smk4565

But Jag of the 70s, 80s, 90s, was known for poor to mediocre build quality and dated designs that didn't look like they were from the current decade. Nothing to aspire to be, although they at least used real wood trim and had a V12.

Overall it looks good, but I would have liked to see the bar across the middle of the grille, rather than near the top of the grille. The tailights look like they were inspired by a Camry or the old GS300, not really a fan of the back. 2011 model year is a while away, Civic and Fit are updated for 09 and new Mazda 3 for 2010, plus the Euro Fords will be here by then, and the Insight comes out next year and is supposed to get 60 mpg or something crazy. GM coming 2 years later with a 40 mpg car isn't going to make a big impact.

I don't like this because it kills resale values. It is good at clearing out inventory, especially on stuff like Impala, G6, Trailbalzers, but it is bad to do on CTS, Malibu, etc. They need better products that they can sell without deep discounts if they want to recover.

I don't like Alfas, I can see the 8C thing being on there, (Jeremy Clarkson loves that car) but not number 1. I think the XF looks better than the XK, and the Aston Martin DBS should be on the list also, but maybe they didn't want 40% of the list to be Astons/Jags which look similar.

The S-type (which was terrible) went out of production 6 months ago, and the XJ, though dated looking is very light for it's size and is pretty quick. It really needs the redesign that is coming in 2 years, and the new 5.0 liter V8 should make it plenty fast. The XK and XF are athletic, they are what Jaguar is going to become.

But Jaguar is a sports car, more so than Cadillac. Buick makes soft riding cars that tend to float, and at a much lower price point.

This can be traced back to too many models, too many brands. Saab is selling under 25k units a year in the US with the 9-5 sedan/wagon, 9-3 convertible/sedan/wagon and 9-7x. The Kappas are a better investment than the Saab brand. GM has to shed some brands and focus resources into Chevy, Cadillac and 1 or 2 other brands. 4 strong brands is better than 1 good and 7 weak.

And the Accord is 2.5% fleet. Any fwd Cadillac is a bad idea. They need to start Cadillac over from scratch, they are becoming another outlet for GM platform sharing, and are far from being "standard of the world." 3 years from now, Buick and Cadillac will be even worse off than they are now, and GM will be talking of how each brand is going to get in e-flex car in another 2 years and that will save the brand.

Not surprising, but sad. GM has tons of front drive generics, none of which are really hot sellers or profit makers. They need some rear drive products, and need sports cars and convertibles. I'd keep Kappa, but 2-seat roadsters are a niche market. GM really needs a 3-series type platform that can do sedan/coupe/convertible/wagon in a compact size.

Detroit knows they can't make money on cars, so they are hoping the midsize crossovers of the 2010s will be the Explorer and bigger SUVs of the late 90s early 2000s. GM's 4 lambdas, and the 5 or so Theta/theta premium SUVs have overlap, plus Flex/MKT, Edge/MKX, and the recent Japanese crossovers form Mazda/Acura/Infiniti, and it is a rather saturated market. Really all GM and Ford are doing is shifting body on frame SUV sales to crossovers, there isn't really a net sales gain. The Equinox is the size of a Highlander now, and the Nox is expected to grow a little. So GM still lacks a Rav4/CR-V competitor, aside form the Vue, which grew larger and got really heavy.

I think it looks too much like a Vue or Equinox also, and I don't like the wheels. This is a step backwards from the current SRX, and will probably move down market in price.

For the type of people that buy those kinds of crossovers, they won't know the difference and it will do fine. I'd like to see Cadillac more than just a Acura/Lincoln/Lexus imitator that dresses up a mainstream car and calls it entry luxury and more like BMW or Mercedes.

In 2008 (no half year or production ramp up) they sold 25,651 Enclaves in 8 months, that works out to 38,474 if they hold that pace through the fall. The Lucerne is on pace to sell 47,571 units in 2008, and they sell that car to rental agencies too, though not at Impala or G6 levels. The Lucerne doesn't sell at an average of $34-37k and it can't crack 50k sales, how will the Invicta/LaX, with the Lucerne priced the same on the same showroom floor. The Lacrosse has sold 23,231 units in 8 months this year, so it is a total dud. The BMW 5-series is outselling the Enclave this year, and the 5-series has been around a while and costs a lot more. The 5-series does well for it's class, but I wouldn't call it one of the hottest selling vehicles in the industry. The Enclave's average buyer is 56, which isn't that young, although better than the 67 year old average for a buick sedan buyer.

