smk4565

Cadillac has nothing that goes against an LS460, Buick never will. GM doesn't have an 8-speed or a direct injection DOHC V8 or a chassis for it, the only piece they have is the 2-mode hybrid, which has yet to be used on a car. Lexus had all that 2 years ago, GM should have been working on that stuff, but they wasted money on Saturn, Saab, Hummer, and full size SUVs.

The SRX is still larger than the RX350, but they went the wrong direction with it. They will lose current SRX owners, and won't steal any away from Lexus, Lexus retains customers like crazy. The air vents in the SRX, Equinox and LaCrosse are too similar. It's not a Cadillac if there are all kinds of similarities with Chevy and Buick. Cadillacs have to offer value to make people want to spend $50,000 on a new one, rather than just waiting for a 1-2 year old used model that sells for $25k.

Best Buick ever, but they'll never hit 70,000 units a year. Headlights from the Accord, 5-series tail lights, Lexus LS exhaust pipes, and a Malibu-like side profile is just taking what others already did and merging it, that is out of the Hyundai playbook. Wood trim looks really fake, although the dash materials and leatherette with the stitching look nice. I like the contour line along the side of the car, that is unique and looks good, but I hate the venti-ports on top of the hood and don't like that it is over 4,000 pounds. Can GM make anything that isn't obese? A question I have about the 3.0 V6, is why peak torque is hit at 5900 rpm, when BMW's 3 liter hits it around 2800 rpm.

If GM's 388k sales of midsizers is 25% of the market, then the Camry which sells around 450,000 a year must be 30% share off one vehicle. Likewise for the Accord. GM's brands have been losing buyers for years because of lackluster product. The brand loyalty argument of, "we can't kill Buick GM will lose 150,000 sales a year" but Buick has lost 700,000 annual sales since 1988. The customers are leaving anyway. Market share also does not equal profit, it is something GM has relied on because they had to stay big to pay all the legacy costs and keep union members working, because otherwise they pay them anyway to sit in the jobs bank. The decision to what models to cut are easy: All Saabs All Hummers G3, G5, G6 G-bodies W-bodies Saturn brand (Astra to Pontiac, Aura/Insignia becomes Regal, Sky moves to Chevy or Buick, theta crossover to Buick) Yukon, Yukon XL and Denali Canyon/Sierra/Savana are sold as work trucks (fleet/business) only, regular trims cut Escalade EXT STS Add: Fiesta/Fit rivaling Aveo replacement Cruze Malibu (updated interior, 2-mode hybrid option) Chevy minivan Zeta Impala (G8 can die if they do this) Buick Delta II sedan Cadillac Alpha sedan/coupe/convertible CTS sedan/coupe/wagon to Sigma III and add $12k to price Cadillac flagship XLR, start over from scratch on C7 platform

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.