turbo200

what is its purpose marketing wise [in your opinion]? does it do enough to differentiate from equinox? will it draw different buyers? is it handsome? could it have been better conceptualized to offer something more tangible over equinox? is it worth the effort? is their significant attention to detail to truly capitalize on its greater size and go after true midsize utes? is it worth 39k on the high end considering the engineering and details that are present in your model? who's it going to appeal to? all the questions the product imagers behind the product should have answers for, but don't have enough of the right answers. i like terrain, but not enough to give it the full recommendation as a supplementary product to equinox. GM needed to go more upscale over equinox. no issue with powertrain, but inner and exterior detailing should have been a step up from the perfectly-excellent-for-mainstream equinox. i also like the terrain's more hummer-like man-appeal, but think it could have gone in a few better directions in a couple of areas, which is exactly how i feel about equinox. i think both are class leading, and both are breakthrough product, and both are the best GM has released for a long time, but there are one or two areas [design issues] on each where it stops just short of earth-shattering, given how great they are in most areas.

it's great that c&g got the press pass, who on this site wouldn't like access to that. I'm ok if GM sends me any vette, camaro, cts, or srx to test. your review was informative and spot on with other reviews, so I would like to see your own writer's voice come out more in the future rather than this general catered to everyone style.

tone is what you're missing though. he is laughing with the c&g family. and plenty has changed; we're hopeful again, for the most part. after the roof fell in, i'd say that's pretty big.

i say you write bob lutz and e-mail suggestion. for the coming future, GM can send Saturn consumers a $4,000 voucher to compensate for the brand dying and having to take a loss on resale. biting on that kind of money might cost GM in the short term, but if they can reel those buyers into only the new GM models, specifically cruze, malibu, or equinox, then chevy could buy into newly loyal buyers. bottom line: handling current saturn and pontiac buyers should be top priority. sad day for saturn retailers and employees.

is it all right to say I love what you're saying? the position of making desirable product that will shift consumer perception and force them to react and reintroduce themselves to GM product seems to be the new GM stance, and it's one we can all proudly support. [took long enough!] on the name issue i can wholeheartedly agree, XTS doesn't have a good ring nor does it make much sense to anyone to make such a big jump from C to X. even when comparing MB, they have C then E then S. when has this naming scheme ever made sense? changing now though would be inconsistent and muddle an already blurry and incomplete product canvas. cadillac has the cadillac cars which are vague sounding letters that also work well together, and then they have the escalade which is a brand all to its own worth nurturing. S-series recreational crossover was what SRX was supposed to stand for. it makes a billion times more sense to call the new sedan STS, and a new large three row crossover the SRX, renaming the current one to BRX or GRX. then there's the C-series touring sedan and eventually the A-series touring sedan should come along. the whole DT7 and CT6 or whatever they were going to call them, while this is confusing and hard for the consumer to learn, it does sound good. there's the big issue of the already spent effort on marketing the current names.....so my vote is just to keep them as is. i agree it's time for a new large Cadillac coupe. Cadillac needs to focus on evolving the current style. whatever they make, it needs to be a good evolution to replace an already aged and starting to be completely irrelevant look. if there's any impact of this anywhere it may be on the SRX. it will be interesting if that car's sales look like a spike for 16-24 months, and then flatten somewhere slightly above the current model's numbers [then again it could prove to be appealing to more of a mass audience after 2 years]. the cts i think its beginning to show signs of age when looking at sales numbers, though i'd have to compare other brands' sales to compare.

I LOVE that New GM is proving all the naysayers wrong more as each day goes on. as for the looks of the car, i prefer the techno-chic subtle and stealth, along with wonderful paint tone and superb wheels of the picture with the headline. the T2 car has its own coolness, a smidge too in your face and robotic.

traffic is much increased over the years, and this is one definite reason buyers trend towards comfort and practicality, in a market like today's, practicality and price concerns are even greater. plus a lot of people like to schedule busy days in the cities, i think this largely influences mode of transport for many. in LA there are tons more hondas per capita than the midwest, and this is for the efficiency in particular, greater and more reputable than any other car company. one thing you can't disassociate from a perception of civic or accord four cylinder is gas economical, in an area densely congested and highly car-centric like LA. I would say rwd sedans proved popular through the 300 and G8 to a lesser extent. sell a $31k GT sedan and you should find many buyers. rwd should not go completely away, not in fullsize, for fullsize luxury car, or compact/mid for CTS and alpha cars. [throw in chevy or buick sedans to go with them to.]

