smk4565

The teaser photo of the interior looks promising. It looks like there will be a big upgrade from the current car, and finally GM realized that touch-screen nav is popular, something that should have been on the 2008 car. I'd like to see the whole interior, but so far I like what I see. And the current Malibu's interior isn't bad, but nothing really wows me about it either.

I don't know why everyone is in love with this car, it the same body as the 05 model with headlights off a Town & Country. Interior is monotone charcoal gray, and it is no doubt SUV heavy. It's $50k for a mediocre sedan that goes fast in a straight line.

I agree with Z06, Cadillac, like many American car brands has lost it's identity and a lot of the American brands are just chasing or copying what else is out there. Cadillac needs better focus, but at least they have their own look with the sharp edge Art & Science theme. American styling is good, but they need cars that they can sell globally. Only the CTS works outside of the USA, and it barely registers any international sales. Which brings us to the real problem of Cadilac. Most of their line is built of platforms for Chevy/Buick so they are restricted on what they can do. Cadillac needs it's own platforms that are designed with global performance/luxury in mind. Taking LaCrosse and Equinox platforms and trying to make a Mercedes out of it is insane. (this is why Lincoln is in the tank)

Yes they should, but they need global cars that can win here and in other countries. Which they currently do not have. I'd build cars that work globally, and try to get success here first before branching out.

They don't need a team, that is just more waste of time and dollars. Stop making Ford rebadges and maybe people will buy Lincolns. I actually like the front end of the MKZ and MKS, but from the sides, they are Ford sedans. Engine, chassis, transmission, etc are from a Ford sedan; interior is similar to a Ford sedan, and bolting on bright chrome to a Ford isn't a luxury car, it just results in a tacky looking Ford. Lincoln is now beyond saving, and will become more along the lines of Buick and Chrysler. I think that is a dangerous spot to be as mainstream brands like Hyundai (even Toyota/Ford/Chevy) creep up in price and feature content and luxury brands like Infiniti and Lexus come down in price. That puts a big squeeze on the tweener cars. Lincoln is also a gutless automaker, that is content with a lineup of Ford rebadges, they even rebadged an F150 for a number of years. What I don't understand is Ford has a 5.0 DOHC V8, a hybrid system, and a rear drive platform, and they never thought to put all 3 together in a Lincoln.

Throw the 2.4L in there with a 4-speed auto. It'll cost less and help slightly with CAFE Yes, because people claim the 2.4 liter in the 4,000 lb LaCrosse or Equinox provides adequate acceleration, in a 3200 lb Corvette it should be a rocket. The Z06 could get the 2.0T.

The Corvette buyer I believe is mid 50s and rising every year. Lowering the price would get sales, but that is why they make the Camaro, a cool looking sports car at a lower price point, and it has a back seat, even if it is little. Price is an issue though, $50k to start, and easily to $60k with a couple option packages, for an interior not fit for a $25k car. I think price needs to drop back to $44k to start and $50k with the typical options. The car used to be more affordable and have a better value proposition, they need to get that back. Aside from price point, the car has some flaws. They have used the same formula for a long time, thus it looks out dated or old fashioned to younger buyers. I mean that car has leaf springs, and basically the same engine since the 1970s. The Corvette also is very plasticy and not very refined, due to the old fashioned blueprint and fiberglass body. Asking people to spend $60k for lack of refinement is tough. Next problem, interior is horrible. With no back seat, this is a single person's car or a person with grown kids car (or second car for someone with disposable income, read older people). So a percentage of buyers are automatically turned away because it is 2 seats, the people on the fence about a 2-seater better we wowed about the interior. And the Vette's interior is behind the 2012 Focus, it is embarrassingly bad. The easy ways to improve the Corvette are make it not as wide, add a back seat, lower the price, add a V6 that is easier on gas, and Chevy already did that with the Camaro and the Camaro is selling well. I would keep the Corvette 2 seats, add a V6, update the chassis, shape, technology to make it more modern, and most importantly, quantum leap in interior quality. I think they have to address the lineup as well, there is too big a price gap from base car to ZR1. They should focus on $43-60k like the old days, or if they want to play big, make it $80k base and go after Porsche, Aston, etc.

Exactly. A volt convertible would weigh 4,500 lbs. I think the Volt convertible goes on sale the same day as the Honda Crosstour convertible.

Looks promising so far. Fiercely competitive segment and a new Camry is coming too.

The Fiat 500 is the new Saturn Astra, except smaller with less room. $15,500 base and hardly any equipment. It may sell off novelty in year one, but then people will realize you are getting Aveo/Versa like equipment in an even smaller car at the price of an Elantra or Corolla. The Fiat 500 is not their savior. Mercedes couldn't save Chrysler, Fiat surely can't either. Chrysler is going down, all the 2nd bailout did was delay judgement day, it didn't prevent it. And when Chrysler does go out of business once and for all, GM and Ford will be better off because of it. I look forward to America having 2 strong car companies, rather than 3 weak to mediocre companies that we had over the past 5-10 years.

