Drew Dowdell

The Terrain justifies itself by selling over 25% as Denali trimmed models. The profit per unit on those must be obscene. If the Envision follows the rest of the Buick lineup trend of selling 60% trimmed at the upper end of the spectrum, they can get away with volumes in the 40k to 50k range, but even 30k a year would be profitable most likely. Buick was completely surprised by the popularity of the Encore. Initial projections for Encore were in the 35k - 40k per year range. They sold 31k in the 2013 first year which was a half year, they sold 45.7k in 2014, and they've sold 61k in the 11 months of 2015. The Mokka sells so well that GM was looking at spinning up production of that car in Europe (Spain I think) rather than Korea. It really depends on how well the Envision takes off. I expect it will far exceed expectations like the Encore did because it is in a sweet spot for size. We love our Encore for example, but 2.5 years in, we are aware that we might have downsized a little bit too far. Our CR-V is perfect sized, so since the Envision is about the same, I expect it will be the new Goldilocks in the segment.

Well you quoted at least two different sizes there. It looks to be slightly shorter than the current Nox/Terrain. Terrain is 185", Envision is 183", CR-V is 179". Envision is the same width as the Terrain. It looks like the AWD in the Envision is using the same twin-clutch setup as the new Lacrosse, meaning the AWD performance in snow should be excellent as should fuel economy.

They should be able to program the Tesla to detect when it isn't stopping as fast as it should be an automatically override the engine braking. Cadillacs can detect rain and will regularly dry the brake rotors.

Lutz was right where he belonged, just like Ruess was when he was head of product. Lutz was too big of a liability when someone with a microphone was nearby to be CEO, (so was Akerson, but even worse because he was a jerk.)

Unlikely. There will still be a Lambda (or replacement) line in the US. Verano would make more sense to build in Europe (Poland currently) along side the Astra. What I *could* see is 60% of Buicks sold in North America being foreign built, but not all built in China.

Reg - There are only 2 Buicks for sale in the U.S. that aren't built in the US..... the Encore and the Cascada.

CT6, XT5, etc aren't even on sale yet and Johan has been on the job a year or two now. Even if they trademarked CT1 through CT100 he could have still pushed for word names if he wanted. I think he likes alpha-numerics because it he is a marketing guru and marketing gurus like to look smart when they design naming conventions. I think the type of executive does matter somewhat. Rick Wagoner was a finance guy, and look at how GM produced the lowest cost products possible under his tenure. He was about cutting product cost to feed the UAW labor cost and "managing the downward spiral." If you put an engineer at the top they are going to focus on engineering and product. Does Mercedes have an engineer running things? If not then does an engineer EVER get final say on a product in ANY company? I only ask this because last time I checked, Dieter Zetsche was not an engineer. And again, he did not come up with number scheme so why bother even mentioning it? You have been wrong on so many things here SMK, it is just baffling that you keep beating the same dead horse here. From being incorrect about platform origins to nitpicking naming schemes in Cadillacs, it is just baffling. Dr. Z is an engineer.

CT6, XT5, etc aren't even on sale yet and Johan has been on the job a year or two now. Even if they trademarked CT1 through CT100 he could have still pushed for word names if he wanted. I think he likes alpha-numerics because it he is a marketing guru and marketing gurus like to look smart when they design naming conventions. I think the type of executive does matter somewhat. Rick Wagoner was a finance guy, and look at how GM produced the lowest cost products possible under his tenure. He was about cutting product cost to feed the UAW labor cost and "managing the downward spiral." If you put an engineer at the top they are going to focus on engineering and product. Wagoner put Lutz in charge of product and that's when things started to turn around. A large part of GM's issue was the corporate culture. Prior to the BK, they were simply running out of cash to develop things properly. Even if the will was there to do it right, the cash wasn't. I didn't say the person at the top doesn't matter. They have to be competent and have an actual passion for the product, but they don't have to be an engineer. Wagoner, Henderson, Akerson... none had both the competence and passion for the product. Barra appears competent and passion for the product, and has the added benefit of having a cleaner slate to start with.

