smk4565

The 5-series is keeping a 3.0 liter I6 with 250 hp I think for base, the twin turbo I6 returns, that engine makes over 280 rear wheel horsepower in he 335i, so it isn't a 300 hp, they'll probably just rate it higher or to what it actually is next time. The 4.8 liter 360 hp V8 dies, a 4.4 liter direct injection, twin turbo V8 takes it's place. Rumored 410 hp and lb-ft of torque, and perhaps burn less gas than their current V8. If they get over 100 hp per liter like they do from the I6, I'd think more like 440 hp in the new V8. M5 is rumored to get a 5.5 liter twin turbo V10. The 535 diesel is coming here as well, it gets 35 mpg average, beats a Camry hybrid or Yaris. They are likely doing a hybrid 5-series on top of that. The M3 CSL was modified with a supercharger, spoiler, and they cut the weight down, so it isn't a stock car, but someone could buy and M3 and make it. It did the Nurburgring in 7 minutes 22 seconds, 5 seconds faster than the Pagani Zonda, 20 seconds faster than the 505 hp Z06. Here is the link... http://www.autoblog.com/2007/11/20/new-rin...7-22-8-seconds/ Cadillac doesn't need anything like that, my only point with it is the 3-series has a good chassis, the BTS has to be really good to compete. I think they should price the base BTS above the 3-series, maybe make the loaded one less though. Low price usually means not as good, BMW/M-B faithful won't buy a BTS because it is $500-1000 less, the BTS is going to have to be a better looking, better interior car. And if GM's goal is low base price, they'll cheap out the interior or something to keep cost down. They made the Malibu $1000 less than the Accord, and all the reviews are the Accord has the best interior, if GM spend that extra $1000 and priced the car the same, the Malibu would have the best interior.

New 3-series I think is 2012 or 2013 model year. New 5-series is 2010 model year, and they have way more power coming. If the CTS is meant to go against it, it will need some big time engine upgrades.

I know Cadillacs are reliable, but look at the competition also. BMWs run for a long time, 200,000+ miles is easy on a BMW, and they are usually top 10 in JD Power reliability. Although that study is 3-4 years, that isn't that great an indicator. Lexus is #1 reliability, and most of those mid 90s Lexuses are still running with a ton of miles on them, although I think a BMW or Cadillac would last longer. American cars have a general reputation of not lasting long, so I don't think the BTS is going to win 3-series buyers over because they think it is more reliable. BTS better have a better interior than the 3-series, more features, more motor and more gas mileage and equal handling, or at least very close. A supercharged M3 just set the Nurburgring track record the other day, Cadillac has their work cut out for them.

I am aware, quick list of cars I'd never buy... Any Buick, Mercury, Hyundia, Kia, Toyota, Lexus ES and IS, current DTS, Town Car, any SUV or station wagon or pick up or van. Unless I got into the hauling business or something that needed a truck, but never as a personal vehicle.

Not enough of them. I doubt they bring out an $85k base price sedan, and they are killing the SRX which drives great, for a downgrade. But I am very interested to see the lineup when they get it done. I hope they top the Jaguar XF, I think that car is pretty cool. They need to get 35 mpg out of the CTS somehow by 2009 also, the 535d gets 35 mpg average, beats a Yaris, Fit, Aveo and Camry hybrid, and it's coming here within a year.

Oldsmoboi said he'd like a V6 Lucerne as a daily driver. That is why I picked on the 3800. I wouldn't take a V6 Lucerne or a Northstar Lucerne. The added 25 hp (compared to the Aurora) from the northstar is just canceled out by the porkier curb weight. That Northstar was in the 1993 Seville, maybe it is time to upgrade. The Avalon is nicer than a LaCrosse and the center console area has higher grade materials than the Lucerne, it is basically a better Buick than a Buick is. I'd never buy an Avalon or any other Toyota, but at least it and the ES350 are semi modern, not riding the same platform, engine, tranny from 1987, Lexus didn't even make cars then.

