balthazar

Now I see where that convention came from. With dealer counts very low, invariably the first foreign store in an area was usually tempted to name themselves after the local, and in doing so it becomes 2-pronged; it advertises the name & the location. The GM Divisions were not commonly in that scenario, at least since WWII.

Not sure how one quantifies "prefers not to drive" vs. 'would own a vehicle anyway'. I've seen plenty of very low income families in smaller inner cities, with access to plenty of PT, still owning beaters. There's a freedom equivalency that the majority are not willing to give up, IMO. What that figure is no one knows.

^ Of course, Cadillac already greatly reduced it's dealer count. I thought they were around 1300-1500 before the BK, now at 928. I still think a further reduction is warranted. Also like the naming convention change Drew suggests… tho I've seen plenty of foreign lux brands under 'people' names, too. Ray Catena MegaStore mercedes/junkuar/porsche/etc/etc/etc is the one I'm thinking of right off the bat. Took notice of the Porsche dealer not far south of me the other day (and in the greater Princeton area). They're in an un-altered ex-Denny's building on U.S. Rt 1. Horrible.

The boutique concept is a good one, but there will be teething problems. First off, none of the competitors mentioned above has tiny stores, and while the "experience" can be on par or even much better than those, a "2-car" showroom is not going to be what any other mainstream lux brand does and the consumer is possibly going to associate that with the opposite of a growing brand. Also need to address service. Unquestionably, there will be further lessening of the dealer count. They have an uphill business case scenario… which is why they are so commonly paired with other Divisions/ brands. The most impressive 'dealer' environment I was ever in (and it wasn't a dealership) was seeing Cadillacs parked on tapestry rugs in the the old GM building guilded first-floor halls.

^ Do they not also cause 'wear and tear' on the roads… and deny Gov't gas tax revenue?? Sounds like a problem looking for a 'solution'.

Agreed- the Reaper, visually, is not pleasant. I do like the 'Trail Boss' name tho. Looking forward to seeing what they come up with.

Rain, cold, lightning, any degree of cargo beyond a coke, passengers, & time demands are among the constraints of widespread bike commuting. Other than that, as a pastime; it's great. "A lot of the infrastructure over to bikes" ? ; that would be a colossal impracticality. My question is, where are the self-driving bicycles??

We took a week off from Trivia Tuesday last week as it fell smack in the middle of the Detroit Auto Show. Can you answer the following trivia? The answers the last Trivia Tuesday are below. 1.) What singer needed a "Transfusion" after several musical car crashes? 2.) What make of car received its name from a famous American fighter pilot of World War 1? 3.) What name did Plymouth give to its new 1958 engine? 4.) What British firm was known for both sports cars and motorcycles? 5.) Buick's answer to the 4-passenger Ford Thunderbird was? Bonus to #5 : What was what the GM styling concept that became the answer to number 5 originally dubbed? Answers to the last Trivia Tuesday: 1.) Plymouth Duster 2.) Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Jeep 3.)Massachusetts 4.) 1950 5.) Dodge, Studebaker View full article

Doesn't sound like what most are associating this with; get in your car, punch in address, and post cat videos to your timeline for the remainder of the ride. There could be 100 levels/conditions of 'self-driving'- until one is clearly defined in both parameters and feature cost in one car, it's tough to address directly. Article from last month states the projected price for just the LIDAR equipment portion of a self-driving car "should" fall below $10,000 two years from now. No one has published a committed price for this technology; we'll have to see if an OEM is willing to take a loss on the vehicle to keep it obtainable, but I haven't seen anything reputable that indicates it will be.

Wouldn't they first have to GET on the road before anyone could call for them to get off? Cost is still be breezily ignored; like I stated earlier- cost estimate I saw last fall for the technology was $150,000/vehicle. Hope your 'good income' is really really really really good. COST is the 'old man with ribcage-high pants and grumpy demeanor', not the opinions of those who were asked if they would buy one.

There are millions of truck drivers (about 3.5 million ) in the US getting paid over a hundred billions of dollars / year. That's a gargantuan cost that's just begging to be cut from the trucking companies' perspective. IMO, all those trucks took from the railroad industry, and that load needs to return to the RRs for economic reasons. But I can tell you this; while SD cars are one issue, no way would I like SD 80,000 tractor trailers next to me on the highway.

Time for lunch… in a cup!

