cire

I don't know if the info in this article is just speculated rumor or an actual fact based on a reliable source (I know quite a bit of internet "news" is more of the former than latter). I think the Insignia is a great product, but it belongs at B-P-G. If Cadillac is going to receive an Epsilon based model to slot below the CTS (which I believe it will at some point; I don't believe the corporation will follow through with the Alpha platform), then it should have its own unique "Art & Science" inspired design. Link:Visit My Website Source: Motor Authority I still don't quite get the great debate over offering the 2010 LaCrosse and the Insignia in the same lineup. The Insignia is a smaller car based on the SWB Epsilon II platform. The LaCrosse is a larger car based on the LWB Epsilon II platform. The way these website articles make it sound, the 2 products are essentially the same car when they actually are not. I think there is room for both products at B-P-G. An Insignia based Regal would be the midsize premium sedan while the 2010 LaCrosse would serve as the large flagship sedan of the B-P-G sales channel. I just wish that GM would stop tripping up by second guessing themselves and just follow through with a plan. It seems like they waste too much effort and resources analyzing everything, but never fully executing or accomplishing anything. For heaven's sake, just get on with it!

I agree. The DTS interior looks too Impala-esque or Lucerne-esque for a Cadillac. The STS interior looks much more appropriate. Like Dodefan said though, it basically comes down to personal preference. If you like the DTS (inside and out), you should get one regardless of what anyone else thinks. You're the one that will be buying and driving it, so your own personal opinion is what matters most. As for reliability/quality issues, I can't really provide any personal insight because I don't own one and don't know anyone who has owned one.

Just to nitpick a minor point: I love the way Motor Authority arranged the headline so that it emphasizes the fact that the Buick vehicle is related to the Cruze. I don't recall many headlines such as "Venza-based 2010 Lexus RX" or "Accord-based Acura TL", etc. I realize that many of the websites will state that the vehicles share platforms somewhere further down in the article, but I don't recall that fact being announced in bold letters in the headline of the article. Why couldn't the article headline simply been: "Spy Shots: Future Compact Buick Sedan" or "Spy Shots: Delta-based Buick Compact Sedan". The fact that the Delta platform is shared with the Chevrolet Cruze could have been stated further down in the article. I realize this is a very minor issue, but it just irked me when I saw the headline written that way. It just seemed to me like Motor Authority was already attempting to brand this vehicle as a rebadged Cruze clone without seeing the entire package.

The arch of the roofline looks similar to the Cruze, but everything else looks quite a bit different upon careful inspection (from what little is actually revealed). The side window arrangement is unique. The flow of the A-pillar into the hood looks smoother on this car in comparison to the more angular treatment on the Cruze. Overall, I think there will be enough differentiation between the two cars for them to be viewed as 2 unique models by the general public (which would be a nice change of pace for GM compact cars in North America compared to the blatant rebadged clones that the company has produced in the past). I think this car is actually the next gen Opel Astra sedan, which will probably be some sort of compact Buick sedan in North America and China (and maybe a Chevrolet Vectra in Brazil?). I know GM has disappointed many people (myself included) with their blatant rebadge clones in the past, but I'm trying to be hopeful that they have learned from their past mistakes and properly differentiated this car. I'm not going to discount it until I see the total package.

If the production version stays fairly faithful to the concept version, then this should be one sweet little ride. I think the sedan version is one of the nicer looking compact sedans on the market (especially since Mazda chose to ruin the front end of the Mazda3 with that ridiculously overdone lower grille treatment). I definitely can't believe I'm making these kind of comments about a Kia product! How drastically times have changed!

