Sevenfeet

Part of the reason why the change back to names is that from a marketing standpoint, I'm guessing customers and most importantly, potential customers never understood what the current naming convention meant after nearly two decades and a course correction on the way. Meanwhile Lincoln who began with names, changed to a similar three-letter naming convention leading with "Mk" decided it didn't work either and added back Aviator and Continental and also created Nautilus and Corsair. So like Navigator, the Escalade name predates and will outlive nameplates like XT5 and CTS. The big problem is what will they go to. Some people want Cadillac to return to their old names but that may not make sense in the modern era either. And the transition to those names was made slowly over two decades as Cadillac went to a naming convention in 1936 that used spoken numbers that were spelled out...Series Sixty-Two, Series Seventy-Five, Sixty-Special (although Cadillac frequently also used "Series 62" and "Series 75" for shorthand in brochures). The name "Fleetwood" as attached to the Sixty Special and Seventy-Five beginning in 1941 with the demise of the custom coach business at Fleetwood body. The Coupe De Ville made its debut as a trim package in 1949 for the Series 62 the Sedan De Ville added a few years later and becoming their own models in 1958. So the following names have been used over the decades for Cadillac cars (not counting the spelled out number models): Fleetwood, Deville (Coupe, Sedan & Park Avenue), Calais, Eldorado, Seville. Brougham, Cimmaron, & Allante. Can you see any of these names attached to a modern car? Maybe you could do a new Fleetwood but I'm not seeing any of the others come back.

I think we have to keep in mind that when a lot of these product decisions were being made, GM was still getting back on it's feet. So they made an educated guess on the future marketplace, especially on the future of crossovers. And nobody imagined we'd be back at sub-$2 gas...if we did, I'd be the first to short the futures market. . But I would have gone to the mat in trying to get a smaller CUV on the same floor at the SRX years earlier. As for branding, we already know that the ATS and CTS names will go away. It's a chance to redefine yourself with buyers by introducing a completely "new" car. The CT6 is coming, and in theory the ATS and CTS will be replaced by "CT2" and "CT4" respectively. But nobody said you had to limit yourself to two vehicles below the CT6....a CT0 could be a product to compete with the BMW 1/2 line, with the CT2/3 coming in to replace the ATS line and so forth. Cadillac has had a hard time "skating to where the puck is going" rather than where it is now. The product line realignment may go a long way to changing that. The hope is that the CT6 is the vehicle that Cadillac wants at that size, but the jury is very much out on this one. At least they have priced it aggressively.

There's a lot of truth to this. My dealer is a family owned business so it's easy to talk to the real owner, a friend of 20 years. He's also told me a few days ago that all the major luxury makes are seeing lower sedan/coupe sales and buyers have gone over to crossovers of varying sizes. And this was Cadillac's problem in that they only had one crossover to sell (SRX) but it was selling really well, even into it's final year. The XT5 should continue the trend but they need to get the three additional cars rumored in the development process to be truly competitive. At some point there will likely be an XT1, XT3 and XT7. The dealerships are pining for them but the XT5 is due up first in the spring with the XT3 bowing several months later.

My dad sees these things go down the line....he and quite a few workers see them as nothing then Caddy badged Volts......and suddenly-we have have flashbacks of an 80s J body.... While yes, it was a bit more different than the Volt, it simply was not enough. Something more "Bolt" like would have been a much better, offering not only something different, but something a Caddy buyer might actually be interested in! GM killed this....simply by just giving Caddy a pretty Chevy.... I've seen the two together, I would have to agree with my Dad on this one.... I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. The J-cars of the 80s had similar door panels, roof lines, pretty much everything except for some trim pieces and the front/rear clips. I think a better historical comparison for the ELR was the original 1975-1979 Cadillac Seville. Underneath that car was a massaged Chevy Nova platform powered by a Chevy 350cid small block or the unfortunate Olds V8 diesel. The exterior lines and interior of that car wasn't anything close to a Nova. My parents actually had both at the same time...my mother drove a 1979 Seville and my stepdad drove the Nova's twin...a 1975 Buick Apollo. I learned how to drive on the Apollo and drove the Seville occasionally when I was allowed. It was hard to believe they were on the same platform (the Buick was a tired piece of junk). The Seville was also a very expensive car (more expensive than the Fleetwoods of the day) but it was a successful vehicle. The interior of the ELR was quite bespoke for Cadillac at the time and it had a much tighter amount of interior room than the Volt. The ELR's rear seats were a joke...I openly commented to my dealer of why the engineers even bothered (my friend's 911 Turbo had more rear leg room). The 1st gen Volt I sat in during a car show was much roomier, but it had the interior of a Chevrolet that had been looking over the shoulder at a Prius. At the end of the day, the ELR didn't have enough powertrain separation to make it interesting in the new Cadillac (all show and no go with 8 sec. 0-60). And man was it too expensive (interesting how the original Seville was a sales success at a high price). My dealer sold a few of them in the first year but now if you want one, they only come on order. They don't want to stock them.

