I just got my recall letter from Cadillac. It stated, "the tires on your vehicle may develop a bulge or crack on the inner sidewall of the tire. Although the crack or bulge may be unsightly, it will not affect the performance of the tires. This is not a safety issue."
"To insure that you are completely satisfied with your new Cadillac vehicle and to prevent the possibility of this condition occuring, your Cadillac dealer will replace all of the Goodyear 17-inch tires on your vehicle."
Thanks for the info. I'll have them check out the other problems when I go in for the tires. While my sailpanel airbag covers look and fit OK, it won't hurt to have them check it out. Since our CTS was an early (Feb 02) build date, it will be interesting to see what they come up with.
The few small problems we've had on our CTS have been handled quickly and courteously. I believe Cadillac finally woke up to the fact that if you treat your customers with respect, their next car will be another Cadillac.
We certainly wouldn't hesitate to buy another CTS.
If the CTS Sport 3.6 L is only available with an auto trans, and the 3.2L engine with a manual trans is to be phased out, then the only manual trans that could be available is the CTS-V. I hope that Cadillac isn't serious about this.
I think they only reason they kept it around was because they didn't have a manual transmission ready for the 3.6.
I'm not bashing the 3.2. I think its a good engine that gets maligned unnecessarily and I happen to own a 2003 CTS. But it's no match for the 3.6, and it probably costs as much to make.
Biggest objective difference is FWD vs. RWD. If you like to drive hard the CTS will handle better - it has a better F/R weight distribution than the accord (FWD adds weight to the front). If you just like to cruise around and don't do any spirited driving then you probably won't notice much difference. Spririted drivers prefer a balanced chassis and RWD. The Accord probably exhibits some degree of torque steer under hard throttle.
I think there are some luxury features on the CTS that the accord doesn't have like driver personalization. Other than that the differences are mostly subjective. You really have to drive them both and decide for yourself. They're both good cars. You might also want to look at a Lincoln LS V6. 2003 models were selling for about the same as a V6 accord EX-L and the 2004s are close with all the rebates. Same benefits as the CTS, just different styling and features.
The CTS lacks several honda features the 03 accords have exhibited:
brake rotors that warp and get turned several times in first 15000 miles sunroof rattles squeaks rattles in door where window meets door console rattles pops in the front body subframe when body twisting erratic leads in steering hard starting in v6 see honda accord problems Part 2! discussion group for more details from owners' reports
I just got my tire recall letter today . Looks like like I am getting 4 new tires . THe problem is .....will the dealership we able to mount the new tires without scratching the wheels .Or they will replace the wheels too .
When I took delivery of my blue Lux Sports CTS back in late 2002 I had to change the front left strut in under 5,000 km. Now with 18,000 km on the odo, the same strut is leaking oil again and is knoking as i drive. How can i lose the same strut twice in under a year. To day I visited the dealer, and there was customer with a Lux package CTS (with the smaller 2.6 litre engine). He told me he had the same problem too within the 1st months of ownership. I have not read this problem on the board and may be it is particular to export CTS's
Also my CTS have developed noticeable front tire wear typical of too much Camber. Knowing that the Camber on the CTS is unadjustable, I wonder if this is a manufacturing flaw?
GM is putting out an OHV 3900 V6 2 valves per cylinder with VVT. It will be rated at 240HP and 245ft-lbs. 90% of the torque is available between 1800 and 5800 RPM. This engine has 0.3L displacement over the 3.6L but the 3.6L has 4 valves per cylinder. Based on these two engines from GM DOHC/SOHC designs are not more powerful than OHV.
Hey peccles - you need to update your email address - please email me when you see this (pat@edmunds.com).
And actually, everyone needs to ensure that the email address listed in your profile is current. It doesn't have to be public, but it does have to work.
Just bought '04 CTS Silver Smoke, Auto Trans. Can't wait to get it on the road. Have the day off tomorrow. Thanks to those who responded to my questions.
