CarSPIN Forums

SIMPLER NUMBERAULPABETIC MONIKERS WILL BEGIN WITH NEW THE ALL NEW GENERAL MOTORS CADILLAC EXCLUSIVE* 2016 RWD AND RWD-BASED AWD MERCEDES-BENZ S-CLASS AND BMW 7-SERIES SEDAN COMPETITOR:

The Cadillac CT6

NEW NAME FORMAT FROM THE INCEPTION OF THE CT6, TO EACH NEW VEHICLE "REDESIGN" OR REPLACEMENT OR POSSIBLY AN "ALL AT ONCE" OR MORE "GRADUAL" UNVEILING...


http://blog.caranddriver.com/cadillac-ct6-will-use-a-plethora-of-aluminum-dealerships-to-be-updated/ (http://blog.caranddriver.com/cadillac-ct6-will-use-a-plethora-of-aluminum-dealerships-to-be-updated/)

NOTE: Conflicted reports as whether to change the highly recognizable Escalade nameplate... Few insist...

CT (eg, CT6, CT4) FOR ALL CARS AND XT FOR TRUCKS / SPORT UTILiTY VEHICLES AND CROSSOVERS


Confirms "Official Reveal" of The CT6 for March 31, 2015, at North American Internation Auto Show (NAIAS) in New York, NY, a.k.a., New York International Auto Show (NYIAS) 2015  :ohyeah: I am there during 'Spinner's annual meetup to see it! ~ Atomic

*Model not to be shared with any other division, yet could serve as platform for other high end Cadillacs

Thank you, Journalist, Patrick George for your information, including yet another highly respected source confirming the saloons debut date...




The Twin-Turbo Hybrid Cadillac CT6 Flagship Will Debut On March 31

Cadillac has big plans to take over the world, and the first salvo in that campaign is the upcoming CT6 luxury sedan. We'll see it in about two months and change, right in time for the New York Auto Show.

That comes from the Detroit News' David Shepardson, who on Twitter quoted Cadillac CEO Johan de Nysschen as saying the CT6 will appear on March 31.

So what do we know about the CT6 so far? A fair amount. It will debut Cadillac's new "CT" naming system for its cars and "XT" for its SUVs. It will actually be lighter than the current CTS, and powered by a twin-turbocharged 3.0-liter V6 with a hybrid plug-in setup. It will be rear-wheel drive, and we're banking on something like 400 horsepower.


​The Cadillac CT6 Will Weigh Less Than The CTS, Get Twin-Turbo V6

The CT6 has to compete in rarified air, and Cadillac is filling it with every technology it can...

Read more

It's going to make liberal use of aluminum and new manufacturing techniques, which results in it being some 50 pounds lighter than the CTS despite being eight inches longer and packing a battery for the hybrid system. We'll see some other new tech here too, like a streaming camera instead of a rearview mirror, although that may not make it to production due to U.S. safety regulations.12

(Update: And the CT6 will be Cadillac's flagship, at least kind of, until maybe some even bigger and more expensive flagships come out, possibly to be called CT8 or CT9. There's a lot going on at Cadillac these days.)

Despite the odd name, the CT6 sounds like it will be pretty interesting. Will it help lift Cadillac's sales fortunes?

We'll find out for sure when it goes on sale in December...*

Italic print not working...

Uninterrupted comments from asterisk-to-asterisk, complete report from Patrick.

The CT6 with current Escalade chassis is said to be the new "face" of the next Presidential Limouise being readied for the upcoming 2016 Inauguration of the next Commander in Cheif / President of the United States of America. An interested tidbit in what little is revealed about the U.S. leader's top secret primary mode of ground transportation.

We will see about this. Caddy has been pumping this thing up to be God. We will see if they make good. They need about 4 SUVs more than this. Its madness

Can't wait to see it!

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 07, 2015, 06:48:40 PM
We will see about this. Caddy has been pumping this thing up to be God. We will see if they make good. They need about 4 SUVs more than this. Its madness

It was my understanding that nothing else will be based on the "Cadillac only" platform yet it is cited somewhere that it will share GM's Omego underpinnings.

:huh:

Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on February 07, 2015, 06:49:56 PM
Can't wait to see it!

Same here. I am glad that it will be replace any of the division's existing models but fit into the lineup and at the up.

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/cadillac/2018-cadillac-xt3-ar167445.html (http://www.topspeed.com/cars/cadillac/2018-cadillac-xt3-ar167445.html)

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/cadillac-ct6/ke4935.html (http://www.topspeed.com/cars/cadillac-ct6/ke4935.html)

I see, Cadillac is dropping prices of the 2015-MY CTS with shoppers and media complaining it is priced too high. Not good for cars previously or for residual value but that should boost sales of Caddy's relatively new sedan.

************************

New Article

Below, February 13, 2015

Offering what appears to be a V6 only (at least initially) is an interesting move.  I think there is a reason that most of the luxo-bardges I see on the road are V8's.  The only time I see 6-cyllinder flagships (at least in NYC) is when they have "TL&C" plates on the back - i.e. chauffeured cars.

Quote from: Submariner on February 11, 2015, 09:55:39 AM
Offering what appears to be a V6 only (at least initially) is an interesting move.  I think there is a reason that most of the luxo-bardges I see on the road are V8's.  The only time I see 6-cyllinder flagships (at least in NYC) is when they have "TL&C" plates on the back - i.e. chauffeured cars.

I feel like the only people buying those flagships in NYC are TL&C operations

This market is dying out. More silliness from Cadillac. They need an SRX replacement that doesn't look like an origami vaginal dodgeball.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 11, 2015, 11:16:42 AM
I feel like the only people buying those flagships in NYC are TL&C operations

This market is dying out. More silliness from Cadillac. They need an SRX replacement that doesn't look like an origami vaginal dodgeball.
[/

Agree they need to replace the SRX.  "Origami vaginal dodgeball" is not something I'm familiar with but the Lexus RX destroys it.  It's not even a competition.

Using "6" in the name designation for your luxury flagship is a dumb decision... People automatically assume its inferior to the German "7" and "8" cars.

They should have made it the CT9 to show the germans up

Quote from: r0tor on February 12, 2015, 09:03:09 AM
Using "6" in the name designation for your luxury flagship is a dumb decision... People automatically assume its inferior to the German "7" and "8" cars.

They should have made it the CT9 to show the germans up

But why give the Germans the window to then "one up" Cadillac?

Make it the CT∞

Or give it a real name and stop this nonsense.

Quote from: hotrodalex on February 12, 2015, 09:49:23 AM
Or give it a real name and stop this nonsense.

THIS.

Quote from: Atomic on February 09, 2015, 05:07:56 PM
I see, Cadillac is dropping prices of the 2015-MY CTS with shoppers and media complaining it is priced too high. Not good for cars previously or for residual value but that should boost sales of Caddy's relatively new sedan.

************************

New Article

Below, February 13, 2015

Source: Carscoops
 

Cadillac's ATS and CTS aren't too good at convincing people to choose them over German premium sedans. Dealers throughout the United States are offering significant discounts on the two sedans. In some cases, the 2014 Cadillac ATS is offered with up to $12,000 off a sticker price that starts at about $33,215.

The situation is similar with the 2014 CTS, which is offered with a discount of up to $17,500 from the starting price of $45,345. According to a report from Reuters, dealers have been asking for Cadillac incentives for a long time.

What this says is Cadillac's strategy to rival BMW and Mercedes-Benz in the luxury sedan market doesn't appear to be working. Drivers of German luxury sedans aren't willing to switch to Cadillac.

A part of the problem is that the ATS and CTS are overpriced and overproduced, according to analysts. Cadillac has been trying for more than a year to reduce inventories of unsold ATS and CTS sedans, even stopping production at the Lansing, Michigan, plant in mid-December for six weeks.

When it reopened on January 26, the facility that builds the ATS and CTS was reduced to a single shift and a significantly diminished production schedule. Despite all these measures, Cadillac and its dealers still had about four months' worth of unsold CTS sedans and six months' worth of unsold ATS sedan at the end of January.

In January, ATS sales dropped 8 percent from a year ago, while CTS sales plummeted by 24 percent. Cadillac doesn't have the same problem with its SUVs, especially with the Escalade. January sales of the big luxury SUV were up 149 percent, with GM's truck factory outside Dallas, which builds the Escalade and long-wheelbase Escalade ESV, running on three shifts and working weekend overtime for months to try to keep up with demand.


















   

Quote from: hotrodalex on February 12, 2015, 09:49:23 AM
Or give it a real name and stop this nonsense.

From a business standpoint, names are much more difficult to deal with. 

The only product that still has a name is the one they can't build quick enough

CTS for $32K is a pretty good deal

Wonder how cheap ATS 2.0Ts are going for. I would still rather a 335 at full price though

Quote from: Raza  on February 13, 2015, 01:37:04 AM
From a business standpoint, names are much more difficult to deal with. 

True.

But it's a better brand identity, unless you're one of the original German companies to use alphanumeric. Now it's just copying to be "cool". And lazy.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 13, 2015, 09:31:24 AM
CTS for $32K is a pretty good deal

Wonder how cheap ATS 2.0Ts are going for. I would still rather a 335 at full price though

I want an ATS-V so bad.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 13, 2015, 09:31:24 AM
CTS for $32K is a pretty good deal

Wonder how cheap ATS 2.0Ts are going for. I would still rather a 335 at full price though

Meh, I would guess those numbers are overstating the affordability. If you could really get a new CTS for 32k they would be flying out of dealers.

Notice that say they reported maximum incentives, and then give the starting price of those cars. I would guess to get incentives that high you would have to be buying a top of the line model with tons of features.

$32k model has an AM radio, crank windows, paper upholstery.

(http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/02/22/d3b706006dd85471c3e0e9ffa2b5cba6.jpg)

Look fairly athletic here.


The Daring: No Regrets (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGhaOV0BPmA#ws)

Isn't that ripping off Mazda's commercials?

Dunno don't watch tv

Athleticism isn't what people in that market want. Nor is it what can be delivered in something longer than a damn Escalade :facepalm:

Pls get this right Cadillac; GM can only float your failures for so long.

Only somewhat related but the CTS at the lcoal auto show had a Navy Blue interior.  :wub:

March 31st WTF

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 02, 2015, 05:07:36 AM
March 31st WTF

A couple days before NYIAS, where it'll make it's show debut.


