smk4565

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.

Edmunds or Motor Trend just had a comparison ( I think Edmunds) and they ranked Fusion #1, followed by Mazda 6, Accord, Sonata, Malibu and they left the Camry off because it was a distant last in their previous comparison. I thought that was a reasonable finishing order, but the Legacy and Altima were not included, and the Altima usually does well in comparisons.

Cadillac was down 53% from last July, they need better products, mainly a small car, and where is the CTS Coupe? Chevy did alright, but Ford and Hyundai posted sales increases, so the competition is getting stronger. It seems that cash for clunkers isn't helping GM and Chrysler as much as the other brands, although Chrysler has a horrid product lineup, I am surprised they sell anything at all.

A small Cadillac should have been a priority a few years ago, especially once they planned to make the CTS a couple inches larger in each direction. It isn't just the 3-series, it is the C-class, A4, IS, and to some extent the G37 which is 183-188 inches long. Some people just don't want a car as big as the CTS, so that is lost business if Cadillac doesn't offer a small sedan/coupe, especially in overseas markets. This car should be turbo 4, 3.6 V6, and twin turbo 3.6 V6. The 3.0 V6 has no torque and isn't fuel efficient. I almost think they should develop an Inline 6 for Cadillac use only, but GM is probably too broke to do that. Plus they'll need a 7 or 8-speed transmission for the CTS and up, the compact car could get away with 6-speed. CTS should not grow in size at all, and it needs to lose weight. Same with the SRX, the new, smaller, front drive SRX weighs more than the old rear drive V8 model. That isn't progress, it is bad engineering. Cadilac's problem is they are building cars of already existing platforms, engines, transmissions in the GM parts bin, and what is in the parts bin isn't good enough. They need to develop a 100% new chassis, a new engine, new transmission, new technologies, etc. It will cost well over $1 billion to do this car correctly, I don't see GM committing that much money to one car model.

They aren't going to be able to compete with Acura and Lexus. They have to go after a new type of consumer, and go after some of the Jetta's market share. People will pay $25-26k on a Camry or Malibu, Buick needs to get those buyers to drop $25-26k on a compact instead, and I think that is doable. Especially with the 55+ crowd that doesn't need a big family car and just wants comfort.

Interesting, I didn't know they had to disable the engine, I thought they just had to take it to a junk yard and scrap it. It seems like they could recycle more old parts off the car if they didn't disable the engine. 240,000 miles is pretty good, I have 110,000 and the engine has been pretty much trouble free. It is problems with electrical gadgets, wires and sensors that plague the Auroras. I've only spent $360 this year on unscheduled maintenance, so to me it is still better to fix the Aurora than to buy a new car (which almost has to be some 4 cylinder POS under the clunkers program)

The small premium segment has been crowded for years, Audi, BMW, Volvo, Saab, Mercedes, Lexus, and Acura are all in it. But they for the most part are $30k+, the number of small semi luxury cars for $23-28,000 is very limited, so there is a chance for Buick to seek out a new niche. The Jetta is really the only car there right now (Mini to a degree) and both are geared toward sport, Buick could get buyers that like soft. A rebadged Cruze will fail because people will know it is a Chevy knockoff. A rebadged Opel could fail because it won't hit enough of what the American market wants (a problem of the GTO, G8 and Astra). They really need to make this car a Buick and somewhat unique.

It is about time. Now bring on the compact Cadillac (rear drive). The 3-series has a 30 year head start though, so GM has a lot of catching up to do.

In the 70s and 80s, a 200 inch long car may have been common, but cars have changed. The Fleetwood/Roadmaster/Carprice died, then LeSabre/ParkAve/Bonneville/Aurora/Deville/Seville died, with just the DTS and Lucerne left, and those are on the way out. Much like the Ford panther platform is near dead. Even the Chrysler 300 is smaller than the LHS/Concord were. The Taurus/MKS/Impala will be about as big as it gets for sub $50,000 cars in a year or two. Regal should be the volume Buick, but $38k will never happen. It should be $32k loaded, it can't cost as much as an MKZ, but should cost more than a Malibu. The problem Buick faces is the Regal goes against the Camry and LaCrosse against the Avalon, and Toyota builds a better Buick than Buick does.