Here's a goofy little thing I noticed last week. My CTS has the standard CD player and DIC console (No Nav system). About a week ago, was driving home in the middle of the night and I noticed what I can only describe as a low power (but noticeable) strobe light type flash coming from the Heater/AC display at the bottom of the center console. Over a period of about an hour, it happened maybe half a dozen times. Wasn't the whole display but rather just around the edges (like something behind it was flashing). Never seen this before (or noticed it anyway) and in reality, it's "mama's" car so I really don't drive it a lot (I'm sorry to say). But she doesn't recall seeing anything like this before either. The CD player was running although the sound was very very low. I'm wondering if the CD reader strobe/light was somehow bleeding through even though the lower display is, relatively speaking, quite a ways away from the CD player. Anyway, it was just too weird. Anyone else ever seen this...or got any ideas???
"I thought the 3.6L puts out 255 hp - the 3.9L OHV only puts out 245 hp. Sounds like the OHC engine puts out more power with less displacement to me."
So?
Displacement is a relatively unimportant measure of engine size. The 3900 is - reportedly - around the same size as GM's 4 cylinder Ecotec 2.2L. And it costs $1K-$2K less to make than the 3.6L DOHC. That's power density and value that's hard to beat.
"Based on these two engines from GM DOHC/SOHC designs are not more powerful than OHV."
was incorrect. It didn't say anything about value or efficiency. It said OHC designs are not more powerful than OHV designs. The data that was given does not support that conclusion since the smaller OHC engine actually puts out more power than the larger OHV engine.
Its not smaller, that's cornell's point. Displacement is not the true measure of engine size. What matters is how much you can squeeze under the hood of the car, so total engine volume is a better measure.
Why do you think they used the 5.7L vette engine in the CTS-v? Because its smaller than the 4-4.5L northstars that won't fit in the CTS engine bay. The true measure of efficiency is Power/Fuel consumption. Power/Displacement is pointless.
Bingo! DOHC heads are very bulky. What matters is overall bulk, weight, BSFC, and flexibility.
Typically OHV wins the first two, the problem has been making it competitive on the latter two points. It's reasonably possible to do so (see LS1/LS6) but takes very sharp pencils.
DOHC gives you the ability to do variable valve timing, which isn't as yet practical with a single bumpstick in the valley. Which typically means you're going to get a fatter, smoother torque curve from the DOHC engine.
There is no one right approach.
As for $1000-2000 per unit cost advantage for the OHV vs DOHC engines, that might be a little high; the 3.6 was designed to be a cheap engine to build, and it's being used as the base engine in the Aussie Holdens which, at the lower end of their line, are US$20K cars.
Physical engine size is only an issue to car builders and even then only in a few models where a large engine is desired in a smaller vehicle. Even then, having a smaller form factor simply allows the OHV engine to have a much higher displacement (5.7L vs. 4.6L e.g.) thus making more power.
But power and fuel economy are directly related to displacement. An engine is an air pump - pure and simple. It needs fuel to mix with the air to ignite it. More displacement = more air which requires more fuel = more power. Or you can get the same effect with a turbo or supercharger. More air requires more fuel = more power. Why do you think GM is trying to reintroduce capacity on demand where it shuts off half the cylinders? To save fuel!
So I think it's more accurate to say that OHV designs allow bigger displacement within the same physical dimensions which may in turn yield more power than a OHC engine of the same dimensions.
But as jemiller points out - it's all a compromise. You could have the same argument about V6 and I6 engines.
"But power and fuel economy are directly related to displacement. An engine is an air pump - pure and simple. It needs fuel to mix with the air to ignite it. More displacement = more air which requires more fuel = more power. Or you can get the same effect with a turbo or supercharger. More air requires more fuel = more power. Why do you think GM is trying to reintroduce capacity on demand where it shuts off half the cylinders? To save fuel!"
Uhhh... Stop making stuff up, man.
Fuel consumption is not as simple minded as "Gee, big combustion chamber burns more gas". It also depends upon how much fuel is being pumped in there each cycle, and how many cycles per second there are... Not to mention what temperature the engine is running at (Carnot Cycle, anyone?).
Why did Honda introduce hybrid technology on little Civics that already get high fuel economy? Because they were gas guzzlers? There goes your logic. GM is introducing DOD on its OHV engines because it's a cheap and easy technology to implement, that will drastically improve GM's CAFE ratings. Yup, no more selling Cavaliers at $3,000 loss to move Hummer H2 (or at least not as many as before).
