2003 Cadillac Cts Base Sedan 4-door 3.2l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Cadillac Rear Camera Mirror | 2017 Autoblog Technology of the Year Finalist

We give Cadillac a lot of credit for being the first to make good on the promise to replace mirrors with cameras and displays. That was good enough to earn the Cadillac Rear Camera Mirror a place on our 2017 Technology of the Year awards shortlist for new features. The idea behind this system is relatively simple; what perhaps took more doing was getting the regulations in place to allow a video feed to replace the government-mandated mirror. The hardware and that rules compliance starts with what looks like a normal rearview mirror – because it defaults to being a mirror until you switch on the display or in the event the system somehow fails. Flip the little toggle at the bottom of the mirror – the one normally used to switch from day to night mode – and the reflection is replaced by a very crisp feed from a camera at the back of the vehicle. This live stream gives you a wide-angle view of what's behind, without obstruction from back-seat passengers, headrests, or any bodywork. The camera is even shielded from weather and has a coating to shed water. What you see doesn't exactly look like a normal reflection, but the quality is good enough and you see more than you would normally with something aimed through today's small rear windows. But because it isn't actually a reflection, you have to make some adjustments. When your eyes are focused down the road, glancing at a mirror gives you a view the same distance away but in the rear. With the rear camera mirror, a glance back requires your eyes to first refocus on the display, which takes a moment. And unlike a normal mirror, which you look through at an angle, this display is angled toward the driver but projecting an image that looks straight back – no matter how you move it, the image doesn't change like a mirror's would. And because it's an image and not a reflection, you can't choose what's in focus and lose your sense of depth perception. It's not clear whether objects in mirror are closer or farther than they appear. And there are other limitations. For instance, while the display balances bright lights and dark surroundings well at night, it is tricked by LED headlights, which flicker at a rate faster than the camera shoots. The result is a distracting strobe effect like you get when you point a smartphone camera at any LED light source. For those with migraine sensitivity, this kind of fast flashing can cause real problems.

Cool car technology is cool until it breaks

Ah, technology – the beautiful date that impresses all your friends but costs you a fortune to keep happy, up-to-date, and working. Automotive News puts some numbers to the economic toll we're paying to jockey this technological Trojan horse, an analysis it sums up with "Technology is great - until you have to replace it." Back in 2000, for instance, you could replace a Cadillac Escalade taillight lens for $56.08, or replace the entire unit for $220.49. Crack the rear lens on your 2015 Escalade and you have to buy a new unit for $795 - there's no such thing as just replacing a lens anymore. What about headlights? It was $210 for an Escalade headlight in 2000, it's $1,650 for the current unit (pictured). This is nothing we didn't know, these are just hard numbers to demonstrate it. Edmunds recently provided the same with its sledgehammer-bashing of the 2015 Ford F-150, Tesla Model S buyers have been shrieking about repair costs to their electric sedan's all-aluminum bodywork, and used-car sites are full of articles about which expensive-to-repair features to steer clear of if you want to avoid big repair bills. Those expensive bits increase the price of a car - Kelley Blue Book says the average price of a car is now more than $33,000 - and that raises rates for repairs and insurance. This comes in spite of some carmakers that have been collaborating with insurance companies and repair shops at the design stage in order to engineer parts that are easier and less expensive to replace. But the tech can have its cost-saving benefits: a 2011 study by the Highway Loss Data Institute found that Volvos fitted with that company's City Safety feature "filed 27 percent fewer property-damage liability claims" than luxury SUVs without it, and just last month the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety called adaptive headlights one of the top four crash-preventing technologies on cars today (after coming out against them in 2006). So yes, the technology costs a mint when it needs to be fixed - but being able to avoid an accident in the first place might make it worth it. News Source: Automotive News - sub. req.Image Credit: Copyright 2015 AOL Cadillac Car Buying Used Car Buying Auto Repair Insurance Maintenance Safety Technology Luxury replacement parts

A car writer's year in new vehicles [w/video]

Christmas is only a week away. The New Year is just around the corner. As 2014 draws to a close, I'm not the only one taking stock of the year that's we're almost shut of. Depending on who you are or what you do, the end of the year can bring to mind tax bills, school semesters or scheduling dental appointments. For me, for the last eight or nine years, at least a small part of this transitory time is occupied with recalling the cars I've driven over the preceding 12 months. Since I started writing about and reviewing cars in 2006, I've done an uneven job of tracking every vehicle I've been in, each year. Last year I made a resolution to be better about it, and the result is a spreadsheet with model names, dates, notes and some basic facts and figures. Armed with this basic data and a yen for year-end stories, I figured it would be interesting to parse the figures and quantify my year in cars in a way I'd never done before. The results are, well, they're a little bizarre, honestly. And I think they'll affect how I approach this gig in 2015. {C} My tally for the year is 68 cars, as of this writing. Before the calendar flips to 2015 it'll be as high as 73. Let me give you a tiny bit of background about how automotive journalists typically get cars to test. There are basically two pools of vehicles I drive on a regular basis: media fleet vehicles and those available on "first drive" programs. The latter group is pretty self-explanatory. Journalists are gathered in one location (sometimes local, sometimes far-flung) with a new model(s), there's usually a day of driving, then we report back to you with our impressions. Media fleet vehicles are different. These are distributed to publications and individual journalists far and wide, and the test period goes from a few days to a week or more. Whereas first drives almost always result in a piece of review content, fleet loans only sometimes do. Other times they serve to give context about brands, segments, technology and the like, to editors and writers. So, adding up the loans I've had out of the press fleet and things I've driven at events, my tally for the year is 68 cars, as of this writing. Before the calendar flips to 2015, it'll be as high as 73. At one of the buff books like Car and Driver or Motor Trend, reviewers might rotate through five cars a week, or more. I know that number sounds high, but as best I can tell, it's pretty average for the full-time professionals in this business.