smk4565

I've said this all along and I'll say it again: Buick needs more products, and cannot survive on just LaCrosse, Lucerne, and Enclave.

Why should they get more products when the ones they make don't sell? Investing a few billion on a dying brand makes no sense. Toyota builds a better Buick than Buick does, thus the baby boomers have gone to the imports. Once the 70 and up crowd dies off Buick will have little to no customer base left.

When Oldsmobile died, they gave Buick the minivan and Bravada became Rainier, and sales still dropped. GM has too many rebadged cars as it is, they can't rebadge more. I think the G5 and Torrent need killed too. They gave more models to Pontiac dealers because they complained sales were dropping, Pontiac sales have dropped for 8 or 9 of the last 10 years and the G5 and Torrent did nothing to change that. Two good cars will outsell 8 bad ones, just look at how the Camry and Corolla are going to combine to sell over 800,000 cars this year in the US, vs Buick and Pontiac combined will probably be around 500-600,000.

I agree with you that the CX trims need to be dropped, those are worse than what is on a Chevy, basic rental cars are nicer. Plus Buicks are built on 90s platforms with an engine from the 70s, which doesn't help sales.

I support sacrificing Buick and Saab for the overall good of GM. Take every dollar spend on those 2 brands and spend it on the Cobalt, Malibu, Impala, and Alpha platform, and GM would be better off.

Regal makes more sense, GM changes names too much. But they allow cars to stay on the market too long (8 model years for the last Regal), so they get a bad image, then they change names and some people don't know what a LaCrosse is, so it has less recognition. To stay successful you have to update cars often and continually advertise to keep awareness up. GM has too many models to do this, so they often introduce a car, advertise it for a year or 2 and then forget about it for 4. They have gotten better with consolidation, but still too many models and rebadges.

Avg. age of 65 is sad. I don't think that is reversible either. Brands (in any industry) get an image and reputation and people make purchases based on that. Personally I think they should plan to make Buicks for about 5-8 more years and phase them out. There is still a small market for them now, but 5 years from now they might have an average age of 70 and selling 130,000 cars a year. If that happens they need to phase out. Focus on other products and growing segments.

>>"I think it is very easy to tell the difference in 0-60 times. ..."<<

There's a lot more to it that overall numbers: gearing, # of gears, torque curve... it's EASY to have feelings & make assumptions, but I'm telling you if you drove 2 different cars on the same day/road, you could not guess their 0-60 time within .3 sec reliably... and if the 2 were .3 sec apart- you could not tell which- it's all those other factors that are giving the impression.

This is all academic- why would you buy a car you didn't like as well just because it could hit 60 .3 sec quicker? Are you a professional street racer? Does ANYONE drag these types of cars, or is it all merely about bragging rights?

.3 seconds would be hard to tell, but .5 or more I can feel the difference. It also depends on drive train, front drive cars often feel faster than they really are because they pull you. I wouldn't buy a car on 0-60 time alone, ride handling balance matters a lot to me, but at the same time there are 6 cars that are 0-60 in 4.9-5.4 seconds, and one car that is 5.9 seconds, that one car doesn't look as appealing. People and car mags alike brag about the Corvette's .5 second 0-60 time advantage over an Aston Martin or Porshe Cayman, base 911, etc so I think it is reasonable to wish for class average from the CTS.

I enjoy having bragging rights, but I wouldn't buy a car just on 0-60 time. But if people didn't care about it, why is there a V-series. The STS-V doesn't handle or brake any better than a CTS, it just has a good 0-60 time. It is also a marketing tool, it is hard to advertise how well a car brakes or handles, it is easy to flash a 0-60 stat up on a commercial, and BMW has a big advantage there, plus as much as I dislike BMW styling, I have yet to drive a better handling sedan than the 5-series. I hope the CTS can match it.

Cadillac needs to get a great bls like car into production soon so that the CTS can be compared to its real competition the 5 series and e class catigory cars.

