smk4565

So much in fact that the "first ever G6" was the last ever G6. There was simply no way to improve on it's perfections so it had to be the last one.

I'd say the answer is the Hyundai Genesis. Rear drive, V8, $33-42,000, full size interior. There is still the Chrysler 300, but that is a rather dated car with a uncompetitive interior. Other than that, the Americans are quickly giving up on rear drive and V8s. The in between brands are quickly dying, but when a Taurus is $27-40k, and a Lincoln or Cadillac can be had for $35k, there isn't much room in the middle. I don't believe Mercury will be missed that much, they don't have a big market presence, don't have a passionate customer base, and the same product is on sale at the Ford lot across the street, just with a horizontal grille. They stressed that Lincoln will have "fuel efficient powertrains" I interpret that as underpowered. A Prius has an extremely fuel efficient powertrain, that is about the last car in the world I'd want, aside from one of those electric G-Wiz things. "Fuel efficient" almost always means slow and underpowered. Strap the 5.0 V8 in an rear drive Lincoln sedan and they could be on to something. And why not Ecoboost the V8.

LaCrosse is supposed to be a premium car though, so the people buying it shouldn't have gas mileage as a top concern. I think GM over-worries about gas mileage on their cars, and just to get a good EPA highway number they put a weaker engine in or use really tall gear ratios, and the driving experience suffers. The Malibu gets better fuel economy than the Camry, yet no one cares, Camry still outsells it by a ton. If GM is betting on rising gas prices, where is the V6 Silverado and Tahoe? I dislike how GM has a belief that trucks need V8s, but cars are fine with garbage 180 hp 4-bangers. This is just like the late 90s/early 2000s, when trucks got all the attention, while cars got worthless 3.1 and 3.4 pushrod V6s.

And that engine is dying for a 5.5 liter turbo V8, and the 5.5L V8 in the S-class is going away for a new 4.7L turbo V8. The engines BMW and Mercedes are using in 2012-2013 when the ATS is on sale, won't be the same old stuff they are selling now. ATS needs engines that match where the Germans will be in 5 years, not engines that match where the Germans are today.

But at a low price can the ATS have an interior that exceeds that of the CTS? For Cadillac to be successful against the imports now and into the future, they need to appeal to sophisticated buyers. The "traditional" Cadillac buyers that drive the DTS are dead or dying. Just making the ATS-V another American hot rod isn't going to make it successful. Look at how the Corvette is struggling, and has mostly older buyers now. There aren't a lot of buyers out there that remember the 60s muscle car days. The CTS tried the "value pricing" strategy, and the E-class crushes it in sales, despite costing $15,000 more. I think Cadillac needs to up the content and build quality to get their image going up.

I am fine with a turbo 4 for the base engine for those that don't care about speed and buy 328i's C300s and A4s. But the mid-level needs over 300 hp. The new Benz V6 has 305 hp and will have been on sale a year or two before the ATS is on sale. The 335i had 300 hp in 2007, the ATS better have that in 2012. Even the Genesis coupe and Mustang have 305 hp. On the weight issue, building a low weight car requires lots of aluminum, or perhaps magnesium wheels, or carbon fiber bits, and all that costs money. So if the ATS aims to be the price leader, it will likely be made of cheap steel that they need to use a ton of to meet crash standards, thus making the car heavy.

Why not just twin turbo the 3.6 DI V6? That is GM's best V6. Forget the 2.8L. In the ATS's class, 270-330 hp is the norm right now, in 2-3 years it could bet 300-350 hp. They better bring a big gun to the fight, and not do what they did with the 2005 STS, a 320 hp V8 which barely got them on par with the class, then 2 years later everyone had 380 hp and the STS was old news.

The 3-series is 178 inches long, the C-class is 182 inches long. A Corvette is only 3 inches shorter than a 3-series, how small is the ATS going to be? I'm all for cutting weight, weight hurts performance in every way. But the Lambdas are heavy, Zeta cars are heavy, the CTS is heavy, the Equinox/Terrain are heavy, etc. Pretty much every GM product of the last 3 years has been near the top of its class in weight, so I would be surprised if the ATS is no different, and comes in heavier than a 3-series.

