smk4565

What is worse than Cadillac losing the horsepower war is losing the fuel efficiency war. Mercedes offers a 50 state diesel car, and is working on more plus hybrids, BMW is bringing their diesels here soon and hybrids and Lexus has the hybrids. Those brands have "green" image and/or technology image which Cadillac lacks right now. Cadillac also lacks in the upper echelon of cars, and has too many base price of $44,000 or less sedans. BMW and Mercedes cost $8000 more than an STS because they use better wood, better leather, better plastic and have more current technology. The STS is more in a class with the Acura RL. I agree that the 230 hp 5-series is wimpy, but it gets good gas mileage, and in most parts of the world, like Europe, that is important. BMW designs cars to sell everywhere in the world, not just the USA and Canada like Cadillac does. BMWs are usually low in weight and have always had decent acceleration without being the class leader in power. The new 5-series comes out in about a year, the base engine may change. The 407 hp V8 takes over as their main V8, the M5 could be 738 hp with twin turbos if they wanted too, they already work with a tuner to make custom ones like that. Cadillac has the world's biggest (maybe 2nd biggest) auto maker and 105 years of history behind them, there is no reason they shouldn't be on an even field with M-B or BMW. But GM seems too cheap or too afraid to compete.

I think that is what Pontiac should do. They could cover the police, taxi and rental fleet markets with a couple of sedans, and not have to fleet out Chevys, Buicks or Cadillacs. Then resale value of one brand suffers rather than 4. I agree totally with the hybrid and diesel options. Fleet customers like taxi, government, police are going to require higher mileage. That is why the Ford Panther platform is dying and NYC is buying Escape Hybrid taxis.

W-Body and G-Body both have to die, along with the 4-speed automatic and 1990s engines. The Impala drives like it is form 1999, not 2007, which is why they discount them like crazy, while the Accord in 4-cylinder and cloth sells for $23k and after 4 years still sells for $15k. Reputation/image/perception go a long way. Camry and Accord have it, the domestics don't right now.

My mistake, I was thinking of the old Mercedes engine, the 4.3 and 5.0 liter V8s were 3 valve per cylinder, and their V12 is a 36 valve, 3 valve per cylinder.

Isn't that what the upcoming LaCrosse and current Lucerne are? The Lacrosse is longer than a Maxima or Avalon already. It seems that GM is thinking of making the Impala more like the Avalon, so that they can retire Buick if (when) the new products fail. This also justifies Pontiac's existence because the G8 would be more unique, and when they make a Cadillac off Zeta, people won't say it is a dressed up Impala. Chevy will have the Camaro as their Zeta car anyway. Although it wouldn't surprise me if the Impala stays a big front drive barge and costs $23,000 and gets fleet sold to death.

I've driven the LS1 V8, good power, but rough and loud. Mercedes uses a SOHC 3 valve per cylinder V8. Maybe Cadillac should do an I6 engine. I like DOHC V8s the most personally.

I can believe that about the CTS, I've driven the 3.6 liter in the Aura and thought it was whiny and could have sounded better. It was peppy, though. I haven't driven the Lucerne, sitting it in it at the auto show is enough to make me laugh at how bad it is. I have driven the LeSabre, bad engine, bad handling, bad car. STS-Vs are dirt cheap in Pittsburgh, you can get an 06 or 07 STS-V for what a CTS DI costs.

But BMW's non M cars will have 407 hp, 446 lb-ft V8 (555i, 755i, X5, X6). Then they have the M3 with 414 hp, M5/M6 at 500 and going up in 2010 with the new generation, and the 7-series is getting a new V12. for $60,000 in an STS you get 320 hp. You get 382 in M-B, and 360 in 2008 (407 in 2009) for BMW. The XLR for $78,000 gets you an interior worse than the CTS and 320 hp. The Mercedes SL (which I know costs more but you can price high when you've been class leader for 20 years) is 382 horsepower base, 493 midrange, and up to 612 in AMG. I know Cadillac is trying, but they have to do more to compete with those brands. Although I think the real battle will be in gas mileage, not horsepower. If Cadillac wants to be #1 in the US and #3-4 in the world they need 2 cars that get 40 mpg highway. People can't ignore a 40 mpg luxury car when the rest get 26.

Is the market for the Taurus/Sable strong? What about Buick sedans that are down 20% in sales and average buyer age up to 67, and the now defunct Grand Prix. GM got rid of the Bonneville, Aurora, LeSabre, Park Ave because people weren't buying big front drivers. The top selling SUVs (not in order) are Explorer, CR-V, Rav4, Edge, Escape, which except for the Explorer are based on smaller car platforms. The Tahoe is the only big SUV in the top ten in sales, most of the top 10 is Highlander size (Camry size) or smaller. So why would people driving smaller SUVs trade them in on a huge full size car. Most likely they'd get a car between Civic and Camry size.

