turbo200

can someone post more real world pictures of the silver one [or direct me towards them]. i would but my computer is a bitch about some sites... EDIT: nevermind, found some over at autoblog

it would never [unless I got to some very powerful position and influenced GM to let me in]. but i think we could have come up with something better. i didn't say there wasn't a lot to love with this car :AH-HA_wink:

the interior looks dramatically improved. This is the kind of truck that sells to Escalade buyers who need a more accomodating third seat, this one's big and really comfortable. The QX sells to those who won't settle for a NAVi, and need more space than any full size luxury SUV offers, in a tidier package than the Escalade ESV. [i also think the GL succeeds phenomonally with the third row seat, it's just the exterior look that is too mamsy pamsy for many.]

hmmm....pretty nice looking, definitely a great revolution for the Accord, as it would seem. Honda is fast emerging as my favorite Japanese design company [Toyota sucks, and Nissan is overrated]. This car looks really classy and sporty at the same time, kind of exactly what the Monte Carlo should be, but you can't even mention that design in the same sentence with this one without wanting to cringe a little. The show photos are taking a long time to load, but what I can see, what is up with the front overhang, cockpiece anyone?, and the overall character is great, but it's still not my cup of tea, the face is not pretty enough. All that said, this is James Bond's car for the middle class, it will appeal immensely to the people the Accord coupe already appeals to.

the greenhouse is not tall enough [thanks to a low roofline] in relation to high beltline; all other small cars have generally rectified this by making the dimmensions bigger in every direction, except the Civic which emphasized the wheels pushed out to corners look. However, the shape of the greenhouse clearly tells the Focus genealogy, and what's up with that mishap of a rear window/C-pillar thing? The doors are also clearly ripped from the Focus. To me, they just should have stuck with the original look. The basic car has outdated proportions, so it will continue to look like a relic from the past, dress it in ugly jeans or not.

I've seen a few STs on the road, they should have just upgraded the entire line to look like that, rather than this abomination. At least that would have looked classy, and somewhat masculine. This car is all fem, and yeah I am totally getting that old Escort vibe too. At least the interior is nice, but the exterior is shockingly different just for shock value. It can't even begin to claim its in the same design class as the Civic and Mazda3, and the Cobalt is much nicer looking too. All the Cobalt needs is an attractive modern exterior like the Volt and an attractive modern interior; but the Focus just took five steps in the wrong direction. And who approved the coupe? A coupe is supposed to be sporty, but the small wheelwells and giant space below the C-pillar kill the sportyness of it [kind of like my 97 200 I used to own, but even that was much better than this]. It looks like a KIT installation on an old Focus, made for young girls. Where is the appeal?

let's petition GM to allow certain members from here to be on a style approval committee.......[i won't name names, but at least you and I a few more should be on there! our cars would be exactly what the consumer wants!]

my only hope is that the BLS is RWD, and that Cadillac listens to these reactions and adjusts thier future lineup accordingly. In terms of style, CTS built a brand, and you cannot just give up and relegate yourself to second place when you built so much equity on looking different. Really, why were they thinking they should not revolutionize yet again? For the near term, before the BLS gets here, Cadillac will lose a consumer base looking for something very specific from the CTS.

that's exactly how I feel, and look no one can say we were in cohoots cause you posted one minute before me! As a future entry level luxury sedan buyer, this doesn't capture my attention as much as i hoped it would either. just asked a friend, casual observer but fan of cars, I've gotten him to be more of a detail analyzer, but he put it pretty nicely and succinctly, it's lost a lot of its sportiness and now looks too classy. guess that's the lutz factor for you. now that i think of what he said, i actually think the VE Commodore has a better stance and more athleticism in the design. Too bad.

I was thinking... for the positive side of this new revolution of sorts for GM car design.... we can't say the details aren't there.....or that the interior look and quality didn't go far enough [okay look is subjective of course].........we can applaud GM for making 17s standard, for making the 3.6 standard, for appearing to make the 3.6 DI available from launch [maybe that's why we have to wait till September, or later, for this car], for making a base trim interior look exciting, right, and rich...........and we can appaud them for making a modern cohesive design that doesn't fug things up [like the original CTS did in a few minor ways [license plate trim, slab-sidedness, some of the elements at the rear]. Still, I will not mask my slight disappointment because we are at a GM fansite, at what I stated above, and I'm beginning to see why a few months back, at the dealer preview, everybody was gaga over the Malibu and some Cadillac clay mockup, but the CTS was just 'really good' or 'awesome'. I still have not seen enough pictures. I still have not seen all the colors, but I guess the bigger issue I see is that this car really is close to perfection, but could've gone that much further and blown all the competitors away completely for years to come. As it is, sales will not be negatively affected, they will show an increase for the first few years, over the gen 1 CTS' best years, but ultimately not as high of an increase as they could have gotten had they gone a little further.

