*TRIGGER ALERT*
*JALOPNIK LINK AHEAD*
*CONSIDER YOURSELVES WARNED*
http://jalopnik.com/brand-new-cadillac-coupes-and-sedans-are-so-cheap-its-n-1781877603 (http://jalopnik.com/brand-new-cadillac-coupes-and-sedans-are-so-cheap-its-n-1781877603)
Some of these sit times are worse than motorcycles. Add the Camaro's disappointing sales :whistle: We will see what the XT5 does but I imagine it will sell like gangbusters.
Blah! That the regular for a 2 year old leftover.......
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 13, 2016, 06:07:06 PM
*TRIGGER ALERT*
*JALOPNIK LINK AHEAD*
*CONSIDER YOURSELVES WARNED*
http://jalopnik.com/brand-new-cadillac-coupes-and-sedans-are-so-cheap-its-n-1781877603 (http://jalopnik.com/brand-new-cadillac-coupes-and-sedans-are-so-cheap-its-n-1781877603)
Some of these sit times are worse than motorcycles. Add the Camaro's disappointing sales :whistle: We will see what the XT5 does but I imagine it will sell like gangbusters.
Alpha platform sales have been really poor. Mustang outsold all Alpha cars combined in May.
Did you want them to keep on selling the old ass Omega platform cars?
If it ain't broke :huh: and it wasn't. Or if it was, they didn't fix the issues with the Alpha, which is worse than if they had done nothing at all.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 13, 2016, 07:53:01 PM
If it ain't broke :huh: and it wasn't. Or if it was, they didn't fix the issues with the Alpha, which is worse than if they had done nothing at all.
The Alpha is superior to the old platform in every way. The Cadillacs are suffering because people are moving to mid-lux crossovers and SUVs. The Camaro is suffering due to the mediocracy of the previous car, which is unfortunate because the Alpha Camaro itself is a fantastic car, gun turret windows notwithstanding.
Sigma (not omega, whoops) was fucking old and was showing its age,
Besides....as I've said time and fucking time again - Alpha (and Omega, which is a LWB wide version of Alpha) isn't totally all that new from the ground up. Both of them use parts from Zeta. It's a way to wrap up like five GM RWD Platforms into two, both of which are related to each other.
Quote from: Rockraven on June 13, 2016, 08:11:01 PM
The Alpha is superior to the old platform in every way. The Cadillacs are suffering because people are moving to mid-lux crossovers and SUVs. The Camaro is suffering due to the mediocracy of the previous car, which is unfortunate because the Alpha Camaro itself is a fantastic car, gun turret windows notwithstanding.
I'm not sure mediocrity of the 5th gen is what's keeping the 6th gen down. The 5th generation car was posting solid sales right to the end. They sold nearly as many in 2015 as they did in 2010 when the car was fresh. 2014 was the second best sales year behind 2011. If the car's mediocrity was keeping buyers away, sales of 2014 and 2015 models would have been way off the pace of the earlier years.
Quote from: MX793 on June 13, 2016, 08:27:05 PM
I'm not sure mediocrity of the 5th gen is what's keeping the 6th gen down. The 5th generation car was posting solid sales right to the end. They sold nearly as many in 2015 as they did in 2010 when the car was fresh. 2014 was the second best sales year behind 2011. If the car's mediocrity was keeping buyers away, sales of 2014 and 2015 models would have been way off the pace of the earlier years.
I guess. Maybe it's because the new car looks too much like the old one, whereas the Mustang is significantly different from the previous one.
How many on this forum would take an ATS or CTS (non "V") version over a V8 Mustang or V8 Camaro?
Now how many on this forum would take the BMW equivalent of the ATS or CTS over a V8 Mustang or V8 Camaro?
I have a feeling the answer is few if any for the first question but many for the second question.
Quote from: veeman on June 13, 2016, 09:07:46 PM
How many on this forum would take an ATS or CTS (non "V") version over a V8 Mustang or V8 Camaro?
Now how many on this forum would take the BMW equivalent of the ATS or CTS over a V8 Mustang or V8 Camaro?
I have a feeling the answer is few if any for the first question but many for the second question.
Yeah, I'd take an M235i or M2 over any of them.
Quote from: Rockraven on June 13, 2016, 08:37:03 PM
I guess. Maybe it's because the new car looks too much like the old one, whereas the Mustang is significantly different from the previous one.
Ironically, the Camaro's character changed more dramatically than the Mustang's; it just doesn't look it. I blame the facelift of the previous Camaro; GM stuck on the new face before it was ready to redesign the rest of the car. It would have been a suitably dramatic departure otherwise.
Quote from: veeman on June 13, 2016, 09:07:46 PM
How many on this forum would take an ATS or CTS (non "V") version over a V8 Mustang or V8 Camaro?
Now how many on this forum would take the BMW equivalent of the ATS or CTS over a V8 Mustang or V8 Camaro?
I have a feeling the answer is few if any for the first question but many for the second question.
I'd have to drive them to be sure, but I would give the Camaro a good chance of being bought over an M2.
I like both the ATS and BMW. For me, the biggest advantage BMW has over Cadillac from a potential purchase POV is that they offer a manual transmission with the larger engine. With the ATS you can only get the manual with the 2.0T (or you have to step up to the much more expensive ATS-V).
Yea that is a pretty silly gaffe for what is supposed to be the king of the sports sedans. Not sure how much it would matter anyway, the 340i/Q50 400/S4 would culo blast an ATS 3.6 6MT. Camaro V6 is ~2-3 seconds slower to 100 and the ATS is heavier. GM got the engines all wrong. Base should have had the 2.0T, mid level should have had a detuned/decontented 3.6TT, V should have had the LT1. They made their bed though. Maybe they will fix it with a refresh.
culo blast? You keep using this phrase expecting us to know what you're talking about...
Quote from: MrH on June 14, 2016, 07:04:03 AM
culo blast? You keep using this phrase expecting us to know what you're talking about...
It's not even on Urban Dictionary. I don't know what it means either.
Context clues and Google guys. Actually I would not recommend googling "culo".
I'd seriously consider a RWD V6 ATS w/stick if it was available. If I could get it without any infotainment I'd "culo blast" something or other.
steering feedback, driving sensations, throttle linearity/response, and engine sound mean a lot to me. The Camaro V6 seems really good to me, and if I could get it with 2 more doors, better visibility, and nicer interior, I'm all for it.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 14, 2016, 07:19:28 AM
Context clues and Google guys. Actually I would not recommend googling "culo".
Ass blast?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 14, 2016, 07:02:46 AM
Yea that is a pretty silly gaffe for what is supposed to be the king of the sports sedans. Not sure how much it would matter anyway, the 340i/Q50 400/S4 would culo blast an ATS 3.6 6MT. Camaro V6 is ~2-3 seconds slower to 100 and the ATS is heavier. GM got the engines all wrong. Base should have had the 2.0T, mid level should have had a detuned/decontented 3.6TT, V should have had the LT1. They made their bed though. Maybe they will fix it with a refresh.
I'd love to try out a ATS V6 with a stick shift, FWIW. I think it probably would be a bit slower than my car, but I think its very possible I would prefer going back to a normally aspirated car.
The Chevy SS is an interesting car with its (old) V8 and a stick shift, but since I consider my current car a little too big for my own personal taste (ATS and 3-series are both smaller) I don't think I could see myself getting something even bigger.
