hyperv6

You would not believe how many 65-80 year olds the are around here who still drive. The new Buick is not what they are used to, they don't like all the technology. They like the old Buick, and still have a lot of money to spend-now mostly going to Toyota and their Avalon. As much as we on this board like the newer stuff from all of GM, there is a demographic that is being forgotten. There should still be a traditional column shift, bench seat, V8 Buick for this crowd. Kind of like how the Cadillac XTS is keeping the Deville buyers somewhat satisfied, where is a new Lesabre? I can't even count how many times my customers have had to put money into keeping a car with well over 100K miles because they can't find what they want anymore. And those 65 and over will buy only one more car and many will not be driving in 10 years if they are even lucky to be alive. Buick needs to concentrate on the younger professionals that are not able to afford the more expensive Cadillac's but still want a comfortable and classy car. high end VW, low end Audi Lexus and Acura have catered to this crowd for years and will continue as they will grow older with them unless they have the means to move up. The Lacrosse and Impala take care of the Lesabre crowd as that is what my Parents were. As for the age and driving thing I understand it well as my parents and many of their friends were Lesabre buyers. Most it was their last new car and most no longer drive and many have passed like my 80 year old father. The bench seat is gone and GM was the last still trying to make it work. While there was some demand it was so few it did not warrant keeping it. Too many keep reaching back trying to think things are like the 50's and 60's but the entire auto market has shifted and changed. People who grew up in small Honda's and Toyotas have different wants and expectations. The customers GM had in the 50's are nearly lost anymore and most do not buy cars any longer. GM needs to appeal to the younger buyers and middle age buyers if they expect to get and retain customers for more than one last send off before they see God. This is working at Cadillac as they have a more respected line up than they have had in years. They may have alienated my Mother In law but that is ok as there are so few of her floaty boat ride lovers left. The few people Buick will lose with the moves they need will come back two fold with repeat customers. Just keep on doing what they were doing is a path to an end. China gave Buick a second chance and they better damn well not screw it up again.

Buick is unpretentious luxury yet still a good value. That is the image they are going for.... and in a way it is a return to their image in the 1950s... cars for people who have "made it" professionally, but aren't out to show off with a Cadillac or Benz Generally I find most people who drive and own Buicks were people who can't afford a Cadillac but do not want to be stuck in a Chevy. Or like my Great Uncle who was a GM engineer for year. He bought a Cadillac every year for many years till 1959 and he hated the large fin so much he went Buick from then on. I always got a chuckle from that as years later he would still rant about the fins. He was a very conservative guy and those fins were just too much for him. I still have all the paperwork from all his cars from the 1927 Chevy on up that he kept over the years. I is fun to look at the car and option prices he paid. I still have the owners manual and vanity mirror from his 57 Cadillac.

It was the second year before the Cruze took off. Women like Sedans, Convertibles and CUV models. I think Buick would be a good fit for the young Female professional. Lets face it the Opel convertible we are getting is not really a car targeting Alpha Males. LOL! Buick needs to target the women who buy the higher end VW products.

I am amazed there are any traditional Buick based owners still driving. At that age most are off the road. The whole future of Buick is to attract new buyers to the brand as well as younger buyers. To this point little has been done at Buick as they were third on the to do list at GM. We are just now entering the future of the division as in the past The Chinese would buy anything Buick and here in the Stated there was no room for them to grow till the new Cadillac's were out. You will see many changes coming in the next few years but do not expect them to cater to the small traditional Le Sabre buyer as that is no longer where the market is or is growing. I almost expect the Buick line to go for the young Female professional buyer. They buy over half the cars and they have money.

Bud the rotary issues are well documented as they have been around for years and you do not have to rehash what everyone already knows. God knows GM figured it out in the 70's. Second you can use all your so called tech talk that you like to cloud the situation but the fact remains there will be little to no Atkinson engines being developed or in use in the future unless there is a great shift. If it were the way to go there would not be great investments into smaller turbo charged engines by all MFG. As for the 3.6 TT there no applications yet as they have not gone into production., given time it will show up in more places. I just find it funny how a guy who argues so much for two valve natural aspiration drives a 32 valve 5.0 SC Jag? I thought you would practice what you preach and stay away from those horrid DOHC.