The 1950s is hard to beat. Jaguar XK140 original Corvette Mercedes 300SL Gullwing 1957 Cadillac Eldordo Aston Martin DB4 Rolls Royce Phantom V But the 1960s has the DB5 and E-type Jag, which could be the 2 best looking cars of all time.

I can see Chrysler going bankrupt a 3rd time. Fiat is no picture of strong finances, and Chrysler lags far behind the competition. Chrysler is thought to be worth $5 billion, but the government gave them $12 billion to stay alive. Even with 2 government bailouts this company is still in trouble and bleeding money. And how will they meet the 35 mpg CAFE standard? I suspect they won't, because they'll put all their hopes on the Fiat 500 which will be a slow seller. Of course, they could be bankrupt again before 2015 making it a moot point.

Saab likes out dated engines.

I could see Kia making a sedan slightly larger than the Optima, but with the 5.0 liter V8 available, and that would beat the overweight Cherger/300C and really outmatch the Infiniti G37 or Acura TL. And a 333 hp V6 and 8-speed transmission will soon be in the Hyundai parts bin, so there could be some fun on the way. I just hope the K9 (horrible name) isn't a big 17 foot long luxury barge, but a sports car instead, sort of G8-like, but lighter, more powerful, better interior.

That is a good pick up for $10 grand. Sky and Solstice are both fantastic looking cars.

Mercedes and BMW offer V6 flagships, but the difference is they also offer twin-turbo V12s also. The difference is Cadillac is content to use V6 only in their sedans, except for a low volume CTS-V. The real problem facing Cadillac going to Europe, is Cadillac can't beat the Germans (or Lexus) in the USA, and Cadillacs are designed specifically for the American market. So how do they make a global car that can beat them in the USA, and at least compete over there.

Are you nuts? There is a huge difference between early 70s and late 70s. Even in the latter half of the decade there are real gems. The 80s were pretty bad for cars also, 1940s because of the war, so maybe the 40's was the worst, but I'd put the 70s #2. The 80s at least had some supercars and variety. 70s cars were mostly bland and zapped of power once catalytic converters were put in. The 30's, 50's, and 60's had good styling.

I sat in one at the auto show, it had leather, it was $24k maybe, but I thought the interior layout was good and materials were quite good for the under $25k price point. This car is a heck of a deal considering what you get in a $24k Camry, or even a Cruze or Civic can cost $23k. To me it is between the Optima and Sonata for best mid-size family sedan.

The 1970s might have been the worst decade for cars.

I agree that the CTS and XTS won't sell in Europe. Haven't seen the ATS yet, but odds are it won't. But Cadillac isn't going to survive over the long haul being 4th place in the U.S., 5th place in China, and near non-existent in every other country. They need to figure out how to become global, or risk turning into Lincoln in 10 years.

I think Cadillac to really survive needs some European sales. They are already behind Mercedes and Audi in China, Japan is a market that few imported cars get into. So there is Russia and parts of South America that Cadillac can try to grow in, but there isn't a high population of people that can afford Cadillacs in those countries. The U.S. market alone isn't enough for Cadillac, they have to branch out.

Any powertrain in the proposed XTS will fail in Europe. The car is huge for one, look at how poorly the Seville did around year 2000 when they sent that to Europe. Secondly Europeans don't flock to soft riding cars with seats you sink into, that is why Lexus can't break in too well either, even with all their hybrids. Lastly is build quality, the materials and fit and finish in an Audi is better than what Cadillac has. So unless the XTS is a vast improvement over the CTS in interior fit and finish, Cadillac could come up short there also. And Audi is the 3rd place German luxury brand, they are not the target. Even if Cadillac was going after boutique brands like Jaguar or Maserati, at least there would be profit potential because of high prices.

I'd like to see some rear drive Kias, it give another option on the lower priced performance market. The new Kias look good, a bit of Acura or Lincoln style with the lights, overall I think their new cars look a bit sporty and classy for their price without looking tacky. A rear drive Kia sedan geared more for sport rather than Lexus-like ride would be a nice way to top off their brand. And a good car for people that can't afford a German car, or think a Genesis is too soft or conservative looking. At least someone is looking to make RWD that is affordable, I wish Ford/Lincoln would take notice.

I think Cadillac needs a halo car along with the ATS and CTS to get noticed in Europe. To challenge the S-class takes more money and know-how than GM has, so I would bypass that, and do some sort of luxury-sports GT car. Then at least it is the Jaguar XK, Ferarri California, Maserati Gran Turismo that you are going against, all great cars but without the long standing reputation of an S-class. If Cadillac can make a 400 hp, 40 mpg luxury sports coupe with jaw dropping styling, that may be enough of an attention getter. And it is possible, Porsche is about to drop a 700 hp car that gets 70 mpg, so 400 hp/40 mpg is doable.

So lets give the aging baby boomers a car that can compete with the Avalon and Lexus. Buick Lacrosse is supposed to compete with them, GM has that car. But most baby boomers won't buy American or especially not a Buick, because Buick is what their parents drove. And Toyota/Lexus before the safety issues of last year had the reputation of driving 250,000 miles without ever needing maintenance and the baby boomers love that because the Chevy they had in 1980 fell apart in 4 years and they swore they'd never go back.