The Germans are adopting orphans from Sweden. I didn't know that.
Saab used Opel platforms long before GM bought it.
Another SAAB story. The last chapters. It is said they wanted the turbo engine from SAAB and thus they bought the whole company. Hummm? GM could not build a turbo.
Pretty goofy theory. Although the reality is somewhat goofy, I suppose. GM bought Saab primarily because Ford bought Volvo.
>I owned one. If driven only in town, then yes 28 MPG, which is pretty good. Owned the car 7 years. Was taken in a couple times for warranty work. My GM cars, twice for repairs would be in the first week to a month.
Strange exaggeration. I've had many GM cars and few problems. E.g., 2003 leSabre, 40K, 4 years; 1998 leSabre 135000 mi, 9 years, one problem of importance.
No exaggeration at all. I owned the cars. You simply could not make up some of the strange stuff experienced over the years. It is a journey into the unknown each time. The last one was a 1992 Achieva. Was in to the shop about eight times before say a three months time. After that it was pretty fair, though a few things happened along the journey. Then it started to take on water somewhere around the driver side footwell, and I knew it was time to sell the car, or drown. All the door were hung a little off. The steering would go lighter some times, instead of stiffer, under highway speed. Just decided to do this at whim. Most of stuff in first few weeks was like strange idle which sent the RPMS sky high then low, the cable had slack and shifting into drive became hard to do. The paint of the bumper wore off. The door and trunk stopped working. The door windows in the back leaked. Anyway, this car was better than the Olds 98 Regency in 1987, which had more serious problems. They both had good seats and gas mileage.
Maybe GM could extend the warranty for those former owners which are a little shell shocked to come on back to GM? Chrysler did this in the 70's and Hyundai in the 2000's. Bring on the warranty! -Loren
I think GM bought Saab in response to Ford's Euro splurge.
True, GM had Opel. GM had always allowed Opel to go its own way, however. By the 1990s, the division between GM North America (GMNA) and Opel was so big, GMNA despaired of ever getting Euro style product to the US.
Buying Saab went sour quick for a few reasons. Manufacturing costs in Sweeden, always high, went out the roof (Volvo makes its smaller cars in other European countries. Volvo will probably start manufacturing in the US as well). Unlike Volvo, Saab never had a large team of auto engineers. As mentioned above, Saab bought and tuned platforms (and engines for that matter) from other manufacturers. Many of Saab's aviation engineers did double duty at Saab as something of a hobby. When GM brought Saab aboard, the engineers at Opel and GMNA just were not interested - or did not have the time and motivation - to engineer Saabs.
At the same time, major changes were brewing at Opel.
First and most important, Opel started losing money. Opel's laissez-faire structure simply could not cope with raising wages and other costs that plague Europe. Second, Daimler-Chrysler, admittedly out of desperation, slowly figured out how to make a German/US merger work. GM was able to learn from DC's experience. Finally, Lutz, with his European Auto Industry background was able to bulldoze far deeper into Opel's entrenched ranks than anyone had before at GMNA.
The result, I believe, will be far more Opel sharing with GMNA. Meaning, most likely, Saab becomes even less a necessity.
There is still some hope. Opel has always been more of a middle market brand in Europe. GMNA and Opel have kept Saab until now so it could fill that niche in Europe. Whether Saab could ever have product relevant in the US, with Saturn selling Opels only slightly below Saab level and base Cadillacs only slightly above is the real question.
If it were not for the cost, I think the ideal thing in the US would be to fold Saab dealerships together with Saturn as you see in much of Canada.
Maybe GM could extend the warranty for those former owners which are a little shell shocked to come on back to GM? Chrysler did this in the 70's and Hyundai in the 2000's. Bring on the warranty!