Now the Impala has grown a new platform with a Longer wheel base would be so much better now. I do have to say my 08 feels more like the new Impala in back vs. the new Malibu.

That was part of it but RWD turned off many women buyers that normally make up 3/4 of this segment too. Many of them have a unfounded fear of the unknown since so many have never driven a RWD car. Yes it had AWD too but that was even more expensive. Length is another issue Women like the shorter wheel based vehicles. Good example was the Acadia as my wife loved it till she got in it to back up. Now she is not afraid of large blind spots learning how to drive her dads windowless Dodge Van but she just likes the ease of swinging around a parking lot with less behind you to worry about. Besides she never carries more than 4 people at once anyways. To me the old SRX was a little ahead of its time too in styling. It was the first Arts and Science design and it was a little edgy for many. Guys liked it but women not as much. I think they could do it today and see getter results with the new styling. I would like the Lamda to be replaced with a Alpha or Omega based vehicle.

I wouldn't be surprised that this ends up being a global model in the sense the Astra/Verano is, especially since the GMC design language is so much different from Buick's. The SRX moving up in price is the thing that is on my mind as there's no news of Alpha-based crossovers, and that's where the SRX should sit IMHO: closer to the CTS in size and with a roughly ATS-sized "BRX"... GM might be missing an opportunity to fully take advantage of the scale economies it might squeeze out of Alpha... I agree that Cadillac and the SRX will move up but I am not sure it going to an Alpha would be the right move. I would love one on the Alpha but the past SRX failed as many others like the FWD AWD version better. Even if they do not make a SRX Alpha I would never count out one showing up in a GM line up some where. I thought it would make a nice SUV for GMC as well as a Ute version similar to the Denali show car GMC had. The whole key to the SRX is the size and slot it fills is popular with the market. It is easier on gas but still will haul things that most sedans will not. Lexus found the size and Cadillac learned and profited buy it with the present SRX. When we shopped the Terrain and SRX we liked the SRX but it did not really offer things that were much different than the Terrain that was worth that much more price wise. I really would love to see them step up the interior and options to where they offer things you just can' get anywhere else at GM like the Turbo 6 and magnetic ride suspension. The increase cost would give them room to add things to the vehicle they just don't have now. The Buick would slot right in where Lexus is now and give room to GMC and let it still be the more truck like looking of the two. The Nox will still carry a large following as it is. What amazes me is how popular this segment has become. GM is selling more of the Terrain and Nox each and every year since 2010. As most models decline this one has only gotten stronger even outdated. I just hope they capture the magic with the new one. The only issue with the D2 package that could hurt the SRX is that it may not be V6 able. This could be a clue that there is something else coming like you suggest. May or may not be on the Alpha but who knows. I do expect a lot more from Alpha and it will not be just coupes and sedans. GM has played a lot in the past with a Jeep like fighter on the Kappa and I know they do not throw those ideas away easy. GMC could do well with a Jeep fighter like Hummer was looking at and the Alpha would be a place to look to build one.

I like your arguments. You give some accurate facts and mix them with assumptions and sell it all as the truth with no way to prove it. Then you change the topic in general. I am speaking on engines and all cars in general as the smaller volume of performance is reliant on what engines are available from the higher volume lines. The only reason you have a LT is because of the trucks. No trucks no V8 engines for anything. It is simple economics. Again you need to factor the whole picture not what just works for you. You can not leave the economic factors out either. Big Picture again! As for your Atkinson engine it has been around for years and while things like modern supercharging may bring it to a practical option it is far off of being in wide spread use anytime soon. The power density issues are still an issue that have to be overcome. It is efficient but has issue. It is similar to the rotary engine where it has a lot of good but enough bad for wide spread acceptance in the industry. If this was the way they why has so few really spent much time moving to this. Is it that they understand the issue better than you? I have a hunch the MFG have a little more info and that they have issues to be worked out yet.

