nferr

It's sad to see the old brands die away. I remember the Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Buick, Plymouth, Mercury, even AMC of the 60's. But realistically all these nampelates were and are shadows of themselves. In fact Oldsmobile probably had the best lineup of any of these brands just before it's demise. Pontiac, Buick and Mercury are practically a joke today. The funny thing is Pontiac right now has a much better linep than Buick which is an absolute disaster, as is Mercury.

The truth is you can get the same cars, slightly different, from the other GM divisions. If Pontiac is not going to be the affordable performance division than it has no real purpose. Truly sad, I loved Pontiac in the 60's.

I remember the days when GM sold 200,000 Devilles a year. I love the car, but this is a declining niche.

Yeah, it's a capable and nice looking big car, but it's totally outgunned by it's competition. It does make a decent used car buy. One and two year old DTS are all over the place cheap as can be (fleet cars?). The vast majority of younger people hate the car and it does nothing to enhance Caddy's image, which is the big problem with the car IMO.

wow. i agree with PCS.

i tend to agree more with the editorial comment in MotorTrend that suggested a new era in American Muscle cars.

the Camaro is a throw back and will sell in the first year (when is that again) and then sales will wither and dry up like a pail of water in the Arizona sun.

the times, they are a changing and the Camaro would have been great in 2005. not so in 2009.

I agree. It took them too long to get this car to market. It will sell OK initially to fans who have been waiting to get a new Camaro. After that it will have to sell to the general market. It's just the wrong type car in this environment unfortunately.

Very, very cool. I bet that thing sounds great too.

I have an '07 CTS too......LOVE it.....already has 37,000 miles on it and it's as tight as day one......and I've only had two very minor problems the entire time (backup lights went out, and I had one faulty tire-pressure monitor.)

What color do you have?

Mine is black/black, with the "sport" package with 18-inch polished multi-spoke wheels, and a 6-speed manual.......only option mine doesn't have is navigation (GROAN) which, for some inexplicable reason, wasn't available with the sport package.

Mine's silver (platinum they call it)/two tone interior, with the 17" polished sport package and the luxury package and the Bose/moonroof package. I don't have nav either, I think that's the only option I didn't get, it's an automatic. Mine only has 12,000 on it so far, because I drive my 84 Corvette a lot in the summer. In fact I've commuted in the Vette every day this week. I actually drove an 08 CTS and preferred the 07, it felt sportier and lighter to me. The 08's were just out when I got my 07. An identically equipped 08 was a lot more money and didn't have the 72 month 0% financing I got on the 07. The CTS is a real nice blend of sport/luxury.

No, of course not.

First off I owe you apology for that, I guess you just came off like

some of the angi-GM, negative Troll.... we get those from time to

time. people who have nothing positive to say get on this forum,

pull the pin out of grenade, toss it into a few threadsand then they

scram... it bugs the crap out of me.

Again, making half-assed product andtrying too sell uninspired cars

for the better part of the last 1/4 century is at least partially to

blame for how GM got in this mess to begin with!

And the SIXTEEN, if replicated in a limited run of say 1600 cars total

would, should cost more than $150,000. Probably twice that.

In any case the middle eastern sheik who offered $10,000,000 for the

concept is a great indication of how priceless such a timeless classic

would be.

It would sell millions of posters andappear in every damn magazie from

Business Week to Kids' ESPN... it would be the face that would lauch

a thousand ships, millions of kids would drool at it when it would, no

in tless TV shows, rap/rock/country music videos and a whole new

generation would be hooked on Cadillacs, instead of Bentley , BMW &

other makes that have more curbside appeal to Gen.Y.

What al of you are forgeting is the publicity factor.

Agreed, I've been on both sides of the fence.

I will be the first to say that GM's dealer network is

an achile's heel... actually they're practically the

enemy in some cases.

-- however --

Building amodern day sixteen cylinder ultra-luxury car

has little to do with the dealer network, that needs

to be fixed regardless... even to sell $38,000 CTS out

of their current dealer networkhas its problems.

Good for you, congrats on the choice of RWD Cadillac.

Thank you. I love the CTS. I originally wanted an STS but for the difference in price (my CTS is an 07) the loaded up CTS offered just about everything the STS had. And it rode sportier. Thus the problem with the STS, especially compared to the 08 CTS. Don't know why Caddy didn't differentiate the STS more, instead of just softening the look. They should have stetched the frame, kept the sharp angles and gave it almost every option as standard.

As for the dealerships, its a huge problem. I had a Jag X-Type before the CTS. The Jag dealer was all new and modern, felt like a modern office buiding with nice wood touches, only Jaguars would be in the showroom. The salespeople were upscale in the way they treated you, service was unbelievable. They would pick the car up at my house in the morning and leave a loaner in my driveway. At night they would either drop the car off at my house and take the loaner back or come to my place of business, which was 50 miles from the dealer and drop off the car.

