Rumorpile: Cadillac's Three-Row Crossover Is A Go

Interesting to see the people vent about how GM is screwing up Caddy with this CUV. I think people need to wait and see what GM brings to the table as lately they have done very well and have learned that a re-badge is a failure. I think the CUV will be very different than anything else they have ever done on this same platform.

Lambda was designed from the start to be so much more than what it is today. I was supposed to spawn mini-vans, and a sedan version of it was supposed to replace the DTS and Lucerne. There is hidden flexibility in this chassis that we simply haven't seen yet.... don't expect it to be an Acadia Denali with the badges scraped off.

any powertrain surprises in there for the 'standard of the world'?

The path to Cadillac's success is to convert as many Chevys into Cadillac's as possible. This strategy has worked very well with Lincoln and Acura.

I'd like to see the second row floor get more legroom, kneeroom and footspace. And perhaps a much improved seat moving mechanism. The floor is too high in this rig. They could drop the floor pan 2-3 inches no problem.

I think this is a good idea and will be more practical for a lot of people than an Escalade. I have faith in GM that it won't be a simple badge job.

I'd like to see the second row floor get more legroom, kneeroom and footspace. And perhaps a much improved seat moving mechanism. The floor is too high in this rig. They could drop the floor pan 2-3 inches no problem.

I have to disagree, if you drop it that much you have a station wagon at car ride height. CUV's should ride higher than cars.

they would be able to and still keep plenty of ground clearance. the hip point determines more if it is a station wagon or not. My taurus X has a lower hip point and less ground clearance, its a wagon (also why i bought it). traverse etc. has a nice hip point but the second row floor is too high. If GM could ever learn to get the seat mounts out of the way it would help. Even so, 2 inches would not be tough and would make a boatload of diff in comfort.

there's some inefficiency in there. there always is in a GM product. (i.e. see 9 inches of nothing under the hood of the malibu between the engine and the radiator etc. sure would have made good rear seat leg room.

That inefficiency is present in any vehicle on a platform that offers engines with variable number of cylinders. That same inefficiency is there in an Accord or Passat.... it is simply the nature of offering Inline engines and V engines in the same platform.

edit: Even true for BMWs... a Turbo-4 is shorter than an I-6... thus there is "wasted space" under the hood of every 4-cylinder BMW.

You can't just transfer that space to the rear seat passengers... the hardpoints for the engine and transmission and everything else are still there.

Maybe V6 Silverados could get an extra 5 inches in the bed!

My 94 GMC Suburban has wasted space with my 350 bored out 402 in there and yet you put in the 454 and all of a sudden you have tight space and wish for more room to work on the engine.

Maybe on the 4-cylinder ATS, they could use the wasted space on either side of the engine for front seat hip room!

That inefficiency is present in any vehicle on a platform that offers engines with variable number of cylinders. That same inefficiency is there in an Accord or Passat.... it is simply the nature of offering Inline engines and V engines in the same platform.

edit: Even true for BMWs... a Turbo-4 is shorter than an I-6... thus there is "wasted space" under the hood of every 4-cylinder BMW.

You can't just transfer that space to the rear seat passengers... the hardpoints for the engine and transmission and everything else are still there.

sure you can. redesign the platform with proper wheelbase, and an engine bay to contain 4 cylinder engines only. in that case. this is why the malibu has gotten ripped in the press.

The Malibu has many faults, your rear leg room fixation is among them, but relatively minor in comparison to the other faults on the list. Furthermore, if the wheelbase were to be extended, it would be from moving the rear wheels back, not the front wheels forward. I agree with you that the rear seat room is tight on the malibu... but you're not going to get an increase in rear seat room from the engine bay.

The Malibu has many faults, your rear leg room fixation is among them, but relatively minor in comparison to the other faults on the list. Furthermore, if the wheelbase were to be extended, it would be from moving the rear wheels back, not the front wheels forward. I agree with you that the rear seat room is tight on the malibu... but you're not going to get an increase in rear seat room from the engine bay.

The problem is they inexplicably cut the wheelbase by around 5 inches from Epsilon to Epsilon II. Big mistake.

I'd like to see the second row floor get more legroom, kneeroom and footspace. And perhaps a much improved seat moving mechanism. The floor is too high in this rig. They could drop the floor pan 2-3 inches no problem.

I have to disagree, if you drop it that much you have a station wagon at car ride height. CUV's should ride higher than cars.

Or have height adjustable suspension. For on-road good weather driving it's better to have it as low as possible, and to ease ingress/egress..remember, this is a CUV, not an SUV...closer to a minivan in function and purpose.

Oh boy... Let's see what GM can do with Lambda...