smk4565

CAFE is stupid because it factors in footprint. They should remove that out of the equation and go strictly on miles per gallon, regardless of vehicle size. That would force auto makers to make all vehicles more efficient and demand for pickups and SUVs is huge. If people want a pick-up bad enough they will pay an extra $5,000 for it. And manufacturers will also cut margins on pick ups to keep the volume up. Just as they have cut margins on family sedans due to competition. If the CT6 can get 65 mpg-e, I don't see why the same technology couldn't yield 40 mpg-e on a Silverado or Escalade, and near 30 on gas-hybrid combo.

Even that new MKZ has a ton of plastic on the dash, you can tell it is a Fusion underneath. A 400 hp twin turbo V6 is great, but without a rear drive chassis it is wasted.

You could argue that top to bottom, Mazda has the best car line up of any manufacturer. There isn't a bad or dated product in their entire line up. It is too bad more people don't buy their cars, because the 3 is probably the best in the compact segment, the 6 probably the best mid-sizer. And this CX-9 looks well done also.

I think it is a pretty good refresh. New powertrains and updated styling and interior. Some refreshes they barely do anything, Ford did a lot for it just being a mid-cycle refresh. But surprisingly (or maybe not) this is the #2 selling Ford behind the F150, so obviously they are going to keep it competitive.

I like the Miata more. I don't think the Fiat really looks all that good, and it doesn't really scream Fiat to me other than the grille opening. But they need product to keep the dealerships open.

Well obviously they won't be making a diesel now.

The reason it wouldn't, in my opinion, is to push the technology out there to more people and then the little better CAFE score if they sell more as well. As small of a bump it would be...a better score is a better score. Which imagine the CAFE help if it was applied to SUVs and trucks. Rather than a low volume Cadillac. They could put a 15 mpg V12 in the CT6 as the base engine and sell it for $60k, they'd still only sell 3% the volume of what the Silverado sells. Cadillac shouldn't have to pay the CAFE piper at GM, let Chevy do that.

If it is more than the 3.0TT it won't sell. Luxury buyers are going to want performance and smooth power delivery over fuel savings. So you are asking buyers to pay more money for less horsepower to get fuel savings. It won't work. If you price it the same as a 3.0TT, then at least you offer the choice or power or economy at the same price. I know there is battery cost, but a 2.0T engine you can find in $25k cars, it can't cost that much to make one of those. This is why I think this technology is better on a Silverado or Escalade that might only get 18 mpg, you can push it to 30 mpg, which is a huge fuel savings.

The 2-mode hybrid Silverados and Tahoes didn't add enough mpg because it was still a V8 (and batteries are getting batter). By switching out a 5.3 liter V8 with a 2.0T 4-cylinder and electric model you could probably cut fuel consumption in half. And the highest margin vehicles GM makes are Escalade, Tahoe, and Silverado and the GMC counterparts. So you can hide the cost better in those. Plus it is a vehicle that could use the fuel economy push. You could push the Silverado to 30 mpg, to me that makes more sense than something like a Malibu hybrid when the Malibu is lower margin and already gets decent fuel economy.

GM should put the plug-in hybrid into the Silverado. 335 hp/432 lb-ft is more than the 5.3 liter V8 makes. There is obviously space for batteries and weight isn't a concern. All these car makers want to introduce hybrids and electrics, but the biggest gas guzzlers are the best sellers. This is why CAFE makes no sense also. Companies make a 40 mpg car that they lose money on to offset a 15 mpg truck they make profit on. Look at GM's best sellers, 600,000 pick ups a year, 350,000 Lambdas and Tahoes/Yukons a year. Almost a million units of trucks that average 20 mpg at best. Why not put the plug in technology there and reap the impact.

I think the interior looks good. It is clean and simple, not overly tacky or loaded with buttons like some Acuras. I think the interior is the strong point of this car, it looks better than the Azera or Cadenza or Avalon.

How many vehicles have start/stop, cylinder deactivation, AND 8-speeds or more? I'll wait, it's a super short list. Start/stop and cylinder cutoff have been around a while. I think every BMW has had start/stop and an 8 speed the past 3 years. Lexus had an 8-speed transmission 9 years ago. I also heard a Ford engineer say that start/stop gave about a 5% gain in city fuel economy. So that is going from 20 to 21 mpg. Not a deal breaker for most people. I think a 300 hp V6 with start/stop, 8 speed auto, 22/31 mpg is what is expected in a $35,000 car. The Chrysler 300 had 300 hp and 31 mpg and an 8 speed n 2012. That is just what is expected of the segment. I think the Lacrosse engine is what the buyers want and expect. That's not what I asked. Here it is again: How many vehicles have start/stop, cylinder deactivation, AND 8-speeds or more? In other words: what vehicles feature all three of those technologies? Not many because most manufacturers don't use cylinder deactivation. The more common path is smaller displacement with turbos. Personally I don't even like start/stop, I turn it off when I get in a car that has it. You can cherry pick 3 attributes from any car to say why don't others have it. I think it is good that the LaCrosse has an 8 speed, since cars like the 300 have 8 speeds, Acura and Chrysler 200 have 9 speeds. This is where the market has gone. I like that they used a V6 in the LaCrosse either, I think it fits the car better than a highly boosted turbo 4. I don't think fuel economy matters a whole lot to most buyers. Look at sales of pick ups, SUVs, crossovers, etc. Cars win in handling, braking, ride, acceleration and fuel economy and still get outsold by the trucks. People will trade that fuel economy away because gas is cheap here.

