Drew Dowdell

I don't even think the QX60 is the most recognizable model (no, I didn't look that up. I saw one today). I think that honor falls to the QX80 (formally known as the QX56) because of its odd styling. I was referring more to what model comes to mind that is currently being built. Say BMW and people will reply 3-series or 5-series Say Mercedes and people will reply S-Class. Say Audi and people will reply A4 or TT. Say Cadillac and people will reply Escalade. Even say Lincoln and people will reply Navigator. "Oh, that Infiniti version of the Pathfinder" and "That big ugly SUV, QX something" aren't exactly ringing endorsements of brand identity.

What does Nissan have to offer GM? The VQ? Nah, the newest GM 3.6 is far more advanced. CVTs? Maybe on the Spark and Sonic, but GM seems to have them lined up already. Other transmission tech? What would Nissan contribute that the granddaddy of Automatic transmission builders can't or hasn't done already? Lower weight platforms? GM already has that in the works. I just don't see anything that Nissan has to offer that GM might want.

$54k!? For an X3? There's gotta be over a dozen better choices at that price.

Trains can and do stall if they're overloaded heading up a grade. The metal shavings make me think it could be wheel spin, but I have also seen similar things happening due to overloaded/overheating/failing traction motors that heat up the rail to the point where is melts. I did an image search and found this caption that went with the picture: The photo shows what happens when a train with multiple engines has the brakes applied, but one engine does not get a signal to shut down.

The thing is, pulling stunts does nothing to increase identity... and that's what the Eau Rouge, the Hong Kong move, and the Redbull team felt like... stunts. None of it does anything to help forge an identity.... they may increase awareness, they may help image... but neither of these things are identity. There was no commitment from Infiniti to follow through. Does anyone remember the IPL trim? It stood for Infiniti Performance something something.... it was a specially tuned VQ V6 that got you a massive 18 additional horsepower. You can only get the IPL option on the Q60 convertible for roughly $13k over the base convertible... Infiniti sold 5. Quick, what's the most identifiable Infiniti currently built.... remember you can't say G-series anymore. The reality is that the next plausible answer is the badge engineered Infiniti Pathfinder..... I don't know the real name and can't be bothered to look it up. That's the level of identity Infiniti has right now.... a semi-lux 4-door mini-van used primarily by real-estate ladies that no one can remember the name of and just refers to it by the Nissan equivalent name. And that's a problem for Infiniti....

I like Mazda's 4-cylinders and the efficiency of their automatics seems good. Aside from that, I don't see any benefit to GM for the partnership. I am beginning to wonder about Honda's health. I drove the new Pilot twice and the new RLX Hybrid. There are some serious deficiencies in both of these products that point to severe cost cutting. The Pilot is a particular head-scratcher to me, and it will be interesting to see what the rest of the motoring press says about it. I'm guessing they'll fluff it up as the best in class..... but I simply cannot see it. It doesn't trump any of the major competition, some of which has been on the market for years already. Traverse, Pathfinder, Explorer, Durango, Highlander, all have vastly superior interiors... The $46k spent on the Pilot Elite that I drove would buy you a lot of Explorer.... but the interior felt like a base CR-V...... it actually felt worse than my 2004 CR-V. Something serious is brewing at Honda, and I don't know how much longer their reputation will sustain them without outside help.

