balthazar

When did acura have a 350-HP hybrid engine ?? Still waiting to learn why mercedes has a 295-HP hybrid in their s-class, too....

Cubitar ~ >>"...you have this 'oracle of all automotive knowledge' image on this board..."<< {blinks} I do ?? Aww shucks. Actually, I only feel confident RE the '50s & '60s... but I take stabs outside of that. >>"...but really, you... have strong opinions, as many of us do. "<< True, true (watching the game, having a Bud). >>"The interior is the best part of the car. I've sat in one."<< I sat in a new one in '01 or '02, guy I worked with had one. I was impressed with how it was put together and the perception it was 'luxurious' inside... but there still was an impression of sterility and... soulessness about it all the same. That gen, with the big tacked-on Baleen whale grille, is the last LS that EVER caught my eye on the road; the gen(s) since then just do not. But interior & exterior success don't necc. go hand-in-hand. >>"...maybe I'm becoming my Dad..."<< My Dad owns a Lucerne (which is very quiet & smooth- but I don't like it otherwise, at all), I own a B-59. I don't think I'll 'move up' in this case.

>>"You are stating your opinions as if they were facts."<< We ALL do this. >>"Lexus has it's own design language, it just may not be apparent to you. If you actually looked at the car in person..."<< I certainly have seen these in person. Here in central NJ; they're quite common. >>"...you would see it's much more than a Camry..it's a very nice product, beautifully built."<< Being nice & well-built is not a reflection on it's design/styling, which is what I was referring to. But let's take a look here : Same soft, amorphous surfacing, same trapeziodal grille, same greenhouse, same door pulls, same fender-to-hood scallop, same stretched inner corner headlights... not the same parts, but the same 'language'. You cannot get more generic than the camry. At least the others in this segment (7-series, S-class, no matter their repective awkward bits) are unmistakable and take some chances, plus they expand upon the respective brand's cues. LS= no character, no spunk, no individuality. Nice car, well built, but boring & invisible as hell to look at. IMO, I don't think that's naught but opinion, as the pics show rather well.

In this segment, the LS is bland, anonymous & generic. It has no design language or design heritage, and the only way it can slime it's way to being termed 'handsome' is because it's so utterly homogenized. It looks no more expensive than the camry, and if you agree that 'perhaps' 75% don't know it's RWD, then the profile view-only RWD proportions are lost on that 75%. A car in this class has to bring a HELLVA lot more to the table than a stand-back, profile-view implication of RWD. Remember, in this class, RWD is the mainstream/generic. (<-- that doesn't mean I personally want FWD because of traction or it's 'different'.... just saying the focus on such in the upper lux seg is highly overrated.)

>>"The FWD Lacrosse CXS is 58/42. An AWD CTS is 52/48. I would assume the AWD Lacrosse is somewhere in between that."<< I would agree the AWD LaC should be between the above. Let's peg it at 55/45. AWD XTS, with a longer rear, might nudge that to 56/44. A8 is 56/44, but the XTS is "obviously" going to be uncompetitive with that based on... I'm not sure what. >>"I doubt this car will be pulling in people shopping for a 5 series or a Lexus LS."<< 5-series, prolly true. But the LS?? You think people are tossing these around thru corners ?? It's a jelly-bellied cruiser, where an AWS XTS with a tuned suspension will likely outhandle it at limits... even tho neither are going to be driven beyond 7/10th of their capabilities and neither will be sold on those capabilities either. I'm willing to bet not a single LS was sold primarily because it simply was RWD, and that 75% of it's owners have no idea which are the drive wheels.

With some of the design work coming out of GM recently, I give appropriate credit to Welburn's comments RE the XTS. DeLorenzo... I have had major issues with in some of his past pieces... he has a chip on his shoulder WRT GM... but perhaps that earns his comments even more legitimacy coming from him, if that's true. I would truely like to see this one in person, more than any other modern vehicle I can remember.

