There is a difference in improving driving dynamics, build quality, and performance so that it is competitive with or beating other luxury brands, and not having identity. Lincoln for example has no identity, unless you call a rebadged Ford with no clear brand image identity. Cadillac needs to improve their products, but they need to have American styling and image, they have to find something they stand for. Cadillac has to build cars that people want, the Germans and Lexus figured this out in the 90s, while Cadillac put square pegs in round holes, which led to Cadillac's downfall. The challenge for Cadillac is to align their products with the others in the luxury market but do it in a unique way that stands out. And Cadillac can not just ignore Europe. The E.U., China, and U.S. are the 3 major auto markets. Cadillac can't just not compete in one of the big 3, while trailing in the other two. Japan is pretty closed off, so where outside of the U.S. is Cadillac going to get sales? All three German luxury brands sell over 1 million units a year, that gives them economies of scale and ability to spend a lot of R&D dollars per model line. Cadillac will have a hard time keeping up if they only have American sales and no where else to generate revenue.

You might want to put a bit of effort into getting your facts straight...the '11 body is not the '05-10 body. Similar shape, but no panels in common. And it's probably only 4500lbs or so. Yes it is new panels, but it is basically the same. They made some improvements, but to me all they did was a mid cycle refresh of a 6 year old car. It wasn't like the 300 went through the transformation the LaCrosse had from W-body to Epsillon 2.