smk4565

No, personally I wouldn't pay anything for a Buick, but I agree the typical buyer won't pay $48k for one. But a $24k Malibu, or Fusion has a 6 speed and a platform made in the past 5 years. At least the Lincoln MKZ and MKS have modern chassis/powertrains, Buick should have been more like those cars or like the Avalon is.

But the 7-series didn't get the axe to pay for 3-series work. This is GM's problem on every brand, one thing is cut to pay for another. Zeta was originally delayed to get GMT900s out faster. They have too many models, not enough cash, and banking everything on trucks and SUVs 10 years ago wasn't a great idea. There are 2007 used DTS out there for $23,000 and 05 STS sells for about what an 05 Accord sells for. Used Cadillacs are really cheap, a much better buy than a new Buick or Impala.

Then the Lucerne should weigh less and not have a 4-speed automatic designed in 1987 or whenever the 4T60 came out. GM has overweight vehicles all across their lineup. Maybe they should invest in newer platforms with more aluminum or high tensile steel to save weight.

Just in time for the launch of an all new 3-series. Cadillac on the first try has to build something better than the current 3-series which BMW has had 30 or so years to perfect, good luck to them.

We still have the G8, which is selling at about 1400 a month now. I said a year ago that would be a sales bust, they'll be lucky to move 18,000 of them this year, probably will sell 15,000 next year, and it will fade like the GTO did. The GTO was a flop, and they repeated it, the car was never designed for our market. Zeta isn't good enough for a Cadillac (or at least what a Cadillac should be). But with no flagship, STS and DTS soon going away, XLR probably going away, Cadillac is going to have CTS in 3 body styles, SRX (the FWD one) and the Escalade as their line up. They have become Lincoln, the brand is becoming as dead as Pontiac and Buick, with one competitive product and a lot of dated stuff with poor resale values. Too many brands and models and no money. Cadillac in 5 years will just be a dressed up Chevy, struggling to compete with Acura, because GM is too broke to do anything different, sad.

17/26 mpg out of a 229 hp engine, the Toyota Avalon has 268 hp and gets 19/28 mpg. Buick is 40 hp and 2 mpg short, and the Avalon is nothing amazing. The Genesis gets 18/27 mpg and has 290 hp, and is rear drive. But GM says they can't do rear drive due to CAFE. Does anyone else find it odd that Buick's flagship is upgrading it's engine by using the mid-level engine from an 06 Impala/Monte Carlo? They aren't a premium brand if the best they can do is what Chevy had 3 years ago.

The G8 is longer and heavier than a 5-series, the G8 is the same size as the STS. Neither the STS or G8 can handle like a 5-series, and in a year the 550i will have 450 lb-ft of torque so the acceleration battle that is close now won't be anymore. The TL isn't as luxurious as a CTS, let alone a 5-series, but I agree that the new TL is ugly.

The new SRX will probably sell better because it will be cheaper. Plus the GMT360s will be about gone, so the Equinox/SRX/9-4x will be GMs only midsize SUVs. The Lexus RX and Lincoln MKX have front wheel drive standard so Cadillac may go front wheel for low cost and higher mileage but front drive doesn't help Cadillac's image any. There is a new Lexus RX out next year, plus the Mercedes GLK and new X3 are coming soon, so the SRX better be good. Although I think it will be what the Lincoln MKX is to the Ford Edge, and just a fancy Equinox. Acura and Lexus have seen sales declines with their entry level models, you'd think they and GM would learn you can't challenge the Germans with a front drive, fancy Honda or Chevy.

Agreed. The 08 Fit was sold out, they are increasing production for the 2009 model, which is a new model. This is why Honda does well, the Fit was the best car in the class, and they updated it anyway so they stay #1.

Practically 50% of GM's lineup needs replaced, one vehicle per brand won't do a thing. Buick got the Enclave, Saturn got 5 new models, Pontiac got the G8 and Solstice, Cadillac got the CTS, and all those brands are down over the last couple years. The problem is how does a cash strapped company get that much competitive product out and learn how to make money on small vehicles, which they have yet to be able to do. I don't like the Wave/G3 idea, if Pontiac is just going to be a cheaped out chevy rebadge, don't even bother with the brand. I disagree with the guy that the new SSRX will be a better crossover, front drive on an Equinox platform is not better than rear drive on a CTS platform.