That is interesting and makes me wish reviews would post more comparison numbers on interior sizing as I would not have guessed that it is Near Tahoe or Yukon interior space. Enclave has more cargo space than Tahoe with either the seats up or down. The Lambdas' third row, while not as comfy as a proper minivan's, actually fits adult humans--unlike the Tahoe's. We have gotten Enclaves from a local dealer and Yukon's for towing Soap Box Derby cars to the top of the hill with the kids and the Enclave just has more usable room for people. It is easier and faster to load. It is the more people friendly model of the two If you haul more than 4 people. The kids love the two sun roofs. The GMC/Buick dealer is great as they often give us $70K Yukon's and$65K enclaves with many Denali's just to haul the cars with at the track. These are all new models. It gives me a good chance to check them out. The Chevy dealer just gives us used trucks.

Not sure as GM has not really given us a clue yet. Most vehicles are global but this could easily be just a China Buick and Opel only since we have a GMC in the dealer here. But on the other hand they could make the GMC much different than the Buick and cheaper to slot it between the new SRX and Terrain. Keep in mind with the next SRX moving up in price there is going to be a gap for a Lexus fighter as the GMC will not be it. I a sure this will appear in China first but it could still end up here later. With Buick China is the priority anymore and I think even with Opel many of the models will be bases on Cars with China in mind first. That is where the money is, With GM doing things globally it is getting harder to read the clues. As hot as the CUV market is here anymore and GM's ability to adapt platforms to different divisions anymore I would not be shock to see it here at some point. I may be wrong but my gut says it will be here.

Again not speculation just what they sell more of. I do not challenge you because I find it sport. I do not generally post always what I feel but more of what I see. I would love the world you profess but I also see the other factors in the way that prevent it. Believe me I would want to buy your dreams for my garage but I am not what the mainstream is anymore. So please do not take my challenges personal. Also when I say look at the big picture please look at what people want and do today and please factor that in, No matter how good your numbers are on paper if it is not what the general public it is doomed. Sales number speak loud. I have regret to say that the boring DOHC sedan or CUV are the dominate products and what most people see value and quality in while fitting their wallets best. They may be wrong in many cases but they do what they feel is right and who ever gives them what they want will win this game. It is much easier and profitable to give them what they want vs. telling them they are wrong and trying to re educate them. I have two views of this deal the one in my heart that is closer to you view but I also have the business end view of this and it is more than one dimensional. Even in his books Bob Lutz one of the biggest car guys in Detroit understands this. Why else is one of the biggest gear heads in Detroit pushing electric cars. God knows it is not because he is green. This is an golden era of conflict. We have the best performance cars ever built but we are also seeing a decline in the large engine performance car. The market is shrinking and will only get smaller. It is sad. I know we will have some kind of performance as long as Google does not pry the wheel from us. Now that is one area that is telling. I have seen post on Google's autonomous cars on Autoblog. A site for auto enthusiast of all things. If you go in and read the comments so many are just in love with the idea of their car driving them? What the Hell? I have asked there how people who love cars and love to drive could even consider giving up the wheel. Many say the daily commute could be better used reading their Pad or internet? They never consider that once the genie is out of the bottle they could lose the ability at some point to drive the car let alone when they go or what way they go. It could get to the point you would be given a travel time and your car goes when it goes not when you want to go. Anyways Now that I am way off topic lets bring it back. It is time to look around and understand the public. You do not have to agree with them but you do have to give them products they want and demand. They like what they have and it is not going away. GM no longer leads in opinion that they lead in technology. The surveys I saw had them down on the list. I know it was bull but that is what they think. That is why cars like the Volt need to work and work well to gain the confidence with the public to better lead with the technology they want to use.

