smk4565

Not too surprising since everyone is seeing growth in China. Audi is probably selling A3s and A4s, just as they do in the USA. Mercedes may not have the volume, but their top end cars bring in a lot of profit per vehicle.

Mercedes is not now, and was never about building a sports sedan. Since 1886 it has been about engineering and innovation, and to a degree, safety. And they have one FWD platform that 2 cars share, plus the Smart platform, compared to how many rear drive platforms. BMW/Mini is probably the only car maker with less FWD than Mercedes. I am not interested in one trick pony divisions, but Chevrolet should be middle of the road, low to medium priced vehicles, Buick/GMC should be more luxurious versions of Chevy with more dramatic styling, then Cadillac should be rear drive performance luxury. If Buick is making sports cars, Chevy is making luxury cars, and Cadillac is making pastel, slush-mobiles that float down I95 in Florida, GM has a problem. GM needs to focus and spend its money wisely on the right products.

A Buick on Alpha makes as much sense as a Cadillac on Epsilon, oh wait.... too late. I think the solution is more models. Cadillac obviously needs a Lambda SUV to compete with the Acadia and Enclave, and Cadillac needs a Delta II sedan to compete in the hotly contested $25,000 sedan market. Then Buick can get a 2-seat, plastic bodied, sports car with a 400 hp V8 priced at $50,000 since Corvette sales are down, they need another car in that segment to make up for it. And then GMC can get their version of the Aveo sedan to help with CAFE, and besides some Aveo/Fit/Versa drivers want "professional grade" and Scion doesn't offer that. Then, Chevy can get an epsilon sedan sized, priced and equipped exactly like the Lacrosse and a 400 hp twin turbo AWD Malibu SS.

True, it was an Accord De Lux, just as the TL is, but the RL even 5 years ago was in the $45-50k range, that was into rear drive German car territory, so I think powertrain (especially at that price point) played a part. And isn't the Regal a Malibu De Lux, the XTS just a LaCrosse Deluxe Brougham? GM is just as guilty as anyone else when it comes to dressing up a main line product and passing it off as luxury. I think Buick and GMC can get away with taking a Chevy, changing the sheet metal and adding some leather and trim, but Cadillac can not.

Acura already tried that with the RL and TL, loads of power in a fwd car and add on awd to compensate, and no euros were killed, in fact, BMW and Mercedes are even stronger now than 5 years ago when Acura went after them. Taurus SHO and Lincoln MKS tried the same, Lincoln sales down, Germans are up. Buick should have its sights set on disenfranchised Saturn and Mercury drivers, Chrysler owners, or people considering a Toyota Avalon or Lexus ES, or Lincoln.

To go to 400 hp, you pretty much need rear drive, that means Alpha, Zeta, or Sigma, and making a 400 hp rear drive Buick would overlap Chevy or Cadillac. 400 hp in an Epsilon sedan is pointless, even with AWD, I can't imagine the handling would be good or that the power would be usable. Plus, Buick was meant to be smooth ride, quiet, soft, luxury, now they want a high horsepower, firm suspension sedan? And Cadillac that is supposed to go against the Germans has a big floaty XTS that belongs at Buick.

It isn't 1965, it is 2010, and building similar cars that compete against each other is a recipe for disaster, that is why GM and Chrysler went bankrupt, and Ford nearly did and decided to kill Mercury. If GM's brands aren't unique to each other and with a focus, they'll compete with each other and eventually another brand or 2 will get contracted in order to avoid another bankruptcy.

Perhaps Buick plans a return of the Park Avenue Ultra with a new 3800 Series IV Supercharged making 250 hp, instead of 240. That will put the 182 hp Regal in its place. I thought Buick was supposed to be luxury, and Chevy Camaro/Corvette/SS models and Cadillac were supposed to bring the performance. GM's brands are all mismashed even with only 4 to worry about. Even if Buick does make a twin turbo V6, they'll probably put it in a car with wrong wheel drive anyway.

No CTS or Genesis consideration? I've driven the Lincoln Zephyr, but not the the MKZ, but the Zephyr was nothing special. I like the MKZ look, but if it drives at all like the Zephyr, you did well to save your time.

There isn't much RWD left, which is a problem, but there is still the CTS, Camaro, Corvette, and upcoming alpha platform. I'd next look to AWD cars like the Regal for performance versions, because at least they can make something to compete with Acura or a car like the Evo or WRX. They can do a Cruze, but the Cobalt SS didn't really set the world on fire, there is only so much you can do with an econocar and keep it at a low price that will appeal to the tuner car/hot hatch market.

I support a performance division, but why are they working on garbage like the Aveo or the Cruze? Why not put them to work on vehicles with rear wheel drive.

100 hp per liter out of an NA is possible, but they usually don't have a lot of torque, and the power is high in the band, much like an M5. So do to a 1.4 or 1.7 liter 140 hp NA engine, it will most likely not have any torque, and around town drivability will suffer. I like the turbo on smaller displacement engines to add some low end torque. Toyota used to have that 180 hp, 1.8 liter 4-cylinder in the Celica, but I think it had 122 lb-ft of torque or something near that. I'd rather see a turbo 1.8 liter making 160 hp and 160 lb-ft because the power is more useful.

The ES and LS are snooze mobiles, GS is dated, but the RX I'll admit isn't bland, but it isn't very attractive either. But I agree a lot of people buying luxury like a conservative looking car with some chrome touches and soft ride, so Lexus resonates well with the baby-boomer luxury buyer. Although Mercedes is expected to overtake Lexus in sales this year, Mercedes is only about 1,000 cars behind for the year and is selling faster now. The old SRX wasn't body on frame though, it was a Sigma unibody. But your assessments of the current SRX are correct, too heavy and wrong engines. I too would rather see a diesel option rather than a hybrid, but a hybrid is probably an easier sell to prospective buyers in this class. I don't want to see another pushrod V8 front driver though. Even if the SRX does back to rear drive, I'd still rather not see the engine out of a Silverado in a Cadillac.

