balthazar

This is a prime illustration of the 'impending doom' of the auto industry. Every car, no matter the price, is "supposed" to have a full-range of features standard, including but in no way limited to such incidentals as power mirrors. It's ridiculous! >>"you have to roll down the window and play with the mirrors to adjust them."<< Big GD freaking deal! Stop F-ing whining about it, do it, and again: shut up! "So many" want to be "in control" of their car (read: manual trans) but they can barely be expected to close their own doors or adjust their own steering wheel. The irony fairly drips... This reminds me of the thread about the "death" of the V-8; no one seems to realize the differences between tiers is steadily shrinking... therefore a theory can be made for the future 'novelty' status of the luxury car, because the defining features are increasingly becoming intangibles and invisibles.

Red against silver --complimented by the red Pontiac Arrowheads-- couldn't look bad.

>>"It is unfortunate the cars are so similar visually."<< BMWs for years and years were nearly impossible to tell apart on the road, tho as O.C. states, that's not of importance to the buyer, who's buying moreso into the brand. I have no problem telling the Cadillacs apart, especially after seeing CTS's a-plenty since Jan '02: They really share nothing except the elements of stacked headlights and the slatted eggcrate grille. In fact, tho I like the STS overall, those 'beveled' planes between the grille & headlights annoy me- I'd like to see that treated flatter; more like the CTS.

Unfortunately, the consumer has been conditioned that everything "NEW!" is automatically better, to the point that yearly or every-other-year changes are neccesary to be 'competitive' (Few see those changes for what they are: moreso different than better). No manufacturer is going to stop at a 300-HP V-6 for more than a few years, it's too detrimental, perceptually and marketing-wise. The consumer is Pavlov's dog, waiting for the next kibble. The V-6 has physical limitations before it hits the Wall of Reliability and it is reaching them... the last 'out' being huge, vibration-prone, displacements. Its' relatively easy to cordone off a rigid slice of the consumer market to prove a theory, but extrapolate that to the entire industry and it falls flat. "Death"? -No way. "Novelty"? The Prowler and SSR were novelty vehicles. The V-8 will not become a "novelty" in the foreseeable future. "Less"? -Now at least the terminology warrants discussion. Perception rules all: more models with V-8s will equate with the 'reality' that they are gaining in popularity; few will bother to look at volume trends to aid in a purchase decision. The simple truth- regardless of the ability of the V-6, there will always be a considerable percentage of consumers that want a V-8. Not need; want. End of story.

Dragon= I would much rather buy a car that showed creative thought went into the overall appearance than one where it just went into minor design details. I'm not into stroking the ego of the designer or name-dropping. In other words, I don't care what went into the design or how "original" it is, I am primairily interested in good, engaging overall design with great attention to detail. If a NG Sebring is the alternative from this company in this segment instead of the Challenger, I'm taking my money elsewhere. That being said, I'm also for acknowledging a car's heritage with retro design cues. I agree here, tho this seems to be counter to your above statement. I totally agree it will sell like hot cakes. Both to those who are trying to relive their youth (or the youth they wanted) and those who just love older cars. Is that somehow less legitimate a sale than to those who would buy it for other reasons? Are people who buy 'modern' cars 'more right' for liking it because it's modern? Is "NEW!NEW!NEW!" supposed to actually mean something? When will "GREAT!GREAT!GREAT!" overtake "NEW!NEW!NEW!" ?

Friends' ex mercedes E430- bad throttle lag, disconcerting braking lag.

The point is that those other makes' production is growing. There was no lexus or toyota V-8 fifteen years ago. There were far fewer mercedes V-8 offerings in far fewer models then, too. I would guess than 7-series and V-8 5/6-series production is higher than 15 years ago because BMW's overall volume has grown so much. VS. 15 years ago, those brands, among others, oppose your theory. And with the recent volume of the luxury segment, I would not ever term them 'niche' offerings. Plus, it's largely senseless to separate cars & trucks in industry trends; since the truck & SUV has breeched the 50% mark, the bulk of which is represented by non-work dedicated usage, their V-8 usage bears equal weight to this discussion.

Someone is sure buying STSs, and none have had any signs of being fleet/rentals. I see a lot of STSs around my area. I spot them right off- they look pretty nice and unquestionably upscale to my eye. Clear family resemblence, too- I can't see how people who are totally down on the STS would want it to look- like a larger carbon copy of the CTS??? Or are sharper creases everything? The 7-series has none of the 'flare' of the 3-series yet no one has complained here that it fails to match the specific design of the 3. Of course, BMW loyalists won't see it that way. Each higher tier of BMW get more conservative in design from the next lower one.

The proportions are completely modern- they share a lot more with the modern Charger than the vintage Challenger. Don't like it? -go drive another Anonyma-Plastic GT; this one's not for you. Why waste your time degrading it? And only a monkey on CAD could design such a sweet-looking car if they worked for a company with such sweet-looking heritage. That leaves out the bulk of the industry. Too bad for them

I'd vote for a bright silver (with black skunk stripes?) or that coppery/bronze tone GM offers on a few current models (maybe with a black Judge-esque beltline stripe?). Car would wear a beltline stripe pretty well, IMO. If the metallics are too much more, then I don't know what flat shade to go with. Color choices are tough- some cars 'speak' to you, others just sit there and shrug.

