Drew Dowdell

You're wrong twice. If MBUSA gets this, it will be on the consumer side, not the Commercial side. Second, the only reason the Cadillac EXT died was because the Chevy died. Just like if there was no Nissan Frontier, there would be no X-Class.

@smk4565 does Cadillac have permission from you to get back into the truck market now that Mercedes took the "lead" by rebadging a Nissan.?

I realize this is an old post... but yes it could. From the CTS V-Sport to the XTS V-Sport the engine loses 10 horsepower and whopping 34 lb-ft of torque just by turning the engine sideways. The STS gained 25 horsepower going from a side winder to longitudinal.

Cool to know.

Why does it have dual water pumps?

To me, it was much simpler math. Profit was $22 million, but credit sales rose $100 million. That means building cars was still losing money for them. (Credit sales are nearly 100% profit.) I.E. they were profitable due to credit sales.

My issue is primarily with the FWD 6-speeds and 8-speeds. They are far too reluctant to kick down when need be. In normal mode in suburban driving, press the pedal.. "<bog> <bog> <bog> Oh you wanted to go? <downshift>". In sport mode, you get the downshift you want when you want it, but then it holds the gear too long when you've backed off.

Oooo I like that all blacked out one.

Compared to GM: GM has a luxury division that is mentioned in all seriousness with the likes of the best from Germany. There is no shame in picking a CTS-V over an M5, and buyers of Escalades won't lay awake at night wondering if they should have gone with a GLS instead. Not the biggest fan of Cadillac's President, but we've also seen little of his handiwork yet. The XT5 is capable, but I think the MKX does more things better (there are pluses and minuses to both on the interior). Cadillac really needs more engine choice in the XT5. I haven't driven the Continental yet to compare, but CT6 is bad-ass. It's a big car but you can make it dance like a ballerina. The Continental is most often mentioned with... the Koreans? I think that is unfair to the Continental and gives the Koreans too much credit... but it still isn't being compared to an E-Class or S-Class at this point. On trucks - I admit that I favor the GM full-sizers (Sierra in particular) over the F-150 in looks, but there are a few areas on the GMs I don't like. The configuration options put you into baffling choices that you shouldn't have to make.... why can't I have Z71 AND the enhanced towing package??. There are also a few tech things missing that I would want to see on the GMs fullsizers. Where is Android Auto? Where is lane keep assist (not just alert)? The mid-size trucks are great for a segment that was starved of new product for years, however they really need to improve on the interiors here. Toyota is not standing still. GM, you're still building the old Express? You got caught with your pants down on the City Express's segment, I hope you have something lined up to replace it. The irony is they probably can't bring over the Opel Combo Kastenwagen because it is a sister vehicle to the Fiat/Ram Promaster City and FCA won't allow it. On SUVs - The Trax and Encore are doing well and the updates are nice, but somehow I feel like there should have been more to it. I am soooooo glad that the current 'Nox and Terrain are finally being replaced. It's about damn time.... I always avoided those two at the rental counter. As far as packaging, they were fine, but the interiors were so out of date. Hated the refreshed 'Nox face and the newest one fixes that. The Lambdas are finally being replaced and we'll see more of that soon. I drove an Acadia Denali last week and I was just "meh". For that amount of money a Grand Cherokee or Explorer would be more satisfying. Don't get me wrong, it seems to be done well... but it's not something I would steer someone towards unless they were particularly attracted to the looks. I won't bother on the other Lambdas since they're on their way out, good while they lasted. The Suburban and Yukon are kings of their segment for good reason, but a little interior and exterior nip/tuck is probably in order. On cars - For the first time since ... well all of my lifetime... Chevrolet has a top-shelf lineup from top to bottom. SS, Impala, Camaro, Malibu, Cruze, Volt, Bolt, Sonic, Spark.... I can recommend any of those to someone shopping in the respective classes without hesitation. The new Cruze should take off. The Lacrosse is a good iterative improvement over the prior car, but won't woo that many new Buick buyers, needs another upper engine option. Regal is tired, Cascada was old before it was birthed, Verano is dead. Verano being dead I see as a problem... we in the US should absolutely have gotten the new Opel Astra. Make it only in premium trims, the small FWD lux segment is heating up, why abandon ship now? At Cadillac, I really enjoy the CTS and CT6. The ATS is a favorite too, but really Cadillac, we've been harping on that instrument cluster since the beginning of the car, you've done at least one refresh including an all new CUE system... you couldn't fix the speedo? On engines - I remain unconvinced at the push towards smaller displacements with turbo and direct injection. The whole industry seems to be heading that way so I may not have much choice. However, in this regard, Ford as a whole is doing a better job at it than GM, particularly in 4-cylinders. Where GM has Turbo V6es, they are pretty equal to Fords of a similar displacement, but availability in the model lineups is still too sparse to be of much use. I'll still pick a GM V8 over a Ford Ecoboost V6 wherever the option affords me. On Transmissions - GM's 8-speed RWD is fantastic, it really should be the bar for the industry at the moment. I haven't driven a Ford 10-speed yet to compare. I'm not a fan of the transmission programming GM is doing lately. Normal is far too conservative and sport is far too aggressive.... can't we have a goldilocks setting where the car reacts like we expect it to when we press the pedal? There is just too much nanny in the programming. Ford's 6-speeds feel quaint. They're capable and get the job done, but they are outclassed by the 8-speeds and 9-speeds out there from many other brands.