Yea, capacity will never be an issue. The old CTS sold about 60,000 around 05 or 06 when it had it's best year, the STS in 05 I think sold around 30,000 cars, maybe a little more. The STS is only on pace for around 15,000 this year I think, so even if the CTS sells 75,000, they are still about the same volume as before. They can always put the STS or DTS out of their misery early if need be.

No way, the Lucerne has a very average interior, fake wood all over, cheap cloth in the base model. It's huge and the 3800 is weak. I have an Aurora 4.0, the interior has a far superior layout, better materials like real walnut wood trim, and the V8 is 100 times better than a 3800 in everything but gas mileage. The Aurora handles better than the Lucerne too. I think they took a big step backward from the Aurora to the Lucerne, although I suppose the Lucerne is marginally better than the LeSabre. I wouldn't trade my 86k mile Aurora for a brand new Lucerne CXS straight up. That being said, after 4+ years of front drive V8, I'd like rear drive and a bit smaller car next time, the Aurora is too front heavy and body rolls on tight windy roads like all front drive cars. Buick might be able to catch up to the Avalon and ES350, if GM ever invests the money, not like they have Toyota's money sitting around and only 30 vehicles to spend it on. Cadillac needs to continue the chase of M-B, BMW, Jaguar, etc. Jaguar I think will become relevant again.

I don't expect a CTS sized car to handle like or be as fast as a 3-series, but the problem is Cadillac doesn't have a small car, or a legit $50-70,000 car. So the CTS is left to do battle against 3 segments of cars. The CTS is the best middle sized, entry level luxury car, the ES350, TL, MKZ are really all that are in that group though, maybe a Volvo or the 9-5. My frustration with Cadillac I tend to take out on the CTS, which isn't really fair to the CTS. I am just unhappy with Cadillac's car lineup. Cadillac needs a small car, and an S-class fighter, then they have what every other brand has. And with the 528i comparisons, people could say a Chrysler 300C has 345 hp for less than money than a CTS, or an SRT-8 has 425 hp for what a CTS costs, so does that make the CTS no good? The level of materials are different, just like with the CTS and 5-series. There is a reason there is a cost difference between the 2. Not that makes one better than the other, they are just different segments.

I don't know why people always bring that up, the 528i exists because gas in Europe is $7 a gallon, and the thing gets better mileage than a Malibu or Accord or Camry (V6). Other brands do that too in ads, "more horsepower than a 528i" but who cares. Toyota could run Camry V6 has more power than a CTS ads, but what is the point. And there is a 500 hp 5-series that goes 205 mph without a speed limiter, they just offer about 7 engine choices if you factor in the diesels, which isn't a bad philosophy. Ford made a comparison like that with the Edge, it was .2 seconds faster 0-60 than the slowest X5, and they did an ad just for that. Who cares, no one thinks a Ford Edge is as good as an X5 or cross shopping.

It is good to see GM with a car of the year, again, the Vette has been their only best car list contender for a while. I thought for sure the stupid Accord would get it, car magazines love the Accord. The handling numbers they got for the CTS were very impressive, the 6.3 second 0-60 time is weak, the Camry/Accord V6 can do that. My other complaints on the CTS are 2-way lumbar, the STS's seats are far superior, and I was actually not that impressed with the stereo in the CTS. The one in my Aurora sounds better. Those are minor fixes though that they'll probably fix during the MCE. I'd like to see the Standard of the World slogan come back as well, but they need more than 1 car. They need 4 stars, so 1 down, 3 to go.

I did see that, it goes to $44k loaded which is a lot, might as well get a 335i. The 135i will be wicked fast though, probably be 0-60 in the 4.8 second range. It is hard to get a car that fast for under $40 grand. Though I think the 335i makes more sense, just like an Acadia (and $10,000 for gas) or GL320 makes more sense than a Tahoe hybrid. Although people don't always buy what makes sense, some will buy an Escalade Hybrid just to say they have it, even if it is only 18 mpg. Mercedes quality isn't what it used to be, but they do seem to last forever, although maintenance could be costly along the way. Diesels can rack up crazy miles.