I'm 6'11" tall and the CTS is one my favorite cars because I can actually fit in it reasonably. Keep in mind that there isn't a car made that gives my elongated limbs proper comfort, but the CTS is one of the best out there. The new Lacrosse is also pretty nice too, and the Lacrosse has the added advantage of more rear seat legroom when the seat is pushed back all the way. But it doesn't have the rear wheel drive fun factor of the CTS. The CTS Sportwagon is something I've considered but the budget isn't there right now. Until then, my 2005 SRX will have to do.

The CTS Sports Wagon will have obvious comparisons to the BMW 535xi and the Mercedes E350 in this country. Both have 6 speed manuals or automatics to choose from. Both cars are the same size and going after much of the same market. But the BMW is available in AWD only while the Caddy allows you to choose AWD or RWD. The CTS also gives you two engine choices, matching the BMW at 300 HP at the top end. But the BMW starts at $54K (!!!). The Mercedes is only available in AWD as well (in non AMG form) and has only one engine, matching the CTS entry level engine for horsepower. It does come with a third row of seating, much like the Vista-cruisers of old. It's price is a eye popping $56K before options. As much as a CTS-V Sport Wagon would be extremely cool, I think we're lucky that GM green-lighted this car in the first place. Considering we're getting the coupe too and likely a V-series coupe, we should all count our blessings. The only way we're getting a V-series wagon is if GM thought they could sell at least 400 copies a year, and that's a tiny run of vehicles for the General. Maybe somebody can make the business case for it, but I'm not holding my breath. BMW doesn't even import the M5 wagon anymore. Only Mercedes offers the E63 AMG in this space. At least we get all the features of the existing sedan, including the DI engine, 6 speed manuals (!!!) and brand new 19" wheels. Having said that, I'm sure that someone has a Sport Wagon with the Corvette engine somewhere in GM just to see if anyone's interested...

Many of those others may not have V8 options either as time goes on. The sad fact is that despite getting great press for years, the SRX was a sales failure. It tried to be a very different vehicle in a market where the Lexus RX was king. The RX was smaller, had a better, more inviting interior, and yes, was very popular with affluent women who often were using them to haul kids. I own an '05 SRX for the same reason...my wife hauls the kids with it. We'lve had nothing but nice things to say about the car. But GM botched the launch of the vehicle with an interior that you could get away with on a cheaper CTS bit not this car, and an initial problem of sending zillions of V8 models to dealerships when buyers wanted V6s. It took months to straighten out the supply chain issue and three years to get a new interior. By then it was too late. I hope the new SRX does better with its target audience. For me, the CTS Sport Wagon might end up being our next kid hauler. Having a choice from Cadillac is not a bad thing.

A short rear deck and a long hood is classic muscle car proportions. Think late '60's fastback Mustang. Heck, you could even make the argument of the '80 Seville except I think this trunk is far better executed than the bustle-back of that vehicle. Ultimately, the trunk will be smaller, but again, it's a coupe. It's not meant to be practical. One more point in this rear deck's favor is the European market. They like hatchback cars, even expensive ones. One that looks like one but still has the noise isolation of a rear trunk might find buyers.

I think the proportions are just fine. Look, coupes aren't meant to be practical. If you want that, there's a nice CTS sedan with your name on it. When Infiniti introduced its G coupe, it's wasn't practical either in the rear. Neither is BMW's 6 series. Heck, the Mercedes CLK sedan isn't practical either and they sell a boat load of them. I think we won't see the 20/21" wheels on the production car. I hope they keep the wedge bumper in the back, even if it isn't practical either. Just about everything else in this car is buildable. What's really interesting is that this car really doesn't have a true exact price/size competitor. The closest competitor for size is undoubtedly the BMW 6. Both cars are within spitting distance of each other for length, height and width, but the Ct Coupe has a longer wheelbase (should be cool for handling). Of course, the 6 series starts with a V8 and you can't get one for less than $75K. The Mercedes CLK is a smaller vehicle, starting at $47K for the CLK350. The Infiniti G37 is probably the closest real competitor but its still a shorter vehicle. Regardless, Cadillac looks like they have another winner on their hands. Now we just need a V-series...

