Hardly.

Sigma is compatable with all currently known future regulations. So is Camaro.

Camaro is set to run at least to the middle of next decade.

The current new CTS is also planned out to the same timeframe.

Depending on the volume of GM's high volume mainstream models and powertrain fuel economy advances, both the Sigma CTS and the Zeta based Camaro can stay in production with reskinnings for another decade as long as there are sales to justify the investment.

Alpha may be on again, but it is hardly a do or die for Cadillac or Camaro if it doesn't come out within the next few years. GM can easily delay it a few years if they need the money elsewhere.

Agreed.

To be honest, I have a few issues with the Car & Driver story.

First, the Alpha is a evolution of Bob Lutz's original idea of the Kappa. Knowing what little I do about him and how he operates, I seriously doubt he's championing pulling the plug on Alpha unless he's making a strictly dollars and sense business decision (which he rightfully tends to do when faced with spending priorities and no cash).

The second is the Espilon Cadillac. I know GM was looking at that when Alpha was shelved. I suspect that C&D got this mixed up a little. GM tends to operate on multiple fronts on car development regarding RWD (except w/ Pontiac). They always hedge their bets by keeping a FWD option open. I suspect there is a cross of information there.

The third is the idea of a Delta Cadillac. I suspect someone high enough brought it up, and because someone else though the idea was so outrageous, they passed the information on to generate enough outrage to shoot it down (I've been used like that myself once many years ago). I don't believe for a moment that Cadillac will make a Delta based car. It will be an Alpha, or nothing. Buick perhaps, but not Cadillac.

Finally, Cadillac has all but abandoned trying to match BMW on a global stage for the time being. Cadillac is retrenching, and GM is looking towards it to generate significant cash. The CTS is Cadillac's flagship car, and it will almost certainly be the focal point of both sales and volume for the next few years with the CTS wagon and coupe.


I do see the possibility of the DTS replacement being put on a streched Sigma or restyled STS. Cadillac had already locked in the design of the Zeta based DTS replacement, and it would take little to adapt the design from one RWD arcitecture to another (FWD has more front overhang and a closer front wheel to passenger cabin ratio... it's taking GM an extra year to adapt the RWD Impala design to the FWD Espilon).

Gut feeling on what will happen?

DTS Replacement:
I think it could go either way. Both Sigma and Espilon are easy low cost solutions, and both have established OEM networks already. I'd tip towards the large Espilon though. Reason? This is the traditional Cadillac and DTS buyers are completely indifferent towards RWD and the DTS has done just as well as the CTS overall over the years. Add in the fact that there's greater profit margins using the cheap Espilon and systems costs are spread out over tha gazillion other Espilons sold worldwide, and it makes a strong financial case to a bankrupt company that wants to pay off it's government loans ASAP.

CTS:
You don't spend as much as GM did completely redoing not just the design, but the entire structure of the CTS, then add 2 additional configurations (a coupe and a wagon), and then just run it for a few years... especially at the CTS's relatively low volume (compared to other GM lines). You're going to see the CTS for the better part of another decade, perhaps with styling refreshings. Perhaps even longer.

Alpha:
While it isn't a life or death situation as some might believe, it is the only new car chassis GM seems to be working on at the moment. The chassis was shelved by the old GM, and it gained new life due due to a combination of new fuel standards, GM's bankruptcy, and GM at risk losing Opel and the money exchange rate stability of developing things in the US as opposed to overseas. From an architecture standpoint, Alpha isn't a priority, it's the only game in town. However, in the grand scheme of things, if GM decides it needs the money to make a better Espilon (which sells a gazillion more than Alpha ever would), or GM decides to divert money into making Volts cheap to make, or even if the small truck market suddenly explodes (higher profit margins) then Alpha will go on hold again.

Prediction? If GM recovers the way I think it will, and I have a fix on their finances, thinking, & general direction the way I think I have, I believe Alpha will be out by 2013CY as a Cadillac sedan with the architecture being shared with Holden the same year & both will be made here (The Aussie Cruize will likely fill out Elizabeth City's capacity). I suspect a Cadillac coupe made on Alpha would be out first, then perhaps a Camaro later after 2014-2015, but not before.

Even at a 6 year run, it would still be the shortest Camaro run since the 1969 Camaro.

But then again, the current Camaro could run longer. But it almost certainly won't run shorter.

 

There won't be any government loans with the new GM.

 

I said "in afew years" , not next month.

Sigma is probably good until 2015, but it's considered too heavy, and it's not very economical to produce at current volumes. Even when the wagon and coupe come on line, and the economy improves, (assuming we haven't become Bolsheviks by then), we're probably looking at volumes of no more than 50-60K. That's not enough to keep Lansing running cost efficiently.

The same pretty much applies with the Camaro. At this point, it's a lame duck. I don't expect it to even get a MCE. And 40-50K Camaros is not going to be very economical for too long at Oshawa either.
Hey....I know.... wouldn't it make sense if these cars shared one architecture and were produced on one assemly line at one factory? Probably save a ton of cash. Just sayin'.

Anyway, I suppose it's possible that the current Camaro could soldier on until mid-decade. Alot depends on how quickly or rather the timing of the other Alpha programs. It could go something like this: Sedan ---> Coupe----> Convertible---> CAMARO ---> CTS replacement on Alpha+.


Oh, on a side note regarding the SLS. I think that there are issues regarding it's side impact certification which might preclude it from being sold here.

 

Do your insiders really think that the Cadillac and Camaro can be produced on the same line while selling the Camaro at the same price point as today?

Other rumors say that Alpha may be too expensive for Camaro. Whether those are purely speculation I can't say.