interesting, as all of this has leaked to the major media source. this is all of what's been the talk about it; the talk around the net regarding this has been all about GM tech. if it's an AP source will it be picked up through more general sources? most importantly, there may be other options to doing the Magna deal. Opel and GM together are a phenominal investment, given new GM with reduced cost structure, worldwide operations, large volumes, potential profit span. then the icing is the technology GM has developed with Opel, delta and epsilon development, probably others as well. but even if the engineering centers are a part of GM, the Opel brand represents significant market share in Europe, and volume, somewhere around 9% and 2 million units [last time i checked]. opel has history almost as long as much of GM's, and is widely recognizable and considered. both GM and opel respresent large volumes and shares around the world, both are significant companies within homeland and abound....a solid investment all around. worth keeping. GM gains economies of scale with opel. that all important mechanism towards reducing costs. opel volume sticks around, GM doesn't have to relaunch in europe with opel, just restructure and continue improvement, and presence. brand presence/stature must continue to grow, maybe reintroduce new compact caddy line with converj based sports car, rwd platform and attractive look complete. buy the rest of saab back? what the threat of this deal lies with too is the rights to GM tech. if it's a question of tech [though this reason could be made up], GM should not let it go. if the structure of these deals is that GM gets almost nothing for opel, then i would deny the deal in this case too. opel and gm together are worth a lot.

as to the general argument at hand, hyper is arguing competently that the market for an SHO model priced like the SHO doesn't exist. G8 GT was well liked within the press and generally by consumers, [for a 30k Pontiac], because it was well priced and represented a bargain for buyers looking for extra spice. that market is limited. just as there were those looking at that car for performance, many probably also settled on G8 first because of looks and practicality, then a drive and subsequent budgetary revelations led to GT being the choice car. but an SHO at $38k will not sell. the market shows there is little space for premium sedans from generic brands priced above $30k. in that price range, buyers will generally trade up to brands with more prestige, models with more premium design and features. models like G35, TL, CTS, ES350, yes the taurus has great quality and design presentation, but it's also a taurus. the 26k model will have a lot more reception. but there's a reason why few models are priced in the entry luxury sedan price range besides those from prestige mfgs. and few are successful. in a 17 mil/annual car market this model is more reasonable, but nowadays there's even more reason to see how this will be crowded out soon.

the 3 is a trendy and stylish car. its stance, good proportions, strong edgy lines and good surfacing as well as nice cosmetic touches like great wheels make it still very appealing after all the years.

saab seems to contribute its piece with turbo and four cylinder tech, along with thier own expertise with engineering. after shedding saturn and pontiac, GM doesn't have a viable brand aside from Chevy that's known for fuel efficient models. when fuel prices eventually hit crisis stage again, well it was nice in the past that GM had 'distinct' models to choose from that offered good efficiency. Buick will have to take on that role moreso.....but if Saab remains, they are a premium brand whose pricing can still remain in reach of the average buyers. after all the defunct 9-2x based at 22k. it'd be cool to see Saab go more premium and become more affordable as its model scope reaches down further into the compact range....even though this would overlap with Buick's range, Saab is very distinct and different. a gamma corsa based 9-1 might be nice, if it can be made to perform right, and be sophisticated enough. maybe $18k to start off.

the latest 2.8t review reads like a GM press release. this is seriously glowing....but many sections of it seem like they were written by a sycophant. weird. money?

yes and most people pay specific attention only to the gas mileage and how the power feels coming through the drive. hp figures are mathematical and mean nothing to the average buyer, nor do they take them to be a determinant in how a car performs. hp means something to muscle car buyers, and even they understand there's a lot more to a car. to the first question you pose. to me it's a way to seperate the trims and offer a reason to spend the bucks....it is a $35k for the luxury version.

the 2.8T has not been offered anywhere else in the lineup...

higher torque levels might also have the advantage of maintaining fuel economy numbers. i wonder if the 3.6 DI will eventually find a place here. the 3.0L is confusing for it's performance figures.....poor economy relatively speaking, smaller power figures. but given GM's past habit of recycling engines throughout the lineup, it's refreshing to see a new engine here and another one not previously offered in an American brand offered here. also, comparing competitors' lineups, you'll find problems with engines pretty much everywhere. i think the Caddy offers a good combo of qualities....to set off rivals and to build sales, and to help endure throughout the years. the combination of refinement, promised GM reliability, delivery/character....i think the engine has a lot going for it, the 3.0.

dynamic is something explosive and interesting. not necessarily the dynamics as in capabilities of a given car suspension.

impressive handling in a Buick is a revelation. I don't completely understand the complaints with regard to the 3.0. in every car it's currently offered in, there is an uplevel engine, for the 10% of the buying public that is power hungry. for the rest of the people the power and performance is respectable.

you're missing my point. I would LOVE to have Cadillac with RWD Sigma crossovers in two row and three row form, that are executed well, designed extraordinarily, and offering conveniences and comfort for everyone. the thing is that didn't happen. I am trying to offer reasonable explanation for why that didn't happen and also justifying the current product's existence and role in the market.

i suspect platform adaptability has nothing to do with it. Vizon was originally a 2 row concept SUV, that if you remember according to insiders here, a 3rd row was added as an answer to MDX's huge success. I believe the Vizon had it been released as a 2 row SUV may have been more popular due to better proportions and thus more market acceptance. this may have helped to relieve the pressure of high costs with Sigma platform. this is the ultimate problem and what is leading to the eventual phase out of Sigma after this gen CTS. Sigma was originally built on a business case for STS and SRX sales. I think the estimates were in 100-125k volume range for the three models being build at Lansing Grand River, which is now seriously underutilized and costing money for upkeep as well. Sigma the platform is an evolution of Holden's development for Zeta, but with a lot more cost. I think at this point, GM isn't making much money off Sigma, which is why we have the situation where little development money is currently apportioned for Cadillac, and nothing is being done on Sigma.

