Cadillac XTS
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
If there is a need for a large mid-lux sedan, I say let Buick fill that niche.
Why do you think any GM division should be building "snooze barges"? Why would you do that to Buick? Nothing from any GM division should be snoozeworthy.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Beyond that, look at the sales volume of the S and 7. I don't have it at my finger tips but the numbers are very small. There may come a day when Cadillac can splurge on something like that (I hope so), but today Cadillac needs to make money. This sucker is a money maker with low initial investment and gauranteed market acceptance. It replaces the DTS, which up until recently, was paying the bills (along with the Escalade) at Cadillac.
Cadillac needs to get it's house in order. The ATS will be absolutely critical in that regard. So will the next gen CTS. Maybe even one day a 7 or S competitor. The XTS will pay the billls in the meantime.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
(Having driven neither the V nor the M3, I have no idea which I'd prefer, but I've ALWAYS been a huge fan of BMW ride, handling, control feel, etc. So it could be that I'd enjoy the slightly slower, but still wicked fast, M3 more overall. But the CTS-V's powertrain is simply awesome.)
I've driven both Joe, and they are both totally awesome. The V's motor is just an endless mountain of torque. The M3's never feels peaky or lacking in torque, it just revs like a ****. At 8,000 + RPM it'll give you goosebumps.
I hate to pick favorites since I love them both - but if I had to - I'd pick the M3.
Let's see what the ATS-V is like.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,801
From: South Bend , IN
Especially since now this type of trans is/has filtered(ing) into small cars now like the GTI and the upcoming Ford Focus . I read awhile back GM had a twin clutch auto in the works , but never heard a thing about it thereafter .
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
I have to admit I'm befuddled by folks who suggest that the XTS needs to be styled like a bigger version of the sporty CTS. Talk about product overlap. IMHO, the XTS is what it is. Yes its FWD. Get over it gang. Cadillac has been building FWD cars since 1967. They're not going to stop now. The XTS is aimed at a buyer that wants to ride in luxury, not the 40-50 something that wants a zippy yet classy sport sedan to carve through 17-mile drive on his way to Pebble. Many XTS buyers may in fact have a driver and be sitting in the back seat, on their cell making a business deal, or chatting it up with their mistress on the way to the opera.
As I see it, Cadillac is moving in the right direction.
As I see it, Cadillac is moving in the right direction.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Maximum revs are just one neat feature of an engine. You seem to be acting as though BMWs most extreme engine (the M3s naturally aspirated, 8000 rpm V8) is the norm. Note thet their newest engines are turbocharged, modestly sized six and eight cylinders with much more "normal" redlines, I believe. The M3 is the exception, not the norm, at BMW or anywhere else, save the exotics.
Give me an all-aluminum, 556 hp, supercharged, 6x00 rpm V8 over the M3's no-doubt sweet little number anyday. I'm sure the M3 is a blast to drive and makes sweet sounds, but so does thte CTS-V. It delivers the goods in a different manner. What makes the M3's engine "better"? I think its fuel efficiency numbers are worse than (or no better than) the the numbers for the heavier, far more powerful and faster CTS-V. I'm talking powertrains here, not the overall handling / dynamics of the car.
(Having driven neither the V nor the M3, I have no idea which I'd prefer, but I've ALWAYS been a huge fan of BMW ride, handling, control feel, etc. So it could be that I'd enjoy the slightly slower, but still wicked fast, M3 more overall. But the CTS-V's powertrain is simply awesome.)
I DO agree that GM needs to come out with a dual clutch gearbox with 6-8 speeds.
However, go drive an M3 / dual clutch and a CTS-V / 6 speed auto back to back, however, and tell me which one wins for both overall driveability AND performance.
As for Mercedes, what 8000 rpm super high revver do they use? They've got a 5xx hp 6.2L V8 that makes LS7-ish numbers with a bit less displacement. They have been using supercharging for years. Why is it ok for them to supercharge an otherwise unremarkable 5.5L V8, but it is crude of GM to supercharge a 6.2L to spectacular results 556 hp in the V, nearly 640 hp in the ZR1)?
