surreal1272

Challenger just because of the comfort factor behind the wheel. If it was on just drivability and fun alone, ZL1 by a country mile.

 

 

 

You're missing my bigger point to him. He is trying to overemphasize these niche low volume brands to convince people that it leads to more sales on lower end cars and CUVs. I provided a link showing the top luxury sellers and half of those have none of the halo type vehicles that he thinks is so important to one's success. Lexus has been succeeding for decades without one. Acura as well (although they have their halo NSX back). It's a fallacy argument when you see that one fact alone. That has been my one and only point here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not really.. That's why people have flagship vehicles(and high profit margins ). The best of the best hit the advertising campaign while the cheaper and smaller get the majority of the sales. You can be successful without the top tier vehicles but I can't see how it would hamper sales in any way having MORE vehicles to choose from and of the best if not THE best in their respective categories. I have NO CLUE actual profit numbers for BMW and MB but I have to believe they are leading the way over any other luxury automaker(we can throw Audi in there as well even though it's to a lesser extent) so their philosophy must be right some how. 

 

Also, I never saw a link.. maybe I'm blind lol

 

 

 

Come on man. You are killing me here. Read what I am saying. He is saying that the only way to succeed as a luxury make is to put out low volume niche cars to draw customers in. I am saying that is not the only way. See how Lexus has done it without a big halo car (not counting the two years of the LF-A because Lexus was succeeding before that) and enjoy brisk sales year after year. From the get go, he has been trying to say that Cadillac needs to slap a V8 in every damn thing (including a FWD XT5) they make while his own favorite brand doesn't even do that. Just trird of his cherry picking and I called him out on it.

 

I guess I just didn't think he was saying the ONLY way to succeed was to make the V/AMG/M variants but just a more complete lineup overall. But I will agree that they will HELP draw in and cause either internet traffic or foot traffic and that's always a plus. The more people look the more people will buy.. 

 

I definitely agree it is not THE only way but I think it is a good way as they are also high markup vehicles therefor the ones that do sell, even in very small overall numbers, will help out the company. 

 

Lexus is kind of the only example of a really successful luxury brand that isn't badge jobs(Lincon/Acura) and still makes sporty offerings. I don't know sales at all other than the super inaccurate "eye test" but MB and BMW out sell Lexus handily. That's super inaccurate though so take that with a grain of salt. 

 

I definitely see what you're talking about though but I also see the point of those vehicles as well...

 

I never, not once, said that having these types of cars was a bad thing but the need for them was very much overstated by SMK as way to dilute what Cadillac is or is not doing. I merely presented a counter argument (with proof) to that assumption.

The best selling luxury crossover is a tall Camry wagon with NO performance halo version. 

EXACTLY my point Drew.

I do not like the front end at all. Liked the old one better. On top of no real changes on the outside (save for the nose), I'm a little disappointed with this. Maybe the interior will change my opinion but, again, kind of let down by how boring it looks. Now, I understand this is a refresh but this needed far more than a refresh at this point, with a new Spark (which actually looks better than this now) and a new Cruze hitting the roads now. 

 

 

I think it is more for a prestige thing than actually needing those vehicles. They are for MB to say they compete with anything and EVERYTHING from any automaker out there and they will build the fastest of them all(and they pretty much do). Only BMW or Audi can even compete with their lineup. Then they throw AMGs out in pretty much everything except their work vans! Actually, now that they have a GLC63 on its way I think that is an AMG motor in everything. 

 

Who the hell needs to compete with niche vehicles like the C63 and X5 M? Seriously? Why worry about the 0.5% volume? I love how you have to continually try to compare anything Cadillac does to the most expensive examples from the German competition, when that is just a fallacy argument.

 

 

 

 

You're missing my bigger point to him. He is trying to overemphasize these niche low volume brands to convince people that it leads to more sales on lower end cars and CUVs. I provided a link showing the top luxury sellers and half of those have none of the halo type vehicles that he thinks is so important to one's success. Lexus has been succeeding for decades without one. Acura as well (although they have their halo NSX back). It's a fallacy argument when you see that one fact alone. That has been my one and only point here.

