The O.C.

Don't you get anything Balthazar? Of COURSE they don't go canyon-carving......yet they buy the car because OF it's capabilities. They know it's one of the (if not THE) best handling sport sedan out there...... ......(of course there are other tactile and emotional advantages to a BMW....interior quality, ride-and-handling compromise, super-creamy-smooth inline 6 engines, superb 6-speed tranny, and so on....things that the average consumer DOES experience day-in and day-out.) BMW has build a solid reputation over the years and that's why people flock to their vehicles. All I'm suggesting is that Cadillac do the same.....but don't try to do it JUST copying BMW with a "good-handling" CTS.

I've driven a 3.9L in a G6 GTP, a MC LTZ, and an Impala LTZ and it doesn't rev any more "sweetly" than any other GM pushrod V6 has.... The engine was pretty impressive in the MC....but not really at all in the G6 or Impala...for which I can't explain.....other than the MC being a couple hundred pounds lighter than the Impala.... But at the end of the day, it hangs on to (rough-sounding) revs close to redline on acceleration, and groans and moans while getting there.....that's not to mention the vibration felt through the gearshift and steering wheel at idle with the car in gear. The 4-speed auto just makes the problem worse.... I HOPE that GM just banishes the pushrod V6s for the new Camaro.....but logic (unfortunately) tells me that they won't.....

That's a very good point. I don't think Cadillac should be chasing BMW anyways.....(neither do I think Lexus or M-Benz should either.) They will be VERY hard pressed to produce a CTS or STS that will have the ultimate capability of a BMW 3-or-5 Series.... ....but maybe they SHOULDN'T be overly concerned with that.... Give us contemporary Cadillacs that are stylish, great to drive, and that carve out their own "niche" if you will in the marketplace. We all know M-Benz started going downhill when they abandoned what a traditional Benz was (heavy, substantial, "engineered like no other car in the world") in order to chase after BMW with their C-Class sport packages and S-Class AMG models....instead of building upon what used to make M-Benz great.... I think Cadillac would be wise to avoid following in their footsteps.

The car's beautiful in person (saw it at Frankfurt) and takes much better to the Bangle-ized styling.

I just keep getting so pissed at GM (Buick?) for getting rid of names with such RICH heritage.....especially like "Park Avenue." The "Ultra" badge always seemed incredibly cheesy to me.....but I always LOVED "Electra" and "Park Avenue." Why couldn't the 3800V6 Lucerne have been called "Electra" and the NorthStar V8 versions the "Park Avenue?" By '04 and '05 the Park Avenue was getting pretty dated.....but early on, they were really nicely-executed full-size sedans. I used to drive them all the time as company cars......Ultras with Y56 and Paint-Stripe delete option....for a cleaner look. I loved them. The only thing I missed was a nicely-executed console/floor shifter option.

The british mags have some slightly more updated information.....and it looks to be a 4.0L with 425hp now.....and a traditional 6-speed manual offered next to the ubiquitous SMG. It should be a GREAT drive.....look at what the RS4 is doing with about 410hp....and the BMW will be lighter and RWD.

I agree.....time will tell. I don't want the pushrod 3.9L either.... An entry-level 3.6L HF V6 could provide a nice, lower-cost alternative to cars like the 350Z and the G35 Coupe even...

Not to be off-topic, but one more interesting 1995 Riviera tidbit... I couldn't make this up..... When we were deciding upon options, colors, trims, etc., Buick management INSISTED on having WHITEWALL tires available on this new, curvy, up-to-date Riviera!!!!!!! Why? Their answer....."we sold a huge percentage of previous-generation Rivieras with whitewall tires." These guys were SO dense, they didn't see how AWFUL whitewall tires would have clashed with the much-more modern 1995 Riviera design.....and that this car had the potential to expand it's desirability to a new group of consumers that wouldn't have liked the old Riviera. I will boast proudly on here that it was ME that took the fight up the ladder and got the whitewall tire option KILLED.

We WANTED the NorthStar 4.0L as an option in the original 1995 Riviera and were told by GM to go "pound sand" in so many words. I never remember any discussions with Oldsmobile on the 3.5L V6 or any variations of that engine. Although we wanted the V8 (but didn't get it) we were set upon the 3800 (SC and non-SC) as our V6 options. Ultimately, we ended up with the SC 3800 as the top engine option. Riviera was killed in the marketplace and one thing that held us back was not having the V8 option, even though the SC was pretty strong running back then. (We got lots of demerits for the floaty suspension....even in SC cars.....but that was our fault for not tightening it up.) The Mark VIII had the 32-valve V8, the Eldorado had the 4.6L NS, and of course the Olds EXCLUSIVELY had the 4.0L in its first generation. A V8 would have given Riviera a leg up against the multi-valve/multi-cam V6 import coupes.

So THAT'S why the Impala LTZ rental I had felt considerably slower than the MC LTZ rental I had just a few weeks before.....

ABSOLUTELY correct IMHO. This powertrain lineup totally fits within GM's current M-O (unfortunately....in regards to the 3.9L.) Factor in the bean-counters pushing for the 3.9L base, and 5.3L midlevel.....with the 6.0 LS2 as the top-level (and likely expensive....re the new Shelby GT-500) Camaro offering. The 300hp (or so) 5.3L V8 will be the volume V8 model competing directly against the Mustang GT. As much as we'd like to see more exotic stuff, it just doesn't make business case sense with this car.