Fuck didn't realize it was so soon. 

GM has been struggling with cadillac for a long time. It doesn't seem like it's getting any better. They are always chasing the germans, and now they are getting some pressure from behind with mainstream offerings continuing to step up their quality and features.

I'd even go so far as to state that cars like the Chrysler 300 offer just as much luxury and road presence as a CTS. Which is really sad when you think about it, from cadillacs standpoint.

Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 02, 2015, 08:47:49 AM
GM has been struggling with cadillac for a long time. It doesn't seem like it's getting any better. They are always chasing the germans, and now they are getting some pressure from behind with mainstream offerings continuing to step up their quality and features.

I'd even go so far as to state that cars like the Chrysler 300 offer just as much luxury and road presence as a CTS. Which is really sad when you think about it, from cadillacs standpoint.

Where is this coming from? Cadillac has been doing great this past decade, and has a solid lineup of cars and SUVs. Their models were once the subject of depreciation jokes, but their values now hold as good or better than the Germans. The ATS is a slow seller, but lots of Japanese competition mixed into that segment as well as the Germans. Cadillac is fine. Lincoln is the kid we need to be concerned about.

Quote from: Rockraven on March 02, 2015, 08:53:00 AM
Where is this coming from? Cadillac has been doing great this past decade, and has a solid lineup of cars and SUVs. Their models were once the subject of depreciation jokes, but their values now hold as good or better than the Germans. The ATS is a slow seller, but lots of Japanese competition mixed into that segment as well as the Germans. Cadillac is fine. Lincoln is the kid we need to be concerned about.

You did see the article posted above about cadillac lowering prices because of sales/price complaints.

Where is this coming from?

Reality, probably.

Sure cadillac is doing better now then they ever have in the past 30 years, but they are still not doing very well.

I don't understand comments like that. Sporty says a lot of the same stuff. But if they're not supposed to chase the Germans, what are they supposed to do? That's what the market is right now. It's like no matter what Cadillac does, they'll be poo-pooed on for not doing the opposite. Are they supposed to just automatically come out with the world's best car, go from zero to hero with one NYIAS reveal? That's the same mistake GM has made for past 30 years, expecting cars to take over the market place in one shot and when they don't, they scrap it and try again. It leads to crappy brand image. Gotta work your way up, gain respect and good reputation. Cadillac seems to be on a good path now.

Quote from: hotrodalex on March 02, 2015, 09:07:45 AM
I don't understand comments like that. Sporty says a lot of the same stuff. But if they're not supposed to chase the Germans, what are they supposed to do? That's what the market is right now. It's like no matter what Cadillac does, they'll be poo-pooed on for not doing the opposite. Are they supposed to just automatically come out with the world's best car, go from zero to hero with one NYIAS reveal? That's the same mistake GM has made for past 30 years, expecting cars to take over the market place in one shot and when they don't, they scrap it and try again. It leads to crappy brand image. Gotta work your way up, gain respect and good reputation. Cadillac seems to be on a good path now.

I guess chase the germans is more criticism for being "one dimensional" if you will. I think GM seems to have the impression that if they offer what the germans offer at a similar price point, then they'll just get customers.

I'm of the opinion that they have to look beyond, sure they can take some market cues and product position data from them, but I think they need to offer much more(like blatantly more) car for a similar price to lure away buyers from the germans. It would be a different scenario if one or more of the competition was faltering and giving up buyers due to a string of poor product or poor business direction. I don't see that as the case, so why would happy(content) german buyers buy a cadillac that is pretty much a copy(price vs feature wise) of a german product that they are already a happy customer of?

Cadillac has to move upmarket, while giving up sales in order to establish a better market presence. At which point they can then go and offer lower priced entry market products.

Ive said it a million times before. The "chase the Germans" thing is a red herring and a gross misunderstanding of the luxury market. The Germans themselves are moving away from the outdated C&D comparison test winner business model and focusing on building cars their customers want- even if they aren't dynamically razor sharp (since most luxury customers don't give a shit about Ring times or Brembo Brakes™). Enthusiasts love what Caddy is doing but aren't actually buying it. The whole thing speaks to exactly why the Germans stay ahead. It's not about brand cachet or 10/10ths dynamics or whatever out of context metrics people look at. It's simple business- making products (cars) consumers want to buy.

I said what Caddy should have done before. But I'll lay it out again, in the context of what they're doing wrong.

- Caddy should NOT bother with an "S-Class Fighter". Everyone but Mercedes is losing volume/market share in that segment, despite having a deeper understanding of the market, higher brand cachet and somewhat established market share.

- Caddy should NOT put dynamics above everything else. Why o why would someone want a 3 series over an ATS? The ATS was Ring tuned!!!! Well the BMW has a more spacious interior, more logical/robust infotaintment interfaces, better engines from top to bottom, and even from an enthusiast's POV it has better performance and no silly transmission limits (as well as a better automatic, which again is relevant to 95% of the luxury market). I.e. the 99.9% of the time folks aren't pushing it to its limits it's simply a better car to own/drive/live with than the ATS, period.

- Caddy should NOT have come out with a damn sport sedan before some new CUVs. The current SRX is 7 years old!!!! They have no answer to stuff like the Evoque or Q3 which is literally the hottest segment in the luxury market at the moment. Sport sedans by comparison are stagant and that segment is fully mature + incredibly competitive.

- GM should NOT have come out with the Alpha platform IMO. Yea the Sigma was old and the CTS was a little small and heavy. But they could have made that work. For the billions they put into it they got nothing back- they are putting 4-5 figure incentives on the hoods of ATSs and CTSs. Last CTS hit 55K sales in the US and didn't need huge incentives to sell; 2014 the ATS/CTS combined moved a little over 60K with tons of incentives. So what did they really gain from the change???

People think I am being unfairly harsh on Cadillac.... no way. Its clear GM has figured out how to build decent cars. My beef is they still haven't figured out how to run a car business, with the biggest issue being a complete absence of understanding of various key markets. They get trucks and the Corvette is impressive, but they still haven't figured out mainstreamers or luxury cars. And the thing with Cadillac is even though the segment is cramped and competitive there still seem to be pretty fucking obvious openings for them to attack. German auto design is pretty fucking boring ATM.... all of Audi's cars look 10 years old; the BMW sedans are nearly indistinguishable from one another; Mercedes has good detailing but boring shapes and profiles. Caddy's concepts show they know how to create jaw dropping style, but for some reason beyond my comprehension they decide to strip their cars of that style and make them as boring as the Germans. Problem is Germans have other merits relevant to the market to sell on and Caddy doesn't. They just don't fucking get it. Same with this alphanumeric bullshit. CT6? Sounds like a cancer gene. When is Cadillac/GM going to get its head out of its ass???  The perpetual incompetence is what infuriates me as they have and have displayed such potential to do great.

Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 02, 2015, 09:31:29 AM
I guess chase the germans is more criticism for being "one dimensional" if you will. I think GM seems to have the impression that if they offer what the germans offer at a similar price point, then they'll just get customers.

I'm of the opinion that they have to look beyond, sure they can take some market cues and product position data from them, but I think they need to offer much more(like blatantly more) car for a similar price to lure away buyers from the germans. It would be a different scenario if one or more of the competition was faltering and giving up buyers due to a string of poor product or poor business direction. I don't see that as the case, so why would happy(content) german buyers buy a cadillac that is pretty much a copy(price vs feature wise) of a german product that they are already a happy customer of?

Cadillac has to move upmarket, while giving up sales in order to establish a better market presence. At which point they can then go and offer lower priced entry market products.

Like Ive said before.... nobody wants store brand product at name brand prices. Cadillac really thought they could pull the wool over the eyes over the smartest/brand conscious/demanding segment of the auto market, yet fucking again. Can anyone come up with some reasons why one should buy an ATS over a 3 series (at full price) that doesn't revolve around vague contrarianism ("its different")?

And its going to be the same story with the XE but I will leave that alone for now.

Current SRX came out in 2009 and looks like it will be replaced for the 2016 model year. That's not an abnormal lifespan. A little long, but not enough to crucify them. Hopefully they'll come out with both an X3 and X5 fighter soon.

It they kept the old platform everyone would still bitch about it, lose/lose situation for you apparently.

Cadillac wants to play in the top-luxury field, meaning it needs a large sedan.

I see nothing wrong with putting dynamics above everything else, since that doesn't have to be exclusive. They could have done a better job with some of the other aspects of the car, but as an overall package it's a good car.

Again, seems like you want to see them jump to the front of the pack in one swing, which simply isn't possible.

Its not that I want to see them jump to the front of the pack in one swing as much as I dont want them to make 4-5 huge mistakes with the launch of yet another car that's supposed to save the brand.

I wouldn't mind them keeping the old platform if it meant they spent the money they would have used to develop a new one on shit they actually need. Like HVAC/radio buttons & knobs, and instrument clusters not out of a Cutlass Calais 2.3 HO, and back seat space, and above average engines, and captivating exterior designs, and actual market research instead of these silo ideologies ("we want to play in the top luxury field! watever we think that means. we want to fight with the Germans! watever we think that means. that should sell cars rite?")

I dont see anything wrong with making dynamics a priority, but it's clear where GM spent their money and where they didn't... and they didn't spend it on the things customers in this segment actually want.

All I want is for Cadillac to build cars people will actually buy; instead they seemed hellbent on building cars relevant to market demands from like 20 years ago. They need to wake the fuck up.

Here's a link to some pics and video of the car at NY auto show:

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2015/03/2016-cadillac-ct6-flagship-luxury-sedan.html (http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2015/03/2016-cadillac-ct6-flagship-luxury-sedan.html)

Car and Driver:

http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2016-cadillac-ct6-photos-and-info-news (http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2016-cadillac-ct6-photos-and-info-news)

I don't like the steering wheel, but otherwise the styling is solid.

Ouch, not a good looking car IMHO. Proportions are nice, but too slab sided I think.

Better than flame surfacing garbage.

I don't agree with all the doom and gloom regarding Caddy. Compared to the early and mid 90s, Caddy's portfolio is lightyears ahead of its nadir. It would be unreasonable to expect a never ending stream of home runs: a couple hits here and there and steady improvement is what you want for long-term viability.

The way I see it, they look to be positioning the CT6 with the content of a German fullsize but at a price point closer to the midsizers. That's Caddy's sweet spot, IMO, and that goes for the lesser models too. Give them the content and luxury of the larger cars at a price the Germans can't match. I agree; however, that the styling should be a little more edgy.

