Windy-57

There won't be a next-generation TB or Envoy. GM will have a Chevy Lambda and I suspect 2-row Lambdas will follow, but it's debatable whether the 2-rows are even necessary. The only argument for keeping the TB and Envoy around is to capture the people that buy midsize utes to tow stuff. But, this is where Hummer's true value shows. While everyone else moves toward crossovers, GM can target these buyers with Hummer. That is also why Jeep is so valuable.

This is way off topic, but I watched the movie "Click" with Adam Sandler about 6 months ago and there is a scene where he has fast forwarded in life and is the CEO of his company and he pulls up to his house in the Sixteen concept. I thought it was a great piece of product placement with the message of "This is the executive's car of the future." I'm not saying I knew at that moment that they would build it, but I did wonder why they would bother with the placement if they weren't thinking about it. I don't, but if you plan on seeing the movie keep your eyes peeled for it; for the brief moment it was on screen, the car fit the role perfectly.

I wouldn't expect the BRX or 9-4x either. I could be wrong, but these will deserve bigger entrances closer to their debuts, so likely next year.

What about Saturn? Hasn't GM used NY as Saturn's coming out place the last couple of years? I can't for the life of me think what it would be, any thoughts in that direction?

I'd like to see GM try and put the dual-stage hybrid technology on this. I like what Lexus did with the LS hybrid. They didn't do it to add fuel efficiency, but rather to add more power and torque in a more fuel efficient way. Wouldn't it be great to take the 600 hp and add some electric power while simultaneously helping it achieve 20mpg? And, the hybridization cost can't be a big concern at this price point. That's a bit off the cuff, so don't ridicule me if that's the worst idea ever.

That's the issue. If the DTS is "faux-luxury" and it accounts for a quarter of Caddy's sales, essentially that means a quarter of Cadillac is faux-luxury. The fact that it even sells the number of vehicles it does is proof enough, exclusivity is a high commodity in those markets. Which is also why a sub CTS for the US is a bad idea. And pointing to vehicles like the Lexus ES isn't really fair because Toyota doesn't have a near luxury brand like Buick, so they need to spread their brands further in both directions. That's why Toyota has vehicles like the Avalon (to compete with the Lucerne/300) and the Land Cruiser (to compete with the Yukon)

I'd expect the concept to be the H4, but showing a concept Chevy Lambda would be smart. They all but announced it was due for '08 (CY), there's no suspense in that, so they might as well get some reaction to styling in time to make serious changes if necessary.

Do you have good information about the STS dying, because I just can't see that happening.

Part of why it is confusing is because Caddy is the only American luxury brand left (That's right, Lincoln is not luxury). And, part of the American brand persona is having big cars, bigger than your competitors. So don't compare size, compare everything else and you get something like: CTS=3 Series=A4=IS/ES=C-Class - $30K-$50K STS=5 Series=A6=GS=E-Class - $40K-$70/80K DTS=Nothing else like it in a lux brand (It's like the Town Car, but like I said, Lincoln isn't luxury) - $40K-$50K FTS/ULS/XTS=7 Series=A8=LS=S-Class - $80K - $120K So in this progression upward, the DTS is sort of off to the side, they can't jump from the CTS to the FTS/ULS/XTS whatever they'll call it, which is why the STS is still necessary.

In as far as I've been privy to, there will be 2 distinct wheelbases for EPII. Aura and G6 would be about the size they are now while the Malibu and LaX will be larger. The info I had heard led me to believe that the next Malibu and LaX would compete more directly with the Camry and Accord, and so by logic, the next Lucerne and Impala would compete more with the 300 and Avalon.

Excellent point. And, part of the reason they aren't seen as a being worth that premium is because of the DTS. It's hard to make a case that Caddy is of the same level as Mercedes or Lexus so long as they have a large sedan with a pricetag of $40K in their lineup. It's hard to deny that the DTS hurts the Cadillac brand image. I know that Caddy would be hurting without the sales the DTS currently brings in, which is why they can't drop it now, but I still think that dropping or changing the direction of the DTS has to be part of the long-term plan. And, this is the same reason that these sales should belong to Buick. I understand why it doesn't make sense that the DTS would be an LS fighter, but it should either be that or be gone. And if it's gone, then they need a lot more from the STS and this range topper (only with a base of $70K-$80K as has been mentioned a few times).

