GM Reveals 2013 Cadillac SRX

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

What exactly is so great about a body on frame SUV when you a) never go off road; b) never tow anything; c) never haul anything (besides the family)?

Most people who bought SUV's at their peak of popularity didn't really use them as SUV's. Mainly, they liked the size, they liked the look. They didn't like the gas mileage (even at $2.50/gal they didn't like it ... let alone 4 or 5 bucks) and weren't overly happy with the truck-like ride and handling of them either. So, when there are alternative packages that provide comparable interior volume, with the same truck-like appearance, with only a small penalty in fuel economy and handling compared to a large sedan -people will want them. They actually make more sense for these buyers than SUVs. They are better than SUVs for the vast majority of buyers.

Negative. You have it ALL WRONG.

People wanted large SUVs with frames because they like having the safety of a large full frame and a big body and engine and sufficient mass to deflect drunk drivers and the like.

They preferred large CARS for this purpose, but in the 1970's some high-rise dwelling pecil pushers decided to FORCE the car companies to meet artificially mandated fuel economy standards, knowing they were firmly entrenched in an artificially created beaurocratic branch of the government that was immune to the voters will. Cars shrank and became more costly, as a result.

Thanks to an oversight by the pencil-pushers (exposing that they are not as smart as they claim), trucks were not as tightly controlled and hence were still large and safe and affordable. People started buying them like hotcakes.

The car companies figured out that if they could add passenger space and car-like features, they could sell even MORE trucks. So, the SUV was created.

But the SUV created a massive following amongst people who needed them for both their car like features, as well as their safety and size, AND their ability to do tasks that only a truck can do.

When the pencil pushers finally realized their mistake, they became VERY angry that the people were not behaving as they were being directed, so they went after the trucks AND the cars with even MORE restrictive regulations.

The car companies were forced to make cars even smaller and SUVs had to be made unappealing or discontinued.

So here we are today, with a HUGE market and the car companies cowering under their collective beds afraid to stand up for their right to sell whatever they want to whomever they want to.

[TAG UR IT]

I want a Tahoe because:

1. I want the large interior room. This is my priority...
2. I have the ability to take the entire family and all our crap wherever whenever.
3. I can tow shit and not worry about having to ask a friend to use their truck.
4. Safety. Ranch Hand WILL be called on for some aftermarket parts on my Tahoe...
5. Cause a Tahoe is pretty bad ass, if you ask me. Texas edition... Yep. ....eventually.

Everyone has a different reason for wanting a particular car/truck. Pinning it down to any one specific reason just isn't right and isn't logical.

Would I, in particular, want this Caddy? Dana says she likes it, but quite frankly, it does not meet our desires and needs. Nice SUV, though....I'll give them that!

[TheCaptain]

I think i'm itching to trade in...

[cab2g]

I like the SRX and the CUE system looks nice! It's a shame I can't afford every car I want haha. But to be honest. I'm more of a car person myself. I'd rather have a wagon. I know that makes me weird, but I think one SUV per household is enough and my wife will be driving the SUV.

[IBM]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

I barely squeaks by the CTS by <2% and you think that makes it a success?

This generation sold <15% of what the TrailBlazer sold in the same amount of time. (Not counting the other SUVs on that platform).

It also has yet to match the yearly sales of the Escalade from 2003-2007, proving that even luxury owners prefer a real SUV.

Didn't read your whole argument, but many people nowadays prefer a small crossover due to gas prices, not needing all the space of a large SUV, etc. Cadillac makes money with the SRX, and it isn't like that is all they offer. There's something for everyone, so why is it such an issue to you?

Edit: and yes, as long as it makes money, it's a success for Cadillac.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by IBM

Didn't read your whole argument, but many people nowadays prefer a small crossover due to gas prices, not needing all the space of a large SUV, etc. Cadillac makes money with the SRX, and it isn't like that is all they offer. There's something for everyone, so why is it such an issue to you?

Edit: and yes, as long as it makes money, it's a success for Cadillac.

The reason it is an issue is that some people here seem to think that they must promote CUV (crossover useless vehicles) to the exclusion of a midsize SUV like the new Trailblazer.

I keep hearing arguments like how expensive it would be to produce a Trailblazer here, and how there's no room in the market for them because they cut into sales of the Equinox and Traverse. How stupid do these people think we are??

Case in point: How does the Trailblazer cut into the Equinox and Traverse when the Terrain and Acadia don't? When you make exactly ZERO midsize SUVs anymore and 7 or 8 different crossovers, that excuse falls flat on it's face.

2nd case: The SRX is on a standalone platform that only the SRX rides on... exactly how much cheaper is that design and factory is when compared to the Trailblazer which shares the platform with the Colorado that is already slated for production here in the US? "Too Expensive"? Don't go there!

