balthazar

Unbelievable (except, unfortunately, it is).

I actualy lost my back-up for plowing- but we're only supposed to get sleet/rain IIRC, not any accumulation. I'm not sweating the $2.50 savings, but on principal it might be nice to meet up with enuf folk to call it a 'C&G meet'.

Lot of people can't make it... what say you to a reschedule, Roger ??

LaCrosse: to my eye, the beltline & overall height conspire to make it look narrow. Then again, I'm more familiar with 79-81"-wide vehicles, so everything looks narrow to me. XTS is almost 2" wider than the LaC IIRC; I don't see the same minor ungainliness there... but more width is always welcome IMO.

'67-gen Eldorado is one of my top 5 auto designs of all time, bar nothing. Back in the '80s there was tired soldier '68 in Balimer, and I would walk around it for 20 minutes at a clip. Fast forward to last year here in Jersey, another '68 shows up at a gas station 2 miles from my house, and another 30 minutes of my life happily slips away. I say 'top 5' yet there is no other car I've (yet) seen where I soak the design in so vigorously. F-ing amazing. -- -- -- -- -- That said, if we are going to compare the XTS to what it COULD'VE been, I'd be having a completely different conversation from my POV.

E-Body came out in '66; maybe he was making a reference to a... '73 or thereabouts.

< - - - Sorry; natural reaction. Have fun & be careful.

We can agree on a few points, Camino- it's not a real Cadillac flagship, and it's not what I would have wanted it to be. But for what/where it is in the lineup, I think it exceeded a LOT of people's expectations, and it's definately better (as a DTS replacement) that I imagined. ATS, CTS, XTS, Flagship makes the most sense by far to me, so I'm willing to wait & see if/when/what Cadillac may come up with down the road for that 4th spot. -- -- -- -- -- >>"To be fair, many people here are about performance, and handling because this place is still primarily and enthusiast website. However, much of the population have a different agenda when it comes to their vehicle purchases, and like cars packed with tech, and put 'driving dynamics' down lower on their list."<< True, especially in this segment... and I think that keeps getting lost in the judgement. Over on another board the reaction was slanted FAR more positively than here after the reveal than all the talk (a LOT of which was fairly brutal) was before NAIAS.

W/ respect to your opinion, I'd like to give mine~ >>"- Its EPII underpinnings trash the proportions"<< From the pics, I like the proportions in all views. Much fresher than the others (don't forget, I own the ultimate snub-nose: a COE). The 'full-envelope' sedan is the only stylistic road not yet taken in car design. What visibility is like over that cowl, I can't begin to guess tho. >>"It was touted as a flagship, but clearly isn't."<< Yet other sources pegged it as a 'replacement for the DTS', and by configuration, it seems a lot closer to being that than an STS replacement. >>"It was touted as being inspired by the Sixteen, to which it bears no resemblence."<< Sixteen in some respects is dated & outside Cadillac's design language. Would feed those who think 'Cadillac has no direction' if it were the Sixteen (or really close). >>"The footwell intrusion is inexcusable, especially in a car of this size."<< From the pic, this looks terrible and unbelievable. I have to stretch my legs out; if what I see is accurate, it would be a dealbreaker for me (no worries: I ain't in the segment). >>"It was intended to replace not one, but two, exisitng cars - it replaces one."<< The DTS. HAS TO BE the DTS, esp since the bulk of the opposition at large is over the platform. >>"It does nothing to move the brand forward beyond its current template."<< >>"It treads on Buick's turf."<< If the only primary characteristic of the car is 'FWD sedan', I would agree; like an MCE refresh on the current DTS. But this isn't merely that, and IMO the interior/features solidly trump the fact that it's FWD-based AWD. And the supposed pricing takes it clearly out of Buick's range ($50-60K). >>"Still rates a 5 out of 10 in my book."<< I cannot grade it fairly on only the pics; and I am really intriqued by the reports from those that have seen it. If pressed: 7/10. I am impressed by the dynamicism of it in & out, but much can only be realized in person.

