smk4565

What is the leader, the 3-series or the TL? BMW sells 500,000 3-series a year worldwide, how many TLs get sold, maybe 50,000? I like a few option packages rather than a bunch of stand alone options. Such as 2 equipment packages and a sport package. The C-class has 8 engine options, Cadillac can't have one. To sell in Europe they need at least 1 diesel, probably 2. They should have a turbo 4 and the 3.6 V6. The 3.0 V6 makes too little torque, and gets worse mileage than the 3.6. Twin turbo V6 for the V-series would be nice. If they build the Converj they don't need an ATS hybrid.

DTS sold 900 units last month, STS sold under 400, CTS sold 2900. The 3-series sold 8,000 cars. "Americans like bigger cars" is from the 1980s. Cadillac (and Lincoln) built big cars through the 80s, 90s and early 2000s, and look how fast their market share fell, while BMW, Mercedes and Lexus became the top 3 selling luxury brands. The heart of the small luxury car market is about 180 inches long and $35-45k, that is where the ATS has to be. CTS has to go up in price, which means they will sell even less of them, but at some point they have to challenge the Germans on price. Cadillac has undercut them on price for 25+ years and gotten no where.

A 335i starts at $41,000. ATS has to be $35-45,000. CTS has to move upmarket. The 3-series has 11 engine options in Europe. The ATS is going to need at least 2 gas and 1 diesel, plus a V-series engine (that isn't a pushrod). They should have a hybrid also, so that makes 5 engines needed. Cadillac better aim very high, because there will be a new 3-series out by the time they get the ATS out.

Needs a minimum of 300 hp and 300 lb-ft, and closer to $42,000 moderately equipped. If Cadillac can keep the ATS under 3550 pounds I'd be impressed. They actually better have a 40 mpg version as well, BMW is working on a 3-series hybrid (3 or 4 cylinder), to go along with the 36 mpg 335d.

The LaCrosse is exactly as interesting and exciting as a Toyota Avalon. The Regal 2.0 turbo makes 210-220 hp (Chinese version) does does 0-60 in 8 seconds. If the Regal is 4-cylinder only here, it is another snooze mobile from Buick. Although the 3800 Buicks only had 200 hp and were 0-60 in over 8 seconds also, so the Buick faithful will feel right at home in it.

Kilowatt hour usage would be better, although no one will understand the cost. I just think they should have 2 ratings, one for kilowatts used and one for gas used. The Volt can't travel 230 miles without stopping with only 1 gallon of gas in it. Consumers may feel misled and that will tick them off.

I don't like how they rated it, it will confuse people. If you put 1 gallon of gas in the Volt and charge the battery all the way and drive as far as you can before it stops, you won't make it 230 miles. They EPA sticker should tell the electric range and cost of electricity, and have a separate mpg rating for when the battery is dead. Then consumers know what to expect and know the benefits of running it on electricity.

Agreed, and Cadillac has to get away from fwd. BMW has a new 5-series coming in one year, and a new 3-series coming in 2 years. They constantly update, so Cadillac has to keep up. Cadillac can challenge the MKS with a big car, but not the 7-series, so I'd back burner the big car until they have the money to do it right.

Buick is headed downmarket fast in search of younger buyers. But Buick isn't a brand that younger buyers consider, the image is too damaged. Clearly GM wants to fill the void from losing Saturn and Pontiac with cheaper Buicks, which will just create more overlap with Chevy. New GM is creating the same problem old GM had.

It looks like it has potential, and some Genesis-type styling. Hyundai is rising fast, the Sonota is already a very credible mid-sizer, they could be inching near the top of the class with this one.

But since the 3.0 offers no fuel economy gain over the 3.6 V6 why even bother with it. Toyota uses the 3.5 liter V6 in almost everything they make, it is easier to make 1 engine. Respectable and near bottom of the class performance isn't going to get GM's sales going back up. My complaint with the 3.0 is 255 hp, 217 lb-ft and 17/26 mpg, while the Toyota Avalon 3.5 is 268 hp, 248 lb-ft and 19/28 mpg

Agreed. The old SRX did 0-60 in 6.4 seconds, the new one with the turbo does it in 7.5 seconds. They made the right decision to downsize the vehicle to bring it in line with the import SUVs, and change the shape. But it should have stayed on sigma and making it heavier and front drive is not progress.

GM's current 2.0 turbo doesn't get very good mileage. But the 2.4 DI does, a light pressure turbo might only cost 1-2 mpg and could add 40 hp. They could probably get 3 mpg better than the 3.0 V6, but similar acceleration.

The 3.0 is a pointless engine, and peak torque is way too high. They should just use the 3.6 DI V6 in all cars and forget the 3.0 and the old 3.6 vvt, because the 3.6 DI makes more power and gets equal or better mileage. Then they are making 1 V6 rather than 3 would is easier and cheaper to do. It would make more sense for GM to go 2.4 DI 4-cylinder, then a turbo version with about 225 hp for middle, and the V6. Those 3 engines could cover almost all of GM's mid-range products.

GM will never get this car near 3350 pounds, the CTS and Camaro are near 3900. So it will need more than 200 lb-ft at 2,000 rpm to get the job done. Even the 4 banger A4 puts out 250 lb-ft. And remember there is an all new 3-series coming in 2012 (if the world doesn't end) so the baby Caddy won't be up against the current 3-series, it will be up against something better. Plus the 3.0 is in Chevy and Buicks, at least twin turbo it for Cadillac, do something.