You already have people complaining about the prices. Add TT to each engine you add much more to the price tag. Also what would you use for the V sport then. Cadillac is offering a nice spread of V6 models that will hold a price that will give customers a choice. Most buyers will be happy with 335 HP as most people are fine at 300 HP in most cars. If they want more the 3.0 TT will be around 400 HP for the V sport when it arrives. You need to let them play the rest of the cards they hold and see the whole picture. A boosted six cylinder is the standard of this segment. Cadillac is trying to compete with less while having to try to overcome their inferior perception to buyers. That just won't cut it. They need to build a car that one ups the competition in every regard, not just one or two, and count on price to do the rest. They need more power, they need more luxury, and they need to be priced in line with their rivals. Bump the V Sport up to 470 hp, and put a 3.0 TT in the CTS below it with 375 hp. Most people being fine with 300 hp is irrelevant. By that logic, Cadillac shouldn't build the CTS-V . As always, it seems like they're just a few ingredients shy of the right recipe to show up the rest of the class. I'm unsure which Cadillac you're referring to, but if it is the CTS, you can get into a V-Sport for a couple grand less than the equivalent (or lesser) engine in the German cars. The list below, in order of price and excluding diesels or hybrids (because horsepower wonks don't care about those anyway). Every step of the way, Cadillac offers more horsepower for your dollar than the Germans. For example, if you're already going to spend at least $55k + options on a 300hp 6-cylinder 5-series, but ultimate power is important to you... spending an extra $5k (or less) to get into a CTS V-Sport seems like a no brainer to me. Or another example... I can't imagine going for an A6 3.0 Premium Plus with a few options for $61k when the V-Sport with those same options for the same money is one car lot over. What if you're bargain shopping your mid-size luxury vehicle? The lighter and more powerful CTS 2.0 rules the day over the 528i easily.... and even when upgrading the CTS to real leather seats, it is still $1k less than the BMW with plastic seats. CTS 2.0T - base price $45k - 268hp (Turbo 4) Audi A6 2.0T - base price $46 - 252hp (Turbo 4 - FWD) BMW 528 - base price $50k - 240hp (Turbo 4) MB E350 - base price $53k - 305hp (N/A V6) CTS 3.6 - base price $54k - 335hp (N/A V6) BMW 535i - base price $55k - 300hp (I6) Audi A6 3.0 - base price $57k - 333hp (S/C V6) CTS 3.6 TT - base price $60k - 420hp (Twin-Turbo V6) MB E400 - base price $63k - 329hp (Bi-Turbo V6) BMW 550i - base price $66k - 445hp (Twin-Turbo V8) Audi S6 - base price $70k - 450hp (Turbo V8) CTS-V 6.3 - base price $83k - 640hp (Supercharged V8) BMW M5 - base price $93k - 560hp (Twin-Turbo V8) MB E63 AMG - base price $101k - 577hp (Bi-Turbo V8) My point is, which your post perfectly makes clear, is that Cadillac is relying on a price advantage in comparison. The fact that you need to go up a trim to get a powertain that is conclusively superior to it's rivals isn't a good thing, imo. While the CTS 2.0T may enjoy a relatively level playing field in terms of power, refinement, efficiency, etc, the 36 certainly doesn't. A little bit of extra kick and their new 8AT isn't going to be enough to keep it from being overshadowed by it's rivals in my eyes. Also, when you start optioning the cars equally, the Cadiallacs pricing advantage gets eroded in many cases. As just one one example, an Audi S6 and CTS V Sport are only separated by only 2 grand when similarly equipped. And the S6 has AWD, a V8, and a proper DCT. And that kind of pricing level, the CTS isn't even an option for me, or virtually anyone else looking in this segment, and I think you know that. I'm confused by you saying "A proper DCT". The Cadillac 8-speed is as fast or faster than even Porsche's DCT.... or is the "how" more important than the results? If results don't matter, then sure, go for the DCT.. but don't claim that a DCT is better simply for being a DCT. If I select the V-Sport Premium and add 19" wheels (to make it fair) it comes in at $73k, yet I have to option the S6 up to $80k just to get the same level of tech that the Vsport has... so I'm still not seeing the vast Audi advantage you are (aside from AWD, which is a valid need in certain areas). You call it "going up a trim" but really it is just selecting a horsepower level at a specific price. The people going for raw horsepower pick the engine first and the trim second. The fact remains that at the pricing levels of the "buy-up" engines from Germany, you get V-Sport power from Cadillac. SMK likes to point at the Benz E400 and compare it to the Cadillac 3.6 for some reason, when for the same price as the E400, one can get a CTS V-Sport. It simply doesn't make sense to me to be okay with buying up to an E400, but objecting to buying up to a V-Sport. More examples? You can get the base CTS V-Sport for $64k (base plus 19s), but to get the same level of equipment in a BMW 535i, you have to option it up to $68k and you're still substantially down on power. 300hp v 420hp... no contest. Select the V-Sport Premium for $70k, match it option for option to a 535i, and you be paying $70k for a BMW with a 120hp deficit behind the Cadillac. If you go for the 550i, for the same price, you end up sacrificing tech to get the performance. Match the tech of the 550i to the V-Sport premium, and you're paying at least $7k more. You don't think it's fair to compare the V-Sport to the non-"Sport" models of the German sport-sedans? Fine. Starting with a 528i in blue (everything but basic black or white is an upcharge, blue seems popular in my area), we'll add heated seats, Driver Assist (rear camera, park sensors, heads up display), Premium package (Sat Radio and keyless entry), and SmartPhone integration ($200 just to plug in your phone), that gets you to $57k for a 240hp RWD BMW. Head over to Cadillac and select the base V6 for $54k, you get everything included in the above packages, plus cooled seats and another 95 horsepower. If you're fine with a 4-cylinder, stick with the CTS 2.0T, spend the same $57k as the 528i and get even more on the options list while still getting more power. It is very very easy to option the Germans up and over the base V-Sport prices.... or even just option up a lower powered car well over the price of the higher powered car from Cadillac. Unless you're buying a truly base price German trim (which almost no one does, they're not often even stocked), you're simply going to pay more for less at a German brand.

