bcs296

It's decent -- about as fast as a 4000lb car can be with 300hp, FWD, and a 4speed auto.

I'm surprised my dad hasn't chimed in here... Our family is currently is on our third Seville. First was a 96 SLS - owned from 25k till around 90k. Only repair if I remember correctly was an alternator. Car was very reliable, smooth and rock solid on the highway, and got great gas mileage. Second was a 97 STS - owned from 85k (?) till almost 140k. Daily driven, also rock solid and FAST. My favorite of the Seville model's lifetime, really. Lighter than the 98+ models and had the higher compression (pre-2000) Northstar. Needed struts when we got rid of it but other than that, needed absolutely nothing besides routine maintenance and a thorough tune up at 100k. Third and current is a 2002 STS - acquired with ~50k, currently around 80k. Unfortunately the car was damaged while being trailered to NH and the place that repaired it trashed the interior. Issues: navigation system was replaced a couple of times under warranty, works great now (irrelevant if you are looking at cars w/out nav); intermediate steering shaft was replaced - relatively inexpensive repair and I believe the replacement part is a newer, better engineered piece; steering wheel shimmy on the highway which is currently suspected to be the result of one or more bent wheels. Besides the nav and intermediate steering shaft, any issues with this car have just been the results of bad luck. Still a very nice car to drive with many nice features, especially with the premium package. Definitely check out CadillacForums. You should find that the powertrain in these cars is solid as long as the cooling system is well maintained. Struts after 100k are the big repair as far as suspension goes, but my Audi makes the Seville look like a Honda/Toyota when it comes to suspension repairs.

4,000 lbs? Mid-size V6 sedan? Sheesh. Pig. Sexy pig, but still... pig. Peformance and fuel economy will not be what they could be. A Lexus ES is under 3,600. 4,000 lbs? Where does it come from? What could this thing possibly have that requires 500 extra pounds? Some things never change at GM. Flame away.

Bingo! Yahtzee! (You'd have to see "Bruce Almighty" to get it.)

Um, we are talking about GM's 2009 models. Camry and Jetta, '04? 5 years ago. Accord, '02? 7 years ago. Even the Mazda 6 at '05 - 4 years ago. 4, 5, 6, 7 years ago... That's a long time ago and a hell of a lot of cars sold during those years. Spin it however you want, GM has been lagging badly in this area. *waiting patiently for the Silverado 6.2/6speed vs Tundra 5.7/6 speed comparisons*

No rear armrest/dual zone climate control is really a crime. I can understand no Bluetooth and MAYBE no real navigation system, but not having such simple things like a fold down armrest and dual zone HVAC is a bit ridiculous. Also a stupid move on GM's part.

Interesting. Awesome car.

Keep spewing the bull$h!, Edmunds. A 4x4 Tahoe with the 5.3 gets 14/19 which, according to preschool math, is better than 14/18. Nice try though. This article just enforces how badly the GM twins need a real transmission rather than a 25 year old 4L60. Fuel economy, acceleration, and towing would all improve.

Did anyone else see it? There is a Tundra parked on the side of the road. A guy driving a Silverado pulls up and asks the owner if he needs a ride. Now, for a split second I was expecting and hoping that the reason for the Tundra being on the side of the road was a snapped camshaft. While it was disappointing that this was not the case, it was also AWESOME that the reason was the Tundra RAN OUT OF GAS. The commercial then went on to illustrate the same regarding the Ford F-150. FINALLY. This is the kind of advertising GM needs. Tell people why GM's trucks are better than Toyota's.

Yes - most of you, with the exception of two comedians. The jokes just keep coming. Thanks for initiating a dialog that added absolutely nothing to this thread. My point (which apparently offended some people) was made so I will leave this thread now and read about the CTS-V. That is, of course, assuming I can actually navigate to that page.

muster mus - ter –verb (used with object) 1. to assemble Now, I suppose I could have used a word with a similar meaning such as accumulate, agglomerate, amass, bring together, bunch, bunch up, call, call together, capture, collect, come together, convene, convoke, corral, flock, gang up, gather, group, hang around, hang out, huddle, lump, meet, meet up, mobilize, muster, poke, punch, rally, reunite, round up, scare up, summon, unite, or in this context, the most literal term grow but I didn't. Thanks for playing though. Why don't you take your funny act on the road, earn some money, and donate it to the site? Oh, BTW - an IP ban would have little success, trust me.