I am a fan of the ATS's looks, but now the XE has become the car in the class that has my eye.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on June 14, 2016, 07:44:32 AM
I'd love to try out a ATS V6 with a stick shift, FWIW. I think it probably would be a bit slower than my car, but I think its very possible I would prefer going back to a normally aspirated car.
The Chevy SS is an interesting car with its (old) V8 and a stick shift, but since I consider my current car a little too big for my own personal taste (ATS and 3-series are both smaller) I don't think I could see myself getting something even bigger.
They need to make a sedan version of the 2 series. It's the same exact size as an E46 coupe and pretty much the perfect size period. But that's a whole other discussion.
NA is kind of dying :( Only ones left are the Caddy and the Lexus I think. And the Lexus has its own issues
Quote from: MX793 on June 13, 2016, 08:27:05 PM
I'm not sure mediocrity of the 5th gen is what's keeping the 6th gen down. The 5th generation car was posting solid sales right to the end. They sold nearly as many in 2015 as they did in 2010 when the car was fresh. 2014 was the second best sales year behind 2011. If the car's mediocrity was keeping buyers away, sales of 2014 and 2015 models would have been way off the pace of the earlier years.
I don't think the 5th gen was mediocre at all. I think the only thing keeping the 6th gen (which is one of my favorite cars on the market today) down is the fact that it's around $5k more than a comparable Mustang.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on June 14, 2016, 07:44:32 AM
I'd love to try out a ATS V6 with a stick shift, FWIW. I think it probably would be a bit slower than my car, but I think its very possible I would prefer going back to a normally aspirated car.
The Chevy SS is an interesting car with its (old) V8 and a stick shift, but since I consider my current car a little too big for my own personal taste (ATS and 3-series are both smaller) I don't think I could see myself getting something even bigger.
I don't think they make an ATS 3.6 6MT.
The 2-series is tight inside.
I prefer the 4 series.
The 5th gen Camaro mediocre? Nah. It redefined the segment let alone way outselling the competition. More often than not since 1967, the Camaro has been the better car than the Mustang, but in general Americans still bought a lot more Mustangs. These days the Camaro is so far out in front (including price) its pretty much defined its own segment, but that doesn't necessary mean sales success. Also, the styling isn't as big a departure from the 5th gen, unlike the new Mustang.
Sure the CTS-V is best in class by a long shot, but few are going to pay $85k+ for it. Cadillac got too aggressive on pricing. It's still well away selling product at BMW/MB/Audi price points and make sales headway.
Somehow I feel that domestic sports cars, at least from an American's perspective, should be a bit raw and untamed without luxurious frivolity. The Dodge Viper was the epitome of this. Americans don't want a domestic luxury sports sedan.
It's the same with motorcycles. You want sporty get a Japanese crotch rocket or Ducati or BMW. You want a big loud cruiser get an American Harley or Indian.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 14, 2016, 09:27:37 AM
More often than not since 1967, the Camaro has been the better car than the Mustang, but in general Americans still bought a lot more Mustangs.
Camaro has had the edge in performance, but the Rustang has always been the better car in everything outside of performance, which is still critical for something that does street duty. For anything less than the SS, unless you absolutely need the cheesy image the Camaro presents I'm thinking a Genesis Coupe or 370Z will yield similar or better performance with more practicality & visibility. All the performance in the world is useless if you can't place the car on the road.
Quote from: CALL_911 on June 14, 2016, 08:27:55 AM
I don't think they make an ATS 3.6 6MT.
They don't, that was kind of my point. :lol:
In other words I'd love to drive that combo, but it doesn't exist so I cannot do it.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 14, 2016, 11:13:55 AM
Camaro has had the edge in performance, but the Rustang has always been the better car in everything outside of performance, which is still critical for something that does street duty. For anything less than the SS, unless you absolutely need the cheesy image the Camaro presents I'm thinking a Genesis Coupe or 370Z will yield similar or better performance with more practicality & visibility. All the performance in the world is useless if you can't place the car on the road.
No way in hell are either of those more practical than the Camaro. We can call it a wash (especially since the Z has no rear seats) but they're def not better!
Quote from: SJ_GTI on June 14, 2016, 11:14:46 AM
They don't, that was kind of my point. :lol:
In other words I'd love to drive that combo, but it doesn't exist so I cannot do it.
D'urrrr gotcha
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 14, 2016, 11:13:55 AM
Camaro has had the edge in performance, but the Rustang has always been the better car in everything outside of performance, which is still critical for something that does street duty. For anything less than the SS, unless you absolutely need the cheesy image the Camaro presents I'm thinking a Genesis Coupe or 370Z will yield similar or better performance with more practicality & visibility. All the performance in the world is useless if you can't place the car on the road.
The Genesis Coupe and 370Z both suck to drive though. :huh: I'll easily trade a little visibility for a better driving car any day.
It's not just a "little" visibility though. It's not like going from a coupe to a convertible with the top up. It's like going from a convertible with the top down to an armored truck. And I'd say a car I can't see out of sucks to drive by default. Maybe on a big wide empty track but in traffic? Fuggedabatit
Im still giggling at how certain you were that the 'analysts' got it right :lol: Right, GM's analysts have never been wrong before :wtf:
I still don't get why you're on a crusade about this platform. It's crushing its rivals in actual handling dynamics. I wouldn't say the platform is what's holding back cadillac from selling well at all.
Mos def - Alpha and a few others (MQB) are the boiler plate of how to do things right.
Yeah, product and platform don't always go hand in hand. Cadillac misjudged the market when they crafted the CTS and ATS.
Besides, pretty sure the Verano got canceled because a similar type car is being ported to Cadillac.
There's no crusade, just an ongoing case study. Nobody is doubting the Alpha's dynamic superiority- the point is they prioritized the wrong things and sacrificed damn near everything else. What % of the time does someone in this segment utilize their car's dynamic prowess vs the infotainment system or back seat?
Lol @ this being how to do things right- all Alpha variants are down in sales over the generations they replaced in a growing market. Lexus ES, new C Class, Q50, these are variations on how to Do Things Right™ in this market.
That doesn't mean the platform can't be retweaked.
Also, the ES is basically a Camry, and the C-class can be made capable as the Alpha cars if needed.
It's interesting you have it out for the Alpha platform, but don't say shit about the Alfa Giulia; a car that is basically DOA. Or the LX cars and the Maserati Ghibli, a car that is a reworked LX car - all of which "sell well" but are generally not great.
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on June 14, 2016, 11:36:13 AM
No way in hell are either of those more practical than the Camaro. We can call it a wash (especially since the Z has no rear seats) but they're def not better!
I can (and do) make do with a two-seater. I cannot make do without being able to see out of the car. Ergo......
What are you talking about? The C-Class is literally following in the footsteps of the Alpha platform on how to do mass scale platform sharing. And the Alpha platform arguably does it better.
There's a million reasons why the C-Class is selling and the ATS isn't. And it has nothing to do with the platform they're on.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 14, 2016, 12:29:07 PM
That doesn't mean the platform can't be retweaked.
Also, the ES is basically a Camry, and the C-class can be made capable as the Alpha cars if needed.
It's interesting you have it out for the Alpha platform, but don't say shit about the Alfa Giulia; a car that is basically DOA. Or the LX cars and the Maserati Ghibli, a car that is a reworked LX car - all of which "sell well" but are generally not great.
LX cars are doing their job at next to no cost to FCA. Are they great or class leading? Nope, but they have long recouped their investment, and demonstrated you don't have to "play the German's game" to win. And I've def spoke on the Giulia and Ghibli. Thing with them is everyone knows FCA is full of crap so there's not the same frenzied fanboism. I think even Raza tempered his enthusiasm for the Giulia.