One thing for sure is that it takes a very long time to completely remake a product line. Keep in mind that when the original CTS first bowed in the winter of 1992, it was a shot in the dark to try to see if remaking Cadillac would even work (as opposed to shutting it down). Even after that success, there had to be serious talk of just how to remake the product line while keeping the old line customers coming in. GM's biggest long term problem has been execution. Its really easy to say what kind of products you want to build and GM has dangled some really cool looking ideas in front of us (Evoq, Cien, Sixteen). But the execution of those ideas would often end up half-baked or not at all. In the case of the Evoq, the really radical looking concept vehicle with super sharp and delicate features in the same body ended up getting a more conservative nose that was too small for the design. The retractable roof actually gave worst-class trunk room when stowed compared to other competitors. The interior at first got good marks since it was indeed the best thing Caddy had done up to that point. But it was compromised by things like cramped seating, silly comarketing schemes reminiscent of Caddy of 20 years ago (who wants to look at "Bvlgari everyday?), a HVAC cluster from the CTS parts bin, too small tires, etc. The STS didn't know who it was trying to please and ending up being an extremely bland offering in a hypercompetitive market (Chinese market STS not withstanding). Only the STS-V tried to really distinguish itself. We've seen the execution problem get better over time, but I think many of us were still wondering if Caddy could deliver a complete vehicle. The 2007 Escalade was pretty close and a harbinger or what was to come with the '08 CTS. Now with the CTS the execution issues seem to be few and far between compared to previous efforts. So far it's things like Bluetooth or roof handles...things of lesser significance or things they can be modified later. Given this effort, I have hope for the future of Cadillac products. The BTS must be perfect...no excuses at all to say nothing of the flagship sedan.

I know that some of us might have some nostalgia for how the luxury car market used to be, but frankly, that ship sailed 30+ years ago. It just took Cadillac that much time to realize it. Gone are the days where supersized framed cars that completely isolated you from the road roamed the highways. Even luxury cars that aren't considered to be sport racers mostly still have to decent handling a curve or two. The old days defined entry level luxury as just a trim level on an existing large vehicle. These days it's actually a different sized car which has its own trim levels. And the smaller the vehicle, the more likely its supposed to have some idea of how to do good handling with the leaders of the class. Ironically Cadillac had a chance to hit the ground running early on in the mid-70's when they introduced the Seville. They billed it as a European experience and sized vehicle, but they had no clue in those days what a real European sedan experience really meant. If they had figured it out early and done a better job executing that mission, the dark days of the 1980's might have had a happier story instead of the offering things like the god-awful Cimmaron. Markets change and so do buyers. If and when that happens, you can't keep selling the same stuff. That's B-school 101. BMW figured this out in the '70s and even Mercedes had to adjust their thinking. Cadillac tried to adjust but they just didn't buy into what really needed to be done and was too risk advserse in alienating some of their long time customers which are now dying off. The important distinction in the COTY award is that Motor Trend editors said that Cadillac had delivered a competitive product without completely divorcing itself from aspects that are uniquely American. What they are saying is that Cadillac figured out that they can't out-BMW BMW. But they can deliver the best Cadillac they can build with the new parameters that buyers are looking for in a car of this segment. This is also why Audi, Mercedes and other makers keep their unique flavors and are ultimately successful at it. Also, winning over the automotive press is important. Word of mouth advertising often starts with favorable press coverage and BMW has 30+ years of it. Cadillac's product transition from it's old ways to a more modern lineup isn't complete yet, but by 2011/2012 it'll be a lot more clear. It took a long time for Cadillac to turn into a luxury laughing stock. It's also taking a long time to undo that damage. Winning the COTY for the 208 CTS goes a long way to repairing that damage.

Don't forget the SRX. It consistently gets best in class or near best in class reviews.