Why is this so hard to grapple with ?? The CTS is not even remotely the same sort of vehicle the XTS is. DIfferent segment/demo completely. The CTS has nothing to do with the discussion, and no one wants it to go to FWD/AWD. The mini is a BMW, that's FWD, that's supposedly fun to drive to the point there's no call for it to go to RWD, maybe the 1-series should move to the same platform. Same sentiment. >>"Audi hasn't been able to tap into even 5% of the market"<< Again- sales are immaterial. Or is the SRX getting all sorts of spec-based allocades since it's sales are so good ?? 'XLR-V', you are free to hate the XTS concept and bash it dead based on pics & intitial specs. But -based on specs-, I'd like to see even an occasional bash (from anyone) on the 295-HP hybrid (is AWD available too?) s-class, for bring the same (lesser HP) specs to the segment. That's be the degree of consistancy that would shut me up.

CaddyXLR-V ~ >>"And why does everyone feel the need to bring up the A8. A sedan that sold..."<< The reason the A8 is repeatedly brought up here, is that in too-numerous-to-count previous Cadillac threads, audi is frequently in the half-handful of competitors who 'show Cadillac how it's done'. Here is a Cadillac which has jettisoned a 275 HP V8, FWD, & 4-spd auto for a 350 HP hybrid V6, AWD, & 6-spd trans, much more in line with that handful when equipped that way. Sales are besides the point and certainly are not primairily predicated on powertrain layout. Look at the BMW 6-series for proof there (150 units/mnth). I for one am only searching for consistancy. If the A8 quattro is accepted as a well-performing platform being FWD-based AWD, then we should all be open to what a FWD-based AWD MRS XTS can achieve- and not bash it dead before it rolls a foot under independant evaluation.

Light and neatness go a LONG way toward making 'working in the garage' pleasurable.

The ultimate would be to shoot & blow up the Beatles, but I don't think that's on the software Co's short list.

And I could give a lot more weight to the FWD-based AWD put-down position if just once I had read the same thing about the A8. Somehow, that vehicle is above comment. Or even some passionate calls for the Mini to have been RWD upon it's re-debut (or since). Meanwhile, no one would blink twice if the S-class was FWD-based AWD. 3-series/ M3/ CTS point is legit of course, but as pointed out- that's a very different type of vehicle. I am willing to be open-minded about the XTS until we see the final production version/specs... BECAUSE everything else looks very favorable to my eye. One great thing- the XTS SURE IS brewing up loads of conversation !!

I don't think we can fairly say 'didn't even try'. That would've been a MCE on the current FWD, 275-HP gas DTS, not a unique in-n-out AWD 350-HP Hybrid. I, too would love to see an all-out, Sixteen-esque monster, a modern-day Eldorado Brougham... but this car isn't that and wasn't intended to be. To look at it from that standpoint.. of course it's not going to measure up.

Like Olds stated so well, only enthusiasts have any idea or hang preconceived notions on such 'intangibles' as platforms. Other that a tighter range of dimensions (& possibly 9/10ths power/handling limitations), a given platform can be made to exceed supposedly 'better' platforms quite easily. In other words, maybe less than 1% know this, and only because they've been told. If we were told the XTS was on a brand new platform made special for the XTS, yet it performed EXACTLY the same as the proposed one will, there'd be no issue (tho the results were the same). How do I know the S-class doesn't ride on a stretched version of the 'fleet-special' C-class platform ? Why would knowing this effect my potential purchase either way on an S-class ?? Who buys cars based on what platforms they're built off of ?

>>"The whole thinking behind the XTS is very much like Cadillac's philosophy of the 80s and 90s. "<< The same " '80-90s philosophy" WRT to the XTS would've resulted in new wire wheel caps & new padded vinyl top grain on the current DTS. In other words- completely superficial changes on a tired vehicle. How does the XTS fit that philosophy ??

^ I think we are discussing based on different definitions of 'ride'. turbo200 ~ >>"cadillac should offer some real substance over larosse {XTS: check} and compete in a different category {XTS: check} ...you know how audi does with the A3 by offering better interior materials{XTS: check}, more equipment standard {XTS: check}, more equipment choices overall {XTS: check}, and more engine choies. so first point, it should be differentiated from the lacrosse... {XTS: check}"<< -- -- -- -- -- Mr Noodles ~>>"The XTS really does nothing that one couldn't get from a Lincoln MKS right now."<< The s-class V8 really does nothing that one couldn't get from a BMW 7-series V8 right now. So why have both, right? >>"But if you seek a good V6, the Ford Taurus has a 365 hp V6 right now. Why wait 2-3 years for Cadillac to offer me a 350 hp V6?"<< Or why look at a BMW sedan with 330 HP over the Ford, right ?

