smk4565

Well the Quad 4 was a disaster. I had a pushrod Cavalier as my first car, that wasn't great either, reliable though. I've driven the LeSabre, I have been in my friend's Monte Carlo and an LS1 Corvette, my step brother has an LS1 Firebird that I've driven a few times. I've driven the 3.4 liter in the old Grand Am, I have rode in my friends Malibu with the 3500 V6 many times. I have driven the 06 Impala, all and all a pretty good sampling of GM pushrods. None of them come close to the quietness, refinement or smoothness of my Aurora's DOHC V8. From 0-120 mph, that engine is smooth, no vibration or harshness anywhere. And there are better DOHC V8s out there as well. I won't even consider a pushrod car after owning a DOHC.

So Zeta is better than the Sigma platform as well? Then a G8 would be better ride and handling and more solid feeling than a CTS. Zeta is world class compared to other $25-40,000 cars. It can't compete with an S-class or 7-series. And people that spend $80-150,000 on a car don't want anything that is shared with a Chevy, they are paying for exclusivity. The other problem is the $70k+ buyers are all imports buyers, that thing American cars are unfashionable or not up to par with the imports. To get those kinds of buyers converted, they need to build an incredible car with amazing technology.

Louder, not as smooth, vibrate more, harsher sounded when near redline, can't rev as high or fast. Need more displacement to make power; the 197 hp 3800 V6 is a prime example. DOHC is better. I have a DOHC V8 (a GM one too) and no pushrod can match the refinement of it.

Car and Driver December 07 issue tested the 2008 M3, which will be around for another 6 or so years. 3571 pounds (177 pounds more than the old one), nearly 500 less than a C63 AMG. The M3's V8 is also lighter weight than the I6 it replaces. M3 0-60 time is 4.3 seconds, 12.8 seconds for the 1/4 mile. The C63 is 0-60 in 3.9 seconds, but the M3 won the comparison (RS4 was in it also).

We can wait for performance numbers, but since the 3-series is a better performer than the CTS, it is likely the M3 will be better than a CTS-V in that regard. The M3 is around 3400 pounds, vs 4250 for a STS-V. We'll see what the CTS-V weighs, I am guessing 4100-4200. The SS-V reminds them of a 2002 M5, and they are going to release a Cadillac on it on 2011 and compete with BMW's 2011 cars. Building similar to what BMW did 10 years earlier is not going to challenge them. GM is going to have the G8 (and Holdens), Impala, Camaro, maybe a Buick, the DTS (or whatever it is called) and a ULS all on the same platform. That is some massive badge engineering. The ULS should be an exclusive all aluminum chassis. The S-class is $88-181,000, Cadillac won't get people to pay that much for a car based on a $26,000 Pontiac/Chevy no matter what engine or what interior they put on it. The BRX, CTC coupe, CTS-V and Escalade hybrid are the only future vehicles on Edmunds.com for Cadillac. BMW, Audi and Mercedes have about 10 each by 2010. The Alpha and Zeta Cadillacs will be key, but are a long way out.

I don't think the CTS-V will blow away the current M5, which means it will fade away once the new M5 comes out. It isn't just horsepower either, it is how the car performs and feels. The M3 has 414 hp, yet a 4.3 seconds 0-60 time. The CTS-V will face the same problem as the CTS, it will be priced with the M3, but not be able to perform like it. BMW and Mercedes had a lot of reputation and image behind them as well, it is very hard to break through that. Price cutting doesn't do it either, the Mercedes S-class is the most expensive car in it's class, yet it sells well in that segment. Cadillac has to rebuild an image of being an elite car. The future product plans don't seem to convey that though. I hope the BTS-V doesn't have a pushrod also. Cadillac will never top the elite cars with parts from Chevy (Zeta DTS).

The CTS-V comes out as a 2009 model, the M5 will be a 2010 or 2011 model, probably 2011, so that gives the CTS-V 2 years to hang with the current car. The current M5 (which is 4 years old already) is 0-60 in 4.5 seconds and without a speed limiter can go over 200 mph, which even the Z06 can't do. Putting the CTS-V against an $85,000 car is kind of setting it up to fail. Cadillac can out-torque the M5, but BMW is the master of steering, suspension and gearing, and lower weight usually leads to better handling, that is why the Corvette stacks up so well against so many cars. M5/E63/RS6 buyers I don't think care about price, they care about image of the car, and ultimate performance. Cadillac price cutting the elite brands won't work, they have to build a better car. Fuel efficient Cadillacs I think can put them back on top as a technological leader. Putting a lot of horsepower in a car is easy, but getting 30 or even 40 mpg is not. If they have a 35-40 mpg BTS, and 35 mpg CTS, while the rest of the cars in that class are near 20 mpg, it gives them a huge competitive advantage and could lead to a lot of sales, especially from people that previously didn't consider a Cadillac or American car. A V-series might sell 5,000 a year, but a 35 mpg luxury car might sell 50,000. It is something they must work on, Mercedes is working on a hybrid diesel S-class that gets nearly 40 mpg, that is Civic hybrid gas mileage, in a full size car.

