smk4565

4.4 liters often burns less gas than 6.2 liters. If GM had a wider array of high end Cadillacs it would be worth it to develop their own V8 and tack on a light hybrid system to keep it getting 20 mpg, but since they don't have a V8, if they can get BMW's why not test it in an Escalade and see what the mileage and acceleration are, both may improve.

I would have rather seen GM make their own engines to rival BMW, giving in and buying theirs is admitting defeat in a way. But since they canceled the Ultra program and the 3.6 V6 isn't as good as BMW's turbo-6, I am fine with them putting BMW engines in a Cadillac. I am for any plan that makes Cadillacs better. I am sure on BMW's end they'll mark the price up for their engines, so I wonder if that will make it more expensive for GM to buy BMW's engine rather than use their own. BMW could end up making $500 worth of profit on every Cadillac sold, which isn't a bad deal for them. The BMW TT V8 makes more hp and torque than the Escalade's 6.2 liter, there could be a fuel efficiency gain there, and set the Escalade apart from the Yukon Denali more. CTS would really benefit, from the V8. They say the new 550i with that engine (and 8-speed transmission) will be nearly as fast as the current M5. There are a lot of interesting applications, including BMW's diesel engines. The engine I'd love to see come here is the 4.4 liter diesel from the 745d, it makes around 330 hp, and over 550 lb-ft and gets 26 mpg, that's probably a highway rating though, but still good for that much power.

I agree that the Park Ave would be better than a front drive Lucerne but I wouldn't buy either. The Chinese STS has a better interior than ours as well. Perhaps labor costs are so low there, that they can spend more on interior materials and other aspects of the car. Even if GM had all megastores that offered all 8 brands in one place, that doesn't help eliminate dated products or overlapping products. They would still have the Aura-G6-Malibu-LaCrosse-Impala all costing about the same problem. Even if they reduce to 3 models each for Buick, Pontiac, Saab, GMC, etc they still have to spread advertising dollars across all those brands. Suppose that Toyota and GM plan to spend the same amount on advertising in a given year. Toyota and Chevy wold probably get 66%, leaving 34% for the other brands. Scion could get 14% while GMC (#2 volume GM brand) gets 14%. That leaves 20% for Lexus, and 20% for Buick, Pontiac, Cadillac, Hummer and Saab combined. GM has to do something, the solution is not outspend Toyota, because Toyota has more money than them.

I don't want GM to close, I want them to be around for more than 20 years. Over the last 20 years with the rebadge strategy they lost 15% market share. Another 20 years of the same strategy will lead to declining sales and profits. I agree the brands lack focus, but there isn't enough money to make unique products for them all, so we get similar cars like the Malibu and Aura or 4 Lambdas. Most of the brands have a star product, but they have a greater number of dated or non-focused ones. Pontiac for example has the Solstice and G8, 2 good cars. But countered by the G5, G6, Torrent which are rebages, sold to fleets, dated, etc. And it was even worse when they had the Montana and Grand Prix. Using Cadillac as an Example, CTS and Escalade are winners, STS and XLR are dated, DTS doesn't match there luxury-performance alternative to the Germans theme. To fix every brand will take money they don't have. I'd rather see them make 4-5 great brands, well focused with every car being like the Malibu or CTS, none like the old Grand Prix or Ion, than to have 8 brands with half their product being mediocre at best.

I was aware of the G500 at the time I made that post, but it isn't something that commonly sits on M-B lots because of it's $89,000 base price. It's more of an old school Range Rover style vehicle than a military Hummer. The point is, putting an H3 or really dated Saab in the Cadillac showroom doesn't help Cadillac. Lexus and BMW often have stand alone dealerships and portray the upscale image.

