smk4565

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.

A lot of good points here. First problem is Cadillac has no image and is thought of as a joke in most of Europe. Whether it be Europeans think Cadillacs are for old people, that they are big, thirsty, poorly made, slow, bad handling, poor resale, etc, it doesn't really matter the reason, the image Cadillac has is terrible. Luxury cars need image to sell, so overcoming image is the first massive hurdle. Secondly is the lineup. The XTS will fail over there, so no point in even selling it. So they have the ATS and CTS (maybe SRX), the CTS already failed over there in current form. 2-3 models don't make a brand. Cadillacs are designed for North America, Mercedes and BMW design global cars. Big difference, and Europeans are loyal to their own cars, Lexus has struggled to break into Europe and their lineup is better suited to European tastes and the Lexus image has less baggage than Cadillac's. Cadillac isn't ready for Europe, they need to get the ATS right, improve the CTS, get DIESEL engines, and build some sort of halo car. If they go in with 4 near perfect models at the same time, they have a chance. But remember, Cadillac is up against the 3-series, the best small car in the world, the 5-series and E-class which are arguably the best midsize luxury cars in the world, the S-class, the best big luxo-sedan of all time on their home turf. Then, you have Porsche, Merc SL, Jag XK, Maserati, Aston Martin, who make the best sports/luxury and GT cars in the world, again on their home field. And the Range Rover, the most iconic 4x4 of all time, on it's home turf. This is before we get to Audi, or the quirky people buying Saabs, Volvos and Alfa Romeos.

Catera was never competitive. Another rebadge to take the easy way out and try to make a quick buck. The Allante was front drive and priced against rear drive Jag XJS, Mercedes SL, BMW 8-series, Porsche 911. The Allante never made much impact, the Pininfarina body looked good, but there were quality issues and a lot of people probably forgot that car even existed. Cimmarron, Allante and Catera were all one and done cars. Much like the XLR, Sigma STS, and I think the XTS will be the same. It is poor product planning and brand management. If they got it right to begin with, they could make the car for 40 years, like the 5-series or E-class.

I would agree. In the 1980s the threat of the Germans was there, then with Lexus in 1990. Cadillac did the Cimmaron and Allante which were jokes. Then fumbled about for 10 years with big front drivers, before 2003 finally doing a rear drive CTS. They started to get serious about competing with the imports in 2003-2005, but they never committed enough to it, and then they just sort of let things stay stagnant, while the rest of the market improved. For 25 years Cadillac has lacked the guts to pull the trigger and really go for it, and they always resort back to trying to build a import clone of a Chevy or Buick platform and it fails. And I agree, GM had plenty of money in the 1980s and management only cared about short term profit, and didn't care if they made crap and had no long term thinking. And then the 20 years of bad decisions that we all know about that led to bankruptcy. The XTS reminds me of "old GM" thinking and product planning. It's like the late 80s when the Deville and Fleetwood, Buick Electra/Park Ave and Olds 98 were on the same platform, but at least then the Cadillac had a V8 to make it a little different.

This is true. I recall reading very favorable reviews about the handling/powertrain of the STS, but it just kept coming down to the interior that made people turn positives into negatives. I drove an STS V8, it was rather floaty and rolled about too much. The CTS or anything from the German trio handles better. The STS doesn't feel athletic when you drive it, there isn't a lot of fun factor to it. Plus the powertrain in it now lags what others have. The STS had potential, they just never put enough effort into the car, it was always an afterthought.

It's a good idea, with the amount some fleets drive these cars they'll save a lot of gas. Interesting fact about the Town Car is it can do 63 mph in reverse. The Town Car is a legend, but it's time has come.

So for Cadillac to improve it's image, the plan is to get people that were 68 when they bought a DTS that are now 72 to trade in on an XTS. Nice. The Lexus GS is bland and dated, and Lexus also suffers from having a lot of old buyers and mostly being a $33-43k price, FWD luxury brand. When you do that, you don't have the performance credibility to go against a 5-series. The rear drive Lincolns sold alright in the early 2000s until they got dated and ignored, and Lincoln has seen a steady sales decline in the past couple years with the FWD MKS and MKZ. And no front driver over $40k is lighting up the sales chart, yet the 5-series and E-class still are.

Than what is? XTS is the largest and most expensive Cadillac sedan. Cadillac also has no sports car or convertible. Cadillac is just like Lincoln and Acura, stuck trying to build vehicles off the mainstream platforms with a whole lot of the corporate V6.

Have you ever been in an S-class cab? No, but better to be in that than a Cadillac or Lincoln hearse.

Actually this is the top Mercedes: Factory built, about $1.4 million, can withstand 5 grenade blasts at once, exterior fire extinguisher, interior air supply, all the amenities.

The only position of leadership I care about is sales. Who cares who has the most HP and the most of anything if the car doesn't sell. But look at how the MKS, DTS, S80, Acura RL sell. Those are the $40k + front drive sedans, all sales dogs. Lucerne near dead, Park Ave, Aurora, and Bonneville are dead, front drive Chrysler LH platform is dead. Big front drivers, especially luxury ones are fading. There are too many good rear drivers that can mop the floor with FWD cars in handling and ride at the XTS's price point.