And so they can bag the base model and move the CTS upmarket. When you see the grille close up, it has a ton of plastic, I'd like to see the metal or wire mesh background that the Escalade has and the Sixteen had. The 08 Malibu even offers a wire mesh grill. Personally, I wouldn't use the BTS or BLS name, I would call the small car the CTS, and rename the current CTS, STS and upgrade the interior, grille, offer a V8 and most of the optional stuff standard, and pump the price up to $46-50k base. Then they have familiar names and match the competition better, and they don't have to convince people to buy a $52,000 CTS like I think they are going to try to do in 2011.

It is physically impossible to dicern a 0.3 to even a full 1.0 second difference to 60 by the seat of the pants. So unless you are lined up on the dragstrip with your CTS 3.6 DI vs. a e550 and have similar reaction times, you will NEVER know how quick one is compared to the other.

I think it is very easy to tell the difference in 0-60 times. If I drive my mom's A4, I can feel a huge drop in acceleration from my Aurora, and the difference is probably only .3 or .4 seconds, but the Aurora's V8 makes the Aurora feel stronger. My mom used to have a 9-5 Aero that was 6.7 seconds 0-60, and I could feel it was much quicker than my Aurora which is about 7.4. My step dad has a 540i, it is 5.9 seconds 0-60 and I can feel a huge difference in that, than in any of those other cars, especially on hills. You can be going uphill at 40-50 mph and hit the gas and the BMW takes off, the V8 rocks, it has a lot of torque.

The 335i is a full second faster than the CTS 0-60. The DTS is about 1 second slower than the CTS, and a Honda Accord or Nissan Altima with a V6 are less than that. I doubt many people could drive a DTS and CTS and think they were about the same in acceleration or drive an Accord and CTS and find them the same.

That is good news, a 40% gain is probably need to get people to keep buying big trucks. Even with a 40% gain and 20 mpg , I think a lot of people will still opt for smaller like the Highlander, and CRV and Escape, unless they absolutely need 7-8 seats and towing ability. Oil just went over $77 a barrel, gas mileage is so important now to most buyers. The Lambdas are still really big and heavy, the Edge, Escape and CRV seem to be what are hot.

I'd like to see the 2 mode on some smaller vehicles where they can really maximize economy and make some 30 and 40 mpg cars. Perhaps even 50 mpg. Just building a 50 mpg car helps image, look at the Prius, which is one of 3 Toyotas in the top 8 in sales.

I miss the 4 spoke steering wheel, I think it looked better than this new one, like the 07 STS wheel for example.

Interesting they note the roominess. The CTS has only 1 inch more rear legroom than the 3-series, even though the CTS is about 12 inches longer overall. I am still not sold on the interior, the metal center cluster looks too much like plastic and I despise analog clocks, pop-up navigation I am not a fan of, but that is an option so I can save money and not get that, and be happier. 5.9 is too slow for me though, I want 5.5 0-60 or better, and I won't buy a pushrod every again so I won't be getting a V. I am really hoping for a 400hp DOHC V8 that gets over 20 mpg (Lexus has 381 and 19/27 mpg), that might get me to buy one.

This is a rather positive review, which is good, Cadillac needs a lot of good press since the 3-series outsells the CTS over 2-1 in the USA. Hopefully they can close the gap.

My concern is the base model looks too cheap and resale values of all could suffer, plus the weight is way too high. The CTS is over 150 pounds heavier than a Mercedes E550 and that has 382 hp, 391 lb-ft. 0-60 in 5.8 seconds is good, but not good enough when Lexus, Infiniti, and the BMW all have sedans in the 4.9-5.5 second range. I fear this CTS has to wear too many hats, which isn't the car's fault, it is the fault of poor GM planning. If they had a 3 series fighter, this midsize car wouldn't need the low end cheap model, wouldn't have some of the interior flaws and would have a V8 offered. Then it would align better against the competition instead of being in the middle trying to take on the 335i, 535i, IS350, GS350/GH450h, M45, G35, etc.

I get their point about the engine, I've driven the Aura with the 3.6, it it is a little loud and harsh when it revs up, BMW engines are smoother, especially their V8. Luckily I don't need a car for a few years, maybe Cadillac will get a V8 in there or get the car on a diet.

I think they are wasting their time with Hummer. They never should have made it a new brand, just made it a GMC Hummer, and done 1 model, like the Toyota with the FJ Cruiser, just one odd ball model.