Yeah, yeah. I pay a whole $0.00 to use this place. Great. I also pay a whole $0.00 to actively post on 10, 20, 30 other web forums. Honestly, if a few bucks would fix this bull$h! I would gladly contribute but I seriously doubt that it would. I was more polite the last TWO times I complained about this, the first time being a solid year ago. A YEAR AGO. The past two times I got the same runaround too. I suppose if I piss off the right people enough I will just be banned or something which will be followed by me crying in a corner for 2 days straight and then re-registering. To hell with post counts. Or maybe, something will actually be done to remedy the problem. Or maybe, nothing at all will happen.

How long have web forums been around? How many exist SUCCESSFULLY today? MILLIONS. DOES ANYONE HERE KNOW HOW TO RUN THIS PLACE? It's not like Cheers and Gears is some insanely popular place that deals with an overwhelming amount of traffic. Get your $h! together. Muster up some testicles and tell the hosting company to f@#k themselves. DO SOMETHING.

GM obviously has done a lot of things right with this car to beat out MB and Lexus, especially in an edmunds comparison. Performance numbers are disappointing. Car and Driver managed to run a DI 6 speed manual CTS to 60 in 5.8 seconds. I'd like know where the half second difference comes from.

WHY IS THIS STILL HAPPENING?

BINGO.

I don't even know what to think. For a long time now, I have been criticizing GM for not having enough DOHC engines but I was focused on their car and small vehicle lines. I have always thought that the LS based pushrods have been great engines and do a great job in the full size trucks. They are simple, powerful, and efficient. I can't even imagine how they are going to fit a 6.2 DOHC AFM engine in the engine bays of the next gen trucks. The typical argument that comes up when talking about DOHC and OHV is the massive physical size of DOHC engines. The perfect example is the 6.0L LS2 fitting in the CTS engine bay but not the 4.6 Northstar. I guess I just don't see the need to spend so much time and money developing such a ridiculously complex engine when it's not needed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. GM has so many great pushrod V8s right now that have tons of potential. They already have two pushrod V8s in that ~400hp territory. Why reinvent it rather than improve it? They already know how to implement AFM for a OHV engine. Would it be that hard to engineer Direct Injection into the OHV engines that it would be better to just design an entirely new DOHC engine? I don't see it.

You're an idiot. Go home.