^ So what does this mean then ? : >>" “A real luxury flagship is still on our wishlist,” says Clay Dean, Cadillac design chief.<<

I really, seriously think that the much-maligned 'grandpa' demographic is going to be seriously turned off by the wild electronics/digitals inside (at least as presented on the Platinum). Too confusing and 'new fangled'... but I CAN see it appealing to the youthful techies quite readily. Agree with everyone who said this need to be the ONLY XTS offered: hybrid, AWD. The performance would be competitive, and there'd be no 'torquing into the next lane' with AWD & 350 HP. Also agree with those that said this is NOT the Cadillac flagship- it is the DTS replacement with the same degree of step-up over the DTS as the CTS was over the Catera. But with European pedestrian impact requirements, and the ever-present emphasis on interior volume, enlongated greenhouses & higher hoodlines are the future- A8 & s-class are old school. With the CTS sedan & coupe vs. their concepts, I have high hope the 'XTS' will show a like degree of faith to this concept in every regard.

Cubical-aka-Moltar =>>"Well, whether you 'buy it' or not, things certainly seem to be moving that way."<< 2009 hybrid marketshare in U.S. by sales : 3%. It's moving that way... very very slowly.... -- -- -- -- -- I read quite a bit here & elsewhere about the XTS last night, and images of the pics kept popping into my head thruout the day. More & more I am liking this car. And I am not going to make complete guesses as to other versions, to be fair I can only comment on what was presented- this XTS Platinum. First, the styling : The top 3 are all immediately dated. Esp the horrible s-class- with it's '90's Taurus-esque bubble greenhouse & it's mazda-inspired north-south fenders. The car is a styling wreck. Lexus is an anonymous blob with no brand ID. 7-series is just weird with numerous awkward touches. Where is the CS BMW teased us with a couple years ago ?? a8 looks ancient in comparison. The steep angle between the hood & upright windshield, the obvious black outlining the side glass, the laughably cheap plastic triangle at the rear quarter window, the same, blocky fist-dent/ basket handle door pulls we've seen on everything down to $9K econoboxes, and the Lego-inspired, interchangable front & rear fascias... those vertical seams that make it look like they snap on & off--- ruins any fluidity that car attempted to have. Ahh, and the swollen, bulbous, heavy FWD nose....

I, too will wait until another set of pics shows up. Offhand- the 'cab-forward-esque' styling is unusual for Cadillac, but as the large cars keep shrinking, more & more are going to go this way, esp with the regular publication of EPA interior volume determining for folk which car is more "eficient", space-wise. I am positive engine orientation has zero bearing on the demographic for this car OR the S-class/7-series. None of the owners of these cars ever looks under their own hood. And if the XTS comes as AWD standard, that -in this category alone- WILL compete with the RWD-only S-class/7-series fine. From the pics- it has a nice flow thru the body stem-2-stern, but the profile & rear are a bit bland to my eye. Interior does look fantastic, tho. Esp like the 'V' theme echoed subtly thruout. Need more pics.

Years back, a buddy told me he spotted an old Chrysler behind a highway motel. We motored over and sure enough- a '58 Chrysler Saratoga 2-dr hardtop. That era MoPars didn't have the traditional door lock buttons, the doors locked via the inside door handle. I worked open the vent window to where I could slip my hand & arm in, then popped the door. We took turns admiring & sitting in the car, checking it out thoroughly & making 'brum-brum' Wedge sounds. I caught what I thought was a motel room curtain falling, so we buttoned her back up & walked back to our ride, just as police ruiser rounded the corner. Someone had called... but the cop didn't speak to us; no evidence. We had no intentions of vandalism or theft, just admiration.... tho of course we did commit automotive B&E. -- -- -- -- -- I have often wanted to do what's been mentioned above; move an idling vehicle around the corner. Anyone SO lazy they cannot shut off their car (I assume it's laziness.... can't think of another legitimate reason), deserves a rude awakening.

