smk4565

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.

Cadillac's image has improved over 10 years, but they still lag. BMW and Mercedes are already on top. I would argue that BMW getting Gen Y people to buy their cars is a good thing, if a 30 year old buys a BMW, they may buy them for the next 40 years. The DTS is bought by 70 year olds, they might not be alive long enough to buy another one. Cadillac needs younger buyers, they are still around a 60 years old average. I'd like to see Cadillac's goal to be to return to "standard of the world" but unfortunately I don't think GM is committed to them enough to make it happen.

A Camry XLE V6, with the Option B package (the most expensive one) that as nav system and Bluetooth, and XM radio added for $490 comes to $31,969 including destination charge. $32,400 for a base 328i, and that car comes pretty stripped down, $32,900 for a BTS makes sense. It shouldn't overlap with Maximas, G8s, TSX, etc. 1-series has been a success in Europe because it is small and very fuel efficient with the diesels (near 50 mpg), and BMW is a broader range brand there. The 1-series we are getting is still near 30k to start, I know the 135i is $34,900 base. They also expect to only sell 20,000 or so a year here. BMW also makes a car with a $120,000 price tag, there is enough at the top end to keep brand image high. Cadillac's image is still defined somewhat by the DTS, which isn't a good thing. More importantly though, BMW knows what they are, and where they want to go. Cadillac still seems lost, unsure whether to be performance, or cushy, or big, or small, $35k or $80k.

The whole Acura brand has 149,000 sales for 2007 through October (down 9.7%), the TL has 48,400 of those. The 3-series so far this year has sold 118,000 units, more than double the TL. BMW has sold 240,000 total, up 8.6% this year. Acura and their dressed Accord are not hurting anyone, the C-class sold twice as many in October. 5-series sold 4943 in October, 43,000 so far this year.

So price the BTS with a loaded Camry V6 or a Pontiac G8? Is that what a Cadillac should cost? $32,900 is as low as the BTS should go. CTS will need a massive overhaul to take on cars like the Jaguar XF, unless Cadillac's goal is to be a $30-50k player, and not challenge the higher end luxury marks. But they never really explain what the goal is.

A sedan can get better than the 335i, the M3 sedan comes out soon. I don't know exactly what 5-series sales are this year, but BMW as a whole has been up every month, while most other brands are in down years. If GM has a $2500 labor cost penalty over most imports, and prices their car $2000 less than the 3-series, they are either making $4500 less in profit, or putting $4500 less into it, or some combination in between. I just don't think cheaper than a BMW beats BMW, Cadillac has built cheaper cars than them for years. The BTS should be designed to beat the 3-series and priced after, not priced beforehand, like with the Solstice, so they had to strip it down and cut corners to match the 20k price.

Well obviously a BMW isn't for everyone, my mom for example won't buy a BMW, Cadillac or Mercedes because they are too recognizable, and she has to drives to clients houses and prefers something more bland, or less common. She's had 3 Volvos, a Saab and now and Audi over the last 22 years. Some people like floaty ride, so Lexus comes in here, and some people just want something not too expensive and similar to the Accord or Fusion they just got rid of, thus the TL and MKZ. But the 3-series sells over 120,000 units a year in the US, far more than any other competitor (I know they have coupe, convertible and a wagon they sell 1000 of). Cadillac keeps claiming they are going for BMW type handling, or dramatic performance/luxury/style, when Bob Lutz says a CTS-V will suck the doors of the M5, it better. If they set the bar that high, they better reach it. The CTS has to go way up in price when the BTS arrives, look at Cadillac's pricing, $32k base and a pair of $43k base sedans. Then look at a Mercedes, 32k base, next cheapest is $51k base, CLS is in the $70s, S-class is $88k base.

Well even for people that never bought a luxury car, and are looking at their first, and narrow it down to 3-series and BTS. Chances are the BTS having a lower base price won't win any buyers, BMW's image is so strong, that alone is enough to get buyers that are on the fence. People will drive the 3-series and the BTS, (or C350, Is350, whatever) and they'll probably buy the one that drives best and looks best and conveys the image they want to convey. BMW says "performance" and "I've made it" or whatever tagline of success you want to use. Cadillac still means "old person's car" to a lot of people. Cadillac has the duel challenge of making a car equal to the imports, but also changing their image, price of the car won't really matter. The 5-series is way more expensive than a CTS, yet BMW sales keep going up, charging high prices hasn't hurt them one bit.

BMW's economic situation allows them to cut weight with aluminum and carbon fiber, Jaguar does it in the XJ, Audi does it. If GM can't because of their union contract or other economic factors, that will make it harder for them to compete with the super luxury cars. The BTS's interior has to be at a minimum to the level that the CTS is now. The current CTS is much better than the old, although the seats I think got worse, and the new CTS doesn't even have 4 way lumbar. I am sure they saved $18 by using 2 way instead of 4, but the competition doesn't think like that. I'd like to see Cadillac make the best cars, I'd rather buy a Cadillac than an import, but Cadillac doesn't have a lot of variety now, or several good products that build a strong brand image.