The reality is everything is going to get smaller and while the V8 may be around it will get more and more expensive to drive people to smaller engines. Europe and out side the USA the V8 is not a must have default as most of these countries have been paying much higher fuel prices for much longer, most have never even had a V8 in the family for several generations. Also the Green movement in places like Europe have an affect on the market. In the State the V8 was the default for 80% of the buyers but in cars today it is becoming a are item. Even the V6 is no where as common as it once was. The last two generations have grown up in cars with 4 cylinder engines and they expect the same. Even many who have a V8 in the 80's in the family only had a V8 with just under or at 200 HP while today most 4 cylinders will do that even without a turbo. The fact is it will be difficult to meet the coming CAFE standard even with small 4 cylinder car let alone larger cars with even larger engines. That is why we are seeing the goofy Hybrid systems that they hope will develop to give them room for larger cars. The V8 will remain longer but GM and others will limit it's use to models that have lower standards like heavier trucks and use loop holes of the larger trucks to still over them. As for cars like the SS they will price them high and you can have one but the price will limit the sales naturally for the MFG. Europe just has a whole different outlook than the states at engines and even here it has evolved an continues to do so. The kink with that argument is that the assumption that a 6.2 liter Pushrod V8 consumes more fuel than a 3.6 Liter Bi-turbo V6 is in general not true. The only thing that dings the V8 is the large displacement incurring higher displacement taxes in those countries that have them. As far as MPG ratings is concerned, a Pushrod V8 is exemplary, matching beating DOHC V8s and force fed V6es of equivalent power output any day. As far as the ATS-V is concerned, a 6.2 LT1 V8 will post MPG numbers better than 16 (city) /25 (hwy) MPG -- 16 /25 is achieved by a Camaro SS 6 speed-Auto using the previous generation Port Injected 6.2 V8. In other words, the V8 -- if employed -- will be 17 (city) / 26 (Hwy) or better, unless all the VVT, AFM and DI stuff they did amounted to no improvement in mileage numbers (one of the major engineering goals). Given that the 3.6 NA engine which has higher compression, resonance tuned intakes and freer flowing exhaust came in at 19 (city) / 28 (Hwy) it'll be very difficult for a 3.6 TT to beat 17/26 MPG. I don't think you fully comprehend the advantageous of a Pushrod valvetrain -- in addition to making the engine lighter and more compact, it is also somewhat more fuel efficient than a DOHC design (definitely so at the same displacement and still modestly so at the same output with a larger displacement). The argument that going to smaller 4-cyliner engines equates to better mileage number is also for the most parts unproven at best. The 1.4L Turbo Cruze did not beat its 1.8 and 2.0L NA competitors (with similar or higher power ratings) in mileage numbers. In fact, it lost to the majority of these cars. If you really wanted the "best" mileage numbers than a 2.0 DOHC 16v DI four you are better off going BIGGER in displacement, dropping cams and ditching valves! Go to 2.5 or 2.7 liters, go to a SOHC head, go to 2-valves per cylinder and most importantly go to an Atkinson cam. Do that and you'll run circles around the 2.0L DOHC16v engine in MPG numbers while generating similar output. Even if you don't go atkinson cammed, just going to 2.3L, dropping one camshaft and dropping halve the valves will see an improvement in MPG numbers. Specific output goes down the drain... but we are after the best fuel economy here not bragging rights about hp/liter. Sadly there is more to this than just numbers. You totally fail to address what the public feed back and expectations are. It is still more than just a game of assumed engine numbers that you supply. Again you need to prove why you are right and most automaker even those other than GM things and commit billions of dollars differently.

I share the expectation. GM appears to be on the right path with the core (read RWD/AWD) Cadillac models. It will take a while for the image building at Cadillac to be complete, but GM is doing it right (except for no AWD on the CTS V-Sport, IMHO). Also, the moving of Cadillac to pricing levels closer to (eventually equal to) the German trio means Buick gets more breathing room. As long as GM doesn't try to make Chevrolet an all-things-to-all-folks brand, that is... I have been preaching the space being cleared for Buick to thrive with out stepping on Chevy or Cadillac. I ponder that the V could be in line for a strong AWD system since the price would give GM the ability to do it right. This would also set them apart form Buick and Chevy even more. I expect the V to have over 600 HP and they may need all 4 tires to put it down. The Extra Hp is useless if you can put it down or have to have the computer kill the power to get the car to hook up. AWD in the V would not surprise me at all. It also would give the reason to step up from the V sport. It would be good big picture marketing.

