AD #2157 – Bollinger Reveals All-Electric SUV, Cadillac Trims Sedan Line-Up, Benefits of One Gasoline Octane Option

July 28th, 2017 at 11:54am

Runtime: 8:18

To watch this episode on YouTube click here.

- FCA To Get Diesel Approval
- Porsche Cayenne Recalled in Germany
- Porsche Drops LMP1, Joins Formula E
- Bollinger Reveals All-Electric SUV
- Cadillac Trims Sedan Line-Up
- Benefits of One Gasoline Octane Option

Visit our sponsors to thank them for their support of Autoline Daily: Bridgestone , Dow Automotive Systems and Lear Corporation.

»Subscribe to Podcast | iTunes | RSS | Listen on Phone Stitcher | YouTube

Thanks to our partner for embedding Autoline Daily on its website: WardsAuto.com

27 Comments to “AD #2157 – Bollinger Reveals All-Electric SUV, Cadillac Trims Sedan Line-Up, Benefits of One Gasoline Octane Option”

  1. Wim van Acker Says:

    “Porsche revealed it found the “irregular” software in Cayenne’s with 3.0L diesels during an internal investigation”: aahhhh, they investigated it and found out that some people had tinkered with vehicles? Sure, that is very like to have happened …

  2. Wim van Acker Says:

    can’t edit, so: “employees” instead of “people”, “likely” instead of “like”. Sorry.

  3. Chuck Grenci Says:

    So massaging the numbers, for Cadillac, in the not too distant future the actual reduction of sedans would be, a decrease of, net one. The three existing, non CT models disappear to become a CT4 and a new smaller model, possibly a CT2 or CT3 appears; so not as drastic as it seems. All this switching around would need to stop if Cadillac wants some sort of consistency in the luxury market so the buying public knows what it is getting. What I’m referring to is that with a M/B or BMW, their offering are ‘historic’; C,E,S series or 3,5,7, series. And I say this with no malice (as I am a Cadillac fan, and owner of same).

  4. Chuck Grenci Says:

    With economy of scale, less need for separate processing facilities and uniformity of prep/manufacture/distribution, the cost of a higher octane fuel would be quite modest; the benefits would eventually prove substantial and simplicity at the pump would prevail.

  5. G.A.Branigan Says:

    I’m all in for one grade of gas. It would be a win all around.I see no downsides.

    Off topic: Has anybody noticed a change in the audio of the daily? It doesn’t sound as clear to me as it has in the past.

  6. Mike Hawkins Says:

    Am I the only one confused by Cadillac’s product lineup? The names seem to be a 3 character jumble that changes every year or two. I bought GM premium products years ago and since then have stuck with Mercedes. At least I understand their products. Who exactly makes up Cadillac’s target buyer? It seems to vary between music moguls and 20 year olds from what I see.

  7. Chuck Grenci Says:

    G.A. #5
    I’ve noticed audio quality has been reduced for the last couple of days (I usually wear headphones). I just thought it was me until you chimed in. I did watch Autoline After Hours, same headphones, and that show’s audio was just fine.

  8. JWH Says:

    #6 – Agree with Cadillac mumbo jumbo naming scenario. Perhaps Cadillac is attempting to copy Lincoln’s “clear naming” where they use MK “something” for naming their vehicles. I have to ask my friend if his MKX is a Lincoln “Edge”. Of course they are not the only ones – BMW used to use odd numbers for 4 dr vehicles & even numbers for 2 dr vehicles. Now they a 6 series 4 dr hatchback. They could not leave a good system alone.

  9. Tattersdad Says:

    The gasoline debate between the auto oil industries is decades old – who pays for it and who gets the benefit. There are currently two octane grades in bulk distribution (mid-grade is mixed from premium and regular at the pump), with multiple vapor pressure (RVP) specifications required to meet state emission laws by season. Not much savings opportunity in the distribution path. Assuming a single grade would be higher R+M/2 than the current 87, the overall refining costs would be higher and likely passed along to the consumer unless autos and oils can strike a deal.

  10. Albemarle Says:

    I think that Cadillac hasmore to worry about than dropping and adding sedans. Their decade plus focus on being a BMW killer doesn’t look to be a success. At what point do you say the strategy isn’t working? Although much earlier in the game, I think Lincoln’s strategy is superior.
    I have given up hope that car companies will be intelligent, consistent, and considerate when naming their products. When discussing our new car, a Bolt, not a Volt, it’s obvious that GM really screwed up. On what planet is this naming a good idea?

  11. Steve W Says:

    Robert Fascetti doesn’t get it! Any increase in the cost of gasoline to the consumer is excessive! He shouldn’t feel sorry for the oil companies needing to produce different grades of gas. His energy should be to make all cars run on 87 or less octane instead if he wants simplicity.Ford’s competitors that don’t subscribe to this nonsense will market the hell out of their lower cost to operate vehicles.

  12. Kit Gerhart Says:

    6, 8 It looks like Cadillac’s naming system will become more consistent, kind of like Audi’s. Audi sedans are A(x), the “x” being a digit, the bigger the car, the bigger the digit. Cadillac will probably do something similar, with CT rather than A.

  13. Kit Gerhart Says:

    How much more would it REALLY cost to make all gas 91 octane? That is the question. There would be savings in making only one grade of gas, and there would be savings in simpler pumps, fewer tanks at stations, etc. I’d like to know how much cost difference there would actually be.

