smk4565

Maybe, but the SRX looks like crap.

The smaller of the 2 W-bodies is 198 inches long, that is 7-series size. The G8 is over 196 inches long, midsize is near 190 like the Fusion, Camry, Aura, CTS, 5-series, Lexus GS, etc. The Accord is now classified as a full size car, and it is 194 inches long. GM doesn't have small to midsize products that consumers want. The Malibu is their only credible offering, and it is an average seller.

I like the MKS looks, but don't like how big the car is. It is near DTS size and weight, which is just too big to be at all sporting, even with Ecoboost. Center stack is too much black plastic. I am looking forward to seeing this styling theme put on the MKZ. This styling with ecoboost in a midsize package would be pretty appealing.

Chevy can't be #1 when they have to compete against Pontiac, Saturn and GMC. The Cobalt and G5 combined are blown away in sales by the Corolla or Civic, same with the Epsilon trio compared to the Carmy. Chevy needs better cars, but GM spent 2006-08 on GMT900s, Lambdas, Zeta and updated G-body and W-body cars, all of which are big and not going after the heart of the market.

I agree that Buick should do a front drive crossover based on the Equniox. They don't need the Saab version, or the brand. If Cadillac starts making low $30s Chevy based vehicles, then GM doesn't really need Buick. They can just have Chevy-Cadillac and get rid of everything else. I'd rather see Buick as a step above the LTZ Chevys, maybe not quite as nice as Lincoln or Acura, but they could price lower than those brands. Cadillac should focus on $40k and up rear drive. Cadillac can't talk about how they are competing with BMW and Mercedes if they have front drivers on Chevy platforms in the mix. Getting volume isn't the key, what Cadillac has to do is make people want to pay $5000 extra to have the wreath and crest on their hood. Mercedes can get $60,000 for a V6 sedan because the 3-point start carries that much weight, and they got there by years of engineering and reputation building.

Those materials were bad, even Lutz says they screwed up and made an interior that didn't look expensive, even though it cost a good bit for the materials. It looked like a wagon because it was 195 inches long, had a big C pillar and was somewhat low and narrow, with a car looking front end.

This thing won't outsell the RX350 because it doesn't have the Lexus reputation. Since they aren't offering any premium chassis or engines or anything, and GM has a dozen SUVs already for similar price, I am guessing the SRX will need cash back and incentives to move product. Sales volume doesn't equal profit, this is another GM lackluster product that ages fast and fades. Just as the GMT360s did. The Lexus ES350 outsells the CTS, maybe they should make the CTS front drive also and soften the suspension.

Buick doesn't need a Riviera, it won't sell. The most cost effective lineup (that fits what Buick buyers want) is 3 front drivers based on Chevys, like what Lincoln did with the MKZ and MKS, but with a compact added. What I wonder is would people spend $45,000+ on a 3-series if it shared a platform with a Camaro or Mustang. I would guess not, therefore Cadillac shouldn't share a platform with the Camaro either. Unless the Camaro bases around $30k and becomes a more expensive car, which won't happen.

It is pretty much identical in size to the Aura, same 2.4 engine, the Chinese version has a 2.8 V6 I think as an option (it is whatever Opel uses). This car will replace the Aura when Saturn dies, thus compete with higher end Malibu/Camry/Sonata.

Short term sales bump, but does nothing for them in the long haul. The Cimarron added sales and was profitable too and damaged the brand for 25 year. The SRX isn't nearly as bad and won't damage Cadillac, but at the same time it won't improve their image at all. The STS and DTS are dragging Cadillac's image down, Escalade has a positive image with some demographics and negative with others. Only the CTS is working to improve their reputation. Luxury brands need an image and have to represent something. Lexus represents reliability, BMW driving machine, Mercedes engineering, Cadillac stands for nothing, no focus.

Yep. Euro-looking Saturns aren't selling so great, I don't know if Euro-looking Buicks will do any better. Buick has pushed American image and look for years, now they want to pull a 180 on that, doesn't make a lot of sense.

I'll miss the Isuzu Ascender the most.

They love the RX mainly because of the badge on the front, and that Lexus has been #1 most reliable car for 14 years or so. Consumers feel confident that the thing will never break. Size also helps, the original RX was nearly a foot shorter than the current SRX, and small stuff is easy to drive. The SRX was too big, just like the STS was too big. If they built it to RX size on Sigma it would be better. If they go this route, they might as well put the next generation CTS on Epsilon II. I'd like to see Cadillac's development dollars go into an S-class fighter, but I doubt GM will spend $1.5 billion on a car that will sell 25,000 a year, when they spent $500 million on the Malibu, expecting to sell 10 times as many. GM's reputation is shot, Cadillac's isn't so great either, if they really want to be profitable they have to change that so they sell cars at sticker, rather than at $10,000 off red tag plus cash back fire sales. Only way to change perception is with a product, their lame "that's made by GM, are you surprised?" ads won't do it.

