Cmicasa the Great

RWD and V8 has nothing to do with Impala sales at this point. The current Impala is quite possibly the best large (normal) sedan on the market.. FWD and all. The only normal sedan I might put out in front of it when using the word BEST would be the Chevy SS.. and its sales are low as well. Flip side is look at CUV sales. They are booming. Impala sales dropped because the W-Body Impala is done. The rental queen is no more. GM has cut back extremely on rental sales. I don't kno if it was covered in the sales threads, but GM only sold 22K (9% of its total sales) vehicles to rental last month.. compare that to its closest competitor Ford who shifted 35K (15% of its total sales) I agree that the Impala should go RWD/AWD, but not on Alpha.. it should go on Omega. The interior space of the Impala needs to be retained.. and Omega is a perfect and superior replacement to the Chevy SS (Caprice) ZETA platform. The same thing goes for the CTS, or rather CT5. That car should be a SWB CT6, like the 5Series is a SWB 7Series. It should embody the driving spirit and capabilities of the current CTS, and in truth still keep its external size. The reason for the switch to Omega would be give it the additional interior space people are bitching about and I find silly.

To my dismay they killed production of the Srx months ago instead of just changing the name to XT3, giving it a quick styling update, and dropping the price by a few thousand. At the same time.. XT5 production is just ramping up

Pricing. have been saying it since 2014 when the new CTS debuted that the price point of each is hurting the other. I say that unless this is GM's strategy. I say it sounds nuts, but it could be a possibility.. The XTS is a product of a huge family of Epsilons. Its sales are not confined to the based model either. I remember reading that the XTS on average was selling at an ATP of $60K.

I'm not saying that they are in dire straights because I have known about their retail/fleet strategy for a while and thinks it's the way to go. However, concern was more specific to the Camaro only selling half of what the Stang sold. There's no way that difference is purely in fleet sales on the Mustangs behalf. Just strange to me but I think the reasons have been covered pretty well. Actually its a real possibility that the Mustang is running 30-40% Fleet. That's about 3000-4000. Interesting thing is that the Mustang is down 25% in May. I will also say that there are still not a full load of every trim of Camaro on the lots yet.

No, Cadillac does not. Mercedes does because they have to cover the entire market with a single brand, that's why they've been moving into Buick/GMC (and GMC/Chevy Commercial) territory lately. Cadillac can be more exclusive and selective with their vehicle offerings. Actually I have to kinda disagree. Cadillac while remaining a somewhat exclusive still should have vehicles that people want at the moment.. be trendsetting or at least a part of the trend. Its deficiencies very seldom are the vehicles it has, but more so the vehicles it doesn't. An XT5 is fine.. but they need an XT3 and an XT7. There simply is too much of a leap from XT5 to Escalade imo.. and I'm not talking about just the almost $35K price difference either between the two base models. The XT7 could be a crossover based on Omega. Light, nimble, and powerful. And then there U have your bridge. 3 CUVs and the 2 SUVs (Escalade and ESV). Cars? CT3, CT4(just a coupe version of the CT3, but more aggressive (ala 4series vs 3series) and including a 4-door coupe (ala Grand Coupe as BMW got this right)), CT5, CT6, CT7, and CT8.. and imo the CT7 would be the Elmiraj while the CT8 should be the Mid-Engined Sports car. The CT6 should be fleshed out. Once the CT5 arrives, with more space inside.. add an inch or 2 on the CT6.. kill the base model.. Keep the Luxury as the base.. make the Platinum the "Premium Luxury" and the TTv8 the new Platinum.. with upgraded even further interior. Do a VSeries version.

Reduced fleet.. industry down 6%.. shorter selling days... and vehicle ramp up of several models along with the death of of a few key models during the build up. I have never seen something like this before. GM starts killing fleet sales.. after years of so called enthusiasts complained about their fleet sales at 30%.. and suddenly they are in dire straits. Talk about damned if U don't.. damned if U do. As to Cadillac's CTS.. They are low on the sales numbers, but the expectation that they wouldn't be in this market is insanely naive. Mid-car luxo was: E-Class 3,699 5Series 3264 A6 1661 GS 1111 CTS 1082 + XTS 1209 = 2291

U simply aren't a real enthusiasts..

