And why do people all of a sudden feel that Chrysler needs saving? Given Chrysler's current product line, I don't see any necessity over there that's not felt ten times worth by Ford or General Motors.
People have been worried here in Michigan for a while. Dealer lots are overstocked, overflow lots are actually overflowing themselves, and dealers are in revolt because product isn't moving through. Chryslers problem has been that they are building more cars and trucks than people want to buy... And when the average lot time on a car like the Crossfire (among others) is floating around 300 days before sale, something is wrong. Chrysler recently started writing checks to dealers for $7000 per car, and it was up to the dealer how they wished to use it... You know its bad when in Michigan they are pushing brand-new 2006 Chrysler Town and Country vans, fully-loaded, for $16,000. Not to mention their 0% financing on top of that... Something is obviously going wrong at Chrysler, and nobody seems to be fixing it. Lets hope that something gets done in time before the LY cars arrive, along with the Avenger, etc. Otherwise we may not have anymore American vans to talk about...
All I'm saying is they're the most important vehicles at the NAIAS this year. Any time a product that iconic is released, it's important. The CTS is not iconic, and the Malibu is just decrepit. The new Chrysler minivans will populate our roads for years to come. It's a huge product release.
And I understand where you are coming from. But I don't seem them being as important as you do. Considering the fact that both Ford and GM have completely pulled-out of the minivan segment as of 2007, and rumors are suggesting that others may do the same (due mostly to the growing popularity of crossovers), people would have to begin to wonder just how important these vans will be to regular folks... If they are more interested in Outlooks, Edges, Highlanders, and CR-Vs, why is Chrysler ignoring the fact that they may need a crossover in the near-future?
...I'm not exactly sure why you would describe the all-new Malibu as "decrepit," as it's cousin the Aura just wiped the floor with the Chrysler Sebring. If Dodge doesn't bring their A-game with the Avenger, I'd suspect that the Malibu may do the same thing.
I've been hearing this for decades, among varying classes of car: the Allante would be a world-class convertible; the Reatta would be a drivers' car; the Catera would be a world-class sedan. None of that came true. Even the CTS wasn't the 3-series beater it could have been. The car's still too long, it doesn't offer enough body styles or engine choices, it hasn't got the right transmissions, and it's lacking an image. The Chrysler minivans have all those things.
I think you are neglecting to recognise that GM is a very different company as compared to what it was 10, 15, or 20 years ago with those varying cars. The Allente was a pretty well-respected car in it's time, but people weren't willing to pay that kind of money for a Cadillac, and for the most part, the competition was better.
The Reatta? You do realize that was a Buick right? Again, a car that was noteworthy in it's time, but may have been a bit too much for the Buick customer base. They were halfway decent cars, particularly with GM of the era, however by today's standards they aren't anything too special.
As for the Catera, it was a world-class car as a
Holden, but not as a Cadillac. Part of that comes from the fact that Cadillac overestimated the buyers, stuck in sub-par engines, out-of-date transmissions, and suspensions that were far too soft. The Commodore was a great car, and the Catera could have been too, but things just didn't work out when GM-NA got their hands on it.
...However I believe you are underestimating the Sigma II CTS. The car's dimensions only increased in width and height, wheel-base is identical. Beyond that, they are using many of the Sigma I CTS-V pieces on the base versions of the CTS, which should make it a lively performer out of the box. On the issue of body-styles, GM is reportedly cooking-up a coupe and wagon variant to better compete against the 3-series in every category, and we should know more by the time the New York show rolls around this spring, if not, don't be surprised to see something at Frankfurt or Paris, or in GM's favorite European show, Geneva.
I do have to question your criticisms of the engine and transmission programs. Cadillac will be running the current version of the LY7 DOHC VVT V6 on the base version of the CTS, good for 258 BHP and 252 lb ft. A six-speed manual, presumably a modified version of the T56 called the M10 from the VE Holden Commodore will come standard, and the optional model will be the 6L50E automatic, similar in design to the well-regarded 6L80E found in the Corvette and Cadillac Escalade. There will also be an all-wheel-drive option available on the "standard" CTS, and will use the same six-speed automatic. The higher-powered version of the CTS will use a modified version of the LY7 that will produce somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 BHP and 250 lb ft, however SAE testing has yet to occur. The big deal is that it is done with direct-injection, and all of that power can indeed be had on regular 87-octane fuel. Yes, you read that right, 87-octane fuel. The car will have the same transmissions offered, however the all-wheel-drive version will not be available with the higher-output V6.
...So would you care to tell me how that isn't up to par with whats needed in the segment?
Comparing all that to a Chrysler product is pretty laughable. Their top model will have a 4.0L V6 producing a rather paltry 240 BHP, and although it is matched to a six-speed manual, I still don't trust Chrysler automatics unless they have a "Built in Germany" stamp on the outside. Simply put, they are prone to giving out, exploding, etc. So, please enlighten me how this Chrysler setup is better than that on the Cadillac, much less, better even than that on the new Chevrolet Malibu that uses a new high-output 2.4L with 164 BHP, and the 3.6L LY7 V6 with 252 BHP. Hmmm, Chrysler seems to be coming up short here...
