emh

Just saw the news...

The reason given for dropping the new V8 is "decline in demand for the V8" --- well, duh... that's because Cadillac has the least powerful V8 among its competitors and has no desirable car with a V8 option. People who want a premium V8 are buying other brands

Two things give me some hope:

1. The fact that GM isn't blaming the demise on CAFE, which seems to imply the decision was something specific to this engine (maybe it wasn't going to be competitive with upcoming engines in the segment)

2. "There are a lot of options to cover that premium V8 segment"

The "lot of options" better be along the lines of:

1. Some other 400+hp DOHC V8

2. Hybrid powertrains competitive with V8

3. V10 or V12

etc. and not tweaked V6es -- while high-powered V6s can cover a lot of the midddle of the luxury turf, the high-end absolutely needs V8 or more.

Wasn't there talk of a Caddy BRX crossover some time ago?

I ask because in the Spanish of most countries outside of Spain, VRX and BRX sound exactly the same.

I think you are on to something here

That is why AMG will never get hardcore enthusiasts, but me-too mentality people buying their cars to show off. Remember, BMW put 6-speed tranny as an after thought after customers denied buying the 7-speed SMG.

People who want to show off ARE the market for V, M, and AMG cars for the most part. An auto is a good thing as long as the manual also is available. The "hardcore enthusiasts" are buying Boxsters, Corvettes, 911s etc.

makfu, autoeng,

Congrats on your new cars! Please put up some pics when you get them.

I'd say with the 3.6 pfi and CTS compares very favoriably with the new 528. The 3.6 DI is only about .2 slower to 60 than the 535 so there is a good competitor for that car. What there isn't right now is a non V series v8 option to combat the 550.

In addition to the V8, CTS also needs to get some of the techno gadgetry that's available on the 5-series and E-class to be competitive -- adaptive cruise, 20-way power adjustable front seats, HUD, electronic trunk closing, front parking sensors, power rear sunshade etc. At least some of these will make it to the MCE according to rumors.

My point is that the technology is out there. The Tesla is a great example of this also.

I agree, but my point is that just because a technology exists doesn't mean it's commercially viable. For a good example, think about super-sonic flight -- technology that has existed for decades but isn't in use in commercial flight today (and the one historical use was a commercial failure).

Why is the Malibu, all new for 2008, scheduled for a redesign in 2011/12 while the already ancient Impala hangs around till the same time?

GM would be stupid to drop the Impala name. Especially right when the car returns to RWD.

If the Imapala hangs on in current from until 2011, the name will be so tainted and synonymous with outdated technology there will be no choice but to drop the name.

The part where I post the correct link. Sorry... fixed now to the correct article.

I see... thanks for the link. But you can't really compare a one-off technology demonstration to a production vehicle. A much more compelling case would be to argue why GM doesn't have a competitor to the likes of the Tesla roadster (0-60 in 4s and energy efficiency equivalent to 135mpg according to Wikipedia -- yes that great source of absolutely accurate information). Of course, this applies to all major manufacturers, not just GM.

I totally agree with #2. I had a big problem with the base engine from the beginning. If the optional engine gets better mileage and more power, what is the point of even having the other engine.

Uh... it's cheaper.

The Volt could be GM's most important car ever. I really hope they offer a luxury interior as well as the base. There are many people that gas mileage matters a lot to, but 45-60 year olds probably will want a nice interior, and not something like a college student drives.

There's no point trying to offer a luxury interior in the same car "a college student drives". I'd much rather see the technology adapted to existing cars in different market segments.

1. How does someone make an 80mpg, 640hp, 932 mile range Mini-cooper, yet GM struggles to bring a 40mpg Malibu to market?

The link you posted goes to a 78kW (~104hp) 200 mile range Mini for $50k. What am I missing?

That looks skimpy....

I hope the current G6 doesn't have to carry Pontiac on it's shoulders until 2012 without an MCE because if it does the division is toast.

My thoughts exactly... and it needs to be a very significant MCE too.

The most recent articles I've seen say that the G6 will be sold along side the Alpha Pontiac, much like the rumors of both an Alpha based Saturn as well as the Aura that we heard.

I'd much rather see 2 well executed Alphas -- a Pontiac at a mainstream price point and a Cadillac at a premium price point. Saturn should be fine with FWD -- all of it's competition is.

deeply discounted competitors and Toyota Motor Corp.'s new Tundra

That's redundant -- the Tundra is included in the "deeply discounted competitors".

The father of a friend of mine drove Cadillacs for years, until he bought one of the first year ('03?) Bangle BMW 7-series..nothing but problems, incl. the i-Drive. Unloaded it for a '05 Merc S-class...nothing but problems, in the shop all the time. Now? He's driving an '07 STS.

That's good to hear! The STS is a car that can appeal to BMW and MB buyers. My comment about those buyers not considering was specifically about the DTS (which I clearly said in that post).