Wow... way to insult GM you 45 time poster with a keen intelect.

In 1992, Jay Leno, (the car-guy's car guy) bought a Dodge.

Yes a fu&$ing DODGE. The same company that had a $9995

special on a mitsu-based Colt and still sold the g*d-damn

brick-on-wheels Dynasty & puke-a-rific Spirit

And yet Jay Leno paid $70,000 for a Dodge that year, just a

decade or so after Chrysler corp. declared (in layman's terms)

BANKRUPTCY.

But all you synical-sissies will reminnd me every day for

the next three decades how Cadillac has been busy selling

cars for $32K-$70K, because G*d-forbid that we elevate

Cadillac to the "standard of the world" it was for the better

part of the last century.

GM is tight on money & in dire straights because of

exactly this kind of bull$h! & mediocre thinking.

Let's get 'nother focus group together & hire a bunch

of Nabisco executives, maybe we can make a Delta

based Cimarron II & a theta based Asstek.

Wow, so you think the number of posts has something to do with intellect?? No wonder you think GM is going to design a $150,000 16 cylinder Caddy to sell alongside the DTS while it flirts with bankruptcy. How about they just make a competitive large sedan first?

And I bought a new CTS last year so I've seen the Caddy shopping experience up close. The dealerships are far, far, from what most luxury car buyers expect.

What part of "ultra luxuy" do you not understand?

Wo said GM should even sell 500 "Sixteens"?

Even if they sold 50 or 25 a year... it would do more

for Cadillac"s image here in the USA & abroad than

aything since... well since the original ohv V16.

Yup... I hear most Bugatti Veyron customers are very concerned

about the replaement cost of the 4 turbos... get real, this would

not be marketed as a car to replace the SLS & Catera.

At one point, the 8-liter, V10 Dodge Viper, W16 Veyron & McLaren

F1 were just figments of overactive imaginations... even the

relatively tame Gen.5 Camaro was, according to many here on C&G

said to be the stuff of fantasy...

Yeah, I can just see Bugatti custmers shopping in your typical Caddy store

Mine sells Pontiacs-GMC's and Buicks in the same showroom as Caddy. Before they took it over the old dealership sold Hyundais in the same showroom!

Caddy survives as an "affordable" American luxury brand. Today GM has no funds to take risks on $150,000 cars that will sell 100 a year. They're barely surviving at the moment.

Caddy doesn't even have a competing V8 (the Northstar is outdated) and people think they're going to consider a V16 in this marketplace? they would be lucky to sell 500 a year. I could just see the typical Caddy customer asking what a tuneup costs on the V16 - or typical repair costs. They shelved the new DOHC V8, never mind development cost of a V16. It's dreamworld.

btw- wife likes srx, was warm on wagon

Yup. My wife drives an X3. Her lease is up in Sept.09. She looked at the pictures and loves the new SRX and absolutely hated the CTS wagon. Thier brains just work differently than ours where cars are concerned. My wife is not crazy about my CTS either. But my three daughters, all in thier early 20's love my CTS. Funny they all hate the CTS wagon pics too, and like the new SRX. I think Caddy has hit the Lexus RX market dead on with the new SRX. I bet it sells very well, depending on price of course.

One of our Executives has one of these auto's. I was not impressed. Lot's of money for a name. The look is just OK. I will take a caddy over this car.

A Caddy over a Maserati Quattroporte???? Well....ok I guess

That car is HOT. The best looking Caddy since the late 60's Eldorado IMO.

Good grief, Americans ... I'm not being a "smartass." I'm a qualified accountant. I'm telling you that unusual items, or one-time charges, are quite common with large corporations. Usually they're the product of accounting entries, but they can be expenditures caused by unprecedented situations - such as strikes or mergers. An unusually small profit or large loss can be the result of an unusual item, and GAAP/IAS requires that they have separate disclosure in the notes to the financial statements.

I'm not making excuses for GM - they've been running an aimless company now for the past twenty years, and that's why Toyota has been running rings around them. While Toyota has spent the last ten years in North America strategically placing models in virtually every segment from B-segment through to C-segment hybrids to full-size SUVs, GM has concentrated only on larger vehicles which yield the greatest unit profit - a highly risky approach in the event of soaring fuel prices or an economic downturn, and especially so in a country with a relatively small company car market such as the USA. The fact they decided to run up such an enormous deferred tax reserve was one of their accounting mistakes - that particular write-off contributed to a sizeable loss, however it was merely a book entry.

