Drew Dowdell

Quite so! I was rather confused by Lincoln's decision to debut this now before the Continental. It seems like a major tactical mistake.

First off, the benchmarking would have needed to happen years ago before Alpha was even released.... I can see not benchmarking the 5-gen Camaro because it is built on a full-size sedan platform and there are inherent disadvantages to that, weight being the biggest one.... but the GM team was still able to overcome that disadvantage mostly. I think that GM's extreme weight loss program has caught a number of manufacturers off guard, not just Ford. GM has made weight reduction a major priority across their lineup and their success at it has raised some eyebrows. It started with the ATS and has really hit home with the CT6. Even the Lacrosse got a weight reduction, but without losing its characteristic quietness.

It's a demand issue not a throughput issue.

one of the primary reasons the ATS-V got the turbo V6 rather than the V8 is because it allowed the engineers to place the engine lower and move the mass further back in the chassis to improve balance. They weren't gritting their teeth on that one, it was an engineering decision.

Cadillac has done an excellent job in making their vehicles their own when they are shared with other GM products and vice versa. Sharing some under-bits with the Suburban clearly hasn't hurt the Escalade since they can't even build them fast enough. No one will ever mistake a Camaro for an ATS or CTS.... and using the Alpha for Camaro was the best possible solution available to GM. The SRX was one of the best handling FWD based crossovers out there and the new platform the XT5 uses is only going to improve on that. I have no problem with Cadillac using a new Lambda platform replacement as long as it rocks the segment.

Already?!

Not only that, but this Mazda 2.5T puts out numbers that match any of the standard V6es.... beating more than a few of them in torque. I can't think of any of the N/A V6es in this class that have peak torque over 300 lb-ft.... can you? Off the top of my head they're all in the 260 lb-ft to 280 lb-ft range.

Externally, yes. Internally, no. That is more a reflection of the excellent packaging of the Encore rather than a knock on the X1. I would gather that it will be a Delta. There are new Delta crossovers coming.

I see Audi in the headlights

3 - Same size as any other compact in the class, looks better than almost all of the segment... probably the best looker in the class. 6 - It's a Mazda bodied Fusion... it's small compared to the Passat, but it's not smaller than 200 or current Malibu or Regal. CX5 - People buy CR-Vs out of habit. There are better choices out there than Honda... not just Mazda CX9 - The Rogue now has neither a V6 nor a Turbo, but they've really gained on sales. Even the ancient GM 'Nox and Terrain sell very well and mostly in 4-cylinder trim. I don't think the CX9 will be hindered by that. You do have to want a smaller 3-row crossover to want a CX9 though. It is Rogue that will be the primary target here.

Come on guys, if you want a Catera thread you are welcome to start one in the Cadillac Forum

Eight Phaetons Per Week?????

I think it was fairly obvious from the beginning that this was the result of Piech's style of leadership.

If they can get people to pay $30k for a Cadillac subcompact CUV the size of the Encore, more power to them. the Encore starts at $24k and tops out at around $34k. That leaves some room for a Cadillac to start at $29,995 + destination.

Knowing out Troll for the past 10 years, I can tell U that he, despite being raised on GM's dime, will do anything to pump-up Ford product no matter what it is. He is the same person that once tried to convince me that the Escalade.. was in danger.. of being discontinued ..after the debut of that ugly Lincoln MKT. Yes.. I said MKT. The one that most will only be caught DEAD in.. literally Complete lie. Never said anything close to this, and you keep repeating this again and again and I keep debunking it. And speaking of brand bias........ Unfortunately, we do have more than one person here who trolls.....

Where would you like me to move this since it appears to be in the wrong thread?

The advantages of the 2-mode hybrids weren't really to be seen in highway driving anyway... there was to be some highway MPG increase, but not a substantial one.... so both were testing it wrong. The 2-mode could run as electric only up to 30 mph. All of the improvements in FE would have been seen in city/suburban driving under light loads. Also, the 2-mode didn't have the battery power that the CT6 PHEV does. The new system can also run the CT6 to 75mph in EV mode. You figure in an Escalade it should be able to do at least 50 mph. I remember SMK whining about how the 2-mode was "only a 4-speed", but it wasn't. It was 2 CVTs and 2 planetary gear sets capable of a broad range of ratios. I wonder if he'll bring up a similar complaint on this one.

You returned broccoli?

I got a promotion today.... sort of. I finally got the title and job description to match what I've actually been doing for the past 24 months. At the same time I got assigned to an important new project that will finally get me the visibility in what I do. not a bad way to end a week.

Point of reference. In May of thise year, I updated from 60 amp service with fuses to 150 amp service with breakers. This also required replacing the exterior meter box and mast head. I had two brand new GFI recepticals added to the front of the house as well (no outlets before) and a whole house surge protector is inclded. Price - $1900 all in.

