The O.C.

The 3.5L in the RAV4 is engineered for car applications. The 4.0L in the Tacoma is engineered for truck applications. You can rest assured if Toyota could have, they would have put the more powerful V6 in the Tacoma/X-Runner. But since they are using the 4.0L in trucks, they will most likely continue to massage that motor for such applications. It's not like a V6 Tacoma is a dog, either....running 0-60s in the mid-7's...and I think there was someone (MT? C&D?) that got a 6-speed manual, 2WD Tacoma X-runner in the high 6's on a 0-60 run.....

Yes. Plus, it would be REALLY embarassing to get your shorts handed to you at the stoplight by that base VUE V6 sitting next to you......

Well, the acutal numbers are strong for the Mustang GT....most C&D and MT comparos/road tests have the car going 0-60 in the low 5's.....which is not that bad at all..... A GT would show its heels to an Impala SS, HEMI Charger, or say an Infiniti G35 Coupe...or BMW 3-series....yadda, yadda...

....and granted we are looking at heavily-camo'd prototypes.

The whole point I was referring to is "giving up all those DTS sales." From a corporate standpoint, GM can help fill production capacity with other products such as Lucerne.....or they can <gasp> reduce production capacity. The underlying them to my recent posts is that DTS does NOT belong with the "new" Cadillac. End of story. Spin it any way you want, or try to justify the car's existence (in its present form) any way you want....but it's the truth. Let me ask you this.....if the intention is to keep this type of product, why didn't Cadillac put development money into the DTS in order to make it WAY more competitive, product-wise, in the marketplace therefore more aligning itself properly with Cadillac's new "mantra" and ALSO still offer a full-size Cadillac option to those "old" buyers and fleet accounts? The car, in it's new redesigned state, is still WAY to geriatric to become any sort of aspirational step-up for people that Cadillac is actually attracting with CTS and Escalade.

That's so NOT true. Have you driven the new Civic Si....? Is THAT where you are basing your opinion on? One could HARDLY call it "worthless" at those RPMs....go drive one first. Let me tell you the new Honda 197hp engine is superbly flexible and doesn't feel at all shortchanged on the low end.....it just was way more go when you actually wind it out... Today's modern L4 and V6 engines with multi-cam and multi-valves (and VVT) are VERY flexible in their powerbands and have a free-revving nature that makes them feel punchy and enthusiastic even at low revs. While this may not be the same thing as actual "torque", it certainly gives them a refined, tractable, and responsive feel. ANYONE on here that spends a significant amount of time in various kinds of cars with various engine technologies will confirm this. Even the S2000 L4 and the Toyota VVT 1.8L have comparable tractablility and low-end performance to most "normal" L4 engines....it's just that the high-end rush is THAT much stronger.....and tends to, in comparison, make their low-end performance seem lacking. Re....the S2000s I've driven had VERY comparable low-rev, low-speed performance to like say a (much less powerful) Miata (or Solstice.) It's only that when you pass 6,000rpms, the car has a LOT more power and shove at that part of the rev range then what you would find in the Miata. A stoplight drag with me driving an X5 4.4i (more high-end power) versus a new Silverado SS (stronger low-end torque) showed us neck-and-neck, even from a dead stop (where the SS SHOULD have had a "torquier" advantage) all the way up to about 80mph. I LOVE torque too....and love the feel of my C6 when I punch it at low revs, even in third gear....but to discount most other, higher-revving engines and powertrains because of a PERCEIVED lack of low-end torque is not doing them justice.....and not really an overall accurate perception of the competence of these types of engines in "everyday" driving.

I don't think this is representative of the new Accord at all.....just looks like someone gave us their own interpretation of a "new" Accord with Civic styling cues... If you look at the Honda concept that was at, Geneva was it? I forget where....but that car was to preview the new Accord and doesn't look anything like this computer-generated image.

What???? I LOVE that front end! I love the headlight and grille treatments......very slick...!

I think so too...... Glad to see they are staying with a soft-top....and looks like the Sebring will have plenty of trunk space as well....much more practical than G6 convertible. Too bad Sebring will probably end up being another "rental queen." Any idea of engines in these new cars? The 250hp 3.5L would be a nice top-of-the-line engine choice.

The switchgear in the new Chrysler products is VERY nice......the HVAC and radio controls, and even secondary switchgear, all feel like quality pieces. Which makes their dubious choice of interior plastics (except LX cars it seems) that much harder to accept.

Hmmm.....looks like the production interior will be pretty cool looking! I like the 300-ish center stack. Looks like DCX is trying to impart a bit of style and design compared to the usual minivan-interior fare.... I hope they don't use the same crappy hard plastic interior materials we've been seeing in the trucks lately.....give us LX-car-qualitiy materials and it will be fine.

I could like this maybe.....but have to see WAY more. It has kindof a tall "station-wagon-y" look to it....maybe a way to remove some of the staid minivan-type styling? Who knows...... Powertrains will probably be the new 2.4L 170hp L4 for the "beer-can" Dodge, and I'm betting the 4.0L will be in there somewhere. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 3.7L OHC V6 as maybe an entry-level engine? I'm hoping the 3.8L will be gone. While it may be fine for a vehicle such as the new Wrangler, the current DCX vans get literally DESTROYED in comparisons of performance and fuel economy compared to the import vans with their more modern V6s..... The 3.7L won't be that much stronger, but drives in the (heavier-than-Liberty) Grand Cherokee and Durango with that V6 show it to be surprisingly smooth and quiet...(more so than a Liberty actually) if not that fast.

