Drew Dowdell

Other than the Silverado/Sierra/Avalanche? Do they really need another full size truck?

The Lucerne isn't bad for a mid-size.

brb, need paper towel

diesel is easier(less costly) to refine than gasoline, but due to economies of scale, gasoline ends up cheaper.

I doubt GM would be putting an '83 Cavalier diesel on the market for 2013, we're talking about brand new vehicles here. I'm sure GM doesnt' give a crap if you can find diesel when you're driving a 10 year old Duramax.... but if they are looking for a way to market a diesel passenger car in the US (Cruze Deco? Buick Verano DS? Cadillac CTS-D?) having that "We can always find you a local diesel pump" technology built in would remove any fuel type anxiety. Why doesn't Exxon sell it? Exxon has actually gotten out of the business of owning fueling stations directly. The result is that large franchises bought whole chains of Exxons all over the country. My local Exxon stations do sell diesel. Why don't your Exxon stations? You'd have to ask the franchisee.

Here in central Jersey, the logjam of human congestion and the halfway point between NYC and Philly, diesel is indeed a problem to find. Entire chains of gas companies do not sell it (Exxon, the largest, doesn't here), and many of the little stations don't either. When I get below a quarter tank away from home, I'm looking for a diesel station. Luckily for me, there are 2 within a mile of my house. One time I set out to get on a major highway, 20 minutes from my house. Just before I got on, I realized I was near the 'low fuel' level and there really aren't any fueling stations on 287. I went thru the local city and ended up coming all the way back within 1 mile of my house to find diesel, passing up about 6 stations in between. Down at my folks, I again ended up passing 4 stations in order to find diesel- a good 15 minutes out of my way in the wrong direction. The last station I had to ask the jockey- his brother had a diesel so he knew where one was. In my local observations, diesel is available at about 20% of stations... this may not be accurate across the nation tho. I drive all over the center of the state and it needs to get a LOT better here before diesel cars become commonplace. Premium is not a valid comparison IMO- most vehicles don't require premium. Diesel has been higher than 87 since before I got my DuraMax in June '06. May have been the other way 'round about a year-2 yrs before that. I wasn't saying that Diesel to premium is direct comparison (let's not forget that the ubiquitous Camry V6 "recommends" 92 octane for peak performance) but merely to point out that it is not such a huge price premium over 87 that it negates any savings on the cost per mile basis. As to locating diesel - you point out the exact reason that I suggest that the NAV systems be programed by default to show nearby stations that sell diesel. Even if you don't have a full on NAV, Onstar turn-by-turn has the data as well. Just because you didn't find it on the routes you took doesn't mean there wasn't another station a couple streets over that had it.