I've said it before and I still believe it- GM could have made do without the Alpha platform, and the CTS replacement should have been Epsilon based, with a focus on luxury over sport.
Quote from: MrH on June 14, 2016, 01:00:36 PM
There's a million reasons why the C-Class is selling and the ATS isn't. And it has nothing to do with the platform they're on.
Which is my point :huh: Cadillac could have built something as striking and luxurious as the C-Class on an existing FWD platform. Audi has been making do with FWD platforms in these segments for years and is thoroughly washing the ATS/CTS in sales. I don't think you can write that off to brand either- Audi's products are simply a better fit for the market.
:wtf: So they could have made something as striking and luxurious as the C-Class on an existing FWD platform? Or they could have done it on the Alpha platform. You're proving my point that the platform has nothing to do with the lack of sales.
Having FOUR Epsilon cars would have been entirely redundant. Especially since the XTS is Epsilon based, and can't reach the level of luxury the CTS and CT6 can.
Quote from: MrH on June 14, 2016, 01:27:16 PM
:wtf: So they could have made something as striking and luxurious as the C-Class on an existing FWD platform? Or they could have done it on the Alpha platform. You're proving my point that the platform has nothing to do with the lack of sales.
You're proving MY point, that they didn't have to dump a billion dollars into a brand new platform if using an existing, fully developed and amortized platform would have yielded the same (or IMO better) result. I say better because if they had built around the Epsilon platform they would have focused on everything but dynamics which would have yielded a better product for the intended market.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 14, 2016, 01:34:59 PM
Having FOUR Epsilon cars would have been entirely redundant. Especially since the XTS is Epsilon based, and can't reach the level of luxury the CTS and CT6 can.
Audi currently has SIX models on the MLB platform, and fleet sales or not the XTS handily outsells the A8 like 4-5:1. If anything building a wide array of vehicles off of one platform demonstrates the versatility of the platform. The buyers don't care what platforms the cars they buy are on, as long as the car fits their wants and needs.
MLB is a different platform, designed from the ground up to be incredibly flexible and modular.
Epsilon isn't.
Secondly, One billion dollars isn't that high. I just read that VW put 70 Billion GBP in developing the new MQB platform
Secondly....as I've said like eight times now, a lot of the Alpha's design basis comes from the older, heavier Zeta platform.
Why would using the epison platform yield better results?
A few lines down, you say "buyers don't care what platform the cars they buy are on". Every damn post you're contradicting yourself. Why are you harping on the alpha platform if it doesn't matter?
Quote from: MrH on June 14, 2016, 02:02:44 PM
Why would using the epison platform yield better results?
A few lines down, you say "buyers don't care what platform the cars they buy are on". Every damn post you're contradicting yourself. Why are you harping on the alpha platform if it doesn't matter?
I'm pretty sure Epsilon's hard points are a lot less liberal than these new modular platforms; the LaCrosse/XTS/Impala/Malibu share a hell of a lot proportionally.
I don't think this has anything to do with platform. People buying German sport sedans aren't cross shopping Cadillac because they think they should be cheaper, have a better warranty, and better resale. I think the resale issue is particularly problematic because these buyers usually have some disposable income and don't keep there cars for 10 years plus. Your Lexus or Infiniti sport sedan buyer gets a better price, better reliability, and good resale. Their dealerships usually have a great track record for coddling their customers too. Cadillac doesn't have any of that. Although I don't have first hand knowledge, I really doubt Cadillac dealerships are on the same level as their Japanese or German counterparts with regards to customer coddling and luxury amenities. I really hope Cadillac doesn't scrap its current line-up and start making Lexus ES clones on the cheap.
I know lots of people who look forward to their first BMW, Audi, Mercedes, or Lexus sport sedan/coupe purchase. Caddy doesn't ever seriously get entertained in the thought process. They look at the MSRP and likely residual value and scoff. More importantly the brand stands for an old man's car.
If they keep winning magazine comparos, fix up user interface issues with the infotainment system, and do something regarding longer warranty and/or guaranteed residuals (which is going to cost them lots of money), they may have a future chance in this segment. Otherwise, the future is not bright for their cars.
Quote from: Raza on June 14, 2016, 12:58:36 PM
I can (and do) make do with a two-seater. I cannot make do without being able to see out of the car. Ergo......
ive done the same. But it's no way you can call a Z more PRACTICLE than any of the Pony Cars....
Caddy torpedoed their "aspirational vehicle" credibility after building 20-25 years of soft, floaty, cheaply built land yachts for octogenarians. It'll take them at least as long to wipe out that stigma.
As to the Camaro's lackluster sales, theories abound. I spent some time perusing the Camaro6 forums response to the horrible May sales. I saw a number of hypotheses pitched by members/owners. These included:
1. Price is too high (several Gen5 owners chimed in that they were going to trade their Gen5s on a Gen6, but were turned off by the price)
2. Looks too much like the outgoing model / average Joe car buyer doesn't realize it's an all new car
3. Lack of advertising/marketing
4. Limited availability at dealerships / Dealers only stocking loaded up cars (see 1 above)
5. Car was designed to appeal to current Gen5 Camaro owners, not a wider audience (didn't address most of the issues that turned off many who previously considered the Gen5 but bought something else)
Quote from: MrH on June 14, 2016, 02:02:44 PM
Why would using the epison platform yield better results?
A few lines down, you say "buyers don't care what platform the cars they buy are on". Every damn post you're contradicting yourself. Why are you harping on the alpha platform if it doesn't matter?
Don't turn your reading comprehension to zero and then blame me for not being able to follow.
Generally speaking, luxury customers don't care about platforms. So it was dumb for GM to develop an all new one (Alpha) when they already HAD an all new platform they deem usable for Cadillac (Epsilon II underpins the XT5 & XTS). An Epsilon II based CTS replacement would have saved them billions of dollars, enabled/forced them to focus on making the car luxurious rather than sporty (which customers in the segment want) and probably would have moved the same or more volume while being way more profitable. Again look no further than the ES or the MKZ for proof of this. Do you copy, or did you leave your brain at home today?
Quote from: 2o6 on June 14, 2016, 02:05:31 PM
I'm pretty sure Epsilon's hard points are a lot less liberal than these new modular platforms; the LaCrosse/XTS/Impala/Malibu share a hell of a lot proportionally.
Lacrosse/Impala/XTS etc are a subplatform (P2xx) of the Epsilon platform. Epsilon II underpins everything from the new Malibu to the XT5/new Acadia and the XTS triplets. It has range.
Quote from: MX793 on June 14, 2016, 02:21:55 PM
Caddy torpedoed their "aspirational vehicle" credibility after building 20-25 years of soft, floaty, cheaply built land yachts for octogenarians. It'll take them at least as long to wipe out that stigma.
All the domestic luxury brands had to overcome that stigma, and in some ways they all have. Escalade was and is a grand slam. 300 was a grand slam and is doing OK. Lincoln has been pretty hit or miss, but the MKC (Escape), MKZ (Fusion) and MKX (Edge) are pretty good, and again dirt cheap to develop compared to the ATS/CTS. I think where Caddy screwed up is in thinking they could go toe to toe with the Germans in every aspect- segments and price. That was a mistake. The domestic luxury brands have succeeded in creating their own niches (Escalade/Navigator, 300) or jumping into segments of growth or low competition (compact CUVs). 3 & 5 series segments are insanely competitive and completely saturated... the CTS' original play as a 5 for 3 money was the only way they could fight directly.