Oh I thought it was for the turbo. Ford's choice makes a little more sense. If indeed, the SAAB Turbos are the best of the best, I suppose I would give them a go some day, if the car was so equipped. Am I to assume we are still talking premium fuel? If it burns regular, gets the gas mileage and is reliable, then yes, I can see the market for SAAB turbos. I know people like the smaller and lighter engines, while providing good power. I would like to see a larger Solstice, in a Coupe' with around 200HP, or so. Turbo may be the way. A nice six though would be smoother. And inline six, very nice indeed. Maybe they can add a Solstice to the Buick line with a 3.8 V6 Seriously, in a car like the Camaro, the old boy was good cheap power - good gas mileage and out ran the Stangs. The engine has its place in history. -Loren
If indeed, the SAAB Turbos are the best of the best, I suppose I would give them a go some day, if the car was so equipped. Am I to assume we are still talking premium fuel? If it burns regular, gets the gas mileage and is reliable, then yes, I can see the market for SAAB turbos.
The 2.0 and 2.8 turbos are both included in Ward's ten best engines this year.
Both use premium according to Edmunds. As do most turbos that I am familiar with.
I understand, I was merely replying to Loren that Saab Turbos aren't the best. But the ones from Mitsubushi are pretty decent. Garrett Turbos were also used in Saab vehicle and are equally as impressive, even a bit more durable.
The Sky is twice the vehicle the BMW Z4 is? Just how do you figure that? Because you can get one for 1/2 the price?
The Z4 will run rings around the Sky. The Sky might ride a bit better than the Bimmer but if what you're looking for is floating pillowy ride, by a Buick. If you want a true roadster cheap, buy the Miata, if you want more performance and a higher level of lux buy the BMW. If you want one with a better ride but 9/10's the performance of the Miata, buy the Sky.
"If you want one with a better ride but 9/10's the performance of the Miata, buy the Sky."
Ouch. Them's fightin words! The Sky looks to be quite promising IMO. Agility appears to be pretty much equal with the Miata based on a couple of the reviews I have read.
One thing the Sky does have over the Mazda is tire size that's for sure. Those suckers are like monster truck tires (Big, wide, tall profile) compared to the other cars in the segment. Probably doesn't hurt the handling...
I am not going to say anything against the Z4, as I love the car.
The Kappa twins, the Miata, and the Z4 all take slightly different approaches to the Roadster. All do it well.
The Sky/Solstice have done a better job capturing the public's imagination. I am dissapointed with the Z4 sales, as I think the car deserves better.
The new Miata has not set the sales world afire, at least not here in the US. I think the Sky/Solstice play a part, and issues specific to the Miata play a part.
I have no problem with people buying any of these cars. I hope they do not pay a premium on the Sky/Solstice. But if you are in a hurry to get one, you will.
Just stay away from S2k's Z4's and Boxsters if you want to back that up on the performance end We'll see what happens when the GXP and Redline models appear.
IF was the key word there. I do not know they are the best turbos. There are many claims as to how good they are here on this board.
So it is Mitsubishi making the best turbos - interesting.
Any word on Mitsubishi staying in USA. How do they hang on here with little in the way of sales? We are down to one small dealership, which just changed hands again. The next dealer is close to 140 miles away. Not good, as this is in California, where you have Toyota, Honda, and even Subaru dealers every 10 to 100 miles along the way. We had two close within a couple years. -Loren
IF was the key word there. I do not know they are the best turbos. There are many claims as to how good they are here on this board.
So you are saying you do not accept Ward's as a source?
Is there a reason for the skepticism?
Any word on Mitsubishi staying in USA. How do they hang on here with little in the way of sales? We are down to one small dealership, which just changed hands again.
As long as Mitsu's Japanese investors are willing to give them handouts, they are not going anywhere. I do not see any real effort at a turn around, however.
That is strange, as I thought they were already number one. Who are they in succession to :P Is that Toyota?
Perhaps they will accomplish their goal. You know there has been much talk of the CEO wages being too high. Now if he can turn around this behemoth without bankruptcy, then he was worth every penny! I for one would be more than impressed.
