uhm..that's a lot power..and torque..too bad Cadi is going to eliminate their v8's in the future
I don't think Cadillac is going to eliminate their V8's. The word on the street is Cadillac scrapped a future program for an "all new" V8. So If I understood correctly, they will just have to carry on with the Northstar and pushrod Chevy versions.
I want to see one in person. Because i have got to say.....it's ugly. The standard CTS is beautiful. But somehow the CTS-V designers thought it would be cool to add 1999 Civic "combat-bodykit styling? I don't F-ing get it! The styling should be more Audi-like (see S4 vs. A4 or S8 vs. A8).
But again maybe in real life it will look better, and the pictures just make it look dumb. The "stance" in nice though, but I hating the splitter front end and cheesy add-on-looking bodykit.
__________________
1993 Camry LE 5SFE AT, 2006 Nissan Armada LE 4x4, 1971 Cadillac Coupe DeVille "pimp juice"
Toys: 2007 Coachmen 19FLB, 2007 Regal 1900 V6
I'm the biggest boss thatchu seen thus far! Baby, that's muh wi'zzard!
Kudos for GM in beefing this car up. THey know if they want to compete with the Germans they shouldn't pussy foot it. So this car competes with the M5 and M6?? And the Mercedes and Audi performance variants. I'm not too familiar with there's as far as performance catagory.
__________________ America: Divided by ideology, united by tragedy.
Kudos for GM in beefing this car up. THey know if they want to compete with the Germans they shouldn't pussy foot it. So this car competes with the M5 and M6?? And the Mercedes and Audi performance variants. I'm not too familiar with there's as far as performance catagory.
This one goes after the big dogs!! Lets see if this dog as it barks, it bites.
I don't think Cadillac is going to eliminate their V8's. The word on the street is Cadillac scrapped a future program for an "all new" V8. So If I understood correctly, they will just have to carry on with the Northstar and pushrod Chevy versions.
.
The Northstar has officially been dropped as of 2010.
Jim Taylor has made it pretty clear the V-8 is almost dead. They're looking at a supercharged 2.9L V-6, and the existing 3.6L V-6 for all the sedans.
I have a feeling, GM is toying with Americans. They know people actually DO want V8's. Something I don't understand is 2 years ago (2006) the best selling model was the DTS, a V8 only model. I know Cadillac sells a grip of Escallades, and they are V8 only too. Who has the sales figures for Cadillac in 2007? I have a feeling Taylor's statement was taken out of context....10-15% of CTS buyers want a V8........but I'd bet a lot more than 10-15% of "CADILLAC" buyers want a V8.
__________________
1993 Camry LE 5SFE AT, 2006 Nissan Armada LE 4x4, 1971 Cadillac Coupe DeVille "pimp juice"
Toys: 2007 Coachmen 19FLB, 2007 Regal 1900 V6
I'm the biggest boss thatchu seen thus far! Baby, that's muh wi'zzard!
The newly passed "35mpg by 2020" CAFE mandate is what’s driving this. Cadillac, like most other mainstream automaker, is going to have to severely revise their lineup to meet the fleet average fuel economy of 35mpg, so expect Toyota, Nissan, and Ford to follow suit.
That's what is so ignorant about CAFE. It basically tells Automakers what to build, regardless of what the market wants. If the average car buyer wants a V8 CTS, GM should be allowed to build it for them (regardless of the mpg), however, GM will have to produce more (possibly less appealing) V6 or I4 models (that get better mpg) to offset that more thirsty V8. . . . because the AVERAGE of the entire fleet must be 35mpg. . . . . .This is basically like forcing people to lose weight by only offering size Small clothing. . . .except it's forcing people to buy fuel sippers by only offering fuel efficient cars. Why not let automakers produce any car they choose regardless of mpg, and if it sells, then fine. . . if it flops due to the sub par mpg, then the market has spoken and the automaker will discontinue (or change) their product accordingly (without Government influence).
