'08 CTS

[JM]

Don't think I ever saw this posted in here...

 

60 Minutes Video

 

Leftlane News (pics & write-up)

 

 

 

 

Spyshots

 

Render

Edited July 23, 2006 by JM

[BORG]

I'm sure I'll see a ton of these around the neighborhood. The CTS seems to be a very popular ride in my neck of the woods.

[JM]

I think the pics look amazing. So why doesn't the car have a roof/windshield? Because it's only half a car (see video).

 

Can't wait to see what the STS will look like! The MKS is sure to have some stiff competition....unless it comes out in '07 (I'm crossing my fingers)

Edited July 23, 2006 by JM

[RichardJensen]

That's the buck for photographs.

[BORG]

Too bad Ford's turnaround products can't be this good .

Edited July 21, 2006 by BORG

[RichardJensen]

Too bad Ford's turnaround products can't be this good .

Gee. Yeah. The Mustang is so much worse than the GM... Uh. The GM . Ummm.

 

Oh, and the Fusion. That's totally so much worse than the Malibu.

 

No, wait, we were talking about low volume product on expensive platforms, weren't we? Cadillac's STS is down 28%, the CTS 12%, and the SRX is flat. Total Sigma sales for the year are down 15%. D3 sales are flat.

[Anthony]

I like it, but what's up with the rear door on these things? Every spy shot or rendering I've seen in the past few months has a tiny rear door on them. What's the point of having a true 4 door if the rear two are practically useless? Ingress and egress for backseat passengers are going to be a joke.

[ebritt]

I like it, but what's up with the rear door on these things? Every spy shot or rendering I've seen in the past few months has a tiny rear door on them. What's the point of having a true 4 door if the rear two are practically useless? Ingress and egress for backseat passengers are going to be a joke.

You mean like the deceptive rear door on the explorers? The door is much bigger than the opening behind it .

[Guest Sixcav]

I note that the 60 minutes video mentioned something I've been shouting from my soap box for a long time. GM has "turned the corner" on reliablity and recieves high rankings from JD Powers for long term reliability but changing public perception is another matter and will take some time.

 

The same is true for Ford, which also recieves high rankings for long term reliability. And also has a public perception problem. Like I've said before, much of the problem with Ford cars isn't the car, but the asshole that's looking at it. The same is true for GM.

 

Relish ye Japanese car companies in these days, because your day is surely coming.

[Nels Nelson]

The Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky are worse than the Mustang. Inventory numbers for the GM cars are 21 and 22 days respectively and 80 for the Ford.

 

The Fusion will be so much better than the Saturn Aura. Fusion inventory increased from 56 to 68 days.

 

The inventory of hotselling Zephyrs has gone from 91 days to 119 days. The inventory numbers for the CTS, STS and SRX are 68, 101 and 74 respectively.

 

For reference, 60 days is considered normal.

[DCK]

Gee. Yeah. The Mustang is so much worse than the GM... Uh. The GM . Ummm.

 

Oh, and the Fusion. That's totally so much worse than the Malibu.

 

No, wait, we were talking about low volume product on expensive platforms, weren't we? Cadillac's STS is down 28%, the CTS 12%, and the SRX is flat. Total Sigma sales for the year are down 15%. D3 sales are flat.

The mustang is great, the fusion is great, but you can't compare it to the malibu because the malibu was created before GM really went into a turn around, judge it by the malibu launching early next year.

 

Also Cadillac wipes the floor clean with lincoln plain and simple. Cadillac is becoming world class and able to compete with the germans and lexus while lincoln is a disgusting mess and needs to be taken out back and shot. GM took action why ford didn't care and let lincoln whither and now on the verge of dying. Cadillacs line-up is is a little old now(though not nearly as old as lincolns) and the second wave of art and science theme starts next year with the new CTS and the rapid growth that happened the previous 5 years will continue, this year is they have no new products for cadillac, lets compare the sales charts of cadillac for the last 5 years against lincoln, it will show cadillac gaining a very high number of sales while lincoln falling to astonishingly low numbers.

Edited July 23, 2006 by DCK

[KinneticBrian]

The mustang is great, the fusion is great, but you can't compare it to the malibu because the malibu was created before GM really went into a turn around, judge it by the malibu launching early next year.