Those guzzle more gas than the Mercedes 5.5 liter though, and the Northstar is old. They need a new engine and they canceled it. Cadillac always being behind hurts, because even if they come out with a new V8, attached to the two-mode hybrid with an 8-speed transmission, Lexus would have already done that a few years earlier. It would be nice if they could blow away the 7-series, but they don't have in-car the mechanicals or features like in-car internet and messaging seats at their disposal. They are years behind, which I think is due to lack of funding going into Cadillac, and being wasted on dying brands.

GM needs to get the image of as price rises so must size. Almost all their brands and models follow this formula, with GMT900s and DTS at their expensive products, Lambdas and Sigmas closely behind, etc. Did they notice a 3-series is smaller than a Cobalt and sells just fine, in fact the 3-series in July outsold the entire Buick brand by 1300 vehicles. Mini Cooper sales are up 24.4% this year, the Smart For2 is sold out for the year, the C-class is outselling the CTS and it is barely bigger than a Cobalt. Small cars should not be associated with cheap cars. GM still needs some low cost small cars (like where Saturn used to be positioned) but the Cruze needs to be that nice to challenge the Civic, and they need small premium cars as well, and don't need 7 mid-size sedans that are $3,000 apart in price.

The CTS is a good car, but not a great car. I drove one that stickered at $50,000 and it didn't have thrilling performance or an over the top interior. The CTS is far from BMW performance and the interior and materials are just average for a $45-50k car. The Mercedes C-class is outselling the CTS, the 3-series is outselling it 2 to 1 (I know BMW has wagon/coupe/convertible, but Cadillac should have been working on that years ago). The CTS is only the 4th best seller in it's class, if that is the best Cadillac has, it isn't enough. A Cadillac zeta sedan would be really heavy, and Cadillac doesn't have 400 hp DOHC V8 or 7 or 8 speed transmission, which they would need just to be class average in the 7-series/S-class/LS460 class. GM has yet to even build a credible threat to the 5-series, so going after the 7-series is a real challenge. I've been saying for years Cadillac needs a real flagship, but if you want to beat the Europeans in refinement and technology, you don't go to Australia to get the chassis to do it. It would take a lot of time and money to develop that car, and GM has neither because they spend the last 10 years making SUVs and the money is spread out of 60 models on 8 brands.

Same platform, same engines, same transmissions, same price range. If the Malibu was 20-27k and the Buick Epsilon was 27-34k I wouldn't have a problem with it. That would make sense, because they wouldn't overlap. But the G6, Aura, Malibu, Lacrosse, Impala are all around the $22-25k range when similarly optioned. In the 80s GM had a lot of cars that shared body panels, the Celebrity, Pontiac 6000 and Buick Century wagons come to mind. All they have improved was from going from straight rebadge to mechanical twins with a few different body panels and different materials on the same basic interior shape. They still have overlap. Toyota doesn't price the Camry and Avalon and Lexus ES the same, why are the Malibu V6, Impala and LaCrosse are priced about the same.

If Buick-Pontiac-GMC was one brand, then they should all have the same logo. GMC Solstice, GMC Lucerne, GMC G8, GMC Acadia, etc. But that isn't the case, they have 3 badges, thus 3 brands. A Jaguar-Land Rover-BMW dealership doesn't mean all 3 are acting as one brand, with BMW covering performance, Jag covering luxury and Land Rover covering trucks. In the 1970s they had rebadged cars, in the 80s they had Chevy-Buick-Olds (celebrity/century/cierra) rebadges, Pontiac Bonneville, Olds 88, Buick Lesabre rebadges, in the 90s they did the same thing, and added Blazer/Jimmy/Bravada and Silloutte/Lumina APV/Transport rebadges to the rebadged sedans. In the 2000s, we have the G6/Malibu/Aura or Grand Prix/Impala/LaCrosse w-body platform share, and Trailblazer/Envoy/Bravada/Ascender/9-7x/Rainer 6-way rebadge, etc. They want to go into the 2010s with 4 Lambdas, Epsilon is about to be Malibu/G6/Aura/9-5/LaCrosse. They have used the same strategy for 4 decades in a row, each decade was worse than the one before it, and they are about to implement the same strategy for a 5th decade. It didn't work in the 70s or 80s, or 90s, or 2000s, it won't work in the 2010s.

My mom has an 07 A4, one of her complaints is how the engine vibrates and is noisy, but it gets good mileage. If you sit in the car at a traffic light, you can feel a slight vibration in the seats, and it idle or low speeds you can hear engine rattle. It isn't as good as the CTS 3.6 at idle or low speeds. Although the CTS engine when revved up sounds a little harsh and whiny; under acceleration the 2.0T and 3.6 are comparable. Neither can touch the Aurora V8 in refinement though. I drove a BMW 530i a month ago, and thought the inline six was smoother and more refined than my V8.