469 hp on one model, and that isn't their mainstream V8. M-B has 612 hp and 724 lb-ft as their top engine. Cadillac's non V-series cars should have 380 hp and get 19 mpg average. V-series should be in the 500 hp and considered elite cars. I've seen 07 STS-Vs for sale for $46,000, that is $32,000 in depreciation in one year. Cadillacs would hold 90% of value over 1 year if they were a desirable and sought after car. Lexus despite building a bunch of over rated, dressed up Toyotas is #1 in sales in the US, BMW is #2 in US luxury sales and sell over a million cars a year worldwide. Cadillac is #4 in their own country and less than 300,000 units worldwide. If GM managed Cadillac right they could sell over 500,000 units a year, with none of them costing under $35,000.

If the Impala stays similar to it's current size and remains front drive and moves to the $27-34k price range, they would make Buick obsolete. Which to me isn't a bad thing. Buick doesn't even have a sedan now that bases at $27k, Buicks are priced closer to Toyotas or Fords. A front drive Impala does run a risk of being a sales dud like the Azera or 500/Taurus. CAFE is no excuse for not making rear wheel drive. The CTS and Malibu get the same gas mileage, even though the CTS has 52 more hp. So how does rear drive hurt gas mileage? The BMW 535d gets better mileage than an Aveo or Camry Hybrid, while posting a 6.2 second 0-60 time, so again, rear drive doesn't mean bad mileage. If the Impala goes front drive it should be because it fits the product mix with Pontiac/Buick having rear drive, but Pontiac is a rental brand basically, and Buick has one foot in the grave.

The Malibu has the same dimensions as the Camry. The Camry has been #1 selling car in the US for 9 of the last 10 years, the Malibu is exactly the size it should be. Not to mention the Camry sells elsewhere in the world also, not just North America like the Malibu. If the Impala gets larger than it is now, it will be bigger than a Mercedes S600, is that a size car many people buy? The only cars bigger than the Impala under $60,000 are the DTS, Lucerne, Grand Marquis, Town Car (Crown Vic is fleet only now) and all have declining sales. The W-body doesn't use space well, even the Malibu has a longer wheelbase than the Impala. They could even shrink the Impala and gain a ton of interior room on a decent platform.

I talked to some GM rep today at the Cadillac dealer, he said the LS7 was scraped because they felt 505 hp wasn't enough for the CTS-V, and it may be near 600 hp, but GM hasn't said anything official yet. He said don't rule out all wheel drive either, but all that was rumor, he didn't have any official info.

I've driven the 06 Impala, 3800s, LS1s, 3400s. Hardly any manufactures use pushrods in cars, there aren't really that many to sample from, my experience with them is usually in rental cars. Hummer hurts CAFE more than any other product they have. I don't see how a rear drive Impala is impossible with CAFE (rear drive BMW 535d gets 42 mpg highway in Europe), when Hummer fits into their CAFE plans. They simply can't fund 10 brands, while Toyota funds 3 with the same amount of money. Buick has 2 sedans that don't belong in this decade and a 4000 a month selling SUV, whoppee. They sold 900,000 units in one year 20 years ago, they are under 200k a year now, their days are numbered. Pontiac is a fleet sale brand plus the Solstice. I disagree that Cadillac has been funded well. They still use the Northstar while BMW and Mercedes have updated or changed V8s 3-4 times each in the past 15 years. The Northstar was a great engine in the 90s, but they need something new. They still don't have a 3-series competitor, or a real E-class or S-class competitor, and they are too nervous to let go of the 70 year old DTS buyers. Cadillac can't change perception while the DTS or current STS are in production. I want to seem Cadillac as the best car in the world again, but the current plan is too slow and not aggressive enough.

To the first point about if a luxury car wasn't quiet, no one would buy them, I agree. So why is the CTS-V (still a luxury car) getting a pushrod, not something more refined? If the CTS-V comes out at 66-67 decibels inside at 70 mph, I'll retract that statement. You don't need to rev all DOHC to get power, even a lot of the naturally aspirated ones make decent power off the line, and passing power is used more often anyway. The BMW twin-turbo six makes 300 lb-ft under 2000 rpm. BMW's new V8 makes 446 lb-ft at 1750 rpm, the Z06 can't even do that. My engine at 5500-6000 rpm still sounds smooth with no harshness. I never drove a 5.3, I am sure it is fine for a pickup truck, but I'll pass on one. Toyota is probably having issues with the Tundra engine since that whole truck is new, it isn't because it is a DOHC engine.

BMW's twin turbo V8 is expected to average only 1 mpg less than a CTS or Malibu V6. Plus BMW has 35 mpg cars coming here, and already sell stuff that gets 40-50 mpg in Europe. There will always be V8s and fast cars regardless of CAFE. Automakers are still going to make what people are willing to pay for.

CAFE my stop the ZR1, but I think they'd keep the Z06 at least. These are low volume anyway, they should be able to offset it with Volts, E85s, etc. One way to help CAFE is kill Hummer, they have sold like 33,000 trucks all year. I'd rather see them dump Hummer which has very low demand and build more sports and luxury cars that people want.