If they have in fact stayed afloat and can bring in some new cars in the next couple of years, then we may be seeing a new and improved GM. Add a warranty and keep the reliability on a steady upswing, and some may return to buy a GM car again. There is some hope. -Loren
No, I am saying agreeing with both sides. It is a good turbo made by someone else. I was now told they are Mitsubishi. So they are not making, but they use the best turbos, I take it to now be correct. Frankly, I don't care. Any smooth running engine which provides power without sucking up too much gas, and lasting for the time I own the car, is fine by me. If gas was cheaper, a V8 would be choice one, followed by the inline 6, then V6 or i4 -- i5 engines.
As to Mitsubishi hanging on, I don't see how the dealerships are holding out. Style wise, kinda like the looks of the Galant and the Eclipse. Parts from Mitsubishi seem a bit more costly to me than say Toyota parts. But I am going by the 1990s, so perhaps prices are closer now. -Loren
It is a good turbo made by someone else. I was now told they are Mitsubishi. So they are not making, but they use the best turbos, I take it to now be correct. Frankly, I don't care.
I do not quite follow. Mitsubishi makes turbos for several manufacturers. Quality is not the sole provence of the turbo, rather it is in the overall design of the engine as a whole. Mitsubishi makes a quality component. Saab designed the engines that, according to Ward's anyway, make the best use of the quality component.
Any smooth running engine which provides power without sucking up too much gas, and lasting for the time I own the car, is fine by me. If gas was cheaper, a V8 would be choice one, followed by the inline 6, then V6 or i4 -- i5 engines
I am no engineer. My understanding is that especially in the front wheel drive format, there is a decided advantage to keeping the engine as small as possible. Saab getting V6 hp out of a turbo 4 and V8 hp out of turbo V6 help make its fwd cars better drivers than the average appliance.
Saab also does a pretty good job holding the line on gas mileage.
As to Mitsubishi hanging on, I don't see how the dealerships are holding out. Style wise, kinda like the looks of the Galant and the Eclipse. Parts from Mitsubishi seem a bit more costly to me than say Toyota parts. But I am going by the 1990s, so perhaps prices are closer now.
Losing dealers can be a real issue. Unless Mitsu wants to borrow an idea from the long gone Daewoo and hire college kids to sell product door to door :sick:
I am glad you thought they were number one. Unfortunately I think they are only number one in total sales and maybe revenue.
Again, there will be no bankruptcy in the near future. First quarter profit (except for buying out hourly benefits to get them to pay some health care) points the way. Not saying there is no risk.
The Z4 actually has some room inside. A shoehorn to get in is not required. I'd like to get a Z4 Coupe', but the price is a bit much. Or will be a bit much. Not out yet. The steering is said to be a tab hyper and light, but I have not driven it to really judge it for myself. Only sat in one. And it had room inside. Much finer than the rest. The looks is far different than any other car. Some may not like the flame look design. At least it is set apart from the rest of the cookie cutter rides out there.
0-60 in the low to mid 5's would smoke a Bimmer Z-4's butt around a track
Well the Solstice GXP/Sky Redline aren't here yet and there is a car called the z4 M roadster that has around 330hp with 0-60 in the upper 4 second range and is an awesome car. No reason to be comparing a Solstice to a Z4 or M roadster. Different leagues with different price tags. That's not dissing the Solstice/Sky. They are great cars.
Is Cadillac going to close the chapter on the " Arts & Science " CTS look? The future car to have a more rounded look. Does this make the current one a collector car? In twenty years will we see these in car shows. People staring in awe of this strange design of days-gone-bye. Chatting about the days when GM was daring -- did I say that? Will they be talking about a company that once made cars -- just kidding. I think the current CTS may be something to buy, if the new one is less edgy. -Loren
It's good for Caddy to have something to differentiate itself, but I think the original Art & Science (I still don't get that name) is a bit harsh, with weird interior textures. I think it can be decent enough when toned down a bit.