One thing you have to keep in mind when talking about Caddy, is that you can't use the MB or BMW business model as a benchmark because they are entirely different. Caddy is a lot closer to Audi, where it's just one holding in a larger portfolio that intentionally markets itself to discreet demographics. Sure, MB and BMW sell more 5-series or S-classes or whatever--but they don't sell much outside of their core brands, and within those global sales figures they're moving a lot of de-contented models along with the luxury trims.

Quote from: Tave on April 02, 2015, 10:28:17 AM
I don't agree with all the doom and gloom regarding Caddy. Compared to the early and mid 90s, Caddy's portfolio is lightyears ahead of its nadir. It would be unreasonable to expect a never ending stream of home runs: a couple hits here and there and steady improvement is what you want for long-term viability.

The way I see it, they look to be positioning the CT6 with the content of a German fullsize but at a price point closer to the midsizers. That's Caddy's sweet spot, IMO, and that goes for the lesser models too. Give them the content and luxury of the larger cars at a price the Germans can't match. I agree; however, that the styling should be a little more edgy.

One thing you have to keep in mind when talking about Caddy, is that you can't use the MB or BMW business model as a benchmark because they are entirely different. Caddy is a lot closer to Audi, where it's just one holding in a larger portfolio that intentionally markets itself to discreet demographics. Sure, MB and BMW sell more 5-series or S-classes or whatever--but they don't sell much outside of their core brands, and within those global sales figures they're moving a lot of de-contented models along with the luxury trims.

Dead on

^ I basically said that in the Lincoln thread. Cadillac is doing well and about as well as can be expected. With ~5-7 year product cycles it takes time to rebuild a car brand

It doesn't want to/can't be a M-B or BMW or Audi. Those are huge corporations with huge sales numbers. Cadillac has never been that. Also add in the F-sport and -V models and Cadillac has a compelling place in the market.

Quote from: Tave on April 02, 2015, 10:28:17 AM
I don't agree with all the doom and gloom regarding Caddy. Compared to the early and mid 90s, Caddy's portfolio is lightyears ahead of its nadir. It would be unreasonable to expect a never ending stream of home runs: a couple hits here and there and steady improvement is what you want for long-term viability.

The way I see it, they look to be positioning the CT6 with the content of a German fullsize but at a price point closer to the midsizers. That's Caddy's sweet spot, IMO, and that goes for the lesser models too. Give them the content and luxury of the larger cars at a price the Germans can't match. I agree; however, that the styling should be a little more edgy.

One thing you have to keep in mind when talking about Caddy, is that you can't use the MB or BMW business model as a benchmark because they are entirely different. Caddy is a lot closer to Audi, where it's just one holding in a larger portfolio that intentionally markets itself to discreet demographics. Sure, MB and BMW sell more 5-series or S-classes or whatever--but they don't sell much outside of their core brands, and within those global sales figures they're moving a lot of de-contented models along with the luxury trims.

The recent Cadillac sedans haven't shown themselves to have a price advantage over the German competition, though. The CTS (or whatever its new name will be) is already at $46,000 base. A 5-Series is $49,000, sure, but that's not enough of a difference to build a new niche out of.

At least there's still plenty of room to undercut an S-Class.

Quote from: ifcar on April 02, 2015, 11:06:46 AM
The recent Cadillac sedans haven't shown themselves to have a price advantage over the German competition, though. The CTS (or whatever its new name will be) is already at $46,000 base. A 5-Series is $49,000, sure, but that's not enough of a difference to build a new niche out of.

At least there's still plenty of room to undercut an S-Class.

Closer to 50K for the 5-Series, $49,950. That difference stays fairly constant throughout the line, and you can get an AWD CTS for less than the 5-Series' nominal MSRP. The CTS is better equipped out of the gate. Each CTS powertrain has essentially 3 trim levels, toping out at about 60K (theoretically options can drive it higher but the trim levels themselves account for the bulk of those). A 5-Series has a collection of stackable "lines, packages, options, and accessories" that push it north of 70K without even ticking half the boxes.

I took a few seconds and looked online at dealers in my area: The Cadillac dealer lists its entire inventory in the neighborhood of Cadillac advertised prices, while I see exactly 1 BMW 5-Series listed for less than $60,000.

IDK bro. True Delta says an equally equipped CTS MSRP's for about $4K more than a comparable 5. In reality tho with incentives and all that it prob trades hands for about 10K less. So Caddy really thought they could hang with the Germans on price and priced their cars accordingly, but the market took em down about 10-15 thousand notches. The assertion that they don't want to be the Germans or compete with the Germans is flat out wrong- they benchmarked the Germans in their prime and priced themselves like they were offering a premium German product, and so far its backfired colossally. This is in no way how they wanted things to go. They wanted to be moving those CTSs for $60K plus just like the Germans, not realizing they don't have the clout (or product) to do so.

Cadillac is very American in method of buying. dealers stock numbers and numbers of Cadillacs and they dealer trade, etc and the clientele are subject to traditional dealer practices.



At my job, we only have a handful of BMW's on the lot, lot of them cheaper 320's and 4 series. Most BMW owners order their cars and wait. Also, there's a lot of customization options for BMW's.



Cadillac needs to match that tailor made, customization option.

Why?

I personally know like 2 people who factory ordered a new BMW as opposed to just taking an AWD example they had in stock. I seriously doubt that "most BMW owners order their cars and wait", and I absolutely do not think Cadillac needs to do that shit.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 02, 2015, 12:28:13 PM
IDK bro. True Delta says an equally equipped CTS MSRP's for about $4K more than a comparable 5. In reality tho with incentives and all that it prob trades hands for about 10K less. So Caddy really thought they could hang with the Germans on price and priced their cars accordingly, but the market took em down about 10-15 thousand notches. The assertion that they don't want to be the Germans or compete with the Germans is flat out wrong- they benchmarked the Germans in their prime and priced themselves like they were offering a premium German product, and so far its backfired colossally. This is in no way how they wanted things to go. They wanted to be moving those CTSs for $60K plus just like the Germans, not realizing they don't have the clout (or product) to do so.

I think you're missing something. Regardless of dealer incentives, the MSRPs just don't add up.

Yep, checked True Delta and you have it exactly backwards. :wtf:

Powertrain options for the CT6 is disappointing.  Unless it's some kind of hybrid, a 4 cylinder is unacceptable in a full-size, premium luxury flagship.  Particularly in North America.  For extremely regulated markets like Europe, maybe.  Personally, I think 4 cylinders in this kind of car are unacceptable under any circumstances (too much NVH), even if part of a hybrid powertrain, but it seems many of the big players are going this route (Audi, MB, and Jag all offer 2.0T motors in their flagship models in some markets, though not the US).  And while 6-cylinders are acceptable for lower or even mid-level trims, 8 or even 12 cylinder powerplants should be optional for higher trims.

Quote from: MX793 on April 04, 2015, 10:12:10 AM
Powertrain options for the CT6 is disappointing.  Unless it's some kind of hybrid, a 4 cylinder is unacceptable in a full-size, premium luxury flagship.  Personally, I think 4 cylinders in this kind of car are unacceptable under any circumstances (too much NVH), even if part of a hybrid powertrain.  And while 6-cylinders are acceptable for lower or even mid-level trims, 8 or even 12 cylinder powerplants should be optional for higher trims.

Gm is working with what they have, which on the luxury end isn't much. The whole "not using v8s because we're not the Cadillac of old" is just typical bs because they don't have the powertrains.

Also the tech stuff seems weak, i think you can get a better/larger screen in a dodge dart. I'd also have hoped they would have sought something a little better than a bose unit for their "flagship".

I think the 2.0t is a fine livery option, but the GM 2.0T isn't the most refined thing out there.

The dart does not have a screen larger than 10inches, and judging by the new Bose systems in the top trim suburbans/yukon/escalades this 34...  34 speaker system should be world class.


Also dohc v8s are coming.

Actual performance of the bose system aside, luxury buyers are about image and brands. In that regard, bose is NOT something that stimulates the senses of a luxury buyer, imo. You can get a bose system in a compact car.

They should have teamed up with a more luxury oriented company.

Krell <3

Yes. Let's throw 34 speakers into a space half the size of a small living room. Won't be any problems. We'll just slap "Bose" on it and people will eat that shit up and think it's the best sound system ever because we'll crank the bass on the shitty Chinese woofers.

The Wall of Sound is strong with luxury cars.

Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on April 04, 2015, 11:50:01 AM
Actual performance of the bose system aside, luxury buyers are about image and brands. In that regard, bose is NOT something that stimulates the senses of a luxury buyer, imo. You can get a bose system in a compact car.

They should have teamed up with a more luxury oriented company.

Not true. To the uninitiated, the Bose name means a lot.  And most luxury car buyers don't have a clue that Bose is pretty average stuff. They believe it's high end because Bose does a great job marketing it as such. 

Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on April 04, 2015, 11:50:01 AM
Actual performance of the bose system aside, luxury buyers are about image and brands. In that regard, bose is NOT something that stimulates the senses of a luxury buyer, imo. You can get a bose system in a compact car.

They should have teamed up with a more luxury oriented company.

Literally anything Cadillac does is the worst, huh

Quote from: SVT666 on April 04, 2015, 12:44:22 PM
Not true. To the uninitiated, the Bose name means a lot.  And most luxury car buyers don't have a clue that Bose is pretty average stuff. They believe it's high end because Bose does a great job marketing it as such. 

Luxury people dont want what normal people want. Everyone has heard of bose, because anyone can get it in anything. I think that aspect alone would make the shallow, brand centric people question it's "exotic" credentials.

Quote from: hotrodalex on April 04, 2015, 12:48:07 PM
Literally anything Cadillac does is the worst, huh

No, but I dont expect you to understand how someone can criticize something without coming from a position of bias.

Bang and Olfson? Mostly because I think company names with more than two words sound sophisticated

Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on April 04, 2015, 01:22:12 PM
Luxury people dont want what normal people want. Everyone has heard of bose, because anyone can get it in anything. I think that aspect alone would make the shallow, brand centric people question it's "exotic" credentials.

People who don't buy in the other price ranges don't know what's available in those cars.  Besides, even if they knew you can get it in a Nissan Quest, they also know it's the "Premium" system.