The Lucerne is not a good product. It has a chassis and transmission from a 1995 Aurora (and it's 2008) and the 95 Aurora had a DOHC V8 vs a pushrod V6. I have a 2001 Aurora 4.0 (all options), when I sat in the Lucerne CXS at the auto show I couldn't help but to laugh how bad it is, poorly laid out interior, dash from an Impala, fake wood, cheap plastic on the doors, yuck. Which brings me to my "why Oldsmobile buyers left GM" theory. An Olds in 2001 was better than the crap Buick and Pontiac made in 2004-2006. I would be downgrading if I bought anything with a Pontiac or Buick badge on it. Olds owners looking for an upgrade went to Acura, Volvo, Lexus, etc. The H2's gas mileage isn't listed by the EPA due to GVWR, the H3 gets 15 mpg with the 5 cylinder (14 with the V8). The 382 hp Toyota Sequoia also gets 15 mpg but it does 0-60 in 6.2 seconds. A better comparison is the FJ Cruiser, that's a V6 similar size to an H3 and gets 17 mpg. I in my life will never buy a Toyota truck, but they don't suck more gas than a Hummer. It isn't even about gas mileage as much as it is about image. Hummer gives GM a bad image. Cadillac sales were down for 2007, and are down so far for 2008. I know it is a bad market, but the CTS alone can't make a brand. BMW and Mercedes each sell over 1 million cars a year, Cadillac less than 250,000. I know it not a totally fair comparison because BMW/Mercs have lower priced cars in Europe and are used as taxis or cop cars in Germany, but Cadillac has limo/hearse fleet sales here too. The Germans have more diverse product offerings and update engines and platforms frequently, if Cadillac is going to compete they have to do the same.

The Asians don't need to reduce divisions because over the past 10 (or 20 or 30) years Toyota, Nissan and Honda have all seen sales growth, and all 3 are currently very profitable. Toyota's 2006 (their fiscal year doesn't match the calendar) profit alone is enough to buy about 90% of GM stock. Ford, GM and Chrysler all lose money, Ford lost billions in 2006, 2007 will in 2008 and hopes to turn profit in 2009. So while they lose $10-15 billion in cash, Toyota will make $50 billion in cash, that is a net difference of $60-65 billion. Imagine the advertising and vehicle development that can happen with $60 billion dollars. I agree Saab is selling 10 year old junk, but why are they? Why isn't every Saab model updated on a new chassis with a new engine every 6 years? Answer is, no money to do it. Too many brands, too many models. GM can't updated every Buick, Pontiac, Chevy, Saab, etc and make each model all new every 6 years like other brands can do.

I tend to think GM can downsize and reorganize on their own terms, and hope for future growth, or they can continue on their current path and let Toyota downsize them. GM had 40% market share in 1990, they added Saab, Saturn and Hummer, killed Olds and now they have 24% market share. Toyota and Honda are just eating away at GM's market share. What's wrong with the 3-series and 5-series, they sell here, and around the world. BMW sold 1.2 million cars last year, and sales increased from prior years, they also turn a profit. The Tacoma is advertised a fair amount, the Loch Ness monster ad, the video game ad, and the giant dinosaur/car earing robot ad. In 2000 when Toyota made the Prius, GM said hybrids are money losers and bad business decision and made the Hummer H2. Toyota's image soared while GM got the image of a company that makes big gas guzzlers that pollute the Earth. Personally I wouldn't buy a Toyota, I don't think they drive well, but their public image is high so people will buy them without thinking about it.

That still leaves them with a lot of dealerships. The 2 Hummer dealerships hear are in steel and glass buildings with a giant H built into the front of the building. How are they going to sell a Cadillac there? How come when you go to a Mercedes or Lexus dealership, there isn't an army looking vehicle with an all plastic interior and Pontiac Aztec vents sitting next to the S-class. I'd rather see Cadillac dealers as stand alone, and offer more prestigious products. Putting Hummer and Saab next to them drags down their image.

