RUMOR / INSIDER: 2027 Silverado Dealer Reveal NEXT WEEK

[asilverblazer]

22 hours ago, Atlas said:

About the only extended cab I'd take. Crabwalking before it was cool. In the picture the rear steer angle is opposite the front to decrease radius, but they would also track with the front when changing lanes at speed. Another GM design way ahead of its time.

 

This was peak GM blunder IMO. They were busy finding solutions to problems that didn't exist. Wasting money on...

HHR

SSR

Quadra-steer (not that it wasn't a good idea -but when you look at the products/markets they were ignoring at the time it was a bad investment)

Envoy XUV

Aztek (actually ahead of its time too, and in hindsight received way to harsh a reception especially in today's context of ugly cross overs - Juke, HR-V, Murano, all the weird angles and cuts they look wrecked from the factory)

H2

H3

 

As noted, look at the rest of the lineup at GM

Cavalier

Malibu

Monte Carlo

Venture 

Deville (absolute 'standard of the world' here)

Seville

Catera

Rember anything noteworthy from Buick or Oldsmobile at the time?

 

Products/markets with literally no effort at all. Plus, what was looming right around the corner? Fuel prices about to skyrocket. Imagine if the money they wasted got re-distributed to be competitive in the small car market? They likely wouldn't have gone bankrupt.

 

Literally, pouring money on the already most profitable models they had (some businessman somewhere looking at an excel sheet dreamed this up I'm sure), for a vastly diminished return. 

 

The same businessman looking at the same spreadsheet probably said something along the lines of "Why invest money in our least profitable models?"

 

And no one replied with "To make them profitable." Were they too scared to try to compete with Toyota and Honda in those markets? Absolutely - so, they kept pumping out the crap to offset their CAFE numbers.

 

GM was sooooo much better than gm.

 

[Atlas]

11 minutes ago, asilverblazer said:

This was peak GM blunder IMO. They were busy finding solutions to problems that didn't exist. Wasting money on...

HHR

SSR

Quadra-steer (not that it wasn't a good idea -but when you look at the products/markets they were ignoring at the time it was a bad investment)

Envoy XUV

Aztek (actually ahead of its time too, and in hindsight received way to harsh a reception especially in today's context of ugly cross overs - Juke, HR-V, Murano, all the weird angles and cuts they look wrecked from the factory)

H2

H3

 

As noted, look at the rest of the lineup at GM

Cavalier

Malibu

Monte Carlo

Venture 

Deville (absolute 'standard of the world' here)

Seville

Catera

Rember anything noteworthy from Buick or Oldsmobile at the time?

 

Products/markets with literally no effort at all. Plus, what was looming right around the corner? Fuel prices about to skyrocket. Imagine if the money they wasted got re-distributed to be competitive in the small car market? They likely wouldn't have gone bankrupt.

 

Literally, pouring money on the already most profitable models they had (some businessman somewhere looking at an excel sheet dreamed this up I'm sure), for a vastly diminished return. 

 

The same businessman looking at the same spreadsheet probably said something along the lines of "Why invest money in our least profitable models?"

 

And no one replied with "To make them profitable." Were they too scared to try to compete with Toyota and Honda in those markets? Absolutely - so, they kept pumping out the crap to offset their CAFE numbers.

 

GM was sooooo much better than gm.

 

 

You are describing GM before its bankruptcy in the late aughts. I will always regard Bob Lutz as a ray of light in an organization strangled by conservative finance. And that's why it died.

 

Lutz dared to do things nobody else would do: Let the artists and engineers drive projects. Because that's what made GM so awesome in prior decades, when Lutz himself was much younger.

 

The fusion of Lutz' vision and finance's walking-back of some of those ideas is apparent in many of the models coming out of the late 90's through 2010.

 

Post-2009 gM... People say what they will about Barra, but it's 'gM' that gave us the 5th and 6th Generation Camaro. The C7, C8 Corvettes. The T1 pickups. The new Escalade. The 3rd generation Colorado, the ZR2 and Bison pickups small and large. The CT/V Cadillacs with manual transmissions, twin turbo engines, V8's... and the Chevy SS. Popular or not, gM produced arguably good mass-market EV's...

 

People may not like modern GM for their own reasons but I think some of the products coming out of the current company and leadership are absolutely significant, market-leading, and game-changing.

Edited May 15 by Atlas

[Atlas]

18 minutes ago, asilverblazer said:

And no one replied with "To make them profitable." Were they too scared to try to compete with Toyota and Honda in those markets? Absolutely - so, they kept pumping out the crap to offset their CAFE numbers.