You mean the physical style of the camera ?? It's a tool for me, not a piece of jewelry. If it takes good pics and can interface with the computer easily, that works for me. The Panasonic seems a good candidate- I wonder what the longevity/ reliability of it is. Can I get a quick primer on optical vs. digital zoom ?? Are the numbers indicitive of how close-up you can get ?

>>"Sad state of affairs. Globalism just sucks."<< Right: not funny, but sad.

Read the 5 topics that came up when searching for 'digital camera'. Being the Thriftyosaurus that I am, I am finally ready to replace my 10-yr old Canon 2.1 MP digital. It actually still works fine, except the battery is tired, and the recent replacement isn't much better. I can shoot about 12 pics B4 both are dead. For kicks, this lil unit cost right around $500 10 years ago (!!) but at least I got my money's worth (sold about $4k of stuff over the years). I primarily use a DC to shoot items I sell, so any image issues the relative quality level of the Canon has.... being an old hand @ PhotoShop- they are no problem. I do not need to photograph butterfly eyebrows or the like, nor do I need it to anything beyond 1.) shoot decent pics, and 2.) have a decent, uncomplicated interface to download into the comp with. In other words, in that 2.1 MP quality is servicable to me (except 3' is about as close as you can get), I do not need 15 or 13 or 10 MP, I'd imagine. Couple that with I don't want to spend over $200 this time.... and I'm open to recommendations.

>>"all you folks who think you hate the looks of the terrain, have you actually seen one in the real world, two, have you even seen an equinox? The terrain looks very upscale in comparison to the equinox."<< I have, and agree. >>"...its more different than the edge is to the MKx or Escape to the Mariner."<< Agreed again, and by far. Same with the Acadia & Traverse. But while I agree the Terrain looks more expensive/ upscale than the EQ, I see them as just different vehicles period. The EQ is a nice, trim lil CUV, and I favor it's styling greatly over the (still more expensive looking) Terrain.

'70 Cutlass hardtop, blue w/ blue bumpers, driver condition, growling fiercely as it drove by twice. '63 Chevy II 4-dr sedan, dark blue over med, stock & nice, driving. '62 Belvedere 2-dr sedan, white w/ a jaunty red insert at the beltline, 3-spd on the column, exc, parked @ gas station.

>>"...GM does have a reoccurring problem of cars tuned to get in the tallest gear just for the sake of mileage. This was a criticism of the Malibu when it first got the 4-cylinder and 6-speed"<< I assume this was early production shift programming since changed, because there are zero issues with my wife's 2.4L / 6-spd Malibu's shift characteristics. I got to drive it thrice today (taking care of a buddy's German shepard for the weekend)- that's a 40-mile round trip plus some side errands... prolly 140 miles today on all sorts of road (asphalt, concrete, residential, highway). Whether in drive or using TapShift, the car shifts well & appropriately. Power is quite good, and under moderate throttle it does not skip in the 1st 4 gears. After that, if you cruise, it may jump 5th into 6th depending, but that's certainly not an issue, either. I would like to read these 'criticisms' if they are available...

I personally find the styling of the Terrain rather distasteful. -- -- -- -- -- >>"I have tried to love the Terrain and even the stying while not my favorite has grown on me. But to be honest I have checked this out and I can not find a good reason to pass over a Nox LTZ for this vehicle. This is a case where it is like the G6 over the Malibu. Unless you wanted a 2 door there was little reason to buy the G6 other than styling. In other words offer me things in this I want but cant have in the Nox and you might get more money out of me."<< I have the strong feeling that IF -say- a G6 (you forgot the convertible & the GXP) and Malibu were to offer different 'things', there would be a contingency that loudly cried 'Why can't I get Widgit 3.0 on the Malibu- it's on the G6 fer Pete's sake??' In other words, there are ALWAYS going to be those who are dissatisfied and going to make themselves heard about it (thanks to the Godsend- the InterWeb). In OTHER words, one could apply the same position to a Chevy mid-sized sedan with 4cyl/6-spd and options A, B, C and a nissan mid-sized sedan with 4cyl/6-spd and options A, B, C. Don't we really only need ONE mid-sized sedan with 4cyl/6-spd and options A, B, C; aren't the rest just redundant regardless of the parent corporation ?? {^ Not directed at you, hyper} Either we embrace the diversity that -in this case- the G6 & Malibu represent, or we slide ever forward toward homogenization and limited choice.