Saab and Hummer definitely should go. They lose money every year on Saab. Gas is going to $4 a gallon, no reason to keep Hummer. Bob Lutz once said "the iconic car of Toyota is the Prius, the iconic car of GM is the Hummer H2." When environmentally friendly and "green" are the trendy things, it hurts to have the Hummer as the symbol of your company. GM should kill Hummer and follow it with a we are committed to the environment speech and here is the new Chevy Volt that runs on electricity. Cadillac needs money badly or they will turn into Lincoln and the USA won't ever have a great car brand. The DTS and STS need killed fast, and we need great luxury performance cars that will sell anywhere in the world. The 08 CTS is on the same chassis as the 03 CTS. Conversely, when the 04 5-series came out it got an all new chassis, and the 2010 5-series is getting an all new chassis as well. Since the 1993 Northstar it got one major revision for rear drive use and that's it. BMW brought out the 4.4 liter V8 in the late 90s, then revised it, then revised it again as the 4.8 liter, and this fall the 4.4 turbo replaces the 4.8. That is 4 revisions to Cadillac's 1. Cadillac needs cash, but unfortunately it is being wasted on Saab and other dying brands. Really what they need is Saturn to be really unique, and a Chevy- middle brand -Cadillac 3 tier set up. Although Cadillacs start in the low $30s so Chevy-Cadillac is enough.

But they don't have 4 sales channels. Here we have a family that owns a Pontiac-GMC-Hummer, and another family has Buick/Subaru a half mile down the road. The Buick dealer also owns a stand alone Cadillac dealership, GM wouldn't allow them to merge Cadillac and Buick because Buick would hurt Cadillac's image (good move on GM's part) Even with Chevy and Cadillac dealerships alone, that is a big enough dealer network to sell at the level they do now. GM is like a sinking ship, that is taking on water, they need to throw some dead weight overboard to stay afloat.

GM is losing sales (off 16% last month) with this 8 brand strategy, the money to fully fund them doesn't exist. Paying off dealers is a one time loss, better than 20 more years of decline like they've had since 1990. GM still has over 14,000 dealerships even with the consolidation they have been doing, Toyota has less than 5,000. Lexus outsells Saturn with fewer dealerships, and charges twice as much. Dealership network is not an excuse for Saturn's poor sales. My plan is spend nothing on Saab and Hummer for 2 years, then shut them down. I don't care whether GMC goes or stays, if they stay and price them higher than Chevy, there is at least some differentiation, and they could be paired with a car only brand to round out a dealership line up. IF GM has the money, they need to change Saturn a lot. Outlook must die, and they have to focus on small, semi-premium cars. The Aura should be priced closer to the Passat, have an interior like the Passat (no Chevy radio or switchgear), and every powertrain should be diesel, hybrid or both. Saturn has to become more like VW, Mini, Volvo C30, SMART, etc. They should get a mini car, the Astra and Sky have to get better interiors and better gas mileage. Light hybrid should be standard on all Saturns by 2010. Their products would still be in the $16-30,000 range, but they would be much smaller, more fuel efficient and youth oriented than a Chevy. It is important to bring in young buyers because they aren't getting the baby boom generation and the 70+ Buick crowd is dying off. Buick sales are way down, the Enclave hasn't made a difference, baby boomers buy Toyota and Lexus. I think it is almost impossible for Buick to repair their image, and would rather GM just shut them down in 2012. However, there is a place for cushy cars (although a new Impala could handle this), a luxury trimmed Malibu (192 inch long, $28-33k) and a $34-40k full size car would have a place in the market. The full size car can be used for limo/taxi sales and take over that from the DTS. There is a market there, but there is also a minivan market, and GM gave up on that. Pontiac isn't needed unless they just sell old Chevy models to rental fleets to funnel all fleet sales into one brand. Most of their cars are cheap, economy cars anyway, the G8 and Solstice are the only sporty ones, and the Chevy SS cars can easily take care of performance buyers. By spending all of Pontiac's money on SS Chevys, Chevy could get some good vehicles. At least one of those brands has to go, probably easier to kill on in the B-P-G sales channel. With 5 brands they'd have more money to spend per car on development and advertising.