I lament the loss of a RWD crossover at GM. there are others in the car world for those with the means to consider, and those who consider themselves capable in the future to have the means to do so. still the loss of a RWD SUV is painful....cause SUVs are fun, and so is RWD. soooo...I say we devote considerable energy towards promoting one, say a future Alpha crossover, Zeta crossover, or Sigma crossover. at this time, I am comfortable recognizing GM did the best it could with the cards it was dealt.

Autoblog SRX 2.8T REVIEW The last review to come in featuring the 2.8T. I suspect the PR push is on full force and GM has invited another round of journalists to test the uplevel engine. the 2.8T will be destined to sell in ~15-20% of SRXs [according to press], and that's pretty good imo. As you can all read, and will read in the future with comparison tests, the 2.8T is the boost needed to show the full capabilities of the SRX. at $45k, it's still competitively priced, and a fun powerful SUV. we will have to wait and see if its performance characteristics and 0-60 times match the old SRX, but as has been often shown blunt performance stats don't translate into the all around character a vehicle possesses. from that standpoint, it is clear the SRX is a winner. for those that keep throwing in the last gen SRX, I would ask how much actual time has been spent comparing both interior designs of the first gen and second gen, along with quality and overall design. if even after spending seat time in both, you still prefer the look and feel of the old SRX, then you are free to think so, until then I think it's safe to say your opinions are solely based in prejudices.

depends on how you look at it. i'm considering strictly design which is a prime motivator for SUV buyers, above sporting driving dynamics. it's not as fun as before, but there won't be many buyers, with real luxury car money, who even noticed the SRX. they chose the others for thier superior presentation. cayenne, x5, touraeg, FX45, RX....all had more enduring shapes and better luxury designs, all were better looking [except RX which like I said had a better shape]. we'll never see eye to eye on many things, and i'm okay with that. if you can't see that the SRX has hit a sweet spot the previous gen did not, then you're not opening your eyes past your own perspective of wanting a good driving experience. the previous gen was one of the ultimate driving experiences for SUVs and that is a big sacrifice. the question is how many people actually got in there to test that driving experience, and why weren't more picking the SRX for that reason alone. the answer is there are other merely acceptable driving vehicles that were also better looking and had better presentation.

the old SRX was also a unibody construction and also weighed above 4400 lbs in AWD form, and it was barely larger and barely offered 2 cu ft more interior volume. a third row seat can be offered and offer almost exactly the same room as the last SRX. given the competition, the SRX weight is average. given where demanding enthusiasts would like it to be, it's 400 lbs heavy. we're not car engineers and we're not car companies who have to market to demanding consumers and more demanding enthusiasts. consumers who demand features, structural rigidity, and cars that meet government mandates as well as economic mandates [cheap price]. new gen RX also weighs 4500 lbs. the volvo weighs 4200 lbs. the q5 over 4400. glk 4250. only the outdated x3 weighs significantly less and that's due to be replaced. i'd bet the Cadillac offers more interior space than all of these except the RX. we may all have reservations about handling due to RWD platform. imo, RWD nor the platform was the problem before, and that's my disappointment with this generation. but i don't let those feelings overcome my feelings towards this new product. it's well sorted, capable, well designed, high quality, and desirable. it also stands apart from the Lexus design and others in this class. here is the first review of the 2.8t engine in the SRX SRX 2.8T altogether, given the design inside and out, this is a more dynamic and engaging vehicle than the last SRX. that is what matters. is it an improvement and will it counterbalance the loss of RWD and third row seat with more desirable qualities. the answer is yea. conceptually, inside and outside, the SRX design is much much more successful than the generic yet classy interior of the last gen and the boxy flat plain surfaced exterior.

honestly? i feel your narrative can be beefed up. as it is, i'm drafting from one collection of details to the next with not a lot of connection. your appreciation for the classics comes however.

exactly as smk says... CTS' size is no hindrance, however it captures a different audience. clearly there is a large market for large entry level luxury, but most of those models have migrated to a higher price class, with CTS leading the pack there. average transaction price for CTS is in the low 40's, and there's no reason it can't go higher with upgraded powertrain, upgraded stock suspension/handling/weight, and upgraded materials and features in the interior. CTS is midsize, and compact cars also sell as luxury cars, so long as they represent a large list of luxury qualities.