It it called Theta premium by some, the platform is steel or whatever the Thetas are, but the suspension components are aluminum like the CTS. Epsilon is a platform for $20,000 mediocre sedans, what there is any good for a Cadiallc SUV. The SRX is moving down market, I predict a $36-48k price, against the MKX and RX350.

Well Cadillac has far less money than BMW. The XLR is rumored to be done after 2011 or so, and they weren't going to do one based off the C7 Corvette. STS and DTS are dying in 2010 with no replacement. So it's CTS sedan/coupe/wagon, SRX, Escalade and an Alpha car.

Like the Enclave was a "hot seller" and such a hit when they are selling 38,000 a year, while Lexus had years of 100k sales of the more expensive RX. The Lucerne and LaCrosse combined have sold 55,000 in the first 8 months this year, that puts them on pace to sell about 83,000 total. If they move the LaCrosse up market, and don't fleet it, they lose a few sales, and the entry-lux market is already saturated. This is a 50k a year sales volume car, with the Lucerne sales dropping to about 25-30k units a year when it comes out.

This car will never touch $42k, my guess is $25,795 to about $34,000 loaded. And it will be a sales dud like the Aura, Astra and G8, unless the Lucerne dies off and they pick up some of that market plus sell to Avis and Enterprise for "premium" class rental car.

Theta platform with aluminum suspension. It is nothing special and the engine is mounted the wrong way for a Cadillac.

The CTS looks overweight, the wheel arches bulge out too much and the body below the windows looks much wider than it does at the roof. And the trunk is high and chunky looking. The old one was a little slab-sidded, but the overall proportions I thought were better. The 3-series isn't striking, but using a similar look all those years helps people recognize that it is a BMW and helps with resale. A lot of GM cars change look so much, by the time they are 8-10 years old they look grossly outdated. Although I wouldn't buy a 3-series either because they are too common and too many wannabees have them. 5-series is ugly, so I wouldn't buy that either. Jaguar XF is probably for me.

BMWs don't have much in common with a Jetta, aside from the company is based in the same country. The Malibu and CTS are more similar than a Jetta and 3-series.

Because BMW's performance exceeds everyone else. No one else has the ride/handling balance they have, and BMWs let you feel connected to the road. I agree that the rest isn't that remarkable. I don't care for the styling inside or out, they use good materials and the car is well built. But when you drive a 5-series, you forget about the dumb iDrive or Bangle butt because the thing drives perfectly. Driving dynamics make a BMW what it is, and that is something other's can't copy. A lot of other luxury brands focus on wood and leather, nav-system, or sound deadening, stereo system, etc. That is easy to copy, anyone can do that stuff. The engineering aspect is what sets the Germans and particularly BMW apart from the rest.

Well the Accord still sells close to Camry volume. Marketing, personal tastes and image of the car are going to play a big part even if a car is worse than another. The Aurora sold pretty well for a $35-40k car in the 01 model year, but sales dropped big time when they announced the brand was going to die. The CTS is a good car, it just can't perform like a BMW, so it is unwise for Cadillac to target BMW, they won't get those buyers anyway. They need to go after Lincoln owners that only buy American as well as other American car owners trading up, Acura owners that like techy stuff and push the nav screen/hard drive. Maybe they can get a few Infiniti or Lexus drivers because the CTS sits in the middle of a G35 and ES350 on the sport - luxury spectrum. If they want to go after the Germans, they need to more with the car, and equip it and price it like an E-class. But I think Cadillac knows people won't spend $52k base for a CTS or any other Cadillac sedan for that matter. So that is why they are the "value" luxury brand.

I am all for gas mileage improvements, but I wouldn't make a special edition of a car and add even more badges to the car for 1 mpg. To prove my point that GM does too many gimmick inspired special editions, the Hummer H2 "Black Chrome limited edition" came out today. What's the point, Hummer sales are dead, a chrome package isn't going to change that.

Apples to apples would be BMW selling a low resistance tires, manual transmission 328i with an XFE badge on the back. Maybe they can do a Corvette XFE, the manual Corvette gets 1 mpg better than the automatic.

I'd say the M models are even more so than AMG or V-series. Cadillac and Mercedes drop i an a huge engine, flashy wheels, and beef up the suspension. The M3 has a carbon fiber roof to cut weight and lower the center of gravity. The M's are a bit more race car inspired, AMG and V-series cars are heavy. BMW and Mercedes can sell a car on merit, even Toyota can sell on a reputation for reliability. I wish GM spent more time making a class leading car, and less time putting body kits or SS/GXP packages on stuff like G6s and Impalas, which are just rental cars.