Yep! That pretty much sums it up! Just think what those billions could have done for the 6 established divisions if GM would have given them appropriate, differentiated, well executed products and implemented some customer service initiatives to attract and retain customers. All of the "hallmarks" of the Saturn brand (polymer/composite body panels, no haggle price policies, superior customer service, unique labor relationship) seemed to have failed to permeate GM's corporate, divisional, and dealership structures. The part that really blows my mind is that GM wasted all that money to launch a new division for a car that was supposed to be on par or superior to the Japanese imports of the period and it simply wasn't. Saturn reached near cult-like status during the first S-Series' model cycle solely due to some incredible hype and superior customer service tactics (which was the only really "cool" thing about Saturn). The product was not all that special (unless one happened to be partial towards composite body panels). The entire misguided experiment was based around a car that was arguably only marginally better than the corporation's other overly rebadged "in house" developed compact car (or perhaps maybe even subpar to the rebadged Toyota product being hocked at Chevrolet under the "Geo Prizm" name). Unbelievable!

I would prefer "Omni" to "Neon". I would even prefer "Shadow" to "Neon". I would prefer almost anything other than "Neon". I'm not hating on the car as much as the name. It just sounds immature and childish to me, sort of like "Cruze". The fact that the name was used simultaneously on the Dodge and Plymouth versions also kind of dilutes its appeal (although it made sense since the car was identical except for the division badge). Actually "Dodge Bravo" has a nice ring to it (or "Chrysler Bravo" would be acceptable also).

That looks cool. A nice modern alternative to the PT Cruiser (which could still be relevant if Chrysler would have given it a thorough and well executed redesign). I still think the Bravo should go to Dodge and the Lancia Delta should go to Chrysler, but Chrysler LLC only has access to Fiat brand vehicles if I am correctly understanding the terms of the agreement.

YIKES! If this is the best they can do, then there is no need to revive the "Lagonda" name. Let it R.I.P.! I seriously think a 4 year old could have done a better job with Legos.

I agree with the Kappa Cadillac. Maybe a Kappa based Cadillac product would have helped the platform return a profit. Producing 2 relatively affordable products on such a limited platform was a misguided idea and a waste of the platform. The Sky should have been the Solstice (since Pontiac should have been aligned with Opel in the first place) and then a luxury version should have been developed for Cadillac. I agree that the Aura would have made a more appropriate midsize sedan for Pontiac than the current G6. The current Astra line probably would have been more successful in the U.S. if: 1) The car would have been included in GMNA's small car plans at the beginning of the car's design/engineering cycle. The resulting car line would then have been equipped with the goods to make it successful in North America. It would have also been assigned to a North American production facility to avoid the negative effects of exchange rates on the car's MSRP. 2) The car would have been available in a sedan configuration as well as the 3-door/5-door hatchbacks. 3) The car line would have been assigned to Pontiac, which has a larger dealership base and a sportier image than Saturn. Saturn would have then been aligned with the NUMMI arrangement and reduced back to a compact 3 vehicle lineup (sedan, coupe, and tall wagon). Since GM has never really made an impact on the minivan segment, they should have either just abandoned the segment entirely (which they have) or teamed up with another automaker with a successful minivan product to produce one just for Chevrolet (Saturn, Pontiac, and Buick should not be involved in the minivan segment). GM just never seemed to have a knack for producing a successful "in house" minivan. The current Vue would have made a great addition to Buick's or GMC's lineup. A Nummi produced Vibe-like tall wagon could have replaced the 1st gen Vue. Of course, creating a Saturn division or a Geo sub-brand wasn't necessary in the first place. If GM would have made plans to transform Oldsmobile into their import fighter, then a NUMMI produced compact car could have served as a first step effort in implementing that transformation (especially since the rebadged Cavalier/Sunbird based Firenza just didn't seem to cut it, naturally). The billions of dollars GM has wasted on launching Saturn, discontinuing Oldsmobile, attempting to transform Saturn, and now spinning off Saturn could have been better spent elsewhere (and that doesn't mean acquiring Saab or Hummer either).

