smk4565

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.

Gotta teach them. The Jetta TDi is gaining traction. If they drop the 250ish hp and torque 3.6 V6, that gets 17/26 mpg, for a 250 hp, 425 lb-ft 24/35 mpg engine, I think people will buy it. They still have to offer gas engines, but diesel is about 50% in Europe, there is no reason it couldn't be here.

I totally agree. BMW is focused, and they "ultimate driving machine" better than anyone else. They don't make a soft floaty car just to copy Lexus. They stick to the formula, and BMW steering/brakes/suspension/handling is better than everyone else. Cadillac doesn't have a focus, they have several styles of vehicles and they try to copy Lexus, or copy BMW or Mercedes, etc. They need to figure out what they want to be and do only one thing.

I didn't mean quantity, I meant quality. Ford has more desirable 4-cylinder products, especially since the Fusion was just redesigned, and has the 41 mpg hybrid that gets an additional $1700 tax credit. So that car is $6200 off on Cash for clunkers and it is a good buy even without the gov't rebate. Plus Ford has the Escape which had a huge sales month. The Cobalt/Aveo/HHR/G5/G6, etc are mostly dated products that have needed heavy incentives to sell, or are heavily fleeted. Ford's offerings are more up to date, Kia has the new Soul and Forte, etc. The other brands have fresher and better 4-cylinder small to midsize cars, so they can benefit more from Cash for Clunkers is all I meant.

Just put diesels in all the Zetas and trucks, problem solved. A BMW 730 diesel gets about 10 mpg more than a CTS does, and the 7-series is a huge, heavy car. GM needs to get cars on a diet too, if they didn't weigh so much, they wouldn't need a 6 liter V8 and they wouldn't suck so much gas.

My complaint about the CTS is it too big and heavy to match a 335i in performance, and it isn't equipped enough to match a 5-series, E-class, A6, etc. They need 2 cars, an small entry level, and the CTS V6 should be $48k for the base model. Car and Driver just tested a 535i (without awd) and it was $63,820. BMW is doing a heck of a job to get people to spend over $60k on a 6 cylinder midsize car. That is what Cadillac needs to aim for, to have a badge that means something and one that people will pay a premium for. About the 3.0 DI engine, it doesn't make enough torque and it makes it at too high an rpm. BMW's inline sixes make good low end torque, especially the twin turbo. Maybe if they twin turbo the 3.0 V6 they will have something. Plus this car, and the CTS, need a diesel.

I am not saying that if the CTS were smaller, that it would sell better. What I am saying is that Cadillac needs BOTH, small and midsize and the CTS is a midsize. Because some buyers will only look at small, some will only look at midsize, some will only look at large. So Cadillac has to offer a car in every segment, just as BMW, Mercedes, Audi and Lexus do. And FYI, Cadillac has sold 22,942 CTS in 2009. The aging 5-series outsells it. http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet...amp;docid=55983

The 128i and 328i get 22 mpg combined, thus meet the CARS program. Plus the diesels. But I doubt BMW or any other luxury maker is getting much of CARS, it is Hyundai, Subaru, Toyota, Honda and Ford that benefit because they make a lot of 4-cylinder cars. Cadillac to recover has to reinvent themselves, again. The DTS and Escalade must die. The Escalade might sell and make profit, but the Escalade in a couple years is going to be thought of how the Hummer H2 is thought of now. Cadillac can't have a gigantic gas guzzler in their brand portfolio, it is going to create a bad image. If they are going to be a global luxury brand, they have to build products that work everywhere. Problem is, GM thinks that Cadillac has a great product lineup, and they think what they are doing will work. It won't. And the second problem is the money isn't there to develop what they need. The beancounters aren't going to give $1-2 billion to develop a Cadillac flagship when they only allocated $750 million to the Volt. A bankrupt automaker can survive, but it can't win.

Some may find the 3-series (or IS or C-class or A4) too small, but BMW makes the 5-series, and the 7-series. They cover each market segment, and aren't losing any business if someone that likes BMW but thinks a 3-series is too small, because they can step up to a 5. I am just saying that some people, (especially those in Europe) will find the CTS too big, and want a smaller car, and Cadillac has nothing to offer them, so they'll go to Lexus or one of the German brands. BMW outsells Cadillac 6 to 1 globally, BMW isn't perfect, but they have a pretty good idea what they are doing.

The LaCrosse is rated at 17/26 with the 3.0 liter, but a CTS with a 3.6 liter is rated at 18/27. And the weights of both cars are somewhat similar. That 3.0 offers zero MPG advantage. The Genesis and 5-series are getting an 8-speed next year, Infiniti and Mercedes already use 7-speeds. If everyone else does it, and Cadillac doesn't, it will look like they are old school, and not cutting edge.

No, I think most cash for clunkers deals are on 4-cylinder cars. The Focus is the #1 purchased car under cash for clunkers, and I think it helps Toyota, Honda and Hyundai who have good low priced cars. Cash for clunkers doesn't help Chrysler who has the Nitro and Sebring or GM with the Aveo, Cobalt, Saturns, G5s, G6s, etc. The Malibu is GM's best offering for Cash for clunkers, but most of GM's good products are large SUVs that don't qualify. Cadillac's dismal sales have nothing to do with cash for clunkers and everything to do with a dated STS and DTS, gas hungry Escalade, and lack of a small luxury car and lack of a coupe. There is too much competition in the $35-50k segment to have stale product, especially during a recession when the entire segment is down.

