smk4565

The Regal could sell better with no Verano there, but I for years have thought Buick needs a small car because no one makes a small luxury car. All the small premiums are like the Golf GTI, Mini Cooper, Volvo C30, etc that place the emphasis on sporty driving. I actually wish the Verano had less Cruze to the interior and were a bit nicer. The exposed cup holders, short armrest and shifter are more economy car than luxury car. I wonder how much staying power the Regal has, the interior isn't that impressive to me, the seats and everything you touch is hard. It is pretty well made, so I don't think it is a bad interior, it just doesn't wow me in any way. The Regal has weak engines also, it is outpowered by the Sonatas and Camrys of the world so I don't see how they are making the sport sedan claim. The Regal just seems like a car that can quickly get dated and forgotten once the newness wears off.

Costs too much, that is basically SRX money. And the problem with Denali vehicles is the interiors aren't all that different than the base model. They add some wood trim and stitching on the leather. To me the Terrain Denali interior is no better than a Verano or Malibu LTZ which are nearly $10k less.

I'm sure it is taking Regal sales, but I don't think Regal sales were going to be great anyway. The Regal is supposed to be a sporty Buick and have a firm German ride, something Buick owners don't want. The Verano, LaCrosse and Enclave fit the Buick image and are more for quiet and comfort with burled wood trim and soft seats.

I had a G37 rental for several days last year, and I've driven the CTS 3.6. The G37 is much quicker and it corners better too, but the transmission is really jerky and either wants to be in 1st, 2nd or 7th (conversely the Mercedes I drove with a 7-speed is the best transmission i ever experienced). The G37's ride is okay, CTS is a bit softer and smoother, and the CTS has more features. I would take a CTS over a G37, the G37 is too rough around the edges and a terrible transmission, and that is what makes BMW so good, they give you the performance without the roughness. Cadillac's average buyer is 57, BMW and Audi are around 48. To me, Cadillac still has an old person image that they need to shake, and they need to get younger people in the door, the ATS hopefully can. They need a flagship sedan also to trickle down technology to cars like the CTS. Because the stuff these $100,000 have that 5 years later ends up on $40-50,000 cars can't be introduced on a car like the CTS.

Well the C-class, A4 and 3-series could be thrown into that entry lux mix, but the 3-series is not being cross shopped with a Lexus ES or Lincoln. The CTS being a Cadillac does attract some old buyers that are looking for soft ride and not performance or that like domestics and would consider a Lincoln. In that regard the G37 is probably a bit too sporty for most CTS buyers, the Genesis is actually closer to the CTS than the G37 is in terms of ride/handling balance. Audi sales are okay, they beat Acura, Lincoln and Infiniti and are pretty close with Cadillac. Audi just can't match BMW or Mercedes. The base A6 gets 25/33 mpg, so I can see why they offer that engine. VW has to play the CAFE game too, and some buyers rate fuel economy very high. They do offer a V6 and a V8, so they cover all bases. Audi gets a lot of good press from the car magazines and Audi cleans up in China also, their Chinese sales alone are about Cadillac's total global output. So they're doing fine, although I don't really care for them and wouldn't buy one.

The CTS (1st and 2nd generation) was sized and priced to compete with Infiniti G, Lexus ES, Lincoln MKZ, and Acura TL. And I agree it is a very solid contender against those cars, better than all but the G37, and the G37 is a bit rough around the edges, the CTS is better than that car in many ways also. CTS isn't competing against an E-class no matter how much Cadillac wishes it was, E-class costs more than the STS did. And an Audi S6 does 0-60 in 3.7 seconds, and gets 17/26 mpg. That is quicker than a CTS-V and only 1 mpg less than a V6 CTS. If the CTS wants to really play with the German trio, and I hope it does, Cadillac needs to step it up.

Sonata/Optima turbo is better than this.

You guys want to knock BMW and Mercedes, yet Cadillac is powerless to compete with them head on. And without a flagship sedan, what is Cadillac doing to try to catch up. The CTS has been here 10 years and with no impact. Cadillac sales are lower now than 10 years ago. Meanwhile the past couple years BMW and Mercedes have had their best years ever. Mercedes has been around 125 years (they invented the car after all), and 2011 was their best year. Cadillac's best days were 55 years ago.

By building a car good enough to sell over seas. With better product they can grow a little in the USA, but they need a global winner to get sales. Which is why they need a flagship car to be taken seriously over seas. You don't sell a flagship in volume. You sell 3-series and C-class size cars in volume... which is what Cadillac has in the ATS. That is what I meant, ATS, CTS and a flagship together that are good enough for people outside the USA to want to buy one. Even if the ATS is good, there is still no image behind it, they need the whole package.

People have talked about how the Allante and XLR failed, a car like this would be double the price (adjust Allante for inflation). If Cadillac can't make it at $75,000, they aren't going to make it at $150,000. Cadillac has too little street cred to try a move like this. People that own or are about to buy an Aston Martin, Ferrari or Lamborghini aren't even thinking about Cadillac, let alone walking into a dealership. The only way Cadillac could make a name for themselves with this is to top the Bugatti Veyron, and that would cost so much money and they would lose money on every one sold. And even if they built it, people would think it would just fall apart.

Most car magazines rank it lower, and it does sell worse than the Altima, Camry, Accord, Fusion and Sonata. And it isn't like the Malibu has any price mark ups to make it a big profit center. My guess would be the Malibu has the highest rental car sale percentage of that list of cars, on retail sales is is probably really trailing those 5.