You're absolutely right about people trading down into smaller and less capable vehicles because of energy prices, but that's simply because the same general type of people manipulating the car companies to make it unprofitable to make large capable vehicles are also making energy harder to get and more costly.

The goal here is to make it too expensive to own and operate the vehicles that most people desire to have, so that fewer people will get them and they will have to be phased out or produced in small numbers at price points so high that only the select few will have them.

It's only a matter of time before the only V8 Camaro is a ZL1 which will be made in miniscule numbers and cost twice as much as the Turbo 4-cylinder SS model.

[IBM]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

The reason it is an issue is that some people here seem to think that they must promote CUV (crossover useless vehicles) to the exclusion of a midsize SUV like the new Trailblazer.

I keep hearing arguments like how expensive it would be to produce a Trailblazer here, and how there's no room in the market for them because they cut into sales of the Equinox and Traverse. How stupid do these people think we are??

Case in point: How does the Trailblazer cut into the Equinox and Traverse when the Terrain and Acadia don't? When you make exactly ZERO midsize SUVs anymore and 7 or 8 different crossovers, that excuse falls flat on it's face.

2nd case: The SRX is on a standalone platform that only the SRX rides on... exactly how much cheaper is that design and factory is when compared to the Trailblazer which shares the platform with the Colorado that is already slated for production here in the US? "Too Expensive"? Don't go there!

You're absolutely right about people trading down into smaller and less capable vehicles because of energy prices, but that's simply because the same general type of people manipulating the car companies to make it unprofitable to make large capable vehicles are also making energy harder to get and more costly.

The goal here is to make it too expensive to own and operate the vehicles that most people desire to have, so that fewer people will get them and they will have to be phased out or produced in small numbers at price points so high that only the select few will have them.

It's only a matter of time before the only V8 Camaro is a ZL1 which will be made in miniscule numbers and cost twice as much as the Turbo 4-cylinder SS model.

Trailblazer would cut into sales of Traverse/Acadia/Terrain/Equinox as a whole, and I agree with them that there is a small market for them. If you want capability & size, go with a Tahoe or Suburban. If you want lots of space but don't need to tow, go offroad, etc, go with an Equinox/Traverse. I don't see many people venturing off into Trailblazer, and if they did, that would cut into sales of Tahoe, Equinox, and Traverse. Statistics have shown that most people are willing to settle for a Tahoe over a Traverse, or vice versa. I would love to see the Trailblazer here as much as the next guy, but if Chevy says it wouldn't be profitable, they're probably right - they know what they're talking about.

[fastfreddie]

I would have bought one if I had won that 640 million smackers.

I like it!

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by IBM

Trailblazer would cut into sales of Traverse/Acadia/Terrain/Equinox as a whole, and I agree with them that there is a small market for them. If you want capability & size, go with a Tahoe or Suburban. If you want lots of space but don't need to tow, go offroad, etc, go with an Equinox/Traverse. I don't see many people venturing off into Trailblazer, and if they did, that would cut into sales of Tahoe, Equinox, and Traverse. Statistics have shown that most people are willing to settle for a Tahoe over a Traverse, or vice versa. I would love to see the Trailblazer here as much as the next guy, but if Chevy says it wouldn't be profitable, they're probably right - they know what they're talking about.

You're right. My bad. We all know that the people running GM cannot possibly be wrong about anything. They have a long history of making the right decisions and producing the perfect vehicles that everyone wants over all others, and used that success to avoid going bankrupt.

[IBM]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

You're right. My bad. We all know that the people running GM cannot possibly be wrong about anything. They have a long history of making the right decisions and producing the perfect vehicles that everyone wants over all others, and used that success to avoid going bankrupt.

Love it when people bring the bankruptcy topic up for everything. I'm just saying, when it comes to knowing what vehicle will do well in which markets, they probably know more than you (no offense). They've learned from their mistakes, too.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by IBM

Love it when people bring the bankruptcy topic up for everything. I'm just saying, when it comes to knowing what vehicle will do well in which markets, they probably know more than you (no offense). They've learned from their mistakes, too.

If you had a royal flush, would you not use it? It's not like the bankruptcy was an accident or act of god. It happened for a reason.

The fact that I bought GM vehicles after it happened shows that I am not holding it against them. I simply see them moving in a direction that does not bode well for them, and wish to alert them in case they really are listening and learning. I like them and want to help them succeed.

Part of that means we cannot turn a blind eye when they start down the wrong path. Constructive criticism is needed in those cases.

[SSE 4 2SS]

Constructive criticism is one thing...

Conversation bordering on political isn't tolerated... We do not need and won't tolerate going into every thread with a GM related vehicle and degrade the thread, the vehicle or the people in the thread because of a personal agenda...

Please All... Keep the conversations on topic related to the title of the thread...