Edmunds or Motor Trend just had a comparison ( I think Edmunds) and they ranked Fusion #1, followed by Mazda 6, Accord, Sonata, Malibu and they left the Camry off because it was a distant last in their previous comparison. I thought that was a reasonable finishing order, but the Legacy and Altima were not included, and the Altima usually does well in comparisons.

Cadillac was down 53% from last July, they need better products, mainly a small car, and where is the CTS Coupe? Chevy did alright, but Ford and Hyundai posted sales increases, so the competition is getting stronger. It seems that cash for clunkers isn't helping GM and Chrysler as much as the other brands, although Chrysler has a horrid product lineup, I am surprised they sell anything at all.

A small Cadillac should have been a priority a few years ago, especially once they planned to make the CTS a couple inches larger in each direction. It isn't just the 3-series, it is the C-class, A4, IS, and to some extent the G37 which is 183-188 inches long. Some people just don't want a car as big as the CTS, so that is lost business if Cadillac doesn't offer a small sedan/coupe, especially in overseas markets. This car should be turbo 4, 3.6 V6, and twin turbo 3.6 V6. The 3.0 V6 has no torque and isn't fuel efficient. I almost think they should develop an Inline 6 for Cadillac use only, but GM is probably too broke to do that. Plus they'll need a 7 or 8-speed transmission for the CTS and up, the compact car could get away with 6-speed. CTS should not grow in size at all, and it needs to lose weight. Same with the SRX, the new, smaller, front drive SRX weighs more than the old rear drive V8 model. That isn't progress, it is bad engineering. Cadilac's problem is they are building cars of already existing platforms, engines, transmissions in the GM parts bin, and what is in the parts bin isn't good enough. They need to develop a 100% new chassis, a new engine, new transmission, new technologies, etc. It will cost well over $1 billion to do this car correctly, I don't see GM committing that much money to one car model.

They aren't going to be able to compete with Acura and Lexus. They have to go after a new type of consumer, and go after some of the Jetta's market share. People will pay $25-26k on a Camry or Malibu, Buick needs to get those buyers to drop $25-26k on a compact instead, and I think that is doable. Especially with the 55+ crowd that doesn't need a big family car and just wants comfort.

Interesting, I didn't know they had to disable the engine, I thought they just had to take it to a junk yard and scrap it. It seems like they could recycle more old parts off the car if they didn't disable the engine. 240,000 miles is pretty good, I have 110,000 and the engine has been pretty much trouble free. It is problems with electrical gadgets, wires and sensors that plague the Auroras. I've only spent $360 this year on unscheduled maintenance, so to me it is still better to fix the Aurora than to buy a new car (which almost has to be some 4 cylinder POS under the clunkers program)

The small premium segment has been crowded for years, Audi, BMW, Volvo, Saab, Mercedes, Lexus, and Acura are all in it. But they for the most part are $30k+, the number of small semi luxury cars for $23-28,000 is very limited, so there is a chance for Buick to seek out a new niche. The Jetta is really the only car there right now (Mini to a degree) and both are geared toward sport, Buick could get buyers that like soft. A rebadged Cruze will fail because people will know it is a Chevy knockoff. A rebadged Opel could fail because it won't hit enough of what the American market wants (a problem of the GTO, G8 and Astra). They really need to make this car a Buick and somewhat unique.

It is about time. Now bring on the compact Cadillac (rear drive). The 3-series has a 30 year head start though, so GM has a lot of catching up to do.

In the 70s and 80s, a 200 inch long car may have been common, but cars have changed. The Fleetwood/Roadmaster/Carprice died, then LeSabre/ParkAve/Bonneville/Aurora/Deville/Seville died, with just the DTS and Lucerne left, and those are on the way out. Much like the Ford panther platform is near dead. Even the Chrysler 300 is smaller than the LHS/Concord were. The Taurus/MKS/Impala will be about as big as it gets for sub $50,000 cars in a year or two. Regal should be the volume Buick, but $38k will never happen. It should be $32k loaded, it can't cost as much as an MKZ, but should cost more than a Malibu. The problem Buick faces is the Regal goes against the Camry and LaCrosse against the Avalon, and Toyota builds a better Buick than Buick does.

I don't think the LaCrosse is too large (too heavy, yes), just that it is a large car, and big enough to be the biggest Buick (don't need the Lucerne anymore). Regal is a perfect size for the midsize market, 190 inches long matches the Fusion and Camry. Add a Delta car, and Buick would have small-medium-large.

Regal replaces Aura, but it has to cost more than a Malibu, really it should be around $25-30k. LaCrosse replaces old Lacrosse and Lucerne, but it needs to go up a little in base price, which can be done by dropping the base model with plastic wheel covers. Just make the CXL trim the base. But Buick will probably keep bare bones models of both for fleet sales, and create overlap with the Malibu and Impala.