Continual loss-making is grave cause for concern and can only be carried on while the company has a positive balance sheet, since that denotes viability as a going concern. In other words, GM is continuing in business from its accumulated capital reserves. However, stories such as this are a case of journalists not being accountants. The media is out to sell stories - it's that simple. They often thrive on sensationalism to achieve that result. If you don't understand the mechanics of accountancy, you're not going to see the bigger picture.

Yeah, but a one-time loss is still a loss. You keep getting hit with massive one-time losses and you're still out of business. All it means is that the particular loss is not from continuing operations. It would be a lot better to be getting one-time gains wouldn't it? Right now GM keeps getting blasted by huge one-time losses and they're still losing money from continuing operations also. The cash drain is massive.

I love Amtrak. Living in the Northeast it's pretty convenient to hop on the train and avoid the traffic and the airports. I've done about five cross country Amtrak trips too. There's nothing like having your own sleeper and traveling across the country.

The gas crisis might finally get our country to wake up and fund rail properly.

Acura competes on price and dealer service. I've owned two, a Legend and a CL - they price their leases really aggressively. The cars are very sporty for everyday driving, not good for absolute performance due to the front wheel drive. They're big sellers here in the Northeast because of the FWD and because they come absolutely loaded standard. The only option on most models is navigation.

Thier bread and butter car, the TL is getting long in the tooth but a new one will be coming out next year so I'm sure they'll be getting press again. The new TSX is coming too.

Acura's a big seller around here. You see them all over the place in the Northeast.

read everything please

The difference between the CTS and the 3-series in terms of handling is so marginal that it would only be noticed on the track.

I even bolded it for you.

And again that is not true. But stick to your beliefs if it makes you feel better.

I did not change my statement at all. Handling and comfort are not mutually exclusive. Two cars can handle quite similarly while one is more comfortable. In fact, that was my point exactly. The difference in handling is rather small in favor of the 3er while the difference in comfort falls in the CTS's favor.

No you said the difference can only be felt at the track. I understand the point you're trying to make. I disagree that the handling difference is small at least between a CTS and a 3-series. You can feel the difference in everyday driving. The 3-series has a lot less body roll too. Even my daughters say that our BMW X3 steers much quicker than than our CTS.

But they like the CTS better as do I. Like I said in another post Cadillac has to carve it's own image. It doesn't have to be BMW. Caddy seems to be going for a splashier car that handles well (not as well as a Beemer) with more comfort.

I've driven the 3-er compared to my '04 CTS. No I wasn't pushing the 3er hard because it wasn't mine... I have driven the CTS fairly close to it's limits. In everyday driving, of which 99% of either of these vehicles will be doing, there is little discernible difference. The CTS does feel bigger because it is. The BMW's suspension is tauter... a negative for me living in Western PA. A taut suspension isn't a benefit if the only time it will make a difference in handling is at 9/10ths. The CTS is the car I'd rather commute in and roadtrip in because it is more comfortable than the 3-er and offers 95% of the handling. The next time I'm buying a car for the Nürgburgring, I'll re-evaluate the criteria for buying a car.

Point is, most people who buy the 3er don't buy it for the handling... they buy it because it's a BMW and their co-worker told them it had great handling.

Now you changed your whole statement around. First you posted the only way one could feel the difference is on the track. Now you post you would rather have a CTS because it's more comfortable. I happen to agree with you - I have an 07 CTS with the sport package. It handles well. But I drove an 07 3-series and it was considerably sportier - on the road - not on the track. It feels sportier all around. Yes many people buy BMW's because of the image - also because of the resale value (leases are great on them because of the high residual value, and also the free maintenance which Caddy doesn't offer. AND many buy them because they are sporty cars despite what you think. I have a BMW X3 and in some ways it's sportier than my CTS despite the fact it's an SUV.

You don't see BMW's with landau roofs - I have a neighbor with an 07 CTS with a landau roof, gold trim, and wire wheels - what an atrocity. Cadillac's image is changing but other than the XLR and CTS it still says "old peoples car" to many. They have to drop the current DTS quickly if they want to get rid of the image.

You may not like it but image sells cars, BMW's image is well deserved because the cars live up to the image. Cadillac's image is still muddied. Look what happened to Oldsmobile when it tried to sell contemporary cars next to ancient Cieras marketed to the senior citizens.

I agree with all the points in your post except this one. The difference between the CTS and the 3-series in terms of handling is so marginal that it would only be noticed on the track. The 3-series has been so successful because it's the cheapest car with the blue and white rondel on the hood. I highly doubt that Suzy McMansion who gets a 328i for highschool graduation will be pushing the car past 7/10th of it's capabilities. She is just happy that she has one and Shirley Trailerpark doesn't.

That's not true. Have you driven both. I have. The BMW steers faster, goes faster, has a more taut suspension, the engine sounds better and feels sportier. Now perhaps on sheer numbers they may perform close (I don't really think so), but the BMW 3-series feels like it handles better and that's what sells in the showrooms.