Help! I detailed a customer's car and left what I think is hard water spots on the exterior windows. They are very dark and show too well. I've tried CLR, vinegar, mineral spirits, tar remover, and a polisher but nothing. Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.
When I said, "of course, it's a Chevy", I wasn't denigrating the brand, I was just saying this was the Chevy, not the GMC, Denali or Caddy version..... :P
"It didn't have the flip seats ? Nvbanker, are you sure you were looking at one with leather ? Sure it wasn't a stripped down one with Vinyl ?"
Yeah the seats flip, but they still aren't doing that right, they don't go away into a deep well like the Ford's do, nor are they even close to comfortable for an adult. Admit it, Ford has the design on this. I gave Chevy the dash and cabin award.
As for the seats, please tell me vinyl isn't an option!! The leather was poor, this didn't look like a stripper to me though.
Bob Lutz didn't like the Art & Science look from the beginning - as soon as he got to GM, he started smoothing out the future designs, which are just now about to go into production. I'm not sure how smart that is, given that this look has worked for Cadillac, and the say, "GTO" look is a bomb - but Bob rules, for better or worse.
The CTS was a bit to edgy both inside and out. the car needs more power and more gadgetology. If Cadillac delivers on both of these I will more than likely buy a copy.
Well, I certainly agree it needs more gadgetry, Rocky. Also, an interior at least as nice as the Tahoe gets would be good. Rounded or edgy, I don't like 'em on the inside. The outside is fine with me. IF I were going to go Cadillac, it would be the STS with the V-8. A little bland inside as well for my taste, but probably acceptable.
Did you check out the 60 minutes video. They had a couple second peek at the CTS interior and I'm sure you'd find it comfortable. I personally love the STS, but the price for a copy is out of my league now even with my GM discount. Oh well, if things work out right I do see myself rolling around in atleast a CTS. OTOH don't count me out on buying a CTS-V :shades:
The so called Art&Science style at Cadillac was introduced with the Evoq concept car. I do not see evidence that the style is going away. However, the CTS is going to get an updated style, with a new interior, that will be an evolution of the first CTS's styling. The Art&Science look will gradually fade out with time.
Hardwater spots are usually white spots from the minerals in the water. However, glass top range cleaners will polish off some spots without scatching the glass.
GM still seems to not be "getting" it. All cars should come with one engine size per model - the better one. Paying several thousand more for what's still a hopelessly adequate engine is just going to kill the thing in reviews, since they always review the standard/base model.
210HP and a little 2.8L engine - bad combination for something so heavy.
Buick is another example. The 3.8L engine is a good engine if it was in a 3000lb car. But putting it in the Lucerne? It's a disaster. The car should be RWD and have the V8 as the only option, period. FWD is something that they can live with, but offering a miserable engine on the base model relegates the reviews to the following: "...Optional V8 gives decent performance."
That's it - a footnote, while the rest of the review hammers on the base model's lackluster performance. GM needs to put its best foot forward and ditch the multi-engine nonsense.
That said, the Lucerne with the V8 in it is a rebadged Caddy for about 8-10K less. Used, they'll be real gems. It's high on my list for a car in two or three years.
Well, since the CTS style is for better or worse, the only really remarkable style, when it is gone, so is anything half the way interesting. From a distance, the overpriced STS looks a bit like a CTS. Up close it is just a blander rendition of same.
They go to all the trouble of making something with a real in-your-face bold style, then round it to what -- nothing? OK, maybe this change coming up will look great. I could be wrong. And perhaps people want bland. The Cadillacs will never again be bold in any way. They will just meld into the parking lots with all the other bland cars.
Another trend is the disappearing windows. By 2009, we may be using a periscope to see out of the car. Not only will the Chrysler 300 and Nissan 350Z have no windows, and too tall doors, everything Cadillac to Mercedes will too.
I may get a Mustang. Good style and rear wheel drive, without too high a price. Only thing I have found wrong so far with the Stang was the laziness of going back to 1969 drawing to make a new car. Seems like they could have found some new design from the design studios to use.