You are right that the brand snobs / techno geeks might point to transmission ratio count and valve count as some point of superiority for their rides. However, those guys who just like to buy "the best" also have to note which car is "the best" when it comes to performance, track times, etc. In the M3 / CTS-V / etc. market, that has to count for something.
High revving engines are fun, for sure. But when you've got an engine that makes 414 hp and less than 300 lb-ft of torque, and short gearing to take advantage of such a power curve, you won't necessarily come out ahead of a higher power / torque powertrain with gearing to match.
Honda's Civic Si is a good example of this. In terms of performance, even the old 205 hp (probably a bit underrated) supercharged Cobalt SS mopped the floor with it. The Honda also had nearly 200 hp, and I think was a bit lighter too. Yes, it revs to around 8000 rpm. But it makes no torque, and it is geared quite short to get torque mulitiplication and take advantage of the engine's ability to breath at such high speeds. It was still slower, and you have the added benefit of quite high engine speeds when cruising on the highway.
Anyway, yes, GM needs to add some things to keep Caddy in the hunt with the heavy hitters from Europe. And really, Caddy doesn't quite have the cachet yet (and my not for some time) to support a $100,000+ premium sedan. But let's not sell the powertrains short.
Give me an all-aluminum, 556 hp, supercharged, 6x00 rpm V8 over the M3's no-doubt sweet little number anyday. I'm sure the M3 is a blast to drive and makes sweet sounds, but so does thte CTS-V. It delivers the goods in a different manner. What makes the M3's engine "better"? I think its fuel efficiency numbers are worse than (or no better than) the the numbers for the heavier, far more powerful and faster CTS-V. I'm talking powertrains here, not the overall handling / dynamics of the car.
(Having driven neither the V nor the M3, I have no idea which I'd prefer, but I've ALWAYS been a huge fan of BMW ride, handling, control feel, etc. So it could be that I'd enjoy the slightly slower, but still wicked fast, M3 more overall. But the CTS-V's powertrain is simply awesome.)
I DO agree that GM needs to come out with a dual clutch gearbox with 6-8 speeds.
However, go drive an M3 / dual clutch and a CTS-V / 6 speed auto back to back, however, and tell me which one wins for both overall driveability AND performance.
As for Mercedes, what 8000 rpm super high revver do they use? They've got a 5xx hp 6.2L V8 that makes LS7-ish numbers with a bit less displacement. They have been using supercharging for years. Why is it ok for them to supercharge an otherwise unremarkable 5.5L V8, but it is crude of GM to supercharge a 6.2L to spectacular results 556 hp in the V, nearly 640 hp in the ZR1)?
You are right that the brand snobs / techno geeks might point to transmission ratio count and valve count as some point of superiority for their rides. However, those guys who just like to buy "the best" also have to note which car is "the best" when it comes to performance, track times, etc. In the M3 / CTS-V / etc. market, that has to count for something.
High revving engines are fun, for sure. But when you've got an engine that makes 414 hp and less than 300 lb-ft of torque, and short gearing to take advantage of such a power curve, you won't necessarily come out ahead of a higher power / torque powertrain with gearing to match.
Honda's Civic Si is a good example of this. In terms of performance, even the old 205 hp (probably a bit underrated) supercharged Cobalt SS mopped the floor with it. The Honda also had nearly 200 hp, and I think was a bit lighter too. Yes, it revs to around 8000 rpm. But it makes no torque, and it is geared quite short to get torque mulitiplication and take advantage of the engine's ability to breath at such high speeds. It was still slower, and you have the added benefit of quite high engine speeds when cruising on the highway.
Anyway, yes, GM needs to add some things to keep Caddy in the hunt with the heavy hitters from Europe. And really, Caddy doesn't quite have the cachet yet (and my not for some time) to support a $100,000+ premium sedan. But let's not sell the powertrains short.
BMW and Merc have performance numbers to justify the faith they put into the technology they employ. We are talking engines that are way above anything other manufacturers would contemplate. BMW are in a class of their own. The M3's engine is unique but to get that kind of performance out of a 4.0L V8 is exceptional. The AMG 6.2L V8 might not rev as high, but boy can it back up the numbers on the track. Btw, the 6.2L is also hand assembled... so it's not lacking in pedigree.
