13. GORGEOUS COCKPIT is as striking as CTS exterior, boasting rich materials, superb fit and finish, minimal cut-lines. Interior coverings (leatherette is standard, leather optional) are hand-cut and sewn and trimmed with French stitching. Center-stack sports satin-metallic accents or Sapele Pommele wood. "V" medallions decorate front seats (which offer optional heating and ventilation).
I said somewhere (possibly in another forum) that Automobile commented that the 2008 CTS's interior was nicer than the first generation interior (which did not take much) but compared to the 3-series BMW and C-class Mercedes that they had on hand for their comparision test, the CTS's interior was not as good. This was not a condemnation of interior but rather a comment that it could have been better.
My point at the time was, when many of you seemed to think that the CTS was really a 5-series or E-class model, that the interior would have to be seriously upgraded if it was to compete in a more expensive price class.
Road & Track has done a comparison test too, and there is a sidebar on a 6 cylinder 5-series that they planned to include, but did not as it was priced $20,000 more than the CTS. I suppose it is a bit much for me to expect you to read something though
I think the CTS's interior is WAY NICER than either that of the C-Class or 3-Series. I just wish the rest of Cadillac's lineup had interiors as nice as the CTS's. Does anybody have an interior shot of the new Malibu?
I think the CTS's interior is WAY NICER than either that of the C-Class or 3-Series. What do you base this on?
SRX interior is gorgeous with cut and sewn material on the IP and doors. AND future Cadillacs will even be nicer than the CTS to compete in the segment they are aim at.
Well, just by looking for one. The C-Class and 3-Series have interiors that say "been there, done that, bought the T-shirt." They're just variations on what they've been doing since at least the late 1980s.
So it is based on styling. One of the reasons why we have problems communicating! To me the better interior would have better fit, finish and materials. And I think that is partially wrong. The LaCrosse has better fit, finish and materials than it's competitors but the styling seems to not be what folks like over it's competitors. The LaCrosse has soft surfaces throughout the interior while the Lamda has hard in most places yet the Lamdas are given Kudos for their interiors.
...is certainly nicer than the previous model and light years better than the 1997-generation. My girlfriend had the Malibu's ugly sister the Olds Cutlass sedan finished in "Contemporary Domestic Rental Car." That car made me realize why a lot of Edmunds posters don't like GM. The 1999 Cutlass sedan was mediocrity personified. It's funny that Chevrolet uses that Cutlass sedan as the "anonymous car" in the Malibu ads.
The brown and black interior shows that Chevy's trying to break away from the boring beiges and grays, but why not go all the way and offer a blue or red? Heck, I would love to see a bold red and white or blue and white two-tone!
The brown and black interior shows that Chevy's trying to break away from the boring beiges and grays, but why not go all the way and offer a blue or red?
Specialization costs. That sort of thing can be done by companies who are making money hand over fist, while GM is still losing money hand over fist.
Specialization costs. That sort of thing can be done by companies who are making money hand over fist, while GM is still losing money hand over fist.
I do know the answer to this one. Used to offer red and blue interiors in Regals and Centurys. Sorry but it really dates the vehicles. OLDDDDD
The only vehicle cost involved is the engineering time to get the "extra" colors validated through the quality approval process (approving parts to qualified color panels) which is pretty much done by the source now which is next to nothing in cost. The other real cost is the stocking of the "extra" material at the plant. While this is a real cost it is not much. Most parts come into the plant preassembled and in build order form the source or a prebuild assembly line. While there is some cost in the above it is minimal and if GM really thought it could sell more cars in apppreciable volumes it would do it.
GM does keep a limit to the number of colors for each model for many reasons, from simplificiation at the engineering, manufacturing level and the marketing/dealer stocking level. I think it is 3 or 4 interior color choices depending on the model.
I think for Automobile, the CTS's interior is too flashy. Motor Trend is not put off by flashy. From my point of view, based on seeing pictures of the CTS's interior, I think that the CTS interior has less wood trim (optional at something like $800) than my SRX where it was standard (expect for the $150 optional wood trim on steering wheel and shifter). My SRX has more wood on the consol where the CTS has all most none.
