smk4565

The CTS gets close to the BMWs in handling, but doesn't have the acceleration of a 335i and it doesn't have as many luxury features offered. Despite the plastic grille, the CTS still looks way better than the 5-series, and better than the 3-series sedan; 3-series coupe and convertible look pretty good though. But the new 5-series is coming in a year and will get rid of all the Bangle mistakes, it has a hybrid aluminum/steel frame to cut weight and the M5 will have carbon fiber panels to cut even more weight plus way more power. If the CTS-V were really better than the M5, GM would price it at $85,000 and get people to pay it. The Malibu LTZ is the best looking midsize family sedan, looks better than most $35,000 cars. But the interior isn't as good as Honda's, reputation isn't as good as Toyota's and the 6-speed should have been available at launch not 6 months after. The CTS and Malibu are the cars GM does well, but they have at least a dozen that are really dated and rely heavily on fleet sales or massive rebates to get off dealer lots. As compared to Honda, what is their bad car that is dated and uncompetitve? (besides the Acura RL) What is BMW's bad car? There isn't one. GM has things like the Ion, Impala, G6, G5, Torrent, DTS, Trailblazer, Uplander, etc

I know everyone doesn't want rear wheel drive, most people don't. Enthusiasts want rear drive, that is why front drive V8 cars or $50,000 luxury cars with front drive aren't needed any longer. I don't expect everything to handle like a 3 or 5 series, those are the best handling cars in the entry and mid luxury segments. I expect an entry level Cadillac to be close to the 3-series in handling/performance and beat it in something. And I expect the mid level Cadillac to the same when compared to the 5-series and E-class. I wouldn't care if the CTS had a base price of $50,000 if it was better than a 5-series, I'd rather have that then the car that I've seen on Enterprise lots. I also expect Cadillac to have a real flagship car if they are going to say they are a global luxury brand like M-B, Lexus and BMW. I expect the Malibu to be as good an Accord, or at least as good as an Altima and not have a 4-speed automatic. The 6-speed should have been out at launch, so the car doesn't give the first impression of same old GM dated 4-speed. GM has more resources than any other car company aside from Toyota, and for years they had the most. There is no reason they can't build vehicles that are top 3 in their segment. But rather than build top notch cars, they chose rebadging and anything that can sell cheap to fleets.

The RL is ugly, the LaCrosse Super is ugly. Both are 300 hp, neither one is rear wheel drive. GM always makes stuff that "handles well for a large front drive sedan" or "almost as good as the imports but cheaper to buy" or "handles well for a 5800 pound SUV" or "decent gas mileage from a 6.0 liter V8" Why can't they make a car that just handles well. Or that is better than the imports, without putting a qualifier after it. My next car will be rear drive, I am done with front drive.

Luckily I don't have to go through any tunnels, I could never deal with the Squirrel Hill tunnel and the 30 minute back up to travel 3 miles. I am not saying I'd ever actually buy a used S-class, but they depreciate so fast, and it would be interesting to have a 500 hp V12. Even the 382 hp V8 model is plenty quick. I never saw the Car and Driver listing of 0-60 times, I just think of Buicks as 3800 powered LeSabres, Regals, Park Aves, LaCrosses and Lucernes that go 0-60 in about 8.2 seconds. And the best handling W-body ever is probably still worse than a run of the mill rear drive car.

The 09 Acura RL is so boring, Buicks and 5 year old Mercedes have taken over. The LaCrosse super isn't going to attract younger buyers. They probably just had some Grand Prix GXP parts they had to use up. If your commute is 15 miles or less, the S600 would be a fine choice. Smooth ride, radar cruise control and 0-60 in 4.5 seconds. I am not a huge fan of the 2000-2006 era, I like the current one much more. It has messaging seats and the side bolsters in the seat move forward to prevent your body from sliding in sharp corners. An 03-04 S600 may only get 14-15 mpg, but the car is $125,000 new, vs $40,000 used, for $85,000 you can buy lots of gas.

There are S600s with under 50k miles for under $40k. I'll bet on an S-class lasting longer than anything from Japan. Every Japanese car gets rust on it in 10 years or less. Those S-classes last for 200-250,00 miles.