Although both BMW/MB are using/have used forced induction in the past, it's really beside the point. Technically, they are [regarded] superior to any other manufacturer. It's the technology that stands them apart, which is my main point. It's the main criteria for most well-heeled people to not consider anything else competing in that segment. Cadillac, unfortunately doesn't cut it here, no matter how much better a CTS-V might perform at the track. This is entirely beside the real point.
Technology rules, OK?
On that point, how does Cadillac go about being seen to be in the same league? IMO, an overhaul of the powertrains are a logical step forward. It's not good enough for GM to stick DOHC heads on the Gen V for example. The engine would have to be a clean sheet approach. RWD across the board is the next step forward, but it's pointless to go this step if the powertrains aren't competitive from a technology standpoint.
Just my 2c.
EDIT: I guess if Cadillac also wants to play in the big league, it would have to be a success in its own right. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Cadillac must continue to be a profitable division in order to fund its own programs. The more money that comes in, the more money that GM can throw at Cadillac to give it the technology it needs to be taken more seriously by BMW/MB shoppers.
Last edited by SSbaby; Jan 14, 2010 at 09:07 PM.
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
Nope! Pedigree implies a history of success, saying nothing about the way success was obtained. If a company has been racing and winning for a hundred years, and building the engines for their race cars on a production assembly line, right next to their production cars, that's pedigree.
If another company is new to racing, but is building their engines by hand, you can't correctly call that pedigree. You can call it meticulous, you can call it a recipe for success, but without history, there is no pedigree.
Disclaimer: it's possible that Australian English defines the word differently...
If another company is new to racing, but is building their engines by hand, you can't correctly call that pedigree. You can call it meticulous, you can call it a recipe for success, but without history, there is no pedigree.
Disclaimer: it's possible that Australian English defines the word differently...
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Nope! Pedigree implies a history of success, saying nothing about the way success was obtained. If a company has been racing and winning for a hundred years, and building the engines for their race cars on a production assembly line, right next to their production cars, that's pedigree.
If another company is new to racing, but is building their engines by hand, you can't correctly call that pedigree. You can call it meticulous, you can call it a recipe for success, but without history, there is no pedigree.
Disclaimer: it's possible that Australian English defines the word differently...
If another company is new to racing, but is building their engines by hand, you can't correctly call that pedigree. You can call it meticulous, you can call it a recipe for success, but without history, there is no pedigree.
Disclaimer: it's possible that Australian English defines the word differently...
What you get with both M and AMG is serious race engineering that filters down to the production cars. It's just that most car enthusiasts today are familiar with the letters 'M' and 'AMG' on production cars and have little idea of their significance and history.
Don't worry, English is English across the whole globe!
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 805
From: MI
Don't get me wrong, Joe. I agree with you entirely - I'm already a convert.
BMW and Merc have performance numbers to justify the faith they put into the technology they employ. We are talking engines that are way above anything other manufacturers would contemplate. BMW are in a class of their own. The M3's engine is unique but to get that kind of performance out of a 4.0L V8 is exceptional. The AMG 6.2L V8 might not rev as high, but boy can it back up the numbers on the track. Btw, the 6.2L is also hand assembled... so it's not lacking in pedigree.
Although both BMW/MB are using/have used forced induction in the past, it's really beside the point. Technically, they are [regarded] superior to any other manufacturer. It's the technology that stands them apart, which is my main point. It's the main criteria for most well-heeled people to not consider anything else competing in that segment. Cadillac, unfortunately doesn't cut it here, no matter how much better a CTS-V might perform at the track. This is entirely beside the real point.
Technology rules, OK?
On that point, how does Cadillac go about being seen to be in the same league? IMO, an overhaul of the powertrains are a logical step forward. It's not good enough for GM to stick DOHC heads on the Gen V for example. The engine would have to be a clean sheet approach. RWD across the board is the next step forward, but it's pointless to go this step if the powertrains aren't competitive from a technology standpoint.
Just my 2c.
EDIT: I guess if Cadillac also wants to play in the big league, it would have to be a success in its own right. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Cadillac must continue to be a profitable division in order to fund its own programs. The more money that comes in, the more money that GM can throw at Cadillac to give it the technology it needs to be taken more seriously by BMW/MB shoppers.
