finlandia

It still stuns me that American automakers don't understand the real reasons why they can't sell cars in Japan and Korea. Yes, the trade barriers are ridiculous, but dropping them wouldn't solve anything. The reason they don't sell cars in those countries is because they don't make cars that work there. A big, heavy, thirsty car is Not a Good Idea in Japan, where small cars/trucks dominate, gas is far more expensive, roads are incredibly narrow, and parking is virtually an Olympic sport in urban areas. Japan has Kei cars (truly tiny things, like Honda's Beat). Small cars like the Cube, Tiida, Fit, and Vitz (Yaris here) dominate. Efficient packaging and attention to detail (not the same thing as build quality in my book) are things that American automakers didn't care about with respect to small cars until recently. Remember the RHD debacle. If it's tough to get people to look at American cars here, how about in Honda's backyard? We have/had loyalties to the Corvette and the Taurus. They have loyalties to the Skyline and the Corolla. As for Korea, it has its admittedly scary nationalism. Breaking through that could take decades. Hyundai/Kia own 70% of the market as it is. I think an American brand's best bet for cracking those markets is not the bread and butter mass market, but rather with luxury brands like Cadillac. A luxury buyer isn't concerned about the price of fuel, has garaged parking spaces, and so forth. Just have to bring the whole product range up to par with the competition first. The CTS is a good start.

Yup, and American carmakers had better keep selling those engines for years to come. For so long as there's demand for them. It's just a checkbox on the option list in some ways. If a buyer wants the rumble, check the box. If not, don't. It's a free country. My wife would, I probably wouldn't unless there were other considerations. So not so much a "death" as a "reduced to cult status" sort of thing, I think. I, for one, will be very sad if that faithful ol' GM pushrod V-8 ever disappears. Because it's a great engine that has gotten an unfair rap from the domestic motoring press over the years. I shook my head when Cadillac bowed to snotty customers who demanded a "high-feature" V-8 just because they thought the pushrod was too "primitive" for them. Now, I'd like to see what could be done with a small-displacement V-8 today. Just for the pure engineering sake of it. Slap it in a lightweight car and go.

I couldn't agree more. The next-generation CTS has a chance to displace the 3-series/C-class/A4/IS-series in the minds of many people. The current one is a good starting point. It gets Cadillac's foot in the door. Flub the next CTS and there will be no Cadillac once the DTS-buying retirees die off and fashion moves away from the Escalade. So it's neither miracle nor mirage. Just an opportunity.

Another thing that no one seems to have mentioned is that some drivers prefer engines that they can wind out. The low rev-focused, fire-and-forget engine/drivetrain setup of many American cars strikes them as unengaging and limp. I love the zingyness of Mazda's rotary and Honda's I4 (in S2000 form, mind). I love the sound, frankly. The kick of a well-executed turbo or the whine of a supercharger on a high-rev engine (like the Cooper S) is glorious. I'm 29, and I know a lot of guys my age who feel the same way. We grew up in the 80's and we have no natural affinity for Detroit Big Iron. To guys like us, the V-8 is a weapon without a purpose. It's overkill for commuting and offers no meaningful advantage over a high-efficiency 6 or even a well-tuned, turbo 4 (Saab or VW) on the freeway or in the twisties. Aside from the drag strip, really short onramps, or really, really heavy cars, when would you need that kind of low-rpm torque? Save it for race cars and trucks. And you can never have too much hard drive space, believe me. Set up a media server sometime and you'll see what I mean.

Wallace is right that cars went from rare status symbols to commodity products. That's why the tuner market is so big - people want to differentiate their all-too common cars. But because cars are more or less commodities, the domestics can take advantage of the lack of brand loyalty by building dynamite cars. Theoretically, conquest wins are easier than ever because of people's willingness to try something else. It's just a matter of having the product to entice them. Hopefully the Big 2.5 won't flub it.

It's because corporations aren't run by the "makers." Rather, they're run by pure business-types who don't know anything about product. Their training is finance and/or accounting, or some other MBA specialty. So their instinctive reaction isn't "let's build better cars," it's "let's get better commercials." Or "let's get creative with the money." Car companies produce definitive cars when visionary car guys who happen to have business sense are in charge. Same goes for technology companies. Disclaimer: I am a finance guy, though not one in management.