surreal1272

Been telling him this for months but he willfully ignores this everytime, hence his continued path towards trolling ignorance.

Go ahead. Compare a Buick to a Mercedes one more time. Oh and it most certainly IS an entry level car, hence being placed in the entry level position once occupied by the C-Class. Got to get that Buick buyer somehow right?

One day you will understand how ignorant your post truly was. BTW, this was bean counting, as well going after the bottom feeder market. mercedes-benz-cla-breakthroughs-large-10.jpg WOW If that does not show MB has joined the rank n file of the Ford, Dodge, Toyota and Chevy buyers, I have no Idea what does. Clearly MB is NOT the Luxury Auto Maker any longer but a mass market machine living off their legacy of past desire to be different than everyone else. Now they are just a Mass Produced Jelly Bean Company of Auto's. Yeah, since they don't make full size V12 luxury sedans, coupes, or luxury convertibles, such as these. So what? That is what is expected of Benz, not putting out sub-$30K cars to the "wannabe" crowd.

One day you will understand how ignorant your post truly was. BTW, this was bean counting, as well going after the bottom feeder market.

So what we get from Sauve here is GM can't to anything to make their product better and if they try then it will just suck anyway versus the competition. Also, how dare MT focus on the biggest carmaker in the world to see what plans they have for weight savings. They obviously should have talked about what everyone was doing so that's it's fair for everyone else. How dare them. </sarcasm>. Funny how I don't seem to recall this level of bitching when MT dedicated multiple articles to Fords aluminum process even they are not the only ones to have used aluminum.

Because 99.99999% of new car buyers want a CUV. Except for Mercedes buyers right? Or else that just makes it yet another silly number you just pulled out of thin air.

So it's, once again, your opinion that it is an opinion piece. Thanks for confirming that and a few other things.

So what Suave? It does not diminish what GM is trying to do anymore than it does Ford with their aluminum strategy. Don't know why you have to get so bent out of shape over this. Just because you feel that way doesn't make it so yet you continue to pass yourself off as the be all end all in these types of discussions.

It is not comparable when you only tell part of the story, the very same thing you criticized MT for here.

That's the problem with assumptions. It wasn't Reg. I did it because I felt it was way off base in places.

Funny how you cherry picked the heavier model of the CT6 when it starts at 3647lbs while the XJ starts at 3891lbs. Just keeping things in perspective while you wander off in that post of yours.

Most of those comments came from one particular troll named "Cali". At least half were by that imbecile. BTW, what in the world are you babbling about?

Interesting how you only focus on the 500+ HP rather than admit that MB will also produce some best effort at that cause their basic engine will start at 75kW or 101HP which is half of what the Chevy BOLT will be which is 150kW or 200HP. It's the tasty Mercedes Benz Kool Aid that does it.

It's Mercedes. The naming problems of others do not apply to them. They were the first to create a one letter car and are above all criticisms of such things. They haven't even named it yet, or said exactly what these will be. One can speculate they are going right after Tesla though. Maybe they will make the E-wagen. Perhaps an E-wing with gullwing doors.The good thing about Mercedes is huge R&D budget and they aren't constrained as to what they can build or how many models they can have. A lot of the cars share drive trains and they only have like 4 platforms (not counting G-wagen) that they build a lot of variants off of. While the other guys talk about it, or show concept cars, Mercedes builds dream cars. And yet again, you don't get it. That breeze you felt over your head was the joke that flew by it. Of course, maybe it wasn't really a joke. Btw, do you want me to repost those pictures of those "dream cars" Mercedes didn't build because they are no damn different from any other automaker in that regard? Good grief. You must love Kool Aid.

It's Mercedes. The naming problems of others do not apply to them. They were the first to create a one letter car and are above all criticisms of such things.

So the more than $100K BMW i8 is a "sub brand"? Whatever you say.

Unrelated and zero correlation except in that fanboy mind of yours. The long term plan was to make the CTS closer to the STS size, hence one of the reasons why the STS was scratched.And why you left out the 640HP CTS-V (while including the 469 HP from the STS-V) I have not a clue except to prove that you love cherry picking. Oh and let's not forget one key thing here. They are two completely different platforms. Why is this blatant kind of misinformation allowed here?

I normally don't say this but you have to be the blindest fanboy in the world or a special kind of retarded to think the current CTS resembles the STS in any way other than length. "Carbon copy"?? You cannot be serious here. Now show me the STS with a 640 HP V8. Don't worry. I'll wait. Good grief fanboy. Stop. Just stop.

