smk4565

Looks like an Outlook but worse, for some reason the Chevy grille isn't working on this vehicle, kind of like how the Olds Aurora/Alero style front looked bad on the Bravada. GM has just repeated the 4 minivans mistake. Their small to midsize SUV lineup is really weak now, the over weight Vue is really all they have until the update the Equinox.

A 335xi with sport package, cold weather package, keyless access ($500), premium package, automatic ($1375), satellite radio and rear parking sensors is $48,700. Take off $2000 if you don't need all wheel drive. The 2 items in parenthasis Saab doesn't have. It is pricey, but not $55,000, plus it's 0-60 time is the same as an Aston Martin DB9. Or compare this car to a CTS, the CTS has a far better interior for the same money. The CTS probably handles better than the Saab too, despite being bigger and heavier, because Sigma is a far better platform than Epsilon. No car with a transversely mounted engine handles great, they may be good, but never class leading.

Agreed, the 335i is pretty good. This looks like they gave the 9-3 a dose of Pontiac, big exhaust tips, spoiler, some ground effects, add 30 hp (still 25 short of the competition) and call it a performance car. They need to sell or close Saab, give every dime of theirs to Cadillac.

Metal grille looks better than the plastic. Otherwise the car looks bad, horrible interior. GM doesn't realize that the 3.6 liter high feature engine is average, the Japanese have had engines that make more power and get better mileage in their midsize sedans for a few years now. Pontiac should become the fleet sale brand, so they can end fleet sales on all the other brands (aside from commercial use full size vans/pickups). Pontiacs are basically Chevys with lower quality materials and plastic cladding inside and out. Either GM is really stupid, or really poor and can't fund this brand. Either way, why keep this brand around? All they are good for is rental cars, and I don't know if that is even a good idea, because it will give GM products a poor reputation. The G8 is going to be a bust also, because no one will pay over 30k for a Pontiac, it is like paying 30k for a Mitsubishi or Kia. The G8 V6 also has less power than a Camry, Accord or Altima, but weighs nearly 400 pounds more, how sporty can it be?

ZR1 is a good name choice. I am glad they went with that, using SS badging would have looked tacky. ZR1 is more legendary too.

I am actually 26, and never owned anything but a GM car. I want to see GM make better products, so this 20 year decline they are on ends. If you sit in a 335i, the interior is pretty nice, I don't like BMW's styling, but the materials are high level. Where as I like the design and layout of the STS, but the plastics are bad, there are gaps, etc. The 5-series and E-class offer a V8, that makes up for their 3900 pound weights. The CTS is going to be compared to the 3-series, IS and G, and the weight will hurt it in handling and gas mileage. Luckily the Lexus IS is a gas hog too, but Cadillac could really benefit from the 30 mpg car, whether it be a hybrid (good for CTS) or small turbo direct injection engine (this would be good for the BTS). As far as size, I personally like 190 inch long cars, that is a popular size (Camry, Accord, Malibu, CTS, etc). But for people without kids that dirve alone 95% of the time, I see the appeal of a smaller car that is sportier and more fuel efficient like the 3-series. Cadillac has to get their lineup straightened out, then they can morph this CTS into a great car. Personally I'd call the Alpha car the CTS, and the Sigma car STS, because CTS is known as entry level.

The CTS is overweight. A 335Xi which is all wheel drive is 3825 pounds, in rear drive it is 3605 lbs, and 3582 lbs for the coupe, all with automatic. Car and Driver's as tested weight for an all wheel drive CTS was 4034 lbs. A rear drive CTS starts around the 3840 lb mark. By comparison a 535xi awd is 3946, and the V8 550i is 3968 pounds with an automatic. The G35 sedan is 3508 lbs and with all wheel drive it is 3704, thus making is over 300 pounds less than the CTS. The CTS has a weight problem.

I think there is a problem with 5-series size and 3-series price. The cars in that group are the Acura TL, Lincoln MKZ and Lexus ES350, all front drive entry lux cars, not the best in performance. And Lexus and Acura both offer a smaller car, Cadillac has nothing small, big lineup gap there. The other problem is the 5-series has so much equipment the CTS isn't even close on, like 13 speaker 7.1 stereo vs 10 speaker 5.1 stereo, 20 way power seats vs 10 way seats, adaptive cruise control vs nothing, head up display vs nothing, etc. The 5-series has far more technology and equipment and a 360 hp V8, soon to be 408 hp in 2 years. The Camry is the size of a CTS, no one compares them, a 300C is the size of a 750i, but no one compares them. Comparing a CTS to a 5-series is kind of like that. I think the new CTS will sell better than the old, but the 3-series sells 600,000 cars per year world wide. That is a sales success. The CTS should at least top 100,000 worldwide, really they should do better than that with ease or something is wrong with their car and/or marketing. I think Cadillac and GM in general don't realize that matching the competition won't do it. People that gave up on domestics 10, 20, 30 years ago are not going to all of a sudden come back for an equal car. They have to surpass and become the benchmark car to get people to change buying habits.