I wholeheartedly DISAGREE. Nurburgring is like New York City...if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere. Everyone now uses it at the benchmark since it's such a tough course. But there are some real world benefits. How do I know? 4+ years ago my wife and I owned a 2003 CTS LuxSport and she was out driving on a local state road that's a divided highway driven at Interstate speeds. Ahead of her was a dump truck coming from a highway construction site she had passed earlier. All of a sudden, a metal shovel peels off the dump truck and bouncing into oncoming traffic...at 50 MPH. My wife, who was about 5 months pregnant at the time immediately reacted and tried to avoid it, but when she saw she made the wrong choice on the direction of the object, she immediately whipped the CTS to the other side of the highway, barely missing the object flying my her drivers window by inches. My wife had no advanced driver training and had never owned a sports sedan before the CTS. The vehicle did exactly what she asked it to do...no muss or fuss. It just responded. Oh, and the highway point where this happened wasn't a straight piece of pavement either, so she's managing the curve at the same time. I wrote Cadillac engineers a letter thanking them for all the time they put into their 'Ring testing. I'm told it was passed around the group.

I've read the first drives from Edmunds, Autoweek, Motor Trend, and C&D. So far, the news is good from all of them. Motor Trend called the car "World Class" and "The best damn Cadillac sedan in 50 years". C&D liked the chassis and "the best interior yet from GM". Autoweek raved about the styling and interior. Edmunds raved about the chassis. And everybody liked the new dashboard and NAV system. So what were the nitpicks? Edmunds still thought some of the interior plastic was cheap. The steering was a little on the light side...interesting since the previous high performance variants of the CTS were criticized for too heavy steering. The Aisin supplied manual tranny was better than the previous model but didn't convince people to trash their BMW trannies. The car was criticized for being a bit too heavy and I agree. At 4000 lbs, the CTS is heavier than the BMW 5 series target by a few hundred pounds. Hopefully the CTS-V will go on the Corvette Z06 diet when it debuts. And Motor Trend didn't like the new 3.6 DI engine at high revs, mostly NVH issues. In fact they said that the CTS chassis needs a buttery smooth BMW engine. But regardless, the overall reviews are probably what GM had hoped for. It will still take some time to chase down the class leaders in this space, but now the CTS can be cross shopped seriously in this space again, and that's good news for GM all around.

Down here in middle Tennessee, we're just happy the plant is going to be used for SOMETHING. ANYTHING. With the current configuration, the plant was limited to plastic bodied cars. With Saturn moving to metal bodies, the only other things the plant could conceivably build were Corvettes/XLRs and we already have that plant here too. :-)

Where do I begin with this car? Well, I suppose in one way I am happy that GM isn't just going to sit back and let the STS die on the vine (although there are some business reasons why that might actually be a good idea). So the STS, like the SRX is getting some midlife upgrades. Old Caddy thinking (i.e. 80's and 90's) wouldn't have bothered to invest the extra money. So kudos to Caddy and GM for spending the bucks. Now here's my assessment based on the initial pics and press release. Exterior: Well, the new grill certainly brings the STS into the new era of the current Caddy corporate face, launched with the Sixteen concept and Escalade. The grill isn't as bold as the CTS grill in that it doesn't really break the plane of the upper and lower levels of the bumper design. In many ways its just a stock replacement of the existing upper and lower grill, except the upper grill now fills in the space better than the previously undersized grill. The lower grill abandons the Mercedes style mesh for the same treatment from the CTS. I suspect that it isn't a Cadillac now without a side vent, and the STS now has one. This is probably unfortunate since it looks more slapped on than on the 'Slade or the funky integral one of the CTS. The wheels are okay but not great. The real problem is that the overall lines of the car haven't changed a whit and the rear end is still the unfortunate design it always was. I've never liked the lines of this vehicle since I always thought the car was "unfinished" from its design study, and I know that it was a last minute change from the original design when Lutz got to GM. But it was probably too expensive to change the sheetmetal now. One more comment...considering they went through the trouble of putting the new grill face and side vent on this car, I'm a little perplexed as to how the 2007 SRX refresh made it to market without either design cue. Weird. Interior: I'm still scratching my head at this one. On the surface it looks nice, but again, why did they choose not to use the SLS interior from China when nthey already spent money on it? That interior had one good thing about it which separates it from this car as well as the old STS...an unbroken curve between the dash and the center console. All recent Caddies have suffered from this including the current CTS and old SRX, but especially the XLR, STS and even the old DTS. The 2007 SRX still suffers from this but hides it better with a sweeping frame of the console on both sides. The current DTS partially solves tis problem too, but doesn't quite get it right. But there's no excuse that and ditto on the integration of the front dashes (left and right) to the center console. The SLS gets this right and the new STS carries over the old design. Finally, one of my biggest pet peeves is still there....lots of flat gray plastic in the center of the dash around the radio and Nav controls. The new CTS design got this right in spades....for the STS, its pretty much the old car's flaws. Other features: The new V6 engine was expected to be introduced with this vehicle, but now its painfully obvious that unless you need the extra torque for towing, that the 320 hp V8 Northstar becomes a unnecessary option for many buyers. The new Northstar won't come soon enough (2009). Nice to see the new 6 speed tranny paired with the V6. (again, following everybody else by years). The chrome door handles go a long way of brightening up the side of the car that tended to be bland and cheap looking. The lane avoidance feature is nice but again, it's 2-3 years behind other competitors and I still think we don't have adaptive cruise control with this car, or Bluetooth integration. My mother's 2007 Lexus ES330 has Bluetooth now...why not this car? One thing that will be interested to see in action is the new skid system that actually turns the wheel into the skid in order to regain control of the vehicle. Stability systems have for years handled braking, engine management and suspension tweaks to keep a driver out of danger but it'll be interesting to see how a car that jerks the steering wheel out of your hand to do a corrective move will work in the real world. Still, its nice to see some innovation on that front.