 

Also Cadillac wipes the floor clean with lincoln plain and simple. Cadillac is becoming world class and able to compete with the germans and lexus while lincoln is a disgusting mess and needs to be taken out back and shot. GM took action why ford didn't care and let lincoln whither and now on the verge of dying. Cadillacs line-up is is a little old now(though not nearly as old as lincolns) and the second wave of art and science theme starts next year with the new CTS and the rapid growth that happened the previous 5 years will continue, this year is they have no new products for cadillac, lets compare the sales charts of cadillac for the last 5 years against lincoln, it will show cadillac gaining a very high number of sales while lincoln falling to astonishingly low numbers.

 

 

I have a family member who works for General Motors in engineering and according to him, the "art & science" Cadillacs are not selling well (read-pleasing management) at all, with the exception of the CTS. The STS is a total sales disaster and the SRX is the horse that never ran (in spite of me thinking it's a cool vehicle). Look for much of the art and science image at Cadillac to get a complete overhaul soon.

 

I'll agree that Cadillac is mopping Lincoln in one very key area - the all American Deville (DTS) vs. Town Car. I work in the funeral industry now, and have had the chance to drive both side by side. Despite the fact that the Town Cars are MUCH more dependable than the Cadillacs, the Cadillacs look and perform seamlessly. Their interiors are much better layed out, the Northstar Engine (which Ford should have answered in the 1995 model year) and the much nicer exterior style all just pummel the Town Car.

 

It's a bit of irony that Ford paid no attention to history. In 1996, GM cancelled the Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham - a big, ugly, lousy handling bulbous mass of metal and chrome that looked like a beached whale next to the elegant Town Car, which looked for all the world like America's Rolls-Royce. The TC killed the Fleetwood - pure and simple.

 

Then what does Ford do? Introduces a bloated looking, bulbous, ungainly Town Car... BRILLIANT move... I'm sure Walter Mondale thought campaigning on higher taxes was a good move too. Someone at Cadillac paid attention to the butt kicking they got though and introduced the nice looking DeVille - an evolution of the already successful Seville line... America now had her Mercedes - Funny how history is full of irony, isn't it?

[JM]

I have a family member who works for General Motors in engineering and according to him, the "art & science" Cadillacs are not selling well (read-pleasing management) at all, with the exception of the CTS. The STS is a total sales disaster and the SRX is the horse that never ran (in spite of me thinking it's a cool vehicle). Look for much of the art and science image at Cadillac to get a complete overhaul soon.

 

In my opinion there's just not enough to differentiate the STS & the CTS for the common person, despite them being two completely different cars, the CTS bulky resembling a family sedan, while the STS thin with an athletic poise. I think the mistake was making the STS a better version of the CTS (style-wise), when it should have been a cheaper version of the XLR (with four & two door models).

 

When I test drove the STS I thought it was missing something, either the drive or interior just didn't feel like a $50k car. I wanted the car to feel like a coupe or a performance sedan, but it just didn't, granted I was only in the 255hp v6.

[BORG]

Gee. Yeah. The Mustang is so much worse than the GM... Uh. The GM . Ummm.

 

Oh, and the Fusion. That's totally so much worse than the Malibu.

 

No, wait, we were talking about low volume product on expensive platforms, weren't we? Cadillac's STS is down 28%, the CTS 12%, and the SRX is flat. Total Sigma sales for the year are down 15%. D3 sales are flat.

 

Oh, that's right, GM has the Malibu. How silly of me! Of course, they also have the G6 and Aura...but who's counting those? Nevermind that all THREE vehicles have unique designs that completely differentiate them from their corporate cousins. Also nevermind that the Malibu can be had in either sedan or Maxx...or that the G6 can be had in coupe or HARDTOP convertible. Who the hell wants all of that on their showroom floors? Pfh! I mean if you can't do it with one car, then you clearly don't know how to do business! In the meantime, we get a Fusion in which even the Lincoln version is less differentiated than the three GM triplets.

 

Don't forget that GM has a shit load of CUVs coming out simultaneously while Ford is trickling out the Edge and Fairlane over the next 3 flipping years! Also, unlike Ford which is merely facelifting its horribly archaic Fusion, GM is bringing the Astra stateside in an ambitious small car initiative while Ford mulls and struggles and pines and cancels and delays and rethinks until the 2nd generation of its competitors are out. Ford is ASTOUNDINGLY slow to move on ANYTHING in the industry that isn't related to the vaunted F-Series.

