[syr74]

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

Man. This is getting tiresome

I would tend to agree.

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

I specifically said that in order for this to work properly the Lacrosse would need to drop the base CX model, and start with the CXL. The 3.0L is fine for a base engine... and currently bests the Impala's base 3.5L by over 45HP. At 255HP the 3.0L would serve as an excellent base engine, altho for competitive reasons I would boost it to 265HP in the Impala... and make the Lacrosse config have 275HP as a base (this kicks the 3.0L outta the CTS and makes the 315HP 3.6L it's base engine. A 395HP Turbo 3.0L or, preferably, a 6.2L would be the mid engine and of course the V would have the LSA) The Lacrosse would have an optional upgrade 315HP, and a 375HP top of the line 3.0L turbo.

I see where you're going, the problem is that this isn't about what you would do if you ran GM, rather it is about what GM is doing. To cover it again quickly, GM has pitched the LaCrosse almost directly again the current Taurus in terms of both size and pricing. There are differences, but the overall lineups are close enough that you can't realistically cast one as being in a different segment from the other.

So, we have to look at where that leaves these cars in the real world. Unless GM moves LaCrosse further upmarket, and as yet I have heard not even the vaguest suggestion that they intend to do anything of the sort, that crowds Impala on the bottom end leading to artificially limited product in at least one line or major product overlap, both of which are bad. Cutting the CX model from the Buick lineup would be a token effort at best since the rest of the LaCrosse lineup would still compete directly with the Taurus and, if Impala offered any 'upmarket' models, you would still have a situation where product overlap is an issue.

Of course, if GM did decide to move the LaCrosse further upmarket that would seriously crowd the upcoming Cadillac XTS, leading to the same problem on a different level.

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

Outside of superior tuning and different styling and amenities upgrades.. what the heel is the difference between the MKS and Taurus? Buick/Chevy brand should pretty much emulate Lincoln/Ford.

I would guess that the difference between the Taurus and the MKS is roughly the same as the difference between the LaCrosse and the upcoming XTS. I would argue that this creates more problems for GM than Ford for obvious reasons, not the least of which is the reality that GM still needs to squeeze a Chevy offering into a market Ford is only trying to squeeze two models into. And with this we find ourselves right back where we started, who at GM gets to be the odd man out?

If Buick is chasing Lexus then how do you justify a Buick and a Cadillac of similar size and with similar engine offerings on the same platform? If the Buick is only sort of chasing Lexus and is meant to primarily play against the mainstream Japanese offerings and the new Taurus then where does that leave Chevy? Epsilon is not a platform suited to directly fight vehicles like the S Class or even the Lexus LS, and by all appearances GM knows it. So again, we are either going to have product overlap or somebody is going to get short-sheeted. Either is a problematic scenario.

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

Pricing is the least of anyone's issues... It can be easily changed... and I guarantee, that just like the CTS... the Lacrosse's price goes up year by year. Like the CTS... the Lacrosse is waiting for a more upscale model in Buick/Cadillac's line up to vacate the top spot (Lucerne/STS). I kno for a FACT... that the reason why the 3.6L was never boosted to it's potential (355HP naturally aspirated) is because Cadillac was able to sell the NorthStar at a $10K premium. Boosting the output of the V6 would have killed any pull the NS had left in the showrooms.

Good enough, then what does GM do with the Cadillac XTS. The large twin turbo six GM had planned to pitch against the Taurus has been shelved and, if there are any plans to do another fwd V8, nobody knows about it. Even if there were, a stout powerplant wont provide meaningful differentiation between a Caddy and Buick. Unless the Chevy Impala is meant to be a rental special which seems unlikely, fitting three cars onto this platform without major overlap seems like a bit of a challenge.

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

While I will give U the SHO in terms of performance... Ford-Lincoln-Mercury hardly has an advantage over GM in terms of performance. They HAD to have something in terms of performance because they can only ride the Mustang's numbers for so long. GM has the Camaro, Corvette Line, not to mention the Cadillac Brand. And honestly.. despite the G8's demise... it has been dead for less than 6 months. I'm sure GM has something up it's sleeve. The GS Regal seems promising. Also PLEASE don't get me started in a SYNC vs Onstar/GM thing. Onstar/GM HD kills Sync imo.

I'm glad you like Onstar, but the marketplace seems a bit less impressed. Taurus is outselling the LaCrosse and by a meaningful margin, and features like SYNC are part of the reason why. GM's challenge is still the foresight to offer cars outfitted with features and options that appeal to the customer base the car should attract to the showroom. Taurus is far from perfect, but a big part of the reason the car has been so successful is that it is nearly spot on in terms of features and options. G8 proved GM still has a bit of a learning curve here.

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

I addressed this in my first response to your quote. U are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to hung up on Platform names and seemingly not confirmed with the abilities of each Platform config. The Epsilon is configurable as hell, and I would have no problem if it were GM's only designated platform for the mainstream mid-size and large cars. The SRX proves that Epsilon-Theta can handle as well as the X5... the Insignia proves that Epsilon can handle as well as the Audi A4/A5... HELL the Malibu proves that it can handle better than the Passat.

Much like GM you are far to happy to start proclaiming GM's platforms and prodcuts the best in the world, particularly as it applies to the latter. My advice, wait for the platform and the product to make that argument for you.

SRX is well done, but it couldn't handle with the X5 if you deflated a tire on the BMW. No shame in that, the Caddy isn't meant for the same kind of customer the X5 is. But this delusional view of GM products that has no basis whatsoever in reality is just ridiculous. I'm a fan of Ford among other brands, and I really like the new MKS. After driving one I think the car makes a very compelling argument for the money, that said the MKS is not a Mercedes E Class and I'm not going to go ranting across forums that the Europeans are done for.

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

So basically it's all about pricing... because I personally believe that Brand Cache should be connected to performance and comfort. Amenities/technology across the board between Chevy, Buick , and GMC. Cadillac should have everything 2 years before the rest. And let's be honest... there is almost nothing in a Lexus that U can't get in a Toyota.

Camry compared to ES I would agree, but then the reality is that adding the Impala to the lineup is like GM trying to build a Camry and an ES and then throwing in a third brand for good measure. There is a reason other companies stop with two cars that are, by most measures, the same basic vehicle.