How many vehicles have start/stop, cylinder deactivation, AND 8-speeds or more? I'll wait, it's a super short list. Start/stop and cylinder cutoff have been around a while. I think every BMW has had start/stop and an 8 speed the past 3 years. Lexus had an 8-speed transmission 9 years ago. I also heard a Ford engineer say that start/stop gave about a 5% gain in city fuel economy. So that is going from 20 to 21 mpg. Not a deal breaker for most people. I think a 300 hp V6 with start/stop, 8 speed auto, 22/31 mpg is what is expected in a $35,000 car. The Chrysler 300 had 300 hp and 31 mpg and an 8 speed n 2012. That is just what is expected of the segment. I think the Lacrosse engine is what the buyers want and expect.

The LaCrosse absolutely competes with the Toyota Avalon, that is the car is was modeled after pretty much. The Avalon actually has a higher base price than the LaCrosse, so do the Cadenza and Azera. The Lexus ES costs more than all of those cars, and until a couple years ago the Lexus ES was about the size of a Regal. Buick is not a luxury brand either, it is a premium brand. Cadillac is the luxury brand of GM. If you want more than 300 hp buy a Cadillac. This is also why I have been saying Cadillac should make the 3.6 V6 base in the CTS and CT6, 3.0TT as a mid-level volume engine. Buick doesn't need a 400 hp car, Cadillac makes 400 hp cars. Lincoln can put all the power they want into the MKZ, it is still a Fusion. The 400 hp is to cover up the inferior chassis underneath. And that won't really help sales all that much, it might just get some people that were going to buy an MKZ anyway to spend more money on it.

Start/Stop and 8-speeds have been around for a few years. I saw a Ford engineer say that 90% of 2017 Escapes will be sold with start/stop, this is pretty standard stuff now, I think in 2020 it will be as common as ABS. The Lacrosse will be fast enough for what it is. 305 HP is a lot for front wheel drive. And it is more important that a car like the Lacrosse has enough power to move around with the engine at 3,000 rpm or less. The typical Lacrosse buyer doesn't want to be revving to 6,000 rpm and bearing engine noise all the time.

I made a mistake before, the S-class hybrid is rear drive, not AWD. Even the TT V8 CT6 should be able to start under $90k. If a Platinum turbo V6 is $80-something, adding 2 cylinders shouldn't push the price too much. I think the hybrid has to be cheap or it won't sell at all. People would rather have a V8 than a hybrid. Look at the Escalade, one of Cadillac's best sellers and it is thirsty as hell. Luxury buyers don't care about gas mileage. The exception to the rule is Tesla because it is modern and trendy and the car does 0-60 in 3 seconds, so it can beat all the V8s anyway.

The TT V6 model is probably only the middle and high trims. The hybrid shouldn't cost any more than the TT V6. The cheapest S-class you can buy is the plug-in hybrid, and they probably don't even sell many of them. I think if Cadillac wants to sell any hybrids it needs to be cheap. This is the problem facing all electric cars and hybrids. Gas is cheap and here people don't care about fuel savings, people would rather pay $85,000 for an Escalade that gets 15 mpg than to buy a CT6 hybrid. Until they apply a gas guzzler tax to any vehicle under 25 mpg EPA combined number, people won't look for a hybrid or electric. With the exception of the tree hugger crowd that buy the Prius.

Who says this will be near $100k? If it is they will sell like 5 of them all year. I don't see why they couldn't make a hybrid 4 cylinder model the same price as a turbo V6.

Hopefully they price it or below the TT V6 model, they have to price it cheaper than the ELR. Interesting now the transmission works. Memo to Cadillac, put this drive train in the ATS sedan and coupe, and kill off the ELR.

I don't think the CT6 competes with the S-class. There was speculation as to what the CT6 would compete with before it was released, but now that we have seen the car and have the specs and pricing, clearly it is not an S-class competitor. Cadillac fans seem to want to compare it to an S-class, I am sure Hyundai/Kia fans want to call the Equus and K900 S-class competitors but they are not. The comparison was made of the CT6 plug in to the S-class plug in and the 0-60 time. So first off, not the same price point or segment, second the S-class is AWD. If you add AWD to the CT6 plug in you are adding more weight which will slow down that 5.3 second 0-60 time and cut into range. That was my only point. with AWD, the CT6 is probably 5.5 seconds 0-60 and loses 5 miles of range. Which are still good numbers if priced around $65k.

If the CT6 plug-in is well priced, it is the model to buy though. It will be faster than the base car or the 3.6 V6 obviously. If the plug in is priced equal or below the 3.0TT that is a pretty good value because they will probably be similar in performance.

The S550 plug in is all wheel drive, so that adds weight which will slow it down but you can sell it in the snow belt. The CT6 plug-in is rear drive so that will scare a lot of buyers away in the snow belt. I drive a rear drive car, but most won't consider one. The Mercedes 9-speed will help the S550 0-60 time, is looks like it is good for a .3 second gain as the S550 coupe does 0-60 in 4.5 seconds vs 4.8 for the sedan of equal weight. Mercedes did announce today that they are increasing V12 production to meet demand and there are plans to add electrification to the V12 engine.

Agreed. Ford is just a Euro brand copy cat anymore.

I think the Buick demographic is why there is a V6 instead of a turbo 4. The Buick customer is going to see a 4-cylinder as an entry level engine or not enough for a full size car, and the V6 would probably be smoother in that you aren't relying on boost to make power. If you want more than a run of the mill V6, that is what Cadillac is for. Unfortunately, many Cadillacs have turbo 4's and run of the mill V6s.

Well I read some news release that this was the most powerful Lincoln ever. Problem is, they can put 400 hp in it, but it is still a Fusion chassis underneath.