 

 

Not really.. That's why people have flagship vehicles(and high profit margins ). The best of the best hit the advertising campaign while the cheaper and smaller get the majority of the sales. You can be successful without the top tier vehicles but I can't see how it would hamper sales in any way having MORE vehicles to choose from and of the best if not THE best in their respective categories. I have NO CLUE actual profit numbers for BMW and MB but I have to believe they are leading the way over any other luxury automaker(we can throw Audi in there as well even though it's to a lesser extent) so their philosophy must be right some how. 

 

Also, I never saw a link.. maybe I'm blind lol

 

 

 

Come on man. You are killing me here. Read what I am saying. He is saying that the only way to succeed as a luxury make is to put out low volume niche cars to draw customers in. I am saying that is not the only way. See how Lexus has done it without a big halo car (not counting the two years of the LF-A because Lexus was succeeding before that) and enjoy brisk sales year after year. From the get go, he has been trying to say that Cadillac needs to slap a V8 in every damn thing (including a FWD XT5) they make while his own favorite brand doesn't even do that. Just trird of his cherry picking and I called him out on it.

Maybe on the coupe it was 27%, but no way nearly 1 out of 3 of 2nd Gen CTS on the road are V-series

 

But if it was 27%, then look at all the market Cadillac is missing by not having performance crossovers.  27% of SRX sales would be about 25,000 cars a year.  

Again. Look at the link I posted. Several those cars at the top are from companies with little to no representation in the halo car world. Point being, companies like Lexus have succeeded despite your assumption that luxury makes need these super expensive and low volume cars (their brief experiment with the LF-A aside). There is not one right formula and that is what you cannot seem to get through your head.

 

 

Will there be an LT4 V8 in the XT5 to compete with the GLE63 and X5 M?   I'd guess no V8 fits in he C1xx platform, maybe they can get the XTS V-sport engine in there, that is as good as it gets, and you still have FWD handling and FWD weight bias.

 

You have a Grand Cherokee SRT with 475 hp, Levante with 424 hp, Range Rover SVR with 550 hp, GLE63 with 577 hp, X5 M with 560 hp, Cayenne Turbo S with 570 hp, Jaguar F-pace only has 380 hp, but you know they'll drop a V8 in there eventually.  There is a wave of performance crossovers out there, probably more coming.  Cadillac isn't in this arena, they are basically a Lexus-Lincoln fighter in the $40-50k range.

Who the hell needs to compete with niche vehicles like the C63 and X5 M? Seriously? Why worry about the 0.5% volume? I love how you have to continually try to compare anything Cadillac does to the most expensive examples from the German competition, when that is just a fallacy argument.

 

I think it is more for a prestige thing than actually needing those vehicles. They are for MB to say they compete with anything and EVERYTHING from any automaker out there and they will build the fastest of them all(and they pretty much do). Only BMW or Audi can even compete with their lineup. Then they throw AMGs out in pretty much everything except their work vans! Actually, now that they have a GLC63 on its way I think that is an AMG motor in everything. 

 

You're missing my bigger point to him. He is trying to overemphasize these niche low volume brands to convince people that it leads to more sales on lower end cars and CUVs. I provided a link showing the top luxury sellers and half of those have none of the halo type vehicles that he thinks is so important to one's success. Lexus has been succeeding for decades without one. Acura as well (although they have their halo NSX back). It's a fallacy argument when you see that one fact alone. That has been my one and only point here.

Funny that GM makes a Corvette Z06, a Camaro ZL1, a CTS-V, Ford makes a GT350, Dodge a Hellcat Charger, and SRT Grand Cherokee, etc.   There must be some reason they do that.  

 

Assume the CTS-V has a 10% take rate, that is 2,000 CTS-V's a year.  That isn't very high volume, yet they build it because they want it for marketing purposes, they want all the magazines to write about it, etc.  I bet if there was an XT5-V they could sell more than 2,000 a year.

 

Mark my words, the performance crossover market will grow, because the high dollar spenders will want the most powerful or fastest thing, just like the high dollar spenders do with sedans and sports cars. 

So just ignore the facts that don't support your argument? Got it. 

 

 

 

Will there be an LT4 V8 in the XT5 to compete with the GLE63 and X5 M?   I'd guess no V8 fits in he C1xx platform, maybe they can get the XTS V-sport engine in there, that is as good as it gets, and you still have FWD handling and FWD weight bias.