Quote from: SVT666 on April 04, 2015, 02:16:33 PM
People who don't buy in the other price ranges don't know what's available in those cars.  Besides, even if they knew you can get it in a Nissan Quest, they also know it's the "Premium" system.

Sorry, but your logic is a bit flawed. I dont know how else to explain it. If a image conscious luxury buyer knows a name, associates it as premium but then sees it available in none premium markets they will question its image. Not be happy that cheap car buyers get to enjoy the premium luxury options that they get in their high end cars.

Quote from: 2o6 on April 04, 2015, 02:16:27 PM
Bang and Olfson? Mostly because I think company names with more than two words sound sophisticated

Harman Kardon...

Sonus Faber or McIntosh would have been good. The later probably the better known.

Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on April 04, 2015, 02:49:59 PM
Sonus Faber or McIntosh would have been good. The later probably the better known.

Nobody has ever heard of those brands. They have heard of Bose, who has a good reputation.

HK or B&O would have been good choices, but Bose is definitely not a negative. That's why I called you out on being biased. In no way, shape, or form will customers look down on a CT6 for having a Bose system.

Looks okay, though the interior isn't anything special.

Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2015, 12:38:23 PM
Yes. Let's throw 34 speakers into a space half the size of a small living room. Won't be any problems. We'll just slap "Bose" on it and people will eat that shit up and think it's the best sound system ever because we'll crank the bass on the shitty Chinese woofers.

The Wall of Sound is strong with luxury cars.

:lol:

I know how u feel bro. Real audiophiles do 2.1 for sound quality

No V8 in an AMERICAN luxury flagship is also ridiculous.

GM's head is so far up its ass on Cadillac it turned itself inside out.

V8s have fallen out of favor by quite a bit, and a turbo V8 is just about worthless. Might as well go with a turbo V6.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 04, 2015, 06:13:16 PM
No V8 in an AMERICAN luxury flagship is also ridiculous.

:cheers:

Quote from: GoCougs on April 04, 2015, 06:32:53 PM
V8s have fallen out of favor by quite a bit, and a turbo V8 is just about worthless. Might as well go with a turbo V6.

M-B, Audi, Jag, Lexus and BMW all offer V8s in their flagship cars.  BMW, M-B, and Audi have 12-cylinder engines as well.

Quote from: GoCougs on April 04, 2015, 06:32:53 PM
V8s have fallen out of favor by quite a bit, and a turbo V8 is just about worthless. Might as well go with a turbo V6.

Fallen out of favor by who :confused: V8 is still king in the class the CT6 wants to compete in; the irony of the company that pretty much mainstreamed the V8 not putting one in their flagship (and having bombed on modern ones before ;) ) is not lost on people in the know.

So what happens when the next gen flagships from the H&H kings use TTV6s instead of a V8? Because with the trend in every other segment, that seems very likely.

Quote from: hotrodalex on April 04, 2015, 03:33:56 PM
Nobody has ever heard of those brands. They have heard of Bose, who has a good reputation.

HK or B&O would have been good choices, but Bose is definitely not a negative. That's why I called you out on being biased. In no way, shape, or form will customers look down on a CT6 for having a Bose system.

Sorry, you're wrong about this one. I can't debate your opinion with facts.

Quote from: hotrodalex on April 04, 2015, 07:58:51 PM
So what happens when the next gen flagships from the H&H kings use TTV6s instead of a V8? Because with the trend in every other segment, that seems very likely.

All of the H&H kings currently offer forced induction 6-cylinder engines in their flagship models... 



as their entry or mid-level engine option.

Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on April 04, 2015, 08:03:54 PM
Sorry, you're wrong about this one. I can't debate your opinion with facts.

It's a fact that every other segment of the industry has been downsizing engines. Thus it's statistically likely that the flagship sedan segment will follow suit. The only thing that disagrees with me is your opinion.

Quote from: MX793 on April 04, 2015, 08:06:26 PM
All of the H&H kings currently offer forced induction 6-cylinder engines in their flagship models... 



as their entry or mid-level engine option.

And their V6s are making less power - the CT6's TTV6 competes with the V8s. A little less HP than competitor's V8s, but it's also supposed to weigh more than 300 lbs less.


If you guys were smart you'd stop now before it turns into another factual ass kicking like the Corvette and Silverado threads.

You quoted me and then talked about engines.

What I can't debate is your opinion that bose is in any way a high end audio company when the fact is that they aren't even present, let alone a player, in that field.

Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on April 04, 2015, 08:18:27 PM
You quoted me and then talked about engines.

What I can't debate is your opinion that bose is in any way a high end audio company when the fact is that they aren't even present, let alone a player, in that field.

That's what I get for carspinning during March Madness. Figured you quoted my last post.

But the Bose thing is such a piddly complaint, especially considering the good reputation it has in the general public. And the 34 speaker stat will surely impress buyers.

It's indicative of the whole. GM just doesn't know how to or make the right decisions when it comes to the higher end luxury market.

I've heard alot of bose car systems. 4,6,12,18 didnt matter. Packing more Chinese drivers in there never made much of a difference in thw sound (lack of) quality.

Quote from: MX793 on April 04, 2015, 06:51:45 PM
M-B, Audi, Jag, Lexus and BMW all offer V8s in their flagship cars.  BMW, M-B, and Audi have 12-cylinder engines as well.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 04, 2015, 07:27:05 PM
Fallen out of favor by who :confused: V8 is still king in the class the CT6 wants to compete in; the irony of the company that pretty much mainstreamed the V8 not putting one in their flagship (and having bombed on modern ones before ;) ) is not lost on people in the know.

Lots of examples of V8s recently either being de-emphasized or replaced by smaller motors: M3/M4, S4/S5, Lexus GS, Audi A6, M-B E Class, and of course, standing on its own in proving the point, the F150.

No one really cares about motors - the :facepalm: turbo-4s in the A4, C Class, 3er, TLX, and the bevy of lux cute SUVs prove that.

The small turbo V8s in the German lux cars are kinda sucky. They don't do anything better than an equivalent TTV6 and then automakers lose out big on economies of scale/scope. This is why V8s have started going away in the mid size segment (A6, E Class, GS) and IMO logic says will go away in the next cycle or two in the full size lux segment save for hi-po models.

Also, the Cadillac chief has already reported the CT6 will get a TTV8 for the -V iteration (http://jalopnik.com/hi-michael-ct6-is-a-car-that-really-sets-the-standard-1687477166).

I don't think it matters what brand of sound system is put in a luxury car at all.  No one cares.  The same brand of stereo, Lexicon, in a Hyundai Genesis is in a Rolls Royce Phantom.  Bose makes good stuff and not so good stuff.  A true audiophile will listen to the stereo intently on a test drive and then see for themselves whether it's up to snuff.  Various web based expert reviews of high end auto stereo systems are all over the place in terms of rankings.  Bang and Olufsen, Mark Levinson, Bowers and Wilkins, ELS, Harman Kardon, are on the same plane as some of Bose's stuff.  The stereo that came with Maybach was a Bose!

Caddy probably went with Bose because GM has a history with Bose and Bose gave them a good deal.  It'll sound fine and be on par with the stereo offered on any similar priced German or Japanese saloon. 

I think FBC's joking

Quote from: GoCougs on April 05, 2015, 07:04:12 AM

No one really cares about motors - the :facepalm: turbo-4s in the A4, C Class, 3er, TLX, and the bevy of lux cute SUVs prove that.

The A4/3-series/TSX/C-class segment are not luxury cars.  They are premium compact cars.  The class/segment has traditionally had 4-cylinder power in at least entry level models with 6-cylinders an up-level option, excluding special hi-po models (M3/RS4/AMG).

QuoteThe small turbo V8s in the German lux cars are kinda sucky. They don't do anything better than an equivalent TTV6 and then automakers lose out big on economies of scale/scope. This is why V8s have started going away in the mid size segment (A6, E Class, GS) and IMO logic says will go away in the next cycle or two in the full size lux segment save for hi-po models.

Also, the Cadillac chief has already reported the CT6 will get a TTV8 for the -V iteration (http://jalopnik.com/hi-michael-ct6-is-a-car-that-really-sets-the-standard-1687477166).

The big luxo flagships are not about economies of scale.  The midsizers are volume models and governed to large degree by economies of scale, but the big flagships are not, at least not in their highest trim levels.  If they were, the German 3 would have ditched 12-cylinder powerplants in those models a long time ago.

I'm also not convinced that a 400 hp 3.0L is going to offer the same kind of smooth, linear power characteristics as a larger displacement, boosted V8.  My suspicion is that it will be considerably laggier than the 450 hp 4.0-4.7L turbo V8s from the Germans, and certainly laggier than Jag's supercharged 5.0.

Quote from: GoCougs on April 05, 2015, 07:04:12 AM
Lots of examples of V8s recently either being de-emphasized or replaced by smaller motors: M3/M4, S4/S5, Lexus GS, Audi A6, M-B E Class, and of course, standing on its own in proving the point, the F150.

No one really cares about motors - the :facepalm: turbo-4s in the A4, C Class, 3er, TLX, and the bevy of lux cute SUVs prove that.

The small turbo V8s in the German lux cars are kinda sucky. They don't do anything better than an equivalent TTV6 and then automakers lose out big on economies of scale/scope. This is why V8s have started going away in the mid size segment (A6, E Class, GS) and IMO logic says will go away in the next cycle or two in the full size lux segment save for hi-po models.

Also, the Cadillac chief has already reported the CT6 will get a TTV8 for the -V iteration (http://jalopnik.com/hi-michael-ct6-is-a-car-that-really-sets-the-standard-1687477166).

Literally none of the cars u listed are flagships. Of flagships, i.e. S/7/A8/XJ, twin turbo 6s are at the bottom and V8s are midrange. S class, the benchmark, doesn't even have a 6 in the US. And most of the Germans still have twin turbo V12s at the top. No excuse for pansy ass 6 as the bread and butter motor on what will start out as an 80-90K car.

Guys, guys, guys. The point is, as V8s go in lesser classes, so they will go in others; the A8 and 7er now have 6-cyl options (and the A6 and 5er have turbo 4 options), which is the obvious harbinger.

All consumer products are about economy of scale/scope to some extent. Sure the AMG, M and RS cars will be around for a while but within two model cycles that's probably the only way you're gonna get anything more than a V6.