They cashed in for a couple years, but Hummer sales are something like 20,000 a year now, with high gas, no one is going to buy these things. Sure there is a market, but it is tiny. I'd rather see effort put on the Cobalt, Impala, Camaro, Equinox replacement, smaller than a CTS Cadillac, V12 Cadillac, etc. Anything but more hummers that hardly sell.

Thanks, just checked it out... priced one out at just over $40k instead of 45k... of course the bluetooth kit will be add'l too, hmm, am i outta my league, maybe i should settle for a chevy lol (1st yr out of college in a full time job... so im not ur typical caddy shopper, but i love this car...that or i can wait to c the lease offers).

Just wait a year or two and get is used, after a year Cadillacs usually drop 8-10,000 in price. Although I hope they can correct their resale value problems. Until they do it is almost nuts to buy a new Cadillac when year old models are drastically cheaper. I'd like a Cadillac for my next car also, but my car should be good for another 4 years.

I've heard now the 335i is underrated also, it makes 272 rear wheel horsepower I think, I forget the nexact number, but there was no way the car only lost 25 hp or so through the drivetrain, 315 probably is more accurate. I am a V8 fan, although a twin turbo V6 making 375 hp would be awesome in the CTS. Gas mileage matters, maybe they should follow BMW's twin turbo idea. I don't like pushrods so I wouldn't get a V-series, plus 500 hp isn't really usable, where as 375 puts them in E550 and 550i range.

I hope they don't get content with their 304 hp engine. Infiniti has 330 hp, they had 306 3 years ago, Lexus has 306 hp, BMW 300 hp/300 lb-ft and all those cars are hundreds of pounds lighter. This is a tough class, Cadillac needs continous improvement.

I'd like to see a V8 option, not a V-series either. But if they are going to make it 5-series size and weight, I think they need a 400 hp V8 to put in it.

I'd liked to see the base model scrapped too, and just start it at $35,000 with Lux 1 and seating package standard, then in 2010, push it up market, I'd rename it to STS though, and call the BTS the CTS.

Very good looking coupe, I hope it gets an interior that fits how good it looks on the outside. The GTC concept had a nice interior, I hope they don't cheap it out like they do with Pontiacs.

Cadillac is offering something that the others don't, a larger car for the price of the compacts. If you are into checking out statistics, go with the BMW, but if you want a solid performer that you won't have to squeeze into, get the CTS. I don't understand how many times we have to stress the point that it's a 5 series size car for 3 series money... It's just an alternative, if you don't like it, then find something else. Don't complain how it doesn't cleanly fall into a segment, though I appreciate this discussion to a certain degree...

One problem is some people don't want a car as big as the CTS. Most that are close to or live in a city want smaller. My mom drives alone all the time, and has no need for a car as big as the CTS, she likes the A4/3-series size. Cadillac misses out on a market there. Just like how the Jetta used to sell well, and it was a tiny car, but nicer than the other compacts. There is a market for small and nice and GM usually forgets about it. Plus in Europe, the CTS is a giant.

I'd like to see the BTS at about 183 inches long, that gives them slightly more size than the other compacts, but still small enough for cities and Europe and small car fans. The CTS can stay about the size it is, or grow and inch then they need a nice car that is 198 inches long, and 203 if they do a long wheel base version. Once they get that sorted out, upgrade the 08 CTS's interior, add a V8 and more content they will be all set. If they can pull that off by 2011 they could have a good future.

I actually prefer the size of a CTS to that of a 3-series, but a lot of people like really small. Car Magazines will compare the CTS's performance to the 3-series, and the size will probably hurt the CTS, thus it will start getting weak reviews, and that american = bad, foriegn = good, perception gets reinforced, and I am sick of that.

They shouldn't do a classic because they don't need more fleet sales. GM says they are going to reduce fleet sales, yet they are making a Malibu solely for fleets. That doesn't help the new Malibu's reputation which is already less than the Camry and Accord. The new Malibu should have been out in September, with the hybrid available at launch time. They need a winner badly in the midsize segment, and they need less fleet and base models, it hurts reputation overall, those few junkers like the Grand Prix, Taurus, Intrepid, Sebring, etc are enough to give American cars a bad name, then people don't consider them.