 

You have a Grand Cherokee SRT with 475 hp, Levante with 424 hp, Range Rover SVR with 550 hp, GLE63 with 577 hp, X5 M with 560 hp, Cayenne Turbo S with 570 hp, Jaguar F-pace only has 380 hp, but you know they'll drop a V8 in there eventually.  There is a wave of performance crossovers out there, probably more coming.  Cadillac isn't in this arena, they are basically a Lexus-Lincoln fighter in the $40-50k range.

Who the hell needs to compete with niche vehicles like the C63 and X5 M? Seriously? Why worry about the 0.5% volume? I love how you have to continually try to compare anything Cadillac does to the most expensive examples from the German competition, when that is just a fallacy argument.

 

So why is there an ATS-V or CTS-V, those are .5% volume cars.  Seeing as crossovers have over taken sedans in sales, there is not more volume in the crossover market than there is in the sedan market.   Since BMW built their image on the M3 and M5, while Cadillac sold front wheel drive boats, one brand soared and the other sank.  Same thing will happen with crossovers.  The luxury crossovers with the prestige will draw appeal, people will buy the better performing vehicle as well.  

 

 

You have a serious issue confusing correlation and causation.   People will buy the better performing vehicle when there is no cost differential, but any luxury CUV that can get to 60 in under 8 seconds will be fine. 8 seconds is about the time it takes a 1996 Roadmaster Sedan to get to 60 and that is beyond plenty for the typical buyer.  Faster than that and most buyers become unwilling to pay more to go faster.  Yes there is a subset like you who will, but get inside of that 8 second range and people start to become more concerned with MPG than with acceleration. 

 

Cadillac's problems in the 80's had virtually nothing to do with how sporty or not their cars were and everything to do with engine reliability issues. They were selling that 4100 boat anchor that ate intake gaskets, the 350 diesels, and the 8-6-4, but their sales volume was huge so they pissed off a lot more people who went and tried those expensive yet cheap feeling BMWs for the first time.  Had GM not made those powertrain flubs, BMW might still be an obscure Euro brand like Volvo these days. Even for as bad as those Cadillac engines were, and the general slowness of the other GM cars, I still see far more of them from that era rolling around today than Germans of the same age.

 

Those old BMWs, Benzes, and Audis were terrible terrible back then.  They'd handle well (at least the BMW did), but their build quality was extremely sub-par.  There is absolutely nothing "luxury" about a BMW 635 aside from its original price tag.  Take away the handling and the badge and it might as well be an Accord coupe on the inside.  

 

 

 

Even the lowly Toronado had a better built dash with nicer materials  and more advancements than the 6-series.... 

 

Digital dash, automatic temperature control, automatic head lamps, leather wrapped steering wheel with aluminum spokes, no exposed screw heads on the dash, no matte black plastic anywhere....

 

Well said. How quickly some forget how absolutely crappy most German cars were back then when they try to bring up things like appeal and heritage.

My issue with the CT6 was all the fan boys saying that the CT6 V6 would be faster than the German V8s.  I all along said that V6 wasn't enough and the car needed a V8.  But so many still said, no way, because it weighs the same as a CTS it would be fast.  Well the TT V6 is slower than all the German V8s, the S550 is the slowest one.

 

The CT6 is just an odd car anyway, it doesn't really compete with an of the big German sedans, it is priced more like an E-class but is a foot longer.  Maybe it is better compared to an E-class.

 

As far as the Benz transmission goes, you use all 7 gears in the standard setting, only if you use comfort does it skip first gear, and not when under full throttle.  They have 2 reverse gears because they are engineered unlike any other car.  What if you wanted to go 55 mph in reverse?  Mercedes engineers their cars beyond the limits of normal driving.

How many times does Drew have to tell you what the deal is here? Good grief man. You sound like a broken record. Sorry, but I would not hang my hat on an overpriced V8 that beats a cheaper V6 by .1 of a second. It is simply asinine to keep hanging your head on that.

Speaking of engineering beyond one's limits, are you referring to one of the many issues that can pop up here (with special attention being made to number 6)?

http://www.mercedesmedic.com/mercedes-transmission-problems-limp-mode-no-shifting-troubleshooting-tips/

 

 

Will there be an LT4 V8 in the XT5 to compete with the GLE63 and X5 M?   I'd guess no V8 fits in he C1xx platform, maybe they can get the XTS V-sport engine in there, that is as good as it gets, and you still have FWD handling and FWD weight bias.