2002

The new powertrain is hardly run of the mill. The V6 has start/stop and cylinder deactivation mated to a brand new 8-speed. With a huge drop in curb weight, this big sedan is likely to be QUICK (like running mid-14s) and still achieve over 20/30 mpg. I'm sorry... is that really considered quick these days? My 11 year old Avalon would run mid-14s and hit 60 in about 6 seconds (and would do over 31 mpg highway), which is likely where the new LaCrosse will be at. I wasn't wowed by that car's power, so I'm not going to be wowed by this either. The current LaCrosse is a 2-ton porker, so losing 300lbs merely brings it back down to average weight and performance for the class. Again, there's nothing exciting here. It's a run-of-the-mill powertrain in every single way for the year 2017. Kthxbai. What I would really like to see is the MKZ's powertrain with the LaCrosse's body. Perfect boulevard cruiser. Second the idea that your 2010HP 2004 Avalon is going to be faster than the new LaX, while getting superior fuel economy is ridiculous. The 2004 Camry SE barely pulled it off with a 14.6 seconds @ 97.0 mph, and was lighter. This Lacrosse, should certainly improve upon the numbers laid by my heavier Impala.. Fuel economy is certainly going into the 30s.. I love the idea of Run of the Mill when is incorporating start/stop, cylinder deactivation and an 8-speed tranny.. all wrapped in a sweet honey bun of an exterior. U want 12 second 1/4 miles.. go buy a Cadillac.. or even a Chevy. Buick is about smooth luxury. Everyone doesn't need their car to be a performance car.. and that's coming from some one who predominately has REAL performance cars. Excuse my typo, I meant 10 year old. My 2005 Avalon weighed a hair over 3600lbs, was rated at 280 hp, quoted at 14.6 seconds @ 99 mph in the quarter and 6.0 seconds to 60, and was rated at 22/31 mpg. I'm not saying the LaCrosse won't be able to match it, I simply don't see it exceeding it by much, if at all. Also, for what it's worth, 10 years on, and the Avalon hasn't improved upon itself either. It is also just run-of-the-mill these days. It's not necessarily a bad thing for Buick to do the same, but there's nothing exciting here besides an 8 speed auto that others have had for years. With Buick itself stating they are perfectly happy with the LaCrosse being their flagship sedan, I would've expected more... a risk or two. Instead, it's been played safe, likely to keep its current cult of owners happy. Meanwhile, Lincoln, which is basically just a Buick competitor these days, is taking those risks... It's just too bad they don't have a better stylist. I'm not sure there will be a big bump in highway fuel economy. It will probably be conservatively rated around 31-32 mpg highway. However it's city MPG should improve lending to an improvement in combined fuel economy. Shutting off the engine at a stop and running on 4-cylinders from 25 mph - 65 mph at steady speed will help. Look at where the current Lacrosse (3.6 V6 - 6Auto) is compared to the Cadillac CTS with an 8-speed, Start-Stop, and AFM. The Cadillac added Start/Stop and AFM to get a 2mpg combined increase. However, weight remained the same and the transmission, while new, has the same number of gears. Now look at the ATS changes. It went from a 6-speed auto to an 8-speed auto and gained Start-Stop and AFM. Weight stayed the same. It too gained a 2 mpg bump in fuel economy. So the 2017 Lacrosse gains an 8-speed + AFM + Start/Stop while also losing a few hundred pounds plus some minor aero tweaks. A 2mpg increase over the current model can be the least expected while there is certainly the possibility for more if they put a taller final drive ratio than the CTS/ATS into it.

The reason it wouldn't, in my opinion, is to push the technology out there to more people and then the little better CAFE score if they sell more as well. As small of a bump it would be...a better score is a better score. That would be GM taking a hit on profits though. I think they'll justify the price increase by limiting the powertrain to the highest of trims... Platinum and Premium Luxury. The 3.0TT is available in Luxury, Premium Luxury, and Platinum.

Jesus.. Did I miss the ELR being brought up in a conversation ? It was a waste of time. Basically there should have never been an ELR, as beautiful as it is... especially when you had the new Voltec powertrain sitting in the wings getting ready to come out in the CT6. Fact is... ELR should have been the ATS coupe or sub ATS sports car with a normal power train. A PERSONAL LUXURY COUPE. Nice. The ATS Coupe is the ATS coupe. I get the impression from the cut-away model that I saw, that this system in the CT6 is pretty bulky. I'm not sure how well it will scale down to an ATS sized vehicle. CTS would probably be the smallest it can go. The reason for this is the battery size/shape.

There is no reason to being comparing the ELR to the CT6. The ELR, while good looking IMO, was a limited use vehicle because it was a coupe and coupes of all types are hard sells. The only compromise I can see in the CT6 is in the trunk space due to the battery.