Well considering Cadillac's flagship sedan is about to get a 3.6L V6 with 300 hp, it doesn't seem like a much lower end Chevrolet sedan should have a V8. Chevrolet should be the brand to the the CAFE sacrifice, not Cadillac.

ATS needs the 3.6 L, the 3.0 is weak, has no torque and isn't even all that fuel efficient. Put that in Chevys or Buicks if they must, but this is Cadillac. Cadillac is supposed to have the best of the best.

It is hard to make alphabet soup names cool or desirable though. The 3,5,7-series works because that progression is in there. Acura names are a disaster, Lincoln at least has MK in everything but none of those names mean anything, and people can confuse them. Even XLR, it doesn't really mean anything, if they do a car like that again they should call it Eldorado. The SLS AMG I think is a poorly named car, Mercedes should have just called it the Gullwing, since that is what people are going to refer to it as.

I think the curb weight estimates are a bit low, as the C-class and 3-series are near 3600 pounds. Given those line-up choices I picked C. Although I'd like to see 4 engines total, one of which a diesel. Turbo 4, V6, turbo V6 for the others.

I think Fleetwood and Eldorado still have some weight and can be made cool. Deville and Seville I'd leave in the closet, but LaSalle they could use. I think Chrysler should be using Imperial and Atlantic, those are strong names, unlike Sebring and 300. Maybach is building the Zeppelin as their last hurrah. Acura traded the Legend for the RL, Legend sounds like it means something, RL means nothing, except for "really lame." On engines, Mercedes just showed off their new multi-spark V6 and V8s today, and rumor of a 476 hp twin turbo V6 from AMG is out there. If I were Cadillac, I wouldn't want a turbo 4 when Mercedes, BMW and Infiniti have 300+ hp V6s, or a 400 hp pushrod when the other guy as 476 hp and AMG badges. GM tried to sell a 400 hp, basic no frills car for $35,000 in the GTO, and it wasn't that good of a seller. Dodge has the Challenger, and Chrysler the 300 SRT, both with a 420 hp pushrod for $45k, and those are junk cars. The ATS needs to aim higher than that.

Maybe when Cadillac goes into their 2nd or 3rd renaissance (which ever they want to call the ATS-generation) they should go back to names for cars. The alphanumeric names are getting to be overkill, no where is worse than Lincoln and Acura, MKZDX, etc. Eventually real names will come back, Cadillac should start a trend, rather than follow. Rolls-Royce has it right, they build the Ghost and Phantom, that is far cooler than MKS or XTS.

My issues with the CTS interior are the gray plastic that adorns the center console and map pockets in the doors. The backs of the front seat at plastic, the gauges are split into 3 parts with plastic rings, and the gauge cluster rises above the dash (same as the malibu and altima) which creates more cut lines than if it was just integrated into the dash. Also the gear shifter is only half wood as an option, the base gear shifter seems to be vinyl or plastic, when it should be wrapped with the same leather used for the seats. Furthermore, when you sit in a CTS, it just doesn't feel expensive or special, sure there is leather and wood and some stitching and that is nice and all, but it still feels like they cut corners or the beancounters got in there before it hit the showroom. Even if we assume content the same, or not important to the buyer, the M5 still has the ability to rev to 8400 rpm which creates a Ferrari-like, race car sound. The CTS could make 1,000 horsepower, it won't sound like a Formula 1 car, that emotional payoff the M5 provides is what makes it the king of the class. It is similar to how Aston Martin can charge $250,000 for a DBS when it isn't any faster than a GT-R or Z06, in fact the DBS is probably slower than both, and I don't think anyone would trade a DBS for a Nissan or Chevy.

Cadillac builds one car, that out performs an older M5, and is on par with the RS6. On a race track the CTS-V can post good lap times, but the build quality still isn't there, the level of materials used isn't there. The Lancer Evo 10 can out perform a lot of cars also, and crush them around a race track, but it doesn't make it a class leading car at anything Cadillac's problem isn't the CTS-V or the CTS, it is the inconsistency of their products and advertising. The CTS-V's problem isn't horsepower or 0-60 time, it is the interior trim, features list, and build quality. Cadillac made a car that beats the M5 0-60 and has to sell it for $30,000 less. Is Cadillac's image that much in the gutter that they have to put a 33% discount on their best product?