 

You have a Grand Cherokee SRT with 475 hp, Levante with 424 hp, Range Rover SVR with 550 hp, GLE63 with 577 hp, X5 M with 560 hp, Cayenne Turbo S with 570 hp, Jaguar F-pace only has 380 hp, but you know they'll drop a V8 in there eventually.  There is a wave of performance crossovers out there, probably more coming.  Cadillac isn't in this arena, they are basically a Lexus-Lincoln fighter in the $40-50k range.

Who the hell needs to compete with niche vehicles like the C63 and X5 M? Seriously? Why worry about the 0.5% volume? I love how you have to continually try to compare anything Cadillac does to the most expensive examples from the German competition, when that is just a fallacy argument.

 

So why is there an ATS-V or CTS-V, those are .5% volume cars.  Seeing as crossovers have over taken sedans in sales, there is not more volume in the crossover market than there is in the sedan market.   Since BMW built their image on the M3 and M5, while Cadillac sold front wheel drive boats, one brand soared and the other sank.  Same thing will happen with crossovers.  The luxury crossovers with the prestige will draw appeal, people will buy the better performing vehicle as well.  

 

The presence of the V series is not the point. The point is that you ALWAYS try to compare whatever Cadillac offers to some low volume, sells 500 a year, Mercedes Benz when the argument does not apply. What exactly are you not getting? This "appeal" nonsense you keep bringing up is all fluff. Let me show you why. Here is a list of the best selling luxury cars in 2014 and 2015. Notice the CUVs on there? Notice number one on that list? They have not ONE halo CUV or SUV (do not try to count the LX because you know that is a joke) that you claim is the big draw for customers. The top three out of six are all CUVs from companies without this big draw you speak of. So, we can only deduce two things out of this. Either it is a fluke as far as these numbers goes, or that you don't know what you are talking about here. It's that simple so stop making baseless and unrelated comparison to fluff up your favorite brand. It's just old man.

Will there be an LT4 V8 in the XT5 to compete with the GLE63 and X5 M?   I'd guess no V8 fits in he C1xx platform, maybe they can get the XTS V-sport engine in there, that is as good as it gets, and you still have FWD handling and FWD weight bias.

 

You have a Grand Cherokee SRT with 475 hp, Levante with 424 hp, Range Rover SVR with 550 hp, GLE63 with 577 hp, X5 M with 560 hp, Cayenne Turbo S with 570 hp, Jaguar F-pace only has 380 hp, but you know they'll drop a V8 in there eventually.  There is a wave of performance crossovers out there, probably more coming.  Cadillac isn't in this arena, they are basically a Lexus-Lincoln fighter in the $40-50k range.

Who the hell needs to compete with niche vehicles like the C63 and X5 M? Seriously? Why worry about the 0.5% volume? I love how you have to continually try to compare anything Cadillac does to the most expensive examples from the German competition, when that is just a fallacy argument.

Ford's Raptor truck will be using the 10 speed also.

True but several Ford fans here claimed that Ford would get the 10 speed years before GM, which turned out to be the opposite of true. Their silence on this has been deafening. 

The ZL1 I am sure will smoke a GT350, but the GT350 I bet will be a lot cheaper.  The GT350 is $48k base, Chevy will probably charge $60k for this.   I think these 2 cars mostly sell on Ford vs Chevy loyalties and styling.  I think the Mustang has a better interior and better sight lines, you can actually see out of it.  But the Camaro whips it on power and the 10-speed auto is a big step up from the 6 in the Mustang.

 

I know there are fans of these cars, and collectors of these cars that will pay $60-70k for a top end Mustang or Camaro, but at the end of the day it is still a Camaro or Mustang to me.  You could get a Corvette or Porsche Boxster for that kind of money, maybe a used 911 that will hold value, etc.  $70k can get you a lot of car, I just wouldn't put that kind of money into either the Mustang to Camaro.

Good lord man. The ZL1 is the competition for the more expensive GT350R, which is just north of $60K. The 1LE is the GT350's chief competitor. 