So you want the entire Cadillac line to be FWD, transverse based? And you want this based on the development cost of the Alpha platform?
The R&D costs for the Alpha platform are pegged at $1 billion. IHS is showing a projection of 1.7 million vehicles to be produced off of it through CY 2023. The money isn't the problem. Amortize that out, and you're at way less than a grand a vehicle. There are part commonization that saves you even more.
They're literally doing the exact same thing Mercedes and VW are doing. Modular FWD platform, modular RWD platform. You're arguing that Cadillac should have scrapped the idea of RWD cars in totality? You want them to compete with the big players in the segment, but they chop off their balls and just make them Buick clones?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 14, 2016, 02:31:23 PM
Don't turn your reading comprehension to zero and then blame me for not being able to follow.
Generally speaking, luxury customers don't care about platforms. So it was dumb for GM to develop an all new one (Alpha) when they already HAD an all new platform they deem usable for Cadillac (Epsilon II underpins the XT5 & XTS). An Epsilon II based CTS replacement would have saved them billions of dollars, enabled/forced them to focus on making the car luxurious rather than sporty (which customers in the segment want) and probably would have moved the same or more volume while being way more profitable. Again look no further than the ES or the MKZ for proof of this. Do you copy, or did you leave your brain at home today?Lacrosse/Impala/XTS etc are a subplatform (P2xx) of the Epsilon platform. Epsilon II underpins everything from the new Malibu to the XT5/new Acadia and the XTS triplets. It has range.
XT5 is a new platform.... (and yet again isn't ALL NEW) .
It's on the new, C1XX, E2XX, which is a reworked Epsilon II. (and replaces Lambda, Theta, Theta Premium, and Epsilon II, as well as whatever old ass holdouts). The XT5 is the FIRST car on this platform, with the new Acadia being the 2nd one.
Same way that the D2XX platform is a reworked GM Delta II. The first car on this new D2XX is the lastest Cruze and Astra, as well as the Buick Envision.
The Alpha and Omega platforms are the latest RWD platforms that are an evolution of Sigma, Zeta, uniting those two, making them more streamlined and making them lighter.
It's not rocket science.
An epsilon Cadillac would have never worked.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 14, 2016, 02:38:10 PM
All the domestic luxury brands had to overcome that stigma, and in some ways they all have. Escalade was and is a grand slam. 300 was a grand slam and is doing OK. Lincoln has been pretty hit or miss, but the MKC (Escape), MKZ (Fusion) and MKX (Edge) are pretty good, and again dirt cheap to develop compared to the ATS/CTS. I think where Caddy screwed up is in thinking they could go toe to toe with the Germans in every aspect- segments and price. That was a mistake. The domestic luxury brands have succeeded in creating their own niches (Escalade/Navigator, 300) or jumping into segments of growth or low competition (compact CUVs). 3 & 5 series segments are insanely competitive and completely saturated... the CTS' original play as a 5 for 3 money was the only way they could fight directly.
Chrysler was never really a luxury brand. They were barely premium. More a Buick/Oldsmobile or Mercury competitor than Lincoln or Caddy.
Lincoln isn't really an aspirational brand anymore. Haven't been for a long time. They have and have had a few models that have proven popular, but nobody shows up to their Lincoln dealer and pays sticker save some elderly drivers who remember Lincoln's glory days. College kids and 20 somethings don't dream of landing their first big job or big promotion so they can run out and buy a brand new Lincoln.
Outside of the Escalade, Caddy is in a similar boat as Lincoln. Perhaps slightly better off given a more consistent product plan.
Quote from: MrH on June 14, 2016, 02:43:43 PM
So you want the entire Cadillac line to be FWD, transverse based? And you want this based on the development cost of the Alpha platform?
The R&D costs for the Alpha platform are pegged at $1 billion. IHS is showing a projection of 1.7 million vehicles to be produced off of it through CY 2023. The money isn't the problem. Amortize that out, and you're at way less than a grand a vehicle. There are part commonization that saves you even more.
They're literally doing the exact same thing Mercedes and VW are doing. Modular FWD platform, modular RWD platform. You're arguing that Cadillac should have scrapped the idea of RWD cars in totality? You want them to compete with the big players in the segment, but they chop off their balls and just make them Buick clones?
Yeah, I don't think GM invested a fraction of what VW did.
D2XX was only $220 million....yet MQB was like 50 billion +
Plus, if "drive wheels" don't matter, why did Audi develop MLB at all? MLB's all longitudinal engine based cars. There's a refinement issue that MLB has over MQB, otherwise Audi would have never used MLB.
Quote from: MrH on June 14, 2016, 02:43:43 PM
So you want the entire Cadillac line to be FWD, transverse based? And you want this based on the development cost of the Alpha platform?
I want every Cadillac model to be profitable and in demand.
Quote from: MrH on June 14, 2016, 02:43:43 PMThe R&D costs for the Alpha platform are pegged at $1 billion. IHS is showing a projection of 1.7 million vehicles to be produced off of it through CY 2023. The money isn't the problem. Amortize that out, and you're at way less than a grand a vehicle. There are part commonization that saves you even more.
Those are some optimistic ass numbers from IHS (there goes your faith in those analysts again :lol: ). Last year the ATS/CTS sold about 80K worldwide. Like 95% of that volume is in the US and China... probably 70% is in the US, and sales of both cars are tanking here. CT6 is a non factor. Camaro looks like it's gonna do 70K this year, but like MX793 said the 5th gen's market isn't into it and cars like this usually trail off in sales after the release. Nobody is buying Camaros out of the US/Canada either. So absolute best case scenario is like 150K/yr and prob gonna trail off... no way are they gonna hit 1.7m.
Plus even if that's only a couple hundred per car... how much does that compare to the five figure discounts they have to apply to get people to buy these things? Why aren't people buying them.... a bunch of reasons but a biggie is platform based. The rear seat and trunk on all Alpha cars is a good clip behind the competition. Not an issue with the previous CTS and an issue GM specifically sought to address with the Epsilon II platform
Quote from: MrH on June 14, 2016, 02:43:43 PMThey're literally doing the exact same thing Mercedes and VW are doing. Modular FWD platform, modular RWD platform. You're arguing that Cadillac should have scrapped the idea of RWD cars in totality? You want them to compete with the big players in the segment, but they chop off their balls and just make them Buick clones?
Right.... VW's entrant in these segments (Audi) is built around a modular
FWD platform. Just like the Epsilon II :facepalm:
Only place RWD dynamics still matter on a high volume scale is Europe, which just happens to be a place that always has, still does, and always will want absolutely nothing to do with Cadillac. So developing cars within the framework and requirements of Europe was fucking retarded. Yes I think RWD was a mistake. Again Audi has shown for 20+ years people are OK with paying big $$$$ for a FWD car. Lincoln's new Continental generated way more buzz than the CT6, despite starting with wrong wheel drive. And FWD lines up with exactly what Cadillac's only realistic markets want- big comfy interiors. US & China have completely shit roads so this idea that there are hundreds of thousands of folks looking for canyon carvers is ridiculous. Especially in the guise of 3500-4000lb cars. Again there is a good reason the ES is the top selling luxury sedan and Audi continues to succeed here. Alpha platform for Cadillac's cars was a huge mistake and I called it long before it all came to be
IDGAF about sales. Gimme dat handling and power. GM rocks.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on June 14, 2016, 05:12:20 PM
IDGAF about sales. Gimme dat handling and power. GM rocks.
WORD...
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 14, 2016, 05:08:25 PM
I want every Cadillac model to be profitable and in demand.