I think that black and brown interior may be a bit on the polarizing side. It's the only thing I look at and say "I don't know" about on the car. It looks great overall and if GM can keep the supply just below the demand they will be in great shape.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Oh, I agree with that. I'm kind of holding judgment until I see one in person rather than pictures. In pictures it doesn't work for me but it's close. I could easily see where someone would find it very attractive.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Most of the articles I've read have been positive on the CTS interior. The only article I've read that had anything negative to say was on "the truth about cars" website. The only negative the article mentioned is that some of the switchgear felt a bit cheap. Which I know is a bad trait of GMs past vehicles. The tactile feel of interior switches in my Suburban and my wifes 07 Grand Prix are horrible. The GP is just a major POS. That car can't be gone soon enough. It's just plain terrible in regards to design, materials and quality.
Sorry Lemko, but the 3800 is lame. Sure it's responsive to 3krpm , but after that it's a dog. I think my Suburban pulls harder at higher rpm. Not to mention it sounds like a scalded dog when pushed.
The GP at 13k miles rattles almost as much as my Suburban with 96k miles on it. Mainly from the cheap plastic panels on the passenger side of the dash. Not to mention the whole car creaks when you drive at at 45 degree angle up a curb. I guess the W platform doesn't have a very stiff structure.
The only new GM vehicle I've sampled lately was a Saturn Aura XR and overall I thought it was a huge improvement for GM. Still had some cheapness in odd areas, but probably no worse than most of the competition.
The Malibu looks pretty nice. I like the looks better than the Aura or G6 which both leave me a bit cold for one reason or another.
That CTS interior picture shows a very tasteful interior. Just enough wood that it does not over power and hardly any bright chrome. Just enough to brighten up the picture a little. First time I have really seen the interior.
It just might be the best luxury automobile ever made for the money, a title I use to give to the Acura TL, but Cadillac CTS, has leaped way ahead of my imagination.
The question is how did they do this and do it so well for the money ???? :shades:
while I agree with 62vetteefp that the interior is decent, it is not any better than the BMW 3-series interior or the Mercedes C-class, so the price of the CTS is right where it should be. The real question here is how did Cadillac make such a mess out of the first generation CTS and SRX interiors? By mess I mean how did they make them look so cheap.
Cadillac make such a mess out of the first generation CTS and SRX interiors? By mess I mean how did they make them look so cheap.
Art and Science. They took a leap and used technical grains and they just looked bad. They also used "technical" styling on the outside ands it was a hit. The interior actually used expensive materials.
Caddy was showing off a CTS on the street next to Radio City a few weeks ago. It was all right. The glove box door wasn't lining up right which they should have taken care of before showing it off, but the rest of the interior was nice but not stunning. For my taste, the exterior is a little overdone. The 3 stil manages to be more conservative yet sporty.
made up, not animal grains. Most surfaces in a vehicle mimic some kind of leather type. The "skin" shows random patterns. There are some technical grains that may be used on small parts like switch plates or thin trim plates but never on large parts.
In the old CTS the large IP top pad is all geometric dots or something like that. Just looked fake/cold/unfriendly. Also the huge use of black did it in also.
For my taste, the exterior is a little overdone. The 3 stil manages to be more conservative yet sporty.
As it should be. Germans are not known for being anywhere near flashy. Look up the work teutonic.
Well I looked it up and everywhere it says it means to be German like. But in industry usage it means very plain/simple/to the point/"correct"/balanced.
Here is it's usage on an old Honda webpage:
The Accord has already made a significant dent in the German dominated Upper-medium D-sector. It offers not just supreme build quality with superior advanced technology to the class-leaders, it also has a distinct personality - reflected in the now infamous 'Cog' advertising. At Honda, we call this 'warm engineering'. It proves a stark contrast to the cold, impersonal approach of the Teutonic car makers.
However they are changing and the German are now getting much more expressive. Cadillac has always been more into the avant garde/bling thing.