I agree with the 2nd generation Saturn S-Series. I was in the market for a new car at the time and decided to give the then newly introduced 2nd gen Saturn SL a test drive. It seemed very crude and uncompetitive compared to some of the car's competitors that I test drove the very same day. I ended up buying a competitor's product instead. GM spent billions launching this brand to counter the Asian imports, but they didn't do much after that to ensure that the brand stayed current and competitive. It was a very expensive yet ultimately halfhearted attempt by GM to regain lost market share and customers. I still think GM would have been better off by simply making drastic improvements within their existing divisional structure; they should have tried "thinking outside" of their existing box instead of creating a troublesome new box that they weren't able to maintain or sustain. Creating a new division with its own accompanying dedicated factory and dealership body isn't required to engineer/design/build class leading products and improve/overhaul customer service.

At 197 inches long, the 2010 LaCrosse is big enough to serve as Buick's flagship sedan. Now that the brand has the Enclave and 2010 LaCrosse as its new flagships (although the "LaCrosse" name is inappropriate for the brand's flagship sedan), it needs to start focusing on expanding downward into smaller vehicles to complete its lineup.

I agree about the Lucerne. It had a nice exterior design. I wish they would have nailed the interior design, gave it a modern engine/trans combo, and continued to use the LeSabre name (which had market equity as the best selling fullsize sedan in the U.S.). This car is supposed to be the brand's freakin' flagship sedan, yet they gave it a bland interior, outdated tech, and a lame name. I agree about the 2010 LaCrosse (which needs a name change!) and upcoming Regal. Both cars are fresh and exciting designs that should transform Buick's stodgy, geriatric image (if GM handles it right).

I seriously think this is more about platform consolidation than anything else. GM is in dire financial straits and it may appear to them that it is more economical to base their products on the fewest number of platforms as possible. Since the FWD platforms are necessary for volume, my guess is that they will survive while the RWD platforms will be discontinued or (in Alpha's case) cancelled. I think it will primarily be reduced down to Gamma, Delta, Epsilon, Theta, and Lambda in the future. If the Corvette survives, then they will need to continue the Y-body. If they continue to produce trucks and SUVs with any kind of useful utility, then they will need a sturdy platform for these products also. Everything else will probably end up on some version of the 5 primary platforms. It's sad and unfortunate (because I would prefer to see the DT7 and the next gen Escalade based on Zeta or an extended version of Sigma instead), but I think it is the reality. That being said, I don't know why GM doesn't base the DT7 on Lambda instead of Epsilon. The Lambda platform is large enough to support a proper flagship sedan for Cadillac, although it would be more of an A8 competitor than a 7-Series or S-Class competitor. That way, both of the brand's future flagship vehicles (DT7 and next gen Escalade) would be based on the same platform (which I guess would be more economical?). That would leave room to move the next CTS (or CT5?) to LWB Epsilon II and base the compact size AT3(?) on SWB Epsilon II. I certainly wouldn't base any Cadillac sedan on Gamma II or Delta II, no matter how improved those platforms may be.

I totally agree. If I was in the market for a subcompact 5-door, I would probably prefer the Fiesta over the Polo. That being said, I do applaud VW for making this a conservatively handsome design and avoiding the impulse to apply an over-the-top front end design to add visual "interest"; too many auto makers (especially the Japanese) are doing this these days and it ruins the looks of the vehicle. VW might have played it safe, but at least they didn't make it ugly.

So Pontiac is staying in B-P-G. There was a recent article in LeftLane News that had the future "niche" brand moving into Chevrolet dealerships; I guess that was just typical internet rumor.

You would think that modified versions of Sigma would be the logical choice for the DT7 as well as the Escalade replacement. Go figure?!

Oops! I was only partially correct in what I posted about the Volt already being on Holden's website. It has been there, but it still had the Chevy badge on it. Holden has just revealed it at the Melborne Auto Show with a Holden badge on it now (which is what the link in empowah's post is about). My bad! I guess it's officially a Holden now. At least they didn't give it some contrived name like "Ampera".

