smk4565

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.

Could be the Beat or an Aveo replacement. It kind of reminds me of a Suzuki. What country were these photos taken in? It could be a car just for Eastern Europe or Brazil or other developing nation.

Well by original I meant the squared off ugly thing from the 70s-80s, since that is only post-war car with Lagonda attached to it.

The original was probably the ugliest car of the 80s. This is far worse.

They will shrink to zero brands if they don't do something, because they are deep in debt and haven't made money in years. Size or market share was how the old GM got it done, that won't work, PROFIT is all that matters now and in the future. They fell further into the tank when Oldsmobile died because they didn't drastically improve Buick and Pontiac. Products like the Enclave, 2010 LaCrosse, G8, Solstice should have been on the market in 2004-05. Instead GM dumped money into Hummer and pickup trucks, and W-body cars while Chrysler did the 300C, Japanese did crossovers like the Pilot, Highlander and RX350, Mazda had the Miata, Nissan the 350Z, etc. Now GM comes 4 years later with crossovers, rear drive sedans and sport coupes. It is 4 years too late. GM has been following the market, rather than trendsetting, so their overall lineup hasn't been that desirable to many consumers in a while, and thus the deep discounts to mode metal. So the answer is fewer, better products. Spend $1 billion on the new Malibu for example and make it best family sedan in the world. Rather than $4-500 million on the Malibu, then some on the Aura, some on the G6, Grand Prix, LaCrosse, etc and end up with 4-5 mediocre cars.

The G8 represents GM product mismanagement. They had the Zeta platform and chance to make a flagship Chevy (like what the 300C did for Chrysler in 2005) and possibly a Buick version Either or both could have been GM's Genesis that got people to rethink the brand. Instead they did what was easy and just imported the G8 from Holden, but importing it is costing them too much, and the interior is behind a higher end Camry/Accord or even Malibu LTZ. Not to mention Pontiac's brand image is damaged from years of rebadges and fleet sales. There is just too much product overlap, too many dated products still in the lineup, and not enough real winners that will sell without a rebate and hold value. Until 100% of GM's lineup is Malibu, CTS, Silverado, Corvette like products, sales will keep tanking. Saturn and Pontiac have just become Chevy clones and can go away. A Zeta sedan or Kappa roadster would sell better with a bow tie on it anyway. GMC I was never a fan of staying, but Buick dealers on their own would go out of business. I think GMC should be the commercial truck, work trucks, etc and cater to businesses, let Chevy cater to families. Otherwise GMC does luxury SUVs and Buick does cars only. But they don't both have to do one step up SUVs from Chevy.

But notice Edmunds and Motor Trend didn't include a Cadillac in those comparisons because Cadillac has no credible entry into the mid-level luxury sport sedan segment. And you are comparing the G8 to the same 5 year old 5-series. And wasn't the CTS supposed to challenge the 5-series, why is Pontiac? The G8 is a Charger with better handling, that is all, it is no 5-series. Doesn't mean it is a bad car for the money, but it isn't an elite sedan.

But that Jaguar was on the Car and Driver 10 best list, Automobile All Star list, and won comparison tests by Edmunds.com and Motor Trend. It is an award winning machine, and that was with the old 4.2 liter engine, with the new 5.0 is is going to be even stronger. Jaguar sales were up in 2009 while everyone else went down, so the car is doing it's job.