The fuel economy numbers for GM's new OHV engines are very good. Chevrolet Malibu's 3500 is among the best in class. Cadillac CTS-V will beat the hell out of the M5 when it comes to fuel economy, and trump the puny M3 as well.
Probably cost a couple hundred dollars more, if that. A good estimate is the 4 times rule. If it costs GM $50. Then it's the MSRP will be $200. Optional items that cost $50 will have an even higher MSRP.
The 3.5L DOHC motor was a $500 option on the '99 Oldsmobile Intrigue. Gm was probably subsidizing that.
On my '84 Z28, the H.O. engine package which consisted of a Corvette cam, cat con, dual snorkle air cleaner and electric cooling fans was $505.
it is thought that the dollar to yen advantage that japan has is allowing them to offer OHC engines at a significant cost advantage.
So, exactly what part of that paragraph did I make up? You obviously don't understand how internal combustion works. There has to be a certain ratio of fuel to air or you get problems - too rich or too lean. You can add air by forced induction or you can increase the volume of the cylinder - in both cases you must increase the amount of fuel accordingly or the engine will run lean and that's not a good thing.
"Why did Honda introduce hybrid technology on little Civics that already get high fuel economy?"
TO GET EVEN BETTER GAS MILEAGE. Especially at idle when the engine can be shut off entirely. 10-20 extra mpg is a lot no matter where you start from.
"GM is introducing DOD on its OHV engines because it's a cheap and easy technology to implement, that will drastically improve GM's CAFE ratings."
Gee - isn't that exactly what I said? They're doing it to improve fuel mileage and reduce fuel consumption. You do know that CAFE stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy - don't you?
Has anyone had any experience with tire cables for winter driving?
GM says do not use tire chains on the CTS. They say to use 'another traction device but only if the manufacturer recommends it for use on your vehicle', which I take to mean cable type devices. But which manufacturers recommend their device for the CTS. I think this is a CYA line for GM. If the device fits and has clearance it should be usable.
If anyone has used chains or other traction device I would appreciate hearing from you.
How can I remove these stickers that advertise where I bought my car? One looks like a clear sticker which I should be able to peel once I get a corner up. The letters look like individual stickers. Looks a little harder. Anyone with some suggestions?
jhl4: The first thing to do is to wait and be very careful! DO NOT attempt to remove it with a screw driver or some other tool that you might choose to see if you can loosen the sticker just enough to peal it off. I've seen owners, salesmen, and dealer body repair guys do permanent damage trying to remove dealer logos and stickers. There are several techniques/tricks to remove them without permanent paint damage. Some techniques involve heat (hair dryers), liquids, and other "magic" processes. I refuse to buy a car with a dealer logo or sticker attached to the paint of the vehicle. It chaps my behind that some dealer toad will stick an ugly 95-cent sticker on a $20K - $40K car (and 50% of the time put in on crooked). I've discovered that when I get to the point where removal of the sticker becomes a "deal stopper", most dealers find someone who can remove it without leaving a telltale spot on the vehicle. I suggest you take the car back to the dealer and ask them to remove the sticker for you. They probably have experience removing stickers from trade-ins. If you don't have confidence that your dealer can do it without damaging the paint, I have two other suggestions. 1) Take it to the body/paint shop in your area that has the best reputation for excellent work. Pay them to do it correctly. 2) Standby on this site until someone else provides good advice that you feel you can trust. Until you feel very comfortable with recommended solutions, revert to my original advice to wait and be very careful. Good luck. If you are patient, I'm sure someone will have a good solution for you.
YIPEEEEE!!! After driving the 2004 3.6 my impression was that it was still underpowered and not a significant enough change from my 2003 to warrant a trade-in. With the announcement of the CTS Sport I think I know what my next car will be...
The added features (particularly the supercharger) sound great...I just wish they didn't add a stupid rear spoiler!
Is it just me though, or doesn't it seem like a supercharger and custom exhaust should boost the HP more than 50?