If I'm not mistaken, the Volt has been an upcoming product on Holden's official website for quite some time now. I don't really view either product (the Cruze or Volt) as particularly shocking additions to Holden's lineup since it was obvious that GM was aligning Holden with Chevrolet/GMDAT anyway. Both products are global products that will be sold by different brands in different territories. The only exception with the Volt is that it will be badged an an Opel Ampera(?) (and a Vauxhall in Britain too, I guess) in Europe instead of a Chevrolet Volt (which makes sense given the car's price point; it would be impossible to sell this car by a brand that is considered a bargain alternative in the European market).

Also true. Which I guess begs the question: What moron would spend precious development dollars to create a limited platform (Kappa) for products that produce little volume and no profits for the corporation (especially when most of the corporation's essential products were below par)? I guess Kappa wouldn't really fall into the severely underutilized platform category given its severe limitations (although it definitely could be classified as a typical GM bonehead move). Zeta, on the other hand...

True. GM does seem to have a talent for wasting development dollars on what ends up being disposable assets (although it is due to the corporation's lack of focus and commitment more than the quality of the assets). Zeta and Kappa are 2 obvious examples of this.

I truly hope the disappearance of RWD isn't an industry wide phenomenon, but it definitely is the trend as far as GM and Ford are concerned. Maybe everyone is being a little bit pessimistic here; if VW can establish Audi as a proper luxury brand with FWD based AWD sedans, then why can't GM do it with Cadillac? It will involve GM doing more to differentiate the division than they have ever done in the past (unless they want to end up losing it too); mainly vision, focus, and commitment (unfortunately, GM seems to have been lacking these three qualities for the last 30-40 years). For the sake of the corporation, I hope they can make it work. I would still prefer for Cadillac products (at least the sedans, coupes, and wagons) to be RWD, but I'm not going to doom them to failure just because the products happen to be FWD based instead. Again, I just hope GM uses some engineering and design expertise to properly differentiate Cadillac's products from the offerings of GM's other divisions (especially Buick). Cadillac certainly won't be on par with the luxury segment big dogs (mainly BMW and Mercedes) with a FWD based lineup, but it can still attempt to be more competitive within the segment than it has been in the past.

If it is true (the article attributes the info to the mysterious "sources within the automaker"), then I wonder if the next gen CTS line will end up on Eps II also (as well as what was supposed to be a RWD Alpha based compact Cadillac series). I can't see GM continuing to support and develop Sigma if it is going to end up carrying one product line only (mainly CTS). With the corporation's precarious financial difficulties, they may stretch Epsilon to cover as many products as possible in the future in an effort to reduce costs. Instead of Cadillac challenging Mercedes and BMW with RWD based products, maybe GM will have to refocus the division's sights on Audi instead. Losing Saab would allow GM to position Cadillac as more of an AWD luxury brand instead of a true MB/BMW competitor. My only hope now is that the resulting DT7 will not end up as a direct replacement for the geriatric DTS. Even if the car ends up on a FWD platform, it still doesn't have to be a senior-mobile. At the very least, the car should come standard with AWD and a turbocharged DI V6 engine. If the gosh darn thing can't be RWD (which I agree would be preferable), at least engineer/style/equip it to be something other than the recommended ride for AARP.

This appeared on LeftLane News today concerning the "DT7", the flagship sedan replacement for the DTS/STS in Cadillac's lineup. If it is true, then it won't be good news to many who want the brand to have RWD based products only. Visit My Website Source: LeftLane News

I was kind of bored today, so I was looking through different automotive websites and came across a scrap of info that I completely missed when GM was releasing their restructuring plans. I was under the assumption that Pontiac would be a niche brand under B-P-G, but the 2 sources that I read today claim that future Pontiac "niche" products would be sold through Chevrolet dealers. I provided links to one of the sources below: Visit My Website Source: LeftLane News Maybe this is just news to me, but I really thought Pontiac would remain a part of B-P-G. I was really shocked to read that Pontiac is essentially moving to Chevrolet.