smk4565

To the first point about if a luxury car wasn't quiet, no one would buy them, I agree. So why is the CTS-V (still a luxury car) getting a pushrod, not something more refined? If the CTS-V comes out at 66-67 decibels inside at 70 mph, I'll retract that statement. You don't need to rev all DOHC to get power, even a lot of the naturally aspirated ones make decent power off the line, and passing power is used more often anyway. The BMW twin-turbo six makes 300 lb-ft under 2000 rpm. BMW's new V8 makes 446 lb-ft at 1750 rpm, the Z06 can't even do that. My engine at 5500-6000 rpm still sounds smooth with no harshness. I never drove a 5.3, I am sure it is fine for a pickup truck, but I'll pass on one. Toyota is probably having issues with the Tundra engine since that whole truck is new, it isn't because it is a DOHC engine.

BMW's twin turbo V8 is expected to average only 1 mpg less than a CTS or Malibu V6. Plus BMW has 35 mpg cars coming here, and already sell stuff that gets 40-50 mpg in Europe. There will always be V8s and fast cars regardless of CAFE. Automakers are still going to make what people are willing to pay for.

CAFE my stop the ZR1, but I think they'd keep the Z06 at least. These are low volume anyway, they should be able to offset it with Volts, E85s, etc. One way to help CAFE is kill Hummer, they have sold like 33,000 trucks all year. I'd rather see them dump Hummer which has very low demand and build more sports and luxury cars that people want.

I like the clear hood, no one else has that. But I like the Z06's look more, some of the air vents and spoiler and that lower front air dam look a little tacky. This thing has too look as sleek as a Ferrari or Aston Martin, and parts look a little plasticy. The original ZR1 I thought had a great look, nothing on it looked like a tacky add on in a Fast and Furious movie. I am glad they brought the ZR1 back though, they needed an elite car like that. The Nissan GT-R looks like the real deal, it is almost hard to believe how fast it is (beats a Z06 on Nurburgring and in 0-60 time). Hopefully the ZR1 can out perform it and maintain the Corvette as the best performance per dollar car.

I hope the Ultra V8 is out in the 09 model year. M-B, 382 hp, Lexus 380 hp, BMW will be 407 hp, 446 lb-ft on some 09 models. Cadillac has the 320 hp Northstar. BMW used to always have the weakest engines and rely on steering, handling, braking to close the performance gap, now they have the most powerful cars too. Cadillac has to speed up their innovation and technology and role out new models. GM can't get complacent ever with them. This is why I say kill Hummer which doesn't sell anymore (down 30% this year) and kill Saab also a sales dud, and pump all their resources into Cadillac to make them a real global brand.

How would you know? GM hasn't turboed a a pushrod in 20 years. Aside from old school Bentley buyers, who wants a turbo pushrod anyway? 100 lb-ft of torque per liter doesn't happen in pushrods (Bentley is very close), but BMW has done it twice with gas engines, does it with their diesels and the Solstice/Sky GXP do it. DOHC is the superior engine, and the CTS-V doesn't have it. If anyone is looking for an STS-V near Pittsburgh, there is a 2007 model with 6,000 miles for sale for just $46,750, original sticker of $78,910. $32k depreciation in less than one year is a joke, but it does make for a killer used car buy. It is cheaper than a loaded CTS.

Earlier I said how BMW has a new V8 coming and Cadillac needs a really good Ultra V8 fast to compete, and the X6 info was released today. "The range-topping X6 xDrive50i is propelled by an all-new twin-turbo 4.4-liter V8 unit producing 407 horsepower at 5500 rpm and 446 pound-feet of torque between 1750 rpm and 4500 rpm. The sprint to 62 mph takes just 5.4 seconds and fuel economy is estimated at around 19 mpg (U.S. gallons)." That is 5.4 seconds to 60 in an SUV, imagine it in the 5-series sedan (it will be in the 6 and 7-series as well). 19 mpg is pretty good too, that is only 1 mpg less than a CTS that gives up 100 hp and 173 lb-ft of torque. For all the pushrod lovers that say pushrod is superior to DOHC because of low end torque, why does BMW's engine make 446 lb-ft at 1750 rpm? That is more than the Corvette 6.2 liter at a much lower rpm. Cadillac should have an engine like that