 

This also makes no sense. All the automakers are/were beholden to CAFE. GM, and partially, gM's fatal flaw is believing that nobody cares that their products don't measure up to better competitors because GM's products cost less. GM and gM have been rebuked so many times on this issue by consumers it's comical and they still refuse to build a better car. Equinox versus Rav4 or CRV. All GM's little rat cars versus all the other little rat cars. Cadillac versus BMW, Audi, Mercedes, even if a Cadillac is faster, that's not what wins in the luxury market. GM's trucks are good, but that's because the competitors also build some arguably crappy trucks, so that's the standard by which we measure. Toyota had to do nothing for decades and the 10+ year old Tacoma was still eating up the midsize market.

[asilverblazer]

35 minutes ago, Atlas said:

You are describing GM before its bankruptcy in the late aughts. I will always regard Bob Lutz as a ray of light in an organization strangled by conservative finance. And that's why it died.

 

Lutz dared to do things nobody else would do: Let the artists and engineers drive projects. Because that's what made GM so awesome in prior decades, when Lutz himself was much younger.

 

The fusion of Lutz' vision and finance's walking-back of some of those ideas is apparent in many of the models coming out of the late 90's through 2010...

I have a completely different take on Lutz. His products were for car people, not customers.

 

They were TOO niche. I think he got lucky with one product (PT Cruiser) right at the retro styling craze. 

 

The rest I think of as disasters. The SSR, was it cool? Sure, did help GM, no. The HHR, was it cool? If you could get past obviously ripping off the PT cruiser, maybe, did it help GM, I might go so far as it was a small car at a time they desperately needed something in the category, and its coat tails success may have helped.

 

Would not walking back any of those products made them sell more? Did changing out the 5.3 in the SSR to the 6.0 turn around its fate? Did adding the SS HHR get a turn around? I'm agree the ideas probably were watered down, but even attempts to liven them up didn't do anything.

 

Cadillac ELR... 

 

Further considerations... Dodge Sidewinder (look familiar), Plymouth Prowler

 

Car people don't buy cars - they build them - and certainly not with a minivan V-6, Prowler.

 

Successes, Lambda SUV's, Malibu, Camaro (mainly because of the same retro craze, that died and Camaro began its slow death until they gave up on it too, the last generation sure could have used some game-changing styling rather than microwaving the same idea from 2007)

 

55 minutes ago, Atlas said:

People may not like modern GM for their own reasons but I think some of the products coming out of the current company and leadership are absolutely significant, market-leading, and game-changing.

Trax, Equinox, Trailblazer, Encore, Envista, Envision, Terrain, XT5... Completely insignificant, barley market relevant, game losing.

 

To wit - name one thing any one of them is outclassing any competitor at? Performance, yawn; crash worthiness, IIHS doesn't think so, fuel efficiency not even with those tiny 3 cylinders, interiors, we have jet black, jet black or jet black, with your choice of screen location; exterior styling, ok some are moderately compelling, particularly the Buicks (what?), and low rent Chevrolets, XT5 is still stuck in the 2000's.

 

Take away the full-size trucks and SUV's they're dead in a month. I guess that's "absolutely significant" and "game-changing."

[asilverblazer]

1 hour ago, Atlas said:

This also makes no sense. All the automakers are/were beholden to CAFE. GM, and partially, gM's fatal flaw is believing that nobody cares that their products don't measure up to better competitors because GM's products cost less. GM and gM have been rebuked so many times on this issue by consumers it's comical and they still refuse to build a better car. Equinox versus Rav4 or CRV. All GM's little rat cars versus all the other little rat cars. Cadillac versus BMW, Audi, Mercedes, even if a Cadillac is faster, that's not what wins in the luxury market. GM's trucks are good, but that's because the competitors also build some arguably crappy trucks, so that's the standard by which we measure. Toyota had to do nothing for decades and the 10+ year old Tacoma was still eating up the midsize market.

Cadillac is going to fail as long as they continue to try to be a better German sports sedan.

 

If I want a Swiss wristwatch am I going to buy a Seiko? Nope.

 

"I want a German sports sedan..."

 

"Have you considered the Americans?" 

 

In case someone at Cadillac missed the memo - they aren't German.

 

 

[Atlas]

28 minutes ago, asilverblazer said:

Take away the full-size trucks and SUV's they're dead in a month. I guess that's "absolutely significant" and "game-changing."

 

Add midsize trucks to that and I agree, they have nothing else that sells in enough volume or profit to sustain their enterprise.

 

You've completely misread me if you somehow believe that I view an Equinox or Trax as significant or game-changing.