Given what you've laid out, I don't think we're that far off from each other. My perspective was from a cold b-school strategy analysis, of course without the benefit of financials , marketing or ability for factories to produce any of this. So here's my replies: 1. I think I said the DTS would probably survive for a few years in the current form. I gave alternatives to keep it or ditch it. 2. Will a future "DTS/ETS" go RWD with Zeta? Certainly possible, but again, what market is such a car being pitched for? Will Caddy continue to try to sell a DTS to the 60 plus-golfing-car rental crowd? Is there room for two full sized vehicles...one for competiting against the Town Car and 300 versus the other one that competes against the Germans/Japanese? 3. SRX: Agreed, and now that I think about it, the name, like STS will probably die too and not be reused. 4. CTS Coupe: Hopefully sooner than that, but considering news reports that they are still waiting to green-light this thing, 2010 may end up being a realistic launch date. 5. BRX. Hopefully will be larger than the BLS sedan..not that there isn't a market for a small SUV, but the midsized model is the sweet spot in the market. 6. I didn't say the current NS would fit in the 2008 CTS's engine bay. But with a new V8 debuting in 2009 to replace NS (there's already been a press release on this), I'd be real surprised if the CTS couldn't squeeze that between the fenders. The engine for the CTS-V is still an open question, but I wouldn't be surprised to see another overhead valve engine. 7. See #6. Again, I think the CTS could live very nicely in the midsize sport sedan category dominated by the poster children of the BMW 5 and Mercedes E as well as the Infiniti M and Lexus GS. What the CTS needs that it doesn't have is a non-V-series V8 option (380-420 hp) plus an interior upgrade to go with it to further justify the extra cost (maybe some other wood choices). So you'd end up with a low end of a 255 HP V6, the 300 HP V6, a 400 HP V8 and finally a 500-600 HP V-series hot rod. You can easily span mid 30's to 60 grand for these options choices. 8. Agreed. 9. Again, we know too little about it and maybe even GM is still having these kinds of discussions internally. Hopefully they are better equipped than we are to speculate. 10. Agreed on the XLR. I think it's certainly possible, but it needs a new style, interior, retracting roof and new V8 engine. Chassis & suspension are ok with some minor tweaks. A steel body would be nice to separate it further from the Vette.

But it done properly, no one will care. Example? The Aston Martin V12, which is basically a couple of lowly Ford Duratec V6's with a common crank and a lot of uprated technology. Nobody faults that engine's humble beginnings.