You could get an 03 Mercedes S600 for that much money, and a 500 hp, 590 lb-ft, V12 is cooler than anything on an Acura lot.

Does that mean the LaCrosse breaks the 8 second barrier for 0-60 times that Buick has longed for? I've seen those ads for fastest Buick ever, since when do Buick buyers care about 0-60 time though, that is like BMW advertising, most floaty Bimmer ever! The 1987 Buick GNX is 0-60 in under 5 seconds, that crushes the LaCrosse Super, maybe Buick forgot the one good car they built in the last 25 years. The not so new RL is bad, and a good reason why Acura sales have been dropping in the past couple years. Dressing up the mainstream car and offering V6s only, no V8, no hybrid, no diesel doesn't work in the luxury market. Cadillac better be watching because they are steering themselves closer to Acura (but with rear drive) than BMW.

The GM and Ford minivans were average at best around 1998, but around 1999 and ever since the Honda Odyssey has been known as the best minivan, and Chryslers vans ere better than GM's back then. I was originally referring to the 2006 GM and Ford vans that were garbage compared to the new Odyssey and the other Japanese vans and the 07 Chrysler vans. GM and Ford knew their van couldn't compete with that crowd so they dropped out. If they didn't need them for CAFE, they both would have given up on the Focus, Cobalt and Aveo by now.

The Freestar was horrible, the GM vans were almost as bad. Of course they had low transaction prices, they were bad vans that had to be sold to rental fleets or given a $3500 rebate. If it was a great van, people would have paid more for it. The Honda Odyssey outsold all 3 Lambdas combined last year, thus you could argue that people don't need crossover SUVs with similar length and weight to a Mercedes S600. The minivan market is still about 1 million units per year, it is a big segment, GM and Ford just gave up on it. I know it is impossible to compete in every market, but GM and Ford gave up on midsize cars in the late 90s because SUVs were the rage, now they are screwed and the Trailblazer and Explorer are headed for the grave while the Camry is selling 450,000 a year.

GM and Ford gave up on minivans because theirs were drastically worse than the Japanese ones and Chrysler's. Just like GM has kind of given up on small SUVs like the Rav4 and CR-V and GM and Ford barely compete with the Fit, Yaris, Civic or Corolla. GM and Ford can't rely on big pickups and SUVs forever, at some point the Japanese will do that well also.

And 6 seater cars are terrible. They went out of style in the 1970s, Buick and Lincoln just tried to keep the dream alive for 30 years because they aren't in tune with current technology. Aurora is 199.1 inches long, full size car. I wish it was midsize, it would handle better.

205 inches long is 5 more than a Tahoe, and 30 inches longer than an Escape, that is big vehicle. I never said the minivan had comparable feature list, but for people that need a cargo hauler (contractor, flower shops, shuttle van, etc) or families that can only spend up to $25,000 on a new vehicle but need seats, they minivans are the vehicle of choice. Most minivans are 400 pounds lighter than the Lambdas, so 240-250 hp in the vans vs 275 in a heavier vehicle will make them accelerate about the same. The Lambdas don't offer the low cargo floor and total cargo volume that a van does, so it isn't a real replacement for a van, GM should still make a van.

The Aurora is much better than the Lucerne, and the Aurora came out in 2000, vs late 2005 or 2006 for the Lucerne. In 6 years Buick did nothing but make a bigger, heavier, uglier car, and cheapen it with cloth bench seats and a 3800. The Aurora had leather and real wood (Lucerne has fake) in the base car and was never on a rental car lot like the Buick. The Lucerne has a slight 0-60 advantage with the Northstar, but the Aurora has better handling and braking. I have the 4.0 with every option, the Lucerne's interior has cheaper plastic and is shaped like the Impala. I love the center stack angled to the driver in the Aurora, and every button on the console is reachable in the Aurora when your elbow is on the arm rest. Do this in a Lucerne and you fingers touch air and can't reach the HVAC controls. I think going from the Aurora to the Lucerne is a downgrade, most would see it as a lateral move. Either way, Olds buyers weren't going to make a lateral move, when other brands had more modern technology and better products. As for the Outlook, people don't want big Saturns. It is like the Mercedes R-class, that doesn't sell because people don't want a Merc Minivan looking thing. It just doesn't fit the brand. If the Trailblazer, Envoy and Outlook die, I am ok with 3 Lambdas, but they need a better small and a good midsize suv also. The Lambdas don't replace minivans either since most minivans start $8-10,000 less and offer more cargo space due to the lower load floor. People that need cheap or lots of space will stick with the van.

