smk4565

100 hp per liter out of an NA is possible, but they usually don't have a lot of torque, and the power is high in the band, much like an M5. So do to a 1.4 or 1.7 liter 140 hp NA engine, it will most likely not have any torque, and around town drivability will suffer. I like the turbo on smaller displacement engines to add some low end torque. Toyota used to have that 180 hp, 1.8 liter 4-cylinder in the Celica, but I think it had 122 lb-ft of torque or something near that. I'd rather see a turbo 1.8 liter making 160 hp and 160 lb-ft because the power is more useful.

The ES and LS are snooze mobiles, GS is dated, but the RX I'll admit isn't bland, but it isn't very attractive either. But I agree a lot of people buying luxury like a conservative looking car with some chrome touches and soft ride, so Lexus resonates well with the baby-boomer luxury buyer. Although Mercedes is expected to overtake Lexus in sales this year, Mercedes is only about 1,000 cars behind for the year and is selling faster now. The old SRX wasn't body on frame though, it was a Sigma unibody. But your assessments of the current SRX are correct, too heavy and wrong engines. I too would rather see a diesel option rather than a hybrid, but a hybrid is probably an easier sell to prospective buyers in this class. I don't want to see another pushrod V8 front driver though. Even if the SRX does back to rear drive, I'd still rather not see the engine out of a Silverado in a Cadillac.

I think on the Lexus RX buyers do look at the hybrid, especially if it is a family that does a lot of driving. Consider the RX450h has 295 hp, the SRX turbo has 300 hp, so only 5 hp difference and 0-60 time is close enough that no one could tell without a stop watch. But the Lexus gets 15 mpg more in the city, it is gets exactly double the city gas mileage, that is pretty impressive. In fact, Lexus is foolish for not advertising that more. Styling is subjective, Lexus builds the most bland stuff around yet it sells well because they have the quality/reliability, BMW has the performance, Mercedes the prestige. What is Cadillac selling on?

I'd agree that hybrids don't make a lot of economic sense to buy, and personally, I wouldn't buy one. Diesel to me seems like the better way to go because you get the fuel economy plus loads of torque, and diesel engines run forever. But luxury cars need image to sell. If 4 or 5 other brands offer a 35-40 mpg car, but Cadillac can't top 27 mpg, it makes Cadillac look like they don't care about the environment (the greenies and politicos go elsewhere), makes it look like they don't innovate or aren't cutting edge, (the techies go elsewhere) and makes it look like they aren't building as good a product (the badge snobs go elsewhere). Car companies over the past 2 years have advertised fuel economy more than anything else. Let's throw the "may the best car win" Chevy vs Toyota Fuel economy ad back to Cadillac. Cadillac SRX (awd) 15/22 mpg Lexus RX450h (awd) 30/28 mpg Merc ML350 Bluetech 18/25 mpg Merc ML450 Hybrid 21/24 mpg Cadillac CTS 18/27 mpg Lexus GS450h 23/25 mpg BMW 335d 23/36 mpg Audi A4 23/30 mpg Merc E320 Bluetech 23/32 mpg (09 model, no diesel on new E-class yet) Others: Lexus HS250h 35/34 mpg Audi A3 TDi 30/42 mpg Lincoln MKZ hybrid 41/36 mpg

Vd sounds like venerial disease, so I wouldn't name a car that. Dwightlooi is right on the sales volume of hybrids and diesels currently, they are low. But will the market look the same in 5 or 10 years? The economy will eventually recover, and gas prices will rise. China and India will demand more gas, again gas prices will rise. BP might spill some more oil, lessening supply, again prices could rise. So what if in 5 or 10 years gas prices are different, and the market is different. The Germans, Lexus and Lincoln will have had a 5-10 year head start at fuel efficient cars, Cadillac will be struggling to catch up and late to the party once again. 10 years ago there was no market demand for a Prius, and it didn't make economic sense to build a Prius. But Toyota built it anyway, while GM built the Hummer. Toyota got the image of being the fuel efficiency leader, the Prius became a top 10 selling car, while GM got the reputation of only building big gas hogs, and once gas hit $4.25 a gallon in the summer of 08, GM was stuck with nothing to sell, and would soon fold into bankruptcy. Cadillac should plan ahead so when the next "perfect storm" comes, they are ready. I say build diesel, gas, and hybrid in all markets.

