1977 Cadillac Seville Base Sedan 4-door 5.7l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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

Ghostbusters trailer stars Ecto1 and a quartet of actresses

"Um... you didn't disclose that the vehicle was going to be a hearse," says funnywoman Melissa McCarthy in the brand-spankin'-new trailer for the upcoming Ghostbusters reboot. Traditionalist fans may be similarly angered by the vehicle's basis, since the original Ecto1 was an ambulance, not a vehicle for the dead. Leslie Jones' response to McCarthy wasn't meant to answer those critics, but it does a good job of it anyway: "It's a Cadillac!" Naturally, there's a lot more to look at in the new trailer than just the Ecto1. There are, obviously, ghosts. Lots of 'em, in fact. There's also an opening piano sequence that's pretty darn great, but we ought to warn you that if you watch the video up above, you're going to be humming the theme from Ghostbusters for the rest of the day. We're sorry, but it simply cannot be avoided. You've been warned. Related Video:

What if the mid-engine Corvette is really a Cadillac?

Call me crazy, but I'm not convinced the mid-engine Corvette is the next Corvette. The rumor is strong, yes. And, contrary to some of the comments on our site, Car and Driver - leader of the mid-engine Corvette speculation brigade - has a pretty good record predicting future models. But it's another comment that got me thinking: or maybe it's a Cadillac. There is clearly something mid-engine going on at GM, and I think it makes sense for the car to be a Cadillac. First off, check out how sweet the 2002 Cadillac Cien concept car still looks in the photo above. Second, there are too many holes in the mid-engine Corvette theory. There are too many holes in the mid-engine Corvette theory. The C7 is relatively young in Corvette years, starting production almost three years ago as a 2014 model. Showing a 2019 model at the 2018 North American International Auto Show would kill sales of a strong-selling car before its time. Not to mention it would only mean a short run for the Grand Sport, which was the best-selling version of the previous generation. More stuff doesn't add up. Mid-engine cars are, in general, more expensive. Moving the Vette upmarket leaves a void that the Camaro does not fill. There's not much overlap between Camaro and Corvette customers. Corvette owners are older and enjoy features like a big trunk that holds golf clubs. Mid-engine means less trunk space and alienating a happy, loyal buyer. Also, more than 60 years of history. The Corvette is an icon along the likes of the Porsche 911 and Ford Mustang. I'm not sure the car-buying public wants a Corvette that abandons all previous conventions. And big changes bring uncertainty - I don't think GM would make such a risky bet. Chevrolet could build a mid-engine ZR1, you might say, and keep the other Corvettes front-engine. Yes they could, and it would cost a ton of money. And they still need to fund development of that front-engine car. I highly doubt the corporate accountants would go for that. But a Cadillac? Totally. Cadillac is in the middle of a brand repositioning. GM is throwing money at this effort. A mid-engine halo car is the just the splash the brand needs to shake off the ghosts of Fleetwoods past. And it's already in Cadillac President Johan De Nysschen's playbook. He was in charge of Audi's North America arm when the R8 came out. A Caddy sports car priced above $100,000 isn't that unreasonable when you can already price a CTS-V in that range.