Those are some optimistic ass numbers from IHS (there goes your faith in those analysts again :lol: ). Last year the ATS/CTS sold about 80K worldwide. Like 95% of that volume is in the US and China... probably 70% is in the US, and sales of both cars are tanking here. CT6 is a non factor. Camaro looks like it's gonna do 70K this year, but like MX793 said the 5th gen's market isn't into it and cars like this usually trail off in sales after the release. Nobody is buying Camaros out of the US/Canada either. So absolute best case scenario is like 150K/yr and prob gonna trail off... no way are they gonna hit 1.7m.
Plus even if that's only a couple hundred per car... how much does that compare to the five figure discounts they have to apply to get people to buy these things? Why aren't people buying them.... a bunch of reasons but a biggie is platform based. The rear seat and trunk on all Alpha cars is a good clip behind the competition. Not an issue with the previous CTS and an issue GM specifically sought to address with the Epsilon II platform
Right.... VW's entrant in these segments (Audi) is built around a modular FWD platform. Just like the Epsilon II :facepalm:
Only place RWD dynamics still matter on a high volume scale is Europe, which just happens to be a place that always has, still does, and always will want absolutely nothing to do with Cadillac. So developing cars within the framework and requirements of Europe was fucking retarded. Yes I think RWD was a mistake. Again Audi has shown for 20+ years people are OK with paying big $$$$ for a FWD car. Lincoln's new Continental generated way more buzz than the CT6, despite starting with wrong wheel drive. And FWD lines up with exactly what Cadillac's only realistic markets want- big comfy interiors. US & China have completely shit roads so this idea that there are hundreds of thousands of folks looking for canyon carvers is ridiculous. Especially in the guise of 3500-4000lb cars. Again there is a good reason the ES is the top selling luxury sedan and Audi continues to succeed here. Alpha platform for Cadillac's cars was a huge mistake and I called it long before it all came to be
So your gut is better than teams of analysts doing this for a living? Alright bro.
Again, you just keep arguing against yourself. Yes, a few hundred bucks in platform development is a drop in the bucket compared to the massive discounts on the vehicle. So stop acting like the development of the alpha platform is the cause of their demise. Besides, what were they supposed to do about the camaro if they didn't create the alpha platform?
And what are you talking about with Audi? They're using the MLB platform for the A4, A6, Q7 etc. It's longitudinal. They use MQB for small stuff like the A3, Golf, etc. Audi doesn't sell FWD versions of MLB in any meaningful volume here (honestly, I don't even know if it's offered). No idea where you think Audi has been pedalling tons of FWD for years for big dollars.
Daimler is in the process of doing the same thing. MRA underlies c-class, e-class, etc. MFA for the CLA, GLA, etc.
Um, Sigma cars did have bad rear seats, and the right rear seat isn't always a direct fault of the platform.
Besides, there are a lot of things (MrH could explain better) that are inherent with a transverse application FWD luxury car.
The MLB cars are def a step up quality wise; so much so that it seems like VW un-United the parts commonality between the Audi and VW cars, aside from things like engines of course. Remember when the Passat and A4/A6 were on similar/same chassis? Yea not anymore. The Passat's now transverse layout and MQB. A4 is more espensive and has the engine facing a different way.
Besides, the XTS is what you're saying and it sells and is reviewed mediocrely, and the new Lacrosse makes it entirely redundant.
There's more at play than drive wheels here
The only one who gets away with a transverse layout FWD platform is Volvo. And they don't get away with it because they sell like two cars a year, and he S80/S60 were fucking lame.
But Volvo sells in far fewer numbers, and has the Chinese Geely bankrolling development to use for their Geely brand in China.
How does a longitudinal engine make a FWD platform higher quality? You guys are grasping for straws. If the Epsilon II platform is OK for the XT5, which is easily going to be Cadillac's top seller once it gets momentum, it's good enough for the smaller sedans too.
I don't even know what point you're trying to make anymore. It changes every time you post.
Quote from: MrH on June 14, 2016, 08:56:26 PM
I don't even know what point you're trying to make anymore. It changes every time you post.
this
Who?
Quote from: veeman on June 14, 2016, 09:58:42 AM
Somehow I feel that domestic sports cars, at least from an American's perspective, should be a bit raw and untamed without luxurious frivolity. The Dodge Viper was the epitome of this. Americans don't want a domestic luxury sports sedan.
They don't want the Viper either though.
Quote from: MrH on June 14, 2016, 08:56:26 PM
I don't even know what point you're trying to make anymore. It changes every time you post.
No it doesn't. Again you have just turned your brain off. I've literally been making the same points for years. Alpha platform didn't need to be made. Epsilon would have served as a better basis for Cadillac's luxury sedans. Why?
QuoteOnly place RWD dynamics still matter on a high volume scale is Europe, which just happens to be a place that always has, still does, and always will want absolutely nothing to do with Cadillac.
QuoteFWD lines up with exactly what Cadillac's only realistic markets want- big comfy interiors.
QuoteVW's entrant in these segments (Audi) is built around a modular FWD platform. Just like the Epsilon II :facepalm:
Etc.... literally can't make it any more clear for you.
Holy Mary - Epsilon isn't as modular as MLB or MQB! Not to mention the latest variant JUST came out!
If you look at the impala, XTS and lacrosse - they all share very common proportions; high and short trunk, short and comparatively stubby nose. The latest P2XX platform will likely give more leeway to these hard points, but the current one probably can't (at least not cost effectively)
if what you say is so damn true, why would Audi have even made MLB in the first place? Why not just use MQB for everything?
Drive wheels and performance is just ONE aspect of the total package, isolation, chassis flex/dynamics, and numerous other things are at play here, especially since P2XX's variants aren't supposed to be that expensive. The Lacrosse is the FWD shape here that is the luxury variant of that chassis, and the Cadillac needs to better and be different than the Lacrosse.
The car you KEEP describing Is the latest LaCrosse; which is a very nice, FWD, soft yet taut sedan made by GM on their Midsized car platform. Why would Cadillac need a clone of this car? Especially since the Lacrosse outsells the XTS
Do you want GM to just stop building RWD sedans entirely? Because the Zeta platform had a known weight issue, and this new alpha/omega platform
You're basically saying that GM should be able to tart up a Midsized, cheap platform to compete with an architecture from Audi that was designed from the ground up to be premium. This is what got GM into the place where they are now with Cadillac
I'm honestly not seeing what the hell Youre getting at
He wants a Cimarron
Quote from: 2o6 on June 15, 2016, 06:05:55 AM
Holy Mary - Epsilon isn't as modular as MLB or MQB! Not to mention the latest variant JUST came out!
If you look at the impala, XTS and lacrosse - they all share very common proportions; high and short trunk, short and comparatively stubby nose. The latest P2XX platform will likely give more leeway to these hard points, but the current one probably can't (at least not cost effectively)
if what you say is so damn true, why would Audi have even made MLB in the first place? Why not just use MQB for everything?
Drive wheels and performance is just ONE aspect of the total package, isolation, chassis flex/dynamics, and numerous other things are at play here, especially since P2XX's variants aren't supposed to be that expensive. The Lacrosse is the FWD shape here that is the luxury variant of that chassis, and the Cadillac needs to better and be different than the Lacrosse.
