surreal1272

$80k or $300k, it doesn't matter. It's still pure trolling and pointless to bring up a car that cost $1.4 million. Cadillac will move up just fine without having to rely on the sales of a few dozen $300k cars. And much like the overpriced Ferrari, 99.99999% of the people in the world willl simply now care because only sheiks will be driving them. Congrats.

And these cars you mention @smk4565 better be faster than a Vette, being that they cost three to ten times the money. DUH! $1.4 million LaFerrari. You have to be kidding me even bringing that up.

Really? That's, one, a matter of opinion and both them are slowly moving away from those motors in the future and, two, see ccap41's post about Mercedes own issue by going V12 on cars that can't handle the motor. Third, who gives two $h!s if those two are using them? GM is clearly not going for that market nor do they need to. A V6 in a Vette? Sorry but I just can't take that seriously in any way, shape or form SMK. That is beyond ignorant to say when you are also say that they need a V12 Cadillac (which they don't never mind the fact that where in the world would they get one since they have never even developed one).

Oh I know and it was meant as a rhetorical statement because there is absolutely no need for a 12 cylinder at all. That's just for people who want to wave their money dicks around with nothing to really show for it.

Here's the bigger question you should be asking. Why on earth does it need 12 cylinders?

Maybe you missed the part where he stated "3.6" in that TT remark. Last time I checked, Ford did not make a 3.6L TT, hence him (again) referring to only a GM motor.

Actually he was comparing one GM motor to another GM motor and you took it upon yourself to interject Ford motors into this when it wasn't a part of his initial comparison.

The majority in the Phoniex metro areas are already riding in Tahoe and Explorers.

That's good. It's also good that Ford is offering a similar deal on their best selling truck. http://247wallst.com/autos/2016/12/19/ford-offers-8000-off-flagship-f-150-pickup/

So while bemoaning the profits overall, you still offer excuses for your company doing the very thing you bemoaned? My focus is not lost at all here but yours seems to be tiptoeing all over the map. I'll just leave it that.

Funny. I never see you mention these types of things when Ford's quarterly profit reports come in, escpacially when then they were making record profits last year. It sure made the stockholders happy, is all I know. In fact, those profits were highly touted not even eight months ago by one stockholder.

For once, we are in agreement.

Truth? I call that excuses but whatever floats your double standard boat.

Yet you single out the GM product as your sole example so I provided a balanced counter.

Everything you just said about GM, can easily be applied to Ford as well, especially the Mustang. Plenty of 5% gain models for 10% more of the cost on that side of the fence as well.

Funny, because not even a year ago, some fans were touting Ford's record profits, which were mostly a direct result of higher ATPs on their breads and butter models. Guess when the shoe is on the other foot though...

Again I understand what you're saying and I know a lot of the times, the "new tech" is just not familiar enough to some folks but it's still presumptuous to say that's what's going with the affected people now. There are these known as "defects" that could be the problem more than driver error, is what I'm saying.

Have you actually talked to any of these owners having these problems? Seems rather presumptuous to assume their issues if you haven't. Now, if it is because of basic ignorance, then yes these people are hopeless but if you don't know for certain than that is a whole other ballgame. For the record, I think you may be right but since I haven't spoken to any of the affected drivers, I'll reserve judgement for now.

Seeing as how Ford kept their inventories relatively low due to higher than industry average incentives and 30% fleet for the first nine months of the year, it perfectly appropriate to compare the two.

GM has a total of nine CUVs and three full size SUVs. You are right about Cadillac needing a couple more but to say GM is slow to adjust to customer demand is just silly. They have more CUVs than Ford currently.

Well duh Stew but this is now and they are working on it, much how FCA has been "working on" replacing the aging LX lineup for what seems like decades. And again, of course there will be blowback and of course certain media outlets have to make a bigger deal out of this than it is but it is going to happen regardless, for the benefit of the consumer, which is supposed to be the ultimate goal anyway.

Of course there wil be some push back but its going to happen whether the weak dealerships like it or not. It also doesn't change my original point.

You do know that Cadillac is addressing that very issue with their dealerships right? They are pairing (closing) the smaller market dealerships down and updating and renovating the rest. This has been well addressed here before.

Yeah, they should have moved thirty percent of their inventory to fleet like Ford did the first nine months of the year. Oh wait, Ford had to stop production on the F-150 and Mustang for a short time too not even two months ago. GM will be fine.

That does not take away from my original statement about FCA. For the record though, I do not disagree with the GM issues but it is easier to prove their losses are a result of the CUV craze than it is about the product itself. That is the difference between what is going on at GM and what is going on at FCA. The LX platform is two decades old and is in dire need of a shot in the arm but FCA seems content to hang it out to dry while making a bunch of empty promises about such.