smk4565

I agree with you on all that. And Mercedes could probably sell an S-class with no engine at all and still get $80,000 for it.

The question is, does Cadillac keep moving down market, and aim for Lincoln and Acura? Or do they go all in, spend billions upon billions and go after the Germans? Because they can't half-ass it if they go up-market, they have to go all in.

Not EPA rated, and I don't believe what people claim to get in a perfect scenario on a flat highway. Personally, I average 17 mpg in my Aurora, so gas mileage is of no concern to me. But I know many shoppers are fools, and rank gas mileage and safety at the top of their list. I think 240 hp is fine for a base ATS, an A4 and 328i has less than that. If the ATS is 240 hp and 22/32 mpg, I think that would be quite appealing to a lot of consumers that don't care about speed, but want a solid handling car with good mileage. I wouldn't buy that model, I think 240 hp is weak, so I'd want at least 300 hp.

I wonder how sustainable GM's profit is though. They had $60 billion in government money to play with over the past year, and got a free pass on a lot of bad past decisions. I am curious to see once they are stockholder owned again, and driven by quarterly profit, and managed the way the old GM was, will the success continue. Sidebar, it would be funny if Toyota bought up a ton of GM stock, I know the Chinese want to buy a lot of it.

Anyone else notice that the 5-series gets 32 mpg with a six cylinder? Can Cadillac make a 32 mpg V6 ATS and CTS, and if so, how long til we see it? Hyundai will have an 8-speed next year, and is working on a 10-speed transmission. I just wonder if Cadillac is really going to push the envelope, and come out with brand new 4,6, and 8 cylinder engines, 8-speed transmissions standard across the board, etc. Or will the 2013 ATS arrive with the same engine/tranny you got in an 08 CTS.

Well HELOC rates are very low right now, and you get the tax write off, so that is a good way to buy a car. But that is beside the point, Mercedes sales have seen a strong increase this year, the S-class is up 29% this year. So the economy isn't hurting people that can afford a $100,000 car. E-class is up over 50%. I don't think Mercedes or BMW are overpriced. They are priced similar to the competition as they were 10 or 20 years ago. They are built to last, and have a loyal following. But I do agree with you that Cadillac can not get Mercedes level pricing. So Cadillac has to go down to Lincoln and Acura level, they can win there. They can't win against the Germans without significant investment from GM.

Cadillac seems to be chasing Infiniti to a degree. Infiniti has a near the top of the class G37, and the M37/M56 is often considered one of thet op cars in the class, Car and Driver picked it twice over all the Germans. So Infiniti already has what Cadillac is trying to get with the 2014 ATS and CTS, yet where is Infiniti compared to Mercedes-Benz? Infiniti has half the recognition, brand power, and status as Mercedes does. Building and entry and mid-level car isn't enough if you really want to challenge the big guys. I actually think Cadillac should give up on going after Mercedes and BMW and turn their focus on Lincoln, Acura, and Volvo. All three are weak, and if Cadillac can get a strong hold in that segment, they should survive in 10 years when Hyundai busts in there with their own luxury brand and puts all those weak brands under. What happened to Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Mercury, Plymouth, and Saturn during the "rise of Sonata" can easily happen to Volvo, Lincoln and Acura in 10 years.

This car will tell you that performance isn't about doing one thing well, it is about doing everything well.

Putting a big engine in a car doesn't necessarily make it better than the competition. Is the Dodge Charger better than a LaCrosse, CTS 3.6, G37, A4, or even a Maxima just because it has a big engine? The CTS-V in a straight line can beat a Mercedes or BMW, but in 10 years, the CTS will be full of squeaks and rattles, the leather will be worn out and cracked, interior trim pieces will be loose, etc. It just isn't as well made as a German car.

Cadillac has been re-positioning it's lineup for 8 years though. ATS is coming, new CTS is coming, a flagship is coming, competitive product is coming... Mercedes did all that 30 years ago. Why hasn't Cadillac already done it, why is it always "wait til next year" Power isn't going away, just at GM it is. The S-class is replacing the 385 hp V8 with a 420 hp V8 with 500 lb-ft. This will be the new standard fare Mercedes V8. Yes, BMW and Mercedes make diesels and hybrids, but they are just compliments to their powerful gas engines. Cadillac doesn't have a diesel, and has one hybrid that gets 20 mpg. I don't know that the ATS and CTS will ever get to the head of the class, that is the problem Cadillac has. By going down market as they have on some recent products, or cutting corners, they are constantly behind. I believe Cadillac is about 20 years behind Mercedes right now, and Mercedes is not standing still, so how does Cadillac catch them?