 

The 6th generation Camaro, C7 and C8 corvettes, the Bolt (and Volt for that matter, before REV's were an interesting BEV alternative). We didn't get those cars without modern gM. You've already knocked the styling of the 6th gen Camaro however it is a car viewed by many as having contemporary styling, but more importantly, it's as convincing as a BMW M3 underneath, but with American grunt. The car is absolutely amazing on-road, and on-track.

 

Modern gM also gave us a diesel in a midsize pickup and a light duty diesel in a fullsize.

 

But gM lacks relevance in small and midsize cars/SUV's, and in luxury, except for the Escalade. GM created the Escalade's segment and they continue to own it quite well.

 

gM's job is to run their business. I'm just here for the interesting cars and really don't give $0.02 that they make boring cars I'm not going to buy anyway. I want the good stuff.

Edited May 15 by Atlas

[Atlas]

50 minutes ago, asilverblazer said:

Cadillac is going to fail as long as they continue to try to be a better German sports sedan.

 

If I want a Swiss wristwatch am I going to buy a Seiko? Nope.

 

"I want a German sports sedan..."

 

"Have you considered the Americans?" 

 

In case someone at Cadillac missed the memo - they aren't German.

 

 

 

IMO Cadillac is the Escalade and that's it. I like their sport sedans on paper but I'd never be caught dead driving a Cadillac (including an Escalade). Not back then, not now in my early 40's, and not in the future. Cadillac is dead to me.

 

I don't know what else the brand would be if they didn't try to compete in the luxury space, and the Escalade probably isn't enough.

 

 

Side note, I see gM has killed off their Medium Duty including the International -branded trucks. Strong trucks. Too expensive. Was probably convenient timing since International/Navistar sold the Springfield plant to Roshel.

Edited May 15 by Atlas

[asilverblazer]

Cadillac is literally lost right now, they've built a 'performance', edgy persona over the last 2 decades that hasn't gotten them where they want to be (Beating the Germans) despite the practical conclusion that in many respects they can, have and are producing excellent sports sedans. It fundamentally misses the entire idea that nobody wants a Cadillac sports sedan, regardless of how good it is. 

 

Do they abandon the image they've spent the last 20 years building? Which the Escalade DOES not fit. I'd suggest they have to keep going, in particular one last vestige of 'luxury' Cadillac remains that has to go. The Cadillac script logo. Limit Cadillac to a more AMG specific competitor, performance focused only, with only the 'required level of luxury', necessary in that market. Specifically, avoiding any suggestion it is a luxury marque competitor like Rolls, Bentley, at the upper end and maybe even including the lowly Mercedes-Benz line (which still is generally regarded as a luxury car manufacturer, despite the higher offerings of Maybach.) 

 

If Cadillac were to abandon those luxury aspirations, look at the opportunity that opens up to Buick, which is also lost, in the American market. Premium over Chevrolet. But, since they only have SUV's or CUV's isn't that supposed to be where GMC is, what is professional grade anyways?

 

Internationally, China, Buick is major luxury player. It could turn the American market upside down if they released something up market of Cadillac, as an American luxury car. Plus, they don't have to add the performance element in like Cadillac does to fit the image Cadillac has been building.

 

Cadillac becomes performance oriented, (Why is there even an 'entry-level' model or trim in this echelon anyways?) with the CT#V, Escalade in V Trim only, Coupe V trim. Three models, one trim level. More appearance packages. 

 

Buick becomes the luxury line, similar to Cadillac, there are no entry level players here. More models could work, but more appearance options/packages. So much more breathing room for the brand when it isn't trapped between all the other lines, more premium than a Chevy (High Country?), Different from a GMC, but don't step on Cadillacs toes, which is more than happy to move down market into Buick territory with models like the XT-5.

 

GMC can continue as an undefined professional alternative to Chevrolet, but the popularity of the AT4 series suggests it could become more off-road oriented. The professional grade thing also leaves opportunity here for fleet use.

 

Chevrolet gets to remain the popular every man's car brand. (Controversially, if Corvette, moved to Cadillac in a very diplomatic fashion, where given the above it fit more neatly. No more ceiling for Camaro) Entry levels galore, limited appearance packages and options.

 

[KARNUT]

Without commenting on quality Cadillac does have several models to choose from. Even performance packages. My brother has had two Escalades. He hasn’t upgraded from his 2019 for obvious reasons. My father had a 73 and 74 Eldorado from new. The 74 was a convertible. I ended up with the 73 a few years later. Very fond memories with those. I’ll admit the brand doesn’t cross my mind these days. We lean towards Lexus when my wife’s Genesis finally quits. The reason is Lexus would still be a good buy at 10 years old. I don’t think on those terms with a 10 year old GM. Nobody fault but theirs. 