The gauges in the ATS look WAAAAAY better when lit up and in person. They look terrible when the vehicle is off and you're right, all they're really missing is a little chrome accent. I really like how you can manipulate what information you want and where you want it on that LCD display too. Really cool. It looks like you cannot do the same(it's at least less customizable) on the Mercedes and probably can on that BMW instrument cluster. Well. Its my belief that may very well be the big change for the instruments gauge on the '17.. that it pretty much gets a 8inch configurable layout like on the Camaro.. which simply makes sense

"take an inch or two out of dash to axle, and take 2-4 inches off each overhang. Keep the roof at the same height....maybe drop it one inch. Not hard" the original CTS had lines and shape that preserved a decent interior cabin. it would not at all be difficult to take the six inches out of the rest of the length of the car besides the cabin. 1" dash to axle, 2 inch front overhang, 3 inches rear overhang....done. I would love to get one of these brought over from Europe to here... http://www.carenthusiast.com/reviews/article/1815/-/2006-Cadillac-BLS/2.0T+175+hp+5+Man.+SE.html this (the bLS) is the spirit of the ATS mission today CTS goes back to the size it was STS goes back to the size it was DTS goes back to what it was to be honest if Cadillac did this with their sedans they may just fix it. Cadillac is doing this.. by rebooting it all and trying to clear up the confusion with new names.. ironically. I think at this point it is acceptable... altho I would have simply left the names as is.. and called the ATS the CTS, the CTS the STS, the XTS the DTS and the CT6.. the XTS (as it was originally planned for the once ZETA based flagship to be called "XLS." The size thing tho.. really can be fixed with using OMEGA in the CTS going forward and leaving ALPHA for the smaller offerings. Also.. we should remember what JDN said a few months ago about the next "CTS" and next "ATS" we should be seeing a simple change of size formula for the sake of these issues that critics have brought up about the legroom etc. I'm thinking for the most part the Alpha based ATS replacement will essentially get the Chinese ATS-L Wheelbase of 112.6 inch vs what it has right now of 109.3. This would dwarf the current 3series' 110.6 in WB by a few inches. I think that the ATS replacement will be, along with the Sub-ATS, the only Cadillacs on the Alpha platform, with the Camaro helping out with the numbers a bit more. The CTS replacement will probably go to Omega. I could see it staying at 196 inchs.. and getting a bump in Wheelbase (currently at 114.6 inches) too coming in at around 117 in N.Amer, like the 5Series. It has been said that the CT6 handles as well as the current CTS.. so certainly I would think that an Omega based... smaller than CT6... CTS would handle as well or better, not losing any of its agility, and losing a few hundred lbs in the change over. This would be beneficial in amortizing the Omega platform even quicker.. (altho I would still push it out to an Impala at Chevy and a Park Ave or Avenir at Buick) along with the CT7 and CT8

As a previous owner of an '05 STS and a current owner of a '16 CTS.. U are wrong on a few points. The major one being the carbon copy issue. The size is very much where they end. The CTS.. in all forms is a better car than the STS while only mimicking its size. I will also point out that the current CTS has a top engine that the old STS didn't. I speak of the VSport. The 3.6L is a NA compliance engine, which in my opinion really isn' even needed since the LF3 could be simply detuned about 60 hp.

^^^ This.. and I don;t see why I'm labeled as being a FANBOI for saying the same thing. In fact.. it is a strong reason why U usually don't see compacts as taxis. Am I the only one who realizes that a COROLLA and a 3SERIES(ATS) are in the same SIZE category? If I didn't tell U.. which one is the BMW and which is the Corolla?? Based on OLD's idea of what luxo is.. I'd say the one with the ability to allow my legs to stretch out