About 10 years ago a local Chevy dealer closed down. I took the frosted plexiglas "CHEVROLET" inserts from the sign out front (about 3'x6'), and dug the individual boxed steel letters, 2 sets about 12" high), that spelled out "CHEVROLET" from the dumpster out back. Sold all of it for $250. GM's Heritage Collection sells vintage repro neon dealership signs, tho initially they're limited to a production run of 100 each, it seems. Site won't allow pic linking: http://www.gmphotostore.com/products.asp?dept=1280&display=0

But on the other hand you have V-8s popping up in places they hadn't before. Look at all the V-8s in toyotas & nissans where there weren't ANY decades back. mercedes & BMW undoubtedly sell more V-8s now than they did circa '85 too, merely due to increased volume. The demand will always be there, just as the demand for 4-cyls will always be there. As V-6s 'come up in the world' they may well take on a major portion of sales, but really, the point of all this is quite irrelevant. "Death" is without debate a misnomer. BTW- let's give credit where credit is due: it was Buick that championed the V-6 in the domestic industry... not the first but far & away the most prolific and well ahead of the industry curve (1962).

Oh yes...... of course...... without question...... as we all know..... undeniably....in your mind......

3 inches less is still not exactly the same overall length of the 3-series; when is Cadillac going to get serious about the CTS??

The original Challenger is barely a 9.5 with the 'cuda (did you know they had different wheelbases?), never mind the new Challenger. Not a single dimension is the same, even proportions don't match for the most part (cowl height, greenhouse/body ratio, sectional area, etc). I would give it a 8.0. The Camaro I would give a 7.0. The BMWs I would give an 8.5. Guess it's all in the eye of the beholder...

Comparison references to the g35 and 330 were made repeatedly. Everyone knows the CTS doesn't compete with those vehicles... because it's a few inches longer than them! It's handling & roadability is compromised by those few extra inches, but there isn't a single reference to the overall length or the detriments that accompany that in the text! I was all set to believe the article but obviously it's a joke piece. Nice try.

Your definitions are all F-ed up. A "carbon copy" would be an exact duplicate. Neither the Camaro, the Challenger or 25+ years of BMWs are that and you know it, so drop the tag; it doesn't apply here. (It does to the rear-engined Beetle, tho.)All 3 examples bear overwhelmingly strong design heritage to much earlier versions of the same nameplates. So what- who cares? If the design is asthetically appealing, where's the downside? The alternative is change for change's sake- how's that work toward elevating good design? That's right; it doesn't.

No; let's indeed complain. We had a very good-to-excellent name from history apparently dumped in favor of an existing 'down-under' nameplate that sounds more fitting on luggage than a modern car. Take your shoes & socks off to get ready to count the times "rebadged" is used in media pieces about the Holden-Buick Statesman.

CARBIZ= >>"Wallace has missed another big trend of the past 50 years: selfishness. People respected each other and were more community oriented then. Today, it is me, me, me. "<< So utterly true, tho I might clarify; today it is all ME!! ME!!! ME!!!! finlandia= >>"Theoretically, conquest wins are easier than ever because of people's willingness to try something else. "<< But on the other hand, there are far more (extensive & full-line) brands in play now than 'back then'- in turn lessening the chances of a conquest win.

Which uses more raw materials, energy & investment to produce nearly the same results: a V-8 vs. a V-6 or a lexus vs. a toyota?

I do not fault the capabilites of the SB nor the potential cost-savings (not sure there would be any, however- I'm sure the issue is more complex than it would seem). However >>"COMBINING their V8 PROGRAMS together to save COST!"<< was a very large part of the Beginning of The Decline of GM. Cadillac has only strayed outside of their own engineering department for powerplants a relative handful of years in their 104-year history. Dropping the Northstar for a corporate SB would, in the eyes of far too many journalists, be occasion for repeated typing of "Chevrolet" in Cadillac reviews, irregardless of how ill-informed that would be. Not where we need to be going. MORE autonomy is what's critical, not homogenization. A Cadillac crest should mean a Cadillac engine, Period.

"Statesman": blorf! Nice 1940s- sounding name with no connection to Buick at all. Awful. I realize there is no correlation, but this does not bouy my hopes for this model. BTW- I for one think Buick needs a nameplate that sounds like it may stab you.

No; the overall volume increase is the 'only thing interesting' if you have some reason not to look at individual marque performance. And tho I commend anyone who bucks the media's SOP, in this case it only serves a particular agenda. This data should be extrapolated in the same manner as customary by the media outlets, hence the percentages. Every general media piece on GM makes a point of mentioning marketshare percentages far and away more often then volume changes. This is the exact same treatment with no spin. infiniti's numbers are 'invalid' for purposes of comparison because in the realm of percentages, an extremely low initial volume with a similar gain in volume over the same period will return an artificially inflated percentage. For comparison purposes it skews the scale.Allow me to illustrate: If Company A sells 4 cars in '01 and 6 in '02 (2 more units), their percentage gain is 50%. If Company B sells 100 cars in '01 and 102 in '02 (2 more units), their percentage gain is 2%. Tho the volume increases are the same, the percentages paint a slightly different picture. infiniti's starting volume was less than half any of the others I used. From an individual business standpoint, infiniti's 3% increase is comparitively excellent. There; feathers smoothed?

Interesting, if pie-in-the-sky-esque. In both the new car market & the aftermarket, the V-8 is seeing more proliferation than in any other time period. The demand is huge and still growing. Long range... if the V-6 moves far enough upward to all but replace the V-8, then I also see it moving downward and rendering the 4 irrelevant. However, when homogenization reaches those sad, unfortunate levels, I will only be driving something within a generation of WWII. But I also like L79's excellent (first) post: in a perfect FuturWorld, the prevailant passenger vehicle engine would be the DOD V-8.