Saab was down 25%, Hummer and GMC were both down 23% in February. Buick was down 19%, Saturn was down 36%. None of them are functioning well. Pontiac was only down 6.5%, must have been a good month to Avis. 8 brands worked in the 50s and 60s when there weren't as many import brands and Detroit was making big profits. Now there is more competition and Detroit loses money, you can't use a strategy from 50 years ago in a changing market. GMC is redundant, if they disappeared tomorrow, 95% of prospective buyers would go to Chevy because they make the same product. Chevy is known for it's truck image also, will GMC "I want rough and tough professional grade" types buy Honda Ridgelines all of a sudden? Chevy could offer Denali versions of their trucks with an interior upgrade and make GMC not needed. GMC is the same as Mercury, the only reason they exist is to get volume into a dealership of a dying brand. I would be fine with GMC staying and making Denali level only trucks so they are nicer than Chevy and covering all the work truck and utility company fleet sales with the Savanna, Canyon and Sierra. The problem with the epsilon cars and the "step up" theory is all GM's mediocre cars cost the same. The G6, Malibu, Impala, Aura, LaCrosse, and Lucerne all are between $20-26,000. 4 brands in the same price class, there is not stepping up or down, just lateral moves. The current strategy leaves cars on the market too long without an update and with a lack of advertising.

I read this article yesterday, I thought it was pretty accurate. GM has too many brands and too many models. They don't have enough money to develop vehicles for and advertise for all of them. One great product with a lot of advertising behind it will outsell 3 average ones with limited marketing. There is no easy solution, but GM believing that in time it will work itself out is a poor strategy. While they are struggling to break even every year, Toyota is making over $15 billion annually. Over 10 years that leaves GM exactly where they are now, and Toyota with another $150 billion in the bank to develop new products like plug in hybrids and fuel cells, and money to advertise like crazy and drive other companies out of business. I think Hummer and Saab should be first to go, they combined sold 5,000 cars last month. Starve those brands for product for 2 years then shut them both down. The tough call then becomes Buick, Pontiac, Saturn or GMC. They don't need all 4 of them.

I like the sedan more, the back is too stubby and tall on the coupe. Cadillac needs a coupe though and hopefully soon.

It is believed that the SRX will die off in favor of the BRX (which I see as a dressed up Vue, how awful) Why Cadillac would replace a premium rear drive chassis in favor of a front drive, front heavy, chassis from the company with dent resistant doors makes no sense to me. Interestingly enough, the SRX is the most awarded vehicle in Cadillac's 106 year history.

That is hilarious, I love that. I wonder which group of the 3 is the biggest buyer, I would have said doped up seniors in 2000, but Buick sales are tanking fast, (down another 19% in Feb 08) and GM has cut down on it's geezer-mobiles, people who buy on incentive alone and rental car joints must be running neck and neck. I've gone by 3 different Enterprise lots around here and saw a CTS, there is nothing that GM won't discount and give away.

I think no B-pillar is cool (as are suicide doors like Rolls has or the Imperial concept). But with safety standards, it's hard to do, and I'd take lower weight over no b-pillar. Although I think the Mazda RX-8 doesn't have a B-pillar, that would be cool if the Camaro or GTO (if they make it) do the double door and no pillar thing.

Lexus has a 27 mpg SUV, but it isn't that fast. Lexus is know for quiet and reliable, BMW is known for handling, Mercedes is engineering, all of them have something they do well. My problem with Cadillac is they don't have a clear identity and they don't have any flagship or unique products. The Coupe 60 will have to compete with a better looking and cheaper Mustang, Camaro, new 370Z, etc. What Pontiac really needs is the Alpha platform (as does Cadillac). Personally I think they killed Pontiac's image with years of rebadged Chevys they sold to rental fleets. The Solstice is an amazing looking car, and couldn't turn Pontiac's image, perhaps nothing can.

Edmunds.com has the Escalade (short length) at 0-60 in 7.5 seconds. Although I've seen several times at 6.5 to 6.7 seconds, which seems about right for 403 hp and a 6 speed and the weight. Car and Driver tested the Tahoe Hybrid last month, it was 0-60 in 8.2 seconds. The Tahoe gets slower in hybrid form, the Escalade using the same powertrain will become slow as well. The Astra will compete against the Civic, and Mazda3. It's much better than the Ion or Cobalt, but not really a premium car. As far as the Coupe 60 goes, it is just a newer version of the GTO. The Camaro is 1000 times better looking, Chevy has a better image than Pontiac as well, the Camaro would make a Pontiac coupe pointless.

