Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Can GM make Cadillac the standard of the world Again?
5919 messages, Last post on Apr 10, 2009 at 2:31 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: lykourinou (Dec 26, 2007 3:28 pm) The XLR needs to be updated as does the STS to some degree. I like the CTS, DTS, Escalade and SRX interiors. They are very competitive with anything from MB or Lexus. The 2007 refresh of the SRX interior took it from worst in class to one of the best.
|
|
|
Replying to: lykourinou (Dec 26, 2007 3:32 pm) First of all Ford uses SOHC and DOHC engines. GM doesnt make one single SOHC engine. SOHC and pushrod are not the same thing. The 6.2L engine in the Escalade is extremely powerful and outpowers the 5.5l DOHC V8 from Mercedes. It is state of the art with all aluminum construction and VVT. MB just started using VVT about two years ago for the record. Chrysler uses all OHC engines except for the HEMI and their lower end minivan engine. The HEMI is low tech compared to some of GM's pushrod engines but its very effective and refined for the price. Today's OHV engines are anything but archaic and if you review the tech specs you will see that. It should also be noted that the SRX, CTS, STS and XLR use DOHC engines. The only Caddies that do not are the CTS-V and Escalade. The new CTS-V is likely to produce in excess of 500hp from its "low tech" supercharged 6.2L V8 which is enough to leave the C63 and IS-F in the dust. |
|
|
Replying to: trimaster (Dec 26, 2007 9:30 pm) Gm marketshare loss was inevitable. This is a fact whether you chose to accept it or not. GM had 50% share because of lack of competition and the desirability of their vehicles. GM has better quality than ever but their share is lower than ever before so your argument that high share is ONLY related to quality doesnt make sense to me. Toyota is supposedly the highest quality manufacturer in the business and they only have 16% US marketshare. Why is that? Should they be exceeding GM's 1970 share? Of course not because the market is too competitive and NO ONE will EVER have the share GM had in the 1960s. Again, just look at Europe for example. Toyota has about 45% share in Japan due to lack of foreign competition. "That's because Toyota isn't known for their interior. If a person wants a good looking interior they'd get a Lexus. When did Toyota put quality interiors in their cars anyway???? " My point was that if american cars are going to be heavily criticized for cheap interiors then the same should happen to Toyota. For the most part it does not because the media is in love with Toyota, especially in the post Prius era. characteristics that get american cars blasted by the press barely get mentioned in reviews of Toyotas. Edmunds did a review of the new Sequoia and made nary a comment about its abominable interior that is the worst in class. Its a disgrace and would not be tolerated if it was in a Chrysler or Chevy.
|
|
|
Replying to: fintail (Dec 26, 2007 3:42 pm) Some cars such as my E55 have the dark or grey wood, some people don't even think it is wood, but marble. " I agree 100%, the wood in the M class looks very fake to me. I find Lexus and Cadillac real wood to be more authentic than the wood used in MB models. |
|
|
Replying to: trimaster (Dec 26, 2007 9:55 pm) I said nothing of the kind. I didnt know GM bashing was a prerequisite for this forum so I'm not sure why I am being attacked for "making excuses" for GM. I am merely acknowledging facts that many anti GM people chose to ignore. GM could have done a better job adopting the quality initiatives pioneered by the Japanese. They could have done more to stem the marketshare losses. They could have made better small cars in the 80s and 90s. Happy now? That said, marketshare losses could not be averted and to suggest otherwise ignores the competitiveness of this market. If Toyota had 50% share in 1970 and then was faced with several major offshore competitors invading its market it too would have lost share. Have you not noticed the growth of Toyota and Nissan's lineups in the last 20 years? Have you not noticed new players like Hyundai and Kia and Mini? Have you not noticed that BMW and MB have expanded into the SUV market and the lower end sub $30k market? All of the foreign players have expanded their lineups and dealership bases in the last 20 years and now most of them compete in almost every segment. Toyota just built a $1B factory to build 200k Tundras a year. In the long run that is likely to lead to lower share for GM and Ford. Thats the way the business works. Going forward we will likely see Toyota start to lose share as Hyundai and Nissan step up their efforts in the US market and go after Toyota customers. The hybrid segment is a great example. How much to you want to bet that Toyota's share of the hybrid market will be FAR lower in 2017 than it is in 2007? Toyota dominates due to lack of competiiton. Even if every Toyota hybrid is totally perfect from a reliability standpoint Toyota will lose share as GM, Ford and Honda launch hybrids over the next 5 years.
|
|
|
Overhead cam engines come in the single and double types, where the double overhead cam pushes directly on the valve stem. The single overhead cam needs a rocker arm to push on the valve stem, as does the pushrod engine. The pushrod pushes the rocker arm and the cam (which is in the block) pushes the pushrod. All of these engines have over head valves. If you want to consider a "barbaric" engine design, consider the L-head, where the in the block cam did push on the valve stem, but the design limited the compression ratio (and therefore the power output). The basic limitation of the pushrod design seems to be that only 2 valves per cylinder are the common design, where the overhead cam design (particularly double OHC) uses 4 valves per cylinder. There are variations in the number of valves, but either two (pushrod) or four (dohc) is most common.
|
|
|
Replying to: sls002 (Dec 27, 2007 9:49 am) |
|
|
|
|
Just wanted to pop in here and clarify things: Cadillac is and always will be the "Standard" that all others will strive to become. I don't know why it's even questioned  Take for example the Escalade. There is nobody, not Mercedes, not BMW, not Audi/Lexus/Acura/Volvo who could design a more beautiful or powerful SUV like GM can. The Escalade is the Standard when you think of Luxury SUV's just like the Cadillac DTS and CTS are the best in their respective classes. The others just don't have the engineering prowess or the design engineering talent to build such a winning vehicle like GM can. All the naysayers have no clue what they are talking about and are just bashing Cadillac just to hear themselves talk. There just jealous of Cadillacs success and future successes.
|
|
|
Replying to: onlygmmatters (Dec 27, 2007 1:27 pm) Didn't the Escalade basically start out as a Chevy Tahoe? Chevy not in same league as Merc, BMW, Audi, Acura.
|
|
|
Replying to: onlygmmatters (Dec 27, 2007 1:27 pm) A quick refresher:  http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1970-1979-cadillac7.htm  http://www.cardomain.com/memberpage/663755     Cadillac hasn't built a world-class car in my lifetime, though the 2008 CTS is within striking distance.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Can GM make Cadillac the standard of the world Again?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2009 Cadillac Escalade
2009 Cadillac XLR
2009 Cadillac STS
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