I think Lincoln is still seriously behind. The Continental is a step in the right direction, but the MKZ isn't enough of an update to keep people happy and gain lots of conquest sales. Furthermore, as much as the bunch of us who frequent automotive websites may like the 3.0TT it might be a bit too much for buyers of this sort of car. As mundane as it is, the MKZ really does need a basic (in today's terms), naturally aspirated V6 to properly challenge the ES. Lincoln is not going to peel those buyers out of their Lexii if they don't offer them something they want. The MKX and MKC are good attempts and reflect that in their sales. The new Navigator can't get here fast enough. On cars, Ford is falling behind fast. The Focus feels very tired at this point, only the Sentra comes to mind as tireder. The updates to the Fusion are nice, but few non-car people will even notice them. I do think the Fiesta is among the best in its class. Taurus and C-Max... you're still here? Explorer is fantastic, it's the king of the hill and deserves to be, the only reason someone should consider a Grand Cherokee or Durango over an Explorer is if they need towing capacity or off road capability beyond what the Explorer can do... if you're just doing soccer mom/dad stuff, get the Explorer. The Edge is equally as good, but underappreciated by the press, can be a little pricey, but I'd still pick it over a Murano. The release of the new CR-V and Equinox will make the newly refreshed Escape feel very old very fast. F-150, not much needs to be said. It's the King for a reason. I drove the '17 Superduty and it deserves every award it has and will win. Ranger is still too far away as is Bronco. Transit and Transit Connect, not my cup of tea, but the market has spoken. Ford had the insight to weather their own storm. People were already talking about Ford being forced to merge or go through bankruptcy. There was no insight into a future storm in 2006, certainly not at the level of what happened. GM had their issues, but it wasn't with building cars at that point, it was GMAC. No one was talking about a GM bankruptcy in 2006. Warning shots to the economy didn't start for another 7 - 8 months.

Solar City is actually doing pretty well I thought. They're one of the largest solar installers in the US and probably the most well known.

Ah okay, I misunderstood you.

Only one of their own making. At the time they were doing this, it was largely a self preservation project. It was announced in November 2006, well before there were signs of doom for the economy as a whole. and By November of 2006, Ford had to have seen the writing on their own wall. You don't lose $12 billion in two months at the end of the year. By the time they had gotten to November, they had already burned through all of the 3 prior year's profits and then some. At this point, the possibility of a recession was only being referred to as "If", and protecting themselves from that potential "if" was a wise choice... but lets be realistic, they had no choice. Even in a good economy, they couldn't continue losing $12b a year much longer. Note: At the time of the financing, if they hadn't gotten the loans, they would have run out of cash in two years no matter what the economy did.