 

As for the Mustang, GM has a Corvette, XLR, Sky, and Solstice all with totally unique designs which have all been released since the Mustang. Where are Ford's equivalents? Oh yeah, the T-Bird and GT have been canned. And GM will be adding TWO Mustang killers to the shelves in a few years. What will Ford be adding? Uhhh...not a heckuvalot. Ford and diversity don't mix! It's the same old Ford mantra, if you can't sell millions of units with the least possible amount of diversity, then don't bother! That type of business practice is outdated and fatal in a world FULL of a wide array of competitors offering lots of choices. I've never seen Ford's future product porfolio looking so stagnant and simplistic. But of course, this is what I know YOU like to see. I have yet to see Ford healthy and their product plans seem less ambitious than the 'good old days' so I am not at all optimistic.

Edited July 23, 2006 by BORG

[RichardJensen]

Oh, that's right, GM has the Malibu. How silly of me! Of course, they also have the G6 and Aura...but who's counting those? Nevermind that all THREE vehicles have unique designs that completely differentiate them from their corporate cousins. Also nevermind that the Malibu can be had in either sedan or Maxx...or that the G6 can be had in coupe or HARDTOP convertible. Who the hell wants all of that on their showroom floors? Pfh! I mean if you can't do it with one car, then you clearly don't know how to do business! In the meantime, we get a Fusion in which even the Lincoln version is less differentiated than the three GM triplets.

 

Don't forget that GM has a shit load of CUVs coming out simultaneously while Ford is trickling out the Edge and Fairlane over the next 3 flipping years! Also, unlike Ford which is merely facelifting its horribly archaic Fusion, GM is bringing the Astra stateside in an ambitious small car initiative while Ford mulls and struggles and pines and cancels and delays and rethinks until the 2nd generation of its competitors are out. Ford is ASTOUNDINGLY slow to move on ANYTHING in the industry that isn't related to the vaunted F-Series.

 

As for the Mustang, GM has a Corvette, XLR, Sky, and Solstice all with totally unique designs which have all been released since the Mustang. Where are Ford's equivalents? Oh yeah, the T-Bird and GT have been canned. And GM will be adding TWO Mustang killers to the shelves in a few years. What will Ford be adding? Uhhh...not a heckuvalot. Ford and diversity don't mix! It's the same old Ford mantra, if you can't sell millions of units with the least possible amount of diversity, then don't bother! That type of business practice is outdated and fatal in a world FULL of a wide array of competitors offering lots of choices. I've never seen Ford's future product porfolio looking so stagnant and simplistic. But of course, this is what I know YOU like to see. I have yet to see Ford healthy and their product plans seem less ambitious than the 'good old days' so I am not at all optimistic.

1) All the bodystyle diversity in the world doesn't matter if you've only got three customers: National, Avis, and Hertz. The Epsilons are fleet queens in their current iterations.

 

2) Oh, yeah, the Acadia, coming out TWO YEARS after the Freestyle and what? something like eight years after the Highlander? You can't say that GM's stuff is "new" but Ford is "late to the game".

 

3) "Ford which is merely facelifting its horribly archaic Fusion"... Uh, not sure where you're going with that. Maybe you meant the Five Hundred, but then you talk about the Astra, which is the Opel Epsilon, and since Opel's cars aren't even good enough to outsell their Ford competition in Europe, seems odd that you would think that they stand a shot against the CD3 derived competition here.

 

4) Oh, yeah, the Sky and Solstice. Boy. 40k units a year. That's really impressive for how much did GM spend on that anyway? BTW, do you have independent confirmation that the Camaro and Firebird are anythin but vaporware at this time? Once again, you give GM credit for having "new product coming", but tax Ford with being "late to the game".

 

It amazes me that you count the alleged future existence of some Camaro or Firebird as proof that GM is with it, while you dismiss the confirmed future arrival of the Fairlane as proof that Ford is not.

 

It also amazes me that you continue to recite Solstice/Sky, Aura/Malibu, etc., as though they were totally different cars competing for totally different slices of the market. They're the same basic thing. They cost the same, appeal to the same customers, and if GM has more of them, well, gee. I guess that might be 'cause they have more brands. Why not talk about the LR3, RRS, and RR? Why not talk about the Mazda3, upcoming Tribute, and Mazda6? Or the new S80? Is it because it simplifies your case to argue that Ford and Mercury have less total new nameplates than Chevrolet, Saturn, Buick, Pontiac, and GMC?