I agree, the Tahoe and Yukon are pricey, and the GL320 is $54,000 as well, and 18/24 mpg, which would beat out 20/20 mpg, and it tows more, and the 3-point star has a better image than the bowtie. The Acadia and other Lambdas (or even the CX-9, etc) offer similar interior room, better driving and comparable fuel economy, and much lower price. They just don't have the towing or off road, but I doubt many people are taking a Tahoe hybird off road. They need to put hybrid technology on smaller vehicles so they can get in the 30-40 mpg range.

It is good that they made a Tahoe that gets 20 mpg, not 16, but it's a lot of money, and will people pay the extra for a vehicle that still sucks gas. Most minivans are 17/24 mpg, and can average 20 mpg. Not everyone tows frequently. For those that do need towing, the Mercedes GL320 has 3 rows of seats, tows 7,500 pounds, (1000 more than the Tahoe Hybrid), and gets 18/24 mpg, for $54,000. So there is a more capable off road SUV that tows more, and gets better mileage for nearly the same price. Should the Mercedes be "green" car of the year as well?

20 mpg average shouldn't be the "green" car of the year. Any minivan can average near that and haul 7 people.

I like the exterior look of it. The interior looks too similar in shape and style to the Taurus and Volvo S80. Being a front driver, it won't win any handling awards, I am not sure what the turbo will make, but what will the point be, even with awd, it will still be front heavy and probably torque steer. They do offer some good technology for the price like adaptive cruise control, adaptive headlights, push button start, capless gas tank. But I think this will only appeal to current Lincoln/Mercury buyers or the Bonneville/Aurora/Seville/300M etc crowd that likes roomy and front drive. This car is way better than the Lucerne, but that isn't saying much. The big front drive car segment is shrinking fast, this may appeal to some of the old die hard fans of it, but that is about it. Built on the Taurus DE3 platform is a huge downside.

They need to overcome that hurdle. Consumers don't care about GM's and Ford's labor cost problems, they want a good car. When GM/Ford cheap out $2000 on materials and features but Honda doesn't, people go buy Hondas, because the car is better. People are not going to buy a domestic that is inferior because they feel sorry for GM/Ford that their labor cost is high, so GM/Ford can't use it as an excuse as to why their cars are not as good. They can use it as an excuse as to why their profit margin is lower, but that's it.

The Escalade is too big to compete with anything from Europe. The SRX (with a better look, and updated engines) is the perfect vehicle to compete with the X5 and Cayenne, and M-class. Even this year Car and Driver said the SRX was better than the BMW and Mercedes, and Volvo and VW. The LR3 has a 300 hp V8 and is near $50,000 and is a serious off roader as well. I don't think the BRX front drive, car based ute is going to be fording 22 inches of water, or climbing any sand dunes.

The CTS doesn't make Cadillac an entry level brand, but a BTS and BRX at lower price would. The CTS is also kind of Cadillac's flagship right now since the STS and DTS are so bad. Cadillac just needs more above the CTS, but they are concentrating below it. The 135i has 300 hp and 0-60 in 5 seconds or maybe less, I agree that is is kind of cheap looking for a BMW, but it will be a performance machine. The C-hatchback coupe was a joke, that did hurt their image, that is why they dumped it. Mercedes just has a strong image that can overcome a Cimarron-like blow.

BMW and MB make entry level, but they also have many high level cars, and many years of solid reputation. Their lineups have more models above $50,000 than below. Mercedes has the S, SL, CL classes which can easily go over $100,000 ($144,000 for an S65 AMG). That builds the image, even if they do overprice stuff. Cadillac is about to have 3 models under $35,000, and a DTS replacement at $45,000, and only the Escalade and XLR at the high end. They can't do this CUV right, it has a transverse mounted engine, and will be obese unless TE is an all aluminum chassis.