I certainly can perceive the CTS as a 5 series fighter. Heck the automotive press were certainly trying to for the last 4 years since the CTS debuted at te size that it did. Sure the previous CTS didn't have a V8 option, but do you really think that this new car doesn't have that planned for a future upgrade? What do you think the wider track is for? When the outgoing CTS was first designed in 1999, Cadillac wasn't being taken seriously by anybody in this space and they had to design a car with certain constraints. First that they were lucky to get a new V6 engine at all, but they wouldn't get it in time for launch. Second was that the Northstar was considered to be too expensive for this price class and updercut the existing FWD STS with a potentially better handling product. And nobody was even thinking about a CTS-V. That only came about after the CTS turned into a sales hit and they started looking around for more things to do for it. They couldn't do a coupe since it wasn't designed for it in the first place (they probably barely got budget for the sedan!) and the aformentioned Northstar was too wide. Enter the good 'ol Chevy smallblock, compact enough for this application and easy to apply engine management systems. The new 2008 CTS got the benefit of a bigger design budget and wider thinking about other companion products from the start. So coupes, convertibles, wagons, hybrids and the next gen SRX were all thought about from the beginning. So if any of those ideas would get the green light later, it wouldn't cost that much to build and systems would already be in place to support them. Here's some unsolicited advice for GM. Cadillac's product matrix is a classic Business School marketing class case study. You have a product mix that is inconsistent and not directly comperable to the competition...in a bad way. Let's start with the bottom. The competition for the case of argument is defined as Audi, BMW, Lexus, Infiniti, Mercedes. In the entry level small sedan/coupe market, there is: Audi: A3/A4 BMW: 3 series Lexus: IS Infiniti: G (maybe, like Caddy, it's large for the class) Mercedes: C class Cadillac: None. The B series car was introduced in Europe but that vehicle (a rebadged Saab) isn't even passing muster there. A proper RWD effort would work but that needs a commitment to the platform on both shores. The CTS is often portrayed in this class for price, but not for size. In the midsize sedan market: Audi: A6 BMW: 5 series Lexus: GS Infiniti: M Mercedes: E Cadillac: CTS or STS. The STS is large for the class but not large enough for the next class. The current CTS is the right size but appointments are downmarket. The 2008 CTS will largely be a precise fit for this class, minus an option V8 engine (non-V-series). For the large sedan market: Audi: A8 BMW: 7 series Lexus: LS Infiniti: Q (discontinued for 2007) Mercedes: S Cadillac: None. The STS would like to play here but it's too small and appointments are again lacking for the class. With the 2008 CTS getting larger and better appointed, it's likely to fill the midsize sedan slot for size and price better than the STS, which is too small in the inside for both the midsize and especially large size classes. The STS also suffers from poor exterior styling and its a bit too heavy. Sales are poor compared to the CTS or anything else it tries to compete with. My solution to the exercise is to let the CTS go upmarket where it appears to be headed anyway. Introduce a next generation Northstar V8 as an option for 2009 when that engine is ready, as well as the next gen V-series. Do a V6 hybrid in 2010. A coupe/convertible are natural introductions in 2009/10. Make the most of the good press of this car and broaden the market appeal with wise product selections and price points like Audi/BMW/Mercedes, but be sure to undercut them by a few G's if possible like Lexus/Infiniti....after all, they are the market leaders, not you. Lexus spent years undercutting the competition on price while making outstanding product. As far as the STS is concerned, either rebadge the car on the upcoming S-class fighter that's being talked about, or let the nameplate die. I would give the current car a live through 2008 and withdraw it from the market in 2009 when the CTS gets a V8 option. A high end sedan would have to compete in size and features versus the BMW 7/Audi A8/Mercedes S550. Price it against the Lexus LS. Design a vehicle that will compete against these car's replacements, not the current stuff on the market (think ahead here). Think ahead about a large superluxury coupe on a shortened wheelbase like the BMW 6/Mercedes CL...best to design for it now than make the same mistake that you did with the CTS a decade ago. Introduce V8, V12 engines as options. A V-series is certainly doable so think ahead. Make the business case but spare no expense in making it right. I like the name FTS. A small sedan will be a challenge for Cadillac, mostly in pricing so not to canabalize other divisions. I do think it's possible. A suitable RWD platform would need to be found...possible a shortened Zeta, using much of the work being done for the Camaro. Make a distinct difference between it and the CTS in terms of size and styling, but don't make it look cheap. Offer the V6 (maybe two sizes). Do a small-block Chevy V-series later on at or below a price point of the old CTS-V (which will be more expensive anyway). Pour as much money as you can in the handling equation since the BMW 3 series is the obvious benchmark. And do a coupe, PLEASE! A wagon will be needed, at least for Europe, a small SUV would be better here. The B-class name could remain but I might rebadge it to differentiate it from the current product in Europe that noone cares about anyway. The XLR needs serious work. Try to make the next one not look like it's the Vette's red headed stepchild. Don't accept a folding roof design that clearly is behind the competition in speed and luggage room. The interior was once "the best interior Cadillac had ever done". Now it's painfully behind the 2008 CTS, 2007 SRX and even the 'Slade. Rip it out and start over. Get better/ slightly wider tires. Never do a study "cobranding" experiment like you did with Bvlgari...it looks dumb every time you look at the dash. And try to see if the Vette plant can make you a steel body. Try to see if Holden can make that V12 it's designing for you fit under the hood. And please deliver by 2009 or 2009 1/2, at least for the V8 base model. SRX: More crossover, less truck. Much like it's CTS cousin, it needs a wide variety or trim levels, engines and choices. A V-series should be considered. Better mileage is mandatory...and if Saturn can have a hybrid crossover, than so can Cadillac. Escalade: Two words...hybrid and V12. They both need to happen. The DTS is the odd duck of the bunch, but also extremely important. It's still a best seller for Caddy's over 60 Deville buyers crowd, and one of Caddy's best selling cars, period. It is the dominent car for the livery and funeral coach business. I've heard people argue for keeping it or doing away with it for years. First things first, can you convince the over 60 crowd to buy someting else? I think you can. I see a lot of little old ladies in Nashville driving CTS's that used to be Deville owners. The next CTS will be a much better car all around. Here are the choices you have to make in keeping the DTS: 1. Keep it fresh and keep the quality control high. 2. Limit the trim levels and keep it to one engine choice. 3. No V-series. 4. Accept the financials and keep the car as a cash-cow. For killing the car: 1. Give your customers plenty of time to switch to other products. Let the car run its course after 2010 when the FTS bows...heck, you might keep it around for an additional year for transistion. 2. Work with the coach builders to get a FTS commercial chassis car stripped of many of the hyper-expensive amenities to keep it affordable to their customers. 3. Make a version just for livery customers that's priced for them and not sold to anybody else....either that or just cede the market to Lincoln and Chrysler (300). Just my 2 cents...or two dollars as it were.