They should do manual and automatic then no buyer's preference is left out. I'd like to see something between the 300 hp engine and the 500 hp engine also. I hope the CTS-V doesn't get even heavier than the 4000 lbs the car already weighs. The STS-V gained 200 pounds over the V8 STS. GM should focus more on weight reduction to get performance, rather than just enlarging an pushrod V8 and getting more power. Speaking of which, no Cadillac car should ever have a pushrod engine, but I know the CTS-V will get one and we'll hear about how it was cost effective.

GM's fleet sales were up 24% in August. They have been claiming they would reduce those, but I guess they got tired of that. They have to get off the fleet sales, they are still nearly 25% of all sales going to fleets, they need to cut that in half.

But what class is the CTS in? Is it in the 3-series/G35 class, or the 5-series class? Personally I think it is in 3-series class, some think it competes with the 5-series because they are the same size. Cadillac really needs a smaller car, because a CTS or 5-series sized car just can't accelerate or handle with a 3-series. The CTS wears too many hats, I suspect they'll nail it when they do the MCE, and have other cars in the lineup so the CTS can focus on it's real demographic. Gas mileage does matter to people buying $40k cars. My mom buys luxury cars and drives about 24,000 miles per year, so gas mileage is a big concern. If it didn't matter, Lexus wouldn't make hybrids, and BMW/Mercedes wouldn't be planning hybrids. Although in Europe BMW has a car that gets 50 mpg and Mercedes is pretty advanced with diesels, so it is just a matter of making it for this market. Cadillac needs the UV8 badly, I hope the engine is great because the new 5-series (with all new platform, not a carryover) comes out in 2 years and they are doing a twin turbo V8 with 408 hp and more fuel efficient than the current V8. But on the flip side, they also need a CTS that averages 25 mpg because of cars there is going to be a 5-series hybrid also and Lexus has hybrids, Mercedes diesels, etc. What I really want to see is Cadillac step up an go head on with Lexus, BMW and Mercedes. They need a lot more products to do that. The CTS is the first step of getting out of the Acura, Lincoln, Volvo tier, now they need a product and technology assault to get up with the big 3.

The CTS is a big improvement over the old one, but they still have more work to do. I am concerned about it overlapping classes in size and price, it is like the CTS was penalized because Cadillac has poor lineup planning. I also hope it doesn't become irrelevant in 2 years like what happened with the STS. The STS was made to catch up with the class, then everyone blew by them in a year and now the STS is on death row. The 320 hp Northstar was class competitive in 2005, now it is a joke, they better not repeat with the CTS. I think the DI V6 should be standard and a turbo with 360 hp should be optional. They have to get ahead of the class for once, or make a CTS hybrid, because the BMW and Lexus can beat it in gas mileage. I've read 5.9 for a DI V6 with manual. A 2008 Honda Accord is 5.8 seconds, but comparing to cars in it's class, the 335i is 4.9 seconds 0-60. IS350, G35/G37, 535i are all 5.2-5.6 seconds.

I look forward to driving one as well, I need to be at the dealer for an inspection in a couple weeks so I hope they have one. I am a few years away from buying a car, but my step dad is kind of looking, although he has a V8 BMW which I suspect could mop the floor with a new CTS, so I don't know if he'd want one. He drove a G35 and thought it was crap. I think Cadillac dropped the ball with the plastic on the grille and base wheels. If they spent and extra $1000 and raised the base price $1000 they could have fixed that. GM never wants to go the distance, they go 90% of the way and think it is good enough. To get ahead of the competition they need to go the distance, hold nothing back. I fear the CTS's weight will be an issue, I read a review today where they tested it at Leguna Seca, and said even with the 304 hp engine, it wasn't enough to get up the long hill with any kind of excitement. To me, a 4000 lb car needs 300 hp base and about 380 optional to be competitive now, the CTS doesn't have that. I hope to buy a Cadillac as my next car, but I don't think the CTS is top of the class yet, I think they have crushed Lincoln, Volvo, Sabb, Acura, etc, but not yet taken down the big boys. Plus it is only 1 car, Cadillac needs 3-4 more vehicles that are fantastic to get their image back.

Honda and Toyota already have integrated consoles like that, and Nav systems, etc, Buick is about 10 years behind mainstream cars, and even farther behind the premium ones. That steering wheel and gauges are ugly, I realize they are just conceptual drawings but I am not impressed. In my lifetime Buick has never done anything that impressed me. The 3.6 DI engine is good, but there should be 2.8-3.0 DI V6 as well, since I think 300 hp in a front drive car is too much and they could improve on fuel economy with a smaller engine, and many care more about gas mileage. GM should scrap all pushrod V6s, all 4 and 6 cylinders should be VVT and DI with a 6 speed auto by 2010 model year. Aveo could use a 5 speed auto.

300 hp in a front drive car is too much. The 252 in the Malibu is fine, but the 17/26 mpg is not when the Accord is 19/29. GM should have gotten better mileage out of it, or made a new 3.2 liter DI V6 with 250 hp that could get 20/30 mpg. I think the 2.0 turbo is underutilized also, 260 hp and 22/31 mpg, that is tough to beat. They have to try something, they are still chasing the competition, which they can't do forever.