The Camry, Malibu and MKZ are the same size as the CTS also. Most people shop cars in price ranges, size is good to categorize and compare, but if you can't spend over $40k, you can go buy a CTS, can't get a 5-series. A prospective buyer looking to spend $45k could cross shop a CTS DI vs a used 545i/550i.

I didn't forget the Escalade Hybrid, which may get 20 mpg, maybe 19 if it has more weight than the Tahoe to pull, but the Escalade Hybrid doesn't have 758 lb-ft or do 0-60 faster than an XLR. I would love to see the CTS diesel on sale here, hopefully this happens for 09 models, since the Germans have a lot of diesels coming. New M5 is 2010 model, I don't think the CTS-V should be compared to the M5, the CTS-V isn't $83,000, problem is Lutz and GM not only compare it to the M5, but say it's better. The CX-9 was Motor Trend tuck of the year, Car and Driver 5 best truck list also. The interior on the CX-9 is reminds me of a Volvo, it's actually pretty nice. It also has the new 3.7 liter with 275 hp and is about 400 pounds lighter than the Lambdas. The Lambas are good, the Mazda is a tad better. Astra is not a premium car, it has 140 hp and cloth seats. It isn't comparable to the Mini Cooper, VW GLI/R32/Scirocco and Jetta, 1-series (pricey but 0-60 in 4.7 seconds). (i know the mini and jetta start around 150 hp but they offer upgrades) Nothing 3-series sized but the 9-3 and that car is old and not that good. The Odyssey (which is not the top selling minivan) outsold all 3 Lambdas combined last year. Crossovers are selling more because body on frame are selling less. The SUV market is just shifting sales around, SUVs aren't taking market share from cars. $4 a gallon is coming, SUVs are going to be a tough sell.

My car is 3880 pounds, which is rather heavy, but it's still less than a G8/Holden. I do wish the Aurora was not as big and heavy as it is, handling would be much better, although front drive limits it also. I had a 4-cylinder before, I won't buy another, even the turbo ones that make power are uneven. 250 hp from a V8 is rather sad by today's standards, but that engine is still really smooth and never whines or vibrates.

Do you plan on crashing your car after purchasing it? Personally, crash test ratings or how expensive the car is to fix are very low on my priority list. I care about interior, how the car drives, styling, etc. The stuff you use every day. Light, nimble cars stop faster and can avoid accidents better than big, heavy vehicles.

Then why doesn't GM beat the Germans? Why isn't there a midsized Cadillac sedan built on an aluminum frame with a more refined V6 than they have now, a DOHC V8, and a DOHC 550 hp engine and carbon fiber for the V-series. Why isn't there a Cadillac that gets 30 mpg, or 22 mpg even, or an S-class style car. With the biggest auto maker in the world behind them, Cadillac has aging models and rebadges and 1 good car in their lineup. They should do better than that. The G8 and coupe version if they make it should be compared to the Mustang, 350Z, Charger, 300C, Hyundai Genesis. Pontiac's image is no better than Hyundai or Dodge or Ford, that is their competition. Audi just released the Q7 V12 diesel with 758 lb-ft of torque, 0-60 in 5.5 seconds and gets 20 mpg (a CTS is 20 mpg and half the cylinders!). I know the Audi will cost a ton, but why can't GM make something like that, or at least diesel V8 products that are powerful, fast and get over 20 mpg. If the Enclave, CTS, Malibu, Acadia, G8 are the best GM can do they are in trouble, those vehicles are not better than a CX-9 or Accord or BMW 3 or 5, G35/G37. The GM products are good, top 3 in their class, but not benchmark products. And to engineer those 5 good products, the let vehicles like the G-body,W-body cars and GMT360s get grossly outdated, and they ignore premium small cars (not even anything like a Golf or Jetta) and they don't make a minivan. I don't want them to make 75 models, but when you have a dozen 200+ inch long SUVs and no minivan and no small premium car something is wrong.