I have a friend that is in his low 30's.....and drives a previous-generation Eclipse GT. He is NOT an auto enthusiast....but he does like driving a nice car. He was asking my opinions on cars as he is ready to trade in the Mitsubishi. He's looking at the..... G35 TL 3-Series Audi A4 I asked him what about the CTS? He said...the "what?" I said the Cadillac CTS.... He said "there's no way I'm driving a Cadillac....it's an old man's car." I tried to reason with him that Cadillac's made huge strides of recent and is actually appealing to younger people but he didn't want to hear it. He has his perception and not much is going to change it. (For what it's worth, he thinks the Infiniti is somewhat geriatric as well.) Sounds like he's narrowed it down to TL or A4. Now I do see plenty of younger people around SoCal in CTSs....(unlike STSs) and GM is making some inroads with this car in this market.....but my friend's perception show how far they really have to go. I have another friend that traded in an Audi A6 2.7T on a new CTS....so that WAS a win. However, this guy was in his late 40's....a bit older....and not an auto enthusiast either. He was (by his own admission) more of a payment buyer when it came to the CTS....although he DOES like the car.

Ford's OHC 4.0L is alot stronger than it's numbers suggest. Truckish as it may sound and feel, the rental V6 Mustangs I've had feel alot more muscular than the 3.9L G6 GTP I had..... Indeed....0-60 times are in the high 6's for the V6/5-speed auto combo in the Mustang.....very close, to almost identical to what C&D got for a 3.9L/4-speed auto Malibu Maxx SS.

Much to my dismay, the (strong) rumor is that GM will utilize one of the HV V6s (most likely the 3.9L) in order to keep costs down. Now about the 3.6L as an optional mid-level engine offering, that I haven't heard about...

......rigggghhhhtt.....just like ALL those "AVERAGE, UNBIASED" consumers in Michigan and the midwest......(that happen to work for one of the big 3, or have a family member that works for one of the big 3, or happen to work for a supplier of the big 3, or has a family member that works for a supplier of the big 3, or yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda.......)

There actually is nothing at ALL "horrible" about the interiors. Leather everywhere.....solid-feeling switchgear......super-supportive seats......fine fit-and-finish.....

Uh, but....uh....but.....uh......but.....uh.....it's okay for the FOUR SEAT (re...not a niche car) G6 Convertible to have 1.8cu ft of trunk space with the top down.....eh? :AH-HA_wink: We should scratch the G6 'vert off our list too....because it's even MORE of a useless transportation device....

Exactly. CTS really IS a great product and one of GM's best. However, this market segment in general shows that if you don't do a bang-up job in just about every respect (CTS' somewhat cheaper interior trimmings for example) then you face a difficult struggle. The CTS itself IS a success in the fact that it shows GM can build a great-driving, solid-handling RWD car with a responsive and competitive drivetrain.....and it lead a styling renaissance at Cadillac that, unfortunately, REALLY never went much past that very CTS model. It's overall market performance, however, is not as strong as it probably SHOULD be....

I average 17mpg in my Liberty (and it's a 4X4) and I drive with my foot TO the floor. My mpg has never been below 16.5mpg in striaght stop-and-go city driving, and I hit 18.5mpg on an 85-mph, cruise-control set cruise. While I wouldn't call it "thrifty" (the Liberty) an Envoy is not going to beat that.....(it might not be that much lower though.)

<sigh> PLEASE don't confuse your well-deserved enthusiasm for GM's products with the desire to actually see the corporation SURVIVE! There's no way, IMHO, they can continue to afford to allocate resources for engineering, design, product planning, advertising, marketing, and all other related costs for SO many divisions and models for what looks like will most likely bottom out at around a BEST of maybe 20% total marketshare????????? (if they are lucky?) We see this point made SIMPLY in the powerful marketing launch of the new Camry.....versus the miniscule budget GM allows for a comparable AURA....or even an Impala...... That's just ONE example..... How absolutely superior COULD the new Impala have been if all those dollars for engineering, design, product planning, advertising, marketing, and etc., didn't have to be ALSO allocated to Buick for a LaCrosse and Pontiac for a Grand Prix at pretty much the same time.....? (LIKE I've always said....it's not an easy solution, but to me, seems an inevitable one.......that is, reducing the complexity of the corporation's product structure.) As much as I liked Oldsmobiles, it WAS a costly, yet proper, first step. Maybe it should have been Buick....or Pontiac....that I won't argue....but that first step HAD to be made.

I'll reiterate.... "AS TESTED" A Regal LS may indeed hit 30mpg on the highway.....but I can ASSURE you that in daily driving, including a mix of town, city, and freeway....it's going to be a hell of a lot closer to 20mpg than it is 30mpg.....especially if it's lead-footed...like we can assume C&D does with most of their test cars...hybrid or not.... (I should know....I used to drive them all the time as company cars....and, yes, the geek in me made me always check the mileage at every tankful.....) Let's see that pushrod Regal try to match the Hybrid Camry's in-town, low-speed fuel efficiency.... I'm not trying to defend the Hybrid Camry....but Oldsmoboi....you kinda opened yourself up for the debate.....

I think the big point here in "arguing" about the express windows is not really ABOUT the express windows.... The point really is that GM still, in many ways, seems to have their heads up their collective asses when it comes to the automotive market in general that exists far outside of downtown Detroit.... They've shown they can do an awesome GMT-900, but in other ways (the lack of certain minor, but consequential features, etc.) they show that they really don't know what is expected in the marketplace relative to the vehicles they develop for the general public. Either that...or they blatantly make the decision (bean-counter-wise or not) not to follow the accepted trends in the marketplace.....

I'm sure you know I was just giving you &#036;h&#33;.....

Your post plays BEAUTIFULLY into my argument (that Croc gave me &#036;h&#33; over) of GM having too many models and too many divisions. Just look at your post without reading it....look at how many models and divisions you are trying to rationalize in taking on one segment (midsize) and it's best-selling car, Camry.....

Yeah....but 33mpg AS-TESTED from a Camry that does 0-60 in 7.7secs doesn't sound too bad to me.....!