Before I state my opinion I will say colors will make a big difference in the perception this car gives off. I don't think choosing red, while its dramatic and a very classy red, is the best to show the lines, silver clearly does a much better job. When I initially saw the pictures on Edmunds I knew it wasn't going to floor me as much as I hoped for, now that I see more pictures I am also able to concur with my thought last night that I will need more pictures and to see the car in person before I can say I have a definitive opinion on it. It looks like it gets better looking....in different colors, from different angles, etc. I'm getting a distinct feeling like seeing the Fusion, where I think the front is attractive, and the rest is a sleeper. This car has a killer front end, but the rest is really quite dull. The problem with this is that in a design everything works together, the front reflects on the sides, the sides reflect on the rear, and the rear reflects on the interior. I am now viewing the interior as not all that exciting since the rear is so boring. Not that the rear is unattractive or frumpy, actually the car has a great athletic stance. The dimmensions seem perfect, the profile and drawing of the greenhouse are awesome, but everything is culled down to reality and subtlety a bit too much. Except for the front, the front just screams at you. This is nearly the same way I felt about the Escalade when it first came out, and while I still think it's too subdued, the killer front end saves a lot on that car. Maybe I'll feel the same way about this, though this is a sports sedan and expectations for the design are higher. This is how I felt after viewing the red one, but the silver one has changed my impressions slightly. I still don't like the references that come up in my mind of the current DTS and the last Eldorado, that's a big no no, as those cars may have had attractive elements, they are dowdy cars. I think the interior looks wonderful, but for some reason I can't get it out of my head that if I consider the interior I must consider the rest of the car now and not just the beautiful front end. I still believe it to be one of the most attractive sedans under $50k....but I gotta see more pictures When I first saw the original CTS, I fell in love with it. I recognized the potential of this design theme immediately, same with the Evoq, Imaj, and Vizon....all of this was continued into Cien and Sixteen. I still see the potential in this design theme.....but after looking more and more at this car, I am beginning to see it wasn't realized here.

a couple of things and then we can get back to CTS. the truth about the car I own is not what was an attempt to damage my reputation, however the context was. you used my words and my real life situation to try and paint a picture about me, and that was the despicable thing I talked about. owning a "beater", or any decent car, is as regular as going to the movies. Who cares, it's all about what you want. In one of the posts above, I talked about college kids eating Ramen. I guess I am the only one who saw this as an example, I don't pretend to know all college kids eat only Ramen or are on a shoestring budget like I put it, that would be stupid and a huge ass assumption that would make no sense, I know there are plenty of wealthy parents who would never have it that way. So, maybe you're the one being sensitive and taking it that way. I was only using an example of a certain kind of condition of life to prove that conditions affect our way of thinking. The whole spoonfed line, was NOT in direct reference to you, I don't know what led you to believe that or why you felt the need to prove that, as you've never really given off too much to agree with that. I also don't think you're too "stupid" to know there's better stuff out there, and again the whole Ramen thing could be substituted with any budget-oriented food products. I always meant circumstaneces influence our buying decisions, and when there is no obstacle limiting your purchasing power, meaning when you have all the money you need, and can buy whatever your heart desires, the true test of what you love will come out. Our vision of what we love is what imporves, and constantly changes. It should stay true to our principles, but our taste will always improve, that is one thing that you can feel free to disagree with, at your detriment. Simply to dumb down what I'm saying to the simple stupid word of "arrived" [i am not saying your stupid for using it]is conveying that you have no idea what I'm talking about. It's the sense of pride of owning something that is completely yours, and reflects you, and is your tool, since the car is one of our most important tools in daily society. Something that you worked for and gained on your on merits. You know I believe in high quality interiors, and I believe at this point it's a matter of phrasing that seperates us. But, to me, you still aren't placing enough emphasis on the style of car. The Camaro had no less refinement than Mustang. Both had craptastic plastic interiors, both were ugly, and the Mustang drove like a truck but the engine helps I guess. I've never driven a Camaro, but I've heard it drives pretty well, a lot more like a car. Practicality I'll give you, because the Camaro was super low to the ground and had the low roof that limited headroom, but definitely defintely not refinement. Okay [one more retort from Croc] now back to CTS!

i stated opinion, it doesn't matter that I'm wrong, it was just an opinion, I'm no expert, you are! I think it's great that the BRX is coming to possibly supplant the SRX, at least to fill that role in the lineup and guarantee Cadillac doesn't leave a huge segment. I remember ah-ha saying it was really good looking. That should be enough to sell, but I would have preferred if it was on sigma. SRX did not bad compared to FX, but I don't think that's good enough. Look at FX dealer base compared to Caddy, and R is a whole different beast, it really can only be compared to the SRX based on the weird style premise, but where Caddy took it far, MB developed a minivan. So I don't believe R is a good comparison to SRX, a better one would be XC90 since it is a three row 7 passenger crossover.