The new crop of 400+ hp TTV6s are ~3.5L which aren't going to be materially less refined than a 4.0L TT V8.

Most Euro turbo 6 bangers are 3 liter units. For example aside from its V8 BMW is pretty much fully committed to 500cc cylinders. Audi and Benz blown V6s are 3.0L. As good as tech is, even with boost you can't beat displacement. But with boost the discrepancy between a 300 HP 6 and a 400 HP 8 on an efficiency basis are essentially nil.... for example A8 3.0T vs 4.0T have the same fuel economy. Most of the blown 8s only lose about 2-3 MPG/15% fuel efficiency despite making 25-30% more HP. And on the refinement front, more pistons = smoother running, and more displacement = more linear response and low end torque.

Most importantly though, GM paved the way for V8 ubiquity in luxury and utility so for them to not have one in their flagship luxury sedan is bogus. I am not going to throw a Z07 jihad level temper tantrum over it, but ultimately it's a huge misstep. Another strike AGAINST Cadillac when doing comparative shopping. Makes no sense.

The CT6 is getting a TT V8.  Just not at launch.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 06, 2015, 03:25:50 AM
Most Euro turbo 6 bangers are 3 liter units. For example aside from its V8 BMW is pretty much fully committed to 500cc cylinders. Audi and Benz blown V6s are 3.0L. As good as tech is, even with boost you can't beat displacement. But with boost the discrepancy between a 300 HP 6 and a 400 HP 8 on an efficiency basis are essentially nil.... for example A8 3.0T vs 4.0T have the same fuel economy. Most of the blown 8s only lose about 2-3 MPG/15% fuel efficiency despite making 25-30% more HP. And on the refinement front, more pistons = smoother running, and more displacement = more linear response and low end torque.

Most importantly though, GM paved the way for V8 ubiquity in luxury and utility so for them to not have one in their flagship luxury sedan is bogus. I am not going to throw a Z07 jihad level temper tantrum over it, but ultimately it's a huge misstep. Another strike AGAINST Cadillac when doing comparative shopping. Makes no sense.

Again, for like the 83rd time, you gotta put EPA mpg figures out of your mind. They mean absolutely nothing unless you're exactly driving the EPA cycle (which of course no one does).

When it comes to F/I nothing really matters unless it's a 4-banger (whereby there will be a material drop in refinement).

As I said a page or two ago, Cadillac head reported the CT6 will get a TTV8 for the -V model. Cadillac is just getting out in front of what is happening and will continue to happen - V8s or larger only for the really expensive hi-po packages (M, RS, AMG, etc).

Real world gas mileage reports generally line up with EPA readings, and show either a material improvement in fuel economy, or the same fuel economy with a huge increase in HP/torque/performance. My Z lined up with EPA estimates to the dot in mixed and pure highway driving. So yea EPA estimates are admissible in the court of CarSPIN.

We will see about that transition. The benchmark, the S Class, does not come with some proletariat 6 banger. It's a V8 or better. If Caddy wants to go to the top, rather than scrap it out with sales losers like the A7 and XJ, it's going to have to come out swinging, and this V6 bullshit is the opposite of that.

In addition, I think the CT6 design is way to conservative for America. They should have sent that to China only, and given us something more visually exciting. That's another thing that will hurt it. It looks like an old man's car.

Mercedes offers V6 engine options on the S-Class.

Quote from: Tave on April 07, 2015, 11:38:56 AM
Mercedes offers V6 engine options on the S-Class.

They don't offer 4 pots though.

Quote from: Tave on April 07, 2015, 11:38:56 AM
Mercedes offers V6 engine options on the S-Class.

I don't believe the offer one in the US.  S550 is the lowest spec S in the US, last I checked.

Quote from: Tave on April 07, 2015, 11:38:56 AM
Mercedes offers V6 engine options on the S-Class.

Not in the US.....

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 07, 2015, 06:16:03 AM
Real world gas mileage reports generally line up with EPA readings, and show either a material improvement in fuel economy, or the same fuel economy with a huge increase in HP/torque/performance. My Z lined up with EPA estimates to the dot in mixed and pure highway driving. So yea EPA estimates are admissible in the court of CarSPIN.

We will see about that transition. The benchmark, the S Class, does not come with some proletariat 6 banger. It's a V8 or better. If Caddy wants to go to the top, rather than scrap it out with sales losers like the A7 and XJ, it's going to have to come out swinging, and this V6 bullshit is the opposite of that.

In addition, I think the CT6 design is way to conservative for America. They should have sent that to China only, and given us something more visually exciting. That's another thing that will hurt it. It looks like an old man's car.

The EPA is ENTIRELY worthless when it comes to turbo motors.

No one really cares about the S Class - just look to the rest of the "competition" - on one is aiming there either, and again, IMO you're making the mistake that Cadillac wants/can be a M-B or Audi.

It would be terrible business to come out with only a ~$100k V8 S Class fighter.

I hope there comes a day when people don't have to make excuses for a cadillac flagship.

That will be the day that you know they got it right.

Quote from: GoCougs on April 07, 2015, 02:03:55 PM
The EPA is ENTIRELY worthless when it comes to turbo motors.

No one really cares about the S Class - just look to the rest of the "competition" - on one is aiming there either, and again, IMO you're making the mistake that Cadillac wants/can be a M-B or Audi.

It would be terrible business to come out with only a ~$100k V8 S Class fighter.

Your opinion isn't worth much, no offense (see sig)

Johan de Nysschen has explicitly said he sees the Germans as direct rivals many times. They benchmarked BMWs for the new ATS/CTS. They are looking to penetrate Europe. Etc. etc. Caddy wanting to be amongst the Germans is a foregone conclusion.

The only thing worse than a $100K V8 S Class fighter would be a $100K V6 S Class fighter (S Class comes with a V8 for 90K). An S Class fighter looking to take the segment of 2 ton luxobarges with dynamics. :facepalm: But I know what it's like to be a fanboi in denial, so get your defense on.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 07, 2015, 07:49:43 PM
Your opinion isn't worth much, no offense (see sig)

Johan de Nysschen has explicitly said he sees the Germans as direct rivals many times. They benchmarked BMWs for the new ATS/CTS. They are looking to penetrate Europe. Etc. etc. Caddy wanting to be amongst the Germans is a foregone conclusion.

The only thing worse than a $100K V8 S Class fighter would be a $100K V6 S Class fighter (S Class comes with a V8 for 90K). An S Class fighter looking to take the segment of 2 ton luxobarges with dynamics. :facepalm: But I know what it's like to be a fanboi in denial, so get your defense on.

If Cadillac is all agro about going after BMW by "benchmarking" its lesser models why isn't the CT6 benchmarked against the S Class?

Logic is logical.

Quote from: GoCougs on April 07, 2015, 08:05:44 PM
If Cadillac is all agro about going after BMW by "benchmarking" its lesser models why isn't the CT6 benchmarked against the S Class?

Logic is logical.

Theres nothing logical about your rhetorical question.... the S Class is a Mercedes, not a BMW. Cadillac's leadership has explicitly expressed who it wants to rival in the market, who it has benchmarked in the market and has priced its cars up against who it thinks it should be competing with. Claiming they never wanted to compete with the Germans after they failed to do so is hilariously dishonest.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 08, 2015, 05:42:10 AM
Theres nothing logical about your rhetorical question.... the S Class is a Mercedes, not a BMW. Cadillac's leadership has explicitly expressed who it wants to rival in the market, who it has benchmarked in the market and has priced its cars up against who it thinks it should be competing with. Claiming they never wanted to compete with the Germans after they failed to do so is hilariously dishonest.

Sure it's logical - if Cadillac is benchmarking why didn't they do it? The answer is the S Class is not the benchmark for the CT6. In feature/function, they're going after the lesser A8 and 7er models.

I never said anything about Cadillac not wanting to compete with the Germans - sometimes your Internetry is just painful.

Quote from: SVT666 on April 07, 2015, 11:44:20 AM
They don't offer 4 pots though.

They will, if they haven't started already. Same with Audi and probably BMW

Quote from: GoCougs on April 09, 2015, 01:34:43 AM
Sure it's logical - if Cadillac is benchmarking why didn't they do it? The answer is the S Class is not the benchmark for the CT6. In feature/function, they're going after the lesser A8 and 7er models.

I never said anything about Cadillac not wanting to compete with the Germans - sometimes your Internetry is just painful.

But the Cadillac boss said that they were surprised how good the new S-class came to be, how they didn't though Mercedes had it in them (which is totally a moronic and getting-the-boot worthy of a statement) and that they had to go back on the drawing board for the new flagship

Quote from: AltinD on April 23, 2015, 03:52:48 AM
But the Cadillac boss said that they were surprised how good the new S-class came to be, how they didn't though Mercedes had it in them (which is totally a moronic and getting-the-boot worthy of a statement) and that they had to go back on the drawing board for the new flagship

lol - the segment leader for big luxo-barges doesn't have it in them to top the previous S-class?  What a dolt. 

Do you have a link to that comment? 

Quote from: Submariner on April 23, 2015, 04:53:35 PM
lol - the segment leader for big luxo-barges doesn't have it in them to top the previous S-class?  What a dolt. 

Do you have a link to that comment?

Methinks u misread.... what segment is Cadillac leading in, aside from "6 figure SUVs that can tow boats"?

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 24, 2015, 02:48:51 PM
Methinks u misread.... what segment is Cadillac leading in, aside from "6 figure SUVs that can tow boats"?

I think his comment was mocking the fact that the cadillac boss was shocked that Mercedes could outdo themselves.

Mercedes being the luxury leader.

Basically it's like a has been or never was being surprised a hall of famer can still smack a few dingers even though he hasn't played for a year. It's frankly an asinine statement, one I believe 100% that would come from the mouth of a GM employee.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 24, 2015, 02:48:51 PM
Methinks u misread.... what segment is Cadillac leading in, aside from "6 figure SUVs that can tow boats"?

What Sporty said. 

All my Merc fanboyism aside, the S-class is the leader of this segment, hands down.  Cadillac thinking that Mercedes wouldn't double down on it's flagship, especially given the Mercs excellent competition, is all sorts of ignorant. 

I watched five minutes of a Cadillac rep blabbering about how great the CT6 is, and he mentioned or alluded to the S-class at least ten times.  It's very clear what car Cadillac targeted with the CT6 and it's even more clear when you remember that there is going to be a car slotted above the CT6 (a Maybach 600 competitor, presumably).