Oh and the GT350R and the ZL1 will smoke that Boxter and most 911s (and most Vettes for that matter), so maybe you need to rethink that bang for the buck policy of yours.

The 2016 S-class has a 7 speed actually, the 2017 models will switch to the 9 speed that is in some cars already.

But I did check my owner's manual and test it. In comfort setting from a dead stop, if you floor it, the car will launch in 1st gear. However if in comfort and rolling at 5-10 mph and floor it, it stays in 2nd. If you want to use first then just keep it in sport.

The benefit of that comfort setting is 2nd gear launches in snow or slippery roads, which is more beneficial to the rear drove cars bug could help with add ones too. It also is favorable to the elderly that want a more sedate drive.

Also to consider is every Mercedes has paddle shifters so you can pick your gear also. And they also have two speed reverse, so comfort setting would reverse in 2nd gear and not be as quick.

Well, as long as you have an excuse for it SMK, that's okay.

So we're agreed then.  The S-Class doesn't have a 9-speed, it has an 8-speed with a vestigial gear that is hardly ever used and only serves to cause problems.... .like an appendix. 

I don't know. That extra gear sounds more like it's a weenie wart for the transmission more than anything else.

Yup. There's a pretty grim troll out there today

:D

Two of them, as a matter of fact, since they were saying it at the same time not even three months ago.

I am in agreement with everyone else on the 10-speed. I was surprised to see them put it in production so soon when they just started using 8 speeds. So that was unexpected. I also wondered why Cadillac or Corvette wouldn't get it first. Unless they wanted to work the bugs out first on a car with a less discerning buyer.

I wonder if there will be a fwd version of the 10 speed anytime soon. Because a transmission like that has more benefit to a small engine like a 150 HP to maximize the powerband.

The 10 speed is for RWD applications while the 9 speed is for FWD.

 

Could of swore that someone here, not so long ago, said that Ford would get their 10 speed tranny first and then GM (while GM would do the 9 spd first). Hmmmm...wonder what happened there.

 

I'm pretty sure that was Drew actually. I don't think he would have just been making things up w/o some knowledge. (check the other ZL1 thread for his words).

 

You are correct, there is no GT500 right now. Nor is there a Z28 but I don't think we should really compare two different style cars. If anything I think we can all agree the 1LE is way more GT350/R competitor than a ZL1 is. 

 

It was not Drew. It was made by a Ford fan. I'll do some digging but I am fairly certain of this.

Could of swore that someone here, not so long ago, said that Ford would get their 10 speed tranny first and then GM (while GM would do the 9 spd first). Hmmmm...wonder what happened there.

Isn't this more GT500 territory? The last GT500 and ZL1 I thought were competitors. They were the more GT-like cars. 

There is no GT500 for now, so the obvious target would be the GT350R.

 

 

 

 

^ great words, Olds. 

 

Opinions on styling are exactly subjective. There just isn't a true way to measure style. The only way would be to poll EVERYBODY and that just isn't realistic in any way. That's why you adore cars I think are hideous and I adore cars you think are hideous. The closest possible way to measure would be sales and that's just ridiculous because there is no way everybody can buy the most beautiful cars. I guarantee you I wouldn't have bought an Escape, lol.

 

NOW I understand why Bong takes his words to heart. "Robert Cumberford is a former automotive designer for General Motors"   

 

Everything makes since now.   

So did you read his entire back story and not just the part where he worked for GM fifty years ago?

http://www.automobilemag.com/author/robert-cumberford/

 

As a matter of fact, he is just as honest about the new Camaro.

http://www.automobilemag.com/news/2016-chevrolet-camaro-design-analysis/

 

Nah, I just read the part where he worked for GM which was all I needed to read to know 'Bong would be worshiping his words. 

 

So you're letting your bias against Bong, in this case, get in the way of the fact that this reviewer is very accredited and gives equal treatment to all makes?

 

Absolutely. lol 

 

But in all seriousness... I'm not a fan of the guy's reviews. I read a small handful on cars that I really though were good looking and a couple I wasn't a fan of and I just don't agree with him. He seems to pick things apart in a way that doesn't make sense to me. 

 

Not my point (although I see what you are saying). This guy has a lot of clout and credibility and just because he worked at GM at one time (which is Bongs favorite car company obviously) does not take away that fact. 