BMW and Merc have performance numbers to justify the faith they put into the technology they employ. We are talking engines that are way above anything other manufacturers would contemplate. BMW are in a class of their own. The M3's engine is unique but to get that kind of performance out of a 4.0L V8 is exceptional. The AMG 6.2L V8 might not rev as high, but boy can it back up the numbers on the track. Btw, the 6.2L is also hand assembled... so it's not lacking in pedigree.
Although both BMW/MB are using/have used forced induction in the past, it's really beside the point. Technically, they are [regarded] superior to any other manufacturer. It's the technology that stands them apart, which is my main point. It's the main criteria for most well-heeled people to not consider anything else competing in that segment. Cadillac, unfortunately doesn't cut it here, no matter how much better a CTS-V might perform at the track. This is entirely beside the real point.
Technology rules, OK?
On that point, how does Cadillac go about being seen to be in the same league? IMO, an overhaul of the powertrains are a logical step forward. It's not good enough for GM to stick DOHC heads on the Gen V for example. The engine would have to be a clean sheet approach. RWD across the board is the next step forward, but it's pointless to go this step if the powertrains aren't competitive from a technology standpoint.
Just my 2c.
EDIT: I guess if Cadillac also wants to play in the big league, it would have to be a success in its own right. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Cadillac must continue to be a profitable division in order to fund its own programs. The more money that comes in, the more money that GM can throw at Cadillac to give it the technology it needs to be taken more seriously by BMW/MB shoppers.
If you said that BMW/Mercedes had more technology which resulted in better performance, then that's a totally different story.
If engineering team A develops a super high tech vehicle with super high redlines, DOHC, etc. and engineering team B develops a vehicle with decades-old prehistoric technology but still achieves the same performance as team A's vehicle, guess who wins?
Using old proven designs saves on development costs. Take it from an ex-auto engineer. The simpler, cheaper solution that delivers the same performance is the goal.
You're making the point that the added value in perceived value by the consumers justifies the cost of developing new razzle-dazzle type technologies even if they don't result in any appreciable gains in the bottom-line performance. I don't think that's the case. Cadillac simply needs to drive home the point of performance and who wins the performance game.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
The only place technology rules in this way is in the minds of idiots who would purchase a product simply because the OEM found a more complicated way to achieve the same results as it's less "technologically advanced" counterpart.
If you said that BMW/Mercedes had more technology which resulted in better performance, then that's a totally different story.
If engineering team A develops a super high tech vehicle with super high redlines, DOHC, etc. and engineering team B develops a vehicle with decades-old prehistoric technology but still achieves the same performance as team A's vehicle, guess who wins?
Using old proven designs saves on development costs. Take it from an ex-auto engineer. The simpler, cheaper solution that delivers the same performance is the goal.
You're making the point that the added value in perceived value by the consumers justifies the cost of developing new razzle-dazzle type technologies even if they don't result in any appreciable gains in the bottom-line performance. I don't think that's the case. Cadillac simply needs to drive home the point of performance and who wins the performance game.
If you said that BMW/Mercedes had more technology which resulted in better performance, then that's a totally different story.
If engineering team A develops a super high tech vehicle with super high redlines, DOHC, etc. and engineering team B develops a vehicle with decades-old prehistoric technology but still achieves the same performance as team A's vehicle, guess who wins?
Using old proven designs saves on development costs. Take it from an ex-auto engineer. The simpler, cheaper solution that delivers the same performance is the goal.
You're making the point that the added value in perceived value by the consumers justifies the cost of developing new razzle-dazzle type technologies even if they don't result in any appreciable gains in the bottom-line performance. I don't think that's the case. Cadillac simply needs to drive home the point of performance and who wins the performance game.
At the risk of veering completely off topic, you don't have to generalize and say "the Germans". Nissan's GTR also makes god use of its available technology. GM are relatively nowhere by comparison.
Perhaps if GM did have a 'technical-tour-de-force', the image many people have of GM might change for the better? I tend to believe that technology is where most customers look when it comes to bragging rights regardless of whether that notion is right or wrong.
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