That is all cool and all..YOU are THE quintessential Cadillac customer that Cadillac NEEDS to cater too... Remember this commercial? OK then....U know what is phoqued up? Cadillac trying to sell COMPACT CARS!!!! What are U smoking to tell ME that U dont give a shyte about anything and anyone yet U want to own a toy car like an ATS???!!! Cadillacs are big, brash.... And THAT is how people want them!!!! Hell, even the XTS outsold the ATS and the CTS... I KNOW the CT6 will do fine, just because its a BIG Cadillac...but it could have used more brashness... As far as the competition goes... Dont U think that when the 2nd generation CTS hit the streets, and was quite successful, did BMW decide to enlarge the 3 Series? Cadillac, I believe, started a trend with a BIGGER back seat.... Yet you too Casa, are too BLIND to see that a small back seat was NEVER ideal... 'Twas Cadillac that started THAT trend, only for Cadillac to take 2 steps back, because Cadillac marketers FOLLOW instead of LEAD... Cadillac was too STUPID to realize that THEY are the ones to START a BIGGER back seat in COMPACT LUXURY cars.... Also....SPACE is a LUXURY that EVERYONE COVETS and EVERYONE has the SAME definition for... Many may not like wood, or chrome.... However, SPACE is a LUXURY that EVERYONE WANTS EQUALLY.... And...ironically...CADILLAC is the ONLY top tier LUXURY MAKER that has built a REPUTATION on...SPACE... Starting with Cadillac V16s of the 1930s to El Dorados in the 1950s and 1960s to the 60 Specials that started the bigger is better trend of American Luxury to the Escalade ESV of today.... So...please, dont try to justify a toy car ATS... Yes....Cadillacs are cars to be chauffered in... En Espagnole....but pictures say a 1000 words... Yes I remember that commercial.. I should not only am I THAT COMMERCIAL.. but we ran that commercial at the start of every sales meeting at my company for about month after it came out. 1) Problem is that despite that commercial.. All Americans are not the same as they were in the GO GO 80s and 90s.. some are sensitive lil bitches that get offended when U tell that they are.. AMERICAN... which translates to me as "Better." 2) It is not f@#kED (can't believe U go thru the time to come up with another word) up to sell a compact car when that compact car is a necessity and is a quite competent car.. Point blank.. the ATS beats the 3Series in almost every way I can think except .. Back seat room and instrument gauges. The latter is actually being updated for the '17 model year BTW.. and the old ones were technically not worse than the 3series.. but simply lack a simple bit of PIZZAZZ that could have been simply remedied with a chrome accent: In truth the only thing that gives the two Germans an edge over the ATS's gauges is the accents.. and only because they distract from the thriftiness of it all . THOSE GAUGES ARE NO BETTER THAN THE CADILLACS.. Just spruced up a bit more. In fact.. one could easily argue that the ATS has better ACTUAL gauges. 3) Yes the XTS outsold the ATS.. but the ATS is a new segment.. .attempting to convince new buyers (ATS conquest rate was like 70%) to try something completely new to Cadillac. The previous CTS were tweeners.. a bridge of gap to move traditional buyers over. In truth I have always said that the 1st and 2nd gens were mistakes in size.. as they were entry level, larger.. and going up against smaller competition and consistently losing. It was not until the 2nd gen VSeries that Cadillac (Bob Lutz) kill that and put it up against the M5 and M6.. and it started winning. Imagine that.. same size.. similar weight.. 4) When the 2nd Gen CTS hit the streets it was an established name and in its first full year without bankruptcy messing with sales in 2009.. and added first gen sales in 2008.. it sold 46K (2010) and 55K (2011) with added coupe. I will add that even in that.. it had a Coupe and Wagon, + VSeries on all.. that were 30% of its sales. In the ATS's first year on the market, with no added sales (2013) it sold 38K .. no wagon.. no coupe.. no VSeries. Sales dropped in '14 and '15 for various reasons.. but I guarantee that backseat room had 90% less to do with it than no variants beyond a coupe and the rise of CUVs as the go to U live in a weird vacuum. U say Cadillac was stupid in creating a larger backseat in the older CTSs.. yet fail to realize, even when told to death.. and have "google" at your disposal.. that the 3series and the rest are really not more than a smidge larger than the ATS's backseat. The current CTS vs say a 5series is in reality.. not in your crazy world.. almost spot on in interior volume.. but with a few differences:

i think the rear seat hurts the sales with traditional Cadillac base. You still have a lot of those people you need to sell to. Those who grew up believing luxury meant a basic minimum amount of comfort / space. I hear people take pot shots at how small the ATS is when i go to the auto shows. We all tried to hide how much the rear seat problem hurt the outgoing Malibu and now look at the awesome press its getting for correcting a primary flaw.. interior SAE measurements always mislead. The ATS is plagued by many of the same typical GM rear seat packaging problems where the front seat is too low, the hardware is intrusive, and the floorpan (probably due to where the bracing is) has pitifully small actual footwell areas. Couple that with narrower greenhouses, fighter plane diving rooflines, ridiculously small and narrow door openings, and tank humps that stick out forward of the actual seat itself, even for the smaller, wedging yourself into an ATS backseat requires gymnastics training and inspires claustrophobia that an MRI tube could match. The ATS is the classe of car that one buys and has to show off to coworkers.....where you bring coworkers to lunch here and again. You're going to have the occasional 6 footer back there. I can't believe the high level execs at GM let that pass and go to production.....grounds for firing IMO when they should have demanded all of that be reengineered for more space. GM can't punt on these packaging issues very much more. If anything it shows piss poor engineering, can't meet structural demands and preserve ample space at the same time. They make a sturdy frame for the car to ring the 'Ring......but then its so overbuilt and bulky that there's no back seat space to indulge co workers in a chauffeur drive. Hold up.. Show off to co-workers?? There is nothing aspiring about owning one. Furthermore the idea that piss poor engineering is present due to an INCH less legroom in the rear sounds ridiculous. In fact.. the legroom of the ATS is only an issue NOW.. because the segment leader decided to go bigger. The 3Series is suddenly a family car.. which means that anything not sized exactly like in interior dimensions is lacking in engineering kno-how? Preposterous!!! Even worse is that people are supposedly buying these cars so they can "indulge Co-workers in a chauffeur drive" Its a non-issue because again.. the boys at Cadillac , like the boys at Chevy heard your whining and are making the change to mimic the size difference of the 3series. I fully believe that they will be capable of doing it while retaining the weight and handling superiority. Shouldn't it be though? It's a 35-70k Cadillac. I know if I bought a Cadillac, regardless of model, it should be show-off worthy to the majority of people who buy the mainstream chevy, ford, toyota, honda, etc. So it should be aspiring to own. You don't spend that kind of coin on something that you don't aspire to own. U kno what.. I should have thought from that perspective and not my own.. I personally see nothing aspirational about owning a entry level Sport Compact outside of the M3, ATS-V, or C63AMG. Maybe I should have said that

Listen Bud.. U don't kno me.. so stop thinking that U kno my mind. The truth of the matter is that I really could give a rat's ass about passengers comfort level in the rear of my car as long as I'm comfy in the front. Same thing for what choice of music I choose when they get in.. I'm listening to what I want.. if they don't like it.. put their earbuds in and turn it up to 10.. cause I'm blasting my $h!. The ATS's supposed size issues in the rear will be taken car of after all the bitching from people who probably can't buy anyway so what's your issue? The CT3 is a relaunch of sorts and will rise on the back of a car that won quite a few awards with exception.. to the all important.. back seat one. Cause suddenly.. U lonely mofos have so many friends to tout around that U are trying to stuff them all in the backseat.. of a compact car

i think the rear seat hurts the sales with traditional Cadillac base. You still have a lot of those people you need to sell to. Those who grew up believing luxury meant a basic minimum amount of comfort / space. I hear people take pot shots at how small the ATS is when i go to the auto shows. We all tried to hide how much the rear seat problem hurt the outgoing Malibu and now look at the awesome press its getting for correcting a primary flaw.. interior SAE measurements always mislead. The ATS is plagued by many of the same typical GM rear seat packaging problems where the front seat is too low, the hardware is intrusive, and the floorpan (probably due to where the bracing is) has pitifully small actual footwell areas. Couple that with narrower greenhouses, fighter plane diving rooflines, ridiculously small and narrow door openings, and tank humps that stick out forward of the actual seat itself, even for the smaller, wedging yourself into an ATS backseat requires gymnastics training and inspires claustrophobia that an MRI tube could match. The ATS is the classe of car that one buys and has to show off to coworkers.....where you bring coworkers to lunch here and again. You're going to have the occasional 6 footer back there. I can't believe the high level execs at GM let that pass and go to production.....grounds for firing IMO when they should have demanded all of that be reengineered for more space. GM can't punt on these packaging issues very much more. If anything it shows piss poor engineering, can't meet structural demands and preserve ample space at the same time. They make a sturdy frame for the car to ring the 'Ring......but then its so overbuilt and bulky that there's no back seat space to indulge co workers in a chauffeur drive. Hold up.. Show off to co-workers?? There is nothing aspiring about owning one. Furthermore the idea that piss poor engineering is present due to an INCH less legroom in the rear sounds ridiculous. In fact.. the legroom of the ATS is only an issue NOW.. because the segment leader decided to go bigger. The 3Series is suddenly a family car.. which means that anything not sized exactly like in interior dimensions is lacking in engineering kno-how? Preposterous!!! Even worse is that people are supposedly buying these cars so they can "indulge Co-workers in a chauffeur drive" Its a non-issue because again.. the boys at Cadillac , like the boys at Chevy heard your whining and are making the change to mimic the size difference of the 3series. I fully believe that they will be capable of doing it while retaining the weight and handling superiority.