Yeah, I probably should have had the 6-Series and CLS in there, but I think it raises an interesting question about what is Caddy's target? Why are they saying $100K if the base will be $80K? Are they not considering an S-Class level and skipping right into Bentley territory? That would be a big mistake. Or, are they only looking at a vehicle to compete with the likes of the LS LWB and planning on raising one of the existing models (STS or DTS) to compete with the SWB models? As you mentioned, Caddy's lineup doesn't match up with others in terms of size and the STS and DTS already have wheelbases that are pretty close to that of the LS and 7-Series; the S-Class is considerably longer.

Well, if you think these buyers are crucial to VW then I can see why you would want the Phaeton back. I just don't feel like VW should be chasing these people because many of these buyers are also in the market for A4s and A6s. Rather, if VW wanted to move downmarket (as Wolfgang had planned for them) they would be able to garner the more lower-price higher-volume sales that Audi doesn't. VW isn't like GM, they don't have 8 brands to come to the US with, so they should emphasize as much separation between the two as possible.

OK there were some differences. And I'm sure from a structural and engineering standpoint they are major, but the vast amount of buyers couldn't tell you the differences and would consider them close to the same car, so VW kind of screwed the pooch on this one by not emphasizing enough of the differences. Either way, still a bad idea. VW should continue to move down market and separate from Audi. Between the two brands, they should be able to cover a much broader space in the market. Also, they have a million other things they need to focus on, not the least of which is quality. I have to imagine it's difficult to sell a flagship luxury sedan when your brand is becoming synonymous with poor quality.

You got it right about it taking too long for GM to do this stuff, but that's what they're in the process of fixing right now. Other questions answered: Why RWD? 1. RWD allows an easier application of AWD. Look for plenty of AWD DTSs and Lucernes rolling around when they're on Zeta. 2. RWD allows for an easier application of the 2-mode hybrid. 3. RWD will allow for a true SS version of the Impala. 4. They can make more business cases for other vehicles this way. For example, they needed more volume from an NA RWD program to make a case for the Camaro. Why so late with the Mustang variants? I ask, why bring them anyway? Yeah, they're fun, but Ford has almost no brand equity left as it is, and now they're pimping out one of the 2 model lines that people view in a positive light (the other being the F-Series). Ask yourself, how much value does the Mustang GT have after there have been 10 other versions that kick its ass? Why bring back the Taurus? Again, this is about brand equity. The Taurus name had some equity when Ford dumped it. Ask some random person on the street who builds the Taurus and they'll likely say Ford; ask them who builds the 500 and they'll likely say Chrysler. So I don't disagree with bringing the Taurus name back, but rather with how they did it. I mean really, have some patience and wait for a new model to do it with; don't just slap the Taurus name on a facelifted 500.

This is a great point. Anyone with a Toyota or a Honda in their driveway should not complain about GM or Ford sending jobs overseas. However, I disagree that the government should bail anyone out. For those economists out there, this is a clear of a view of what it looks like when a market becomes more competitive, it's just not as pretty as it sounded in the textbooks is it? Nobody talked about the layoffs and bankruptcies in school. But still, any bit that you make it easier on GM or Ford is that much less progress that they're going to make. By the time GM's turnaround is complete they will not only have a much improved product base, but also a state of the art business model that was only wrought through the hardships they've endured. As the level of competition continues to increase, GM and Ford will continue to close plants here, open them overseas and Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Hyundai will open plants here to balance that effect. It may not happen simultaneously, but it will happen, so long as nothing gets in the way of that economic function. What could get in the way? Closing our borders and making it harder for non-domestics to open plants. The worst thing that could happen is if the US decides to stop giving tax breaks to non-domestics because the GM and Ford jobs are gone and now you've slowed the pace of incoming jobs. The hardest reality of this is for the UAW. They're really damned if they do and if they don't. If they start unionizing non-domestic shops, they'll slow the pace of incoming jobs just as I've described above. As this market moves toward a more global base and more competition, it's going to be increasingly more difficult to maintain the high pay and benefits. The "do" is that they will continue to keep giving back pay and benefits until it doesn't mean anything to be a union member or the "don't" is if they hold their ground on pay and benefits and continue to watch jobs go overseas until their ranks are so depleted that they don't have any power any more. Personally, I don't see a way out for them.