You are spot on. I also don't know why they think they have to make the CTS bigger, it is already slightly larger than an E-class or Lexus GS. Cadillac is stuck with the corporate V6, and coming CAFE regulations. GM is a truck heavy company, they need cars to offset that, so Cadillac gets the short end of the stick on the CAFE front and in development dollars. I don't know if it is fear or incompetence, but Cadillac seems unwilling to price a car at $50,000 or more. They have had two in their history, the Alante and XLR, both were busts. The STS-V was another high priced car that failed, as the STS in general has, and that is only a $46,000 car to start. I believe that Cadillac's plan is to make the CTS the mid-rang car at $40-50,000, the ATS at $30-40,000 and the XTS at the $46-55,000 slot currently held by the DTS. My wonder is if Cadillac continues on the current path, they should be able to outperform Lincoln and Acura for the next 5-10 years, but come 2020, how much competition will Hyundai be bringing to the $30-45,000 range? 10 years ago Hyundai was an afterthought of the $20-30k range, now the Sonata is the #3 selling car in the segment. I do believe that Hyundai in 10 years time will be a solid player in the $30-45k segment, that could spell trouble for Lincoln and Acura that are just running out badge jobs of Fusions and Accords.

42 mpg is impressive, but I suspect the great majority of Cruzes will be automatics. Still 26/37 mpg is right at the top of the class for now, new Focus and Elantra come in the spring so we'll have to wait to see what they get. The 2012 Focus has 160 hp though, I'd trade 1 mpg for an extra 20 horses.

I've seen the Korean version and the spy photos of the soon to debut American version, it looks good. There is also rumor of a 200 hp turbo Elantra, and some say that the 2011 Elantra will reduce world hunger by 37%.

New Elantra next year. That could be the biggest issue the Cruze faces.

Kill 4 brands, the other 4 get stronger. That was the right move. Chevy though is even with Toyota and behind Ford. The Impala and Malibu are fading, but otherwise the models seem to be doing as expected. GM is doing better, but at the same time, so is everyone else besides Toyota.

Good, keep going down. Although I wish Lexus sales would fall, those cars aren't that good. I can see the Genericans buying up boring Camrys and Corollas, but someone spending $45k on a car should expect some style, not a bland slush-mobile with pudding soft leather seats.

Right, when everything was rear wheel drive. Inline six is still more balanced and smoother than a V6, or even a V8. Everyone doesn't use a straight six now because they make mostly front drivers and a straight six won't work in a CamCord.

How about: DOHC Straight six turbo DI, VVT 300 hp @ 5800 rpm 300 lb-ft @ 1200-5000 rpm 20/30 mpg GM should make that, more torque at lower rpm, better mileage, and an inline is smoother than a V.

They have the build quality, but not at the same price. Hyundai can beat Dodge, Chevy, Ford, Mazda, Nissan, and those at the same price point in build quality and features (and warranty).

That may be true, but none of them can match the build quality and features for the price that Hyundai gives. The Sonata may not have cache, but it is outselling every midsizer except the Camry and Accord, and it is closing in fast on the Accord.

Of the 3, I think the Passat is the best looking, and it was the cheapest. I don't care for any 3 of these though, the Sonata Turbo could out perform any of them, and offers many of the same features at a much lower price. At $35k I am surprised they didn't put the MKZ into that mix, but also for $35k, you can get a RWD Genesis 3.8, and RWD will beat any of these cars. But Car and Driver already put a Genesis against a LaCrosse, ES350 and Taurus, and the Genesis beat them all, so I guess they figured it would have beat any of these cars too.

I think Hyundai will keep the warranty, as their cars get better, their warranty costs drop, if they could afford it before, they will afford it in the future. And they know that no one else will match them, Hyundai has a 5/60,000 bumper to bumper warranty, while Chevy, Honda and Toyota are 3/36,000. Hyundai doesn't seem like the pull back sort of company, I think they are going to keep their foot on the gas pedal and see who can keep up with them.

For the most part, GM cars perform on par with the middle of the class they are in, but they don't have a lot of class leaders, the low weight will help there. The 4,000 lb Camaro vs the 3600 lb Mustang is the best example, imagine if the Camaro lost 400 lbs. I don't think GM should copy Toyota at all, or any one else, because the copy is never as good as the original. But Toyota has done a great job proving that it isn't about styling to most car buyers. So I don't think styling needs to be GM's top priority. GM beat Toyota in the US last month, but worldwide Toyota is #1 and Toyota has the deepest pockets of any car company. They rose to power with crap styling, and had a $17 billion net profit a few years ago. It may take GM 10 years combined to produce that.

I agree. GM overall is fine on most of these as you said, but weight drags them down. Weight makes the car slower, handle worse, brake worse, and use more gas. Weight is often a top complaint by car magazines reviewing GM products. Toyota styling is bland and boring, yet they are the biggest and richest automaker in the world. I however disagree about Hyundai, I don't think they will cut their warranty, it gives them an advantage that no one else is willing to match.

I actually think #1 is making, stronger, more focused brands, because people are attracted to strong brand images. That is why they buy a $5 coffee at Starbucks or a $70 shirt from Ralph Lauren or a $5,000 watch from Rolex. But of that group I voted weight. It isn't something a customer would look at, but lower weight means better acceleration, braking, handling and gas mileage. Lower weight creates positives in many other areas, where as exterior style or interior quality is only helping one area.