I've been looking at photos and the available articles online for the last hour and I fail to see where you guys are thinking that Edmunds is slamming this vehicle. The previous vehicle had its flaws....no question. I owned a 2003 CTS LuxSport for two years before trading it for an SRX (kids happen). The CTS was a favorite of mine since it handled well, didn't feel like any Caddy I've ever owned before and I liked the polorizing exterior (and so did my wife). The original engine wasn't great and the interior had lots of swaths of black plastic. And yet the car found an audience, grabbing more buyers in year 2 thatn year one and being very consistent in sales all the way through the present. Caddy dealers loved that car. On first blush I like this new car. The Caddy Sixteen grill is in-your-face, sharing the same look as the new 'Slade (and the curiously absent from the SRX refresh). There's lots new in the design but there are some important styling cues that still says "I'm a CTS". The chisel line from the trunk through the C pillar is still there. The tail still reminds me of the old car, only better and more pulled together, again sharing design cues from the bigger 'Slade. The side chisel line from the old car is less obvious, but it's still there and really shows up on some photography, depending on the lighting. It'll probably be more obvious in person. The interior finally looks like GM will not have to make any excuses. This was always where the old car fell down. I've test driven Lexus, Acuras and Infinitis in recent months and this interior looks like GM paid attention to their competitors for once. The new direct injection V6 engine will make the car competitive again but keep in mind that this is 300 HP in the new SAE testing....everybody else has to make changes to their designs to avoid giving up 10-15 brake horsepower. One thing that hasn't been discussed is that with a 600 HP CTS-V likely in the future, a wider track 2008 CTS should make it possible for a new V8 option for this car in the 400 HP range. Since we already know that GM is working on a Northstar replacement for 2009, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a third engine choice down the road (not counting the V-series). With the new CTS coming online, it's uncomfortably close to the current STS in size. The next STS needs to grow in size and be the next big sedan that Caddy really needs to round out the product line. We already know a smaller B-series car will come in under the CTS. A larger STS could complete the Caddy family nicely (in terms of sedans).