^ People don't occupy lanes in traffic, cars do. Idiot-proof cars will still plug lanes and the programming merge logarithm will be much more conservative than the typical driver due to lawyer input, so expect collectively longer merge waits, not shorter.

Wait- why isn't this badged a "C190" again?

19 miles on electric alone? That's IT??

There are 'dangers' all around- look up the stats on bathtub injuries. Why not stop working & go on the GOv't dole; stay indoors all the time (and never take a bath). Computers are far from perfect, also. Look up the stats RE GSP-guided drivers turning onto RR tracks or off a pier into the bay. How about bugs/fixes for new platform launches? IMO, self-driving cars are a (hideously expensive) solution looking for a problem.

1946-ish Dodge pickup, white & rust, long-term parked behind gas station. 1952-ish Ford F-100, mostly rust, on inflated tires at small junkyard, out front, for sale. Early 1970's BMW 633 coupe, a bland beige color, good shape, rolling. The Camry behind it DWARFED the 6-series. Man, have BMWs gotten fat.

What for??

MAN are those people who paired double for the nameplate 2 years going to be pissed… esp at trade-in time!! Maybach 1.0s are going to depreciate by 75% to get under the Maybach 2.0 brand new stickers. Also will be interesting to watch the incentives on the 2.0- if the average s-550 takes $13K off, this should be good for at least $25K.

Who would these parents be that would spend $100,000 for a 3rd car so their kid could surf FB while they are driven around?? Frankly, I have a hard time believing any exist. The last cost I saw to build a self-driving car was $150,000 each. I don't see how that can drop to a mere $20K (OVER the price of the base car) inside of 25 years. Even with economies of scale (of which there will be none), in order to get a 87% drop in costs would have to require massive corner-cutting. The ONLY segment this makes sense in on a retail level is very high-end luxury cars. How many handicapped/ old people drop that kind of coin?

Jeep needs to build this!

Inline engines are ancient tech- not an avenue for forward progression. There is no vibrational roughness that's breaking/making any vehicle sales on an inline vs. V6. smk-logic : 'If inline engines were so good, 98% of the auto industry would not have abandoned them decades ago.'

In the recent Yahoo news brief on the Avenir, there was a VERY significant line from the article. It is : >>"The Avenir is a “concept car” Buick isn’t manufacturing yet, but the concept alone reflects a major shift in the way Buick’s parent General Motors (GM), and other big automakers, are bringing cars to market."<< You see it?? It's taken years, but I am finally seeing increasing mention of the GM brands as distinct entities again, rather than the media continually defaulting to the 'General Motors' umbrella. Here it is specifically : "...Buick isn’t manufacturing…" and "...Buick’s parent General Motors…" ​Over much of the last 2 decades, that would have automatically have been: 'General Motors isn't manufacturing…" and "...General Motors…" I have first seen this trend in Cadillac articles, on the tail of the incredible CTS-V. While it is a small step, it's a major positive move forward image-wise. The 'other shoe' to this turning of opinion should be a PR on the reformation of Cadillac Engineering and Buick Engineering (or however they get titled); hopefully --with Cadillac's recent autonomy quest-- at least that announcement is forthcoming. Image crafting needs to be priority one. I have been advocating the DE-publicization of "General Motors" for years upon years.

Cadillac does not need to, and is unlikely to, enter partnerships with outside engine builders. All they need is proprietary engines, developed within GM Powertrain, but only used in Cadillacs. Back in Cadillac's heyday, they -along with all the other divisions- had their own engineering departments, because that's where the Divisions came from. While Cadillac had higher levels of machining & tolerances, could be run without break-in periods right off the showroom floor, they were still in line with many other Division's engines in terms of displacement & power output. This is fine; be competitive with your competition, what Buick or Pontiac may have been doing was immaterial. And Cadillac ruled the luxury segment for the bulk of the automotive timeline. For example, GM has a solid 3.6L V6. Bump the displacement a smidge (3.7L), change the tuning up & some of the hard parts, sprinkle in a bit of unique tech & make it Cadillac exclusive- this is the IMAGE BUILDING Cadillac needs to get back to. It becomes a 'Cadillac engine' and you lose all the 'its got a Chevy engine in it' nonsense. Even tho it was very limited & brief, I shook my head when the Bonneville GXP was advertised with a Northstar engine. Cadillac had a strong brand recognition there, you just can't DO something like that without image degradation.