Ask the Car People.SM


Is Cadillac's Image Dying and Does Anyone Care?

6189 messages,  Last post on Jun 14, 2013 at 7:47 AM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum.

What is this discussion about? Cadillac Escalade, Cadillac XLR, Cadillac STS, Automotive News

    

Messages Page 619 of 620

#6176 of 6189 Re: . [fintail] by keystonecarfan

Dec 07, 2012 (12:10 pm)

Replying to: fintail (Dec 07, 2012 11:53 am)
More likely, she gave it back when gas prices spiked in 2008. My wife is from a rural area, so people have to do LOTS of driving just to get to the store, school, work, etc. I don't want to think of how much it cost to keep that Escalade filled with gas.

#6177 of 6189 Re: . [keystonecarfan] by fintail

Dec 07, 2012 (12:22 pm)

Replying to: keystonecarfan (Dec 07, 2012 12:10 pm)
And amusingly, that seems to be where so many of those rigs sell, or to people who live really far from work. Then who complains loudest when prices go up?
 
On topic I guess, I wonder what the future is like for the Escalade. Current one is getting long in the tooth.

#6178 of 6189 Re: . [fintail] by robr2

Dec 07, 2012 (12:54 pm)

Replying to: fintail (Dec 07, 2012 12:22 pm)
On topic I guess, I wonder what the future is like for the Escalade. Current one is getting long in the tooth.
 
New one is due for 2014 along with new Tahoe/Yukon/Suburban.

#6179 of 6189 Re: looking at a flagship model [berri] by Stever@Edmunds HOST

Dec 09, 2012 (11:07 am)

Replying to: berri (Oct 10, 2012 6:27 pm)
Alpha's, numeric's, alpha-numeric's - they have just become too many and too common.
 
Back to the naming thread, it appears that Chrysler gets it. Caddy should get on board too.
 
Storied Jeep nameplates are poised for return (Detroit Free Press)

#6180 of 6189 Re: looking at a flagship model [steve_] by fintail

Dec 09, 2012 (11:49 am)

Replying to: Stever@Edmunds (Dec 09, 2012 11:07 am)
Only problem is determining the brand equity of potential names before they hit the market.

#6181 of 6189 CTS TT & 8 speed automatic by rayainsw

Mar 19, 2013 (8:30 am)

I wonder if this will help...?
 
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f70/cadillac-confirms-twin-turbo-v-6-8-speed-- automatic-2014-cts-117093/

#6182 of 6189 Re: CTS TT & 8 speed automatic [rayainsw] by plekto

Mar 19, 2013 (8:54 am)

Replying to: rayainsw (Mar 19, 2013 8:30 am)
Great. Another yuppie toy for the wealthy hooligan.
 
That's one thing I don't get about auto makers. They spend insane amounts of money. Literally flush it away by the bucketful to make these cars to out-do each other and yet the average car we normal people have to drive can't even figure out how to build a car that doesn't feel and drive like a rental car.
 
I don't need 420hp and 20mpg. What I need is 210hp and 40mpg. What I need isn't $60K, I need a car for $30K.

#6183 of 6189 Re: CTS TT & 8 speed automatic [plekto] by marsha7

Mar 20, 2013 (8:57 am)

Replying to: plekto (Mar 19, 2013 8:54 am)
Is it any wonder that Honda and Toyota, making Civics, Accords, Camrys and Corollas make money and sell many cars???

#6184 of 6189 Re: CTS TT & 8 speed automatic [plekto] by jpf

Mar 21, 2013 (4:47 pm)

Replying to: plekto (Mar 19, 2013 8:54 am)
I wholeheartily agree. GM had some very good overhead valve engines that got about 30 MPG on the highway with a 4 speed automatic. Why not put a 6 speed auto on the 3.8 or 3.9 liter engines? These engines are reliable and can be built at a low cost because the tooling, design, engineering, etc. is already done. Instead GM builds engines 3.6 liter engines that produce more power than what's needed on most roads, and is so complicated to repair (i.e., 3 timing chains).
 
If anyone is listening at GM, please bring back some of the overhead valve V6's (e.g. 3.5, 3.8, or 3.9). There are customers who prefer simplicity.

#6185 of 6189 Re: CTS TT & 8 speed automatic [jpf] by plekto

Mar 22, 2013 (9:07 am)

Replying to: jpf (Mar 21, 2013 4:47 pm)
You miss the point, then.
 
What we need is a 1.8-2.4L engine with turbos (or superchargers) that gets 40mpg and 200HP+. Mercedes and others have done this already, why not GM?. Why are we stuck with giant engines that are awesome but largely useless.
 
I drive my mother's Cadillac CTS every so often and it's great. But I also haven't pressed the accelerator down more than 20% of the way, ever. There's just no way in city or highway traffic to do so, and it already has a very twitchy throttle. Adding another 100 hp for the same fuel economy sounds awesome until you realize that they're going in the wrong direction. They need to be using that technology to SHRINK engines.
 
MPG is determined mostly by displacement due to the minimum amount of fuel required to keep the engine running. Since it's a fixed compression ratio (Can't go much below 9:1 these days), that means you can't ever get better MPG than a certain number . For many cars with 3.5-3.8L V6 engines, that's 25mpg. Maybe 30 if you do some insane gearing and have it running at 800prm at highway speeds, but 25mpg overall on a good day.
 
They extract more power out of the fuel, but the limits on MPG still apply because of the mass you're moving (inside the engine) and the displacement. The solution is to get smaller. Much smaller. There's no practical reason why they couldn't put a small 2.0L I6 engine in a car and raise the mpg from 25mpg combined to 40mpg combined. I doubt if most people would notice the difference since nobody actually does 0-60 burnouts getting around town.
 
I chose I6 because of the lower weight and complexity, as well as smoother running characteristics. If you ever get the chance to look at an old 1960s Mercedes, look under the hood and marvel at the tiny 2.2-2.3L I6 engine that they have under there. If you want to really blow your mind, look at a 1960s 300S. Here we have a car with a 3.0L engine that gets 200HP out of regular fuel. All manual (not a single piece of electronics), with mechanical fuel injection.
 
We made incredible strides and then somewhere around the 80s we just got lazy in the U.S. and said "whatever" to actually increasing the efficiency of our vehicles. But not in Europe.
 
BTW - BMW. 520i (E39) - 2.0L engine, just under 150HP. Not sold in the U.S., but it got fantastic gas mileage. (30mpg *combined*, 40mpg highway easily.) And that was without a turbo or other technology like direct injection added. 200-250HP out of a modern version of that engine should easily be possible.
 
Oh, wait. Mercedes and BMW are doing it for their next generation of cars. GM will be stuck with a car that's just as fast and just as capable but with an engine that's twice the displacement and half the MPG.

Messages Page 619 of 620

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement