2014 Cadillac Srx Performance Collection on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Despite strong profits, GM still fighting flat market share

Looking at the progress General Motors has made since it entered bankruptcy, it's easy to forget that the company still has a long way to go before it's the juggernaut it once was. A recent report from Reuters points out that, while GM is making money, it isn't making any gains in terms of US market share. Quite the opposite, really. Consider this factoid: In 1963, nearly half of the cars sold in the United States were from Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick, GMC or Pontiac. Now, the company's US market share is stagnant at 17.9 percent. That same number is half of just Chevy's 1963 market share. This is all despite GM going on a binge replacing or updating its models. "Market share increases are not instantaneous," Mark Reuss told Reuters at the 2014 Detroit Auto Show. "We've got a lot of baggage. Don't underestimate what people though of us, or these brands, through these hardships and 30 years." The reasons for the stagnant market share are numerous. Reuters points out that retooling of factories and a focus on limiting incentives are both good things for profit, but not necessarily for market share. There's also the troubling turnover of the brand's marketing department. These issues don't change the fact that Chevrolet has lost 1.4 percent of its market share in two years, and that Cadillac - arguably GM's most improved brand overall - has lost 1.2 percent in the same period. Part of that can be blamed on GM's avoidance of fleet sales in favor of more profitable customer sales. "Our focus has really been on retail and that's where we've got the growth," said Alan Batey, GM's interim global marketing boss. "We want to grow GM and that means growing market share and profits, but it's not at all costs," Reuss said. News Source: ReutersImage Credit: paul bica - Flickr CC 2.0 Earnings/Financials Buick Cadillac GM GMC sales profits

Cadillac tops Tesla in Consumer Reports semi-automated driving test

General Motors' Cadillac outscored Tesla in a new ranking of partially automated driving systems tested by Consumer Reports and released on Thursday. The highly influential nonprofit organization, which tests and rates a variety of consumer products from appliances to vehicles, said it compared Cadillac's Super Cruise and Tesla's Autopilot with similar systems from Nissan and Volvo. Nissan's ProPilot Assist was ranked third and Volvo's Pilot Assist fourth. Consumer Reports said it has been testing partially automated driving systems for several years but elected to conduct a formal study intended for publication, because "we are at a tipping point where they are now going mainstream," according to Jake Fisher, director of auto testing. The organization said its tests, conducted on a private track and on public roads in Connecticut, were designed to measure the systems' ability to automatically control steering and speed in certain situations, while helping drivers pay attention and regain manual control of the vehicle when required. CR noted that any of these systems can increase driving risk if used in inappropriate situations, or if drivers become inattentive or over-reliant on them. While they can help relieve driver stress and fatigue, Consumer Reports said, the partially automated systems are "not intended to be self-driving features." The systems typically use cameras, radar and other sensors, as well as mapping data, to monitor location and traffic conditions and help keep a vehicle centered in the lane at a safe distance behind other cars. Each system has limitations. Cadillac's Super Cruise, for instance, only functions on divided highways that have been mapped by GM. In contrast, Tesla's Autopilot can be used even on small, curvy roads with poor lane markings, but "operates erratically in those situations," Consumer Reports said.The organization tested Super Cruise on the Cadillac CT6; Autopilot on the Tesla Model 3, Model X and Model S; ProPilot Assist on the Nissan Leaf and Infiniti QX50; and Pilot Assist on the Volvo XC40 and XC60. Consumer Reports said Cadillac's Super Cruise did "the best job of balancing high-tech capabilities with ensuring the car is operated safely and the driver is paying attention." Tesla's Autopilot was cited for its capability and ease of use, while Nissan's ProPilot Assist did a better job than Autopilot or Volvo's Pilot Assist in keeping drivers engaged.

Here are a few of our automotive guilty pleasures

It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway. The world is full of cars, and just about as many of them are bad as are good. It's pretty easy to pick which fall into each category after giving them a thorough walkaround and, more important, driving them. But every once in a while, an automobile straddles the line somehow between good and bad — it may be hideously overpriced and therefore a marketplace failure, it may be stupid quick in a straight line but handles like a drunken noodle, or it may have an interior that looks like it was made of a mess of injection-molded Legos. Heck, maybe all three. Yet there's something special about some bad cars that actually makes them likable. The idea for this list came to me while I was browsing classified ads for cars within a few hundred miles of my house. I ran across a few oddballs and shared them with the rest of the team in our online chat room. It turns out several of us have a few automotive guilty pleasures that we're willing to admit to. We'll call a few of 'em out here. Feel free to share some of your own in the comments below. Dodge Neon SRT4 and Caliber SRT4: The Neon was a passably good and plucky little city car when it debuted for the 1995 model year. The Caliber, which replaced the aging Neon and sought to replace its friendly marketing campaign with something more sinister, was panned from the very outset for its cheap interior furnishings, but at least offered some decent utility with its hatchback shape. What the two little front-wheel-drive Dodge models have in common are their rip-roarin' SRT variants, each powered by turbocharged 2.4-liter four-cylinder engines. Known for their propensity to light up their front tires under hard acceleration, the duo were legitimately quick and fun to drive with a fantastic turbo whoosh that called to mind the early days of turbo technology. — Consumer Editor Jeremy Korzeniewski  Chevrolet HHR SS: Chevy's HHR SS came out early in my automotive journalism career, and I have fond memories of the press launch (and having dinner with Bob Lutz) that included plenty of tire-smoking hard launches and demonstrations of the manual transmission's no-lift shift feature. The 260-horsepower turbocharged four-cylinder was and still is a spunky little engine that makes the retro-inspired HHR a fun little hot rod that works quite well as a fun little daily driver.