Holden had the job of developing smaller engines (Holden 3.2, LP1 and Saab 2.8, LP9 Turbo) as well as their own Holden 3.6 HFV6 (called the Alloytec V6) for local models.
Remember the Cadillac SRX turbo that was so bad they withdrew it from sale?
Cost cutting was necessary to keep the HFV6 engines affordable and I suspect that some fundamental compromises and assumptions were made that were the root cause of serious issues that became apparent.
I feel like that the HFV6 gets a bad reputation that it doesn't deserve, I would still pick the 3.6L N/A engine over the 3.0T engine going into the new CT5 as at least in the Camaro it sounds great. The 3.0L engine got beat up on and called a bad engine when in reality the issue with that engine is that it was put in a vehicle that was too heavy for the amount of torque it produced. Being only 3.0L it only made 223lb-ft of torque which is about what the BMW 3.0L I-6 engine made in the BMW 5 series at the time. The problem came from the 4,300 pound SUV that they put it in, maybe with a CVT or a 10 speed automatic would that have worked (but would have been shifting all the time). That engine in the ATS with a manual would have been great considering the ATSs much lower mass 221lb-ft of torque would have been more then enough and revving the engine out would have been fun.
Back on topic is something that I have been saying for a long time, GM is a brand that is focused on the mass market which is why it struggles with niche markets. This problem as pointed out isn't just a problem with GM but many of the mass market companies have this issue as well. The mass market people are just focused on things like big numbers and market share which isn't a good mind set to have if you want to produce for niche markets. You are not going to move 500,000 Corvettes a year and when a company has that mind set they suddenly can't justify spending the money to develop the Corvette over other vehicles when it won't sell in such volumes. This is also why it (at least fundamentally) doesn't make sense to compare their performance offerings to niche brands like Ferrari and Lamborghini. We should be comparing things like Saleen, Mosler, and Lucra to those brands and not Dodge, Chevy, and Ford. The 5th generation Viper is a car that I would gladly own over my current ride (a 2013 C6 Z06) as that car is just sexy and fast. Though I feel like it took a company that had a much better grasp of niche markets to touch that car and make it that much better then it was.
Part of why I did that was yes, I am not an engineer and can not argue my point at length. But what I do have is a set of eyes and 30+ years of reading about GM's engines. What I have seen is GM keeps using Chevy level engines with some upgrades (2.0T, HFV6), neither of which is smooth enough to go head to head with BMW. I think GM has amazing engineers and they have not been able to make either of those engines BMW smooth. I do not know if that is cost constraints or the basic architecture that stops them, I suspect a little of both, but if the basic architecture was good enough they wouldn't need expensive modifications to make them BMW smooth. Based on GM's history I have to say the engines need to be designed as Cadillac engines first and Chevy second, not the other way around.
And the V8 argument now switches over to perception. Yes, they are awesome engines. But they are known for powering Chevys and I don't care how smooth they are. Big block and small block are synonymous with Chevy. Cadillac needs to get away from that to make a name for itself. Cadillac can't be V8 only due to CAFE rules, that ship passed 30 years ago. Plus the V8 is to heavy for cars like the ATS which is about handling first.
" One of them was that there was only one common manufacturing quality standard for all the brands."
Quality manufacturing put Cadillac on the map, and Cadillac saved General Motors in its early years.
Who is responsible for Cadillac's lateness to the CUV bandwagon?
Was JdN brought in to further Cadillac's German sports sedan direction, and did he? IMO, he is responsible for the engineering, styling, and limitations of XT4, XT6, and CT5. Of course, compromises were made because of money.
I wish we knew more about their plans for the V8. I want to see some version of it in their mainstream vehicles.
I wonder what Mr. De Nysschen thinks of the reactions to his CT5.
It seems there are a lot of newly minted fans of his here, that don't much like his creations.
I feel like XT6 gets trashed unfairly on this forum. How many have you have driven the horrendous Q7? Audi phones it in on their large CUVs because that’s all that’s required for the segment.
That's pretty chaotic, even if you can sum it up pithily.
Have we seen it elsewhere at GM?
For the segments and brands, sure, they're what you expect from the brand given the nature of the product and segment. The difference is, XT6 is another car that's abandoned the classic DLO for something off of a Volvo, and then just dropped the ball altogether inside.
What's wrong with XT6? It's exactly what everyone expects from Cadillac. What's right about Aviator? It's nothing like what people expect from Lincoln in the best ways possible.
Same arguments go for XT4 and Aviator.