As much as we would like to blame the Cadillac naming on Johan, it wasn't his doing. Cadillac trademarked the CTx and XTx series names before he got there. An executive doesn't need to be an engineer to create good cars, he just needs to listen to his engineers and give them the direction they need to aim for. In fact, there is very little product at Cadillac right now that is Johan's doing at all. Even the CT6 is mostly Mark's baby, but Johan will get the credit for it. I'm not Johan's biggest fan, but I'm still taking the "wait and see" approach to find out what he will actually do with the product. At the moment, all he can really do publicly, is grit his teeth and present someone else's idea on the stage.

There's always a Regal or LaCrosse. The least expensive Fusion with AWD is the Titanium at $31k. The cheapest Chrysler 200 AWD is the 200S starting at $29,370 with AWD. So you're left with Subaru or a used Suzuki.

It's amazing that we have all of this Executive Talent here at CheersandGears.com while Cadillac has to "make do" with Johan de Nysschen and Uwe Ellinghaus

I just booked what looks to be a fantastic vacation in February and it will be almost entirely free. (hotel, flight, and some food free)

Sherlock Marple Poirot those are my cup of tea

It would be a dream to have a garage that could fit that Winnebago. I would like a modern airstream to pull behind the Denali/Escalade/Jeep GC.

There's no reason to skip from 6 to 4. There can be a CT4 Coupe and a CT4 Sedan.

The Summit is the poshest of the Grand Cheerokees, the SRT is still luxury, but if I'm getting a Grand Cherokee, I want the capability to go anywhere. I've got the ATS-V in my list for speed.

Truck: GMC Sierra Crew Cab Denali. Just the 1500, don't need to be wheeling around a 2500 Sedan: CT6 PHEV Platinum Coupe: ATS-V Coupe SUV: Escalade platinum or Jeep Grand Cherokee Summit EcoDiesel Toy: Jeep Wrangler Unlimited

No, not if the ECU isn't mapped for higher octane.

It doesn't really matter, the spread between regular and premium usually is consistent. Around me it's typically 20 to 25 cents a gallon between the two no matter what the regular price is, any change in the dollar position only changes the cost per mile by extremely minor amounts as long as the spread between premium and regular is the same. The GM 6.2 is cheaper to run per mile on regular than the Ford 3.5 EB on premium which are both much cheaper to run than the Ford 3.5 EB on regular. To be clear, we're only talking about a penny per mile difference here... but over 50,000 miles, that's an extra $500 to run the Ecoboost on premium and $1000 to run it on regular, and these calculations are using highway miles. If you get fuel economy like Car and Driver did in that comparison test (both the Chevy and Ford got 16mpg), the cost per mile difference increases to about 2 cents per mile, or $1000 over 50,000 miles.

Yeah, GMC annoys me because of the All-Terrain package. I want that grille and not the chrome if possible, but I want the tan/cocoa interior. All-Terrain only comes with black interior and drops things like the max trailering package. Looks wise, I like the GMC the best, but combination of Looks + Packages, the Chevy wins because I can have everything just the way I want it. If I end up in the GMC, you'll know I compromised on something.. not because they don't offer it, but because of the lame package combination requirements. I'm not a big fan of the F-150's looks and sadly, the Ram looks so old to me now. But the basic requirements are - Crew Cab, Short Bed, 4x4, Trailering package, Heated Seats.

Well, 2016 could finally be the year of the truck for me.... this is what I'm looking at... I'll fill in the other categories later. All 4 are equipped and priced about the same. With the most expensive being the Ford, then the GMC, then the Chevy, then the Ram (which I can't package quite the way I want). You may or may not notice a pattern...

Yeah, I already ran the spreadsheet earlier in the thread showing that the GM 6.2 has a lower cost per mile to fuel than the 3.5 Ecoboost, no matter which fuel you put in the Ford.

The someone, somewhere, or some website, is fibbing.

Indeed, but sometimes the reverse is true. The EPA regards the Pruis as a mid-size even though it would only feel mid-size if you fill it with sand. BTW, Welcome back Mule.

Torque is what turbo's deliver. In spades. And not just a peak, but total average. That's what matters. And less total average when running regular instead of premium..... which is my point. The area under the curve is reduced. I still say someone needs to put these on the Dyno with both fuels to measure the changes. The 3.5 Ecoboost drops 40 lb-ft when switching from Premium (Lincoln Navigator) to Regular (Ford Expedition).