Cadillac better cut some weight and get a better transmission and interior then. The M5 is 4012 pounds and has 7 gears. Plus a new M5 is going to have more aluminum and carbon fiber to cut weight, and a rumored 600+ hp twin turbo V10. The 5-series is getting an 8 speed automatic, not sure what the M5 will get, it might stay 7. The CTS isn't equipped to match up with that car, I wish it was, but it isn't right now. I'd like to see a 35 mpg CTS soon too. The 535d (on sale in Europe, coming here soon) beats an Aveo or Camry hybrid in gas mileage, while equaling the CTS DI's 0-60 time, Cadillac has to get to work on high mileage vehicles as well. I think they could do a great BTS, but it is taking an awfully long time, and I don't know if they will make the BTS interior better than the 08 CTS interior, while offering better than XLR performance with the mid-level and V engines.

Well it will probably be priced against them, but too big and heavy to run with them. The M5 has a lot more equipment/features inside and a 40 valve engine which may be getting twin turbos added to it in 2 years. Perhaps the CTS-V should be compared to the STS-V, that is it's closest rival.

From seeing the CTS in person, I think the trunk looks high and thick, which makes the hood look lower and gives the downward slope which I am not a fan of. I think the old car was better proportioned in that regard, but I like the bigger grille (just wish it wasn't plastic) and new lights on the 08 model. I think AMG does the best job of not making a luxury car look tacky or like something form The Fast and The Furious, Lexus does the worst job of it with that IS-F, that is all plastic tacked on junk like a 90s Pontiac. The CTS-V molding isn't bad, but it could be better. I wonder how fast this thing is, and how heavy.

I like the base car's front end more, even with the plastic grille. The V-series grille is too small in the top part and too huge at the bottom part, it looks odd. The body moldings on the front/side look a little plasticy. The last generation V-series was a better transition from the base car, it looked more aggressive and sporty but with subtle changes so it didn't look tacky. The Lexus IS-F looks tacky, this is borderline. This car looks downward sloping from rear to front, I am not a fan of the high trunk and low hood, or the bulge in the hood either. It doesn't look as elegant as other cars in that price range. I hope everyone doesn't compare it to the M5 also.

The Camry came out in 1983 as a compact, in 1992 it was redesigned to a midsize car. I think it was 1996 when it passed the Taurus in sales. The Malibu isn't exactly new, it has been out since 1997, and was around in the 1960s as you pointed out. Chevy is losing sales. For people that have a lease that expires in November, if they narrow it down to Malibu and Accord they are going to buy an Accord because the Malibu isn't on the lot. Poor planning on GM's part. Toyota has a more efficient production system than the other auto makers and multiple factories to build the Camry in, there is never a shortage of Camry's on dealer lots and it has been #1 or #2 selling car for 11 years. This is where GM killing a brand could help, it frees up factory space to build the cars people actually want (and opens up R&D and marketing dollars for cars like the Malibu/CTS) and they cna build less cars like the G6, Grand Prix, G5, Torrent for Enterprise, Avis and Alamo.

The bad news is they are advertising the car like crazy, but it isn't on dealer lots. So if people need a car in November or December and can't get one, they'll end up at the Honda or Toyota dealer. They are losing sales because they can't get it on lots. GM always advertises cars a ton when they are new, then scale way back after a year or two. So when production ramps up, they will cut advertising, then they'll get an excess on dealer lots and that is when the phone call to Enterprise and Avis happens. The Malibu is too good a car to be treated like the G6 or Grand Prix.

There are about too many brands and models now, vs just a few mass producers in the early 1900s. The market is obviously different now, just as it is different than the 1960s. All I am saying is the Malibu should sell 360,000 a year at least, it should outsell the Altima, and at least compete with the Accord and Camry. I suppose Toyota could buy GM and get to about 45% market share, then buy Ford and get to 60%, but they have no interest in buying anyone else. It is possible to do, every share of GM today is worth $16.07 billion. Toyota posted $5 billion in profit in the last quarter alone. Their cash reserve is enough to buy another auto maker if they wanted, but they seem to be happy without getting involved with anyone else.

What I drove was an Impala LT with about 3,000 miles on it. It body rolled all over the place, but the Taurus actually makes me nauseous. The last Camry was bad too, I was never in a current one. I thought the Aura XR drove very well for a car of it's price class. I made a mistake about the Model T, it was Ford total was 90% not just the Model T. From Wikipedia... "By 1914, the assembly process for the Model T had been so streamlined it took only 93 minutes to assemble a car. That year Ford produced more cars than all other automakers combined. The Model T was a great commercial success, and by the time Henry made his 10 millionth car, 9 out of 10 of all cars in the entire world were Fords. In fact, it was so successful that Ford did not purchase any advertising between 1917 and 1923; in total, more than 15 million Model Ts were manufactured, more than any other model of automobile for almost a century."