Edited July 23, 2006 by RichardJensen

[Michael Reynolds]

Oh, that's right, GM has the Malibu. How silly of me! Of course, they also have the G6 and Aura...but who's counting those? Nevermind that all THREE vehicles have unique designs that completely differentiate them from their corporate cousins. Also nevermind that the Malibu can be had in either sedan or Maxx...or that the G6 can be had in coupe or HARDTOP convertible. Who the hell wants all of that on their showroom floors? Pfh! I mean if you can't do it with one car, then you clearly don't know how to do business! In the meantime, we get a Fusion in which even the Lincoln version is less differentiated than the three GM triplets.

 

Don't forget that GM has a shit load of CUVs coming out simultaneously while Ford is trickling out the Edge and Fairlane over the next 3 flipping years! Also, unlike Ford which is merely facelifting its horribly archaic Fusion, GM is bringing the Astra stateside in an ambitious small car initiative while Ford mulls and struggles and pines and cancels and delays and rethinks until the 2nd generation of its competitors are out. Ford is ASTOUNDINGLY slow to move on ANYTHING in the industry that isn't related to the vaunted F-Series.

 

As for the Mustang, GM has a Corvette, XLR, Sky, and Solstice all with totally unique designs which have all been released since the Mustang. Where are Ford's equivalents? Oh yeah, the T-Bird and GT have been canned. And GM will be adding TWO Mustang killers to the shelves in a few years. What will Ford be adding? Uhhh...not a heckuvalot. Ford and diversity don't mix! It's the same old Ford mantra, if you can't sell millions of units with the least possible amount of diversity, then don't bother! That type of business practice is outdated and fatal in a world FULL of a wide array of competitors offering lots of choices. I've never seen Ford's future product porfolio looking so stagnant and simplistic. But of course, this is what I know YOU like to see. I have yet to see Ford healthy and their product plans seem less ambitious than the 'good old days' so I am not at all optimistic.

 

I'm sorry, how are GM's sales these days?

[Guest Sixcav]

I'm sorry, how are GM's sales these days?

 

I'm going to go with "What Is Embarassingly Shitty" for 300 Alex.

[DCK]

1) All the bodystyle diversity in the world doesn't matter if you've only got three customers: National, Avis, and Hertz. The Epsilons are fleet queens in their current iterations.

 

2) Oh, yeah, the Acadia, coming out TWO YEARS after the Freestyle and what? something like eight years after the Highlander? You can't say that GM's stuff is "new" but Ford is "late to the game".

 

3) "Ford which is merely facelifting its horribly archaic Fusion"... Uh, not sure where you're going with that. Maybe you meant the Five Hundred, but then you talk about the Astra, which is the Opel Epsilon, and since Opel's cars aren't even good enough to outsell their Ford competition in Europe, seems odd that you would think that they stand a shot against the CD3 derived competition here.

 

4) Oh, yeah, the Sky and Solstice. Boy. 40k units a year. That's really impressive for how much did GM spend on that anyway? BTW, do you have independent confirmation that the Camaro and Firebird are anythin but vaporware at this time? Once again, you give GM credit for having "new product coming", but tax Ford with being "late to the game".

 

It amazes me that you count the alleged future existence of some Camaro or Firebird as proof that GM is with it, while you dismiss the confirmed future arrival of the Fairlane as proof that Ford is not.

 

It also amazes me that you continue to recite Solstice/Sky, Aura/Malibu, etc., as though they were totally different cars competing for totally different slices of the market. They're the same basic thing. They cost the same, appeal to the same customers, and if GM has more of them, well, gee. I guess that might be 'cause they have more brands. Why not talk about the LR3, RRS, and RR? Why not talk about the Mazda3, upcoming Tribute, and Mazda6? Or the new S80? Is it because it simplifies your case to argue that Ford and Mercury have less total new nameplates than Chevrolet, Saturn, Buick, Pontiac, and GMC?

Does it matter what ford sells in Europe when they sell complete shit here? Also sales don't equal how good a vehicle is because someone could easily own you when you say how crappy camry's are. You are just soo blindly braindead for ford it is pathetic.