I don't think the LaCrosse is too large (too heavy, yes), just that it is a large car, and big enough to be the biggest Buick (don't need the Lucerne anymore). Regal is a perfect size for the midsize market, 190 inches long matches the Fusion and Camry. Add a Delta car, and Buick would have small-medium-large.

Regal replaces Aura, but it has to cost more than a Malibu, really it should be around $25-30k. LaCrosse replaces old Lacrosse and Lucerne, but it needs to go up a little in base price, which can be done by dropping the base model with plastic wheel covers. Just make the CXL trim the base. But Buick will probably keep bare bones models of both for fleet sales, and create overlap with the Malibu and Impala.

Car and driver didn't estimate it. The Saab 9-3 is .28 and the Corvette is .29, those are GM's most aerodynamic cars. .27 is all they need to be second to the EV1, which shouldn't be that hard, but an S-class is .26 and the 2010 Prius is .25.

They should have hired someone from Mercedes to be head of engineering.

Exactly right. And some old folks won't want a Chevy, but will buy Buick because they think it is better (slushier ride and softer seats). Avis and Enterprise will love it.

Why won't he say what the Volt's drag coefficient is? I am guessing it isn't great, a Corvette's is .29 and GM isn't known for aerodynamics. If it were great they'd be saying so. I doubt they even get this thing as aerodynamic as the S-class.

Good idea to compete with Camry/Fusion/Accord buyers, because then it will compete with Malibu buyers as well. To me it seems that the Ford Fusion is going after a younger demographic than the Camry or Buick goes for. GM has used the "just wait til you see what is coming next" line for years and years, and when the car comes out it is average and quickly forgotten about. I seriously doubt anything "incredible" is in the pipeline at Buick.

I only use Michelin or Pirelli. Tirerack.com has good prices on Pirelli's.

C-Pillar/trunk looks odd, too elongated. Front looks like the Saabs they have on sale now that no one buys. That sea of gray plastic around the instrument cluster isn't helping. This is another sales dud, why buy this over a CTS or G37? Unless you love torque steer and understeer. It is a good thing GM got rid of this brand, it was a total waste of money.

The Genesis is better than anything Buick has, it is better than the Cadillac STS. I've driven both, the V8 Genesis is pretty sweet. It has a little of that big car soft feel and leans a little in hard corners, so it's no BMW, but the Genesis feels more firm than an STS. The Genesis is bank vault silent and and the Tau V8 is awesome, the Genesis is a really good car. Buick needs to ditch the fake wood, the Enclave has fake wood also. Fake wood screams of Chevy and 90s Chrysler products, Buick needs to step their game up in that department.

Fritz says that, yet GMC exists. The Buick Cruze looks like a total badge job, because that is how GM thinks. They think a badge job and some marketing will fool the public or capture buyers, yet they have been proven wrong over and over. I like the idea of a Delta Buick if it has it's own sheetmetal and interior, it should be as different from the Cruze as the LaCrosse is from the Malibu. A DI ecotec and an optional turbo 4 would be good. We should do the over/under on whether or not Fritz still has his job on January 1st. I think he'll survive 2009, but not 2010.

RWD is best for handling. Caterham, Lotus, Ferrari, Corvette, Viper, race cars, etc are all rear wheel. The AMG and M cars are rear drive, not awd. The on again, off again stuff is annoying, and shows GM (mainly Cadillac) doesn't know what direction they are going in. They already make a stretched CTS, and it doesn't sell. Adding length to the sales dud STS isn't going solve anything. And I don't think the S-class is built on a stretched 2003 E-class platform. They can't build an S-class competitor form the GM parts bin, the engine, chassis, suspension, transmission all have to be developed from scratch. They should focus on a 3-series size car instead. The Delta Buick picture on Autoblog shares all body panels with the Cruze so it looks like a straight rebadge. A delta Buick is a good idea, rebadging the Cruze is not. LaCrosse should dump the base model and start at $30k and be the top end Buick, kill the Lucerne already. 3 sedans is plenty.

Probably, even if it sells as well as the CTS, that is only 40,000 units a year. No need to produce 70,000 like they originally thought.