The car you KEEP describing Is the latest LaCrosse; which is a very nice, FWD, soft yet taut sedan made by GM on their Midsized car platform. Why would Cadillac need a clone of this car? Especially since the Lacrosse outsells the XTS
Do you want GM to just stop building RWD sedans entirely? Because the Zeta platform had a known weight issue, and this new alpha/omega platform
You're basically saying that GM should be able to tart up a Midsized, cheap platform to compete with an architecture from Audi that was designed from the ground up to be premium. This is what got GM into the place where they are now with Cadillac
I'm honestly not seeing what the hell Youre getting at
+1
Glad I'm not the only one who can't follow. Sporty wants a bunch of Buick clones for no apparent reason.
Quote from: 68_427 on June 15, 2016, 01:21:54 AM
They don't want the Viper either though.
Ah yes but that's because it was too expensive and wasn't updated enough through the years. Also Dodge wasn't in great shape during the Viper's end run. Especially initially when it came out, people salivated over it. No stability control offered was one of it's selling points. I don't know if it was ever meant to sell in high numbers. More a halo model. Just as raw as you can get unadulterated power for a street car and loud. It screams old school American.
Quote from: veeman on June 15, 2016, 08:16:50 AM
Ah yes but that's because it was too expensive and wasn't updated enough through the years. Also Dodge wasn't in great shape during the Viper's end run. Especially initially when it came out, people salivated over it. No stability control offered was one of it's selling points. I don't know if it was ever meant to sell in high numbers. More a halo model. Just as raw as you can get unadulterated power for a street car and loud. It screams old school American.
I'm sure more Americans would buy more of them if they could pick one up for a couple $grand
They lowered the base price to $84k for the latest one and still couldn't sell any
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YkddjbcQew (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YkddjbcQew)
5 stars.....
Quote from: Yawn on June 22, 2016, 05:53:01 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YkddjbcQew (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YkddjbcQew)
5 stars.....
It just occurred to me, should test like that not have caught the Takata Airbag hoopla?
Quote from: Galaxy on July 05, 2016, 02:51:39 PM
It just occurred to me, should test like that not have caught the Takata Airbag hoopla?
No, because the danger comes over time as humidity makes the propellant more volatile/aggressive.
I think this all comes down to mis-predicting the type of product customers want. Cadillac is basically trying to sell an A&S styled E46 BMW in the 2010's. The enthusiast wet dream. And once again, enthusiasts shun GM.
I still think that the 1st/2nd generation CTS was the formula that worked for Cadillac. E/5 size for C/3 price with some pretense of sportiness. The tight quarters in the ATS would already be enough to make potential customers look elsewhere, especially if they care more about the brand than the car's actual handling characteristics. And don't even get me started on CUE...
:shakesfist: Damn Alpha platform ruining everything!
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-results-idUSKCN1011H9 (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-results-idUSKCN1011H9)
Where in here did it say anything about Cadillac helping? Can you show me? Because YTD literally every Alpha platform car is down in sales in double digit percentages:
http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2016/07/usa-car-sales-figures-by-model-june-2016-ytd.html (http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2016/07/usa-car-sales-figures-by-model-june-2016-ytd.html)
Would it be worse on the old platforms? Who knows, but they wouldn't have been out a billion dollars to sell less cars at lower margins.
Being a sarcastic asshole only works when you're right.
1B dollars is pocket change
Quote from: 2o6 on July 21, 2016, 03:15:04 PM
1B dollars is pocket change
Indeed, 1B was such a bargain to lose sales and chop down margins
Why do you care about sales so much?
Quote from: CaminoRacer on July 21, 2016, 04:32:43 PM
Why do you care about sales so much?
Is that not the prime objective of a corporation?
Well none of us here work for GM. Supposedly we're all here because we're car enthusiasts, and the alpha platform is great news for enthusiasts. So I don't get why sales are being prioritized over performance.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on July 21, 2016, 04:32:43 PM
Why do you care about sales so much?
Why do you care what I care about?
To answer your question, cars are pretty boring these days, at least from an ideological/risk standpoint. GM Alpha cars included. As a data dude and someone generally into business and economics, I find the business of cars to be way more interesting than cars themselves.
And as far as the Alpha platform, I'm not quite sold on it being great for enthusiasts. You can't get the regular ATS with V6 and a stick and the turbo 4 is less than great. ATS-V should have got the LT1. Camaro generates great headline/bench racing numbers but is a packaging and daily driver nightmare. And CUE still sucks, no matter what the contrarians and GM fanboys say. "B-b-b-but it has great steering feel and chassis balance!" can't make up for all that IMO. I wanted GM to do better and I'm really disappointed. Not to mention our tax dollars bailed them out and were spent on this. You don't have to participate in these discussions if they make you uncomfortable.
As I said before, MQB and MLB cost several times as much to develop, and Alpha/Omeha are actually just evolutions of the old Sigma/Zeta platform.
Not to mention that this platform will likely soldier on with revisions and tweaks for another 15 years.
You have a vendetta against this platform for no logical reason.
GM is killing it right now, across all their brands. They've never been more competitive.
1B is pocket change considering it will underpin a product line that has higher profit margins than a basic platform.
It's not a discussion, we're all laughing at you and your insistence that Alpha is the worst thing ever
It sounds like Sporty wants Cadillac to start making the 1991 Seville and Deville again.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 21, 2016, 04:56:52 PM
Why do you care what I care about?
To answer your question, cars are pretty boring these days, at least from an ideological/risk standpoint. GM Alpha cars included. As a data dude and someone generally into business and economics, I find the business of cars to be way more interesting than cars themselves.
And as far as the Alpha platform, I'm not quite sold on it being great for enthusiasts. You can't get the regular ATS with V6 and a stick and the turbo 4 is less than great. ATS-V should have got the LT1. Camaro generates great headline/bench racing numbers but is a packaging and daily driver nightmare. And CUE still sucks, no matter what the contrarians and GM fanboys say. "B-b-b-but it has great steering feel and chassis balance!" can't make up for all that IMO. I wanted GM to do better and I'm really disappointed. Not to mention our tax dollars bailed them out and were spent on this. You don't have to participate in these discussions if they make you uncomfortable.
How is the platform responsible for the powertrains or the dashboard controls?
Quote from: CaminoRacer on July 21, 2016, 05:22:34 PM
It's not a discussion, we're all laughing at you and your insistence that Alpha is the worst thing ever
Post the quote where I said that.
And you specifically sound more scared than anything. Like I said this is all voluntary- if you don't want to discuss how the Alpha platform is bombing you don't have to.
Quote from: 2o6 on July 21, 2016, 05:22:02 PM
As I said before, MQB and MLB cost several times as much to develop, and Alpha/Omeha are actually just evolutions of the old Sigma/Zeta platform.
Not to mention that this platform will likely soldier on with revisions and tweaks for another 15 years.
You have a vendetta against this platform for no logical reason.
GM is killing it right now, across all their brands. They've never been more competitive.
1B is pocket change considering it will underpin a product line that has higher profit margins than a basic platform.
I have no vendetta, I just find this to be an interesting case study. Also, it's funny to see you guys get all up in arms about it, and more specifically quite glorious to remind Mr. H how wrong he and his almighty analysts were. Keep in mind I haven't even touched the whole marketing fiasco with Melody Lee, their complete dismissal of non-millenials and the stupid ass Cadillac coffee shop in Manhattan :wtf:
And if they are going to run this platform for 15 years I hope they can right the ship.... with ~15% sales declines each year it won't be long before sales drop to zero. And again their volume Cadillacs (CUVs) aren't even on this platform. All I want is for Mr. H to eat crow and for all you other chowderheads to say "yea they kinda messed up". Lotus had awesome cars for enthusiasts too.
