smk4565

Rebadging gone bad. Why make a vehicle that competes with Chevy, dumb move.

What about a Dodge Royal Monaco as detailed in this exquisitely made piece... Although my personal favorite of that era was the Seville (the original, not the hideous slant back one) or Town Car Coupe, only because a 2-door Town car looks ridiculous.

If he doesn't like negative press, maybe he should work on not selling defective floor mats and cars that rust. Beyond the Tundra tailgate problems, it seems like whenever I see a late 90s or 2000-2001 Toyota or Lexus it has rust on it. A car shouldn't have rust when it is 8-10 years old. All Toyota makes is appliances, and they aren't even as good as Honda's appliances. Toyota is getting arrogant, they better not forget how they got on top in the first place. If Toyota gets complacent like GM did, they'll fall like GM did, because Hyundai is looking a lot like Toyota of 1990 but growing faster. And I'd love to see Hyundai eat into Toyota's market share and take them down.

At 105,000 miles the problems were too bad you had to get rid of it? My dad actually has a Honda Odyssey with 192,000 miles (mostly city/suburb miles) on it. He had 5 GM vehicles that didn't make it past 130,000 miles. This is what killed GM, most of their cars didn't last that long. A Honda shouldn't last double the mileage of a Chevy, Chevy needs to get better. I hope your Traverse runs 200,000 miles if not for you, for the next person that gets it.

A straight-8 I'd be in favor of. That would be Duesenberg-like!

The V12 I'd like to see, but I doubt it would ever happen. Using 2 of the 3.0's would be good, then they could twin turbo it. BMW already has a twin-turbo V12 with an 8-speed, GM would need that and perhaps a 2-mode hybrid system added on to it, plus an all aluminum chassis/body. If they did all that, Cadillac would have a chance.

They do make a lot of profit on every S-class, but they aren't selling at $80k. $92k for a base S550 and that is before you start with the options list that will easily put it over $100,000. If you want an S65 AMG be ready to spend $201,000. GM doesn't have $100,000 car stuff in their arsenal, look at how badly the XLR-V failed. And the LSx engines aren't the answer, that will get laughed out of the segment, a 6-speed isn't enough either. Cadillac as a new entrant has to earn credibility, so they'll have to come up with never before seen technology and equipment to get attention and respect. It doesn't matter if it is Cadillac or Lincoln, Acura, Volvo, Infiniti, etc, any of those brands selling a $95,000 sedan are fighting a lost cause.

I agree with Regfootball totally. The S-class is and always was the global standard for this class. In 1963, this is what world leaders were driven around in: And today it's this: For nearly 50 years this has been the car. It isn't as simple as converting a GMT900 platform or Zeta and taking some shortcuts on the interior and throwing together a car like the S-class. There can be no shortcuts or compromises and making an "80% the car at 80% the price" isn't going to work. The people that spend $90-100k on a car are looking for perfection and prestige.

Jaguar was just named #1 in JD Power sales satisfaction for 2009 (they were #1 in 2008 also). They were #1 or #2 in JD Power customer satisfaction for 2007, 2008 and 2009. Jaguar was also #1 in JD Power vehicle dependability for 2009, and 3rd place overall in Business Week's "customer service champs" list and 1st place for an automaker. Jaguar is doing everything right at the moment, and has turned profitable. Plus they can sell cars in Europe, which Cadillac hasn't figured out how to do.

They had 40 years of evolution, the 2008 car looked the same as the 1968 XJ. It was time for a radical change, but I happen to love the new XJ. There is rumor of an XJR in the works with 600 hp as well, things could get interesting in Coventry.

The XJ is light for a full size v8 sedan. I know we are talking about a Zeta ranger topper, but shouldn't the range topper's platform be a notch or 2 better than the CTS's platform? Audi's have longitudinally mounted engines so the weight balance on them is better than an awd Acura or Lincoln. My mom drives and Audi, they are nothing special. A BMW drives better. And the new A8 looks like an overweight A4, no match for the 7-series or XJ.