So I return to my initial question, will these replace the HHR and Vibe? I can see a point for the HHR because it's pretty distinctive, but I would think the next Vibe (or G whatever) will be the last if these arrive.

Yes, I know sub-Theta is dead, but these vehicles are essentially taking their place, I meant they will be sub-Theta in size not in architecture. The reason they aren't being built in America is the same reason sub-Theta was axed, they can't make a business case with them being built here. If you're not going to buy these becuase they're imported, then you might as well start buying domestic-built Toyotas. Fact is, the thing that's going to save GM will be their emphasis on reducing costs by increasing global efficiencies. Without taking advantage of these global strengths, GM wouldn't be able to offer a quality vehicle in this market. So basically you have 3 choices, a domestic built vehicle that's been cheapened out to save cost, no vehicle in this market at all, or a decent imported model. That's an easy choice for GM.

What I hate most about Flint's article is the hypocrisy of it all. He says he doesn't want to hear promises like this, well I have a solution for him...quit asking the questions. You work in the media and depend upon information like this for your livelyhood, don't complain. I also agree that this is a horrible example of media bias. GM should be getting praised for their efforts to take the lead in fuel efficiency and innovation, but rather someone has to find something negative to say. Still, I think it's good for GM. It's better to have critics that keep you on your toes than asskissers who let you get sloppy.

These won't be GMT360 replacements, they'll be much smaller. I'd expect 5-seat Lambdas to emerge around the time the TB and Envoy go away. Although, I'm not sure anybody really wants 5-seats, the third rows don't really take away that much cargo room do they? These will be smaller than the Equinox. I can still see a point to keeping the HHR around, but with the BPG alliance, I don't really see a need for the Vibe. What would be cool is if Pontiac would get a small 3-door X-over on Kappa that would be built around performance and compete with the GTI.

I'm assuming these would replace the Vibe and HHR, right?

I understand the media's attention to Toyota's hybrids, it's a sexy story. It's unfortunate that they don't write more about how the hybrids don't acheive their fuel ratings, but non-industry people don't understand that stuff. Yeah, it's not a fair to make Toyota saints over their hybrids, but that's why GM has to be a leader in technological innovation, because that's the side benefit. But what really bothers me is when they talk about how the domestics shove large pickups and SUVs onto the market. Fact is, Toyota not only wants to be able to sell that many trucks, but is actively promoting the fact that they are dumping money and resources into doing just that. Why hasn't that story been told with a headline like, "Toyota Pushing For More Gas Guzzlers."

Don't know how true this is, but someone once told me that a major factor in selling the 51% controlling stake was to separate GMAC's debt rating from GM's which was getting worse and worse. Declining debt ratings make it terribly more difficult and expensive to operate in GMAC's industry. Also, if you want to make money selling assets, the ones doing well sell for a higher prices; that's why Ford sold Aston Martin and not the ailing Jaguar.

According to this GM will decide between giving Cadillac a supercar, S-Class fighter, a high priced coupe (Bentley Continental GT or CLS fighter I would assume), or none of the above. Question is, if you had to choose one, which would it be? Personally, I'm voting for an S-Class fighter. I think the rest of Caddy's lineup would benefit from the image boost and a supercar would slightly overlap the XLR. http://www.autoblog.com/2007/03/12/100k-caddy-a-go-again/ I feel like this should have been posted already, is this being discussed somewhere else?

Yeah, I saw this earlier and thought, "Hmm, Hyundai is going to build Camry's now...that's odd." It's still too early for Hyundai to try and do something like this. 1. If this is supposed to be the start of a luxury brand, their dollars would be better spent solidifying their lineup and cleaning up their issues with Kia. 2. If this is supposed to be a range topper, they already have one, the Azera. So rather then dumping money into another top model, they should be investing more in the next-gen Azera. Hyundai is rushing into too many things at once. I could easily see this blowing up in their face and seriously setting them back. Wouldn't that be fun to watch, not to mention GMDAT would blow up even more than it already has.