The Enclave is very large inside as it has so much usable room. Buick has to take a different tact with this one as they will also have a Terrain in the same showroom. I think they can do it as so few people realize the Captiva is the same thing under the skin as the Nox.

And the Higher Prices have arrived. I expect the V will be in the $80K+ range this time around.

They have this already and it is called the Cruze. The Malibu is going to be a more expensive car and many of the things that need fixed will come but not till the next gen arrives. The issue is the last Malibu was a better Fusion and the new Fusion became a better Malibu. The Bu is not a bad car just a good car in a tough segment. The bottom line is you are not going to get much of a Malibu for less than $25,000 and most will cost you over $30K as this is the price range this segment is in. Tell that to all the Altimas, Camry's, Accords, Sonatas and Optimas I see being sold out the door for 20-22K. Also the Cruze is not big enough for many buyers including myself, especially in the horribly cramped rear seat. Nor does it offer a 16.3 cu.ft. trunk, a std 196 HP engine with a 259 Hp engine optional. With the 1.25 increase in rear seat knee room the 2014 Malibu will be spacious out back compared to the cramped Cruze. I had both a 2012 Cruze 2LT with leather and a 2014 Malibu 2LT for rentals while my Impala was having collision work done. The Cruze sounded, drove and felt like an economy car with the one surprise being fairly quiet road noise. The Malibu felt wider and more spacious to me, was more comfortable, quieter and larger car feeling and the 2.5 flat out was a superior drive train compared to the Cruze's buzzy always revvy but not very powerful 1.4T. Even with all the griping about rear seat legroom my folks could sit comfortably in the Malibu's back seat but felt cramped in the Cruze. Even the combined average fuel mileage wasn't all that different between the two vehicles. 26 overall for the Bu and 27.2 for the Cruze. The Malibu also had a roomier wider center storage console, overhead sun glasses holder which the Cruze lacked, fog lamps which the Cruze lacked and the headlights worked better on the Bu. It always amazes me how so many complain and gripe that the Cruze is the same size as the Malibu and that the Malibu shouldn't even exist yet here we have 3 Nissan products with very similar interior and trunk volumes selling along side each other with not a word said. The new Vera sedan, the new Sentra and the new Altima are all very close in size inside and trunk space with the only real distinction being engine sizes and power output. The Versa in fact actually seems to have more back seat leg room compared to the Sentra and Altima. There interior volumes are 90.2 for the Versa, 95 for the Versa and 100.5 for the Altima. The Cruze is 94 and the Malibu is 101.3. I didn't bring up the noticeably smaller Sonic because it is very obviously not mistaken for a mid size like the Cruze often is and Malibu and is not brought up in that argument. I Don't know were you shop but I see stickers at the same as the BU with comparible modes. The low ball prices are generally on models with less features and options then even the cheapest Malibu. In othert words even the lowest gutted Bu has more in it than the lowest priced $20K Accord. The next Cruze will shrink in size but have similar interior while I expect the next BU to grow a little since GM needs adjust the sizes to the other in segment. As cars shrink automakers really are stepping all over their own models anymore as there is becoming smaller differences between them anymore in size and engines.

They have this already and it is called the Cruze. The Malibu is going to be a more expensive car and many of the things that need fixed will come but not till the next gen arrives. The issue is the last Malibu was a better Fusion and the new Fusion became a better Malibu. The Bu is not a bad car just a good car in a tough segment. The bottom line is you are not going to get much of a Malibu for less than $25,000 and most will cost you over $30K as this is the price range this segment is in.

The technology really was not there 10 years ago to tax per mile. today it can be done and it will only be more enabled as cars become web hot spots. Pumps and cars will link up and record your miles. It is down right scary where this may be going. People are worried about the NSA now just wait you have seen nothing yet.

