91_z28_4me

I actually like the BLS as well. I would love to have gotten one of the Mexican models and driven it around in the US. It truly does look like a smaller 1st gen CTS on the outside.

guionM

There was nothing wrong with the BLS outside of it trying to go against BMW and Mercedes Benz with nothing more than a high price, and no European pedigree. When you enter a new market like that, you need to go in with something that gets people's attention. A reskinning of the same family car that both Opel and Saab use won't cut it

Zeta is comparable in handling to a 5 series.
Also said that the Alpha will no doubt match or even beat the 3 series.

But, my point is that first there will be tradeoffs to make it happen, and secondly, the idea that a vehicle that has to meet cost constraints developed over a course of a few years isn't going to match a vehicle made by a company who has had decades of experience, can charge a higher price, and has a truly global sales network.


GM will no doubt do what it does best, convert intangables into data (numbers) and uses them as measurements. GM then takes those numbers and set out to better them. What comes out are cars like the Corvette, the G8, and the CTSv (especially the original version). These are cars that perform as good as the competition, and even a shade better. However, when you step away from the actual numbers, and compare these vehicles to the vehicles they are made to compeate against (ie: Porsche and BMW), it feels quite a bit different. Even discarding the cheaper interior materials surrounding you, they simply don't have the same "feel" as higher brand cars. That something you simply can't convert to numbers.

I think the Alpha will be out of the ball park. GM will do what it needs to within the bounderies its developers have to work with.

Bingo.

And that's the issue whereever the "compete with BMW" sentence comes up.

Z284ever

And THOSE are the things Alpha needs to get right.

Let me compare my CTS to the 535i. I know that my CTS cost 3 Series money, but for these purposes I think comparisons are very valid. First off, I love my '06 CTS with 18" perf package, 3.6 and M6. It handles pretty awesome and has great brakes, but I must admit, it is very lacking in refinement.

Step into a 535 and you immediately notice how smooth and free revving it's motor is. In comparison my 3.6 feels coarse and rough - especially at idle and higher RPMs. My CTS has all sorts of clunking and drivetrain lash going on in the driveline. Not even a hint of that in the 5. My CTS has good feeling, direct steering. The 5's is better. More direct, more connected to you, much better "feel" if you will. Same thing with the 5's brakes. I could go on, but you get the point.

It's these intangibles which GM MUST get right. It's easy to go around a skid pad fast, but if this car is not the total package, if it doesn't deliver that proper, sweet, refined "feel", it will fail.

Big Als Z

Even if the performance of the car was nailed down, almost to the point that GM just built its own 3 series, there is a huge luxury feel.
We know right now that no matter the engine is, the engine will be coarse feeling. None of GM's engines have the refinement of Honda or BMW, so thats already a strike. GM needs to know that going in. They need to move foward and focus on soething else that makes it better.
What are the 3 series's shortfalls? The 3 is falling back, I think that Caddy should grab a hold of the A/S4, New G37, and 335i/xi. It has the ability to pick out the best of each.

Z284ever

The V6 will, I'd imagine, be the prime mover of most of the ATS variants. There is an issue with it smoothness/refinement and GM knows it - they even have a TSB on it. GM needs to really get cracking on stuff like this, because you know what - people notice. And people talk. And before someone chimes in that BMW/MB/Audi/whatever cost more, well.....

1) This is where Cadillac wants to play.
2) Even Honda, Ford, etc., do a better job on smoothness than GM does on the 3.6.

I put over 100K miles on my SVT Contour's V6, and it was smooth as silk, from idle through 6,900 RPM. It was eager to rev, it sounded great and as an engine, was a gem. This, with 10 year older tech than on GM's V6.

GM Powertrain needs to go through the HFV6 with a fine tooth comb and really sweeten it's refinement. I don't know if it needs to be isolated better, or it's software needs to be reprogrammed or what - but they need to get on it.

90 Z28SS

They did it with the DI 2.4 in the Equinox and that engine was routinely trashed for not being smooth ....dont see why the same cant be done with the 3.6 .

R377

I haven't driven the Equinox, but the 4-banger gets active noise cancelling which likely contributes significantly to its perceived NHV.

Regarding Z284ever's Contour, remember that was a much smaller engine than the HFV6. The amount of reciprocating mass is a huge contributor to engine NVH.

Z284ever

True. But the SVT's engine was more highly tuned and performance orientated. And it didn't have the benefit of variable cams.

teal98

I remember reading somewhere that the HFV6 development was outsourced to Ricardo in England. Is that true?

Z284ever

Don't know, that's the first I've heard of that.

Josh452

This thread makes me shake my head...............

Z284ever

Why's that, Josh?

Josh452

You guys really think that steering is the issue at hand here?

Reuss is an engineeer.......he's a lot like Lutz and there's a discussion about steering.

Sure Mark said it had to excel but come on.........that's just on one model and on one brand.

Z284ever

Well, that's what we're talking about. And getting the steering right on a car you're calling a "BMW fighter" is pretty damned important. Otherwise, you're just the old GM blowing smoke up everyone's ***.