I say tax a car based on it's Fuel Economy, or tax gas more heavily. . . . .at least this way the consumer has a real incentive to drive a more fuel efficient vehicle ("hit 'em in the pocketbook"). If consumers had to pay more at the pump, their vehicle choice would be more "need" than "want" (we see this now, yet people still buy SUV's). GM could still pump out V8 CTS's at whatever rate the market would demand, and would NOT have to produce V6 or I4 cars the market did not want. . . . Unfortunately, as the new CAFE rule stands now, GM (and most other automakers) will have to build more unwanted "fuel sippers" than the market demands, and less of the "gas guzzlers" that the people actually buy.
Said another way, with the new CAFE rules, the customer still has little (or no) more incentive to buy a fuel sipper (even with gas being $3.00/gal), consumers will still want their large CUV's, full sized SUV's, and V8 sedans. . . . .only now car makers will limit these choices because the government somehow thinks that a fleet AVERAGE fuel economy of 35mpg will miraculously effect the purchasing decisions of consumers. CAFE did not hit the consumer in the pocketbook, so their purchasing decisions will be the same, only now they will have less choices (V8 CTS’s, V8 Lexus’, V8 MKS’s, Ultra-high performance ZR1 Corvettes, LF-A’s, ISF’s, GT500 Mustangs, etc.). The market wants these cars (mpg be damned), yet CAFE will force automakers to drop these vehicles, or worse produce more unwanted economy cars to offset the “gas guzzling” cars people actually buy. . . . . .It’s dumb and the car enthusiast (and car buying public in general) are the losers here.
ON TOPIC
My favorite pic:
__________________
-Behind every argument is someone’s ignorance.
-Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
The fuel taxes here on new car purchases are already in place...they are not much of a disincentive unless you are only marginally able to afford the v8 versions versus the smaller displacement ones. Larger tax incentives would work, and makers themselves can play with pricing to make the high power versions more exclusive, but still profitable.
On the upside, every restriction placed on makers before has made them get more creative to get the market what it wants. I look to F1 as hte evidence of this: every time the fia tries to slow them down, they react and come up with a way to make the cars faster. I see a lot of the turbo tech coming back to allow big power and still meet fuel economy under the lame epa standard tests that really only judge a car driven like a granny! It would be nice to see variable vane systems finally get the research and development they need to become more commonplace (self serving of course, I'd love to find an affordable reliable one for my own car )
The fuel taxes here on new car purchases are already in place...they are not much of a disincentive unless you are only marginally able to afford the v8 versions versus the smaller displacement ones. Larger tax incentives would work, and makers themselves can play with pricing to make the high power versions more exclusive, but still profitable.
I agree to an extent, but this would lead to only high end or luxury V8’s, so those with lower incomes get screwed. There is currently a “gas guzzler” tax on cars here in the US, but that does not seem to dissuade buyers who truly want a particular car. Point is, these cars will no longer be offered by manufactures, regardless of the fact that there are people out there willing to pay the extra tax to burn more fuel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgrieger
On the upside, every restriction placed on makers before has made them get more creative to get the market what it wants.
No doubt automakers will reach this goal, it’s just the 10-15 years between now and then that the consumers gets screwed by less choice. Look no farther than the mid-70’s for an example. . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgrieger
I look to F1 as hte evidence of this: every time the fia tries to slow them down, they react and come up with a way to make the cars faster. I see a lot of the turbo tech coming back to allow big power and still meet fuel economy under the lame epa standard tests that really only judge a car driven like a granny! It would be nice to see variable vane systems finally get the research and development they need to become more commonplace (self serving of course, I'd love to find an affordable reliable one for my own car )
F1’s is an example, but not a good one. They have a HUGE budget to get this done with cooperate backing, with no consumers to pass these expenses on to. In other words, don’t expect GM, Ford, or Toyota to eat the cost of these new technologies, they will undoubtedly pass these R&D costs down to the consumer. . . . Expect less choice and more ho-hum offerings at a higher price between now and 2020.
__________________
-Behind every argument is someone’s ignorance.
-Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
ToyotaNation.com is an independent Toyota/Lexus enthusiast website. ToyotaNation.com is not sponsored by or in any way affiliated with Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. The Toyota, Lexus and Scion names and logos are trademarks owned by Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.
...
Linear Mode