The reality is everything is going to get smaller and while the V8 may be around it will get more and more expensive to drive people to smaller engines. Europe and out side the USA the V8 is not a must have default as most of these countries have been paying much higher fuel prices for much longer, most have never even had a V8 in the family for several generations. Also the Green movement in places like Europe have an affect on the market. In the State the V8 was the default for 80% of the buyers but in cars today it is becoming a are item. Even the V6 is no where as common as it once was. The last two generations have grown up in cars with 4 cylinder engines and they expect the same. Even many who have a V8 in the 80's in the family only had a V8 with just under or at 200 HP while today most 4 cylinders will do that even without a turbo. The fact is it will be difficult to meet the coming CAFE standard even with small 4 cylinder car let alone larger cars with even larger engines. That is why we are seeing the goofy Hybrid systems that they hope will develop to give them room for larger cars. The V8 will remain longer but GM and others will limit it's use to models that have lower standards like heavier trucks and use loop holes of the larger trucks to still over them. As for cars like the SS they will price them high and you can have one but the price will limit the sales naturally for the MFG. Europe just has a whole different outlook than the states at engines and even here it has evolved an continues to do so.

I agree on the power as you can make it do about what ever you want. GM could match the 3.6 TT in power easily if they would like but the parasitic drag is a trade off. This is why we are seeing less and less SC engine and if we do they tend to be on larger engines. Now a SC does not have to sit in the V area of an engine. I have many models at work that mount on the side of the engine much like a AC compressor. So if they really wanted one you could get it in. I have many customers buying Vortech and Paxton models that are under stock hoods for Mustangs and Camaro's. I also have seen some very creative mounting of these system. At this time Eaton is the model preferred by OE MFG. It would be interesting to see Eaton do a side mount but I do not see it happening. Might note too that Ford looks to be getting out the SC game so that is one less major player in this field. They claim that the new Mustang will not have room for it in the engine compartment. Now there is word the car may just become a Cobra and drop the Shelby name all together. I have seen the new car in Chris's photo'd and it is much smaller. It looks almost Hyundai Coupe Small under the padded Camao. Under hood space and packaging will be more important than ever. To be honest I have owned both Turbo and several cars with Superchargers. While the SC engine was ok I love my Turbo much more. Electronics just have taken the turbo engines to a new level they could not have done 15 years ago added in with VVT and they are thriving on DI. The one advantage to a SC engine is it is easy to take and change a pulley to tailor the boost that you want but I can do that to some degree with a tune and a couple of Maps on a Turbo to a certain level.

I also see this as a good time to see how people will react to a lower priced Volt. It could show us what the lower price second gen could do. Whole sales may be slower else where they have been strong here in Ohio. It is common now to see one nearly every time I go out and it is not the same one.