GM Australia (Holden) does a better job on interiors than GM North America :surprise: But have you really looked at the G8 and seriously compared it with a German import or are you just blowing smoke
I just saw the new Chevy Malibu...WOW!!! I remember when we got our '04 Nissan Maxima and '06 Nissan Altima, and there just was not anything from GM in their class. Well, times are a' changin'. That Malibu has way better interior quality than the altima and the exterior doesn't look half bad either. Since Lutz made such a big point about the panel gaps, I took a look and they sure are tight. The car is just amazing. I love the way the doors/trunk close, the seat support, and the dampening (?) on the dials. Unfortunately, I couldn't take it out for a drive [mainly because I'm only 18 and the salespeople completely ignored me, but also] because the one I like, the LTZ was on the showroom floor and there were no V6's on the lot (I don't like I4s).
It was funny when I was there because the car had the two-tone black+brick interior and this lady said it looked ugly like that, but I thought it was okay. Definately better than pictures suggest. I had the impression that the car was much narrower and that the center stack was skinny, but it is pretty hefty in person. Of course, there are drawbacks: Nav, rear armrest; but in all honesty we got the nav on the Maxima and love it, but not on the Altima and it works well in our family to just have it on the one car because if we are going somewhere far everyone is usually together.
I guess I'm in awe because I didn't really expect to like it that much. If anyone is in the market...PLEASE...consider the Malibu, its that good; I actually wish we could have waited for it. So, I am just completely optimistic about GM's future now, there is next to no way for them not to succeed. It is not that this car will be their savior (because I don't predict 400K sales a year given perception and all), but the level of execution on this car represents a complete change in the corporate mindset and guarantees future products will measure up to and probably surpass the competition to eventually regain some marketshare in the US; Lutz talks about 25%, I don't think 30-33% is out of the question, though
Just saw the new Malibu at the San Francisco Int'l Auto Show, and I totally agree. I was really impressed, and did not expect to be. I used to think GM was hopeless, but now I think they just may come back.
"I am just completely optimistic about GM's future now, there is next to no way for them not to succeed"
Let's take it easy. The Malibu is definately a step up but we've heard this before. Being competitive in this segment is ultra-important but not one car will make or break this company. They still need to get serious about smaller cars if they're going to drive conquests. Most of the Malibus sales will be won from other GM cars. It will really take 2 or 3 solid product cycles to start winning back import buyers.
I think I'm taking it easy; right after that quote I said "It is not that this car will be their savior (because I don't predict 400K sales a year given perception and all), but the level of execution on this car represents a complete change in the corporate mindset and guarantees future products will measure up to and probably surpass the competition to eventually regain some marketshare in the US." IMO the point is not that the Malibu is a silver bullet, but rather that in order for it to come to market, it means GM is concerned about something besides GMT-900 and that is pretty significant. Also, with regard to hearing this before, usually when GM hypes something (like the other two generations of Malibu) they are obviously inferior to everyone but the company. Here, everyone likes this car. Have you had a chance to sit in it yet?
I guess we can agree to disagree. I don't think a company can execute a product so radically different without a change in corporate culture from the top down.
I just bought a brand-new Cadillac DTS Performance in Black Raven with an Ebony leather interior Friday night! Love the XM radio and cool touches like the automatic folding mirrors! It will take me a while to figure out the nav system. My previous system was a 1990 Rand-McNally road atlas.
I don't think a company can execute a product so radically different without a change in corporate culture from the top down.
It has not been a "radical" change. Fot the last 4 years, since Lutz entered the picture. GM has been making large strides in improvement. The LaCrosse was the first to get some action from Lutz and the interior of that vehicle was greatly improved and used better quality materials and finishes than the competitive Accord and Camry. Issue with that interior was some of the styling and it was too late for Lutz to make changes to that. Most all surfaces are soft, low gloss and used 3d graining technology.
The CTS/Lamdas/trucks are just the ones in the last year that have gotten the medias attention.
"I just bought a brand-new Cadillac DTS Performance in Black Raven with an Ebony leather interior"
Congratulations on your new purchase, Lemko! Does the new DTS Performance replace one of your other cars, or do you have enough space to also keep your older Cadillacs and Buick(s) ?
I just bought a brand-new Cadillac DTS Performance in Black Raven with an Ebony leather interior Friday night! Love the XM radio and cool touches like the automatic folding mirrors! It will take me a while to figure out the nav system. My previous system was a 1990 Rand-McNally road atlas.