[Atlas]

Circling back to the topic, GM is still doing something right. GMC + Chevrolet fullsize truck sales are still #1 in the nation.

 

Trucks are kind of the one thing that GM's consistently done a good job producing and keeping relevant for the last...well...I mean, if you count back to the original days you could say since 1967, or maybe even farther back, since the late 1940's?

[TrueBlue]

They've done a good job producing them. Now if they could just do a slightly better job at engineering them. Motors and transmissions have been at the heart of vehicles since their early days. Should be able to make them ultra-dependable by now. 

I've had no major problems with this one, yet. Or with the new body style 2000 Tahoe I bought new back then. But lots of folks have and I just don't understand why it has to be this way.

[asilverblazer]

20 hours ago, TrueBlue said:

They've done a good job producing them. Now if they could just do a slightly better job at engineering them.

I think it is the other way around. Most recent issues have been a result of manufacturing defects.

[asilverblazer]

On 5/15/2026 at 5:27 PM, KARNUT said:

Without commenting on quality Cadillac does have several models to choose from. Even performance packages.

They shouldn't have several models. Cadillac is the top of the hierarchy, there shouldn't be an entry level model, trim, power train, etc. 

 

Each model has 1 powertrain, preferably exclusive (at a minimum the most powerful elsewhere on the GM platform), 2 appearance styles (sport=black trim vs. luxury=chrome trim), extensive color choices and combinations.

 

A top line (full-size) Sedan

A coupe (same platform as Sedan, this could be unique to Cadillac, but includes Buick if you read my earlier post.)

Escalade executive rear seating only with NO third row optional,

Cross-over (XT-6ish)

Sports car (corvette based)

 

A livery Escalade long version

 

There should be absolutely NO 4 cylinders or less God forbid, A naturally aspirated V6 is the barest minimum for the smallest car in the lineup. 

 

CAFE - thow it out the window. The fleet is too powerful to comply? Pay the fine and sell real luxury cars. What some call a fine, I call it a fee to produce the cars your clientele expect.

 

A Cadillac should be superior to every other GM product in every way. Otherwise, we are badge engineering, just like before, it diluted the brand. How much is having a Cadillac branded Equinox really worth? How much value is that Equinox, I mean XT5 bringing to Cadillac? None.

 

Aston Martin Cignet, definitely elevated the brand.

[TrueBlue]

18 hours ago, asilverblazer said:

I think it is the other way around. Most recent issues have been a result of manufacturing defects.

Yeah, you may be right. Bad cranks, lifters, and valve bodies have certainly come back to bite them. But it's possible that the engineering behind those parts could have made them very difficult to fabricate in such a way that they had dependability and longevity built in.

Added to whatever the cause was, is GM's reluctance to own their mistakes and do the right thing. Like replacing all lifters or an entire motor that's been compromised when a lifter grenades and sheds metal into the bowels of the motor, and instead replacing only the specific part(s) that failed and caused the issue. And thereby pushing the correct fix out to beyond the warranty end.

And it's not just GM. They're all doing similar things in similar ways. Though in GMs case it's particularly galling since they needed and accepted a taxpayer bailout not so very long ago.

Edited May 20 by TrueBlue

[newdude]

1 hour ago, TrueBlue said:

Yeah, you may be right. Bad cranks, lifters, and valve bodies have certainly come back to bite them. But it's possible that the engineering behind those parts could have made them very difficult to fabricate in such a way that they had dependability and longevity built in.

Added to whatever the cause was, is GM's reluctance to own their mistakes and do the right thing. Like replacing all lifters or an entire motor that's been compromised when a lifter grenades and sheds metal into the bowels of the motor, and instead replacing only the specific part(s) that failed and caused the issue. And thereby pushing the correct fix out to beyond the warranty end.

And it's not just GM. They're all doing similar things in similar ways. Though in GMs case it's particularly galling since they needed and accepted a taxpayer bailout not so very long ago.

 

 

GM got the govt. money in 2008, and repayed in 2010.  That was 16 years ago.  Irrelevant to the current situation.  

 

The recent quality issues sort of mirrors Boeing.  GM wasn't watching their suppliers as heavily as they should, the suppliers were letting product through that was bad.  Cranks, lifters, rods, etc.  Even the telematics module issue right now with them bricking on 2024-2025 SUVs.  Lax in monitoring the supply chain during COVID, but an urgency to crank product out.  Things were sacrificed to get product on the ground.