Nothing! That's perfectly fine, just like it is perfectly fine for the CTS-V and the Camaro ZL1 to use basically the same engine (with the Camaro's louder exhaust treatment actually making 24 more horsepower). I won't buy a Camaro ZL1 because of the cheap, tacky interior and the "retro" exterior. That the CTS-V's engine is also found in a Chevy costing $6K less doesn't even register as a concern. Another way to look at it is that I'll rather have an ATS-V which shares it's engine with the Corvette than one which shares it with the CTS 3.6T. What really should happen is that the 2.5L should be dropped altogether. With the ATS carrying three engines across the lineup -- the 2.0T and 3.6NA for "normal" ATSes while the ATS-V packs the 450~460hp LT1 V8 for the enthusiasts. The CTS will then carry the 3.6NA, 3.6TT and a 600 hp Supercharged version of the LT1. Nothing! That's perfectly fine, just like it is perfectly fine for the CTS-V and the Camaro ZL1 to use basically the same engine (with the Camaro's louder exhaust treatment actually making 24 more horsepower). I won't buy a Camaro ZL1 because of the cheap, tacky interior and the "retro" exterior. That the CTS-V's engine is also found in a Chevy costing $6K less doesn't even register as a concern. Another way to look at it is that I'll rather have an ATS-V which shares it's engine with the Corvette than one which shares it with the CTS 3.6T. What really should happen is that the 2.5L should be dropped altogether. With the ATS carrying three engines across the lineup -- the 2.0T and 3.6NA for "normal" ATSes while the ATS-V packs the 450~460hp LT1 V8 for the enthusiasts. The CTS will then carry the 3.6NA, 3.6TT and a 600 hp Supercharged version of the LT1. Well we do agree on dropping the 2.5 but that is about it. Here is what I would like to see but noting I know GM will keep the 2.5 and other base engines to have the low entry model pricing for advertising. I wish they would stop the practice ATS should be 2.0T 3.6 NA and TTV6 500 HP V series CTS should be 3.6 NA 3.6 TT and V8V 600+ LT5 Cadillac version LTS should be 3.6TT LT5 and L88 or a Cadillac version 700+ HP V series. Leave the XTS as it is as it is not declared a sports sedan but more refinement to the car as time goes on is fine. I would also dress the Cadillac engines in stainless and their own valve covers in powder coating. Make them look as nice as the outside of the car. I know they use the cheap plastic covers to hide wires and kill noise but they look so cheap. If Cadillac is going to ask a premium price for their cars as they will do they need to make sure they offer a fully premium product that is not just a car Chevy also offers with less options and leather. That is what got Pontiac in trouble. The details count as the price goes up. So far they are working better in this direction but I would like to see more Cadillac in the LTS than we have seen in 50 years. To ask a special price for this car it damn well needs to be more than a large Holden with a different grill. I have a feeling that they know that too and it will be a surprise to many what we do get. When I heard they were arguing over the quality and price of the door handles that is a good sign they are looking deep at the details.

The reliability issue is not as much if a issue at all anymore. The first thing most people need to do is realize this is not 1985 anymore and most turbo systems are very reliable anymore. I know with the many on the HHR sites and Solstice that if there are issues often it is due to someone playing around with a tune or a sensor failure. But sensor failures can happen on NA engines too and do fail just as often. GM has had a Turbo on the market since 2008 and many of the Cobalt's and others are well over 100,000 miles in many cases and have not had any more issue than any other NA engine. The new turbo units are good and the head gaskets have generally not been an issue. Have there been some issues yes but not anything unusual or in great numbers. Back in the GN days the engines and turbos were not really up to standard. Too often GM would try to slap on a Turbo with the least amount of development they could to the engine. The T types were a mess with no water cooling and while the GN was better it still had great amounts of lag and the lack of a good synthetic oil from the factory generally would hurt the bearings in time. There are only a few turbo MFGs out there and most companies source them from the same ones. The engines have been redone to deal with the stress and wear and tear. Just looking at the 2.0 vs. 2.4 or 2.5 will show how the oiling, valves, block and head casting are all different. Addition of oil cooling and sodium valves are now common now. The 3.6 turbo engine is nothing new at GM. It has been in development since before 2005 or earlier since that is only when the public first saw it. GM has a lot of time in it and I am sure they know what they are doing. They do thing not just based on a bunch of guesstimated numbers and consider the many issues and reason to offer and even build this kind of engine. It I not so much that GM wants to be BMW or Benz. It is more they want the people who buy their cars and they want that golden image that the others have. What people receive of there other brands as being more advance and higher quality is a bunch of BS but the general public has no clue. While a V8 may be easier and cheaper it does not always reflect what many of these buyers are wanting. Lets face it the manager of Jaguar loves the new LT engine and how low it sits but still he has his company in other directions as he knows what his buyers want. This is about giving people what they want and look for not so much what GM knows or thinks is best for them. You need to appeal to their thinking and vanity as that is why people buy expensive cars. They all could easily get by with a Impala or Cruze but that would not enhance their image. Even years ago did Cadillac really need a V16 or V12? Not really but it was one upmanship for the owners of these cars. When catering to the affluent you appeal to what they perceive is great and they will spend a lot more for it. Cadillac is not going to over take BMW and Benz any time soon as it takes time to build an image and even longer to rebuild an image. Cadillac is taking the steps not one model at a time. It may take the next gen to even catch up in the publics eyes. But generally they are doing it right. BMW was not the yuppie darling in the first 5 years of the 3 series. It took time and later models to take hold. The real trick for GM at Cadillac is if they plan to use the Alpha for two different car they need to make them different in more than size and price. Doing different engines that are not based on the same engine will help make a larger difference. The Base engine in the CTS in a ATS is a good place to start. Offer the V8 in the CTSV and then make it more common in the LTS as the next step up. You have to lead these people to spend more money. Also if the VF replacement ends up on the Alpha and the new SS comes with a V8 at a lower price than the ATSv what do you do then? There is just a lot to consider than trashing just a bunch of assumed numbers. The key to Cadillac is to give each model the ATS, CTS and LTS their own personality and Soul. You want them to appeal to many different people for differ reasons. The STS failed as it was just a larger and more expensive CTS. It has little appeal over the CTS that did it all and better in a smaller package. That does not mean a larger car can not be successful but it has to have its own set of details that makes it appealing in its own right. When it comes to these classes the details matter and the price gives you more room to be creative do you damn well better take advantage of it. It is more difficult to build a Chevy as you have limitations vs. a Cadillac as price gives you more options and paths to choose. Owning a Chevy is all about how much can I get for what I can afford. Owning a Cadillac needs to be what it can do for me in comfort, performance and image. The latter is the most important as seldom so people buy a BMW or Benz for economy. At least not here in the states.