No @ccap41 there are definitely directional wheels.

Eh, positive, but they're not out of the woods yet. They're only profitable this quarter because they sold a lot more pollution credits.... they still aren't profitable yet from selling consumer products.

You would just do the same kind of tire rotation on the MKZ with what @Stew is suggesting.

No, I'm not suggesting it was pure luck. I'm suggesting that Ford was already had a huge gash in the hull before the crap hit the fan. Ford lost more in 2006 than they had made in the 3 prior years combined (2005 : $2.0B, 2004 : $3.5b, 2003 : $3.5b). The net result was that while 3 of the 4 years of the range 2003 - 2006 were profitable, the net total was a loss of $3.7b. 2002 was a net loss of $1b as well. In 2007 they increased their loss record from $12.7 billion to $14.7 billion, losing $11b just building cars. In 2008 they lost another $5.0 billion building cars, reducing the loss to $2.7 billion with financial services. It wasn't until 2009 that they swung around to profit again and haven't had a loss year since. Even in a good economy, had Ford not acted they would have gone under. GM's albatross was largely GMAC. Ford Credit largely only financed vehicle sales where GMAC financed houses and even things like appliance purchases. The difference being that before the crash, GM was making money building cars and it was the housing market that torpedoed them. Ford was losing money making cars with not enough results from Ford Credit to make up the difference. Chrysler had been a basket case ever since the Germans got ahold of them, but at least they had the German's balance sheet to lean on during that time. Chrysler actually was doing okay before that merger.

Actually, I'm citing the condition of the ship prior to the storm. It is an irony that had Ford been in better shape before the collapse, they wouldn't have taken out the mortgages they did ahead of time, and all three would have gotten full bailouts. It's only due to how bad off they were before hand that they survived. I'll give credit where it is due; The moves Ford made were absolutely the right ones to make given their situation, storm or no storm. NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Struggling Ford Motor Co., which posted a record $12.7 billion net loss in 2006 DETROIT, March 14 -- General Motors Corp. today posted net income for 2006, excluding special items, of $2.2 billion By 2007, GMAC was imploding as the housing market went south, but GM's car business was up $7 billion in revenue. In contrast, in 2007, Ford lost $5 billion building cars, but reduced to a $2.7 billion loss due to profits from their financial arm * PDF Warning By 2008, the full storm was on them both. Daimler-Chrysler as a whole had a net profit of $7.2 billion in 2006, but Chrysler division took a $1.2 billion loss. In 2007, Daimler split off Chrysler, so it's harder to put a finger on who earned what that year.. but I think we can all agree that Chrysler was pretty damaged by that point.

It's not about drag racing so much, but there is a level of thrust that the LaX just can't match. The LaX you have to really wind out to get the power out of. I haven't driven the MKZ 3.0TT, but I have driven the Fusion Sport. There is a substantial difference in pull between the LaX and the Fusion Sport. It's not a V8, but it's about as close as you can get without those two extra cylinders.

... *sigh*... and I just got rid of my dad bod...

My kids would never behave as badly as some of the middle-aged children here do.

Thank you. That means a lot.

I like both the back and the front.... just not so much on the same car. I always felt the pre-refresh MKZ looked slender and feline. As a whole, the car worked visually. I like the new Continental look, but in this case it looks like a mask on the body of a vehicle that it doesn't fit. Updating the MKZ tail end to the Continental looks should have been done also.

Oh the irony...since that is probably never going to happen

I"m not a sporty kinda guy. I like my posh leather chair, I like my quiet, I prefer stately elegance, but when I want to go somewhere, I want to get there fast. Grace, Space, Pace.