These are mostly SUVs (the RSX was canned a couple years ago), it is easier to get away with dressing up an SUV, but notice only the Armada and LX470 really top $50,000 on that list. Those are all entry level luxury cars, Acura's whole brand is entry level luxury, aside form the 5000 RL's they sell. Cadillac by doing BTS, BRX, CTS, is making themselves into an entry level brand. The SRX V8 could go head to head with a Porsche Cayenne, and actually beat it in Car and Driver. They are aiming low to try to go after Acura, Lincoln, Infiniti, rather than go after the high end cars. 1-series based on 98-05 3-series chassis 3-series/X3, based on exclusive platform 5 and 6-series/X5 based on exclusive platform 7-series, based on exclusive platform (future to share parts with $325k Rolls Royce Phantom) C-class, on exclusive platform E-class/CLS, exclusive platform S-class, platform shared with $350k Maybach

It isn't a big stretch to compare Cadillac to Lincoln, look where Cadillac's lineup is going. Cadillac just executes it better, because the Fords are inferior to GM's platforms. Escalade is a dressed up Tahoe like the Navigator is a dressed up Expedition. When the DTS/STS die and get replaced, it will be on a dressed up Impala platform, (like the town car/Crown Vic now) BRX and MKX are the same, 5 seater, $35k SUV based on a $25k suv. The difference is the CTS is rear drive, while the MKZ is front, and the MKS will be all wheel. However, the BTS and MKZ should be about the same price, and CTS and MKS will overlap in price, if the CTS goes up in price. The XLR sells under 2000 a year, that is almost a non factor. And Cadillac's only exclusive platform is dying, so they can base everything on a Chevy/Pontiac platform, like Lincoln killed the LS to base everything off a Ford global platform. Where in Cadillac's future product plans are a midsize sedan with a base of $50,000 (E-class, Jaguar XF style car) or a large sedan with a base price of $85,000 that ranges to $130,000? Where is the twin turbo V6, twin turbo V8, all aluminum chassis, 8 speed automatic, car that parks itself, etc. Cadillac used to be an innovator and led in technology for years. Now they are a follower, the CTS has 2 way lumbar support (my 01 Aurora has 4-way), Mercedes has 20 way messaging front seats. Where is the hybird/diesel? Mercedes is going to have an S300 diesel hybrid that gets 40 mpg, more than an Aveo, and from a huge car. Cadillac is lucky to get 20 mpg. The BMW 535d gets 34 mpg right now in Europe. What ever happened to Cadillac wanting to be the best in the world?

Right, but Cadillac should not be chasing RX350 and Enclave buyers. They shouldn't make anything front drive or front drive based. And they can probably make a smoother riding SUV than the RX350 with a rear drive vehicle, if a soft, female car is their top goal. I think GM's top goal is cost cutting and selling as many $28-40k vehicles as possible. Because they know they lose money on the cheap cars (and can't compete with the Fit, Civic, Camry, etc) and they know Cadillac's image isn't good enough to sell $50,000+ cars.

I agree, the SRX was Cadillac's most competitive vehicle (one of GM's top 3 with the Vette and Silverado) in the last 10 years. And they did a poor job marketing it, and gave it too much of a long, low wagon look, and never updated the exterior or V6. The SRX should have lived on on SigmaII, which the CTS should be on. The Germans update platforms (and drivetrains) much faster, that is why they are beating Cadillac.

I know there are tons of things that price overlap, but I think Cadillac needs to move up in price, like $35,000 base to most cars around $50-70,000 and some stuff around $100,000 like Mercedes. Cadillac is becoming more and more like Lincoln every day. GM has a ton of $30-40,000 SUVs, they are adding the Saab (well replacing the no-selling 9-7) and Cadillac. The vehicles are different, but it will still compete some with other GM suvs, and an already crowded segment. BMW has 2 great crossovers (3rd coming) because they are on rear drive platforms with longitudinally mounted engines, and they are in different price ranges.