you've shown your maturity here. I really don't want to bother to reply to most of your post, since so much of it's based on conjecture, and not even solid reasoning. your reasoning for the GTO's failure really has no substance, and definitely no solid evidence besides a pool of people from websites not even representing 1% of the total buyers of the GTO. Did you see any research from buyers of the car, or people who were interested? Clearly you didn't, cause you would know the only reason this car didn't do well was because the exterior had all the flair and presence of a car from the 1990's. The GTO name brought back nostalgia for fans of the car, but to the general market that was irrelevant. It was a great car, and had it been well styled like the Sosltice, it would have done gangbusters. What is your problem, you louse. I don't go around talking revealing things I know about you. Not that I care, as you've used to try and damage my reputation amongst people I don't even know. You've used it in such a dispicable manner. I now drive a 2006 Acura RSX Type S, fun car, thanks for again revealing your maturity. Thanks for mentioning the winshield crack, evidence of a decent hard-working survival story, not a spoonfed kid. This is what Lexus does now This is what they used to do This is the old Civic This is the new Civic your whole little USC thing where you attempt to prove how well off you and your friends are, how magical life is since you are so blessed, and everything is jolly wizz...it just shows weakness. i really couldn't care for it, I wasn't trying to imply you are anything bad, but everybody's taste is constantly improving. THAT was my point. My point was to demonstrate how circumstance, maturity, situations influence who we are and what choices we make. I assure you, when you graduate, and become a doctor [or whatever career path you have chosen], you will care about the car you drive, that it reflects your style precisely. And your taste will improve. As you will be a made man, and your car will help show that to the world. Camaro was not seen as second rate when it came to performance, neither in dollars. Your point was value was the major factor, along with interiors [what are you on crack, where do you get this, please tell me the foundation of your research that revealed this pearl that people buy for the interior, people love good interiors, but a great interior is only the icing on the proverbial cake, it's a right of entry into certain price classes, but people don't exclusively buy a car just because of the inteiror, it only helps the cause], and my point was to prove that exterior style is a MAJOR consideration, at least as important as value.

I know exactly what was said. SRX did well this month, but not as well as some of its main competitors, and for the year it's flat. IMO, it's doing good enough numbers that it merits a generation 2, but apparently Cadillac feels there isn't enough room in its lineup for it. I think that now that Escalade has moved up to mid to upper 50s base, SRX could serve as in between, it and the BRX. MB has a crapload of SUVs. I never debated that Escalade isn't doing phenomonally well, but that isn't the balance between Cadillac and other luxury SUV makers. Escalade just can't pull in X5, MDX, RX buyers, but the SRX could. If it looked more like the Vizon, perhaps, or just less awkward. Again, let me reiterate that I actually find it to be a very appealing looking SUV with some mistakes in the lines and perhaps a flawed vision. You yourself have said as much, alluding to the crash redesign to include the third row that, imo, totally messed up the lines of the Vizon concept.

Back to your original post. The exact reason for my brevity was my shock at some of the things you have to say. You have some interesting opinions.Not attractive, bland, awkward...... tell this post to GTO analysts. You need to look closer at what makes Hummer popular. Evaluate the luxury scene.....how far Lexus has come in the last ten years. Apparently they believe a stylized line helps make the profits. So do Nissan, Honda [Civic, upcoming Accord], VW, Audi, MB.......look at all these marques and tell me with a straight face a consistent line of stylized cars has not been realized. I thought you might be joking. Word of mouth, practicality, value play big roles. It all depends on the consumers. To your college frat buddies, on a shoestring budget, who consider Ramen to be top notch, yeah, style won't mean as much as the other virtues. But give them some time to get a high paying job and refine thier tastes, and their priorities may change. We all grow, we all spend time improving. We want our cars to reflect this. Style reflects this. Whether it's an elegant but inoffensive everyman style like the Accord, or whether it's a high tech sportsmen executive style the Range Rover Sport has. One more time, your examples suck. Cue my examples above. One more: the 4th gen Camaro SS was the performance bargain value of a century, in its time, outperforming cars costing more than 100k, Ferraris, Porsches, you name it, they were territory. Exactly what happened to that car, crocy? The first gen Escalade was a hit, and last time I checled it was a damn good looking truck. The Ford Thunderbird is your version of stylish. The Phaeton had a laundry list of problems totally unassociated with style, and last time I checked the design was innocuous, like the Accord. Your examples sucked, I just disproved them. Style drives sales, it's just that everyone has thier own version of what style is. That is why most people can tell you they like a car, but not exactly why they like it. That is why even Accord buyers like its style and rate styling as an improtant factor in thier decision, because they like it.