Hence the whole point of the "mirage" portion of this thread. If that truly is where GM should have been moving with the Cadillac brand, (and that HAS been GM's OWN assertion) and they were spilling the mantra about chasing BMW and Benz that long ago, then they should have an S-Class/7-Series/A8 fighter on dealer lots RIGHT NOW. But they don't. Whose fault is that? GM and Cadillac management. DTS should never have made this latest iteration. Thinking of it from a Corporate standpoint, Buick can easily, with the right products, pick up any remaining DTS business....don't forget a whole THIRD of DTS production goes to fleets. THAT, GM can certainly do without.

Okay......then there's a big disconnect somewhere at Cadillac (regarding the DTS.) As I stated in another thread, or maybe it was earlier in this thread, many years ago, GM publicly stated that the mission for Cadillac was to move upscale to take on BMW and Mercedes-Benz DIRECTLY (hence CTS).....leaving Buick in the position to take up where Cadillac used to be....in other words, that "old man's car." In fact, that was the mantra that was given to us back before I ever quit GM.....some 7, 8, 9 years ago. You can't tell me that you don't agree that the DTS is NOT the type of vehicle that fits that mantra. In fact, arguably, the Lucerne does a much better job at moving into that "old man" segment with a combination of affordability and luxury with a badge that is almost as prestigious (to an "old man") as the Cadillac brand used to be....(once again...to that "old man.")

Her name is "Lucerne." Although I don't think it's any longer.... We all know the Lucerne is THE replacement for LeSabre AND Park Avenue. They very well could have named the Lucerne the "Park Avenue." I for one would have preferred that.

R&T had a comparison test of entry-luxury-sport sedans quite some months ago (to coincide with the new 3-series intro) and the CTS in that test was a red one equipped with the 6-speed manual and the 18-inch Sport Package. I am not home so I can't find the mag....but if you research online, you can probably find the article on R&T online.

Although Suzuki's bulding it with license from GM, the new XL7 (based upon a lengthened Equinox architecture) is engineered for the 3.6L V6..... I'm putting my money on the 3.6L.

Was it a true C&D "Comparison Test" with all the figures, facts, and rankings? Or was it just a "preview drive" of both...? It doesn't surprise me. I was assuming that the cars would be close with a base Z51 Vette Coupe running a bit faster in acceleration and probably quite a bit better in handling. Pricing is really close too if you go lightly with your Vette options....

Don't get me started on another "fleet versus retail" market share argument again. Fleets are the ONLY reason DTS sells so many units. Hardly a fair comparison to Evok's thread.

I think V8s are to stay....but in increasingly niche-like numbers. So my opinion mirrors yours, but I think in some car segments, it will still remain strong. Obviously the appeal of a V8 in a car like the Corvette or even Mustang is apparent....and I also think that many luxury car buyers in the $60K-and-up segment will want only a V8.... To me, a V8 offers a level of smoothness and aural pleasure that you can only get from a configuation of eight cylinders. I think where segments will get hit are segments where the manufacturers offer 6 AND 8 cylinder options such as cars like the BMW 5-series, M-Benz E-Class, and Audi A6. My friend that works for Audi says the V8-powered A6 is "sale-proof." I can attest that BMW sells WAY more 525i and 530i models than they do 550i models. (However, in BMW's case, production is alot lower on the V8 5-series so when they do sell one, it's usually for a strong profit....at MSRP or only SLIGHTLY discounted from MSRP.) It will be interesting to watch!

And we do, believe it or not.... But I for one don't want to let them off the hook for lackluster products such as STS (boooooring), SRX (one I actually like...sales numbers or not) , DTS (certainly not pointing the way for where Caddy should be going), and even the XLR (an also-ran in its segment)..... CTS and Escalade are the ones that have really seemed to push the image of Cadillac forward where it should be. To keep the momentum going that was started by Escalade and CTS, the new (range-topping sedan at that) STS that came out after the CTS should have been nothing short of yet another blockbuster styling, packaging, and engineering marvel that did nothing but take off from where the CTS ended.....to say it came up way short of that target is an understatement. If they don't fix the rest of the line in a FAST HURRY, all the effort, time, and money put into the rebirth will have been lost.

Comment #1.......the "rebirth" began with the pimps and rappers with the Escalade. Cadillac is not succeeding in "revamping their entire image" they have succeeded in revamping the Escalade and CTS.....(and yes they've done those cars quite nicely.) Comment #2......no...the "entire" face of Cadillac has not changed. STS is nothing but bland in the extreme with the exception of the CTS-like headlights and grille. From there on back, the car is a styling disaster. DTS? Well, I wouldn't call a vehicle like the DTS as an example of Cadillac's "revamped image" or their "new face."

The CTS is a fine-driving car.... ...but it's still a ways from a 3-series....I've driven PLENTY of both....with both having sport packages.....not having sport packages....etc... Around the handling course at the Caddy ride-and-drive, a CTS with the 17-inch sport package was maybe about as agile as a base 325i w/o the BMW sport package. Plus NO CTS I've ever driven (or GM sedan for that matter) can match a 330i sport package's ability to ride flatly, handle crisply, corner with minimal-to-no lean, AND at the SAME time provide ride quality that is almost supple. Cadillac sport packages thud and whack way too often over harsh surfaces in a way the BMW doesn't.

Interesting to note that BMW actually went UP during Cadillac's market-share rise....and that Acura stayed the same without losing share. Seems like M-Benz was the only luxury make significantly impacted by Cadillac's improvement....????

Nonsense. Whatever..... your one word post shows exactly how much you DO know about Cadillac and BMW.