2001 Cadillac Deville Dhs Sedan 4-door 4.6l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2016 Cadillac CTS-V prepares to kick ass, take names

Some stories write themselves. This post on the North American International Auto Show debut of the 2016 Cadillac CTS-V is one of them. This 200-mile-per-hour sedan pilfers the 6.2-liter supercharged V8 from the Chevy Corvette Z06, and puts it to the same tire-devastating effect, offering up 640 horsepower and 630 pound-feet of torque. An eight-speed automatic – please join us in a moment of silence for the dearly departed manual CTS-V – then dispatches the force-induced thrust to a very large, sticky set of Michelin Pilot Super Sport tires. To ensure the CTS-V can tear your face off with lateral Gs as well as accelerative Gs, Cadillac stiffened the car's structure by 25 percent, fitted magnetic ride control and fitted the aforementioned tires. Beyond the mechanicals, a substantial rear spoiler, front splitter and diffuser improve grip through aerodynamics. Keeping drivers pinned during all this tire shredding and face tearing is the task of meaty, two-piece Recaro sport seats, which are found in a luxuriously appointed cabin, complete with 4G LTE connectivity, a Bose stereo and Siri Eyes Free. There's even a Performance Data Recorder, which will be on hand to record your miscues if (or perhaps when) the car's extreme abilities outpace your own talents. Take a look at our array of live images from the CTS-V's official debut at the 2015 Detroit Auto Show.

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

GM says safety is a reason it's dropping Apple CarPlay, Android Auto

Update: GM sent us a statement as a follow-up to its original comments seen in this post: "We wanted to reach out to clarify that comments about GM's position on phone projection were misrepresented in previous articles and to reinforce our valued partnerships with Apple and Google and each company’s commitment to driver safety. GM's embedded infotainment strategy is driven by the benefits of having a system that allows for greater integration with the larger GM ecosystem and vehicles." The original story can be read in its entirety below.   General Motors announced its intention to remove Apple CarPlay and Android Auto functionality from its upcoming EVs earlier this year, and internet comments sections haven't been kind since. As the first of many EVs to follow – the 2024 Chevrolet Blazer EV – hits the market, GM is expanding on its initial explanations for dropping the tech. Motor Trend spoke with Tim Babbit, GMÂ’s head of product for infotainment, to learn more. Attributed to Babbit, from the story: “They have stability issues that manifest themselves as bad connections, poor rendering, slow responses, and dropped connections. And when CarPlay and Android Auto have issues, drivers pick up their phones again, taking their eyes off the road and totally defeating the purpose of these phone-mirroring programs. Solving those issues can sometimes be beyond the control of the automaker.” Babbit suggests that a world without Apple CarPlay or Android Auto will be a safer one, as folks wonÂ’t be looking to control their infotainment systems via their phones. However, Babbit also tells MT that this theory hasnÂ’t been tested in either the lab or the real world yet. Instead of using a navigation or music-playing app powered through your phone, upcoming GM EVs will use a Google-based infotainment system called “Ultifi” that runs a ton of integrated Google apps. Google Maps will be the native navigation app in the system; youÂ’ll be able to log in to Spotify or other apps to load your music up, and so on. The idea here is that youÂ’ll have all the same apps that were on your phone available but integrated within the infotainment system instead, and you'll be able to use voice controls to control every last bit of it with no need to reach for a phone. That sounds amenable in theory, but how consumers react to the removal of a feature that they know and love now is a risky gamble.