smk4565

Lack of a competitive 9-3 hasn't helped either. The SRX chassis was considered for Saab years ago, but it was too expensive. They were going to do a Saab based on the Subaru B9 Tribeca, until the GM-Fuji/Subaru alliance fell apart. Saab lost $428 million in 2006, where does the money for a new 9-3, 9-5, 9-4, etc come from? Every penny spend on Saab would be 5 times more beneficial if it was spend on Chevy or Cadillac.

Don't buy a Saab no matter how big the rebate sticker on the windshield is. They break down, there is a reason they are in the bottom 5 of JD Power reliability rankings. Although if lots of torque steer is #1 on your shopping list, (which it probably is if you have a Grand Prix GXP), a Saab may be for you. I agree the regular CTS grille is much better than the V-series. I just wish the base CTS grille wasn't all plastic.

Saabs aren't a high end car, they are priced below Acura for the most part. My mom had a 2002 9-5 Aero that was loaded, nice car, handled well, but it was a maintenance nightmare, and was towed 4 times, one of which was 1 day after a $1000+ repair bill. The dealership service was horrible (it was a Pontiac-GMC-Saab). Not to mention massive depreciation, it was $42,000 MSRP new, and she sold if for $8000 when it was not even 5 years old. The Audi dealer only offered $5000 for a trade in, they wanted no part of it, because they knew it would be hard to sell it. We of course had several 9-3 rentals since the 9-5 was in the shop so much, the 9-3 is a garbage car. The turbo 4 is gutless, (the turbo V6 wasn't out then), the interior is cheap, too many buttons for the radio (its like el-cheapo iDrive) ride, handling and steering were average, it handled much worse than the 9-5. No discount is big enough to get me to consider a 9-3.

Toyota said they would have a plug in car in 2010, and Ford is working on a plug in Escape hybrid. The Tesla Roadster is already in production and is electric only, no gas engine at all, and can go 221 miles on one charge. The Volt goes 40 miles on one charge. The Tesla roadster is 0-60 in 3.9 seconds, that beats an M3 or Corvette. The Volt is an important car for GM, but other companies are working on similar cars, GM isn't going to be the only one with a car like the Volt.

Mercedes is actually going to beat GM on lithium-ion batteries with the 2009 S-class hybrid. GM may have the first plug-in hybrid but Toyota also claims they'll do it in 2010. The Volt is a car GM desperately needs, but I don't know if it can be called a "game changer" if Toyota has one also, or if the Volt is near $40,000. From Business Week... "Mercedes says the S400 BlueHybrid, powered by a 3.5-liter V6 gasoline engine in combination with an electric motor will deliver a combined 299 hp and 277 lb-ft of torque. Fuel economy of the car would be nearly 30 mpg. Mercedes expects to foollow the S400 with a second lithium-ion hybrid, the S300 Bluetec Hybrid, which combine a 2.2-liter, twin-turbocharged, four-cylinder diesel engine with an electric motor. That car will achieve almost 44 mpg." The S400 has the CTS, Tahoe Hybrid and LS600h beat by 10 mpg, that is pretty impressive. I know people will want to knock the 4 cylinder diesel, but think of how many S-Classes are in cities like New York, London, Tokyo, Berlin, etc chauffeuring CEOs around, and sit in traffic most of the day and never get above 35 mph.

Toyota has also claimed they'll have a plug-in hybrid in 2010. They are already the hybrid leader now, plus they spend more money in research and development than any other company in the world. GM not only has to be fast, but execute near perfectly on the first model year, which they don't have a great history of doing. As for why don't they spend money elsewhere, they don't have that much money. This is where the too many models and brands issue comes into play as well as the legacy costs. GM doesn't make money on small cars, so they don't invest in them, instead money goes into full size trucks. Another place money has gone is Saab. I read GM lost an estimated $4 billion on Saab from 1990-2002 (including purchase price). Saab lost $428 million in 2006. Why on earth are they spending money there, when the cost of materials, labor, advertising, and the 400 million thrown away could go to making better small cars or diesel/hybrid mid size cars.