The XF platform was from the S-type but upgraded, and the suspension came from the XK. The next XF will be an all aluminum chassis. Zeta's problem is it is too heavy. And does anyone think the CTS-V would be a better car if it was on the Zeta platform? A Zeta Cadillac would have to go against the aluminum/magnesium XJ, an all new 7-series that has 8 gears and a twin turbo V12, and the S-class which also has a twin turbo V12 and 45 years of rock solid reputation. The hardware to build an S-class like sedan doesn't exist within GM. I wish it did, but it doesn't. Therefore the XTS will be a FWD/AWD Epsilon car with a 290 hp V6. We already have a FWD DTS with 290 hp, how is that working out? Acura had an AWD only, 300 hp V6 car in 04 or 05, and look at what a dud the RL has been, Cadillac doing the same thing six years later isn't going to work out any better. If you want to go after the 5-series, E-class or higher, you better send power to the rear wheels.

Zeta would be fine for Chevy but not Cadillac. Sigma (which will need upgraded/replaced soon) has midsize covered, so Zeta would be only be useful for a large car. Cadillac will need more than the Camaro platform to go up against the big German sedans and the XJ. I think of it like this, the G8 and Camaro are below the CTS, why pay $20-30,000 more than a CTS for a car on a lesser platform. Currently, Cadillac lacks the resources and knowledge to challenge the ultra sedans, that is why I am not at all excited about the XTS.

While I always look forward to NAIAS to see the new models and concepts, I am not going to get my hopes up for the XTS. I'm expecting a Lincoln MKS with vertical headlamps. Unless power is sent to the rear wheels, the XTS will be no more interesting than the Volvo S80 or Acura RL.

They may not be taken seriously as a luxury maker but look at what sales of the Elantra, Sonata, and Santa Fe have done since the Genesis went on sale. People don't see their entry-level or mid-level cars as jokes any more. The Equus and Genesis can be seen as engineering exercises and good publicity for the time being, and maybe one day they'll get their own brand. I agree that Hyundai is moving faster than Toyota did with Lexus, in 20 years, they might be what Toyota is today.

I'm just saying that the Equus has some nice materials like the Alcantara headliner. Details make the car, a Rolls-Royce is a great car because of the endless attention to detail. Cars like the Impala, Cobalt, Grand Prix, etc don't pay attention to little details, and consumers notice. That is why a Corolla or Civic can sell outsell the Cobatl 3 to 1. Build quality, panel gaps, trim pieces all matter.

Because aggressive, in-your-face designs that have a lot of chrome or gimmicks tend to age quickly, while conservatively designed cars don't. Chrysler 300's looked great at first, now they look dated, same was the case with the PT Cruiser and to some extent the Charger. Also, the Cadillac STS and DTS look dated, and the CTS looks similar, so that could be part of the problem. Although I don't think the CTS looks dated yet, in a few years it will, where as Mercedes and Audi use really gradual styling changes and the cars seem to age better.

But what becomes of the 9-5 now? Are they just going to scrap it and never sell it, because it seems that Saab production will end in 2010 before they ever get a chance to produce one. Equus should be interesting, I read on Edmunds Insideline that it will be $50-58,000 and uses the same headliner as the S65 AMG. But they said the metal trim on the dash isn't real aluminum, it's plastic. I hope they don't hold back on that car, if they are going to challenge the big boys they should go all out. And hopefully the 5 liter V8 makes its debut also.

James May is driving the Insignia VXR on Top Gear tomorrow.

For the same reason Saab is still in production, or the Land Cruiser, or DTS. Poor management that hangs on to dated models because they have nothing else to sell, and want to keep the factory running.

The Camry outsold the Cobalt, Malibu and Impala combined. Most of their products are lousy, but they know how to sell mass market sedans.

It is going to be interesting to see where they are in 10 years. Hyundai is going to pass a lot of other brands up, they could be as big as Honda is today, perhaps bigger.

The 4 core brands went up, but GM overall was down 2%. It seems many of the former Saturn, Pontiac, Saab, Hummer shoppers switched over to the 4 surviving brands. GM can get the same market share and sales out of 4 brands as they did with 8. Although can they turn a profit at 150k units a month.

I figured this was coming, but I thought it would be in 2010. GM needs new leadership anyway.

I like the overall look, and like the front except for the plastic fog light covers. I don't like the black antenna sticking up, and the tail lights look a little like a Kia, so I not sold on those. But overall the exterior is good. Interior looks good, finally GM has a class competitive to class leading interior. Although they better have plans for a touch screen navigation system, because young people will like that, and younger people are going to be buying this car. They need to offer something close to Sync. Big props to making it 6-speed auto standard, 100% of GM products should have a 6-speed standard so this is a good step. Engine is weak though, 138 hp on the optional engine isn't anything to write home about.