I'll file your reccomendations.A good point in your first paragraph. Style can do this as well. Witness the Sky and Solstice that got people believing those cars should cost a pretty penny more than what they cost.

this car is a dream in perfect two tone with great chrome and titanium accents. I don't like the exterior two-tone, but it's just not for me, I can see the appeal and am sure many will love it, but it takes the car too far retro, whereas in the silver it's retro futurist. the interior is dynamic, everywhere. I love the HVAC and radio controls--it may sacrifice a little feasibility, but when you have something that looks that right, you must sacrifice something, and it will be second nature within time of owning the car. I love the leather stiching, the way the two tone stretches into the door panel and does a cool swivel thing along the armrest. All the controls look stunning and simple. Clearly nothing has been lost. I love the idea of this car an expensive feeling and looking balls out performance coupe with incredible style to pull people out of their BMW 3-series. It will work. It just can't come quick enough, anybody got the scoop on this car coming out earlier than we suspect? EDIT: I hope none of this is too snazzy for production [interior-wise]. I know that if this car comes at the realistic price levels and comes out looking like this, it will effectively put cars like the Vette [and that's the cream of the crop for GM, so you know what I'm saying] out of commission. So maybe toning down is what we are looking at. I don't know if the spacing between the gears on the shifter is all that realistic or comfortable. Is it possible to be a short shifter and have those wide spaces? A good feeling shifter should be a necessity on this car for the engineers.

huh?you have no idea what you're talking about. you're examples suck by the way

I'm here, but I don't get it.

all right. i did not know the mix was towards the V8 edition, if you go just off what the consumer research websites say, more interest is on the V6 model, at carsdirect.com for example 84% look at the V6. But, it is what it is. Why I figured it was a loss leader was just an assumption also based on the number of years into the lifecycle and the fact that Cadillac has been heavy on discounting in the past [at the dealership level], and I have seen base SRXs advertised for as low as just under 34k [though I am aware of the bait and switch], plus the Escalades are the profit machines, and to a lesser extent the CTS still must perform decently, though many of those are probably lease specials at this point which equal very little gross profit for the dealer.ya, I never believed nor asserted that the interior should dramatically increase sales, just that it was an issue that was fixed, and you and croc pointed it out as the major issue along with pricing. well, now that both those issues seems to be fixed [i'll get to pricing in a second], it would make sense that sales would increase, if those were the two issues that stinted sales. MSRP is used for marketing, so it is a major issue, you are right. It is used to pull people in, and then the smart ones will haggle a little, knowing a dealership has a lot of profit and some room from MSRP. [Getting to that issue is a whole other story for another day.] The SRX is difficult to categorize. And the comparison to the R-class is a good once. The SRX is a lot more traditional than that, but then again the XC90 is a lot more traditional than SRX. SRX to all but the most ardent GM supporters is an awkward good looking truck. It has angles where the front end is very attractive, and others where it looks almost goofy and not butch enough; the rear is convoluted, and the slab sides have been criticized since day one for emphasizing the station wagon-esque profile. All I am saying is that it is that bizarre styling that has detracted from its overall appeal. From certain angles, it looks so great, and thus the look has pulled in buyers.....but from other angles it really is awkward, and that has pushed buyers away. My stats comparing it to more traditional SUVs were meant to demonstrate that. SRX really isn't much more expensive than the Volvo XC90. XC starts at 36k, while SRX starts at 37k. V8 AWD XC is 46k; SRX V8 AWD starts at 43k. Both SRXs offer more horsepower, better gas mileage, a more technically advanced RWD platform, and now a nicer interior. Marketing is a key failure obviously. Even now, the stinge from the first interior lasts, and buyers trading in thier leases who looked at the original SRX probably think nothing has changed. But this is Cadillac we are talking about it. When they put their minds to it, they can sell gangbusters. Thier dealer network is large and reputable, they have a long history of quality [with some abberations], and some very loyal customers. Plus, people want to give new brands a chance, all they are waiting for is the right style, just look at Art & Science and how it revitalized Caddy and actually got them back into the sales game. All that said, it is a truck I would own in a heartbeat, because of its terrific road manners, and the fact that with the right wheels [that fill the wheel gap and are the proper design] I think it's one of the most attractive little SUVs out there.

disgusting. DCX really has taken the crack pipe to the brain and thier designers seem to be taking too much MSGs.

all the right words. their ambitions are even in check, though i do hope this malibu can garner enough interest to not need the kind of sales and rebates advertising the fusion does.

that's true, but they also only get 28 mpg highway in the aura.

Yeah, the exact same engine/tranny combos get better mileage in the Aura, but clearly these are being measured for the new 2008 standards.