My car is a 2001, and the engine is smoother and better sounding than 05 and 06 pushrod V6s that GM uses. 8 vs 6 cylinders plays a part, but the V6 Aurora is better than the 3.4, 3.5, 3.8 liter V6s. If those pushrods are not technologically advanced, why are they on current and very recent GM cars? Pushrods are good for trucks where refinement doesn't matter as much, and they are cheap and make torque, but they shouldn't be on a Cadillac.

First off, I think Toyota will be fine, they still have Lexus at the top of the reliability chain, and Toyota is top 10, they still do better than 28 or so other brands. Toyota is going to be #1 in global sales, and more importantly, made nearly $15 billion in profit last year, I read they did $5 billion in profit during their last quarter. Their cars are bland but they are a profit machine, they aren't going to fade away. I used the SRT-8 because of the higher price that puts it in line against some luxury cars and the higher hp that puts it with the M3, RS4, old CTS-V, etc. The 300C does well against $33-37,000 cars because the competition is less, buyers are not as discerning. But once you move into luxury car prices, the market is different. I think all those tuner type Civic, Celicas, etc are junk, but there are lots of performance part upgrades for them. DOHC or pushrod makes no difference really on availability of parts and upgrades.

The teaser looks good, I think the front end of the Volt is going to look awesome. It has the new Chevy looks, the headlights have that sleek Saab look, but the Volt is better looking. This is the car that can save GM. I just hope the interior is nice, and not like a Cobalt.

But they can't do without the baby-boomer generation that heavily buys imports, all of which are OHC engines. Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Lexus, Infiniti, Acura, Mercedes, BMW, Audi, VW, Porsche, Volvo, Jaguar are all OHC engines. Even the Malibu had to abandon the pushrod because they can't win over buyers with it. If GM concludes that a pushrod can't compete with the Camry, how can one compete with the M5 and other $80,000 cars. How are Chrysler SRT-8 sales? And about the modifications, I would guess that Civic Si, Scion, RSX, Celica, Lancer, Eclipse type cars get modified more than luxury cars. All those rice burners are DOHC, they don't seem to struggle finding parts for them.

Well the Quad 4 was a disaster. I had a pushrod Cavalier as my first car, that wasn't great either, reliable though. I've driven the LeSabre, I have been in my friend's Monte Carlo and an LS1 Corvette, my step brother has an LS1 Firebird that I've driven a few times. I've driven the 3.4 liter in the old Grand Am, I have rode in my friends Malibu with the 3500 V6 many times. I have driven the 06 Impala, all and all a pretty good sampling of GM pushrods. None of them come close to the quietness, refinement or smoothness of my Aurora's DOHC V8. From 0-120 mph, that engine is smooth, no vibration or harshness anywhere. And there are better DOHC V8s out there as well. I won't even consider a pushrod car after owning a DOHC.

So Zeta is better than the Sigma platform as well? Then a G8 would be better ride and handling and more solid feeling than a CTS. Zeta is world class compared to other $25-40,000 cars. It can't compete with an S-class or 7-series. And people that spend $80-150,000 on a car don't want anything that is shared with a Chevy, they are paying for exclusivity. The other problem is the $70k+ buyers are all imports buyers, that thing American cars are unfashionable or not up to par with the imports. To get those kinds of buyers converted, they need to build an incredible car with amazing technology.

Louder, not as smooth, vibrate more, harsher sounded when near redline, can't rev as high or fast. Need more displacement to make power; the 197 hp 3800 V6 is a prime example. DOHC is better. I have a DOHC V8 (a GM one too) and no pushrod can match the refinement of it.