Cost will be a big factor. If this car drives like a Cobalt, and has an interior like one, but costs $38,000, people won't care if it gets 500 mpg, they won't buy it. I hope they do this first though, they have been hyping it for a while, it would be sad if Toyota or Mercedes beats them to it. Chevy really needs to be first to have a car like this, because if Toyota does it first, their image just gets stronger, and Toyota has more cash on reserve to sell cars at a loss or advertise the heck out of it. Part of the reason the Camaro took 4 years is because they stopped working on Zeta to work on the Silverado, Tahoe and Yukon. They thought 15 mpg trucks was a top priority, but they also say CAFE regulations mean no new Monaro, no new Cadillac V8, and the rumor is the base Camaro will be 4-cylinder. Lutz also added yesterday that V8s will quasi-disappear from GM by 2015. I can't wait.

I agree that offering bigger car for less dollars is pitiful. That is what the DTS is now, big and cheap. That is what the Impala and current Buick sedans are, and all have poor resale and rely on fleets. BMW prices are actually pretty good deals compared to Mercedes. A 535xi base is less than the cheapest E-class. The 7-series is less than the S-class. The E-class base price is $19,000 more than a base CTS, those cars are not in the same class. If Cadillac wants to compete with BMW and Mercedes they need cars of similar size and price.

I like it. I do wish the side windows were a bit taller, it looks like visibility may be an issue. At first I wished there was a little more trunk like the convertible has, but this looks better than the hard top from Transformers. They can kill off the G5 now.

Saab sold less than 35,000 vehicles in the US in 2007, and the US is it's biggest market. Worldwide sales are under 100,000. GM sells 9.4 million cars a year, why do they keep wasting money on something that is 1% of their sales. GM doesn't need a Euro brand to sell cars in the US, or even in Europe. Toyota and BMW didn't buy an American brand to survive in the USA, and they did alright.

Here is the link to the Jim Taylor interview http://www.leftlanenews.com/leftlane-sits-...f-cadillac.html Diesel Escalade would be a good idea, especially with a hybrid system, even the BAS system that is lower cost.

The "what kind of buyers go into Pontiac dealerships nowadays" is an open invitation to jokes and insults, (much like it is easy to do with old people and Buick). I am just saying that the cars are low cost, similar to Kia or Hyundai before they had the Vera Cruz and Genesis and pushed upward a little bit.

They might if the Cadillac was equal or better. But given the current lineup, I would agree. Jim Taylor also said that Cadillac would wait to see if Mercedes was successful with their BlueTech diesels before they offer a US diesel. Gotta love the follower mentality. That is the same strategy they used for the Prius, then they got behind. Why not be first for once.

From Leftlanenews.com "Confirmed: STS/DTS to become one As for the future of the STS/DTS, Taylor confirmed that Cadillac is working on consolidating the two. The new car will benefit from CTS-esque styling and will cater to a younger crowd. As far as size, the new car will rival the BMW 7-series, but will be priced like a 5-series. The new sedan will use a rear-wheel drive setup — with all-wheel drive a likely option — but Taylor failed to mention when we might see the new vehicle on the road." The current STS is 1 inch shorter than the 7-series and the DTS is 10 inches longer and both are priced lower than a 5-series, and both are sales duds at this point. Why would Cadillac make another big car, priced like a 5-series and expect it not to be a dud? Why not make a car sized like a 5-series and priced like a 5-series. And a car sized like a 7-series and priced like a 7-series.

The money they lose on Saab every year would be better spent on Cadillac.

The overlay is very nice work. The spy photos of the 2010 LaCrosse do show a resemblance to the Malibu. The concept may not, but Buick often changes concepts, the concept LaCrosse from 02 or 03 almost had a hatchback look to it. This car can probably replace the Lucerne as well as the LaCrosse, so to avoid a repeat of the Malibu being nicer than the Impala or CTS being nicer than the STS.

2008 pricing with Bonus Cash and Cash Allowance included G5: $14,835 G6: $16,375 2009 Vibe: $15,895 Grand Prix: $20,960 (77.8% fleet sale in 2007) Solstice: $21,785 Torrent: $21,835 Given that, I'd say people looking for cheap cars go into Pontiac showrooms.

