smk4565

Cadillac is supposed to be the best; 4-speed autos, pushrods, Chevy platforms, Northstar from the 90s, front drive cars, etc are not the best. BMW's oldest platforms came out for 2004 (1-series, X3 and 5-series). The 5-series gets a new platform for 2010, I believe the X3 gets redone for 2011. Cadillac has a G-body from the 1990s, Sigma from 2003, and GMT900 from 2006. M-B has 7-speeds and diesels, Lexus has 8-speed and hybrids. Cadillac isn't exactly keeping pace in technology.

Here's a novel idea for Cadillac, why not make an MKX or RX sized crossover that is rear drive so Cadillac actually has a clear advantage over them. And offer 8 speed rather than 6, diesel and hybrid variants, etc. To just build another front drive clone of what is already out there isn't going to achieve anything.

1. Since it is front drive, it isn't executed properly (look at the drive wheels on the X3, X5, X6, ML350, GLK350) 2. Lexus has reputation, reliability, and resale value. Cadillac should double their warranty and kill the DTS and rebuild their brand image. Luxury business is all about brand image 3. Everyone is facing the same economy, so it is an even playing field, economy isn't an excuse if the SRX tanks.

Audis have longitudinally mounted engines though, and most are near 55/45 weight balance, not 60/40 or worse like many front drive cars. Secondly, none of Audis products are as good as BMWs. Class for class the BMW offers the better handling and performing car. Cadillac didn't even hit 200,000 sales globally last year. They'll never compete with front drivers, no one outside of the US gives Cadillac any respect what so ever. Cadillac is supposed to be the best, front drive is not the best, pushrods and 4-speed autos are not the best, Chevy platform SUVs are not the best. Cadillac has become just another mediocre GM brand with little hope of a future.

LaCrosse is supposed to start around $25k, so it won't be competing with Lincoln or Lexus, but rather the Avalon, maybe V6 Chrysler 300. They could make another front drive Cadillac to replace the DTS to compete with Lincoln and Lexus, but why bother. Cadillac should be rear drive, any front drive product is inferior to a BMW, Benz or Jaguar.

DTS already ruins any credibility they have against BMW and Benz, a front drive SRX will drag it down more, and as soon as they get the Epsilon sedans out, Cadillac will be Lincoln/Acura at best, but Acura will hold the advantage in perceived reliability because Honda makes it. Cadillac needs at least 3 unique rear drive platforms if they are coming to compete with BMW and Benz.

But why would GM turn down the $2 billion if they know in April they will have to ask for it. What if the government turns them down and doesn't give them anymore than the $13.4 billion they already got? They should hold on to that $2 bilion and stop asking for more money.

That is another FAIL for Cadillac. No Cadillac should be front drive or have a transversely mounted engine. The CTS could be the last rear drive Cadillac, which is very sad.

This is a PR ploy, to make it look like their cost cutting efforts worked. They can get through March, but still want $16 billion for April to December. They aren't out of the woods yet.

Most of that article is true. GM doesn't have one 40 or 50 mpg car. GM has a few stars, but more G5's and Torrents than CTS's and Corvette's. And I also noticed that in GM's 100 page plan they talked a lot about how to cut costs, but never mentioned how they would raise revenue and profit margin. GM has to get better, they need better products and fast. SRX/Equinox for example are not good enough. Ford had the Edge and MKX 2 years ago, Toyota had the Highlander and RX 5-10 years ago, GM's offerings are essentially the same, just a few years late. GM hasn't done anything uniquely different to leap in front of the competition, they are still chasing, and as long as they chase, they will keep losing buyers.

Body looks the same as the Cruze. A Delta II Buick is a good idea if it doesn't look like the Cruze. If it is a badge job with a new grille and headlights, it will fail. And the interior should be 2010 LaCrosse at a minimum.

None are really essential as Chevy covers the mainstream cars, Camaro is the niche performance coupe/convertible and Cobalt/Cruze/HHR SS models cover the hot hatch and sport compact niche. A performance sedan at non-luxury prices is the only thing left for Pontiac to do, so the G8 has a place. However, the G8 or similar rear drive sedan could easily become a Chevy. A product like the Sky/Solstice is something GM just can't afford to do anymore, for any brand.