The car that just won't die...

adding the diesel also increases the towing capacity an additional 700lbs. I drove two of them last week (one Canyon, one Colorado) and hope to have my impressions up soon.

I wasn't sure how "all-new" it really was, so I didn't include it... but yes, it's there too.

You already have people complaining about the prices. Add TT to each engine you add much more to the price tag. Also what would you use for the V sport then. Cadillac is offering a nice spread of V6 models that will hold a price that will give customers a choice. Most buyers will be happy with 335 HP as most people are fine at 300 HP in most cars. If they want more the 3.0 TT will be around 400 HP for the V sport when it arrives. You need to let them play the rest of the cards they hold and see the whole picture. A boosted six cylinder is the standard of this segment. Cadillac is trying to compete with less while having to try to overcome their inferior perception to buyers. That just won't cut it. They need to build a car that one ups the competition in every regard, not just one or two, and count on price to do the rest. They need more power, they need more luxury, and they need to be priced in line with their rivals. Bump the V Sport up to 470 hp, and put a 3.0 TT in the CTS below it with 375 hp. Most people being fine with 300 hp is irrelevant. By that logic, Cadillac shouldn't build the CTS-V . As always, it seems like they're just a few ingredients shy of the right recipe to show up the rest of the class. I'm unsure which Cadillac you're referring to, but if it is the CTS, you can get into a V-Sport for a couple grand less than the equivalent (or lesser) engine in the German cars. The list below, in order of price and excluding diesels or hybrids (because horsepower wonks don't care about those anyway). Every step of the way, Cadillac offers more horsepower for your dollar than the Germans. For example, if you're already going to spend at least $55k + options on a 300hp 6-cylinder 5-series, but ultimate power is important to you... spending an extra $5k (or less) to get into a CTS V-Sport seems like a no brainer to me. Or another example... I can't imagine going for an A6 3.0 Premium Plus with a few options for $61k when the V-Sport with those same options for the same money is one car lot over. What if you're bargain shopping your mid-size luxury vehicle? The lighter and more powerful CTS 2.0 rules the day over the 528i easily.... and even when upgrading the CTS to real leather seats, it is still $1k less than the BMW with plastic seats. CTS 2.0T - base price $45k - 268hp (Turbo 4) Audi A6 2.0T - base price $46 - 252hp (Turbo 4 - FWD) BMW 528 - base price $50k - 240hp (Turbo 4) MB E350 - base price $53k - 305hp (N/A V6) CTS 3.6 - base price $54k - 335hp (N/A V6) BMW 535i - base price $55k - 300hp (I6) Audi A6 3.0 - base price $57k - 333hp (S/C V6) CTS 3.6 TT - base price $60k - 420hp (Twin-Turbo V6) MB E400 - base price $63k - 329hp (Bi-Turbo V6) BMW 550i - base price $66k - 445hp (Twin-Turbo V8) Audi S6 - base price $70k - 450hp (Turbo V8) CTS-V 6.3 - base price $83k - 640hp (Supercharged V8) BMW M5 - base price $93k - 560hp (Twin-Turbo V8) MB E63 AMG - base price $101k - 577hp (Bi-Turbo V8)

It's not even out yet.... that's why. You can't put an engine that doesn't exists into cars that do. I expect once the CT6 is rolling down the line, the 3.0TT will start flowing to other Cadillacs.

GM has been underrating some of their cars lately. Initial real world experiences indicate that the 3.6 highway MPGs will do better than EPA. City MPG is going to be highly dependent on how much you're using the auto Start/Stop feature.