    10, Steve, Ford and GM make nearly all of their cars run on 87 octane, with only a few performance models even “recommending” premium. With the artificially inflated pump price of premium, that is a good think. If they designed all of the engines to run on premium, though, both efficiency and power would be improved, maybe enough to counteract the actual cost increase of the fuel. At first, though, people would be using premium with no benefit in existing cars.

  14. Kit Gerhart Says:

    9 Cadillac has actually done a good job of making sedans that compete with BMW’s dynamically, but people who want such cars don’t want to buy a “geriatric” name plate like Cadillac. For now, Cadillac probably just needs more trucks, since that is what Americans buy.

    It is tough for both Cadillac and Lincoln to get customers, regardless of how good the products are, because the German and Japanese name plates are much more fashionable.

  15. FSTFWRD Says:

    @ 10 Steve W
    I don’t agree at all. A small increase in the price would be no problem for most people. ( I for one think we should have a gas tax to improve roads, if we could make sure that is where the money is spent. I know, good luck with that one.) Sure would make things simple at the pumps. One grade nationwide would be great. Exactly how much it would cost is a good question, but it would be nice to be able to buy 93 octane at the pump. We’ll see what the future holds.

  16. G.A.Branigan Says:

    @ Chuck Grenci: Yup,for the last couple of days.Almost has a muffled sound to it.Might be some new equipment not dialed in yet?

  17. G.A.Branigan Says:

    I forgot to add,it even shows up on their youtube episodes for last few days,so it isn’t this website.

  18. Marshall Says:

    The Cadillac announcement killing the XTS, CTS and ATS in a couple years makes little sense, especially when you consider that would mean no more ‘V-series’ performance cars. Caddy needs those to run in the same leagues as BMW.

  19. G.A.Branigan Says:

    I just went back a week and the audio is crystal clear,as opposed to now.If you changed mikes,go back to the old one.

  20. Roger T Says:

    Of course the main point missed in the octane dialogue was exactly what’s in this for the consumer. 96 octane means higher compression ratio which enables what efficiency gain? Paying more for gas only makes sense if vehicles become more efficient and use less fuel per mile driven, otherwise there’s no advantage.

  21. Kit Gerhart Says:

    18 Engines designed/tuned for higher octane gas would be more efficient. The question is, how much more efficient relative to fuel cost. John or Sean, can you get info on this?

    Actually, I’m probably one of few Americans who thinks gas is too cheap. Since I drive cars, I’d rather share the road with more cars, and fewer trucks. Also, higher gas taxes could fix infrastructure, and subsidize mass transit, reducing traffic for those who drive.

  22. Steve Says:

    In regards to one gasoline. What about ethanol vs. non-ethanol gasoline. I don’t see a problem with ethanol for new cars or trucks. With my MGB, chain saws, brush saws, boat and garden tractors it’s a different matter. Near my house is a gas station that sells 91 octane non-ethanol gas. I’m a frequent customer. It would only be simple if this one gasoline didn’t contain ethanol.

  23. Marshall Says:

    Posted a comment on Cadillac yesterday, now it’s gone. What happened?

  24. Kit Gerhart Says:

    My 40 year old lawn tractor does fine with E-10, but yeah, some engines, like a 70 year old outboard I recently sold need ethanol free. Ethanol free gas needs to be available, for the few engines that need it.

  25. DonC Says:

    Cadillac announced two years ago that the CTS, ATS, and XTS would not be replaced at the end of their lives. I’m not sure why the recent announcement that this will happen is “shocking”. I guess that replacing all three models with one might be a surprise, but given the CT6 is a new model and the move from sedans to CUVs/SUVs, probably a fairly predictable development.

  26. Arcade Mike Says:

    15&21 I believe all states in the US have a tax for roads in property and gas taxes. South Carolina (home state) brought in over 20 billion from taxes that were meant for roads and infrastructure but no one can tell us where the money went. Then last year they wanted to increase the gas tax to fix the roads and it was voted out. Until they can actually put the money were it needs to go instead of lining pockets of friends in shady back room deals it will never get better.

  27. wmb Says:

    Didn’t the Cadillac boss say not too long ago that they would never do a small FWD vehicle?! The A3 is fwd/awd! If Cadillac did a rwd sedan in that class, wouldn’t they just run into the same issues that BMW has in Europe with their 1-Series hatch with interior space?! They’d essentially be repeating that complaint that many have with the ATS, that the rear sitting area is too small! That’s why Audi, Mercedes and BMW China use a rwd/awd architecture for their subcompact vehicle. So Cadillac what gives?! Speaking of Mercedes and BMW, IMHO, they are succeeding where Cadillac is lacking is not just in the number of luxury CUV/SUV’s they offer, but that most are based on the platforms of their cars. That helps in two ways. First, most or many of the cars attributes carry over from one to the other. So that the lover of one of their sedans, who now needs great utility or the fashion sense that a crossover provides, doesn’t give up too much on vehicle dynamics. Secondly, as customers purchase more SUV’s, since the vehicles have much of the same hardware, the automakers can easily go from building cars to trucks in many of the same plants! None of Cadillac’s CUV/SUV’s have anything to do with their excellent sedans! Any customer wanting to buy a SUV that handles and drives like the ATS, CTS and CT6, will not find it behind the wheel of the XT5 or even the Escalade! IMHO, Cadillac should keep the ATS and CTS, adjusting their designation to the new naming scheme and build SUV’s off the bones of these fantastic vehicles! If they are going just for sales, then a rebadged GMC Terrain and Buick Enclave will work as donor vehicles. But not if the want respect among their Luxury peers!