Why do they have hundreds of excellent drawing and bright minds working on cool designs which are never used, and only trashed?
I hope the Cadillac line doesn't round its way to looking like a 1960 Ford Falcon in a couple years. Come to think of it, some Falcons had more class and style inside and out, than the " can't we all just get along " styles of today. And no, I don't mean a car has to just be weird like the Dodge Charger to stand out. What a strange use of body parts to make sport of the 300 ? -Loren
Oh, the CTS is comfy, the seats are good. But the black plastic all over the place is a turn off, and the huge, bus-sized steering wheel has always been a problem for me with Cadillac. But the worst feature for me is the high beltline, that gives me a bathtub feel when I'm sitting in it. Just a personal preference, I like a "commanding view" in a car, so I like the beltline low and like to sit high. I like visibility.
I think most new cars have a bathtub seating position now.
Some feel worst than others. The Tiburon, oddly enough, doesn't feel too bad. You can see about still. The Nissan 350Z is really confining. It seems most odd with sedan, to have this closed in feel. You can dislocate your shoulder, simply trying to hang an elbow out. Hey, maybe the Monte Carlo has a normal door. A little odd styling here and there, but it is at least different. Great gas mileage. Kinda odd though is the thought of FWD for the Monte, though it may pull ya better in snow. Trying to think of my last snow experience. Guess it was '98 coming back from Las Vegas . Yeah, it snows on the freeway between LV and Baker - go figure. My FWD car kept going when trucks stopped on the roadway, and SUV and little pickups were upside down like turtles. Guess they did not believe in slowing down. Well they did the hard way. -Loren
Comments
Saab used Opel platforms long before GM bought it.
Another SAAB story. The last chapters. It is said they wanted the turbo engine from SAAB and thus they bought the whole company. Hummm? GM could not build a turbo.
Pretty goofy theory. Although the reality is somewhat goofy, I suppose. GM bought Saab primarily because Ford bought Volvo.
Strange exaggeration. I've had many GM cars and few problems. E.g., 2003 leSabre, 40K, 4 years; 1998 leSabre 135000 mi, 9 years, one problem of importance.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Just so we are clear, the GM quote is from Loren.
Your good GM experience is similar to mine.
Maybe GM could extend the warranty for those former owners which are a little shell shocked to come on back to GM? Chrysler did this in the 70's and Hyundai in the 2000's. Bring on the warranty!
-Loren
True, GM had Opel. GM had always allowed Opel to go its own way, however. By the 1990s, the division between GM North America (GMNA) and Opel was so big, GMNA despaired of ever getting Euro style product to the US.
Buying Saab went sour quick for a few reasons. Manufacturing costs in Sweeden, always high, went out the roof (Volvo makes its smaller cars in other European countries. Volvo will probably start manufacturing in the US as well). Unlike Volvo, Saab never had a large team of auto engineers. As mentioned above, Saab bought and tuned platforms (and engines for that matter) from other manufacturers. Many of Saab's aviation engineers did double duty at Saab as something of a hobby. When GM brought Saab aboard, the engineers at Opel and GMNA just were not interested - or did not have the time and motivation - to engineer Saabs.
At the same time, major changes were brewing at Opel.
First and most important, Opel started losing money. Opel's laissez-faire structure simply could not cope with raising wages and other costs that plague Europe. Second, Daimler-Chrysler, admittedly out of desperation, slowly figured out how to make a German/US merger work. GM was able to learn from DC's experience. Finally, Lutz, with his European Auto Industry background was able to bulldoze far deeper into Opel's entrenched ranks than anyone had before at GMNA.
The result, I believe, will be far more Opel sharing with GMNA. Meaning, most likely, Saab becomes even less a necessity.
There is still some hope. Opel has always been more of a middle market brand in Europe. GMNA and Opel have kept Saab until now so it could fill that niche in Europe. Whether Saab could ever have product relevant in the US, with Saturn selling Opels only slightly below Saab level and base Cadillacs only slightly above is the real question.