Gotta teach them. The Jetta TDi is gaining traction. If they drop the 250ish hp and torque 3.6 V6, that gets 17/26 mpg, for a 250 hp, 425 lb-ft 24/35 mpg engine, I think people will buy it. They still have to offer gas engines, but diesel is about 50% in Europe, there is no reason it couldn't be here.

I totally agree. BMW is focused, and they "ultimate driving machine" better than anyone else. They don't make a soft floaty car just to copy Lexus. They stick to the formula, and BMW steering/brakes/suspension/handling is better than everyone else. Cadillac doesn't have a focus, they have several styles of vehicles and they try to copy Lexus, or copy BMW or Mercedes, etc. They need to figure out what they want to be and do only one thing.

I didn't mean quantity, I meant quality. Ford has more desirable 4-cylinder products, especially since the Fusion was just redesigned, and has the 41 mpg hybrid that gets an additional $1700 tax credit. So that car is $6200 off on Cash for clunkers and it is a good buy even without the gov't rebate. Plus Ford has the Escape which had a huge sales month. The Cobalt/Aveo/HHR/G5/G6, etc are mostly dated products that have needed heavy incentives to sell, or are heavily fleeted. Ford's offerings are more up to date, Kia has the new Soul and Forte, etc. The other brands have fresher and better 4-cylinder small to midsize cars, so they can benefit more from Cash for Clunkers is all I meant.

Just put diesels in all the Zetas and trucks, problem solved. A BMW 730 diesel gets about 10 mpg more than a CTS does, and the 7-series is a huge, heavy car. GM needs to get cars on a diet too, if they didn't weigh so much, they wouldn't need a 6 liter V8 and they wouldn't suck so much gas.

My complaint about the CTS is it too big and heavy to match a 335i in performance, and it isn't equipped enough to match a 5-series, E-class, A6, etc. They need 2 cars, an small entry level, and the CTS V6 should be $48k for the base model. Car and Driver just tested a 535i (without awd) and it was $63,820. BMW is doing a heck of a job to get people to spend over $60k on a 6 cylinder midsize car. That is what Cadillac needs to aim for, to have a badge that means something and one that people will pay a premium for. About the 3.0 DI engine, it doesn't make enough torque and it makes it at too high an rpm. BMW's inline sixes make good low end torque, especially the twin turbo. Maybe if they twin turbo the 3.0 V6 they will have something. Plus this car, and the CTS, need a diesel.

I am not saying that if the CTS were smaller, that it would sell better. What I am saying is that Cadillac needs BOTH, small and midsize and the CTS is a midsize. Because some buyers will only look at small, some will only look at midsize, some will only look at large. So Cadillac has to offer a car in every segment, just as BMW, Mercedes, Audi and Lexus do. And FYI, Cadillac has sold 22,942 CTS in 2009. The aging 5-series outsells it. http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet...amp;docid=55983

The 128i and 328i get 22 mpg combined, thus meet the CARS program. Plus the diesels. But I doubt BMW or any other luxury maker is getting much of CARS, it is Hyundai, Subaru, Toyota, Honda and Ford that benefit because they make a lot of 4-cylinder cars. Cadillac to recover has to reinvent themselves, again. The DTS and Escalade must die. The Escalade might sell and make profit, but the Escalade in a couple years is going to be thought of how the Hummer H2 is thought of now. Cadillac can't have a gigantic gas guzzler in their brand portfolio, it is going to create a bad image. If they are going to be a global luxury brand, they have to build products that work everywhere. Problem is, GM thinks that Cadillac has a great product lineup, and they think what they are doing will work. It won't. And the second problem is the money isn't there to develop what they need. The beancounters aren't going to give $1-2 billion to develop a Cadillac flagship when they only allocated $750 million to the Volt. A bankrupt automaker can survive, but it can't win.

Some may find the 3-series (or IS or C-class or A4) too small, but BMW makes the 5-series, and the 7-series. They cover each market segment, and aren't losing any business if someone that likes BMW but thinks a 3-series is too small, because they can step up to a 5. I am just saying that some people, (especially those in Europe) will find the CTS too big, and want a smaller car, and Cadillac has nothing to offer them, so they'll go to Lexus or one of the German brands. BMW outsells Cadillac 6 to 1 globally, BMW isn't perfect, but they have a pretty good idea what they are doing.

The LaCrosse is rated at 17/26 with the 3.0 liter, but a CTS with a 3.6 liter is rated at 18/27. And the weights of both cars are somewhat similar. That 3.0 offers zero MPG advantage. The Genesis and 5-series are getting an 8-speed next year, Infiniti and Mercedes already use 7-speeds. If everyone else does it, and Cadillac doesn't, it will look like they are old school, and not cutting edge.

No, I think most cash for clunkers deals are on 4-cylinder cars. The Focus is the #1 purchased car under cash for clunkers, and I think it helps Toyota, Honda and Hyundai who have good low priced cars. Cash for clunkers doesn't help Chrysler who has the Nitro and Sebring or GM with the Aveo, Cobalt, Saturns, G5s, G6s, etc. The Malibu is GM's best offering for Cash for clunkers, but most of GM's good products are large SUVs that don't qualify. Cadillac's dismal sales have nothing to do with cash for clunkers and everything to do with a dated STS and DTS, gas hungry Escalade, and lack of a small luxury car and lack of a coupe. There is too much competition in the $35-50k segment to have stale product, especially during a recession when the entire segment is down.