 

And for the last time the freestyle is a big giant flop THAT EVEN FORD ADMITTED but somehow you fail to think it is. They said they didn't have the customer in mind when they made the car.

Edited July 23, 2006 by DCK

[Guest Sixcav]

I actually like the Freestyle. The problem with it is the price tag. They start at like 26 large and go up. That's a chuck of change. I could see 21 to 24 grand. It's just too expensive. I'd wager that when they start to drop the line they'll offer some great deals on them and then people will get them for a steal and end up with a really nice car for a good price.

[RichardJensen]

Does it matter what ford sells in Europe when they sell complete shit here? Also sales don't equal how good a vehicle is because someone could easily own you when you say how crappy camry's are. You are just soo blindly braindead for ford it is pathetic.

 

And for the last time the freestyle is a big giant flop THAT EVEN FORD ADMITTED but somehow you fail to think it is. They said they didn't have the customer in mind when they made the car.

1) It matters when you're evaluating the relative quality of GM's stuff.

 

2) No, sales don't "equal" how good a vehicle is, but sales are somehow tied to revenue. I forget the details.

 

3) I'm blindly braindead for Ford just because I don't take your assertions at face value? Oh, I'm sorry. I guess if I just got in line behind you without questioning your assertions, I'd still be be braindead, but at least I'd be on your side. You'd be happy, then wouldn't you? You have as much of a basis for calling Ford management inept as you have for calling me braindead. Both assertions are based on little more than your say-so. I guess, if I'm not going to believe you when you say I'm braindead, I probably shouldn't believe you on other matters either. I mean, you've furnished the same unassailable "because I said so" logic in both cases....

 

4) Failure or not, the Freestyle was on the market sooner, and what makes you think GM has any better idea what consumer tastes are? The Acadia is even larger than the Freestyle, but not enough larger to justify an extra 900lbs. If the Freestyle was badmouthed for its acceleration, I can't wait to see what the rags have to say about these Lambda pigs. And what's up with the greek letters anyway?

[Michael Reynolds]

The Freestyle may not be a lot of things, but it's far from the HUGE FLOP you make it out to be. Last I checked I do not recall Ford Exec's refering to the Freestyle as such. A sales disappointment yes, but a flop I highly doubt that one.

[DCK]

The Freestyle may not be a lot of things, but it's far from the HUGE FLOP you make it out to be. Last I checked I do not recall Ford Exec's refering to the Freestyle as such. A sales disappointment yes, but a flop I highly doubt that one.

It could be a success if ford gave it great syling like the edge inside and out and also put in the 3.5. Style is the reason IMO it is a giant flop, i think it is in the same level of GM's sport vans, it just looks terrible. The freestyle looks like a station wagon.

[Michael Reynolds]

It could be a success if ford gave it great syling like the edge inside and out and also put in the 3.5. Style is the reason IMO it is a giant flop, i think it is in the same level of GM's sport vans, it just looks terrible. The freestyle looks like a station wagon.

 

I agree, both it and the Five-Hundred should have received more agressive styling, a lesson that Ford should have learned from Toyota and Honda.

 

With that said I still don't see where the GIANT FLOP business is coming from. The Pacifica, the Freestyle's closest competitor, is neck and neck with the Freestyle from a sales perspective.

[zoomerjrt]

The Freestyle may not be a lot of things, but it's far from the HUGE FLOP you make it out to be. Last I checked I do not recall Ford Exec's refering to the Freestyle as such. A sales disappointment yes, but a flop I highly doubt that one.

 

The wagon is a flop!!! If it wasn't a flop I'd work more then 3days a week and we'd have two shifts building dashes for it. The only people buying them are Ford emplyoee's and old ladies. Just ask a 18-40yr old that doesn't have ties to Ford what they think.

[NickF1011]

The wagon is a flop!!! If it wasn't a flop I'd work more then 3days a week and we'd have two shifts building dashes for it. The only people buying them are Ford emplyoee's and old ladies. Just ask a 18-40yr old that doesn't have ties to Ford what they think.

 

I see quite a fair number of Freestyles on the road around here (Maryland) and there's nothing tied to Ford outside of dealers here within 300 miles. Most of the ones I see are driven by typical 40-something suburbanites, which I do believe was their target demographic.

 

I'm going to go with "What Is Embarassingly Shitty" for 300 Alex.