I think on the Lexus RX buyers do look at the hybrid, especially if it is a family that does a lot of driving. Consider the RX450h has 295 hp, the SRX turbo has 300 hp, so only 5 hp difference and 0-60 time is close enough that no one could tell without a stop watch. But the Lexus gets 15 mpg more in the city, it is gets exactly double the city gas mileage, that is pretty impressive. In fact, Lexus is foolish for not advertising that more. Styling is subjective, Lexus builds the most bland stuff around yet it sells well because they have the quality/reliability, BMW has the performance, Mercedes the prestige. What is Cadillac selling on?

I'd agree that hybrids don't make a lot of economic sense to buy, and personally, I wouldn't buy one. Diesel to me seems like the better way to go because you get the fuel economy plus loads of torque, and diesel engines run forever. But luxury cars need image to sell. If 4 or 5 other brands offer a 35-40 mpg car, but Cadillac can't top 27 mpg, it makes Cadillac look like they don't care about the environment (the greenies and politicos go elsewhere), makes it look like they don't innovate or aren't cutting edge, (the techies go elsewhere) and makes it look like they aren't building as good a product (the badge snobs go elsewhere). Car companies over the past 2 years have advertised fuel economy more than anything else. Let's throw the "may the best car win" Chevy vs Toyota Fuel economy ad back to Cadillac. Cadillac SRX (awd) 15/22 mpg Lexus RX450h (awd) 30/28 mpg Merc ML350 Bluetech 18/25 mpg Merc ML450 Hybrid 21/24 mpg Cadillac CTS 18/27 mpg Lexus GS450h 23/25 mpg BMW 335d 23/36 mpg Audi A4 23/30 mpg Merc E320 Bluetech 23/32 mpg (09 model, no diesel on new E-class yet) Others: Lexus HS250h 35/34 mpg Audi A3 TDi 30/42 mpg Lincoln MKZ hybrid 41/36 mpg

Vd sounds like venerial disease, so I wouldn't name a car that. Dwightlooi is right on the sales volume of hybrids and diesels currently, they are low. But will the market look the same in 5 or 10 years? The economy will eventually recover, and gas prices will rise. China and India will demand more gas, again gas prices will rise. BP might spill some more oil, lessening supply, again prices could rise. So what if in 5 or 10 years gas prices are different, and the market is different. The Germans, Lexus and Lincoln will have had a 5-10 year head start at fuel efficient cars, Cadillac will be struggling to catch up and late to the party once again. 10 years ago there was no market demand for a Prius, and it didn't make economic sense to build a Prius. But Toyota built it anyway, while GM built the Hummer. Toyota got the image of being the fuel efficiency leader, the Prius became a top 10 selling car, while GM got the reputation of only building big gas hogs, and once gas hit $4.25 a gallon in the summer of 08, GM was stuck with nothing to sell, and would soon fold into bankruptcy. Cadillac should plan ahead so when the next "perfect storm" comes, they are ready. I say build diesel, gas, and hybrid in all markets.

BMW Europe's diesel sales percentage is around 63%, Cadillac still has to offer gas engines there. Take out the diesel 1-series cars that get 55 mpg since Cadillac isn't in that segment and then factor out the government/fleet sedans that are diesel due to lower operating cost, and I bet the retail sales mix on 3,5,7 series is more like 50% diesel. So Cadillac needs to offer BOTH diesel and gas in Europe and the USA. Cadillac can't go 100% gas in the USA when there is a 36 mpg 3-series or a 33 mpg E-class or a 40 mpg Lincoln MKZ, Audi TDi's or the Lexus hybrids. If everyone else is on board the green movement and can offer 35-40 mpg luxury cars, and Cadillac is stuck with 16-26 mpg gas burners, they aren't going to look too good.

I like both ideas for the options list.

Sonata or Jetta/A3 TDI. Diesels can rack up hundreds of thousands of miles, and the Jetta or A3 both get over 40 mpg.

Agreed. For a 4 year old Canyon/Colorado, a truck with poor resale, you could probably find cheaper. Probably could get an 06 Silverado for that price. $12,500 for the orange one seems better, at $16k, no way.

What would be very interesting if possible, would be to put an Aurora V8 or Northstar V8 into an 80s Toronado. I bet it would fit, but then the transmission would likely need changed also to handle the torque, and that could be a very expensive job.

A 3-cylinder is a hard sell, unless as a generator in the Volt or something like that. Why not just sell a diesel, they could get 50 mpg from a 4-cylinder diesel and it wouldn't put out a measly 130 lb-ft. I think selling a 160 hp, 50 mpg diesel is easier than selling a 140 hp, 40 mpg 3-cylinder gas engine. Or make more hybrids. But many of these carmakers are just coming out with new gas engines, trying to get an extra 1-2 mpg out of it, which is nice, but to make a splash you need to be at 50 mpg, not 40. The Prius was over 50 years ago, a VW Polo is around 60 mpg. To me, 3-cylinder says Smart For2, tiny, painfully slow car, so that isn't at all appealing. Now if someone builds a car that is 0-60 in under 8 seconds, but getting 40+ mpg, then they are on to something (Sonata hybrid might do that).

I hate to think what the Buick V6 had for power, I think it was around 110. The V8 probably has respectable torque.

What engine do you have in there? Please tell me it is the V8.

The body appears to be in good shape. If you get the rest of the stuff repaired, you should take it to the Starlite car cruise in Wexford next summer. They already had Oldsmobile/Cadilllac night this year.