This looks very close to the old one that nobody bought, just with an uglier grille, so even less people will buy this. It seems all they did was add some wood trim to the inside and put the new grille on and call it a day. That is worse than Buick trying to pass the LaCrosse Super off as something new. No V8, no success. Can't compete against the Germans with a V6 only car. They at least could have done a diesel or hybrid that got 25 mpg, at least then it would have an advantage over other cars, but this is like a run of the mill average luxury car from 2005 trying to compete in 2009.

In response to Croc, Saab sales worldwide are poor, only 120,000 or so last year and GM LOSES MONEY on the brand. Why continue to throw good money after bad in a brand with decreasing worldwide sales that doesn't make money? Why not spend it on Cadillac and make it a real global brand. If a rear drive Impala and a V8 Cadillac that get 19-20 mpg are killed due to CAFE, then why are 13 mpg Hummers ok? These aren't global sellers, they can make that money elsewhere. There may be local ads for some cars, but they don't nationally advertise them all, they focus on the newest stuff and the Silverado. Toyota has half as many models as GM so they can advertise each one twice as much, and has a smaller dealer network so competition on price is less. I own an Oldsmobile Aurora. I know exactly why Oldsmobile buyers left GM, and it is because the cars Olds built in 2000-2003 were better than the ones Buick and Pontiac built in 2005-2007. Why would an Intrigue or Aurora driver that got DOHC, Bose, stabilitrak, etc in 2001 go buy an 06 Lucerne or LaCrosse with a 3800? I sat in every Pontiac and Buick (enclave wasn't on sale yet) at the auto show last year and none of them I thought were even close to my car, it felt like sitting in one stripped down rental car after another. GM had nothing to offer Oldsmobile drivers so they left for Acura, Lexus, Lincoln, etc. If they got rid of Pontiac Avis and Enterprise would hurt the most, and the SS Chevy's could easily fill the cheap performance void. If GM had Toyota's money I'd say sure keep 10 brands going, but they don't. Toyota's yearly profit is more than Ford's whole company is worth. For GM to compete with that they have to cut number of models and spend far more per vehicle. All 3 Lambdas sold 137,000 units in 2007, the Ford Edge sold 130,000. When you focus on one vehicle you can get the same sales as 3 vehicles with diluted funding.

Platform or Badge engineering hurts because now people can cross shop and Acadia with an Outlook and Traverse to drive down price. GM creates competition for themselves. They also can't advertise all their products, so they advertise the first 6 months it is on sale then not again until the new model comes out. I think they should sell or kill off Saab (money loser, sales loser) and Hummer (sales loser, CAFE penalty), let Pontiac fade away and join Oldsmobile by 2013 and dump the Outlook and get Saturn selling small, fun to drive, fuel efficient cars. Then they'll have better brand focus and can develop better products and advertise them more.

The Lexus RX400h gets 27 mpg city, that whoops the Saab (19 mpg) or the 18 mpg Enclave. Mercedes has 4 diesels now (E, R-class, ML, GL), with the S-class diesel/hybrid coming and BMW has diesel coming this fall. Cadillac has nothing small or gas friendly coming until 2012, by then they will be very much behind. I didn't really consider Volvo, Lincoln or Acura as real luxury brands they are entry level only.