If they're plastic or metal you can use dental floss - lay it flat against the edge then use a sawing motion while moving it underneath the decal. Use bug and tar remover or WD-40 to remove any residue.
A couple of reasons for only a 50HP increase could be:
1. They would need to beef up the 3.6L to handle more boost.
2. Don't want to surpass the 4.6L Northstar.
I think the spoiler's got to go too. That's why it's called a spoiler. It spoils the look of the car.
The CTS sport needs a 6 speed manual option and Stabiltrak (as an option at least). From reading the release, it does not imply it will necessarily be produced. It might be worth an e-mail to Cadillac and give feedback.
The base car desperately needs a lil kick in the pants aesthetically, as an option anyway. If I could have only one thing, I'd want the V series 18" wheels. Please don't give me a different style Cadillac. See MB & AMG and how they a la carte body kits, wheels, etc.
Much of why we need to deal with the vehicles we do today has to do with CAFE and other requirements of the U.S. EPA. Canada goes along for the ride, but it's a real trip to see what vehicles are available in Europe, absent these requirements. I'm sure Australia has a similar bevy of attractive vehicles. One of the options is to move to Australia or Europe.
You'll not be surprised to learn that I consider that a completely viable concept, for a variety of reasons. I'm confident that most of you don't, but what we're fed here for vehicles absolutely don't represent the best of what's available.
Yes, the Holdens make 99.9% of what GM builds in the US look like crap. No question.
They are traditionally 'American' cars - very roomy, not great material quality but better than the present-day US standard, big lazy engines. IMO their material quality is at least as good as the CTS, you get exactly the same headliner material on a US$18K Falcon rentacar.
They also have real, MODERN, rear-drive chassis - okay, the Fords feel a little better, but the Holdens are very good. Once again, traditionally American but unlike most of what Detroit builds now - the only well-balanced, modern rear-drive sedans built in the US are the Lincoln LS and CTS, both of which are a couple price notches above the Aussie product.
So why don't we get something like these in the US?
CAFE is unquestionably one reason, probably the biggest reason US cars aren't more like Aussie cars (and a significant part of why US auto buyers have abandoned cars for trucks.) They're comparatively large cars with large engines.
Also, once upon a time Detroit was almost universally rear-drive, but in the meantime a lot of 'em have drunk so much of the FWD Kool-Aid that they've convinced themselves that RWD is weird and somehow un-American. Well, maybe in certain corners of the snow belt FWD has some advantages, but people there drive Audis, Scoobys, and trucks anyway.
Funny, though, that FWD is supposed to provide 'packaging' advantages - more room for a given size vehicle - the Falcons and Commodores are smaller than Tauruses and Impalas yet a good bit roomier despite being RWD. They're a couple inches longer than the CTS, and that room goes straight into the back seat. The stretched Holden, the Caprice/Statesman/Senator, is up at least in Town Car territory room-wise, yet still smaller than a Dodge Intrepid.
EPA and DOT regulations have little to do with it, the cars could easily meet US standards with little tweaking. A bigger issue is RHD - the Aussies drive on the 'wrong' side. The GM products are built in LHD form for Middle East markets, but so far as I know Ford can't build a LHD version of the present Falcon.
And, finally, Lutz liked to pin the blame for the 20K-unit limit on GTO imports on UAW grousing.
If GM would sell the Commodore SS here, I'd buy two. If Ford would sell the Falcon GT here, complete with its 2000 Cobra R-spec 5.4 engine, in the US$50-60K range I'd trade a BMW for it. Aesthetically, I like any of 'em better than the CTS, though the CTS-V mechanical package is as good as the Falcon GT.
Fascinating how different markets react differently to similar product: Toyota can't get Lexus to make any kind of dent in BMW/Mercedes in Europe, and Toyota Australia is considering dropping the V6 Camry entirely because it can't sell against the GM/Ford products (and to some extent Mitsubishi.)
wow! i like it very much! obviously it is impossible to tell from this pic if the material quality is up to par with Audi/Lexus/etc.... but i like the layout very much. Its like a blend of Xlr and CTS styling cues. im very intrigued.
Comments
Let's see if we can find it in a GM press release. And then post the link.