What I put in bold is U being FULL OF $h!. Cadillac didn't tout the weight savings as a selling point.. they touted the handling capabilities due to lighter weight and chassis engineering as a selling point. The Escalade is an established vehicle in a segment that quite frankly it pretty much established. Even tho it was no the first (Nav) it was the one that became the icon way early on. ATS is brand new.. 1st generation. CTS literally segment jumped. Neither have all the variants that the competitors have either. From a sales point of view.. that could.. and I kno it seems crazy.. effect sales. I mean walking into a Cadillac dealership to buy a convertible ATS and not finding one could push that buyer to go over to BMW. People like U need to stop being stupid. My patience is thin And I have said for years Cadillac needs more models. Why is there no ATS and CTS convertible? They got a Camaro convertible out pretty fast, same chassis. Cadillac is like GM's step child that never gets what it needs, because they are too worried about building more Buicks. Buick got a convertible, Buick has 3 crossovers. Cadillac 1 crossover, 0 convertibles. That is a joke. Cadillac doesn't have a sports car above Corvette, yet BMW, Mercedes and Audi all have $100k+ sports cars. And why, some GM unwritten rule that nothing can be faster than a Corvette. They'll put a supercharged V8 in a Camaro, why not make a 600 hp ATS-V with all wheel drive, 10-speed automatic, awd and launch control. Where is the V8 full size sedan at Cadillac that was teased back in the Ed Whitacre era, the full size V8 coupe? We got the 4-banger CT6 instead, and the El Mirage, was in fact, a mirage. I agree about variants.. we all kno this. The Cadillac situation may be a bit different as the vehicles have to be executed even more stringently than the bread and butter ones. The ATS vs Camaro convertible thing I have no answer or logic for tho.. It is my opinion.. and some fact that Cadillac is waiting for the 2018-19 model year to fully build on the excellence it presented with the CTS, Escalade, XT5 and CT6. Baby steps.. blowing your entire load while teh world is not looking would be even worse than doing nothing at all.

You're a f@#kin idiot. Its no other way of putting it. An ATS buyer might as well buy a CT6 because BMW prices its cars $3500 more than Cadillac prices its??? How about an ATS buyer go straight over to the on the showroom floor next step CTS which is not only larger than the ATS, but has more equipment. BTW The ATS 2.0L ($36,240) to CTS 2.0L ($45,560) price jump is $9,320. The 328i ($38,350) to 528i ($50,200) price difference is $11,850.

What I put in bold is U being FULL OF $h!. Cadillac didn't tout the weight savings as a selling point.. they touted the handling capabilities due to lighter weight and chassis engineering as a selling point. The Escalade is an established vehicle in a segment that quite frankly it pretty much established. Even tho it was no the first (Nav) it was the one that became the icon way early on. ATS is brand new.. 1st generation. CTS literally segment jumped. Neither have all the variants that the competitors have either. From a sales point of view.. that could.. and I kno it seems crazy.. effect sales. I mean walking into a Cadillac dealership to buy a convertible ATS and not finding one could push that buyer to go over to BMW. People like U need to stop being stupid. My patience is thin

ATS was designed to be the lightest car in the class, the whole "every gram matters" philosophy they talked about. But some other guys got lighter, or got roomier and bigger while not adding any weight, and most of the ATS weight advantage in 2013 was in comparing an NA 4 cylinder ATS to a turbo 4 BMW and a V6 Mercedes. Low weight is nice, it isn't the way to win buyers. If it drives like a tin can, or has no interior space, or a cheap interior, no one will care what it weighs. Show us ONE publication that says that the ATS drIves like a tin can. It also has basically the same dimensions as the competition, i.e. they are all too damn small in the back. Yeah the whole front engine, rwd layout doesn't work too favorably in these size cars. The front seating areas are just fine but they have small back seats. Which, to me, is fine because they aren't supposed to be big cars. Big cars don't drive like these smaller sportier cars. Once a 3 Series(and the competition) gets too big it will have completely lost everything that made it such a great sport sedan..years ago. Keep them small-ish, sporty, with great dynamics and drivers' cars. Also, hasn't the ATS only been complimented on it's Alpha chassis? Does not drive like a "tin can" at all. If one wants to criticize the ATS the driving characteristics are the one place to stay away from as it is great in that department. The thing is that Cadillac has a larger 3series handling rival that bests its 5 series same size competitor in the CTS. They can give the CTS and ATS more room in the rear if they want tho.. it won;t determine my buying preference in the least as long as they retain their agile, SOLID, driving characteristics.