The Escape is only about 176 inches long, and is a big seller, especially with the 34 mpg hybrid version propping up it's image. The Equinox is near 190 inches long, as is the Trailblazer. Lambdas are 200 inches long like the Tahoe. The Trailblazer is dying, so Chevy is left with Traverse, Yukon, Avalanche, Suburban (plus GM has 2-4 versions of all those) for full size SUVs and only the Equniox left to cover the small and midsize SUV markets, which are the biggest 2 segments. It's poor product planning at it's finest at GM, just like how Cadillac has no small car or gas friendly car, while all the other luxo brands have hybrids, diesels or smaller than a Cobalt sized cars.

The tan helps the interior a lot, but there is still a lot of plastic over lapping plastic. If it's priced cheap that shouldn't be too much of a problem though, the Trailblazer has an all plastic dated interior, this is a step up from that. I think this will compete more with the Trailblazer, Acadia and Tahoe more than anything from Japan, really GM is just creating competition for themselves, but the GMT360s are near dead, and I suspect that when the GMT900s hit the end of their life cycle, they do fewer version than they have now. When does the minivan or 180 inch long CR-V/Escape style SUV come out? (the Vue is well over 4000 pounds, that isn't a compact) They have zero offerings in those segments and a dozen full size SUVs.

Agreed. Too many rebadged vehicles. Saturn should lose the Outlook and focus more on smaller, fuel friendly Euro-syle cars, kind of like VW. GM just has too many brands that offer the same rebadged stuff, not much is different from the 80s or 90s. Same thing is about to happen with Epsilon: Malibu, Impala, LaCrosse, Aura, G6, 9-3, 9-5. 7 sedans off one platform. Then they have to market them all and update them all. No wonder GM has so many average products that don't get advertised.

Overall I think it looks good on the outside, the rear end looks like the Enclave. I think this vehicle will drive the price of the other Lambdas down a little bit. The horsepower bump is good since the Lambdas are all over weight. They don't really need the Saturn version once this comes out. I'm not a fan of the Dodge inspired 2-tone, rental car gray interior with overlaping plastic. What I don't like about the Lambdas is they all have the same radio/center stack and same shifter and cupholders. They really only need 2, like Ford with the Edge and MKX. The Edge almost out sold the Outlook, Enclave and Acadia combined last year, and Ford has a poorer image than GM.

I consider BMW a good car because the 3 and 5 series win awards and magazine comparisons like crazy and have for nearly 20 years. They are also strong sellers, and BMW has the best resale value of any luxury brand. They usually rank top 10 in dependability by JD Power, they may have some mechanical problems but they usually last a long time. Of course the CR-V doesn't feel as a solid as a CTS, the CTS is a good car and the CR-V is a $17,000 piece of junk. Honda makes a lot of good vehicles, Toyota has average vehicles, but a great reputation and people buy that reputation. GM has dated cars that are sold to rental lots and local governments. A diesel rear drive Impala would get better gas mileage than a 4 cylinder Malibu. CAFE is no excuse for GM to not have a rear drive Impala on sale within 1 year, the real reason is wanting to save R&D dollars for trucks.

It's GM's own fault that they lose money and have negative cash flow. Consumers looking to buy a car don't care about GM's financial struggles, they want to buy a good car (or what they perceive to be good) so they buy Hondas, BMWs and Toyotas. BMWs are good cars because they constantly innovate and re-engineer their products. I wish they would just sell Cadillac to someone that can turn them back into a great American car company that builds world class vehicles. GM is more concerned with pumping money into 4 of their damaged and dying brands than saving their second most important one.

I don't think GM knows what they are doing. They don't know how to build a global luxury car, and they don't know how to build sedans that cost $75-100,000. The quote at the bottom of your posts that states how with the V8 dead and making cars off corporate platforms and corporate V6s makes them no better than Lincoln is very true. 2012 for a Zeta Cadillac is a joke, the Zeta platform came out in 2007, so Cadillac will get a 5 year old platform that was used for middle class sedans. That is like building and 08 Cadillac off of an 03 Impala chassis, although the DTS built on a 95 Aurora platform is basically that. Sigma came out in 2003, since then the 5-series got an all new platform in 2004, and will get another all new platform in 2010. Cadillac needs to update platforms and engines more quickly, but I don't think GM gives them the money needed to do it. I hope Cadillac can come back, but since 2005, I've seen them fall more behind the Germans rather than catch up.