See what happens, UAW.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8RP90EO1.htm Union defers health care takeover talks By TOM KRISHER and DEE-ANN DURBIN DETROIT United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger has decided to temporarily shelve talk with General Motors Corp. about the union taking over retiree health care, but the issue remains part of the bargaining, a person briefed on the talks said Thursday. The person, who asked not to be identified by name because the talks are private, said Gettelfinger rejected GM's latest retiree health care proposal on Tuesday night and wanted to move to other issues. GM, the lead company in talks with the union, wants to pay the UAW to set up a trust that would fund future retiree health care costs. But since the company and union are so far apart on how much GM would pay, Gettelfinger wanted to talk about other issues, the person said. "It's not off the table. It's just kind of being put off to the side for a while," the person said. Now under discussion is a second offer from GM that doesn't include the trust but has larger cost cuts, including a drop in hourly wages, increased health care contributions, fewer guarantees of new work at U.S. factories, reduced vacation time and other items. GM, as well as Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, are trying to cut what they say is about a $25 per hour labor cost gap with their Japanese competitors. Industry analysts say the costs must be reduced for the U.S. companies to survive. The company and union are billions of dollars apart on how much GM would pay into the trust, the person briefed on the talks said. GM has about $51 billion in unfunded retiree health care liabilities, and analysts have said it wants to pay the union about 65 percent of the cost to form the trust, called a Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association, or VEBA. GM spokesman Tom Wickham would not comment on the VEBA developments. UAW spokesman Roger Kerson declined to comment. On Thursday morning, a local union leader who also had been briefed on the talks said the VEBA was discussed by UAW bargainers on Wednesday. "The VEBA's on the table. They're looking at the numbers right now," said the official, who also requested anonymity because the talks are private. After breaking about 9 p.m. Wednesday night, talks resumed Thursday morning, Wickham said. The union's contract with GM has been extended hour by hour since Friday. With both sides far apart on the trust, the talks likely will take several more days to complete, the person briefed on the talks said. If the VEBA goes through with all three automakers, the UAW would become one of the nation's largest consumers of health care. In exchange for taking on the trust, the UAW wants promises that GM will continue building cars at union-represented plants. If GM and the union agree on the VEBA, then Ford and Chrysler are likely to ask for a similar arrangement for their retiree health costs. The VEBAs would let the companies remove the huge health care liabilities from their books and possibly raise their stock prices and credit ratings. In a recent note to investors, Morgan Stanley analyst Jonathan Steinmetz predicted that VEBAs would save the Detroit automakers $200 per vehicle. Analysts say companies across the country may copy the model if it works. But rapidly rising health care costs may be giving the union pause. Most economists think those costs will rise 6 percent to 8 percent annually "for as far as the eye can see," said Glenn Melnick, a health care finance professor at the University of Southern California and an economist for Rand Corp. The stock market has risen around 10 percent to 12 percent per year since 1934, said Kevin Tynan, senior automotive analyst for Argus Research Corp., so the union's investments should be able to meet or exceed health care costs. But market volatility, plus GM's desire to pay far less than its entire obligation, will make it difficult on the union, Tynan said. "It's a tall order," he said, adding that the UAW probably will go for less-risky investments that won't bring the annual return needed to cover the inflation. GM has underestimated its health care cost inflation by about 1 percentage point every year for the last six years, and the UAW knows that, said Sean McAlinden, chief economist at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor. He said the union will get enough money to protect the fund. Union-managed health care trusts have worked in other industries. The United Steel Workers union has had about 40 such trusts work for several years, and many were funded at far lower rates than GM is willing to contribute. Typically those trusts, formed from the remnants of Bethlehem Steel and other companies, are run as independent insurance companies with their own governing boards, said USW spokesman Wayne Ranick. Many were formed in crisis situations where companies were in bankruptcy protection. If investments don't return more than health care inflation, the boards generally raise money either with increased costs for the retirees or with contributions from active workers, Ranick said. But the trusts don't always work. Larry Solomon, who worked at Caterpillar Inc. and was president of UAW Local 751 from 1987 through 1996, said the company's VEBA ran out of money in October 2004. If the UAW were to take on the costs for all three companies, it would have to cover roughly 540,000 retirees and surviving spouses. That would make it one of the largest health care consumers in the country, said Frank McArdle of Hewitt Associates, a human resources consulting company. The federal government was providing health coverage to around 2.4 million civilian retirees in 2005, according to the National Association of Retired Federal Employees. The nation's largest public pension fund, the California Public Employees' Retirement System, provides health care and pension benefits to 455,200 retirees. The large numbers would give the UAW leverage to pressure health care providers to cut costs. It also gives the union employees incentive to shop for care at lower prices and manage their health better, Melnick said. "It just puts the incentives in the right place," he said. "A lot of economists feel that's the only solution to slowing down this juggernaut."

Is this the AFM 5.3? I want to know what the official numbers are for gas mileage. Considering a full size, 4x4 Silverado can get 16/20 with the 5.3, I'd like to see what a smaller, lighter truck could get with the same engine. It's not like the I5 gets great mileage in 4x4 configuration.

YEAH! Great job, GM.

2010 is 2-3 years away. I think Toyota will do whatever it takes to adapt technology similar to E-Flex to the Prius by 2010. And I think it's going to be a close race.

Awesome. That front end shot looks BAD ASS, btw.

Fair enough.