Depends on what you think comfort is. If comfort is a more pillow-like ride, maybe, but the BMW 3 and 5-series both have better seats than the CTS. I noticed sitting in an STS and CTS back to back, the STS's bottom portion of the seat is about 3-4 inches longer, there is much better leg support. The CTS's seats seem small and not very supportive. The CTS has 2 way lumbar also, which is unacceptable. Weight plays a lot in handling too. Even cars that post great track statistics sometimes feel worse than they actually are and body roll more because of total weight or weight balance. The Cobalt SS supercharged posted a better slalom speed than the Corvette for example, and I am guessing the Corvette feels a lot better in a turn.

At one point around 1916, 80% (or maybe even 90%) of all the cars in the world were the Ford Model T. Ford has gone down hill since then.

I was born in 1981, so I have pretty much only seen sinking market share in my lifetime. I think the Camry did sell like 470,000 last year, but I could be mistaken. I think the Camry is way over rated and not that good of a car, it is ugly, and has poor handling. Although the interior materials and fit/finish are much better than the comparably priced GM offerings (I haven't sat in an 08 Malibu). At the Pittsburgh auto show this year the Malibu LTZ was next to the Camaro and about 100 feet from the 08 CTS, and I thought the Malibu was the best looking car of the 3, and way better looking on the outside than any Japanese car. They should be able to sell over 30,000 a month, if not either the interior is not up to snuff or they are doing a poor job of image/brand building, or having production/distribution problems. Either way none should be acceptable, they can just sit complacent like GM of the 90s. Their goal needs to be to have the Malibu selling at a rate similar to the Accord and Camry. The Malibu should eat into Impala sales, I drove and 06 Impala rental one time, it was horrible. Although the Ford Taurus still holds the title of worst car I ever drove.

Toyota has 1,445 dealerships in the US, vs about 4300 Chevy. The average Toyota dealership sells 1800 cars a year, three times what the average Ford dealership sells. Lexus has only about 200 dealerships and they outsell Cadillac's 1,000+ dealerships. GM has a bloated dealership network from the 40% market share days. It is hard to make profit like that, even more so with clones like the G5, Torrent, Vibe and similar vehicles like Outlook/Acadia, Impala/LaCrosse/dead Grand Prix.

Camry has been #1 selling car 7 years in a row, 2007 will be #8. They didn't pull that off with a month of 3,000. I haven't looked at sales of each month, but they have topped 400,000 a year for 7 years, that is over 30,000 a month. They sold 50,000 in a month one time, getting vehicles to dealerships was never a problem for them. It shouldn't be a problem for Chevy either. What do you call the Camry's launch month, September 06 for the current model, or back around 1980.

BMW and Porsche make 5 seater SUVs that are geared to performance, that fits with their image (although a Porsche SUV is odd). Saturn's image since they were founded was friendly dealers and small 4-cylinder cars. An 8 seater, and a $35,000 one at that, doesn't fit with the low cost, small car image Saturn had all those years. Same reason the VW Pheaton failed, didn't fit the brand image. I am fine with Olds being gone (even though I have one) because GM had too much overlap and too many rebages, they could still drop a brand and be fine. GM's model lineup and dealer network is set up for when they had 40% market share or more, and they have 24-25% now. At least one brand had to die then, Olds was it.

I really like the blue, that looks cool.

I have yet to drive the 08 CTS, I have driven the old one. My step dad has a 99 BMW 540i, it absolutely blows the last gen CTS away in performance. By the numbers it is rather similar to an 08 CTS, although his BMW is probably faster (less weight and 324 lb-ft of torque). I have to agree with BMW steering, it is excellent. He is in the market for a new car, and is tired of V8 gas mileage, so I suggested the CTS. But he hasn't owned an American car in 30 years probably. The CTS is a great car if someone like him buys it, but I suspect he'll drive it, think there is too much plastic, and doesn't drive as well as his 8 year old car, and buy another BMW.

If I were GM I wouldn't want this news out, because it makes them look bad that they can't launch a car. They do this a lot with slow launches, people can't get the car when they want it, then a year or 2 later they are sitting on lots with incentives. 3,000 a month is a joke, the Camry sells over 40,000 a month. The goal for the Malibu should be 30,000 a month minimum. They have home field advantage, being 75% as successful as Toyota shouldn't be too much to ask, especially since the Camry is such a poor driving car to begin with. All it has is reliability and tight fitting gaps.

Oldsmobile done right could have replaced Saturn, Saab, Buick and Pontiac. They could have had Chevy, Olds, Caddy a 1,2,3 hierarchy. Oh well. The Outlook has lots of inventory because they made too many of them, it outsold the Enclave for a few months this summer, I think the Enclave is slightly ahead of it now. But the Outlook sales are bad because Saturn is geared to younger people, or people that want small, import style cars. Those types of buyers don't want an 8 seat SUV that gets 17 mpg. It would be like BMW making a 205 inch long front drive car, their customers don't want that.