The Camry outsold the Malibu, G6 and Aura combined. 3 models off one platform with 3 marketing campaigns and 3 dealership channels, outsold by 1 car with 1 sales channel, with 1 marketing campaign. Hmmmm. GM has sold 5500 hybrids year to date, Toyota/Lexus 166,000. It is a good thing GM is ready to make smaller engines when customers are ready. They better to a 2-year market study, then 1 year of building a business case just to make sure before they try it. In the meantime, the H3 pickup, and 8 seater Traverse come out this fall. Quote: "Cadillac CTS dominated the mid-car luxury category with sales increasing 38 percent compared with the same month a year ago." The piece of crap Lexus ES350 outsold it 5,563 to 5,262. So it isn't dominating mid-size segment. The 3-series sold 11,303 units in July, 5-series sold 4,525, all Cadillac cars combined sold 8,600. The CTS is up 10,000 units this year, but the DTS, STS and XLR are down over 11,000. The brand hasn't grown any. They need 5 models that are more competitive than the CTS is. Cadillac's budget needs to double, if that comes at the expense of another brand, oh well.

The picture doesn't look that great, but they should bring back the Gullwing. And it should be on a car in the $50-80k range, not a $300,000 car that they will make 100 of each year. Maybe a 2+2 coupe above the CLK, but under the SL roadster.

That's more like it. They are ready to challenge the Civic.

Um, no. B-P-G all have division managers, marketing budgets, design budgets to figure out how to put a Pontiac grille on a Cobalt, etc. Honda and Acura don't overlap products: Saturn, Chevy, Buick and Pontiac all operate in the $20-30k range.

They should fire LaNeve along with Wagoner. Buick, Pontiac, GMC is not like one brand, if you have to advertise for all 3. Plus you have the Enclave and Acadia overlap. What they save from cutting brands is design and development costs and marketing costs. If they put Pontiac's whole budget into Chevy (better products, more advertising), they could sell 400,000 Malibus and 400,000 Cobalt/Cruzes per year. And a Malibu 4 cylinder is $2300 a year (EPA number on 15k miles) to fuel vs $3700 a year for a Silverado 5.3 liter. $1400 a year is a lot to someone making $40k a year or so.

Based on daily sales rate, Buick was down 44.5%. Saab was down 42.4%, GMC down 42.5 %, Hummer was down 65%. Why does GM see all 8 brands as so sacred when all of them are posting pathetic sales, and month after month post big losses. Chevrolet and Cadillac were down over 30%, that should be a red flag that they need better products.

I am surprised that $15 billion is only the 3rd worst quarterly loss. How could they have 2 worse than that? Losing $51 billion since 2005 is a staggering number, even if some is accounting and one time charges, that is a ridiculous amount to lose. They may not make it until 2010 when the labor deal kicks in, even when it does, I doubt it will be enough to solve the problem. GM said, wait til the GMT900s arrived, then wait til gotta have products like the Solstice/Sky, and new Saturn lineup, then the Lambdas, then it was just wait til the CTS and Malibu come out. For 3 years it has been "wait til net year." Well all that new product came out and they are worse off than they were in 2004. They have to address brand overlap and product mix. Which means less brands and less rebadging, more top of the class cars.

Weight is the real problem with many GM vehicles, if they had smaller or lighter vehicles, they could use a smaller engine, then you are saving gas from less weight, plus less engine. A turbo 4 in a heavy car isn't the answer, the Acura RDX and Mazda CX-7 have turbo-4s they don't post any great mileage numbers. The Saab 9-3 2.8 turbo gets 15/24 mpg, there are V8s that get better than that.

I hate when GM "studies the market" or says "we could do it now, if consumers are ready." They are mostly talk and no action. Have they looked at Honda's sales this year, or noticed that VW is now #3 in the world after passing up Ford. Smaller cars are doing well. I don't like the turbo-4 in the CTS because the CTS is overweight. If Cadillac had a 3-series size car, the turbo-4 would be a good base engine. The Sky redline gets 19/26 mpg, and is just under 3000 pounds. In the CTS that engine won't be as efficient, even if it only loses 1 mpg, 18/25 is no better than the 17/26 the CTS DI gets now. Edit: The 09 ratings for the Sky redline changed, it is 19/27 mpg now, but the annual fuel cost is $2935, same as the base engine automatic in the CTS.