Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Only problem I have with it is the over 50k cost. We all know that GM is not able to build a car that is worth that much...no way
Yeah right who is this we?
RWD, premium materials, and a great warranty. Not even going to get into available options. Why should they be able to produce a car that specs out head to head with cars that cost 50k and up but build and sell it for less? That does not compute.
Interesting seeing as how GM built transmissions (5L50) for BMW for the following models:
BMW 3 Series (E46)[1]
BMW 5 Series (E39)
BMW Z3
BMW X5 (E53)
Although I don’t agree with the post to which you are responding I can’t say that these facts somehow prove him wrong. GM building a transmission for $50k car does not equate to GM building a $50k car.
Only problem I have with it is the over 50k cost. We all know that GM is not able to build a car that is worth that much...no way
Really? A few existing GM cars say you're wrong, as they sell quite well...
Cadillac has no problem selling cars and trucks in the $50-80k range, and Chevy crests $100k with the top Corvette. THe materials and driving ability of the ATS and CTS put them right on par with the other cars in theri respective classes, and Cadillac will have no problem pulling top dollar for them, like they already do with the CTS-V and Escalade (which can top $80k optioned up)
Although I don’t agree with the post to which you are responding I can’t say that these facts somehow prove him wrong. GM building a transmission for $50k car does not equate to GM building a $50k car.
Well, seeing as how many of the brands and models that GM makes happens to include models that cost in excess of $50,000 then I somehow don't gather what you are saying. That is unless you're suggesting GM can't build a "good" $50,000 car, at which point I's recommend looking at some of the latest reports are saying, which is to indicate that Cadillac is actually highly regarded not to mention the ATS won North American car of the year.
Well, seeing as how many of the brands and models that GM makes happens to include models that cost in excess of $50,000 then I somehow don't gather what you are saying. That is unless you're suggesting GM can't build a "good" $50,000 car, at which point I's recommend looking at some of the latest reports are saying, which is to indicate that Cadillac is actually highly regarded not to mention the ATS won North American car of the year.
What I'm saying is that listing a number of expensive cars built by make Y that happen to use a component manufactured by brand X says nothing about the overall quality of a car built by brand X.
What I'm saying is that listing a number of expensive cars built by make Y that happen to use a component manufactured by brand X says nothing about the overall quality of a car built by brand X.
I understood what you meant. But I also disagree with the premise that GM can't or doesn't build competent and in many cases also high quality vehicles. As a disclaimer I happen to own nothing but Toyotas but feel that GM has made quantum leaps in the last number of recent years and unfortunately many people still cling to older perceptions of their brands, and in particular Cadillac. Mercedes, Audi, BMW, and Acura and Lexus have basically been very conservative with their level of outright design and even engineering, so to me Cadillac deserves more credit for having totally reinvented their brand from scratch.
I understood what you meant. But I also disagree with the premise that GM can't or doesn't build competent and in many cases also high quality vehicles. As a disclaimer I happen to own nothing but Toyotas but feel that GM has made quantum leaps in the last number of recent years and unfortunately many people still cling to older perceptions of their brands, and in particular Cadillac. Mercedes, Audi, BMW, and Acura and Lexus have basically been very conservative with their level of outright design and even engineering, so to me Cadillac deserves more credit for having totally reinvented their brand from scratch.
I can't disagree with that. I've never owned a Cadillac but as an auto enthusiast I've been paying attention ever since the first CTS-V came to market. The first CTS was a bit rough, the second CTS was better and the 2014 looks to be a homerun.
I can't disagree with that. I've never owned a Cadillac but as an auto enthusiast I've been paying attention ever since the first CTS-V came to market. The first CTS was a bit rough, the second CTS was better and the 2014 looks to be a homerun.
I can't wait to see what their new flagship will be like in a few years.
Isn't the Cadillac CTS just a cosmetically glorified Chevy Malibu that costs about $25,000 more than the Malibu and pads the priofits of GM.
No.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