ATS was designed to be the lightest car in the class, the whole "every gram matters" philosophy they talked about. But some other guys got lighter, or got roomier and bigger while not adding any weight, and most of the ATS weight advantage in 2013 was in comparing an NA 4 cylinder ATS to a turbo 4 BMW and a V6 Mercedes. Low weight is nice, it isn't the way to win buyers. If it drives like a tin can, or has no interior space, or a cheap interior, no one will care what it weighs. Show us ONE publication that says that the ATS drIves like a tin can. It also has basically the same dimensions as the competition, i.e. they are all too damn small in the back. That's the thing.. They REALLY AREN'T.. the fools that try to squeeze in them as if larger cars don't exist are just too effin BIG. It's a crazy argument that these reviewer perpetuate about the ATS almost exclusively.. Yes the 3 Series has a tiny bit of extra room but its still too damn small for my 6'3 ass to try to sit back there.. and I kno it going in.

ATS was designed to be the lightest car in the class, the whole "every gram matters" philosophy they talked about. But some other guys got lighter, or got roomier and bigger while not adding any weight, and most of the ATS weight advantage in 2013 was in comparing an NA 4 cylinder ATS to a turbo 4 BMW and a V6 Mercedes. Low weight is nice, it isn't the way to win buyers. If it drives like a tin can, or has no interior space, or a cheap interior, no one will care what it weighs. The ATS was the first car to go through weight reductions, they've been continuing with weight reductions since then. That's why a CT6 4-cylinder can weigh less than the ATS 2.0 AWD. He acts as if Cadillac innovation from years ago now.. should somehow never be beat by new offerings today. Its stupid. plain and simple. Mark my words.. teh CT3 will be lighter and still have a bigger interior. For him to say that "If it drives like a tin can, or has no interior space, or a cheap interior, no one will care what it weighs" is insane considering the ATS is in no way like that. The interior?? Yes.. the dash is a bit behind now, but it is not as if Cadillac doesn't kno this.. and IMO.. at this point.. I truly believe that they are not wasting a MCE on this car because it is being replaced for 2018. The instrument cluster was upgraded tho I believe for '17.

It goes even further.. Why the hell would anyone over 6 ft be so inclined to look at an ATS, 3Series, C-Class etc when the CTS, 5Series, E-Class, etc exist. Even at a heavier price point.. one could just buy a used one if money is the issue.. and I won't even get into the fact that if it is.. U really shouldn't be in the luxury segment anyway.. or at the very least.. looking at buying instead of leasing.

Even if its a $100M issue... the penalty if they didn't act fast would be much higher. Nonetheless, the Lambdas are MINTS. Being around since 2007 pretty much unchanged, and still selling like hotcakes has its rewards. In truth.. I see zero reason why GM would abandon the platform. They simply should pull a "Toyota Corolla/Camy" and keep it going for another decade with a few updates to the inside. This is one platform where driving dynamics mean zero The program to replace them is already well under way. The big thing is weight. I'm hoping that the weight loss the Acadia got translates well into the larger Traverse and Enclave once they are released. One of the reasons they get such terrible mileage in the first place (even the overstated MPG stickers weren't great) is due to the fact they weigh so much and the 3.6 has to work hard all the time to moved these beasts around. They could really do well with a smaller displacement V6 with a turbo tuned for torque rather than horsepower to get the low end grunt needed to move the mass. My experience with the Lambda fuel economy over the years seems to have been validated with this story though.... I've always struggled to get even close to the sticker rating on the highway and in the Suburban/Tahoe I have always beaten the Lambdas in that regard. I kno. the weight. But in we all have to keep in mind that these vehicles were a safe measure for GM as possible replacements for GMT900s back in the day.. thus the size. I hope they retain that size too in the Buick and Chevy versions.. but after seeing the strides made in the K2xx and the new Acadia.. I am confident that the situation is covered pertaining to F/E

@ CCAP ^^^ Yes.. the Dimensions: CLS Rear Headroom: 36.1 inches CLA Rear Headroom: 35.4 ATS Rear Headroom: 36.8

Even if its a $100M issue... the penalty if they didn't act fast would be much higher. Nonetheless, the Lambdas are MINTS. Being around since 2007 pretty much unchanged, and still selling like hotcakes has its rewards. In truth.. I see zero reason why GM would abandon the platform. They simply should pull a "Toyota Corolla/Camy" and keep it going for another decade with a few updates to the inside. This is one platform where driving dynamics mean zero