But leave it up to Cadillac to make this car about driving dynamics when buyers don't care about that.  Take the mediocre sales of the excellent, but poorly thought out (market wise) ATS and CTS and apply that to a segment that cares even less about driving purity.  That's the CT6. 

Quote from: Submariner on April 24, 2015, 05:22:55 PM
But leave it up to Cadillac to make this car about driving dynamics when buyers don't care about that.  Take the mediocre sales of the excellent, but poorly thought out (market wise) ATS and CTS and apply that to a segment that cares even less about driving purity.  That's the CT6. 

I am not so sure I agree with that. And Cadillac is not the only one doing that. Look at BMW who last week let journalists drive prototypes of the new 7 Series, around a track no less, with the emphasis being on demonstrating to them how good the next 7 Series is dynamically, which was always a criticism of the current 7er. Also note that while sales of the A8/7er/S class are increasing, they are not increasing nearly as fast as sales of the AMG/M/S,RS cars. I would say almost the majority of Audi have the S line package on board. In the end it is to a large extent about perception. Many people want the perception of a "sporty" car. One could argue that for a market like the US with pot hole ridden roads, less emphasis on driving dynamics, and more on comfort would be for the better.

I dont think people who want sporty cars are buying 2.5 ton land yachts. If they do they can buy 911s and stuff.

Focus here absolutely has to be on max luxury, which is build quality, isolation, technology. A lot of the folks buying Ss and 7s don't drive em.... they have drivers. So focusing on dynamics is IMO idiotic

"You failed George, because you had the wrong dream"

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 25, 2015, 01:32:50 PM
I dont think people who want sporty cars are buying 2.5 ton land yachts. If they do they can buy 911s and stuff.

Focus here absolutely has to be on max luxury, which is build quality, isolation, technology. A lot of the folks buying Ss and 7s don't drive em.... they have drivers. So focusing on dynamics is IMO idiotic

"You failed George, because you had the wrong dream"

Even Rolls Royce is starting to focus more on cars for self drivers.

Quote from: Galaxy on April 25, 2015, 03:18:30 PM
Even Rolls Royce is starting to focus more on cars for self drivers.

These are the kinds of guys buying Rolls Royces

(https://i.imgur.com/Zjwo4h.jpg)

Fiddy does not give a shit about driving engagement, he summed up the motivation for Rolls Royce ownership in a 2 second clip :lol:

Or you can go drifting through your garden.  :lol:

The Garden of Wraith - by Rolls Royce (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap9eROAo82U#ws)

Might get you banned from the cricket club if they find out.

Quote from: Submariner on April 23, 2015, 04:53:35 PM
lol - the segment leader for big luxo-barges doesn't have it in them to top the previous S-class?  What a dolt. 

Do you have a link to that comment? 

I read it on an article about an interview he had during an Autoshow, probably when they presented the ELR concept (or whatever was the coupe called). Sadly I can't find the link anymore.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-cadillac-ct6-first-drive-review (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-cadillac-ct6-first-drive-review)

This is probably a stupid question, but what is this supposed to compete with? 7-series or 5-series?

Neither. It is supposed to cannibalize the CTS and XTS.

Looks better on the road, but I just don't know if it's enough, or if it sends the right message. Remember when Johan de Nysschen said Cadillac would not try to compete on price?

Quote from: TBR on January 26, 2016, 07:55:16 AM
This is probably a stupid question, but what is this supposed to compete with? 7-series or 5-series?

IIRC it is 7-series sized but at a 5-series price.

Some quick googling (Wikipedia) shows the following lengths...

5-series: 193.2"
7-Series: 200.7" to 206.2"

CT6: 204"
edit to add CTS: 195.5"

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 26, 2016, 08:36:41 AM
Neither. It is supposed to cannibalize the CTS and XTS.

FWIW, according to specs it is a good ~9 inches longer than the CTS. It is about the same size as the XTS (slightly larger), but there you are talking FWD versus RWD.

Quote from: SJ_GTI on January 26, 2016, 08:45:26 AM
FWIW, according to specs it is a good ~9 inches longer than the CTS. It is about the same size as the XTS (slightly larger), but there you are talking FWD versus RWD.

From what I remember, the cars all cost about the same with the same engines. 3 ~$50-70K sedans (in 3 shrinking segments), 1 CUV, and that CUV isn't even in the hottest segment lol.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 26, 2016, 08:47:48 AM
From what I remember, the cars all cost about the same with the same engines. 3 ~$50-70K sedans (in 3 shrinking segments), 1 CUV, and that CUV isn't even in the hottest segment lol.

Google can be your friend.

CTS Starting Price: 45,560
CT6 Starting Price: 54,490

A 9k price spread seems like a reasonable differentiation to me.

Need more Eldorado.

Did not realize it was so big. Makes the price easier to swallow.

Pretty sure the XTS is on the chopping block?

Yeah, XTS is on its way out, and GM has two SUV's coming out for Cadillac - the XT5 compact crossover, and the forthcoming (XT7?) based on the longer GM LAMBDA.


And possibly an XT3

Quote from: TBR on January 26, 2016, 07:55:16 AM
This is probably a stupid question, but what is this supposed to compete with? 7-series or 5-series?

I think the 5-series since they're saying it's not the flagship sedan for Cadillac.

I like it though. That twin turbo V6 sounds nice, though $65k to get a CT6 with that engine seems spendy.

Quote from: SJ_GTI on January 26, 2016, 08:50:43 AM
Google can be your friend.

CTS Starting Price: 45,560
CT6 Starting Price: 54,490

A 9k price spread seems like a reasonable differentiation to me.

It is your friend too

CTS 3.6: $54,280
CT6 3.6: $56,490
XTS 3.6: $45,655

CTS V-Sport: $60,950
CT6 3.6TT: $65,390
XTS V-Sport: $63,730

I would not be surprised if the CT6 were better equipped for the $$$ too... i.e. the gap is even smaller. We will see when the True Delta comparisons are available

But for the $$$ I cannot see why anyone would buy a CTS over a CT6. Or an XTS V sport for that matter. JdN will leave Cadillac this year.

CTS is disappearing after it's model cycle. I wouldn't be surprised if ATS gets bigger, then there's a hole that Cadillac has hinted at filling.

That is kind of funny. So the ATS will become the CTS, and the CT6 will play the role of the STS+. Kind of like they had going..... 10 years ago lmao.

CTS is still the best because CTS-V.

Cadillac can make sweet cars, they just need better branding direction. Make a plan and stick with it, instead of coming out with 1/3rd of a plan and then switching.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 26, 2016, 10:44:16 AM
It is your friend too

CTS 3.6: $54,280
CT6 3.6: $56,490
XTS 3.6: $45,655

CTS V-Sport: $60,950
CT6 3.6TT: $65,390
XTS V-Sport: $63,730

I would not be surprised if the CT6 were better equipped for the $$$ too... i.e. the gap is even smaller. We will see when the True Delta comparisons are available

But for the $$$ I cannot see why anyone would buy a CTS over a CT6. Or an XTS V sport for that matter. JdN will leave Cadillac this year.

I didn't claim there was no overlap.

CTS is a smaller, less expensive car though. Not sure what problem you see.

ATS is about the same size as the 3-series/C-Class/A4 and runs a bit less expensive (for similar engines).
CTS is about the same size as a 5-series/E-Class/A6 sized and runs a bit less expensive (for similar engines).
CT6 is 7-series/S-Class/A8 sized and runs even less expensive than the other ones, so at worst this is potentially a sign that Cadillac is trying to compete more on price.

Considering sales of the ATS and CTS have no been great, I don't see the harm in them giving it a go. The CTS's initial success was largely built on competing up a size but at a price that was down a size (ie: they sold a 5-series competitor for a 3-series price). If Caddy moves back in that direction I would applaud them.

I am not a fan of the new naming scheme but at the end of the day the cars will be judged on their own merits.

Nothing says "flag bearer" quite like a 2.0 Turbo 4.

But this is the same company that thought Merc was going to half-ass it with the current S-class, developed the CT6 with that in mind, then realized that the S-class was in fact just as good as every other brand and buyer thought it would be.  Thus, the CT6 was quietly demoted in place of a (possible) future executive saloon that will have to command the same prices as the Germans when Cadillac has proven with the ATS and CTS that they can't even compete on price and generate half-decent sales. 

And where is the CT6 going to sit in the lineup if a flagship does indeed materializes?  The CT6 is already the size of the LWB S-Class, 7 Series, A8 and XJ.  Are they going to make a Maybach competitor?  Why not just make a LWB CT6 instead?  At least that way they can differentiate it from the other similarly sized vehicle in their range, the XTS. 

When Caddy says "There's Room Above It (as a flagship)" I assumed a more expensive Coupe/Drop Top was in the works.......

The new CTS-V, and to a lesser extent, the CTS Vsport, shows Cadillac can best the Germans at their own game.

Quote from: Submariner on January 26, 2016, 02:41:05 PM
Nothing says "flag bearer" quite like a 2.0 Turbo 4.

But this is the same company that thought Merc was going to half-ass it with the current S-class, developed the CT6 with that in mind, then realized that the S-class was in fact just as good as every other brand and buyer thought it would be.  Thus, the CT6 was quietly demoted in place of a (possible) future executive saloon that will have to command the same prices as the Germans when Cadillac has proven with the ATS and CTS that they can't even compete on price and generate half-decent sales. 

And where is the CT6 going to sit in the lineup if a flagship does indeed materializes?  The CT6 is already the size of the LWB S-Class, 7 Series, A8 and XJ.  Are they going to make a Maybach competitor?  Why not just make a LWB CT6 instead?  At least that way they can differentiate it from the other similarly sized vehicle in their range, the XTS.

Its the entry level engine. It also offers 400 HP twin turbo V6 and there is a turbo V8 on the way.

I am not sure what you and 12,000 criticism really is.

It should have been more expensive?

Personally I don't think it is going to be a huge success or anything. Its not a particularly vibrant sector of the market anyway, and Cadillac's only differentiator right now is that it is cheaper than the Germans. Will that being enough for it to be profitable? Who knows, but at least they're trying.  :huh:

Quote from: SJ_GTI on January 26, 2016, 02:50:25 PM
Its the entry level engine. It also offers 400 HP twin turbo V6 and there is a turbo V8 on the way.

