ZL-1

US will probably be a marginal market for them, so they can bring an offering to top out their commercial vehicle offerings in the US.

It won't matter that much in a car like the SRX/XT5. I'm more disappointed this isn't on Alpha because I think GM should try to leverage out the Alpha variants as much as possible to give it volume (Omega is a mystery in that regard as well, assuming it isn't really a scaled up Alpha) and maybe for image reasons down the line. Maybe Alpha wasn't designed to accomodate any CUV/SUV variants?... Anyway, for now this C1XX CUV to replace the SRX and a D2XX CUV to slot below it can be made into excellent entries in their segments; Cadillac just needs to really sweat the details.

Only thing I don't like is the rear spoiler, but guess the extra downforce is a necessity...

hell

Glad to know the spirit of free enterprise is so alive and well in the state of Michigan.

Cute green colour there...

Not surprising: hybrid is good for EPA ratings, but also for performance assist as the electric motors have high and constant torque. Just have a base version geared towards mpg without too much performance sacrificed, and on top of that offer an all-out hybrid performance model.

It is great that apparently Cadillac's been given the autonomy it not only deserves, but NEEDS in order to compete. Interesting, though, that people are only fixating on the names... I guess the only thing I'd do differently is to give a full name to the above-CT6 sedan to pair it with the Escalade (which I'd turn into a RR-kind of SUV, opening up room for an Omega large CUV below it).

Envision is on D2XX, not Theta.

Saw a white one (Spanish plates) this morning when driving into Lisbon. Nice; different enough from the Mokka you guys get as a Buick.

Plain and simple: the GS deserves more power. Love that red colour, btw.

I'm thinking two-pronged strategy rather than a back down.

My interpretation is that this was meant as that, on a tit-for-tat basis, it won't compete (especially against the S-Class and its upper variants). I'm forming this guess that a longer sedan is in the works - think of a Bentley Mulsanne type of beast without the USD 300.000 price tag.

May be I should have stated better. The NAME CT6 is as anonymous as K9000. The car just exists without any siginificance. There was no comparison of actual cars intended. As far as second comment, may be again, I should have stated better. You have a number 6, which has no significane whatsoever, and is possibly associated to the biggest car in the lineup, what numbers the smallest cars are going to see? -1, -2, -3? At least give yourself room for expanding at the bottom if you are going to be stuck with the logic of using CT and a number. It is funny de Nysschen is poo-pooing about the name change and how it is important to the brand. And here we were giving him a free pass for being hired after the trademarking of names. I think there's room for that expansion: CT6 and CT5 have been trademarked; we now know what CT6 is, and CT5 could either be a 4-door coupe or an Alpha-based (or Omega-based - that's what I'd do to maximize the 'milking' of both the Alpha and Omega architectures) 2 door to sit between what is now the CTS sedan and the CT6. I expect the CTS to become CT4 and the ATS to either become CT3 or CT2. Don't see the need to go further down than one notch below where the current ATS is; Buick can and should handle that. You may not, but GM sees the need to build a RWD car smaller than ATS. According to Uwe Effinghaus. I wrote "one notch below where the current ATS is"; that's the RWD sub-ATS. Further down than that, I don't see that need.

May be I should have stated better. The NAME CT6 is as anonymous as K9000. The car just exists without any siginificance. There was no comparison of actual cars intended. As far as second comment, may be again, I should have stated better. You have a number 6, which has no significane whatsoever, and is possibly associated to the biggest car in the lineup, what numbers the smallest cars are going to see? -1, -2, -3? At least give yourself room for expanding at the bottom if you are going to be stuck with the logic of using CT and a number. It is funny de Nysschen is poo-pooing about the name change and how it is important to the brand. And here we were giving him a free pass for being hired after the trademarking of names. I think there's room for that expansion: CT6 and CT5 have been trademarked; we now know what CT6 is, and CT5 could either be a 4-door coupe or an Alpha-based (or Omega-based - that's what I'd do to maximize the 'milking' of both the Alpha and Omega architectures) 2 door to sit between what is now the CTS sedan and the CT6. I expect the CTS to become CT4 and the ATS to either become CT3 or CT2. Don't see the need to go further down than one notch below where the current ATS is; Buick can and should handle that.

No offense, but bull$h!. This is commonly touted as "necessary", yet it has never been show to be factual in automotive history. Oh sure, some will point to well-off brands and say 'it works for them', but that's not in anyway 'proof' of anything. No offense taken. Problem is Seville, for example, started out as smaller than the others alternative to imports, then 20 years later it was renamed SLS/STS, then CTS is supposed to be the entry-level model with the STS on top of the line, then all of a sudden an ATS comes by and the CTS takes the place of the old STS... It's been a mess... If GM had stuck with a logical progression of its old car names (Seville, DeVille, Fleetwood, for example), it wouldn't have any branding issues. Bottom line is that it's pretty irrelevant if they use alphanumeric designations or full names, as long as they're consistent and people understand which names belong in which segments. Funny thing is that, as you know, GM actually kind of did all of this logical steps branding before with their old LaSalle, Series 60, and Series 70 Cadillacs...

Problem is those old names mean nothing to people outside of the car enthusiast crowd. Like it or not, it's the way it is. Cadillac needs naming consistency and a logical progression of model names.

CT6 is just a name. IIRC Cadillac also trademarked CT5 (CTS coupe? NG CTS? Omena coupe to sit between CTS sedan and CT6?) I tink logic would say ATS becomes CT2 and CTS becomes CT4, coupes can then be named CT3 and CT5... I think crossovers will get a different nomenclature, and Escalade will remain Escalade. If they do a car above the CT6 it should have a name; in fact, I think the next Escalade shoule already be in the planning stage and Cadillac should make it a (for comparison purposes) BOF-SUV-SClass-Pullman kind of vehicle...

No clue on the details, but I guess it mostly means a separate budget so the brand can have more independence in sourcing vehicle systems.

Perfect powertrain for an Infiniti Q80 production model?

I, for one, love the new C-Class. IDK exactly why but the design has struck a chord with me. My only dislike is the home-TV-like touch screen floating on the interior...

Neat; Infiniti seems to be doing a good job in expanding its portfolio and this is clearly hinting at a flagship that does not chase the S/7/A8 model focusing more on the CLS/6GC/A7 instead.

Cadillac has very thin powertrain choices when compared to their competitors; they need to work on that really fast or they risk thet what works in the US doesn't work in Europe or China. They also need uniqueness/distinction, hence the new V8 talk.

He's 100% right. However, I fear that GM's way of doing business is not compatible with this...