The Malibu looks nice, I really like the styling, but I think the interior (the gray and cloth ones) will be a let down compared to other cars in the class. 4-cylinder refinement and the V6's power/fuel economy doesn't match the other cars, plus the Japanese have the reputation for reliability that Chevy doesn't have. It is shame too, the Malibu looks great, but I fear they missed on some details and people will select the Accord and Camry over it. GM still plays catch up in a lot of segments, even if they build a car equal to the Accord, why would Accord owners trade in on an equal car. To break that loyalty GM needs cars that are 15% better than the next best car in the class.

It was probably costly to do, so I could see how there would be better use of marketing dollars. I suspect the real reason is because they are afraid of the 2008 Accord. The 08 Accord V6 is a tick faster 0-60 than the 304 hp CTS, so it must really blow away a Malibu or Aura. I don't know if GM has what it takes to compete in the small to midsize car segment. To do it right they have to abandon all the old platforms like the W-body and abandon the 4-speeds and pushrods and almost start all over. Even the 252 hp 3.6 liter is lagging in the class. The Accord, Camry and Altima are all near 270, even the Ford 3.5 liter is 263 hp. The Malibu V6 loses the fuel economy battle with the Accord and Camry as well. 250 hp is fine if they were getting 20/30 mpg, but they are getting 17/26.

I like that pricing. GM needs to focus on building a good car, and not worry about being the price leader. The price leader strategy has failed many times over. I think 1LT should be LS and 2LT just LT to avoid confusion, and call the base model nothing. They should work on a direct injection 4-cylinder also, GM is a little behind on good 4-cylinders and they could push the turbo 4s more as a fuel efficient, performance option. It is a shame the 2.0 turbo is only in the Solstice/Sky and HHR. They should use turbo DI 4 cylinders in other cars like the Aura and Malibu.

A hybrid would make sense. This car might struggle some with $3+ gas prices. The G8 seems like GTO part 2. Pontiac has a weak image, getting people to fork over $30-35,000 for one is tough. And I personally the G8 looks bland inside and out, much like the GTO did.

I noticed looking at used ones, the Sky usually is $25,000+ used, while the Solstice is typically $22-23,000. I know the Sky is more new, but it seems that they don't lose value at all and are in high demand. If the Solstice had a Toyota badge on front it would double it's sales easily. Problem is, it's a Pontiac, and most people think of Pontiac as a cheap, plastic inside and body cladded outside rental car. Pontiacs are low priced, mainly fleet cars, that makes them undesireable. Vibe has a base of about $16,000, G5, 15,000, G6 $18,000, Grand Prix and Torrent were around $22,000. Those are rather low considering the average new car sale price is $30,000 and most CamCord type cars are $22-26,000. Pontiac has become GM's lowest end brand really, almost like Plymouth was in the 90s.

Torrana would have been nice. The G6 should not be front drive. The Malibu, Aura, Impala, Lacrosse, Cobalt, Lucerne, G5, HHR, Vibe, etc are all front drive. VS GM's rear drive cars that cost less than a CTS: Solstice, Sky. They have enough front drive rebadges as it is, might as well make a rear drive sedan.

This car is ugly. This is typical Pontiac, they think a bigger grille with more plastic honeycomb, hood scoops, and tacked on spoilers look good, but it mostly looks tacky and cheap, much like the plastic body cladding of the 90s cars. The other problem is will people want to pay near $27,000 for a car that has a $18,000 counter part that is on Avis and Alamo lots. The G6's interior is very rental car like, big wheels and a spoiler don't help that, plus 250 hp isn't that great, a Camry is 268. The Malibu is way better than this car, it looks classier, looks more expensive, better interior, same powertrain. I think someone would be nuts to buy this over the Aura or Malibu. If Pontiac were smart (which they are not) they would have put the 2.0 liter turbo four in this car. Then they have 260 hp, 260 lb-ft and about 4 mpg better than the V6 makes. Otherwise this is just an Aura XR rebadge with a far worse interior and uglier exterior. This is why Pontaic's image is in the toilet, and the Solstice is losing sales. If the Solstice had a different badge on front it would sell better.

The lower grille is too big, and it looks a little like a jelly bean, but other than that the car looks fantastic. The headlights are great, looks a lot like the Mondeo in front which is a good thing. This car and the Mondeo both look more expensive than they are. Ford could have some success with this styling theme, I don't know why they don't style some cars like this here, the Fusion looks pretty good, but the Focus and Taurus are ugly. I am not a big Ford fan, but I'd like to see them improve, rather than Toyota and Honda just continually crushing them.

Why is GM only spending $3 billion on fuel cells and hybrids? Unless they mean $3 billion a year for the next 10-15 years. Toyota's yearly R&D budget is about $15 billion.

They will sell over 60,000 a year. Year 1 might be tough depending on battery supplies, but no doubt they will sell everyone they build. The Prius has horrible handling, acceleration and braking, and it is about $23,000 yet they sell over 200,000 a year, it is the 6th or 7th best selling car on the market. Gas mileage sells.