Three things... (1) The problem with 2.0 liter engines that make 295 lb-ft at ~2500 rpm is that it doesn't make 295 rpm except when it is on boost -- on full boost. The typical condition at freeway cruise is off boost simply because of the low output require and low accelerative loads. If you rev a turbocharged engine in neutral in the parking lot, it NEVER gets on boost and is always in vaccuum for the same reason. In otherwords, the small turbocharged engine has to be geared such that it still has enough torque off boost to maintain cruising speed. Hence, a 3.6 liter V6 with 275 lb-ft may be geared to make 1800 rpm @ 60 mph, whereas a 2.0T with 275 lb-ft may not. (2) The answer as to whether an entire industry can be wrong is YES. It can. Especially when it comes to popular quasi-axioms like this. (3) I do not expect the Carbon Footprint reduction nonsense to persist over the long run. The non-science of "global warming" is quickly unraveling. The statistics and science behind it are completely bankrupt. The fact is that there is no abnormality with the climate we experience today or in the past 100-years. It is statistically in the middle of historical fluctuations. There is also no evidence that carbon dioxide concentration in the air, especially androgynous CO2, has had ANY tangible effect on global temperatures. We know this because global temperatures have been observed to fall in the 50s, 60s and 70s despite a higher than pre-industrial and constantly increasing CO2 levels. We also know that the medieval era was warmer than today and numerous periods in the earth's history is warmer than today. If you look at ice cores samples going back a million years, you'll notice that the planet did not get warmer following CO2 spikes. In fact, CO2 spikes occur 500~1000 years AFTER temperature has already risen. And, to put a nail into the coffin, the planet has been cooling not warming since 2007 and various IPCC "scientists" have been caught falsifying data to hide patterns they don't like. The only reason this whole charade is still continuing is that it is difficult for politicians and people who support the cause -- unknowing of the actual validity of its science or the lack thereof -- to back track and say they were wrong. To say that they have been pursuing economically ruinous, utterly useless and unnecessary policy. It's potentially a career ending thing to say! But, truth has a certain ring to it and you can't keep it from getting out forever. 1) The 2.0 Ecotec and the Ford Ecoboosts have incredibly flat torque curves that hit peak torque very low in the RPM band, so yes, they can run 60mph @1800 rpm, even if they are bypassing boost at higher RPMs. 2) Not just an entire industry, but an entire continent. Europe's overly controlling tax on displacement is highly short sighted and restricts the very innovation that could potentially meet their stated goal of reducing carbon emissions. 3) There is nothing "unraveling" about global climate change at all. To imply that all universities, scientists, and governments globally are in a vast global conspiracy to ruin the economy by controlling carbon emissions requires a leap of faith that, quite frankly, surprises me about you who have been so scientifically minded in 99% of your other posts. Furthermore, to make the assumptions that humans can't nudge the environment one way or another with our actions also defies doubt. No one has claimed that humans are the sole cause of climate change, nor has anyone claimed that there are not already climate change patterns that the earth follows. The concerns about climate change are about the changes in the extremes, not about what the weather is doing outside right now. 100 year flood patterns are now becoming 50 year flood patterns. The peak tornado season is shifting earlier in the year and breaking records for frequency while doing so. The medieval warming period that you cite is very Euro centric, and while it was a warm period in Europe, there is little evidence that the same thing happened in the Southern Hemisphere at all or the North American region more than minimally, suggesting that it was a regional temperature variation. To sum up the things we do know beyond any shadow of a doubt. A) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that does trap heat - this is not in dispute. B) We are pumping 10s of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere daily. C) We continue to cut down the earth's natural CO2 scrubbers, the forests, at a very high rate.

$650 if the tires are good. It's worth more than that in scrap metal and parts.

9 Volt C1? LOL!

A few points against this: 1. 50% of all fueling stations in the US offer diesel. 2. The typical 700 mile range means that I can drive from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia and back, and still have another 100 mile of range to look for a fueling station. 3. It is a simple matter to default the NAV screen to show fueling stations that offer diesel nearby. The database exists already and is community maintained. 4. Diesel is less expensive than gasoline on a cost-per-mile basis. In my area, diesel is currently the same price as premium gas. 5. Finding diesel fuel doesn't appear to be a problem for the Powerstroke, Duramax, and Cummins drivers.

They will have more diesels here eventually I'm sure. It's the diesels that get the good mileage. And they have Smart and the A- and B- class models for mileage (A- and B- coming to the US soon). Now now... if we're not allowed to count "coming models" in the plus column for Cadillac, then one must treat Mercedes the same way.

At the current rate, they are going to be meeting capacity at Lordstown soon.

I love the feel of the CTS-V motor. More than enough refinement to be a fine performance machine but just enough "grit" to remind you of the bits of American muscle car DNA still there. In my mind it's exactly what a high performance Cadillac should be.

What was the Packard ad?

Fleet sales do not hurt Mercedes. They almost seem to enhance their reputation as 97% of all governments own an S-class, and over 100 own an armored S-class limo, and many leaders and dignitaries are driven around the fleeted out cars. You may not like how they operate, but they are in 1st place and have been the most successful luxury car brand worldwide over the past 30-40 years. The question is how does Cadillac (circa 2015) put a vehicle lineup, marketing strategy, etc together to compete with the top tier brands. Cadillac staying status quo and hoping for Mercedes to fall apart is not a good plan. You mean having a bunch of orange and beige Mercedes cabs running around Germany doesn't hurt image at all?