The CTS is going to be heavier than a Mecedes E550 though, and the Mercedes has a 380 hp V8 and it is pretty solid. I don't think anyone will say and E-class is unsafe, or dings easily or is not solid feeling. Jaguars use aluminum frames, no one thinks they are unsafe or not solid. Weight hurts performance and gas mileage, people are really concerned with gas mileage now, and Caddy needs all the help they can get in the performance area to take on all the 300+ hp Lexus, Infiniti and BMWs.

I think by next summer there will be a decent sized incentive on the CTS, because of end of model year, and used ones will be on the market, and used Cadillacs are cheap.

Whoa.

BMWs and other European cars certainly have their fair share of black rubber rubstrips. Look at recent SAABs, Volvos, and BMWs. I agree they do look horrible. The last Cadillac with that kind of cheap trimming was probably a '96 Sedan DeVille and it wasn't even that thick.

I agree with the rubber strip mid way up on the door for Saab and Volvo. My mom had 3 Volvos and 1 Saab in the past, all had that and it looked bad. The new CTS has the plastic down low, instead of painting the lower molding body color. On the 5-series it is body color and looks better. Same goes for Explorers or Escapes with the gray plastic, vs painting it all body color, all body color always looks better, and ages better. The 2000 Monte Carlo SS with spoiler and painted molding looks way better than the base with no spoiler, plastic wheel covers, and gray lower body molding for example.

I think every Cadillac should have fog lights, everything painted body color, metal or body painted grille (escalade does this well) and dual exhaust. The new CTS has a lot of plastic in the grille, it should have had the Escalade treatment, body painted egg crate with wire mesh behind.

1) You have never even driven the new CTS to compare...

2) No way are the BMWs the same price with equal options...A BASE BMW usually equals a fully loaded Caddy of the same size. Check engine power, etc.

3) Why the 3 series "outsells" is because most are used in taxi fleets around the world. Been to Europe lately? They are a common car and most are sold as base models, not the "luxury" versions we see in NA. In some countries it is the ONLY BMW model you can buy...You will never see a new CTS as a taxi...Taxis = fleet sales...

BMWs are good cars...But you can't price compare them the same...

I have driven the current CTS, obviously not the new one, I'll go check it out when it is out. My step dad has a BMW 540i, it is a much better performer than the current CTS, it costs more, but it is older too. The BMW 3 and 5 series offer adaptive cruise control, night vision on the 5 series and some other stuff that even a gadget fan like me wouldn't opt for. I went to the BMW website today, the 335i and CTS line up pretty closely in price, the 535i is about $53,000 lightly optioned to about $58,000 if you get everything. Which is a lot of money, I agree, but their resale values hold up and people out there are willing to pay it. Personally I'd rather have a Cadillac that can out perform it and match it's resale value.

The 3-series in the USA outsells the STS, DTS, CTS, XLR and SRX combined. I didn't look at worldwide sales, in that case it wouldn't even be close. The 3-series sedan, coupe and convertible (I forgot wagon sales but they are tiny) have sold about 72,000 for the first half of this year, those 5 Cadillacs have combined to sell about 69,000.

Lexus, Infiniti and Mercedes line up much better the BMW's class sizes, Cadillac needs to align them selves in size and price with those other brands, doesn't have to be exact, but has to be close.

One other gripe of mine about all GM cars (Ford too) is the cheap looking base models with gray plastic on the exterior, lack of fog lights and just plastic slots where they should be, cheap wheels with plastic covers, etc. The CTS has some of this, and the resale values will suffer, because cars with gray plastic look old, dull and cheap faster. When all molding is painted body color, and the car has fancy wheels, it doesn't age as much. This is an area BMW and Lexus seem to be good at, and they have high resale value.

True. All the comparison will be made against the 3-er not the 5-er, despite having similar dimensions to the 5-er.

That is what is worrying me of all the good GM cars lately. That weight may act as their enemy. If they did an excellent job of keeping the weight of the Silverado within 100-200 lb of its predecessors, GM should have done the same with the CTS. That is one thing which will bring the CTS down, just like the VUE. Even the sheepling wife of my peer who knows nothing about cars and is in the market for the cute-UTES said VUE was heavy. GM please stop having loose cannons in people's "PERCEPTIONS".