 

Camaro is an integral part of the program. Remember, Alpha is intended to come in under CTS price-wise. Besides, has anyone been watching Camaro's transaction price lately?

 

Good enough.

I don't expect Camaro transaction prices to stay where they are. I expect the Camaro to follow the same pattern as the Solstice and PT Cruiser and every other hot new intro that you can eventually get good deals on.

 

DTS/deVille has actually fared much worse than CTS over the years (in thousands of units/year)



Perhaps that's due to the age/image of the car, or perhaps it's due to that segment of Caddy's customer base going elsewhere/dying off. But maybe it also points to it being the time to for Caddy to leave this "traditional" market.

 

DTS also has much higher fleet sales percentage than CTS does.

 

The DTS has been around forever. It's not significantly different from the DeVille I rented 11 years ago. The engine is even rated the same in HP, though it has had a minor update. Not even 300hp from a 4.6l DOHC 32 valve V8.

Who would buy a 2009 DTS? 99/100 of the retail sales are probably to people who didn't test drive or seriously consider any other car. Or they drove an STS and decided the ride was too firm. Legacy buyers

 

You know, the DTS is a nice car. But honestly, for $46-$63K, there are an awful lot other cars to choose from. I wish Cadillac good luck with the XT7 (or whatever it'll be called), but that certainly won't be the car I'll be eagerly anticipating.

 

Ugh...right back to Old GM ways.
GM tries to do 400 things at once, and all for one thing.
There needs to be movement with a small RWD/AWD platform that can go from 3 to 5 series sized cars.
Then there needs to be a larger RWD/AWD system.
Thats it. No ES fighters, or any of that. Stop with the playing around and start working towards one goal. Why does GM have 400 different ways of doing things?

How can Hyundai develop a world class luxury car, and price it between 30-50k, with a V6 and V8 engines, and Caddy cant come close?

Caddy needs to start rebuilding from the ground up. That means developing an Alpha platform to give Caddy a 3/C class fighter, a future CTS replacement, a Camaro, and several variants in the middle for Opel and Holden.
A larger Sigma/Zeta mix platform needs to be done for Holden and Caddy for American, Aussie, ME, and Chinese markets.

Epsilon, Delta, and other FWD/AWD should be religated to bread and butter sedans, high volume cars where the sheer volume of the cars can spread out production, parts, and development costs.
Now do as I say.....


PS: How much money does GM spend developing 4 different ideas at once? Developing a Alpha car to be a 3 sereis figther, or a Epsilon SWB model, or a Delta 2 based car, or have Holden and GM NA develop a RWD platform.
There needs to be a product dictator.

 

I don't think it cost money as much as diverting focus.

The SWB Epsilon was stillborn before it got off of square one. (Thank GOD!).

Delta? Pretty sure it was an internet rumor.

Holden? I think they wanted to develop Alpha, but never got to.

I guess the bottom line Al, is you don't see BMW going through a bunch of BS rigarmarole - they are focused like a laser beam.

 

I know the DTS is nice, but 'nice' isn't good enough. It's a tether to the past when people wanted their luxury cars big, soft, and torquey, and they didn't car how fast it could take a corner, or how much technology was under the hood.

I don't envy Cadillac product planners and the tight line they have to walk between attracting new luxury car buyers and alienating their traditional base. At least the new car will bring an up to date engine with a 6+ speed transmission.

 

I guess that with that, Time = Money. So the more you have tons of engineers running around, going all over the place, spreading the best minds across several chassis developments....
But yes, there is WAY WAY WAY too many ideas thrown at one project.

I think that my idea of 4 individual companies, buying parts from 1 major supplier is the only way...
Each brand is totaly responsible for product development, design, and engineering. Just that each brand buys the engines, transmisions and platforms off GM.


Let the people who are "traditional" buyers trickle to Buick. Its not like there is another company that makes a DTS type car unless they change thier driving habits.
Caddy needs to focus on developing a brand image. They decided to go to a sporty feel, and thats teh road they must take. There needs to have a common thread with all the cars. No mixing and matching. It needs to just continue with a single line.
BMW, Audi and MB have a DNA almost. Lexus has it for most of thier cars, and Infinity has a small but consistant line up. Acura, while FWD based, also has a DNA.
Caddy has nothing. Caddy has a CTS that doesnt fit into any segment. Its priced like a 3, size of a 5, doesnt have the featuers that the others do, nor teh variants that BMW offers, at least yet.
You have the Esclade, which is giant and really a waste of a nameplate
The SRX, while turning out to be a good car, moves away from the Caddy idea. They went again, chasing after Lexus with an RX, but added handling. Is that what we can expect from the XTS? Just an ES replica, with better handling?
Current line up of the DTS and STS are total failures. DTS is a 20 year old car, and the STS looks like a 20 year old car. Interiors in both are below subpar.
Its very easy to be a Caddy developer...just make the best cars out there. Problem is the budget that GM has to give to Caddy. If the budge tis small, then you work small.
The Alpha chassis needs to be flexible, and not in the "we talked about it a lot, but when production came, it just wasnt possible" stupid BS we hear.
Alpha really needs to come up with a 3 series fighter, and replace the CTS. It also needs to give us a crossover, a Camaro, a wagon and coupe variant of the CTS, a roadster for Caddy, etc etc.

Id much rather be incharge of Buick. It really is easy. Who cares about FWD/RWD/AWD, or about handling. Buick just needs to be Buick. Keep the momentum going.
Chevy is the easiest to manage. Just ocme up with an idea and it could work for Chevy.

 

And that's easy, eh?