DOHC or not doesn't matter a hill of beans in that regard. For someone who simply wants to go fast with class, power is king, valvetrain configuration is not.

Well if sales numbers equal superiority, then the DTS was about twice as good as the Lexus LS last month... quite an amazing feat for a discontinued vehicle......

Pushrods in the CTS-V aren't a tough sell. All you have to do is say "Five Hundred and fifty six horsepower" It is the HP not the pushrods selling the V. But then again what percentage of the CTS sales are V's. There is a large group of people out there that believe correct or not that German engineering is superior to American no matter how often their BMW has a $1800 issue. Benz and BMW market themselves on techology from safety to performance. People buy into this. and what percentage of 3-series are Ms? The lower end CTS has DOHCs for someone who must have that over power. The M3 isn't sold on being DOHC, it's sold on being high horsepower with relatively low weight. The M5 isn't sold on being DOHC, it's sold on being a V10 with 500hp and great handling despite it's porky weight. DOHC is the least important part of the equation. It's right up there with the great Pushbutton start verse Key twist start debate of 2010. In the end, does it really matter how you start the car or how many cams the engine has if all you're going to end up seeing is a pair of vertical tail lights getting smaller in the distance in front of you? When enough BMW guys experience this phenomenon, they'll get the picture and tell their friends.

At the rate I am driving, 15,000 miles is enough for 4 years.

No one would dare insult the V10 Viper engine and in fact the Hemi probably increases Chryler's image.

Where in the world outside GM fans are they crying and demanding pushrod engines? It may be all you post and I don't disagree but people are buying otherwise. Do they need DOHC no but do most people world wide want and expect it yes. It is like the traction tale for FWD. People today want FWD for the most part because they get better traction. Not true but it is easier to use for the unskilled driver. Point and shoot. It all comes back to preception, ego and wants of the customer. There are many automotive snobs that will refuse a Chevy powered Cadillac no matter what you show them. Smart no but their money is green and you will not get it otherwise. If GM is to keep the LS based engine in their cars they really need a specific Cadillac tuned version that offers what Chevy does not offer. Mine is begger better and fancier, in this class Imsge is king not logic. Where in the world outside of a select few on C&G and a few editors at C&D are people crying out for DOHC? In this class, power is king and the only thing a BMW owner has left to point to is the badge.

Pushrods in the CTS-V aren't a tough sell. All you have to do is say "Five Hundred and fifty six horsepower"

Can I borrow him a couple days? I'm having a groundhog problem.

You give buyers too much credit. My mother just bought a new 535i, and I had to tell her all the mechanical specs on the car AFTER she bought it. Sure, there are buyers who know the specs and stuff. But what keeps being skirted here, and I know that this is a thread about engine offerings and such, is that people still buy mainly because of the BADGE. And with more exclusive equipment often comes more badges... After 3 Park Aves and a Custom Cruiser, my grandmother leased her first 750i not long after my Grandfather died (wealthy but very frugal man who was quite content in his 1983 Ford Fiesta which had replaced his mid-70's Opel Kadet Combi, up until early 2001 when he was forced to stop driving). Her only reason for getting it was "I've always wanted a BMW". First 750i was a lemon and BMW let her step into a lease of a new one for no money out of pocket to get out of her existing lease early. The second one wasn't lemoned, but was constantly at the dealer for warranty work. Burned twice by BMW, she now has a loaded Lacrosse.

The point is he knew this but he had to convince the people at GM to do this. They were focused on filling needs and not wants. He had to show them this is why they were not selling faceless Saturns. Yes GM though Saturn people wanted non discript with little badging and no grills as they just wanted a good friendly dealer to work with. Not it was not till he got involved that Saturn started to look good. But he points out like I have there was no money to market the cars and it was too late to save them. Now you can be snide at Bob but the fact is there was a whole cast of highly intelligent people at GM that had no clue. This is not an isolated thing in buisness. I see it in my own marketing department. Too often the people making and selling the product only think they know their customer. Just look around at the many messed up marketing things going on. You mean like this? Maybe this: Maybe it was this: Maybe this? or this the point is.... in the '90s, could you blame GM for thinking that people wanted faceless little cars?