That sounds like a recipe for a Camaro. Simple doesn't sell in the luxury segment. The Audi RS5 is likely to cost $69,000-75,000 when it comes to the US. The ATS-V should be aiming closer to that, or the $60-65k for an M3. Why is Cadillac's goal to be the K-Mart of the luxury car brands? Bargain basement pricing isn't good for a luxury car brand, that is why Cadillac has a weak image.

But in the 1980s, GM was making billions in profit, and couldn't come up with a car to rival the Germans. In the 90s, they still were making billions a year, and no rival or even attempt to go after the 3-series (or 5-series for that matter) was made. Even post bankruptcy, GM is still a pretty poor company, they are struggling to break even still even with the bankruptcy cleansing their balance sheet. It is certainly possible to make a car to rival the 3-series, but Lexus even with their deep pockets and resources still came up short. I am waiting to see if GM really commits to the ATS, or if they just do a "good enough" job on it because they need to focus on re-doing the GMT900s or hold back so the ATS doesn't compete with the CTS.

Well they currently build nothing on par with the Germans. The closest thing they have is the CTS, which is like a watered down 5-series/E-class that sells for $13,000 less. So there is nothing to point to. The ATS is going into territory GM hasn't gone in 25 years, and the one time they tried, they built the worst car in Cadillac history.

It will be, American cars often find places to cut corners. As I said before, no American car ever made an impact in the small luxury class, in fact the only attempt really was the Cimarron (uh oh, I said it), and we know how that turned out. The Catera was a midsize car, as are the CTS and MKZ. Faux wood, leather out of the Malibu, and engine out of a defunct Solstice, and the corporate radio unit aren't going to cut it. Remember GM is launching an unproven, unknown car and going after the #1 selling luxury car in the world that has 30 years worth of awards and accolades on the shelf. They can't compromise this car.

Exactly right on the first point. And the car in that class with the I6, is the #1 seller and considered by every automotive publication to be the gold standard of the class. I can't see GM keeping weight to 3300 pounds. Almost nothing GM makes is among the lightest in the class, they are usually among the heaviest in the class. A Corvette is near 3300 pounds, and the ATS has to have dual power heated and ventilated seats, Sat-Nav, 10-12 speakers, moonroof, leather, wood, sound deadening, etc. All that stuff adds weight. My guess is weight closer to 3600-3700 pounds, in which case they will need 300+ hp to keep it running with the 335i and G37. The ATS-V should be closer to $60k. If the regular ATS is in the $28-38k price range, it won't have the build quality the Germans have, and it will fall flat on its face. The ATS is going into a segment no American car has ever had success in.

4-cylinder engines lack refinement, even the best in the world can't compare to a good 6 cylinder. Plus with all that turbo boost, the power delivery isn't going to be as smooth. Those power numbers aren't enough either. This engine makes 320-330 hp (depending on model) and 332 lb-ft @ 1500 rpm, with an overboost that can produce 370 lb-ft for 7 seconds.

Lexus has an identity and reputation of high quality and reliability. That allows them to sell to luxury buyers that don't care about performance, but want comfort and a car that will never need repaired. Whether the car goes 200,000 miles without needing a major repair or not is besides the point, the people that buy a Lexus believe it will. BMW and Infiniti sell to buyers that want performance. Cadillac doesn't have that clear cut identity. Most of the people in the 45-60 age group that buy luxury cars still perceive Cadillac as a big American boat for old people, or a gangster Escalade. By trying to be all things, Cadillac doesn't hit any one thing really well. Alfa builds crummy cars, but they sell because of that Italiano passion/style/soul. Aston Martin has it too.

What Cadillac needs is to get an identity and to get some soul and passion pumped into their brand. The one thing that prevents me from buying a Genesis is that the car has no soul or passion. It looks great on the stat sheet, it drives great, but it doesn't stir emotion or have personality. The Genesis is the polar opposite of an Alfa Romeo.

The 3-series is a compact car, unless you want to call Minis compacts, and the 3-series class "small car". Either way, a 3-series is about the size of a Civic and they can sell them for $40-45,000. My question was/is, can Cadillac build a sedan the same size as a Cruze and get $40-45,000 for it? The CTS isn't a hot seller, can they make the ATS smaller, and yet equally expensive as a CTS, and sell at double the volume of the CTS?