Personally, I don't think a B-series range fits in with Cadillac's image.

Yes it does, and this is the biggest hole in Cadillac's lineup (not that there aren't other missing pieces, but this is the most costly one in terms of attracting newer generations of buyers to Cadillac). There's nothing wrong with having a well-designed, well-equipped, sport-luxury sedan/coupe/convertible with an excellent powertrain. Luxury and image is no longer defined by size...

Well Buick should expect me not to buy it. I am unwilling to pay that price for something that to me looks like a tarted up minivan. I can well afford to buy it, it's just that I am unwilling to buy it at that price point, even with my GM Employee discount and GM Card points thrown in. Sorry no can do.

In order for Buick to have any chance of survival, they need to draw a different clientele from Chevy/GMC, and that means it's perfectly okay to forego the buyers who are value-oriented. A big appeal of luxury brands (other than the vehicle itslef) is exclusivity. By definition, you can't appeal to value-oriented buyers and aspire to be a luxury brand.

The point someone raised about dealership experience is a good one. That's another aspect Buick really needs to pay attention to if they want to woo luxury buyers.

I think the picture is backwards/reversed.

Yeah, it's horizontally flipped.

See this link and go to GMT166 (although that name is given to the BRX on this site. It's incorrect):

http://www3.sympatico.ca/tedkrygier/future.htm

It looks as though the SRX will grow a bit, the BRX will be approximately the size of the current SRX, maybe a bit smaller, and there will be the CTS Wagon (CTW?) underneath those.

Oh, and there are going to be a few people on this site telling you I'm wrong, too. Just forewarning you. :AH-HA_wink:

Thanks for the info. If SRX is GMT166 on "Theta Premium", what's the BRX on?

This feels like another building block for auto-pilot.

It would help, but auto-pilot would need a backup system to this as well unless 100% of things on the road had V2V (including pedestrians, debris on freeways etc.)

You're right. The current generation SRX is going away in 2010.

Until GM publically makes a statement, anything 4 years from now is up in the air. They could cut it mid-program. However, the program still exists for a NG SRX and smaller BRX.

That's great to hear!! The high-volume part of the luxury crossover market is bigger than the BRX, so it would be silly to abandon that, and crossover buyers aren't generally interested in an Escalade. Any idea what platform the NG SRX is slated to be on?

Cadillac would sell primarily on design and secondly on affordability. Why spend $80k when you can get a car approaching that level of worth for $60k?

Affordability (or compromises for the sake of affordability, within reasonable limits) should not be part of Cadillac.

Also, I hope you aren't saying the DTS "approaches" the "worth" of an LS. No one shopping for an LS will even consider a DTS. I'm not saying the DTS has no place at Cadillac (it does, as long as there's a market for it) -- just that it's nowhere near an LS, far less an S or a 7 or an A8.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The SRX is not dying off just yet.

NOS2006, is this an opinion or do you have any info on this? I'd love to see the SRX live on (with timely updates, of course), but everything I've heard so far (other than the link in this thread) says it's going away around 2010.

Thank you but that is reason enough for GM!!! It is not selling well because or well enough for them because of fuel economy. the DI engine would help with the 6 speed but....it does not get it!

Lack of sales for the SRX has little to do with fuel economy -- it's in the same range as X5, ML etc. in terms of mpg. GM botched the launch pretty badly -- HORRIBLE interior the first year, product mix at launch (and long after) didn't match market needs, very constraining option packages until '06 or '07, missing simple en vogue options at launch (power tailgate) etc. Although these have been fixed since, it's too late to bring back the buyers who considered it and went elsewhere (and their friends who heard about it). Plus the not-quite-an-SUV exterior doesn't appeal to everyone.

Reskin it to make the front look more like an SUV, and put in the DI V6 and the SRX should be good for a few more years (even though the V8 is fast becoming outdated compared to BMW, MB etc.)

The sides are rather funky, but I like the front and rear. Hopefully the sides are more like the CLS if they're going for the short decklid look.

Yup, the front and rear are nice (esp. the rear), but the side looks too bulky and unattractive.

Too bad it looks like $h!.

GM should sue them for using the "SLS" moniker, and better do it fast, before these guys go belly up. :rotflmao:

I'm in Northern California, and I've never heard GM advertise on radio, probably the most targetted of traditional media outside of niche magazines. I usually listen to NPR and contempoprary pop/alternative stations, and have never heard any car commercials other than Toyota and Lesux (those two, on the other hand, seem to blanket the airwaves with new and certified used commercials), and VW sometime back.

This morning, I heard a Chevy ad on NPR promoting their alternative fuel research. I think NPR listeners may be skeptical until something like the Volt goes in to production, but I was glad to hear GM taking the initiative to reach out. Seems like GM is making progress, not only in products, but also in trying new marketing outlets!!