smk4565

It will be the same engines they currently have. Although the 7.0 liter may die off in favor of a 6.2 with a small supercharger for the Z06, and big supercharger for the ZR1, assuming the ZR1 returns. The engines will get recycled to keep cost down, and they have no other V8 to use because they canceled work on a new V8. Personally I'd rather see a 4.5-5.0 liter DOHC V8 making 500+ hp for the Z06, and a 400 hp "detuned" version for the base model. Ferrari has a 4.5 liter V8 that makes 562 hp. Actually, what I would like to see most is for Duesenberg to come back and blow all these cars away so America has the best car in the world again. The 1932 Duesenberg SJ has more torque (425 vs 424 lb-ft) than a 2009 Corvette. Why did Duesenberg 77 years ago have an engine as good as the Vette has now, oh right, they started using DOHC in 1929, the Vette isn't there yet.

Then get an 08 DTS, they go for like $23,000. It is amazing how much they depreciate in just 1-2 years. Or a 2008 STS, they got for about $23,000 also.

Some of the 3.0's have a sport package, which supposedly is a bit firmer. I drove a 3.0 without the sport package, so it felt a little soft and like it wanted to roll a little on windy back roads. The sport versions may feel a bit more planted. The 3.0 isn't a racer by any means, but it has enough acceleration for everyday driving and getting onto the freeway.

LaCrosse 3.0: 17/26 LaCrosse 3.6 17/27 ES350 3.5: 19/27 Avalon 3.5: 19/28 Taurus 3.5: 18/28 The 3.0 is the weakest and most thirsty engine of the bunch.

The 73 Olds Tornado was the first car sold to the public with airbags, then some Buicks and Cadillacs followed in 1974-1976. Ford and Chevy experimented with airbags on government fleet cars. GM (being such innovators of safety) deleted the shoulder seat belt from airbag cars, and they had 7 fatalities because of the airbag, and abandoned them in 1976. Mercedes S-class in 1980 had the first SRS system which used 3-point seatbelts that locked in place before the airbag deployed. And of course all cars use that system now. We can also thank Mercedes for safety cage with front/rear crumple zones, ABS, traction control, stability control, and brake assist.

Well GM did have the official car for the supercharged family. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80Sz7T8guB0

I have driven an X-type 3.0, it has it's pluses and minuses. I thought it rode rather smoothly, but it can get a bit floaty and itbounces and rolls too much. The awd makes it feel secure, but it also makes it feel sluggish, and I think hurts the handling a bit. Acceleration is adequate, it isn't a sporty car, but it will get to 60 quicker than a Buick or most run of the mill family sedans. I liked the interior. I agree that it is no where near as good as the German sedans it was positioned against, so resale value tanked. Since used ones can be found for $10-15k, it isn't a bad buy. I think you need the 3.0 though, the 2.5 must be dog slow, although neither are that fuel efficient, which is sad since the engines don't make much power.

GM can't compete in every market segment, they have to pick and choose their battles and try to win where they do compete. They shouldn't build a car like the SHO, just like I think they shouldn't bother with the Cadillac XTS, or most of GMC's lineup. I'd rather see them make a minivan, that is a large segment and they have no entry at all. Yet they make several full size SUVs that compete against each other. The SHO is $38-43,000, so it is more expensive than a LaCrosse or Lucerne, but it does 0-60 in 5.2 seconds. For people that want full size and performance it is a good car, but that isn't a large market. Most people wanting a sporty car are going to go with a G37, 3-series, CTS, etc. If Ford put the SHO's powertrain on the Fusion and priced it around $30,000, they'd have a strong seller.

The 3.0 is pointless if it gets equal or less gas mileage than the 3.6. The 2.4 gets good mileage, they could turbocharge that to get the 3.0 V6's power with more mpg. Ford is going to use 4 cylinder turbos to replace their 3.0 and 4.0 V6's.

Cadillac can't lease because their resale values are so bad. Cadillac sold 187,000 cars worldwide in 2008, while Mercedes and BMW sold over 1 million. Cadillac needs cars that can sell in Europe, not just the USA, that is why they can't compete. If they are only selling 50,000 CTS worldwide a year, it is hard to recoup development costs, where as BMW can spend tons on developing the 3-series because they can spread the cost over half a million units a year for 6 years. But profit is more important than volume, and that is another problem for GM. BMW made a $416 million profit in 2008 (although they were down 90%). Daimler had a 1.4 billion Euro profit in 2008. BMW and Benz sell good volume, and make profit, they are better run than GM is.

What is the leader, the 3-series or the TL? BMW sells 500,000 3-series a year worldwide, how many TLs get sold, maybe 50,000? I like a few option packages rather than a bunch of stand alone options. Such as 2 equipment packages and a sport package. The C-class has 8 engine options, Cadillac can't have one. To sell in Europe they need at least 1 diesel, probably 2. They should have a turbo 4 and the 3.6 V6. The 3.0 V6 makes too little torque, and gets worse mileage than the 3.6. Twin turbo V6 for the V-series would be nice. If they build the Converj they don't need an ATS hybrid.

