smk4565

01 or newer STS then, because in 01 they got new 17 inch wheels, HID headlamps and a couple other features. In 2002 or 2003 it became the first car with XM radio, I think 02, because I got my car in 03 and installed XM to it. I always liked the gauges in the 98-04 Seville.

2005 STS can go to under $20,000. V8 and awd might be low 20s, which isn't a bad deal since they were $55k+ 3 years ago. I've seen STS-V's for $35-40,000, why get a new CTS when a 2 year old STS-V is cheaper. Cadillac resale value is horrid, which kills their new car sales, but for used cars they are a good deal.

GM getting market share in the SUV segment is all well and good, but market share does not equal profit. GM is out of cash and needs a government loan (because no bank will lend to them) and Toyota made $17 billion in profit last year. One of those companies had a good plan, one of them didn't.

Don't buy any Pontiac, all that plastic on the interior will fall apart. My step brother had a 90s Grand Prix and has a Firebird now and both fell apart. DTS is over 207 inches long, STS was 204, Aurora is 199. 2004 was SLS only. I own an Aurora 4.0, I used to use 93 octane, but when gas went over $3 I went to 89 and don't notice any difference. Post 2000 Northstars can run on 87, they may recommend higher for optimum performance. I also get about 18 mpg in mixed driving, unless you are on the highway in at least 80% of your driving, don't expect better than 18-20 out of a Northstar. I have driven the SLS and find it floaty, and the Aurora kills it in handling. The STS I rode in, but didn't drive it, it should get closer to the Aurora in handling, but the Aurora 4.0 is 250 pounds or so lighter. I have driven Devilles, that is like grandma floating in her boat going down the river. The Aurora 3.5 handles pretty well because it isn't as nose heavy as the 4.0 and has decent pick up, but the 4.0 is faster and sounds way better. 03 Auroras should be under $10k, 02-03 STS are always cheap also, can't go wrong with either. I suggest getting a warranty though. If something breaks they are expensive. My torque converter broke, and to fix it they had to drop the transmission (the 4T80 is over 300 pounds and one place I called wouldn't even work on them) to get to it, then take the sidewall off to change a solenoid. The Cadillac dealer wanted $2800 for this, luckily I went to a local transmission guy and he did it for $1450. Needless to say I won't be going back to the dealer. I have seen 05-06 CTS with 50k miles for $13-14,000 to throw that out there.

They are toast. In 2006 they had to take action to prevent this, Saab, Hummer and another brand should have been killed then. GMT900 was rushed to market when gas was $3 a gallon, then Lambda full size SUVs were next to market. Meanwhile Delta II, Epsilon II and Zeta got delayed. For years GM hasn't been able to do both trucks and cars at the same time, it is always one or the other. Or help Cadillac while Buick dies, help Saturn, while Pontiac dies, etc. If the government loans them money, they'll still go bankrupt, just file now and get it over with.

Mediocre sales at best, probably in the 30-40,000 a year range. It doesn't look expensive enough to compete with the Germans, so they'll price it in the mid $30s, but there is new competition at that price with the GLK and Audi Q5. People that like bland and reliable will pick the Lexus or Acura. The SRX will perform no better than the Lincoln MKX, it is the same type of vehicle. They can't compete with the MDX or rear drivers in driving dynamics, the SRX will likely be heavy since all GM SUVs are heavy so unless 304 hp is the base engine it will be slow. Basically, Cadillac and Lincoln have nothing that set themselves apart from the crowd, and those badges don't have the prestige of Lexus, and the Germans. So even if the cars are equal, people will buy import for image.

Nissan's ads say something to the effect of "you don't just want a car, you want a car company" trying to imply that the domestic companies may not be around to back the car they sold you. If I were Toyota, I would just come right out and run ads that say GM, Chrysler, and Ford could go bankrupt, why buy a car from them, when we have 0% financing and are financially secure. Detroit got themselves into this mess, they have no right to complain when they get dragged through the mud by competitors or the media. If Detroit doesn't like it, they should make profit and shut up the critics.

But that SRX has a better interior than what the 2010 has, plus it is REAR DRIVE and has a V8. The 2010 is a front-drive V6 on a glorified Equinox platform. It is Lincoln MKX part 2. The current SRX has won more awards than any Cadillac in history, the new one will win zero. The Lexus won't win any awards either, except for JD Power quality.

Front wheel drive, looks too much in shape like a 9-4x, Equinox, Terrain, Vue. It is more rounded than the current SRX which people find bland. No one can out-bland Lexus, and the SRX just doesn't look that unique or expensive. Compared to an X5 or ML350 the SRX looks kind of plasticy and cheap. There is a good 6 inch wide piece of black plastic that surrounds the whole bottom of the SRX, that is something a Ford Explorer would do, and the Range Rover doesn't, so who is Cadillac aspiring to.

This one is ugly, but all the other ones were ugly too and they sold those. I think they have a 3rd row seat now, but I bet it is tiny. I think this new one is 188-189 inches long, 275 hp from the 3.5 V6 and about 4100 pounds. That power to weight ratio isn't bad, better than most SUVs. The sad thing is Cadillac will try to make a generic front drive SRX to compete, and will fail at it.