"To insure that you are completely satisfied with your new Cadillac vehicle and to prevent the possibility of this condition occuring, your Cadillac dealer will replace all of the Goodyear 17-inch tires on your vehicle."
Thanks for the info. I'll have them check out the other problems when I go in for the tires. While my sailpanel airbag covers look and fit OK, it won't hurt to have them check it out. Since our CTS was an early (Feb 02) build date, it will be interesting to see what they come up with.
The few small problems we've had on our CTS have been handled quickly and courteously. I believe Cadillac finally woke up to the fact that if you treat your customers with respect, their next car will be another Cadillac.
We certainly wouldn't hesitate to buy another CTS.
Many have pointed out that a sports-sedan without a manual doesn't get much respect.
Others beg to differ.
I hope that Cadillac isn't serious about this.
I think they only reason they kept it around was because they didn't have a manual transmission ready for the 3.6.
I'm not bashing the 3.2. I think its a good engine that gets maligned unnecessarily and I happen to own a 2003 CTS. But it's no match for the 3.6, and it probably costs as much to make.
I think there are some luxury features on the CTS that the accord doesn't have like driver personalization. Other than that the differences are mostly subjective. You really have to drive them both and decide for yourself. They're both good cars. You might also want to look at a Lincoln LS V6. 2003 models were selling for about the same as a V6 accord EX-L and the 2004s are close with all the rebates. Same benefits as the CTS, just different styling and features.
The CTS lacks several honda features the 03 accords have exhibited:
brake rotors that warp and get turned several times in first 15000 miles
sunroof rattles squeaks
rattles in door where window meets door
console rattles
pops in the front body subframe when body twisting
erratic leads in steering
hard starting in v6
see honda accord problems Part 2! discussion group for more details from owners' reports
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
for the 3.6L with the '05 MY. I am also suprised
that Stablitrak is not standard for the CTS Sport.
Also my CTS have developed noticeable front tire wear typical of too much Camber. Knowing that the Camber on the CTS is unadjustable, I wonder if this is a manufacturing flaw?
Well, proof that the OHC design will get better power all over compared to the 3800 that is so highly touted in the GTP.
I like this new engine, with or without supercharging.
cylinder with VVT. It will be rated at 240HP
and 245ft-lbs. 90% of the torque is available
between 1800 and 5800 RPM. This engine has 0.3L
displacement over the 3.6L but the 3.6L has
4 valves per cylinder. Based on these two engines
from GM DOHC/SOHC designs are not more powerful than
OHV.
And actually, everyone needs to ensure that the email address listed in your profile is current. It doesn't have to be public, but it does have to work.
Thanks!
So?
Displacement is a relatively unimportant measure of engine size. The 3900 is - reportedly - around the same size as GM's 4 cylinder Ecotec 2.2L. And it costs $1K-$2K less to make than the 3.6L DOHC. That's power density and value that's hard to beat.
"Based on these two engines from GM DOHC/SOHC designs are not more powerful than OHV."
was incorrect. It didn't say anything about value or efficiency. It said OHC designs are not more powerful than OHV designs. The data that was given does not support that conclusion since the smaller OHC engine actually puts out more power than the larger OHV engine.
Why do you think they used the 5.7L vette engine in the CTS-v? Because its smaller than the 4-4.5L northstars that won't fit in the CTS engine bay. The true measure of efficiency is Power/Fuel consumption. Power/Displacement is pointless.
Typically OHV wins the first two, the problem has been making it competitive on the latter two points. It's reasonably possible to do so (see LS1/LS6) but takes very sharp pencils.
DOHC gives you the ability to do variable valve timing, which isn't as yet practical with a single bumpstick in the valley. Which typically means you're going to get a fatter, smoother torque curve from the DOHC engine.
There is no one right approach.
As for $1000-2000 per unit cost advantage for the OHV vs DOHC engines, that might be a little high; the 3.6 was designed to be a cheap engine to build, and it's being used as the base engine in the Aussie Holdens which, at the lower end of their line, are US$20K cars.