Cadillac has to compete on it's own merits because it can't (and shouldn't) try to be a better BMW.

Cadillac doesn't have to be BMW - and it shouldn't be - because frankly it doesn't do BMW as well as BMW does. Cadillac should be Cadillac, but a modern luxury car has to have performance, it has to handle, it has to have road feel. The days of the overstuffed couches on wheels is over. Let Buick try to maintain what's left of that market. Now every Cadillac doesn't have to be the same either. There should be a small sports sedan, a midsizer and a larger car. They don't have to directly compete with BMW on performance but they better be quality performing sedans. Lexus doen't compete directly with BMW on performance terms but they're a direct competitor in the marketplace. That's what Caddy has to do - carve it's own place in the marketplace.

I think the new CTS is a start with distinctive American styling and ride. But now they need a smaller size sedan and they need a larger sedan. The DTS is crap in this market and that's why it sells for low prices. Look at the ads, it's discounted heavily when new and depreciates like a rock. It's a drag on Cadillac's image. GM should try to switch this market over to Buick with the Lucerne (same platform) and keep Cadillac as a true premium brand.

I think the BRX could sell well as it should target the RX350 crowd. Make it real luxurious, decent handling for the soccer mom crowd, and price it right. They should make AWD and the 3.6 standard. It's the type of car my wife would definitely like (she drives a BMW X3 now). I think if it's done right it will sell substantially more than the SRX.

However I think they should update the SRX also, make it look less like a wagon (that's why it's not selling) and target the BMW X5 market too.

Wow, nferr... you are cross-shopping Chevrolet and Cadillac. That's pretty much unheard-of. Is that good news for Chevrolet, or bad news for Cadillac, and GM in general? BTW, good luck with your new CTS!

Siegen is mad because the tables are turned against Honda (which normally gets a free pass on everything) in this review. Waaaahhh, get over it. Is it necessarily going to ruin Honda? Of course not.

I have personally seen some bad, varying bumper cover fits on new Accords at the local dealership... but to make Siegen feel better, he can check out Ted's Malibu walk-around thread, for a photo of a misaligned '08 Malibu front bumper cover.

I personally feel the new Accord is over-styled, and not handsome at all this time around. The coupe is only marginally better than the sedan in this regard.

GM still has some catching up to do in the wider market perception thing. The new Malibu looks to be on track to change plenty of minds if it is launched and marketed flawlessly, and if it proves reliable over time on all the nerdy surveys. I don't need convincing, I think it's an excellent car.

Wasn't so much cross shopping them. I needed to get a car by next spring and the Malibu sounded very promising in V6 trim. The CTS kind of popped into my mind when I saw the six year 0% financing. It's not hard to figure that the payments would be close to what the new loaded up Malibu would be with normal financing. And I've always loved the 03-07 CTS styling. With the big discounts and 0% financing on the leftover 07 CTS it was a no brainer to me. And I got a loaded up CTS with the luxury package, sport package, moonroof and Bose. So I jumped a little early. I actually had to search through the GM site changing zip codes like crazy to find one with decent equipment and color. I live in Connecticut and found the one I bought in New Jersey. Other than size the Malibu and 2007 CTS are not that comparable but they do have the same V6. The CTS is a true RWD sport sedan while the Malibu is a decent handling FWD car.

I really think this is the first car out of Detroit that has a chance to cut into the Accord/Camry dominance. It might take a few years but the public could turn back to American cars in this segment if the Malibu holds up on the reliability end. It takes a while to change the perceptions of the buying public.

I was seriously considering getting one. But I just got a great deal on a leftover 07 CTS. Listed for $40,400 - got it for $32,300 after all the discounts, GM card points, conquest etc. and got 72 months at 0% financing. Was to good a deal to pass up especially since I've always loved the 03-07 CTS styling. A loaded up malibu with normal GM financing would probably have come out with equal (maybe higher) payments.

BMW's and Cadillacs are different animals in some aspects. You can't compare them by size. I have a 2006 BMW X3 and a 2007 Cadillac CTS 3.6 with the performance package and luxury package. Every test I've read has the Cadillac as quite a bit faster BUT the BMW feels faster for some reason. The BMW steers quicker, the suspension is tighter, the engine sounds better. And I'm comparing Cadillac's sports sedan to a BMW SUV. Sorry to say but the BMW's are better enthusiast driving machines than Cadillacs. And yes I've driven the 08 CTS, I found it very similar to the 07 in driving dynamics.

Now I love the CTS, it has a nicer ride than the BMW and feels more luxurious but I can see why an enthusiast magazine like Road and Track would favor the BMW and Infiniti (which leans more toward sport like the BMW).