If it were not for the cost, I think the ideal thing in the US would be to fold Saab dealerships together with Saturn as you see in much of Canada.
Should Mazda do the same for me then?
Maybe they can add a Solstice to the Buick line with a 3.8 V6
-Loren
-Loren
Isn't that the truth!
The 2.0 and 2.8 turbos are both included in Ward's ten best engines this year.
Both use premium according to Edmunds. As do most turbos that I am familiar with.
ex. http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=41&article_id=9650
Saab engineers designed the turbo engines and GM assembles them.
Loren would have done better to say Saab designs and assembles real good turbocharged engines.
Mitsubishi and Garrett make great turbos.
Accuracy is always appreciated.
The Z4 will run rings around the Sky. The Sky might ride a bit better than the Bimmer but if what you're looking for is floating pillowy ride, by a Buick. If you want a true roadster cheap, buy the Miata, if you want more performance and a higher level of lux buy the BMW. If you want one with a better ride but 9/10's the performance of the Miata, buy the Sky.
Ouch. Them's fightin words!
One thing the Sky does have over the Mazda is tire size that's for sure. Those suckers are like monster truck tires (Big, wide, tall profile) compared to the other cars in the segment. Probably doesn't hurt the handling...
The Kappa twins, the Miata, and the Z4 all take slightly different approaches to the Roadster. All do it well.
The Sky/Solstice have done a better job capturing the public's imagination. I am dissapointed with the Z4 sales, as I think the car deserves better.
The new Miata has not set the sales world afire, at least not here in the US. I think the Sky/Solstice play a part, and issues specific to the Miata play a part.
I have no problem with people buying any of these cars. I hope they do not pay a premium on the Sky/Solstice. But if you are in a hurry to get one, you will.
Front page title is "WE WILL SUCCEED"
So it is Mitsubishi making the best turbos - interesting.
Any word on Mitsubishi staying in USA. How do they hang on here with little in the way of sales? We are down to one small dealership, which just changed hands again. The next dealer is close to 140 miles away. Not good, as this is in California, where you have Toyota, Honda, and even Subaru dealers every 10 to 100 miles along the way. We had two close within a couple years.
-Loren
So you are saying you do not accept Ward's as a source?
Is there a reason for the skepticism?
Any word on Mitsubishi staying in USA. How do they hang on here with little in the way of sales? We are down to one small dealership, which just changed hands again.
As long as Mitsu's Japanese investors are willing to give them handouts, they are not going anywhere. I do not see any real effort at a turn around, however.
Front page title is "WE WILL SUCCEED"
--end quote--
That is strange, as I thought they were already number one. Who are they in succession to :P Is that Toyota?
Perhaps they will accomplish their goal.
You know there has been much talk of the CEO wages being too high. Now if he can turn around this behemoth without bankruptcy, then he was worth every penny! I for one would be more than impressed.
If they have in fact stayed afloat and can bring in some new cars in the next couple of years, then we may be seeing a new and improved GM. Add a warranty and keep the reliability on a steady upswing, and some may return to buy a GM car again. There is some hope.
-Loren
As to Mitsubishi hanging on, I don't see how the dealerships are holding out. Style wise, kinda like the looks of the Galant and the Eclipse. Parts from Mitsubishi seem a bit more costly to me than say Toyota parts. But I am going by the 1990s, so perhaps prices are closer now.
-Loren
I do not quite follow. Mitsubishi makes turbos for several manufacturers. Quality is not the sole provence of the turbo, rather it is in the overall design of the engine as a whole. Mitsubishi makes a quality component. Saab designed the engines that, according to Ward's anyway, make the best use of the quality component.
Any smooth running engine which provides power without sucking up too much gas, and lasting for the time I own the car, is fine by me. If gas was cheaper, a V8 would be choice one, followed by the inline 6, then V6 or i4 -- i5 engines
I am no engineer. My understanding is that especially in the front wheel drive format, there is a decided advantage to keeping the engine as small as possible. Saab getting V6 hp out of a turbo 4 and V8 hp out of turbo V6 help make its fwd cars better drivers than the average appliance.