the only poblem is, he is not being nearly truthful hear. Most of the GM platforms are older than he lets on. The Impala for example, just hit a platform Buick has been using for a few years and before that was running a NINE year old design based on a platform more than 20 years. The Regal, 11-15 Cruze, were both based on platforms sold and designs sold in the rest of world for YEARS before they hit our shores. The Malibu, 13-15 was based on that older Regal platform. Alpha really is the only new car platform seen before 16. Well no.... there is also the Gamma 2 platform (Sonic, Trax, Encore) that came out post BK. The truck and SUV platforms are new and that's where GM makes most of their money. You're also incorrect about the Impala. Epsilon 2 does not equal Epsilon 1. Impala came out in 2013 using a modified version of the Epsilon 2.... Epsilon 2 came out in 2008... so about 5 years. The Regal/Insignia was the first car on the Epsilon 2 platform, again released in 2008. E2XX is the replacement for Epsilon 2 and the 2016 Malibu is the first car on that platform. So, post BK and pre-2016 GM has released: Alpha Omega (CT6 will be here in December, just making the cut) Full-Size Trucks - K2XX Full-Size SUVs - K2XX Mid-size trucks (current iteration started in 2012 in other countries) Gamma 2 D2XX - the replacement for Delta 2 in the 2016 Cruze/Volt E2XX - the replacement for Epsilon 2 in the 2016 Malibu

Pickings were pretty slim in 1978.... Possibly a '78 Cadillac Eldorado or Seville I could never turn down a Toronado, regardless of the year and there are worse things in the world than having to drive a '78 Ninety Eight coupe. Lincoln Mark V is another possibility.

I've been in a few other brands cars with bose systems lately and they do not impress. I'm afraid you're probably right Paul

It's interesting you say that, because that's exactly what ATS did. It's also interesting that Ford acknowledges that the fast pace of Mustang sales is at a crest now and it will be difficult to maintain the same level of growth.

Audi, Benz, Chevy, BMW, Ford all have electrics now or will very shortly. I'm sure I'm forgetting others.

Let's just hope it wasn't the best part of you. Fingers crossed!

There has been basically zero investment (compared to petrol car R&D) in electric cars until the Pruis and Insight came out. Now we have electric cars with 200+ mile range and 0-60 sprints of 3 seconds.

Moto X Pure? Fap Turbo has one and he's Canadian.

FCA is very power train dependent. Tigershark + 9 speed only gets the sticker if you're gentle and know the little trick to get it into 9th gear. Hemi + 8 speed is the same way but for a different reason (fun to beat on at low speeds, only so much savings to be had at highway speeds), Pentastar 3.6 + 8 speed I always always blow away the highway EPA of 31mpg in a 300/Charger often get 35 - 36. I see 27mpg highway with the same powertrain in the AWD GC and Durango rated for 23/24... and like you, I'm not taking it slow. I haven't driven any of the transverse Pentastars with the 9-speed for long enough to get an impression. I've been disappointed in the Ford MPGs in the last few I've had. The only one that impressed me was the Excursion EL Ecoboost and only after I filled it with premium. GM is also very power train dependent. I'm not impressed with the Lacrosse, Regal, or Verano..... they just get the sticker if you drive it... like it's a Buick. My Encore does well above the EPA both city and highway. The Suburban blew me away with multiple 22+ mpg runs across Pennsylvania. The Lambdas are rated terribly and perform worse. The ATS-V, when you drive it as if it is a normal car, will get 33 - 34 mpg on the highway all day long... that number will drop significantly if you spool up the turbo though. The current Toyota Avalon is a sleeper in both power and MPG. Like the Chrysler LX cars, I get 35ish mpg highway. All of Hyundai's ratings still seem rather optimistic once getting in the real world, though the Genesis V6 does well. The old VW 2.5 5-cylinder had 4-cylinder power with V6 fuel economy. Rated for 29, got 27 at best.

Most shifters are "drive by wire" these days..... even the ones the look and feel like an old-school shifter.

Different projects and different timelines. The various V6es that came from Cadillac were supposed to be ready for the launch of the CT6, and they were originally supposed to go into that car first. Cadillac is doing more rolling changes year to year, so they went with the new V6es in all of the RWD models instead of waiting around for the CT6 to launch.

Because the 8-speed was always meant to go into all vehicles that can handle it. Well yes, buuuuuut now the Cadillacs have a truck transmission instead of the trucks having a premium Cadillac transmission. I know WE know the difference but it's the same type of situation that Ford did with Sync3. Why would they introduce it in a Ford not a Lincoln? I think the fact that it is one of the best automatic transmissions out there currently will smooth over that difficulty. I understand that and that putting it in their trucks first will help amortize the cost sooner and everything but it just seemed a little backwards.I can't wait will Ford catches up in this transmission game. Everything GM and Ram will have either 8 or 9spd transmissions by the time Ford gets their 9&10spds ready and GM will be utilizing them too. I don't think the amortization had anything to do with it. The trucks were ready to go and the engine updates for Cadillac weren't. You don't hold back on releasing the product to the trucks just so Cadillac can claim "First!".