Congrats... Now you can find your way around w/o getting a paper cut;)
AFAIC, the LaCrosse should not be compared to the Accord and Camry, and like you said the styling is not all that great. They nailed both styling and quality with the Malibu and at a lower price point. And you make an excellent point about Lutz: these are the products he's controlled since their inception and they are better. That sounds like an argument for a change in corporate culture.
What other cars in recent memory have gotten the [nearly] unanimous positive attention of the media?
What other cars in recent memory have gotten the [nearly] unanimous positive attention of the media?
SRX interior
The Solstice also got great reviews but that is one vehicle that GM cut corners to keep it under $20k. Did that because Lutz said he would sell the show car for that. Would have been better off to sell it for $21k and put $500 into the interior and trunk space. But the car did great in media and sales.
What else has been new in the last 3 years? I guess the Cobalt which is a great car but the styling has not been well received.
>Cobalt which is a great car but the styling has not been well received.
I find it looks very practical. In this area there have been a whole boatload of them sold. There are only a few on the Chev dealer's lot that I browsed last Saturday evening while on an outing with my kid. They must be selling them since they're not sitting.
After looking at some Ions, new and recently used, I noticed the Cobalt's price and practicality. After seeing one crash into a Saturn at 35 approx. I was further impressed.
Sometimes car impressions come from the self-declared experts in the media and the east/west coast foreign car people make an image that's not real here in flyover country. I just watched most of Motorweek on the local PBS channel. I'd forgotten what arrogance the people on there decide what to test using. Yes, I was planning to buy a Ferrari, especially the 16 cylinder model, for myself and am very interested in the long term test. Long term test choices appear to be more what car the workers wish to have fun driving than in practical cars that 90% of he American buyers would like to see tested.
The SRX was originally released in 2004 IIRC and Lutz came in 2002, I think. The SRX interior was not praised when it was released in 2004, IIRC. Once Lutz had his post for a while, the SRX interior was improved and I will contend it is pretty awesome. Now, something Lutz had no control over was the shape of the cuv itself. I know it's got great driving dynamics, and impecable quality, but it looks like a station wagon and has presumably not been filling up driveways across America as well as they'd hoped because it looks like GM will axe it.
The kappa cars are a good point (I think they are Lutz' first borns) but like you said there were caveats because the interior and trunk are less than perfect. I guess to that I'd argue Lutz had to come in and cut his teeth on something right away, so they were produced before the change in culture I described.
As for the Cobalt, it came in 2005 (before the Solstice) so I'm sure it was in planning before he was hired.
I mention Lutz not to suggest he's getting everything done on his own, but I think its pretty undeniable he was some sort of catalyst (I don't know how) to get from the 2004 Malibu to the '08.
I think we are agreeing on the SRX. It is the 2nd interior I was commenting on. They went all out with cut and sewn seams on the IP and doors which is unheard of in a normal production car.
There were a few changes in Lutz's philosophy over his early years at GM. At first he was cutting "unneeded" content out of current cars and asking for huge cost cuts. Some of this was needed but some was a mistake. He had the 4th and 5th APO (lighter) removed from the big trucks. An ok thing to do. His biggest was to remove ABS as standard on most cars. The competition pretty much had it optional and we were giving away cars with huge incentives. His thought was to remove this content and then get it back as optional thru customer vehicle comparisions. I mean why should someone compare a standard Camry w/o ABS to an Impala/Malibu with it? It is a $600 price difference. At the time most seemed not to care about ABS. Unfortunately (or fortunately if you were a customer) the media crucified GM for removing standard safety equipment, even though others had it optional. Lost the PR war on that one. As part of this cost reduction philosophy all his underlings cut wherever they could to please the boss. This led to even cheaper interiors, etc. and then it all caught up to him.
Then he went into an upgrade the interior and exterior mode and that is where we are today. All his underlings are fighting to get the media kudos for the new cars interiors. With the recent UAW givebacks they can actually afford to add some cost.