No one is buying their sedans, and they only have 1 crossover. I would say that the ATS and CTS are competitive, but the BMW and Mercedes counterparts are better the Audi A6 is always gets strong reviews, the Infiniti Q50 is better than an ATS at qual money. I hate Lexus styling, and the dated engines, Cadillac is probably making a better vehicle than the IS or GS or ES trio of sedans, but Lexus does a better job of branding and marketing. Cadillac builds a better product than Lincoln and Acura for sure, better than the Infiniti Q70. Overall that puts Cadillac middle of the pack I'd say. Riiiight. The Q50 is better. Riiiiiiight. That recycled G is not equal, much less better than, a comparably equipped ATS. In fact, in just about every review involving the two, the ATS comes out ahead.

Again, this ^^. Could not have said it better myself. Sales have jack squat to do with how good a car is. Perceptions kill sales faster than how good or bad a car actually is.

^^THIS!!^^

Yes he is a GM fan. However, he has also been very upfront about their shortcomings so I maintain my stance on this. I do agree with you about the passenger perspective. Most don't care or just won't say anything but I've met a few over the years that were silly enough to say things like that. My response has always been "so, how long will it take you walk there?"

i think the rear seat hurts the sales with traditional Cadillac base. You still have a lot of those people you need to sell to. Those who grew up believing luxury meant a basic minimum amount of comfort / space. I hear people take pot shots at how small the ATS is when i go to the auto shows. We all tried to hide how much the rear seat problem hurt the outgoing Malibu and now look at the awesome press its getting for correcting a primary flaw.. interior SAE measurements always mislead. The ATS is plagued by many of the same typical GM rear seat packaging problems where the front seat is too low, the hardware is intrusive, and the floorpan (probably due to where the bracing is) has pitifully small actual footwell areas. Couple that with narrower greenhouses, fighter plane diving rooflines, ridiculously small and narrow door openings, and tank humps that stick out forward of the actual seat itself, even for the smaller, wedging yourself into an ATS backseat requires gymnastics training and inspires claustrophobia that an MRI tube could match. The ATS is the classe of car that one buys and has to show off to coworkers.....where you bring coworkers to lunch here and again. You're going to have the occasional 6 footer back there. I can't believe the high level execs at GM let that pass and go to production.....grounds for firing IMO when they should have demanded all of that be reengineered for more space. GM can't punt on these packaging issues very much more. If anything it shows piss poor engineering, can't meet structural demands and preserve ample space at the same time. They make a sturdy frame for the car to ring the 'Ring......but then its so overbuilt and bulky that there's no back seat space to indulge co workers in a chauffeur drive. I AGREE TO THIS REG 100% These quotes here is what MANY GM die hards will ignore and/or cover up and make excuses for: For the last quote, Casa has a solution....he gives no phoques for what others think of the back seat area and they could all walk home for all he cares.... To me...that is just trying to save face as he knows Cadillac flubbed the ATS in that area. The ATS is still a 4 door sedan, meant to carry....passengers. I was ALWAYS hard on the Bimmer 3 Series and the Audi A4 for them being claustrophobic compacts selling at such high prices because sheep bought them....I aint about to go soft just because Cadillac copy and pasted that formula for the ATS... For the Malibu it was worse, because the Malibu is a FAMILY hauler with not much family space hauling aspects.... Sorry but I said the same thing to folks if they wanted to be that way and my car never had any complaints (from any publication) about the back seat (and that was my '06 Magnum). It's rather presumptuous for you to assume why Casa said that and is, quite frankly, quite ignorant as well. Not everyone follows along the line of thinking you are suggesting here so maybe you should actually ASK Casa why he really feels that way instead of assuming just because of your own personal bias towards the situation.

It is European in design, as has already been pointed out here and the interior does not resemble anything from Korea. Perhaps a Benz emblem on the front would change your opinion.

So what's your opinion on the problem factors plaguing the Audi A4?Is it marketing / image problems there also? It was in the final year of it's model cycle last year. They sold 34,000 of them in 2014 and 37,000 of them in 2013. When it was fresher it sold better, but that car was under powered the past few years, the base car now has a 252 hp turbo. Better interior and more power always help. I think Audi reliability issues hurt that car also, and Audi styling looks a bit too like a VW and hasn't changed much recently, I think it is a bit boring. I didn't include the A5, but they sell about 15,000 of those per year, which is about what the Lexus RC sells. If you tack 15,000 units to the A5 and IS for their coupe counterparts, their numbers look pretty good. I think A4 loses sales to A3 also, because they are more similar than a CLA and C-class are for example. So the A4 is going through a similar pattern as the ATS, seeing as how the ATS is going on four years old? Interesting.