But power and fuel economy are directly related to displacement. An engine is an air pump - pure and simple. It needs fuel to mix with the air to ignite it. More displacement = more air which requires more fuel = more power. Or you can get the same effect with a turbo or supercharger. More air requires more fuel = more power. Why do you think GM is trying to reintroduce capacity on demand where it shuts off half the cylinders? To save fuel!
So I think it's more accurate to say that OHV designs allow bigger displacement within the same physical dimensions which may in turn yield more power than a OHC engine of the same dimensions.
But as jemiller points out - it's all a compromise. You could have the same argument about V6 and I6 engines.
Uhhh... Stop making stuff up, man.
Fuel consumption is not as simple minded as "Gee, big combustion chamber burns more gas". It also depends upon how much fuel is being pumped in there each cycle, and how many cycles per second there are... Not to mention what temperature the engine is running at (Carnot Cycle, anyone?).
Why did Honda introduce hybrid technology on little Civics that already get high fuel economy? Because they were gas guzzlers? There goes your logic. GM is introducing DOD on its OHV engines because it's a cheap and easy technology to implement, that will drastically improve GM's CAFE ratings. Yup, no more selling Cavaliers at $3,000 loss to move Hummer H2 (or at least not as many as before).
The fuel economy numbers for GM's new OHV engines are very good. Chevrolet Malibu's 3500 is among the best in class. Cadillac CTS-V will beat the hell out of the M5 when it comes to fuel economy, and trump the puny M3 as well.
if the oHC costs that much more than why do hyundais all have it?
a 9000 hyundai accent has it but a 40,000 buick don't.
that DoD sure is taking FOREVER to hit market. I've only heard about it for like 3 years now.
A good estimate is the 4 times rule.
If it costs GM $50. Then it's the MSRP will be $200.
Optional items that cost $50 will have an even higher MSRP.
The 3.5L DOHC motor was a $500 option on the '99 Oldsmobile Intrigue.
Gm was probably subsidizing that.
On my '84 Z28, the H.O. engine package which consisted of a Corvette cam, cat con, dual snorkle air cleaner and electric cooling fans was $505.
it is thought that the dollar to yen advantage that japan has is allowing them to offer OHC engines at a significant cost advantage.
"Why did Honda introduce hybrid technology on little Civics that already get high fuel economy?"
TO GET EVEN BETTER GAS MILEAGE. Especially at idle when the engine can be shut off entirely. 10-20 extra mpg is a lot no matter where you start from.
"GM is introducing DOD on its OHV engines because it's a cheap and easy technology to implement, that will drastically improve GM's CAFE ratings."
Gee - isn't that exactly what I said? They're doing it to improve fuel mileage and reduce fuel consumption. You do know that CAFE stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy - don't you?
Select Cadillac then CTS.
GM says do not use tire chains on the CTS. They say to use 'another traction device but only if the manufacturer recommends it for use on your vehicle', which I take to mean cable type devices. But which manufacturers recommend their device for the CTS. I think this is a CYA line for GM. If the device fits and has clearance it should be usable.
If anyone has used chains or other traction device I would appreciate hearing from you.
Anyone with some suggestions?
The first thing to do is to wait and be very careful! DO NOT attempt to remove it with a screw driver or some other tool that you might choose to see if you can loosen the sticker just enough to peal it off.
I've seen owners, salesmen, and dealer body repair guys do permanent damage trying to remove dealer logos and stickers.
There are several techniques/tricks to remove them without permanent paint damage. Some techniques involve heat (hair dryers), liquids, and other "magic" processes.
I refuse to buy a car with a dealer logo or sticker attached to the paint of the vehicle. It chaps my behind that some dealer toad will stick an ugly 95-cent sticker on a $20K - $40K car (and 50% of the time put in on crooked). I've discovered that when I get to the point where removal of the sticker becomes a "deal stopper", most dealers find someone who can remove it without leaving a telltale spot on the vehicle.
I suggest you take the car back to the dealer and ask them to remove the sticker for you. They probably have experience removing stickers from trade-ins. If you don't have confidence that your dealer can do it without damaging the paint, I have two other suggestions.
1) Take it to the body/paint shop in your area that has the best reputation for excellent work. Pay them to do it correctly.