Very true. A V6 G8 has a 0-60 time in the 7.2 second range, nearly a second behind a Camry or Avalon, or Malibu V6 even. Rear drive handing is a plus, but it lags behind the Maxima/Avalon/Accord V6 loaded in other areas. Most people don't want a car they have to justify or rationalize to friends or neighbors as to why they bought it. Pontiac has been building cars like that for years.

I wonder if the Invicta will share body panels with the Malibu, just as the Grand Prix and LaCrosse did. I like the Invicta name a lot more than LaCrosse, but now GM has to run a big advertising campaign to get people to know what it is. As opposed to a car like the Accord that has been around forever.

I think VWs and Audis are built solid, but a lot of the interior parts are hard or stiff, although that comes from the German utilitarian theme. I'm not a fan of their interior designs, but they use better materials and fit them together tighter than the domestics. I've always thought it was mechanical problems that plagued Audis, I knew a couple people that had them and were horrid on maintenance once they got to be about 5 years old, and both got rid of the car and went to another brand. The Chrysler 300 is close enough in price that both it and the Charger will get cross shopped to the G8. A 300 with the prestigious "Great American Package" is just $26,860. They really do have too trim levels with poor names for that car, such as the Herritage edition, Signiature Series Value Package and Walter P. Chrysler Executive Series. Sounds like old Town Car names.

The Silverado is rear drive and will still be around then. Otherwise, BMW and Mercedes will have rear wheel drive.

They do need to solve the weight problem, it hurts acceleration, breaking, handling and gas mileage. It ranges from the Solstice and Cobalt, to the Vue to the Enclave. The Malibu V6 mileage is so-so, it carries over into the bigger and heavier G8. Toyota's and Honda's V6 engines are pretty efficient, if the engine has 300-400 pounds less to pull, it is going to get better mileage. It would be nice to see a smaller V6 with DI that can make 250 hp but get better mileage than the 3.6.

I agree that rear drive is the way to go, but Pontiac's brand image is just about as low as Hyundai's. The 09 Maxima interior is much nicer, although that's a front driver. I'll have to compare the 300C and G8 at the auto show. The one thing Pontiac has going for them is there are very few full size rear drive sedans for $30,000.

I agree about the CTS interior, parts are good, and parts are discount plastic. The gray plastic on the map pockets on the doors is flimsy, the gray plastic around the center console is cheap, gray plastic surrounds the speedo and tach that sick out. The interior was designed to fit a $33k car so they could have a low base, but people that like a loaded up model (like myself) pay $48,000 for a $33,000 interior. I have not sat in the G8 yet, I saw the concept car at the auto show last year, I'll sit in it when I go in April. It better be much better in person, because in photos and from looking through the window in person, it appears to be on par with the Mazda 3, Malibu and not even as good as the Accord and those cars are much cheaper. I think the Dodge Charger interior is really bad, although the Avenger/Sebring are even worse. I am very interested in sitting in the Hyundai Genesis. The G8 has to compete with that car, and the Genesis has more luxury gear, more horsepower, and a 500+ watt, 17 speaker stereo from the Rolls-Royce Phantom. (even the CTS is left with 10 speakers as its top end system) Although I wouldn't buy a Pontiac or a Hyundai, I see either brand as a step down from the Aurora.

GM needs more rear drive stuff, they have tons of front wheel drive cars already. CAFE isn't an excuse, they can get the same mileage from rear drive, and they can make rear drive cars with light hybrids or diesels if they need to. Lassa is right about making cars under 195 inches long. Rear drive cars don't need to be 210 inches long and weigh 4300 pounds like a Town car. Size is what hurts mileage, not the drive wheels. Lassa is also right about Mercury being near death and Ford and Lincoln being too poor to come up with anything. I predict Mercury dies off, and Lincoln continues with it's dressed up Fords and adds the Mariner. I don't like Lassa's Cadillac plan. If the DTS/STS replacement is 203+ inches long and $40,000-$50,000, that's a geezer-mobile. If the 3-series is the #1 seller in the segment, (both US and worldwide) and the C-class, A4 are a couple inches bigger, why would the Alpha Cadillac be smaller than a 3-series. It should be 180-182 inches long. I don't like his engine choices either, a high revving 4-banger for the Alpha and a Chevy small block V8 for the big car. I'd be fine with an updated version of the DI turbo 4 from the Solstice GXP as the base BTS engine, but they need a V6 also.