If you'd care to comment, how does your five year newer DTS compare to your '02 STS, in terms of handling, comfort, chassis dynamics, and drivetrain performance?
Well, the DTS Performance has a slightly less powerful engine: 292 hp vs. 300 hp. I'd say the DTS has a softer suspension than the STS and it is 6.6 inches longer, so driving dynamics are somewhat compromised. The DTS is definately a more comfortable car whereas the STS had a sportier ride.
Per features, the '07 DTS makes my '02 STS seem like a plain jane and I thought the STS was pretty well-optioned. There are some things I don't like. My STS had an automatic parking brake release whereas the DTS has the same manually operated foot brake as my girlfriend's LaCrosse. I also liked the design of the STS' steering wheel much better than the one in my new ride.
Comments
-Rocky
http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/car/112_0801_2008_cadillac_cts/overview.html-
13. GORGEOUS COCKPIT is as striking as CTS exterior, boasting rich materials, superb fit and finish, minimal cut-lines. Interior coverings (leatherette is standard, leather optional) are hand-cut and sewn and trimmed with French stitching. Center-stack sports satin-metallic accents or Sapele Pommele wood. "V" medallions decorate front seats (which offer optional heating and ventilation).
My point at the time was, when many of you seemed to think that the CTS was really a 5-series or E-class model, that the interior would have to be seriously upgraded if it was to compete in a more expensive price class.
Road & Track has done a comparison test too, and there is a sidebar on a 6 cylinder 5-series that they planned to include, but did not as it was priced $20,000 more than the CTS. I suppose it is a bit much for me to expect you to read something though
Always interesting how opinions diverge. One mag says not as good, another says fantastic.
-Rocky
(Know it's off-topic but still...)
JAE
SRX interior is gorgeous with cut and sewn material on the IP and doors. AND future Cadillacs will even be nicer than the CTS to compete in the segment they are aim at.
Malibu interior
http://www.chevrolet.com/2008malibu/photogallery/
The brown and black interior shows that Chevy's trying to break away from the boring beiges and grays, but why not go all the way and offer a blue or red? Heck, I would love to see a bold red and white or blue and white two-tone!
Specialization costs. That sort of thing can be done by companies who are making money hand over fist, while GM is still losing money hand over fist.
I do know the answer to this one. Used to offer red and blue interiors in Regals and Centurys. Sorry
The only vehicle cost involved is the engineering time to get the "extra" colors validated through the quality approval process (approving parts to qualified color panels) which is pretty much done by the source now which is next to nothing in cost. The other real cost is the stocking of the "extra" material at the plant. While this is a real cost it is not much. Most parts come into the plant preassembled and in build order form the source or a prebuild assembly line. While there is some cost in the above it is minimal and if GM really thought it could sell more cars in apppreciable volumes it would do it.
GM does keep a limit to the number of colors for each model for many reasons, from simplificiation at the engineering, manufacturing level and the marketing/dealer stocking level. I think it is 3 or 4 interior color choices depending on the model.
Polarizing may be a positive in terms of overall sales, since there are other coices for those who prefer another interior.
Sorry Lemko, but the 3800 is lame. Sure it's responsive to 3krpm , but after that it's a dog. I think my Suburban pulls harder at higher rpm. Not to mention it sounds like a scalded dog when pushed.
The GP at 13k miles rattles almost as much as my Suburban with 96k miles on it. Mainly from the cheap plastic panels on the passenger side of the dash. Not to mention the whole car creaks when you drive at at 45 degree angle up a curb. I guess the W platform doesn't have a very stiff structure.
The only new GM vehicle I've sampled lately was a Saturn Aura XR and overall I thought it was a huge improvement for GM. Still had some cheapness in odd areas, but probably no worse than most of the competition.
The Malibu looks pretty nice. I like the looks better than the Aura or G6 which both leave me a bit cold for one reason or another.
http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/car/112_0801_2008_cadillac_cts/photo_02.html- - -
The consol is mostly brightwork.
In the SRX:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/MediaNav/year=2007/make=Cadillac/model=SRX/- - firstNav=Gallery#
You will have to click on the "interior" to see the interior but note that there is more wood around the shifter and on the consol. Also the dash has bigger pieces of wood trim.