Car and Driver December 07 issue tested the 2008 M3, which will be around for another 6 or so years. 3571 pounds (177 pounds more than the old one), nearly 500 less than a C63 AMG. The M3's V8 is also lighter weight than the I6 it replaces. M3 0-60 time is 4.3 seconds, 12.8 seconds for the 1/4 mile. The C63 is 0-60 in 3.9 seconds, but the M3 won the comparison (RS4 was in it also).

We can wait for performance numbers, but since the 3-series is a better performer than the CTS, it is likely the M3 will be better than a CTS-V in that regard. The M3 is around 3400 pounds, vs 4250 for a STS-V. We'll see what the CTS-V weighs, I am guessing 4100-4200. The SS-V reminds them of a 2002 M5, and they are going to release a Cadillac on it on 2011 and compete with BMW's 2011 cars. Building similar to what BMW did 10 years earlier is not going to challenge them. GM is going to have the G8 (and Holdens), Impala, Camaro, maybe a Buick, the DTS (or whatever it is called) and a ULS all on the same platform. That is some massive badge engineering. The ULS should be an exclusive all aluminum chassis. The S-class is $88-181,000, Cadillac won't get people to pay that much for a car based on a $26,000 Pontiac/Chevy no matter what engine or what interior they put on it. The BRX, CTC coupe, CTS-V and Escalade hybrid are the only future vehicles on Edmunds.com for Cadillac. BMW, Audi and Mercedes have about 10 each by 2010. The Alpha and Zeta Cadillacs will be key, but are a long way out.

I don't think the CTS-V will blow away the current M5, which means it will fade away once the new M5 comes out. It isn't just horsepower either, it is how the car performs and feels. The M3 has 414 hp, yet a 4.3 seconds 0-60 time. The CTS-V will face the same problem as the CTS, it will be priced with the M3, but not be able to perform like it. BMW and Mercedes had a lot of reputation and image behind them as well, it is very hard to break through that. Price cutting doesn't do it either, the Mercedes S-class is the most expensive car in it's class, yet it sells well in that segment. Cadillac has to rebuild an image of being an elite car. The future product plans don't seem to convey that though. I hope the BTS-V doesn't have a pushrod also. Cadillac will never top the elite cars with parts from Chevy (Zeta DTS).

The CTS-V comes out as a 2009 model, the M5 will be a 2010 or 2011 model, probably 2011, so that gives the CTS-V 2 years to hang with the current car. The current M5 (which is 4 years old already) is 0-60 in 4.5 seconds and without a speed limiter can go over 200 mph, which even the Z06 can't do. Putting the CTS-V against an $85,000 car is kind of setting it up to fail. Cadillac can out-torque the M5, but BMW is the master of steering, suspension and gearing, and lower weight usually leads to better handling, that is why the Corvette stacks up so well against so many cars. M5/E63/RS6 buyers I don't think care about price, they care about image of the car, and ultimate performance. Cadillac price cutting the elite brands won't work, they have to build a better car. Fuel efficient Cadillacs I think can put them back on top as a technological leader. Putting a lot of horsepower in a car is easy, but getting 30 or even 40 mpg is not. If they have a 35-40 mpg BTS, and 35 mpg CTS, while the rest of the cars in that class are near 20 mpg, it gives them a huge competitive advantage and could lead to a lot of sales, especially from people that previously didn't consider a Cadillac or American car. A V-series might sell 5,000 a year, but a 35 mpg luxury car might sell 50,000. It is something they must work on, Mercedes is working on a hybrid diesel S-class that gets nearly 40 mpg, that is Civic hybrid gas mileage, in a full size car.