Base or no base, it doesn't speak well to the caliber of the car when the entry level engine is a 2.0 4-pot.

"So what can I get for $55k?"

"Cadillac signature headlights, an awful infotainment system, and a 2.0L 4-banger"

"You mean the kind of engine my son has in his Cobalt?"

Want to bet the salesmen are instructed to say as little as possible about the base power plant?

Quote from: SJ_GTI on January 26, 2016, 02:50:25 PM
I am not sure what you and 12,000 criticism really is.

It should have been more expensive?

It should have been done right from the onset. 

The Frenchman openly admitted that he was shocked how good the S-class turned out to be.  He managed to underestimate the decades-long leader of the executive saloon segment, an absolutely absurd failure for anyone even casually interested in the car industry, then pretended that their German-flagship fighter was always intended to be a stopgap before the real flagship was ready.  He is implicitly saying "the CT6 isn't as good as it should be."  Maybe they can use that line for their 10th slogan change in what seems like a 5 year period.   

Which leaves Cadillac with a FWD full size luxo-barge, a same size RWD luxo-barge (sounds familiar?) and a flagship that will have to be larger in size and higher in price to top the CT6 and compete with the Germans, meaning the only thing Cadillac really can compete on (price) is no longer as big of an advantage for them.

Cadillac can't move their 3/C/A4 and 5/E/A6 fighters at substantially lower prices.  They're going to have a doubly hard time moving a class of car that depends even more on prestige and image. 

The 528i has a 4cylinder, and a great deal of people don't even fucking notice.

Quote from: 2o6 on January 26, 2016, 03:22:21 PM
The 528i has a 4cylinder, and a great deal of people don't even fucking notice.

Does the 7 Series? That's what this is competing against.

Quote from: SVT666 on January 26, 2016, 03:30:38 PM
Does the 7 Series? That's what this is competing against.

Not in this market, no - but in the same way that BMW put its 4 cyl in cars to showcase how refined and powerful it is, Cadillac is here.

Quote from: 2o6 on January 26, 2016, 03:33:56 PM


Not in this market, no

No one cares if it's smooth.  They care if it's the same engine found in a Mazda 3.

Why do you think Merc, BMW and Audi all have 12 cylinder engines in their cars when turbo V8's make just as much power and consume less fuel?  Prestige. 

Quote from: 2o6 on January 26, 2016, 03:33:56 PM
but in the same way that BMW put its 4 cyl in cars to showcase how refined and powerful it is, Cadillac is here.

Nah.  Cadillac fucked up and they know it.  They have implicitly and explicitly admitted as much, which is why they coyly call the CT6 a "flag bearer" (instead of "flagship, which it actually is) while saddling it with a 4-pot, and a more powerful V6 for just 2k more. 

I'd say that most buy the 8 cylinders - I know when I worked at BMW there were far more 7 series 6cyl and V8 and 7 series Active Hybrids than the 12 cylinder models. The 12 cylinder models are notorious for being problematic and eating far more fluids than they should. Hell, BMW doesn't even make a 12 cylinder 7 series now.



I think you're putting far more on cylinder count than most luxury car makers actually care about. It's not relevant.

Also arguably, this class of car no longer is the brands symbol of prestige.


Most people who have cash like that would rather have cars like the X6.


I heard at least twice a day "Why doesn't BMW make an X7?" (Since the X5 is undersized for towing and is actually closer to a Grand Cherokee inside rather than a Tahoe or Suburban)



A great deal of these cars (s class and A8 and 7 series) are livery vehicles in their home market, where people who have money now drive SUV's

Gm doesn't know how to run a luxury brand.

Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on January 26, 2016, 08:51:29 PM
Gm doesn't know how to run a luxury brand.

Yes

Quote from: 2o6 on January 26, 2016, 09:16:44 PM

Yes

(http://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/1982-Cadillac-Cimarron-03.jpg)

Quote from: GoCougs on January 26, 2016, 02:47:53 PM
The new CTS-V, and to a lesser extent, the CTS Vsport, shows Cadillac can best the Germans at their own game.

Maybe if it was the 90s, when "halo cars" and magazine comparo wins sold cars. As the sharp sales decline of everything Caddy + Alpha shows compared to the Germans it's pretty clear Caddy and the Germans are not playing the same game.

"Nobody CARES about BREMBO BRAKES & RING TIMES when you're STUCK IN TRAFFIC" - some TTAC looney tune

For years EVERYONE begging GM to build Caddys like the Germans and now y'all crucify them for it.....

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 27, 2016, 04:39:11 AM
"Nobody CARES about BREMBO BRAKES & RING TIMES when you're STUCK IN TRAFFIC" - some TTAC looney tune

Cadillac doesn't force you into a V Car. If all you care about is luxury/comfort just go with a base model.

If nothing else, I'm impressed by the weight.  ~3700 lbs for a full-size luxury yacht in this day and age is commendable.

Jag came close... base XJ is ~3900lbs. That is definitely impressive though, ESPECIALLY if those weight savings don't come at the expense of refinement and NVH. Plus that is with the 4 banger. Truthfully I'm not sure it matters though.... someone shopping for an S Class doesn't care about gas mileage or chassis balance/dynamics beyond the realm of comfort where more weight can be beneficial.

What Cadillac needs is an Escalade coupe.


(Seriously. Something akin to the X6 would move mad units)

Escalade and Corvette should have become their own sub brands... Escalades in S, M, L, XL and ZDX (aping Land Rover's lineup) would have killed it sales wise, and with the prices ATSs & CTS are going for they would probably make more sense and profits as high po Chevys

I feel like those two models have way more brand equity than Cadillac at this point which is sad

Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on January 27, 2016, 06:12:50 AM
For years EVERYONE begging GM to build Caddys like the Germans and now y'all crucify them for it.....
Cadillac doesn't force you into a V Car. If all you care about is luxury/comfort just go with a base model.

But even the base models put too much focus on that.

"We at Cadillac strived to build a more engaging car than the BMW 3-series and we did!"

Meanwhile, ATS sales are circling the loo, with CTS sales not far behind.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 27, 2016, 07:43:42 AM
Escalade and Corvette should have become their own sub brands... Escalades in S, M, L, XL and ZDX (aping Land Rover's lineup) would have killed it sales wise, and with the prices ATSs & CTS are going for they would probably make more sense and profits as high po Chevys

I feel like those two models have way more brand equity than Cadillac at this point which is sad

No. Making small brands like that kills your overall branding. And the Escalade builds Cadillac's image - without it the brand would suffer even more.

Quote from: CaminoRacer on January 27, 2016, 10:38:54 AM
No. Making small brands like that kills your overall branding. And the Escalade builds Cadillac's image - without it the brand would suffer even more.

It definitely needs its own expansion. An Escalade coupe would be aces

Quote from: 2o6 on January 27, 2016, 10:44:50 AM


It definitely needs its own expansion. An Escalade coupe would be aces

It is ridiculous and pointless. But then I look at what certain types of people drive around here, and I see old American coupes with lift kits and giant wheels. So maybe it makes sense.

Quote from: 2o6 on January 27, 2016, 10:44:50 AM


It definitely needs its own expansion. An Escalade coupe would be aces

I agree. But keeping it a Cadillac means that Cadillac's image improves and sales of other models might increase.

Quote from: CaminoRacer on January 27, 2016, 10:38:54 AM
No. Making small brands like that kills your overall branding. And the Escalade builds Cadillac's image - without it the brand would suffer even more.

Cadillac deserves to die or get a complete overhaul IMO....

They killed their momentum with the Alpha cars and are going to kill it again with this CTx nonsense. ATS/CTS are both down like 50% YOY and the CT6's segment is dying outside of the benchmark S-Class.

Furthermore they have been super slow on the uptake for luxury SUVs, where growth is, and might have missed the boat completely. XT5 looks bloated and old.

JdN's tenure has been a slow motion car crash. Dude just doesn't get it.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 27, 2016, 11:13:14 AM
Cadillac deserves to die or get a complete overhaul IMO....

They killed their momentum with the Alpha cars and are going to kill it again with this CTx nonsense. ATS/CTS are both down like 50% YOY and the CT6's segment is dying outside of the benchmark S-Class.

Furthermore they have been super slow on the uptake for luxury SUVs, where growth is, and might have missed the boat completely. XT5 looks bloated and old.

JdN's tenure has been a slow motion car crash. Dude just doesn't get it.

They've been getting overhauls the past 15 years! GM's biggest problem is TOO MANY overhauls. They never stick to their plan or models for more than a generation. That's why they have crap reputation, since they never let it build up other than the Corvette and Camaro.

Quote from: CaminoRacer on January 27, 2016, 11:45:32 AM
They've been getting overhauls the past 15 years! GM's biggest problem is TOO MANY overhauls. They never stick to their plan or models for more than a generation. That's why they have crap reputation, since they never let it build up other than the Corvette and Camaro.

That is an interesting take. I can agree with that.

Still this last overhaul was a step in the wrong direction IMO. They did have an OK thing going compared to where they are now.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 27, 2016, 11:58:54 AM
That is an interesting take. I can agree with that.

Still this last overhaul was a step in the wrong direction IMO. They did have an OK thing going compared to where they are now.

Even just keeping the names the same is fine, consumers don't know/care about platforms. ATS/CTS/XTS is good, then Escalade and a line of crossovers. XTS would need a new platform next gen to make it more luxurious and a better 7/S competitor. ATS and CTS just need better packaging (rear legroom).

I should go be their strategy executive.

Quote from: CaminoRacer on January 27, 2016, 12:05:41 PM
Even just keeping the names the same is fine, consumers don't know/care about platforms. ATS/CTS/XTS is good, then Escalade and a line of crossovers. XTS would need a new platform next gen to make it more luxurious and a better 7/S competitor. ATS and CTS just need better packaging (rear legroom).

I should go be their strategy executive.

For all intents and purposes the CT6 is the "next gen" XTS. The two are both going to be sold for a couple of years, but the XTS is not being replaced. I would expect most XTS sales to go to fleets once the CT6 hits dealer lots.

Quote from: Submariner on January 27, 2016, 08:27:54 AM
But even the base models put too much focus on that.

"We at Cadillac strived to build a more engaging car than the BMW 3-series and we did!"

Meanwhile, ATS sales are circling the loo, with CTS sales not far behind.