Even still, if they delay and Ford puts out a diesel, Ford will pick up sales, while GM keeps playing catch up. Just like they are playing catch up on hybrids. Delays don't save money, the kill future sales revenue.

Entire Saturn and Saab brands for sucking money away from GM that could have gone to Olds, then Hummer. Because they saw that by getting rid of Olds, they could make more Hummers and cash in. Only that worked for about 3 years, and now Hummer is probably the most negatively thought about vehicle.

Scion has crappy cars. I agree that Scion isn't getting the demographic that they target. The Ion could have started Saturn's demise also, it wasn't a very good product. Saturn lacked something like a Mazda 5, Kia Rondo, or Honda Fit, that was cheap, but had some utility and versatility that younger buyers would want. Ion, Relay, Aura, Outlook were too much like Chevys, although Saturn has been a money loser, they would probably be closing regardless of what they did.

Bad move, just like killing the Ultra V8 was a bad move and where is the diesel V6? Their engine lineup is going to fall behind, because other makers will still invest in new engines. They should be cutting dead weight brands, not starving a brand like Chevy of a new engine or product so they can make some more G6s or Outlooks.

Scion's cars are ugly with cheap interiors. To make car like Scion is a bad idea, but I think Saturn should have gone after the demographic Scion goes for. Had they stayed what they were with value pricing like Hyundai/Kia they would have been in a good position when the economy tanked.

The Relay dug the grave, Outlook pushed the brand in the hole, Astra threw the dirt on top. Saturn should have focused on low price cars for younger buyers (like Kia or Scion) but when they started to make 7-8 seaters, and tried to move above Chevy, they turned off current customers, and weren't attracting many new ones. Same with Pontiac killing the Firebird and sports cars in favor of Torrent/Montana and rental cars. GM's mistake was trying to change brand identities. A brand should try to do one thing well, and be known for it.

Jaguar sales rose 8% worldwide in 2008. They are small, but growing revenue. They abandoned the sub $50k market, because that was a Ford idea, and they are not an entry level luxury brand. Porsche doesn't sell $35k cars either, because they (like Jaguar) cater to upscale clientele.

MKS is on a totally different platform, front drive and about 9 inches longer than the XF. They have less in common than a CTS and DTS. Lexus has better reliability than any luxury brand, doesn't mean they make the best car. Jaguar is a growing brand, and doing it with zero products under $50,000. The other luxury brands have moved downmarket in search of sales in the $30-50k range.

You can get a DOHC V8 (385 hp, 16/25 mpg on 2010 model) in the Jag, lasar cruise control, rear view camera, better stereo, better leather, better wood, better carpet, better headliner, real aluminum trim, real leather on the dash, metal grille, style and sophistication. CTS is a good entry level car, it is nothing more. No Cadillac competes with the XF, and the E-class is for the 65+ crowd and can't match the XF in performance/handling. If the CTS were $52,000 base, nobody would buy it, Cadillac is not on par with Jaguar and the Germans. Cadillac is Lincoln/Acura, nothing more.

Tried this with the Catera, failed. Tried this with Saturn, failed. Tried importing Holdens as Pontiacs, failed. Let's not learn form mistakes.

Jaguar's JD power quality and reliability ratings have been good over the past few years, and they are #1 in both sales satisfaction and service satisfaction. First year glitches, Jaguar will fix it, and Jaguar is no Saab. There aren't reports of horrible glitches on the XK or XJ, so they'll take care of the XF's problems. The CTS and C-class are priced too low to compete with the XF.

But a 1970s S-class could do 120 mph with the inline 6, or 130 mph with the V8, and up to 140 mph with the 6.9 liter V8. But what does it matter what Mercedes built in the 60's and 70's when the Cimarron was an 80's car? Mercedes has always had a solid reputation for tank-like well engineered cars, they had it in 1909 and still have it in 2009. Cadillac doesn't have the reputation now that they did 50 or 100 years ago because of junk like the Cimarron, Catera, and old geezer sedans of the 80s and 90s.

Probably the worst GM car of all time, certainly the most damaging. Front drive, overweight, underpowered, based on a Chevy platform, a recipe for disaster. Good luck to the SRX and DT7, they are about to continue where the Cimarron left off and that will be the final blow to the Cadillac brand.