Cadillac better cut some weight and get a better transmission and interior then. The M5 is 4012 pounds and has 7 gears. Plus a new M5 is going to have more aluminum and carbon fiber to cut weight, and a rumored 600+ hp twin turbo V10. The 5-series is getting an 8 speed automatic, not sure what the M5 will get, it might stay 7. The CTS isn't equipped to match up with that car, I wish it was, but it isn't right now. I'd like to see a 35 mpg CTS soon too. The 535d (on sale in Europe, coming here soon) beats an Aveo or Camry hybrid in gas mileage, while equaling the CTS DI's 0-60 time, Cadillac has to get to work on high mileage vehicles as well. I think they could do a great BTS, but it is taking an awfully long time, and I don't know if they will make the BTS interior better than the 08 CTS interior, while offering better than XLR performance with the mid-level and V engines.

Well it will probably be priced against them, but too big and heavy to run with them. The M5 has a lot more equipment/features inside and a 40 valve engine which may be getting twin turbos added to it in 2 years. Perhaps the CTS-V should be compared to the STS-V, that is it's closest rival.

From seeing the CTS in person, I think the trunk looks high and thick, which makes the hood look lower and gives the downward slope which I am not a fan of. I think the old car was better proportioned in that regard, but I like the bigger grille (just wish it wasn't plastic) and new lights on the 08 model. I think AMG does the best job of not making a luxury car look tacky or like something form The Fast and The Furious, Lexus does the worst job of it with that IS-F, that is all plastic tacked on junk like a 90s Pontiac. The CTS-V molding isn't bad, but it could be better. I wonder how fast this thing is, and how heavy.

I like the base car's front end more, even with the plastic grille. The V-series grille is too small in the top part and too huge at the bottom part, it looks odd. The body moldings on the front/side look a little plasticy. The last generation V-series was a better transition from the base car, it looked more aggressive and sporty but with subtle changes so it didn't look tacky. The Lexus IS-F looks tacky, this is borderline. This car looks downward sloping from rear to front, I am not a fan of the high trunk and low hood, or the bulge in the hood either. It doesn't look as elegant as other cars in that price range. I hope everyone doesn't compare it to the M5 also.

The Camry came out in 1983 as a compact, in 1992 it was redesigned to a midsize car. I think it was 1996 when it passed the Taurus in sales. The Malibu isn't exactly new, it has been out since 1997, and was around in the 1960s as you pointed out. Chevy is losing sales. For people that have a lease that expires in November, if they narrow it down to Malibu and Accord they are going to buy an Accord because the Malibu isn't on the lot. Poor planning on GM's part. Toyota has a more efficient production system than the other auto makers and multiple factories to build the Camry in, there is never a shortage of Camry's on dealer lots and it has been #1 or #2 selling car for 11 years. This is where GM killing a brand could help, it frees up factory space to build the cars people actually want (and opens up R&D and marketing dollars for cars like the Malibu/CTS) and they cna build less cars like the G6, Grand Prix, G5, Torrent for Enterprise, Avis and Alamo.

The bad news is they are advertising the car like crazy, but it isn't on dealer lots. So if people need a car in November or December and can't get one, they'll end up at the Honda or Toyota dealer. They are losing sales because they can't get it on lots. GM always advertises cars a ton when they are new, then scale way back after a year or two. So when production ramps up, they will cut advertising, then they'll get an excess on dealer lots and that is when the phone call to Enterprise and Avis happens. The Malibu is too good a car to be treated like the G6 or Grand Prix.

There are about too many brands and models now, vs just a few mass producers in the early 1900s. The market is obviously different now, just as it is different than the 1960s. All I am saying is the Malibu should sell 360,000 a year at least, it should outsell the Altima, and at least compete with the Accord and Camry. I suppose Toyota could buy GM and get to about 45% market share, then buy Ford and get to 60%, but they have no interest in buying anyone else. It is possible to do, every share of GM today is worth $16.07 billion. Toyota posted $5 billion in profit in the last quarter alone. Their cash reserve is enough to buy another auto maker if they wanted, but they seem to be happy without getting involved with anyone else.