BMW Europe's diesel sales percentage is around 63%, Cadillac still has to offer gas engines there. Take out the diesel 1-series cars that get 55 mpg since Cadillac isn't in that segment and then factor out the government/fleet sedans that are diesel due to lower operating cost, and I bet the retail sales mix on 3,5,7 series is more like 50% diesel. So Cadillac needs to offer BOTH diesel and gas in Europe and the USA. Cadillac can't go 100% gas in the USA when there is a 36 mpg 3-series or a 33 mpg E-class or a 40 mpg Lincoln MKZ, Audi TDi's or the Lexus hybrids. If everyone else is on board the green movement and can offer 35-40 mpg luxury cars, and Cadillac is stuck with 16-26 mpg gas burners, they aren't going to look too good.

I like both ideas for the options list.

Sonata or Jetta/A3 TDI. Diesels can rack up hundreds of thousands of miles, and the Jetta or A3 both get over 40 mpg.

Agreed. For a 4 year old Canyon/Colorado, a truck with poor resale, you could probably find cheaper. Probably could get an 06 Silverado for that price. $12,500 for the orange one seems better, at $16k, no way.

What would be very interesting if possible, would be to put an Aurora V8 or Northstar V8 into an 80s Toronado. I bet it would fit, but then the transmission would likely need changed also to handle the torque, and that could be a very expensive job.

A 3-cylinder is a hard sell, unless as a generator in the Volt or something like that. Why not just sell a diesel, they could get 50 mpg from a 4-cylinder diesel and it wouldn't put out a measly 130 lb-ft. I think selling a 160 hp, 50 mpg diesel is easier than selling a 140 hp, 40 mpg 3-cylinder gas engine. Or make more hybrids. But many of these carmakers are just coming out with new gas engines, trying to get an extra 1-2 mpg out of it, which is nice, but to make a splash you need to be at 50 mpg, not 40. The Prius was over 50 years ago, a VW Polo is around 60 mpg. To me, 3-cylinder says Smart For2, tiny, painfully slow car, so that isn't at all appealing. Now if someone builds a car that is 0-60 in under 8 seconds, but getting 40+ mpg, then they are on to something (Sonata hybrid might do that).

I hate to think what the Buick V6 had for power, I think it was around 110. The V8 probably has respectable torque.

What engine do you have in there? Please tell me it is the V8.

The body appears to be in good shape. If you get the rest of the stuff repaired, you should take it to the Starlite car cruise in Wexford next summer. They already had Oldsmobile/Cadilllac night this year.

The 1949 XK120 was the fastest car in the world at the time, Enzo Ferrari called the E-type Jaguar the best looking car ever made. So if they can get back to that, added to them being near the top in JD Power quality and dependability over the past 3 years they will be in good shape. And they have a DOHC V8 and DOHC turbo diesel engines that are sweet.

Well GM makes trucks, vans and fleet, etc. If GM got rid of Chevy, GMC, Cadillac, and Buick, and just put a GM logo on every car, then they would be doing what Mercedes does. Mercedes brand has to build tons of stuff, Cadillac brand does not. Mercedes is #1 in JD Power Customer Loyalty at 67%. http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/daily-news/091211-JD-Power-Survey-Mercedes-Buyers-Most-Loyal/

That was Ford's doing, they were after a cheap buck, under Tata hopefully none of that garbage happens and Jaguar goes back to what Jaguar was in the 1950s and 1960s.

But they sell 1.4 million vehicles a year, generate loads of profit, and Mercedes has probably the best brand image of any automaker in the world (aside from low volume exotics like Rolls-Royce or Ferrari). Plus Mercedes is #1 in customer loyalty in the USA. If Cadillac can accomplish what Mercedes has, Cadillac can do whatever they want. My favorite brand is Jaguar, because their lineup is consistent, all rear drive, performance/luxury cars. No mommy-mobiles, no trucks, no front drive hybrid posers, just true performance, luxury, and style.