First off, Mercedes dealerships are stand alone, Cadillac should be also, Saab's image doesn't fit Cadillac's and would be a distraction in the dealership. Second, there is no money to make Saturns and Hummer, they have to file bankruptcy in 3 weeks, making new Hummers and Saturns isn't happening. About Cadillac, this is where GM needs massive investment, the 08 Malibu cost $500 million to develop. That was just an upgrade of an existing platform, using already existing engines, etc. It costs Mercedes over $1 billion to make a new S-class, and some stuff they can recycle. Cadillac has to start from scratch, it could cost $1.5 billion easily to make an S-class competitor, another $1.5 billion or more to do the BLS. To upgrade the CTS to get it to 5/E/A6 class could take another $250+ million if done soon. The XLR's problem isn't price, it is that it sucks. So that is another $250 million or so to fix it. Plus the SRX and Escalde will need work. Cadillac needs $4-5 billion in 2009 and 2010 just to catch up to Mercedes, which is about 35-40% of GM's entire R&D Budget. If Chevy takes 50% (they do 75-80% of sales) only 10% is left for the other 6 brands combined.

I said years ago they had to kill brands, I could see in 2005-2006 how 8 brands was too many for GM to get new product to. They can't slice up the pie 8 ways and expect to compete with Toyota who has a bigger pie (money) and slices it 3 ways. Buick, Pontiac, GMC is 3 brands, if it were one, then it should be GMC Solstice, GMC Enclave, GMC Yukon, GMC G8, GMC Lucerne, etc. I just drove by a combo Buick-Pontiac-GMC-Chevy dealer in downtown Pittsburgh that went bust, even with 4 brands in a populated area they couldn't make it. They need Chevy and Cadillac to be world standard, a 3rd brand in the middle would be nice, but if they money isn't there, they can't do it. Cadillac needs about $4 billion of the next 2 years just to catch up to the Germans. Between that and what Chevy needs, there isn't much money left to go around. Buick would be relatively cheap to keep because they use the same mechanics as Chevy with an interior up grade and front and rear fascias. If Hummer, Saab, Pontiac, GMC, Saturn all go away, all of a sudden the marketing budget for Cadillac, Chevy, Buick doubles and marketing budget isn't a problem anymore.

I'd sell Saab for $1 if I could find a buyer for it. All it does is lose money.

But the economy did tank, and all of 2009 will likely look as bad as November auto sales did. GM can't survive another 12-14 months of sales like that last 2, with their current structure. Toyota is okay despite the economy, GM has to structure itself so that even in a terrible economy it can at least break even. GM needs to sell unused assets/real estate, cut marketing to near zero on anything but Chevy and Cadillac and sell Saab, Hummer and Saturn for anything they can get, even if it is $1. Right now all that should matter is keeping Chevy and Cadillac alive. They are headed to Chapter 11, if not now, then in March when the Treasury loan (if they get it) runs out. They have to make sure chapter 11, doesn't lead to chapter 7, and the only way to do that is to drastically downsize and get Chevy and Cadillac sales rising and turning profit.

3 million jobs related to the auto industry (only 250,000 of which are GM and Chrysler employees) out of 155 million jobs is 2% of the workforce, not 1 in 7 (14%). Not all those jobs would be lost because Toyota, Honda, etc would still be here and Toyota could keep any supplier it needs alive. GM and Chrysler will probably have to lay off 1/3 or more of their workforce even with bailout money. The bailout is just delaying death, it doesn't solve the real problem of legacy costs, too many dealers, too many brands, too many models and too many medicore products that people don't want.

GM's hired bankruptcy consultants, looks like that is the road they'll be taking unless the White House and Treasury can get them some money from TARP, but TARP money is set up for banks, not companies.

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_cal...&vote=00215 Interesting that Harry Ried voted against it.

Time to bring out the bankruptcy papers, salvage whatever they can in Chapter 11. Hopefully they can save Chevy and Cadillac at least. The cash is almost gone and there is no one left to help them. Stock price will dive tomorrow.

Not even Toyota could be Saved By Zero. Most annoying series of car ads in recent memory. Outdoing the current LaCrosse is not a challenge, making the Regal or new LaCrosse better than the Accord or ES350 is. GM is king of making a new car that is benchmarked against the previous generation (Cobalt was better than Cavalier and G6 better than Grand Am, etc), rather than what the competition is doing. Challenge 2 is convincing people to buy a Buick sedan rather than a Japanese one. Everyone talks about the success of the Enclave, they are on pace to sell under 40,000 of them this year, that isn't that great for a $32-45,000 SUV. The Acadia is priced the same and handily outsells it, the Pilot and RX350 outsell it by a wide margin also. The Enclave is the 3rd best selling vehicle on it's platform. Plus it was down 40% in November, while the industry was down 30-35%.

It probably doesn't matter what the interior looks like because it's unlikely that Buick will get conquest sales, and only cling to their dwindling customer base of senior citizens drawn in by $3500 cash back and 0.9% APR.

Chrysler probably can't survive, a loan just pushes their demise off a year or two. I don't think Chrysler should get government money, let Cerebus pump money into them if the company is a good long term investment.

The front works, I like it more than the current car. Looks pretty good from the side, the rear is horrible. The back looks like a Japanese generic and ruins the car. The LED lights are an Audi ripoff, they look good on the Audi, but Mercedes didn't incorporate it as well.

The 2010 SRX and 2012 DTS hate that idea.

GM's position often doesn't match up to market reality. They may aspire for the Regal to compete with imports but it will likely be a Malibu, Milan competitor (assuming the Mercury is still alive then). Buick still fleets sedans at a pretty good rate, Honda is only 2% fleet.

I agree on the point that better than the current dated platforms and 4-speed/3800 combo cars isn't good enough. It has to be better than the Japanese sedans. And why is it supposed to compete with the Accord and Camry, the Malibu was supposed to do that. Sounds like the Regal will be midsized and priced in the low $20s, and all it will do is compete with the Malibu.