The question is how did they do this and do it so well for the money ???? :shades:
-Rocky
Nuh uh, that was the original LS400. The CTS is the best Cadillac ever made for the money.
The question is how did they do this and do it so well for the money ????
Lots of borrowing, at onerous interest rates.
Art and Science. They took a leap and used technical grains and they just looked bad. They also used "technical" styling on the outside ands it was a hit. The interior actually used expensive materials.
What the heck does that even mean?
Caddy was showing off a CTS on the street next to Radio City a few weeks ago. It was all right. The glove box door wasn't lining up right which they should have taken care of before showing it off, but the rest of the interior was nice but not stunning. For my taste, the exterior is a little overdone. The 3 stil manages to be more conservative yet sporty.
What the heck does that even mean?
made up, not animal grains. Most surfaces in a vehicle mimic some kind of leather type. The "skin" shows random patterns. There are some technical grains that may be used on small parts like switch plates or thin trim plates but never on large parts.
In the old CTS the large IP top pad is all geometric dots or something like that. Just looked fake/cold/unfriendly. Also the huge use of black did it in also.
As it should be. Germans are not known for being anywhere near flashy. Look up the work teutonic.
Well I looked it up and everywhere it says it means to be German like. But in industry usage it means very plain/simple/to the point/"correct"/balanced.
Here is it's usage on an old Honda webpage:
The Accord has already made a significant dent in the German dominated Upper-medium D-sector. It offers not just supreme build quality with superior advanced technology to the class-leaders, it also has a distinct personality - reflected in the now infamous 'Cog' advertising. At Honda, we call this 'warm engineering'. It proves a stark contrast to the cold, impersonal approach of the Teutonic car makers.
However they are changing and the German are now getting much more expressive. Cadillac has always been more into the avant garde/bling thing.
-Rocky
But have you really looked at the G8 and seriously compared it with a German import or are you just blowing smoke
I just saw the new Chevy Malibu...WOW!!! I remember when we got our '04 Nissan Maxima and '06 Nissan Altima, and there just was not anything from GM in their class. Well, times are a' changin'. That Malibu has way better interior quality than the altima and the exterior doesn't look half bad either. Since Lutz made such a big point about the panel gaps, I took a look and they sure are tight. The car is just amazing. I love the way the doors/trunk close, the seat support, and the dampening (?) on the dials. Unfortunately, I couldn't take it out for a drive [mainly because I'm only 18 and the salespeople completely ignored me, but also] because the one I like, the LTZ was on the showroom floor and there were no V6's on the lot (I don't like I4s).
It was funny when I was there because the car had the two-tone black+brick interior and this lady said it looked ugly like that, but I thought it was okay. Definately better than pictures suggest. I had the impression that the car was much narrower and that the center stack was skinny, but it is pretty hefty in person. Of course, there are drawbacks: Nav, rear armrest; but in all honesty we got the nav on the Maxima and love it, but not on the Altima and it works well in our family to just have it on the one car because if we are going somewhere far everyone is usually together.
I guess I'm in awe because I didn't really expect to like it that much. If anyone is in the market...PLEASE...consider the Malibu, its that good; I actually wish we could have waited for it. So, I am just completely optimistic about GM's future now, there is next to no way for them not to succeed. It is not that this car will be their savior (because I don't predict 400K sales a year given perception and all), but the level of execution on this car represents a complete change in the corporate mindset and guarantees future products will measure up to and probably surpass the competition to eventually regain some marketshare in the US; Lutz talks about 25%, I don't think 30-33% is out of the question, though
Let's take it easy. The Malibu is definately a step up but we've heard this before. Being competitive in this segment is ultra-important but not one car will make or break this company. They still need to get serious about smaller cars if they're going to drive conquests. Most of the Malibus sales will be won from other GM cars. It will really take 2 or 3 solid product cycles to start winning back import buyers.
It doesn't guaranty anything about future products. Let's take it one car at a time. 3 or 4 really solid mass market cards will indicate a trend.