Well it is somewhat muddled because they don't know how to do performance and they are half unique cars, half dressed up Toyotas. The LS460 sport is a joke compared to other large sport sedans, and the IS-F is no M3, and there is no GS-F (yet) and no roadster or any sports car besides the LF-A which they are only making a limited number of. They aren't a truck brand though, they make a Camry based crossover and 2 truck SUVs that don't sell. But Cadillac's lineup is equally muddled. A brand specific rear driver, a crossover just like the RX or MKX, a old geezer front driver, about to be replaced by another old geezer front driver, and a dressed up Tahoe. Cadillac does the same thing Lexus does, except that Lexus has higher priced cars. Sure, but Lexus had DI on sale in calendar year 2005, for model year 2006. And Mercedes had it in 1954, so they win anyway.

But a LaCrosse is over 10 decibels louder than an LS460 at full throttle and nearly 10 louder at cruise. I know they are in totally different classes, but Buick is always claiming to be so quite and the LaCrosse is heavy with lots of sound insulation. Sound insulation is all well and good, but engine refinement plays a big role. The 3.6 V6 is a loud (and somewhat whiney) engine when pushed, and the pushrods are even louder. I'd never buy a Lexus or Toyota product, but I'll admit their V8 is refined and they build quite cars.

Toyota's engineering I don't think is the best there is, far from it, but they did lead the way with hybrids, and the LS460 has had some innovations. I'd put them slightly ahead of GM over the past 10 years. Lexus at least has a supercar and a flagship, they aren't as good as what the Germans have, but at least they have it. Cadillac has no supercar and no flagship, no IS350 competitor yet. Cadillac's goal by 2014 seems to be to compete with the Lexus IS, ES, GS, RX and LX570, so basically the lower 2/3 of Lexus. To me, the lower 2/3rd of Lexus is sort of crappy, why set a 5 year plan to strive for that. The Solstice GXP didn't go on sale until the 2007 model year.

Lexus had direct injection in 2006, and was first with an 8-speed automatic, and they have a car that parks itself. So aside from the very boring styling and unintended acceleration, their engineering is in front of GM's (or Ford's or Chrysler's) in many ways. Lexus is certainly not on the level of Mercedes or BMW or Jaguar, but at least they have some weapons in their arsenal, Cadillac barely has anything. The Lexus LS460 is 58-60 decibels at 70 mph (depending on the test), no GM car is close to that. The Lexus at full throttle has been measured at 65-70 DBA, so they must have gotten something right with that V8. Think of that, a Lexus LS460 at full throttle is as quite as an Enclave or CTS at cruise.

But the Genesis Coupe is a coupe on a chopped sedan frame and it isn't super heavy, it is under 3,500 lbs. So I don't see that as an excuse for the Camaro. The Camaro looks better than the Mustang on the outside, the Camaro exterior styling is great, but it is hard to see out of it and the interior is cheap. But mainly the difficulty in seeing out of the thing is the biggest turn-off for me. Mercedes and BMW weights have often been in line with everyone else, an E350 is 3,825 lbs, 4,034 lbs for an E550, that is right in line with other V8 midsize cars. Every car in the S-class's segment weighs a ton, except for the Jaguar, that is one reason I like Jaguars so much, their build their cars smarter than the Germans do.

Right, the Camaro is overweight due to poor engineering. That is the root of the problem with most GM vehicles. Ford, Hyundai, Nissan and the Germans have better engineering. GM cars are often heavier, need bigger, thirstier engines, etc. GM just milks along existing engines and platforms while trying to justify they are good enough to compete with the rest of the market. Much of this thread is how GM's technology is on par or even better than the competition, yet I don't see any competitor trying to copy the LS3 V8 or emulate GM's overweight platforms.

No, the Mustang would get worse, because it is 17/26 mpg with manual, 18/25 with auto, the redline is 7,000 rpm, and reviews have commented on how the car is very quiet below 3500 rpm, but above it makes the noise gear heads love. So the Mustang would lose refinement, sound, fuel economy and probably sales if it had Chevy's engine.