I like the clear hood, no one else has that. But I like the Z06's look more, some of the air vents and spoiler and that lower front air dam look a little tacky. This thing has too look as sleek as a Ferrari or Aston Martin, and parts look a little plasticy. The original ZR1 I thought had a great look, nothing on it looked like a tacky add on in a Fast and Furious movie. I am glad they brought the ZR1 back though, they needed an elite car like that. The Nissan GT-R looks like the real deal, it is almost hard to believe how fast it is (beats a Z06 on Nurburgring and in 0-60 time). Hopefully the ZR1 can out perform it and maintain the Corvette as the best performance per dollar car.

I hope the Ultra V8 is out in the 09 model year. M-B, 382 hp, Lexus 380 hp, BMW will be 407 hp, 446 lb-ft on some 09 models. Cadillac has the 320 hp Northstar. BMW used to always have the weakest engines and rely on steering, handling, braking to close the performance gap, now they have the most powerful cars too. Cadillac has to speed up their innovation and technology and role out new models. GM can't get complacent ever with them. This is why I say kill Hummer which doesn't sell anymore (down 30% this year) and kill Saab also a sales dud, and pump all their resources into Cadillac to make them a real global brand.

How would you know? GM hasn't turboed a a pushrod in 20 years. Aside from old school Bentley buyers, who wants a turbo pushrod anyway? 100 lb-ft of torque per liter doesn't happen in pushrods (Bentley is very close), but BMW has done it twice with gas engines, does it with their diesels and the Solstice/Sky GXP do it. DOHC is the superior engine, and the CTS-V doesn't have it. If anyone is looking for an STS-V near Pittsburgh, there is a 2007 model with 6,000 miles for sale for just $46,750, original sticker of $78,910. $32k depreciation in less than one year is a joke, but it does make for a killer used car buy. It is cheaper than a loaded CTS.

Earlier I said how BMW has a new V8 coming and Cadillac needs a really good Ultra V8 fast to compete, and the X6 info was released today. "The range-topping X6 xDrive50i is propelled by an all-new twin-turbo 4.4-liter V8 unit producing 407 horsepower at 5500 rpm and 446 pound-feet of torque between 1750 rpm and 4500 rpm. The sprint to 62 mph takes just 5.4 seconds and fuel economy is estimated at around 19 mpg (U.S. gallons)." That is 5.4 seconds to 60 in an SUV, imagine it in the 5-series sedan (it will be in the 6 and 7-series as well). 19 mpg is pretty good too, that is only 1 mpg less than a CTS that gives up 100 hp and 173 lb-ft of torque. For all the pushrod lovers that say pushrod is superior to DOHC because of low end torque, why does BMW's engine make 446 lb-ft at 1750 rpm? That is more than the Corvette 6.2 liter at a much lower rpm. Cadillac should have an engine like that

My car is a 2001, and the engine is smoother and better sounding than 05 and 06 pushrod V6s that GM uses. 8 vs 6 cylinders plays a part, but the V6 Aurora is better than the 3.4, 3.5, 3.8 liter V6s. If those pushrods are not technologically advanced, why are they on current and very recent GM cars? Pushrods are good for trucks where refinement doesn't matter as much, and they are cheap and make torque, but they shouldn't be on a Cadillac.

First off, I think Toyota will be fine, they still have Lexus at the top of the reliability chain, and Toyota is top 10, they still do better than 28 or so other brands. Toyota is going to be #1 in global sales, and more importantly, made nearly $15 billion in profit last year, I read they did $5 billion in profit during their last quarter. Their cars are bland but they are a profit machine, they aren't going to fade away. I used the SRT-8 because of the higher price that puts it in line against some luxury cars and the higher hp that puts it with the M3, RS4, old CTS-V, etc. The 300C does well against $33-37,000 cars because the competition is less, buyers are not as discerning. But once you move into luxury car prices, the market is different. I think all those tuner type Civic, Celicas, etc are junk, but there are lots of performance part upgrades for them. DOHC or pushrod makes no difference really on availability of parts and upgrades.

The teaser looks good, I think the front end of the Volt is going to look awesome. It has the new Chevy looks, the headlights have that sleek Saab look, but the Volt is better looking. This is the car that can save GM. I just hope the interior is nice, and not like a Cobalt.

But they can't do without the baby-boomer generation that heavily buys imports, all of which are OHC engines. Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Lexus, Infiniti, Acura, Mercedes, BMW, Audi, VW, Porsche, Volvo, Jaguar are all OHC engines. Even the Malibu had to abandon the pushrod because they can't win over buyers with it. If GM concludes that a pushrod can't compete with the Camry, how can one compete with the M5 and other $80,000 cars. How are Chrysler SRT-8 sales? And about the modifications, I would guess that Civic Si, Scion, RSX, Celica, Lancer, Eclipse type cars get modified more than luxury cars. All those rice burners are DOHC, they don't seem to struggle finding parts for them.