I just bought a brand-new Cadillac DTS Performance in Black Raven with an Ebony leather interior Friday night! Love the XM radio and cool touches like the automatic folding mirrors! It will take me a while to figure out the nav system. My previous system was a 1990 Rand-McNally road atlas.
It has not been a "radical" change. Fot the last 4 years, since Lutz entered the picture. GM has been making large strides in improvement. The LaCrosse was the first to get some action from Lutz and the interior of that vehicle was greatly improved and used better quality materials and finishes than the competitive Accord and Camry. Issue with that interior was some of the styling and it was too late for Lutz to make changes to that. Most all surfaces are soft, low gloss and used 3d graining technology.
The CTS/Lamdas/trucks are just the ones in the last year that have gotten the medias attention.
Congratulations on your new purchase, Lemko! Does the new DTS Performance replace one of your other cars, or do you have enough space to also keep your older Cadillacs and Buick(s) ?
Congrats... Now you can find your way around w/o getting a paper cut;)
What other cars in recent memory have gotten the [nearly] unanimous positive attention of the media?
SRX interior
The Solstice also got great reviews but that is one vehicle that GM cut corners to keep it under $20k. Did that because Lutz said he would sell the show car for that. Would have been better off to sell it for $21k and put $500 into the interior and trunk space. But the car did great in media and sales.
What else has been new in the last 3 years? I guess the Cobalt which is a great car but the styling has not been well received.
I find it looks very practical. In this area there have been a whole boatload of them sold. There are only a few on the Chev dealer's lot that I browsed last Saturday evening while on an outing with my kid. They must be selling them since they're not sitting.
After looking at some Ions, new and recently used, I noticed the Cobalt's price and practicality. After seeing one crash into a Saturn at 35 approx. I was further impressed.
Sometimes car impressions come from the self-declared experts in the media and the east/west coast foreign car people make an image that's not real here in flyover country. I just watched most of Motorweek on the local PBS channel. I'd forgotten what arrogance the people on there decide what to test using. Yes, I was planning to buy a Ferrari, especially the 16 cylinder model, for myself and am very interested in the long term test. Long term test choices appear to be more what car the workers wish to have fun driving than in practical cars that 90% of he American buyers would like to see tested.
Please give me reality in the media.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The kappa cars are a good point (I think they are Lutz' first borns) but like you said there were caveats because the interior and trunk are less than perfect. I guess to that I'd argue Lutz had to come in and cut his teeth on something right away, so they were produced before the change in culture I described.
As for the Cobalt, it came in 2005 (before the Solstice) so I'm sure it was in planning before he was hired.
I mention Lutz not to suggest he's getting everything done on his own, but I think its pretty undeniable he was some sort of catalyst (I don't know how) to get from the 2004 Malibu to the '08.
There were a few changes in Lutz's philosophy over his early years at GM. At first he was cutting "unneeded" content out of current cars and asking for huge cost cuts. Some of this was needed but some was a mistake. He had the 4th and 5th APO (lighter) removed from the big trucks. An ok thing to do. His biggest was to remove ABS as standard on most cars. The competition pretty much had it optional and we were giving away cars with huge incentives. His thought was to remove this content and then get it back as optional thru customer vehicle comparisions. I mean why should someone compare a standard Camry w/o ABS to an Impala/Malibu with it? It is a $600 price difference. At the time most seemed not to care about ABS. Unfortunately (or fortunately if you were a customer) the media crucified GM for removing standard safety equipment, even though others had it optional. Lost the PR war on that one. As part of this cost reduction philosophy all his underlings cut wherever they could to please the boss. This led to even cheaper interiors, etc. and then it all caught up to him.
Then he went into an upgrade the interior and exterior mode and that is where we are today. All his underlings are fighting to get the media kudos for the new cars interiors. With the recent UAW givebacks they can actually afford to add some cost.
'02 STS, in terms of handling, comfort, chassis dynamics, and drivetrain performance?
Per features, the '07 DTS makes my '02 STS seem like a plain jane and I thought the STS was pretty well-optioned. There are some things I don't like. My STS had an automatic parking brake release whereas the DTS has the same manually operated foot brake as my girlfriend's LaCrosse. I also liked the design of the STS' steering wheel much better than the one in my new ride.