2) Standby on this site until someone else provides good advice that you feel you can trust.
Until you feel very comfortable with recommended solutions, revert to my original advice to wait and be very careful.
Good luck. If you are patient, I'm sure someone will have a good solution for you.
After driving the 2004 3.6 my impression was that it was still underpowered and not a significant enough change from my 2003 to warrant a trade-in.
With the announcement of the CTS Sport I think I know what my next car will be...
The added features (particularly the supercharger) sound great...I just wish they didn't add a stupid rear spoiler!
Is it just me though, or doesn't it seem like a supercharger and custom exhaust should boost the HP more than 50?
be:
1. They would need to beef up the 3.6L to handle
more boost.
2. Don't want to surpass the 4.6L Northstar.
I think the spoiler's got to go too. That's why
it's called a spoiler. It spoils the look of
the car.
The CTS sport needs a 6 speed manual option
and Stabiltrak (as an option at least). From
reading the release, it does not imply it will
necessarily be produced. It might be worth
an e-mail to Cadillac and give feedback.
Much of why we need to deal with the vehicles we do today has to do with CAFE and other requirements of the U.S. EPA. Canada goes along for the ride, but it's a real trip to see what vehicles are available in Europe, absent these requirements. I'm sure Australia has a similar bevy of attractive vehicles. One of the options is to move to Australia or Europe.
You'll not be surprised to learn that I consider that a completely viable concept, for a variety of reasons. I'm confident that most of you don't, but what we're fed here for vehicles absolutely don't represent the best of what's available.
Please take a long trip and tell me I'm wrong.
They are traditionally 'American' cars - very roomy, not great material quality but better than the present-day US standard, big lazy engines. IMO their material quality is at least as good as the CTS, you get exactly the same headliner material on a US$18K Falcon rentacar.
They also have real, MODERN, rear-drive chassis - okay, the Fords feel a little better, but the Holdens are very good. Once again, traditionally American but unlike most of what Detroit builds now - the only well-balanced, modern rear-drive sedans built in the US are the Lincoln LS and CTS, both of which are a couple price notches above the Aussie product.
So why don't we get something like these in the US?
CAFE is unquestionably one reason, probably the biggest reason US cars aren't more like Aussie cars (and a significant part of why US auto buyers have abandoned cars for trucks.) They're comparatively large cars with large engines.
Also, once upon a time Detroit was almost universally rear-drive, but in the meantime a lot of 'em have drunk so much of the FWD Kool-Aid that they've convinced themselves that RWD is weird and somehow un-American. Well, maybe in certain corners of the snow belt FWD has some advantages, but people there drive Audis, Scoobys, and trucks anyway.
Funny, though, that FWD is supposed to provide 'packaging' advantages - more room for a given size vehicle - the Falcons and Commodores are smaller than Tauruses and Impalas yet a good bit roomier despite being RWD. They're a couple inches longer than the CTS, and that room goes straight into the back seat. The stretched Holden, the Caprice/Statesman/Senator, is up at least in Town Car territory room-wise, yet still smaller than a Dodge Intrepid.
EPA and DOT regulations have little to do with it, the cars could easily meet US standards with little tweaking. A bigger issue is RHD - the Aussies drive on the 'wrong' side. The GM products are built in LHD form for Middle East markets, but so far as I know Ford can't build a LHD version of the present Falcon.
And, finally, Lutz liked to pin the blame for the 20K-unit limit on GTO imports on UAW grousing.
If GM would sell the Commodore SS here, I'd buy two. If Ford would sell the Falcon GT here, complete with its 2000 Cobra R-spec 5.4 engine, in the US$50-60K range I'd trade a BMW for it. Aesthetically, I like any of 'em better than the CTS, though the CTS-V mechanical package is as good as the Falcon GT.
Fascinating how different markets react differently to similar product: Toyota can't get Lexus to make any kind of dent in BMW/Mercedes in Europe, and Toyota Australia is considering dropping the V6 Camry entirely because it can't sell against the GM/Ford products (and to some extent Mitsubishi.)
http://bilder.autobild.de/bilder/1/41471.jpg
craig