Quote from: ifcar on July 21, 2016, 05:54:54 PM
How is the platform responsible for the powertrains or the dashboard controls?
The powertrain comment was a response to the enthusiast thing, and the dashboard was a clarification on why the Cadillacs specifically may be down in sales.
I'm not sure what the fuck you're wanting here.
Alpha/Omega is fine. Zeta and Sigma were old.
end of story.
Why am I scared? :wtf:
I have no skin in this game at all. I just like fast/cool/good cars. And I find your obsession about Cadillac very strange. Do you have a secret passion for Sevilles and want to buy a 2017 model?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 21, 2016, 06:02:21 PM
The powertrain comment was a response to the enthusiast thing, and the dashboard was a clarification on why the Cadillacs specifically may be down in sales.
You were saying Alpha isn't great for enthusiasts and cited only factors that had nothing to do with Alpha.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on July 21, 2016, 07:15:13 PM
Why am I scared? :wtf:
I have no skin in this game at all. I just like fast/cool/good cars. And I find your obsession about Cadillac very strange. Do you have a secret passion for Sevilles and want to buy a 2017 model?
I like fast/cool/good cars too. Alpha cars are not bad but they should have been a lot better. Their failure to hit GM's targets demonstrate that. You can find w/e about me strange, it's of no consequence. But for someone with no skin in the game you sure seem emotionally invested.
Asking why you care about sales = emotionally invested?
Interesting. I'll have to try that on my girlfriend.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on July 22, 2016, 05:41:04 AM
Asking why you care about sales = emotionally invested?
Interesting. I'll have to try that on my girlfriend.
No, being emotionally invested = being emotionally invested. I explained why I care about sales and you are still whining and trying to get me to stop talking about them. It's not working.
No please continue to talk about it. This forum can never get too many wackos rambling about random nonsense
Quote from: 2o6 on July 21, 2016, 05:23:45 PM
It sounds like Sporty wants Cadillac to start making the 1991 Seville and Deville again.
Well, I wouldn't mind the names returning.
I feel that luxury will be defined by the level of autonomy shortly. From that perspective I feel that Cadillac's push to driver focused chassis was a strategic error in product planning. Once fully autonomous cars arrive, it'll be too late to create an aspirational brand.
Who knows what Cadillac has in the planning stages right now, but I feel that electric and autonomous cars should be the focal point for the luxury brands. The silent cruising and not having to fill your car with gas/autonomous charging would be huge selling points. Yeah, there'd still be a market for gas powered, human driven luxury cars to the old guys that don't want change, but I think that will be a dying breed in luxury customers soon. Most money is in cities which have charging infrastructure and lots of traffic. I feel luxury buyers in a city will want the luxury of not having to deal with the traffic. And those that don't care much about luxury will just have autonomous car sharing from basic brands.
In the end, it's just about too late to try and create an aspirational brand as said by Lutz, and I feel it's true.
QuoteC/D: What might save Lincoln?
BL: In the time left for the automobile as we know it, it won't be possible to make Lincoln a truly aspirational brand. The new Continental, while not as good as the concept, is a design language cribbed from Bentley. Which is fine, because if you're gonna steal, rob from a bank and not a grocery store. But cars don't matter much anymore—it's crossovers that count. Will Lincoln ever again inspire an image of superiority, where your friends say you bought a cool car just because they admire the brand? Probably not.
I feel that M-B is doing it right. Having an international market and a lot of upscale cars (where's Cadillac's S class coupe rival? Or even S class rival?) which shouldn't have been such a hard thing for Cadillac to do in that last 16 years of its revival, has put M-B at the top at the moment. I think Cadillac has one last chance to pull it together with autonomy/electricity and high end luxury, but after that it'll be too far behind to be anything aspirational. I actually think Volvo has a shot at leapfrogging Cadillac since they are on point for autonomy and their new SUV/car seem great.
Like a few here have been saying those of us that really enjoy driving will probably wind up in more sports oriented cars rather than luxury anyway. Cadillac's driver focus and V products I think were out of date planning. And even that bad planning was made worse by not offering a manual transmission with the V6 in the ATS. If you're going after people that really enjoy driving, leaving the best engine without a stick is a huge mistake.
Their latest concept is already behind the 8 ball and it's not even in production. What makes it better than the 6/M6 grand coupe? A7? 5 series GT? It has a twin turbo v8, which they have had for a few years already. The curved OLED displays? woooo... They may already be in one of the competitor's production models debuting shortly....
I think you are on the money with autonomous tech being part of luxury. I am also thinking with the success of Tesla in spite of itself that some level of electric integration into a powertrain, be it a full electric or a plug in hybrid with "commuter" range, is also the future. The Model S sells neck and neck with the S-Class despite not being anywhere near as nice for the money and being much more of a PITA to live with. Think about how cool it would be to driving civilians (i.e. non enthusiasts) for a car to pull up silently, drop someone off and pull off to park itself?
That gets into other bigger issues though.... if a car can drive itself, what's the point of owning it? While we transition now and autonomous tech matures ownership still makes sense. But I'm pretty sure if a pay per ride system were convenient people would give up car ownership in a heart beat. Hell, I know I would, at least for a daily driver; I could then use my driveway to keep a full on track car or something of that nature.
But yea something is up at GM. The huge misses of the Camaro and Cadillac sedans demonstrates a weird and huge misunderstanding of the market. They know what gets good magazine reviews but they don't have a clue what actually gets people to spend $40-70K on something that isn't a CUV/SUV/Corvette.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 24, 2016, 04:40:32 AM
That gets into other bigger issues though.... if a car can drive itself, what's the point of owning it? While we transition now and autonomous tech matures ownership still makes sense. But I'm pretty sure if a pay per ride system were convenient people would give up car ownership in a heart beat. Hell, I know I would, at least for a daily driver; I could then use my driveway to keep a full on track car or something of that nature.
I think luxury is the biggest point in support of owning an autonomous car. That you get to choose which wood veneer you look at, leather type and color, interior layout of the car you are riding in. Without ownership the well to do individual is at the mercy of whatever shows up to give them a ride.
There are plane sharing services for the well to do, but the really wealthy people still own their own aircraft
I think there is a very healthy appetite and all new market for luxury autonomous cabs (for lack of better word)
For example if I'm just commuting to work I am OK to ride in something like a Corolla. But if I'm out on the town with wifey for a dinner date, or out with friends/family, etc, yea I will spring for the S-Class. I think that will hurt the concept of ownership of such cars- when every Tom Dick and Harry can afford to ride in a car, what's the upside of owning it? It's kind of like how in NYC the only people I saw driving S-Classes were chauffeurs. That has turned me off from wanting to own one. S-Class coupe or SL, definitely, but the S-Class itself? Hell nah. Image is ruined.
Oh dear...
http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/cadillac/cts/cadillac-cts-sales-numbers/
http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/cadillac/ats/cadillac-ats-sales-numbers/
Shame. It's a good car. Sorta proves BMW market research for where to go to has been right.
Its time to debut was ~1995-2005. Right car wrong time. I hope Cadillac wakes up to the current market because GM has the tools to succeed.
Nah fam I hope Cadillac keeps up the good fight. I want an ATS-V as soon as I can afford it.
Yeah. I like the plunging Camaro prices too. But I know I could get an ND miata for $10k cheaper and probably have more fun.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on August 24, 2016, 08:58:05 AM
Nah fam I hope Cadillac keeps up the good fight. I want an ATS-V as soon as I can afford it.
Building cars that don't sell is not a good fight.
ATS/CTS should have been the SS.