Cadillac is either wimping out, or GM is too poor, or both. Cadillac will be the $35-50k brand, Buick will be $25-40k. Neither of which are challenging those in the big leagues.

Giving the car a worse interior and poorer driving dynamics won't increase sales. SRX was plagued by looking like a station wagon. The new SRX will sell better because they will price it $10,000 less, not because it is a good vehicle. Cadillac can get loads of volume if they sell cheap cars, but they'll never get their image to rival Mercedes by doing that. The X5 is outselling the current SRX 2 to 1, and it isn't any better of a vehicle, just better look and better brand image. The X5 M just shows that BMW can put performance into every product. Cadillac really only puts performance into the CTS-V, the XLR-V is quick, but it is slower than a Vette for double the price.

I know they are aiming low, that is the problem. Cadillac is becoming more like Lincoln. SRX is like the MKX and Escalade like the Navigator.

The shape is way too similar to the Vue. Cadillac gets a front drive, V6 Vue look-a-like, BMW gets a 500 hp X5 M. The SRX may be above average for class, but it has no status to it, no great appeal or selling point that will make people aspire to own one. There was a time when people dreamed of owning a Cadillac, then for years Cadillac was a punchline and joked about, they have some credibility now, but still aren't a brand people aspire to, like BMW or Mercedes.

Who would have thought 10 years ago that GM and Chrysler would both be facing bankruptcy. The reason Chrysler won't ever be Mercedes is money. It costs well over a billion dollars to develop a car like the S-class. Chrysler can't spend $1.5 billion on a car that will sell 15,000 units a year. Chrysler is out of cash, doesn't make profit, and is deep in debt, they won't come up with the money. And to be like Mercedes they would need 5 or 6 models that are great, not just 1 sedan on the LY platform.

The XF's reviews rate it #1 in the class. Yes the AJ V8 is old, but it sounds good and the car is fast. But a new 5 liter V8 is coming soon. Jaguar ranks 10th in JD Power reliability (which studies 2005 cars, not the XF) but that was higher than Mercedes and Audi. They rank #9 in initial quality, higher than Cadillac, BMW and Audi. Jaguar is currently #1 in both customer service and sales satisfaction. If reliability is a problem with Jaguar, it is a problem with the 27 brands that rank below it as well.

Because Toyota spends 500 bajillion dollars on Camry marketing, and the car has a 20+ year solid reputation on top of that. GM has no choice but to advertise the Malibu a ton, because it is getting killed in sales by the Accord and Camry. The problem is GM has 45-50 models to advertise while Toyota only has 26. So Toyota can advertise each individual car twice as much.

I didn't, I said I was comparing GM's 8 brands to Toyota's 3 in North America. I brought up Opel/Vauxhall and Holden to compare them to Daihatsu, which is Toyota's only global brand. It is 8 to 3 in NA, and 11-4 global. I know Toyota's exact culture wouldn't work at GM, but their business strategy would.

They do have Jaguar, and the XF is the best mid-size luxury sedan on the market right now. Edmunds.com and Motor Trend comparison winner, Car and Driver 10 Best, Automobile Magazine All Star. Does Jim Press know that a 300 starts around $25,000 and the full size Mercedes starts at $90,000? Or that BMW and Mercedes aren't using the same V6 from 1997 in their 2009 cars? Or that M-B and BMW don't sell 60% of their cars to rental car companies?

Toyota doesn't own all of Subaru, and Dihatsu is rather small. I was comparing GM's 8 to Toyota's 3 in North America. GM has Opel, Vauxhall, Holden too, which is more baggage than what Subaru or Dihatsu are. Toyota posted an operating loss, but their net profit for 2008 is expected to be $550 million. Which isn't good, but they kept it in the black, which hardly any other automaker will do this year. They make generic, mediocre cars, but their culture and business strategy kills GM's. Toyota's brands are strong because they continually provide them with new product and market them constantly. GM's brands have to take turns getting new products, so certain brands and models get dated and create a poor image.

Toyota has been cleaning their clock with 3.

MKS starts at $37,600, $39,500 with awd. It will never boom because of its size. It is 204 inches long and the Lincoln website doesn't even list weight because it is no doubt high. When the economy turns and the Town car is gone and it picks up some of those sales, maybe they'll hit 3k a month. 35,000 sold in a year is probably the best they can hope for.