Drew Dowdell

It took the Camaro a week of me driving it before it would even make it to my "possibly if I won the lottery" list.

I have no problems with the XTS as is, but I'd love to see this just be a design study that ultimately ends up on Zeta so a whole bunch of you can drink a nice steaming cup of STFU and still not buy it. I mean really, this much vitriol for a car that 99.9% of you couldn't afford new anyway.

Congrats! uh... what are you doing on C&G!?

Chicken/Egg The engines that have the fair fuel economy deficit are the relatively low compression pushrod V6es. Ethanol is effectively over 100 octane which means you can dial up the boost on a turbo quite a bit. The new Regal's turbo is going to be flex fuel from the factory which can be exciting from a performance standpoint. Imagine a Taurus SHO or Ford F-150 3.7t running the stuff with the boost turned way up.

Please read the whole link.

The Haldex can split torque front to rear and side to side. Now that's just uncalled for.

Well, I actually like the looks of the Scion TC, but that doesn't change the fact that what Toyota did by creating a whole separate-but-not-really brand was dumb. Same as GM was dumb for building GEO and Saturn. The difference is that I've seen the XTS in person and none of the pictures, not even my own, do it justice. I'm not the only person at NAIAS who has said this. There are some certified GM haters out there that like the XTS once they see it in person. I wasn't too concerned about people bashing the CR-Z because I've seen it in person and it's even worse than in pictures. At this point, people are being nice relative to what their reaction will be when they first see one in person.

Wouldn't the bottom of this class be the Infiniti Q-ship or the VW Phaeton? Just askin.... I don't care what kind of platform any car rides on as long as it delivers the results I want.

I too am concerned with the willingness to bash a vehicle that maybe 4 of us have seen in person.

Correlation is not causation.

Ah... now we get to the truth.....

Tahoe. Actually, it's probably from the still born Saturn Vue hybrid.

4-fix ratios and 2 E-CVTs

Who buy's LSes, S-classes, and 7-series again? Usually people over 65 and rap stars.

The Lacrosse FWD is 58/42, the Lacrosse AWD is 57/43. With a longer rump and batteries in the trunk, the XTS could easily be 55/45. I've emailed a contact at Cadillac to see if they can shed any light on this. If I'm ignoring the transverse v. longitudinal layout it's because most of the buyers will too. If the balance of the A8 and XTS are the same 55/45, what does the orientation of the engine matter?

There are seals specifically for stove doors.

Again, 55/45 weight distribution like the A8.

Oh, I thought you meant there were leaks around the stove door... my bad.

Ethanol as a fuel doesn't make any sense when it's derived from corn...... when it's derived from waste products, algae, kelp, and grass clippings however...... You know what else ethanol is good for? Turbocharged engines. Think it's a coincidence that so many turbos are on their way?

Exclusive? The first Cadillac Station wagon v. a Buick sedan... Which do you think? It had zero to do with drivetrain layout, but bodystyle instead. The CTS and the Lacrosse are two different kinds of luxury. Neither kind is "better" than the other, they are simply two different points on the luxury spectrum. If I had $55k (the CTS-W's sticker price) in my pocket right now to spend on any GM vehicle, I'd pay $34k cash for the Lacrosse and put $21k down on a new Camaro. The CTS, while slightly more entertaining than the Lacrosse, simply wasn't $21k more entertaining. The Lacrosse was easier to live with on a day to day basis and felt as solid and strong as any old S-class I've been in. read: tank like. There was nothing I could do in the CTS that I couldn't do in the Lacrosse and still remain within sight of whatever law I was breaking. If you're worried about being able to drift then I think Cadillac can live without you as a buyer. The Lacrosse is not your grandmother's Buick. I followed an Altima coupe up a set of twisties and stayed on his butt the whole way. Yes it rolled a bit in the corners but that was more suspension tuning than anything else. The Camaro I'm driving now is an incredibly entertaining vehicle, but with a ride completely off the mark for the target audience of XTS. Yet none of these things has to do with drivetrain layout. Again, we have an AWD vehicle that has the same weight balance as the A8. Where are the 14 pages of posts talking about how terrible the A8 drives? If the Cadillac handles equal to the A8 and better than the LS (which is probably the floater of the bunch), Cadillac has a car full of WIN.

I'm starting to agree with Balthazar that had Cadillac called this a "new, exclusive to Cadillac, platform" and "uses an innovative new AWD Hybrid powertrain that can route the majority of torque to the rear wheels" and "due to production line flexibility can be built along side the Regal", we wouldn't be having this fight.

I will admit that the ergonomics of getting in and out of the car are awkward at first, but after just a week with it, I've become and expert at it even in tight spaces. Not even an issue now. When I have the driver seat configured for my 5'10" self, I cannot sit in the back without my knees hitting the back of the front seat. I also have to crouch a little or my head touches the roof. The balance of the chassis is sublime. You sit so far aft relative to other vehicles that it feels the two ends of the car are rotating around you when you make a turn. Assembly wise Chevy gets an A. Fit and finish is perfect. Ergonomically, the only challenges are getting into and out of the Camaro. Once you're in, everything is easy to reach and use. I'll say this, I have never been a Camaro or F-body kinda guy. I gravitate to the CTSes, Lacrosses, and XTSes. This Camaro is so much fun it has me re-thinking those preferences. I don't have a kid (yet) so there is no logistical reason I couldn't have one of these as a daily driver. Those of you who know my vehicular preferences will realize what kind of high praise that is. Think.... 68 giving serious consideration to adding a 4-door FWD 4-cylinder to his fleet.

If the CTS was on EPII and AWD standard with the ability to direct the torque to the rear like the Regal GS does, I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as it continued to run with the Germans on handling performance. The CTS is also designed to be a sportier car than the XTS is intended. If the ATS were to end up on Delta II with AWD standard and they have it out handle the Cobalt SS, as long as it looks like a Caddy like the XTS does, I don't have a problem with it happily smacking around A4s all day. All of that because I don't care which way the engine is oriented... or even what fuel, if any, it burns, as long as it gives me the results I desire. Cadillac could produce a 10,000 rpm, 5 liter, diesel, 1 cylinder and I wouldn't care as long as it had the refinement and power I expected from the car.

I still fail to see how if the car is AWD, the orientation of the engine makes any difference to the percieved value of the car. Engine can be on the roof for all I care, I just want the power and the handling, the comfort and the refinement. We've already extrapolated that the XTS will be balanced roughly the same as the A8, so what difference does the direction of the engine make?

Isn't RWD just as "generic"? Here in Pittsburgh you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a 3-series and we're soundly a GM town. I can't imagine what it's like in the "import" towns. You don't get much more generic and ubiquitous than a Crown Vic.