I've yet to encounter a modern garage, even on the big$ houses, deeper than 20', and that's just not enough to get a bench, some equipment & elbow room in, plus the car. A client wants to build a shop this year, wants 30x60'... we'll see if/ what & when gets done. -- -- -- -- -- BV, I assume dollars are an issue, so a concrete floor is likely out. But if you dropped the level about 4" and put 3/8" blend in (stone + stone dust), raked & tamped, then some heavy mil plastic and pressure-treated plywood, at least you'd have an affordable, solid surface to work off of. Can't see the stove in the pic (whadya do to it; posterize ?), but some sheetmetal behind it should reflect more heat to the rest of the garage. I think Home Depot has flat sections for ductwork that are reasonable.

turbo200 ~ >>"does the tune of the suspension, the choice of tires not get influenced by the inherent balance of the chassis? FWD designers have to compensate and stiffen the platform in order to make it feel more balanced, thereby tuning the suspension for a more 'controlled ride'. he's actually right on this point."<< Are there 'FWD' tires & 'RWD' tires? Are choices here mandated by F- or RWD? No, they're not. 'Stiffening the platform' is not going to overcome 'bad balance', but this is a moot point if the XTS comes in around the 55/45 its logistically at. In other words, if it were 70/30 or thereabouts, we'd be splitting firewood, not hairs. >>"rwd is the best solution for luxury cars..."<< Agreed.... tho a class leading luxury car should be well-rounded in all categories of performance... and in some instances, a case for the improved traction of AWD can be made. >>"...there's no more need to debate this point just for the sake of defending GM on this choice."<< Don't make assumptions on the motivations of others. >>"...the ultimate handling, performance, and ride though will leave much room for the euro competitors to top..."<< Completely unknown at this point. >>"...it should have awd standard....also should only come with advanced hybrid system."<< Agreed (stated by myself yesterday). I read elsewhere that Welburn said it is to be AWD standard, that it is as close to the production car as the Camaro was, and that he expects a slightly longer wheelbase. ALL great news.

'80-81 T/A, black/gold, polished Turbine wheels, gorgeous, for sale, gas station. '65 Galaxie 2-dr hardtop, green with a bondo-d rear quarter, a bit rough, parked @ station. something from circa 1925... 2-dr coupe, roadster top, ratty & in primer, parked @ station. Oh yes- and a late model honda pilot with chromed mags and wide white walls (maybe 1.5"). Yikes.

>>"RWD cars ride better and accelerate without as much front end lift as a FWD car. RWD is not only better for performance, but for luxurious and smooth ride as well."<< Ride has nothing to do with which wheels propell the car- ride is all suspension, tires, and insulation/mounts. Handling is another matter, but ride? Sorry. >>"Mercedes... S65... what does it do to enhance Mercedes' image?"<< Question is, what does a V6 S-class's image do to the exact same car as a V-12 at double the price (or more) ?? >>"Cadillac's 350 hp is better than the S400's 295..."<< That must've absolutely KILLED you to type. Congratulations, there may be hope ye... nah. >>"...you can get 385, 510, or 612 hp in an S-class. Likewise with the 7-series, you can get 6, 8, or 12 cylinders with 330-550 hp. Cadillac offers no choice, just a V6."<< Legitimate... but still ignores the top-sedan V-6 market. People don't waffle between the V-12 and the V-6 on the S/7 - they come into the showroom looking for one or the other. So those looking at a V6 S-class could now have a much more modern, more technologically advanced V6 XTS to cross-shop, where they had no Wreath & Crest choice before. See- more choice = gooder. >>"American cars are thought of as jokes in Europe"<< As Olds very succinctly pointed out & your post supported; foreign cars are thought of as 'jokes'. This from an area that bled out it's entire auto industry... But in fact, vintage American iron in Europe is highly coveted. >>"The XTS isn't a better car than the CTS..."<< Well, the CTS IS a pretty damned nice car, I agree... but the facts here is that the XTS is a DIFFERENT car than the CTS- they aren't comparable. But the interior blows everything else out of the water in Europe- they have nothing like that there. If it comes to market as shown, it's definately going to garner some real interest, IMO. We'll see.

Just tossing a 'crow-flys' PA town out there for reference ...

I have a bay open, but I'm not close enough for 'daily swapping'- a solid 50-minutes from New Hope alone.

Still OK here : a party for my 4-yr old niece fell on the 24th.