DTS sold 900 units last month, STS sold under 400, CTS sold 2900. The 3-series sold 8,000 cars. "Americans like bigger cars" is from the 1980s. Cadillac (and Lincoln) built big cars through the 80s, 90s and early 2000s, and look how fast their market share fell, while BMW, Mercedes and Lexus became the top 3 selling luxury brands. The heart of the small luxury car market is about 180 inches long and $35-45k, that is where the ATS has to be. CTS has to go up in price, which means they will sell even less of them, but at some point they have to challenge the Germans on price. Cadillac has undercut them on price for 25+ years and gotten no where.

A 335i starts at $41,000. ATS has to be $35-45,000. CTS has to move upmarket. The 3-series has 11 engine options in Europe. The ATS is going to need at least 2 gas and 1 diesel, plus a V-series engine (that isn't a pushrod). They should have a hybrid also, so that makes 5 engines needed. Cadillac better aim very high, because there will be a new 3-series out by the time they get the ATS out.

Needs a minimum of 300 hp and 300 lb-ft, and closer to $42,000 moderately equipped. If Cadillac can keep the ATS under 3550 pounds I'd be impressed. They actually better have a 40 mpg version as well, BMW is working on a 3-series hybrid (3 or 4 cylinder), to go along with the 36 mpg 335d.

The LaCrosse is exactly as interesting and exciting as a Toyota Avalon. The Regal 2.0 turbo makes 210-220 hp (Chinese version) does does 0-60 in 8 seconds. If the Regal is 4-cylinder only here, it is another snooze mobile from Buick. Although the 3800 Buicks only had 200 hp and were 0-60 in over 8 seconds also, so the Buick faithful will feel right at home in it.

Kilowatt hour usage would be better, although no one will understand the cost. I just think they should have 2 ratings, one for kilowatts used and one for gas used. The Volt can't travel 230 miles without stopping with only 1 gallon of gas in it. Consumers may feel misled and that will tick them off.

I don't like how they rated it, it will confuse people. If you put 1 gallon of gas in the Volt and charge the battery all the way and drive as far as you can before it stops, you won't make it 230 miles. They EPA sticker should tell the electric range and cost of electricity, and have a separate mpg rating for when the battery is dead. Then consumers know what to expect and know the benefits of running it on electricity.

Agreed, and Cadillac has to get away from fwd. BMW has a new 5-series coming in one year, and a new 3-series coming in 2 years. They constantly update, so Cadillac has to keep up. Cadillac can challenge the MKS with a big car, but not the 7-series, so I'd back burner the big car until they have the money to do it right.

Buick is headed downmarket fast in search of younger buyers. But Buick isn't a brand that younger buyers consider, the image is too damaged. Clearly GM wants to fill the void from losing Saturn and Pontiac with cheaper Buicks, which will just create more overlap with Chevy. New GM is creating the same problem old GM had.

It looks like it has potential, and some Genesis-type styling. Hyundai is rising fast, the Sonota is already a very credible mid-sizer, they could be inching near the top of the class with this one.

But since the 3.0 offers no fuel economy gain over the 3.6 V6 why even bother with it. Toyota uses the 3.5 liter V6 in almost everything they make, it is easier to make 1 engine. Respectable and near bottom of the class performance isn't going to get GM's sales going back up. My complaint with the 3.0 is 255 hp, 217 lb-ft and 17/26 mpg, while the Toyota Avalon 3.5 is 268 hp, 248 lb-ft and 19/28 mpg

Agreed. The old SRX did 0-60 in 6.4 seconds, the new one with the turbo does it in 7.5 seconds. They made the right decision to downsize the vehicle to bring it in line with the import SUVs, and change the shape. But it should have stayed on sigma and making it heavier and front drive is not progress.

GM's current 2.0 turbo doesn't get very good mileage. But the 2.4 DI does, a light pressure turbo might only cost 1-2 mpg and could add 40 hp. They could probably get 3 mpg better than the 3.0 V6, but similar acceleration.

The 3.0 is a pointless engine, and peak torque is way too high. They should just use the 3.6 DI V6 in all cars and forget the 3.0 and the old 3.6 vvt, because the 3.6 DI makes more power and gets equal or better mileage. Then they are making 1 V6 rather than 3 would is easier and cheaper to do. It would make more sense for GM to go 2.4 DI 4-cylinder, then a turbo version with about 225 hp for middle, and the V6. Those 3 engines could cover almost all of GM's mid-range products.

GM will never get this car near 3350 pounds, the CTS and Camaro are near 3900. So it will need more than 200 lb-ft at 2,000 rpm to get the job done. Even the 4 banger A4 puts out 250 lb-ft. And remember there is an all new 3-series coming in 2012 (if the world doesn't end) so the baby Caddy won't be up against the current 3-series, it will be up against something better. Plus the 3.0 is in Chevy and Buicks, at least twin turbo it for Cadillac, do something.