Diesel > Ecoboost

It wouldn't sell. I agree with Hyper on this, they can't even break into the big sedan segment, going into a Ferrari/Lamborghini segment is not going to work. And I agree with Drew also, they can't get the Malibu right, they need to focus on the volume cars and if GM can't compete with a Fusion or Sonata, how are they going to compete with Ferrari? A Cadillac supercar would be cool, but it won't work right now. I do think they need a big sedan though, start there and with getting the ATS and CTS up to world class and then maybe in 5-10 years time evaluate a Cadillac sports car.

This car could have a top speed of 3 mph and still be fantastic. Although I am a little more partial to the DB9, I think that is the best looking Aston, but they all look spectacular.

It will be a Volt. What is funny is a $40,000 Volt doesn't sell well, so a $50,000 Volt with a Buick badge or a $60,000 Volt with a Cadillac badge could really struggle. I get GM is trying to broaden the range and use the technology but we saw when Lexus tried a hybrid Prius, that bombed and the Prius people actually buy. These eco cars are tough, because Prius buyers (and other greenies) don't care about performance or even style or equipment, they have that minimalist view to some degree. So basic and efficient they like. A hybrid battery car with lots of luxo goodies doesn't appeal to that segment, and people that spend $60k now on performance luxury sedans don't want an economy car.

By building a car good enough to sell over seas. With better product they can grow a little in the USA, but they need a global winner to get sales. Which is why they need a flagship car to be taken seriously over seas.

Without the beak, it would look the same as a Honda. GM does need to try to crush this brand and Lincoln. This is where Cadillac can get growth from, and to a lesser extent Buick.

The Mercedes-Nissan/Renault alliance doesn't mean the Nissan V6 is going to Mercedes. Mercedes is going to have Nissan build turbo fours (of Mercedes design) in Tennessee to be used n C-class production in Alabama and for use on future Infinitis. Then there will be platform sharing on the next Smart car and Renault Twingo, and Infiniti is supposed to get an A-class based car. There will also be joint powertrain development for 3-cyldiner engines for Smart and Renault. So the partnership is about compact cars and a Europe-only entry level van. I pulled this from egmcartech.com "All rear-wheel drive Benzes of the future will be based on their new global Mercedes Rear-wheel drive Architecture, or MRA. This means that it is subdivided into 93 different modules with the only two fixed points being the front and rear firewalls, leaving different axles and drivetrains to be applied." Right now Mercedes uses different platforms for the sedans, another for sports cars, another for the ML and GL. So this will allow them to put all the sedans and SUVs on a common platform to give them economies of scale needed. Cadillac could do the same with Alpha and Omega. If they make enough ways to vary length, width, etc, the ATS, CTS, big sedan, SRX, Escalade, etc could all be build off them.

Personally, I always thought GMC wasn't needed, but I doubt they are going anywhere. We are led to believe that GMC is profitable, as are the four brands that survived bankruptcy. So if all these brands are needed, and making money, then GM should have enough money to give Cadillac what they need. CTS and ATS will share a platform, Omega can be the second. Two exclusive platforms for Cadillac is very little to ask, especially when Alpha will probably produce a Chevy. Cadillac needs their own engine also, and other technologies and equipment not seen on other GM cars. They stuff on Cadillac can trickle down when they replace that model.

Ford doesn't have to print 2 brochures, run 2 websites, have 2 customer service lines, have 2 sets of office personnel or run 2 different marketing campaigns. If it is one brand, they should just have Chevy trucks and a Denali trim option, and close GMC dealerships down.

That's something I've never understood..why would they go for a very different Ford rather than a Chevy that is virtually identical to a GMC...People are weird. I still see no reason for GM to have two truck brands...Ford and Chrysler each have one truck brand and don't need a redundant brand--they offer their trucks in a wide range of trims from stripped to loaded, Chevy could do the same thing. Agreed. Then maybe the F150 won't spend the next 30 years kicking the Silverado's ass, as it has done for the past 30 years. I would guess the F150 is more profitable than the Silverado and Sierra combined are, because they advertise once for it and buy one set of parts for it, and they got people paying $1000 extra over the cost of a V8 for a V6.

That makes no sense. The Sierra and Silverado look the same (sans grille and badge change), drive the same, ride the same, handle the same, have the same equipment and features and cost the same. Why would a Sierra driver go to Ford for something different? Ford cut Mercury, I didn't see every Mercury driver flee to Chevrolet. And the ones that did leave the brand were probably going to leave even if Mercury had stayed. I'd like to see GM post profit of each brand to see who really makes the money. Really if you put 50% of GMT900 development cost on GMC, they are losing money.

If you look at the S-class range, it does it all. You can get 31 mpg, or 0-60 in 4 seconds, 4-matic and adjustable height suspension makes it work in snow or mud, it has ride, handling, technology, luxury, etc. It does everything well, so if Cadillac wants to go there, they need a car that does everything well.

If GMC is pure profit, then GM should have plenty of money to send Cadillac's way. I am not so convinced that GMC is the cash cow many think it is, they are basically running a whole separate marketing campaign to sell what Chevy already does. Buick sells the Verano, LaCrosse and Enclave which are all Chevy under the skin and the Regal came from Opel. And they are selling in China, so where is all GM's money going? And why would GM put money to mid-levels like Buick and GMC or money losing Opel, and keep it from Cadillac? Chevy because volume is GM's most important brand, but Cadillac is their icon and really should be the leader of GM. I suspect GM could afford to give Cadillac what it needs, but chooses not to. And if they can't afford to give Cadillac the money they need, they still have too many models and too many brands.

Cadillac shouldn't be a drain, they are supposed to be the crown jewel. If GM can't fund 4 brands, then GM didn't cut enough of them in bankruptcy. After Chevy, the #1 priority of GM (globally) needs to be Cadillac.