Saab also does a pretty good job holding the line on gas mileage.
Losing dealers can be a real issue. Unless Mitsu wants to borrow an idea from the long gone Daewoo and hire college kids to sell product door to door :sick:
Again, there will be no bankruptcy in the near future. First quarter profit (except for buying out hourly benefits to get them to pay some health care) points the way. Not saying there is no risk.
Rocky
:shades:
-Loren
Well the Solstice GXP/Sky Redline aren't here yet and there is a car called the z4 M roadster that has around 330hp with 0-60 in the upper 4 second range and is an awesome car. No reason to be comparing a Solstice to a Z4 or M roadster. Different leagues with different price tags. That's not dissing the Solstice/Sky. They are great cars.
-Loren
Didn't think so. So since the "hot" models haven't arrived or been tested yet, I'll reserve judgment on your claim of smoking Z4's.
-Loren
-Loren
-Loren
"It didn't have the flip seats ? Nvbanker, are you sure you were looking at one with leather ? Sure it wasn't a stripped down one with Vinyl ?"
Yeah the seats flip, but they still aren't doing that right, they don't go away into a deep well like the Ford's do, nor are they even close to comfortable for an adult. Admit it, Ford has the design on this. I gave Chevy the dash and cabin award.
As for the seats, please tell me vinyl isn't an option!!
The leather was poor, this didn't look like a stripper to me though.
Rocky
Rocky
Good one!
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
210HP and a little 2.8L engine - bad combination for something so heavy.
Buick is another example. The 3.8L engine is a good engine if it was in a 3000lb car. But putting it in the Lucerne? It's a disaster. The car should be RWD and have the V8 as the only option, period. FWD is something that they can live with, but offering a miserable engine on the base model relegates the reviews to the following:
"...Optional V8 gives decent performance."
That's it - a footnote, while the rest of the review hammers on the base model's lackluster performance. GM needs to put its best foot forward and ditch the multi-engine nonsense.
That said, the Lucerne with the V8 in it is a rebadged Caddy for about 8-10K less. Used, they'll be real gems. It's high on my list for a car in two or three years.
They go to all the trouble of making something with a real in-your-face bold style, then round it to what -- nothing? OK, maybe this change coming up will look great. I could be wrong. And perhaps people want bland. The Cadillacs will never again be bold in any way. They will just meld into the parking lots with all the other bland cars.
Another trend is the disappearing windows. By 2009, we may be using a periscope to see out of the car. Not only will the Chrysler 300 and Nissan 350Z have no windows, and too tall doors, everything Cadillac to Mercedes will too.
I may get a Mustang. Good style and rear wheel drive, without too high a price. Only thing I have found wrong so far with the Stang was the laziness of going back to 1969 drawing to make a new car. Seems like they could have found some new design from the design studios to use.
Why do they have hundreds of excellent drawing and bright minds working on cool designs which are never used, and only trashed?
I hope the Cadillac line doesn't round its way to looking like a 1960 Ford Falcon in a couple years.
-Loren
Some feel worst than others. The Tiburon, oddly enough, doesn't feel too bad. You can see about still. The Nissan 350Z is really confining. It seems most odd with sedan, to have this closed in feel. You can dislocate your shoulder, simply trying to hang an elbow out. Hey, maybe the Monte Carlo has a normal door. A little odd styling here and there, but it is at least different. Great gas mileage. Kinda odd though is the thought of FWD for the Monte, though it may pull ya better in snow. Trying to think of my last snow experience. Guess it was '98 coming back from Las Vegas . Yeah, it snows on the freeway between LV and Baker - go figure. My FWD car kept going when trucks stopped on the roadway, and SUV and little pickups were upside down like turtles. Guess they did not believe in slowing down. Well they did the hard way.
-Loren