V8 only. 3 series size with usable back seat. No more than $50K with Magnaride.
Autonomous isn't too far removed from flying cars - will never happen.
BMW doesn't do anything really all that well - its cars are less fun to drive and luxury isn't really there. They sell on legacy. M-B has done the best overall of transforming itself. They still have major reliability problems but the product - esp. the new C Class - is spot on. Audi is second best. Acura is a disaster, Infiniti is not much better and Lexus is so-so.
Cadillac's primary mistake with both the ATS and CTS was of course pricing. Secondarily, it was segmentation. The base ATS was a turd. They should've taken a page from the Camaro segmentation - THAT'S the way to do things. Thirdly, power trains were sucky, esp. transmissions and not using the LT-1 in the ATS-V.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 24, 2016, 10:43:46 AM
Autonomous isn't too far removed from flying cars - will never happen.
when's the last time you saw 10+ corporations throwing at least $1B each at something for it not to pan out?
Quote from: Rich on August 24, 2016, 11:04:12 AM
when's the last time you saw 10+ corporations throwing at least $1B each at something for it not to pan out?
Hybrids and electric cars. ~15 years on and still the only such vehicle that has any sort of viable business case is the Prius (and to a lesser extent, the Camry hybrid), and each STILL has a sketch value and eco proposition vs. a ~40 mpg $18k Corolla. The happy reality is that the base Corolla can only get better where as hybrid and electric car tech is tapped.
Autonomous driving cars will never happen without hundreds of billions in infrastructure upgrades (standardized road design and markings the country over, particularly that to mitigate weather affects). So, I should amend my statement (which I've uttered before) - legit autonomous cars won't happen without catastrophic levels of infrastructure spending.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 24, 2016, 11:19:21 AM
Hybrids and electric cars. ~15 years on and still the only such vehicle that has any sort of viable business case is the Prius (and to a lesser extent, the Camry hybrid), and each STILL has a sketch value and eco proposition vs. a ~40 mpg $18k Corolla. The happy reality is that the base Corolla can only get better where as hybrid and electric car tech is tapped.
Autonomous driving cars will never happen without hundreds of billions in infrastructure upgrades (standardized road design and markings the country over, particularly that to mitigate weather affects). So, I should amend my statement (which I've uttered before) - legit autonomous cars won't happen without catastrophic levels of infrastructure spending.
I will say this, on my new car the adaptive cruise control and lane assistance work great on roads that are clearly marked (highways), but on back country roads that sometimes do not have any lines or only have a center line it does not work at all.
I know the autonomous cars that are being tested have much more advanced sensors and what not, but if roads are not even marked it is going to be tough to program a car how to drive on it.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on August 24, 2016, 11:36:15 AM
I will say this, on my new car the adaptive cruise control and lane assistance work great on roads that are clearly marked (highways), but on back country roads that sometimes do not have any lines or only have a center line it does not work at all.
I know the autonomous cars that are being tested have much more advanced sensors and what not, but if roads are not even marked it is going to be tough to program a car how to drive on it.
The Golden Gate Bridge, along with other bridges and roadways into major cities, has lanes that change direction depending on the time of day. I wonder how well autonomous cars would handle that?
That is why they'll never happen - being 99% reliable/effective is literally a billion miles away from being truly autonomous - imagine if jetliners were only 99% safe - you'd have thousands of crashes per day in the US. The gap will only close by decreasing the process window, which means standardization on what the sensors/cameras/etc. would be looking at. This is a very common conundrum in industrial automated guided vehicle and machine vision applications (which I do a lot of).
Some facets of "autonomous" tech - adaptive cruise control, emergency braking, land departure, etc. - are benefits but they'll never truly be autonomous on any sort of deployable scale.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on August 24, 2016, 11:40:25 AM
The Golden Gate Bridge, along with other bridges and roadways into major cities, has lanes that change direction depending on the time of day. I wonder how well autonomous cars would handle that?
Oh yeah, the two main bridges into and out of Philly do this every day as well (and will also sometimes be rearranged during big events).
I'm sure some kind of communication protocol could be developed. That's a small hurdle. I'd be more concerned about stuff like construction zones.
Prius/Corolla is not the segment where hybrids make sense. That is the realm of diminishing returns. It's the ~40-50% jump in combined mileage in something like a Highlander or Accord where it makes sense, particularly when said efficiency can come with the same power/performance. I would rather something like a 250HP Camry Hybrid than a Camry 2.0T.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 24, 2016, 10:43:46 AM
BMW doesn't do anything really all that well - its cars are less fun to drive and luxury isn't really there. They sell on legacy. M-B has done the best overall of transforming itself. They still have major reliability problems but the product - esp. the new C Class - is spot on. Audi is second best. Acura is a disaster, Infiniti is not much better and Lexus is so-so.
Cadillac's primary mistake with both the ATS and CTS was of course pricing. Secondarily, it was segmentation. The base ATS was a turd. They should've taken a page from the Camaro segmentation - THAT'S the way to do things. Thirdly, power trains were sucky, esp. transmissions and not using the LT-1 in the ATS-V.
:hesaid:
Quote from: GoCougs on August 24, 2016, 11:43:12 AM
That is why they'll never happen - being 99% reliable/effective is literally a billion miles away from being truly autonomous - imagine if jetliners were only 99% safe - you'd have thousands of crashes per day in the US. The gap will only close by decreasing the process window, which means standardization on what the sensors/cameras/etc. would be looking at. This is a very common conundrum in industrial automated guided vehicle and machine vision applications (which I do a lot of).
Some facets of "autonomous" tech - adaptive cruise control, emergency braking, land departure, etc. - are benefits but they'll never truly be autonomous on any sort of deployable scale.
Autonomous cars don't have to get to the level of airplane reliability, just *significantly* above the level of current human driver performance.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on August 24, 2016, 03:28:44 PM
Autonomous cars don't have to get to the level of airplane reliability, just *significantly* above the level of current human driver performance.
They pretty much have to in order to be accepted on any sort of scale (i.e., the general public).
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 24, 2016, 10:21:20 AM
ATS/CTS should have been the SS. V8 only. 3 series size with usable back seat. No more than $50K with Magnaride.
the SS is much larger than the 3-series; larger even than the current CTS.
I do agree that the ATS-V should've had the LT1 instead, but that doesn't account for why the ATS in general hasn't met sales expectations.
I think what we've learned here is that even if you out-BMW BMW (which Cadillac has done), people will still buy based on brand/reputation.
BMW isn't the 3 series anymore. It's shit like the i3 and X4s.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 24, 2016, 08:02:41 PM
BMW isn't the 3 series anymore. It's shit like the i3 and X4s.
Actually, both of those are great. You should go drive them. And the 3 is still the rainmaker for the brand.
Quote from: Vinsanity on August 24, 2016, 07:33:54 PM
the SS is much larger than the 3-series; larger even than the current CTS.
I do agree that the ATS-V should've had the LT1 instead, but that doesn't account for why the ATS in general hasn't met sales expectations.
I think what we've learned here is that even if you out-BMW BMW (which Cadillac has done), people will still buy based on brand/reputation.
I think it is almost exactly the same size as the current CTS. Definitely larger than the ATS/3-Series/A4 class of car though.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on August 25, 2016, 04:51:25 AM
Actually, both of those are great. You should go drive them. And the 3 is still the rainmaker for the brand.
I prob shouldn't have used the word "shit". They are good cars. But they are pretty far from what BMW was 20, 30 years ago. With Mercedes the S-Class is still the essence of the brand.