Neil has a long history of Just Not Undertanding.

Seeking to burn the 'geoamino' out of everyone's eyeballs :

smk4565 ~ >>"Cadillac doesn't charge $25,000 less to not gouge the customer, they charge $25,000 less because the car isn't as good and no one will pay $90,000 for a CTS-V."<< How do you KNOW this ? This segment is all about performance, and the CTS-V is the highest performance sedan in it's class. Why else would anyone pay the most in this class if not for the most performance ?? Still, if you actually believed this (>>"they charge $25,000 less because the car isn't as good"<<) & were consistant, you would never mention the hyundai V-8 genesis, since it costs $25K less than the CTS-V. >>"BMW and Mercedes charge what they do because they have a good product that people are willing to pay for, not to gouge customers."<< Really? What is the per car profit on an M5 ??

^ It wasn't that long ago that Harley Earl posted here regularly. His appreciation was not bound by being "modern" (whatever that may mean), and I of course value that. Henry Ford, Henry Leland are correct! The third man the piece I got the opening from suggests is .... Henry Royce (Natch; of the Rolls fame). Interesting piece (too long to transcribe here), but all 3 grew up similarly; not wealthy, began machinist's apprenticeships while young, and had both strong work ethics and mechanical aptitudes. Their professional approaches differed: Ford (duh) wanted to build an auto for the masses, Royce knew how his car was to be built and was very demanding & particular, while Leland fell between the 2- he determined that a high quality car could be built to a consistant high standard of material & precision that allowed a certain level of mass production.

Correct- the doors on the (brick) coal shed were too narrow- he supposedly had not considered such before that moment. The door on the right is the one that was widened.

>>"GM was not bankrupt in fall of 2007 when the CTS came out, or at any time in 2008. The CTS coupe could have been out in summer of 2008, 1 year before bankruptcy."<< That would be: 1 year before bankruptcy was declared/filed. The conditions that forced bankruptcy (ummm: no money) didn't spring out of the ground like a winter crocus the day before, you know. >>"They have to sell it at a $25,000 discount compared to the competition, what does that say about Cadillac?"<< That they do not feel gouging the customer is neccessary ?? Fact remains that the competition must answer 'why do they have to charge $25K MORE for a car that's no better ???'

This one should be easier ~ The great Henry Ford spent a good deal of time building his first car. There really was no choice- the automotive components we have long taken for granted (spark plug, carburetor, wheels, etc) to build one with did not exist and the science was still 'in labor'; not 'born' yet. Other major components (crankshaft, camshaft, pushrods, bearings, etc) had to be designed, then machined from scratch, from materials certainly not envisioned for use in a motor car. In addition, Ford had a full-time job and a small family. Having spent some of his teen years repairing watches, Ford was a known perfectionist, and he also took time to study (what little) work was being done by others. His first gas engine was completed in the family kitchen in Dec of 1893. He successfully ran it for a half minute, then never ran it again. Nearly immediately, he began building another engine in the shed behind his house, and the car to put it into. He worked in his spare time, machining, testing, building, a LOT of trial & error, all thru 1894... 1895... and into 1896. With a best judgement pegging the date as June 4th, at about 2AM and with a light rain falling, he was finally ready to test drive his 'Quadracycle'.... except for one, final adjustment that required perhaps the LEAST precise instrument he had used yet; an axe. For what.... ?