Why do you use the same models with a different engine? XF NA XF SC? A4 NA S4 SC? Focus and Focus ST. We are talking about a different cars and different sizes and different weights in the ATS and CTS should they get different options to make the two models less alike? You are already taking a car built on the same platform and trying to convince it is different what better way than to offer a performance model with a different engine. How do you get some one to buy the heavier and more expensive CTSV you offer a V8. The key to marketing is to offer appealing but different packages to different models. Since Cadillac has nothing as for its own engine it take some extra effort to set their models apart. I also wish you would be more factual on the turbo engines. Yes there is some lag but it is pretty much a non factor anymore. It is nothing like the GN days, Also you seldom speak of the flat torque curve that even the LT1 is still not as wide or flat. Finally GM also can sell tune kits to bump up power easily with any of these engines. There was a report the other day they are at work with new kits for the 2.0 cars that will push them over 300 HP and torque already on the Solstice kit was 340 FT LBS so it will be interesting to where they will set the new kits. I expect the 3.6 TT will see a similar kit. GM made a lot of money on the first 2.0 kit. Also hold back the V8 for the ATS till later and add it as a special edition as the car ages to keep the car appealing longer as vs. just adding a flat paint job as they are doing today. . If you want to insist that a 450 hp NA V8 and a 556~600 hp Supercharged V8 will be viewed as a similar engine, I cannot dissuade you from that opinion. But, nobody out there sees it that way. An NA V8 in one car and an SC V8 in another as big of a separation as a Bi-turbo V6 and a SC V8. There is no positioning issue whatsoever. As far as turbolag is concerned, it is ALWAYS there the only question is one of magnitude. And the high the specific output you demand out of a turbo-ed engine the worse the problem gets. But, even a 3.0L bi-turbo with a "mere" 300 hp and a torque peak at 1200 rpm like the BMW 335i engine is laggy compared to naturally aspirated engine. The point here is that there is very little technical reasons to prefer a 3.6 Bi-turbo over a Pushrod 6.2 V8. It costs more, it makes similar or less power. It is no more fuel efficient. It is heavier. It takes up more underhood space. It has more things to leak and/or break. And, in the eyes of most of the existing Cadillac customers it is a downgrade in terms of desirability. In the eyes of would be customers, it is really a toss up. About the ONLY thing it has going for it is a lower displacement tax in countries that have them. But, the typical clientele for cars like the M3, C63, RS4 or Cadillac-Vs do not really care about that. If they do, they'll be buying the lesser renditions of the same model -- perhaps one overloaded with luxury bits -- rather than the monster sedan edition, I suspect as normal when the cars come to market GM will show again they have other major considerations in the project and will not agree with you findings just based on assumed numbers. Won't be the first time.