 

 

^ great words, Olds. 

 

Opinions on styling are exactly subjective. There just isn't a true way to measure style. The only way would be to poll EVERYBODY and that just isn't realistic in any way. That's why you adore cars I think are hideous and I adore cars you think are hideous. The closest possible way to measure would be sales and that's just ridiculous because there is no way everybody can buy the most beautiful cars. I guarantee you I wouldn't have bought an Escape, lol.

 

NOW I understand why Bong takes his words to heart. "Robert Cumberford is a former automotive designer for General Motors"   

 

Everything makes since now.   

So did you read his entire back story and not just the part where he worked for GM fifty years ago?

http://www.automobilemag.com/author/robert-cumberford/

 

As a matter of fact, he is just as honest about the new Camaro.

http://www.automobilemag.com/news/2016-chevrolet-camaro-design-analysis/

 

Nah, I just read the part where he worked for GM which was all I needed to read to know 'Bong would be worshiping his words. 

 

So you're letting your bias against Bong, in this case, get in the way of the fact that this reviewer is very accredited and gives equal treatment to all makes?

GT350R, you have been given notice. This ought to be fun.

I seriously doubt this truck will be sold here in the first place. It has "foreign market" written all over it.

 

 

 

 

Speaking of the CT6, Car and Driver tested the 3.0 TT Platinum model, and the 0-60 time was 5.0 seconds.  So even the fastest CT6 is slower than the S550, all that talk about weight loss is meaningless when you don't have low end torque.  The CT6 was 4,371 lbs, vs 4,620 for a BMW 750 with all wheel drive.  So we are talking about 150 lb weight savings, but the 750i has a V8.

3.0TT isn't the fastest CT6. 4.0TT is coming.

Right and I all along said they need a Dohc V8, I'd like to see it in a CTS VSport or Escalade too. But there were several people on CT6 threads a few months back saying the TT V6 would outrun their German V8s because of lower weight, and I knew that wouldn't be the case and it isn't.

The German three also all offer a 6 liter 12 cylinder. That might not be for the CT6 to worry about but they need to remember that on CT8.

 

 

You just looooooove cherry picking.

 

The RWD S550 with a twin turbo V8 is 0.1 seconds faster than an AWD CT6 3.0TT.  A statistical tie..  Cadillac caught a RWD 4.7 liter Bi-Turbo Benz V8  using an AWD 3.0 liter twin-turbo V6 and did so with a 49hp and 116 lb-ft of torque deficit.   yes, the weight matters. It's funny that you only see the 0.1 seconds while I see all of the extra grunt Mercedes has to use just to catch a Cadillac V6.  Mercedes is throwing a lot more metal to get to 4.9 seconds than Cadillac is to get to 5.0.

 

Astonishingly, that also means that the CT6 AWD 3.0TT is only 0.3 seconds slower to 60 than the S65 V12...  The fastest S-Class is the S63 though, because it has AWD.  It's best 0 - 60 is 4.6 seconds. 

 

That gives Cadillac lots of room to maneuver.  If they cared about the 0.1 seconds that much, then the 3.6TT is just an email from JDN away.  Then there is the 4.0TT also coming and that's not even the V-series model. 

 

S550 with or without awd has been clocked at 4.8 seconds, the coupe for some reason is 4.5 seconds, even though it doesn't weigh any less.  The 9-speed cars are faster though, I think when the sedan switches transmissions it will be closer to 4.6 seconds.

 

But if we want to cherry pick, an Audi A8L 4.0 (not an S8) can do 0-60 in 4.0 seconds and posts better fuel economy than a CT6.  29 mpg highway on the V8 Audi, 26 on the CT6, both are 18 city.  But as I said, many thought the 3.0TT V6 would outrun the Germans, it doesn't.  I'll listen to and agree with that the 3.0TT V6 is a nice mid-level engine choice on a Cadillac sedan or could be good on a large crossover.  And I know the V8 is coming, I hope it comes soon.  

 

Doesn't matter. It still BARELY beats a TTV6 (sorry .1 seconds is a virtual tie that could swing either way with a different driver and you know that) so that really isn't anything to hang your hat on there. The TTV8 is also going to be a beast to contend with, whether you want to admit that or not.