The weight is a problem. Just like the Lambdas are 500 pounds heavier than the Trailblazer and Envoy, Vue got heavier, CTS got heavier. Weight hurts handling, acceleration and gas mileage. GM needs to be more efficient with the weight on all their vehicles. People notice that heavy weight on a test drive because heavy cars often are not nimble in turns and can feel sluggish on hills.

I noticed the specs on the Lexus website the other day. The 4.6 liter V8 is really efficient, you get the same performance and economy with it that you get with the hybrid, so there is no point to buying the hybrid V8. If it was a 500 hp hybrid V10 that got 20/22, I could see the point, but the LS600h is just marketing and image. Sadly people will buy it just to say they have a $100,000 hybrid. I am so sick and tired of people that buy Toyotas on some fake image that they are so much better. And I think I am equally disappointed in GM for not challenging them more. GM needs a 50 mpg car so badly, if you have a hybrid perception is that you are the greatest thing ever.

I know the BTS or BLS is coming, but what price will they put it at? $27k? I hope not. The BTS is going to have to base around $33k, so the CTS is going to need an overhaul and pushed to the mid 40s for a base price to get them in line with everyone else. The base CTS has no fog lights, cheap wheels and some plastic trim, that is the kind of stuff they have to get rid of. If the car doesn't look good when it is 5 years old, the resale value really suffers. The German cars seem to age better, and not look dated or cheap.

As far as BMW prices, Motor trend just had a loaded up 335i coupe and it was $47,000. The 330 hp G37 was $39,000, which they thought was a great deal. The 535i is about $55,000 with normal options so I don't think the CTS is competing with it, but I agree with the poster that said people may see $48,000 for a loaded CTS, and think, well the BMW is $5000 more and has free maintenance and better resale value. I have never been a fan of BMW styling inside or out, but they drive well.

I agree with the rear heated seats, the Saab 9-5 and old Seville had them. If the CTS sells in the 40s, it kind of makes the STS useless, I could see them dumping it midway in the 09 model year.

A base BMW 530i with no options is around $48k. The BMW 530xi is $50k. (the 530 is the engine equivalent of the base CTS 3.6l VVT.) I don't see a pricing problem at all when a loaded 530xi pushes $65k.

They don't make a 530i anymore, they have a 528i with a wimpy engine, 230 or 250 hp I forget for $44,900 and the 535i (300 hp, 300 lb-ft) starts at $49k. The 550i is $58,500 but can go near $65k when loaded. Of course it has a V8 and a lot more equipment too. The 5-series is more, but it is more car. I think what will happen is most people won't get a very loaded up CTS, they will get more basic models to keep the price to $40,000 or less, so the 5-series won't really compete with it anyway, just the G35 and the 3-series, so I hope it can match their performance.

hello smk4565 congratulation on your first post but I must disagree with you were you say the BMW's are in a different class please explain more of what makes you feel this way.

I know the CTS is 5-series size, but the 5-series is $46-60,000+ offers 20 way seats, 13 speaker 7.1 sound, power sunshade, adaptive cruise control, V8 engine, etc. The 3-series is priced $33,000-45,000 for the sedan, which the CTS is pretty close to. I am not knocking the CTS, I am just saying that there is no car for $40,000 that can compete with the 5-series, but it looks like if you get a loaded CTS it will cost $47-48,000, and for a couple grand more people can get a 535i which is probably faster and comes with free maintenance and BMW's have great resale value.

The fair matchup based on price and equipment is going to be the CTS vs the 335i and the 335i has a big performance edge due to it's smaller size.

I hope this CTS is a smash hit, because the 3-series alone outsells the CTS, SRX, STS, DTS and XLR combined right now, and Cadillac needs some home run cars soon.

Seems like a lot of money once you option it up. And it seems like not very much at all is on the base car. I did the math, it gets near $50,000 with everything on it, that is getting into BMW 5-series price and the CTS isn't that caliber of car. Although the 335i loaded can touch $47,000, but that car is really fast.