But isn't that what EVERYONE wanted for decades? Buick handles the cushy crowd just like EVERYONE wanted and the Caddys should be the MB/BMW/Audi fighters. This is what EVERYONE begged for since the late 80s and now that it's here THE SAME PEOPLE say Cadillac has no vision!?!?!? Catch 22...........

Quote from: SJ_GTI on January 27, 2016, 12:12:48 PM
For all intents and purposes the CT6 is the "next gen" XTS. The two are both going to be sold for a couple of years, but the XTS is not being replaced. I would expect most XTS sales to go to fleets once the CT6 hits dealer lots.

Call the CT6 the next gen XTS and I'd be happy. Switching names and having both on sale is dumb. Much like Infiniti's G37-Q50 fiasco.

Quote from: CaminoRacer on January 27, 2016, 12:14:39 PM
Call the CT6 the next gen XTS and I'd be happy. Switching names and having both on sale is dumb. Much like Infiniti's G37-Q50 fiasco.

Maybe. But these cars are different enough (FWD vs RWD) that I can understand why they are doing it. The XTS was not generally well received so I can understand why GM wants the CT6 out ASAP. I am guessing one of the reasons they want to keep selling the XTS is that it allows them to continue to amortize the cost of the tooling instead of having to immediately write off all that equipment.

It might not work at the end of the day, but I guess I am just not as up in arms about it as you folks.

Cadillac's cars are fine if not really good, as is their overall brand strategy. Their primary problem is price point - most luxury buyers will not pay 335i money for an ATS or E Class money for a CTS. This segment is not about performance or luxury or quality or w/e, it's simply about the badge. Cadillac had something with the first gen CTS (price point) but has since lost its way, apparently (naively) thinking one success was enough to start asking BMW/M-B/etc., prices. Just look to Lexus for how its done - it took many years and many successes to build its badge (based on reliability/quality mostly) to the point of asking BMW/M-B prices.

Quote from: GoCougs on January 27, 2016, 12:31:12 PM
Cadillac's cars are fine if not really good, as is their overall brand strategy. Their primary problem is price point - most luxury buyers will not pay 335i money for an ATS or E Class money for a CTS. This segment is not about performance or luxury or quality or w/e, it's simply about the badge. Cadillac had something with the first gen CTS (price point) but has since lost its way, apparently (naively) thinking one success was enough to start asking BMW/M-B/etc., prices. Just look to Lexus for how its done - it took many years and many successes to build its badge (based on reliability/quality mostly) to the point of asking BMW/M-B prices.

And it was the perfect SIZE (Last Gen CTS) for the price!

Quote from: SJ_GTI on January 27, 2016, 12:26:00 PM
Maybe. But these cars are different enough (FWD vs RWD) that I can understand why they are doing it. The XTS was not generally well received so I can understand why GM wants the CT6 out ASAP. I am guessing one of the reasons they want to keep selling the XTS is that it allows them to continue to amortize the cost of the tooling instead of having to immediately write off all that equipment.

It might not work at the end of the day, but I guess I am just not as up in arms about it as you folks.

XTS was moderately well received, and was really the only thing that can be considered a success for Cadillac the last number of years. Looking at sales for 2015 (~23,000 units) (http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2016/01/usa-luxury-car-sales-figures-december-2015-year-end.html#more) it about equaled the Lexus GS, Audi A6, and outsold the CTS.

Quote from: GoCougs on January 27, 2016, 12:39:00 PM
XTS was moderately well received, and was really the only thing that can be considered a success for Cadillac the last number of years. Looking at sales for 2015 (~23,000 units) (http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2016/01/usa-luxury-car-sales-figures-december-2015-year-end.html#more) it about equaled the Lexus GS, Audi A6, and outsold the CTS.

Interesting, guess it makes sense they are keeping it around for now.

Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on January 27, 2016, 12:14:12 PM
But isn't that what EVERYONE wanted for decades? Buick handles the cushy crowd just like EVERYONE wanted and the Caddys should be the MB/BMW/Audi fighters. This is what EVERYONE begged for since the late 80s and now that it's here THE SAME PEOPLE say Cadillac has no vision!?!?!? Catch 22...........

No, only kids on the internet and car reviewers who don't even buy cars were complaining about this. Through all of GMs trials and tribulations Buick has always done well because its comfy rides appeal to normal people who buy cars. This is also why the Lexus ES is a top seller... C&D and the like hate it, but 99% of people who buy luxury cars don't even know what C&D is, let alone use the opinions from it to drive car purchases.

Quote from: GoCougs on January 27, 2016, 12:31:12 PM
Just look to Lexus for how its done - it took many years and many successes to build its badge (based on reliability/quality mostly) to the point of asking BMW/M-B prices.

And even with a quasi legit badge, class leading dynamics and reliability and established marques, Lexus' "German fighters" only sell fractions of what the actual German entries do. The FWD platform based models do the heavy lifting- NX, RX and ES account for well over half Lexus volume and a big chunk of their recent growth. Without them they would be in the volume doldrums with Jaguar & the non Escalade Cadillacs.

If the goal is to have a model lineup that impresses the internet and auto journal world Caddy should def double down on RWD sedans and sports cars and hoverboards. But if they want to be profitable and have volume, they should "do battle" with Lexus, not the Germans...

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 27, 2016, 02:00:08 PM
And even with a quasi legit badge, class leading dynamics and reliability and established marques, Lexus' "German fighters" only sell fractions of what the actual German entries do. The FWD platform based models do the heavy lifting- NX, RX and ES account for well over half Lexus volume and a big chunk of their recent growth. Without them they would be in the volume doldrums with Jaguar & the non Escalade Cadillacs.

If the goal is to have a model lineup that impresses the internet and auto journal world Caddy should def double down on RWD sedans and sports cars and hoverboards. But if they want to be profitable and have volume, they should "do battle" with Lexus, not the Germans...

Fractions? Did you look at the charts in the link I provided? For example out of the ~2 dozen cars listed in the each of the charts the IS and GS play second fiddle only to the MB and BMW cars, and remember for MY2015, those brands have significantly more options - turbo 4, diesel, lift back, hi-po V6 or V8, hyper performance versions, etc.

Quote from: GoCougs on January 27, 2016, 05:57:09 PM
Fractions? Did you look at the charts in the link I provided? For example out of the ~2 dozen cars listed in the each of the charts the IS and GS play second fiddle only to the MB and BMW cars, and remember for MY2015, those brands have significantly more options - turbo 4, diesel, lift back, hi-po V6 or V8, hyper performance versions, etc.

0<x<1 = fraction, and yea they are still handily outsold by the lowly ES and the Germans. The bizarro variants are not really a big slice; for example the C-Class only model that doesn't line up with the IS is the C63, and I doubt many C classes are C63s. 4 series is broken out from the 3 and nobody buys the GT....

Got it. So now that we're on the same page that Lexus has been successful, Caddy's path is gonna have to mirror Lexus's path. Start with a hit, but gotta keep the hits coming, with some sort of angle that the competition isn't utilizing (for Caddy, best bet is probably lower price point).

But this begs the question, Does Cadillac care it sells less CTS because of the move up market? Maybe that was the plan? The ATS and new CTS together sell about the same as the old CTS, but by my figuring, the average MSRP of ATS+CTS sales today is higher than CTS-only sales of yesteryear (i.e., total revenue, or potential for it, looks to be higher) plus Cadillac now has presence in two distinct classes rather than one...

But the ATS + CTS aren't selling anywhere near the % of MSRP the Germans are, and JdN has explicitly said in the past Cadillac is done selling on price. They gambled on the "fight the Germans" card and lost big time. Not to mention ATS + CTS sales are down every year since these new ones came out in segments that are either holding steady or growing. So Caddy lost market share with a brand new platform in a growingish market. They got high on their own farts and listened to the Internet too much- actually, JdN made a personal reply to TTAC's loudest Cadillac detractor on video. So their leadership is completely fucked.

Now they have 3 cars fighting for the ~$50-60K buyer, but brand equity that really only commands $40-50K at best. I still think dolled up PHEV Malibus and Impalas with stretched noses for that "RWD look" would have been better than the Alpha platform. Alpha platform was a mistake. Pure hubris.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 28, 2016, 04:32:11 AM
But the ATS + CTS aren't selling anywhere near the % of MSRP the Germans are, and JdN has explicitly said in the past Cadillac is done selling on price. They gambled on the "fight the Germans" card and lost big time. Not to mention ATS + CTS sales are down every year since these new ones came out in segments that are either holding steady or growing. So Caddy lost market share with a brand new platform in a growingish market. They got high on their own farts and listened to the Internet too much- actually, JdN made a personal reply to TTAC's loudest Cadillac detractor on video. So their leadership is completely fucked.

Now they have 3 cars fighting for the ~$50-60K buyer, but brand equity that really only commands $40-50K at best. I still think dolled up PHEV Malibus and Impalas with stretched noses for that "RWD look" would have been better than the Alpha platform. Alpha platform was a mistake. Pure hubris.

So they should do what you always give Lincoln shit for doing?

Quote from: SVT666 on January 28, 2016, 08:33:12 AM
So they should do what you always give Lincoln shit for doing?

:popcorn:

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 31, 2015, 07:36:57 PM
Lincoln's cars aren't great, but then they don't have to be. Warmed over Fords are low risk, low cost, high profit endeavors. And heres the funniest part. You scoff at Lincolns, but on average a new MKZ is trading hands at a higher price than an ATS. It's also generally selling above invoice, while the ATS is selling at about $1500 under. And as of 2014 the MKZ is outselling the ATS too, at least in the US. So how can Lincoln be "garbage" when people are willing to pay more for a Ford Fusion XLE V6 than a Nurburgring tuned new from the ground up ATS? MKZ has higher content value, a bigger back seat, and for the money better performance. If you don't care about dynamics, and most people don't, what is the case for buying an ATS over an MKZ? An MKZ!!!!!

I know it hurts to hear because the ATS is a car for "us". It's a car we are supposed to like. It's a good car, and on the strength of where Caddy was 20 years ago it deserves to win. But you guys are missing the bigger picture, just as GM did. GM is in the business of selling cars, not appeasing internet enthusiasts. And as good as the ATS/CTS are, they are not good in the ways that matter to luxury buyers. Even the people buying them are taking them at steep, steep, steep discounts. The fact that the MKZ is outselling it more profitably at higher transaction prices speaks to what I've been saying all along- people want style, content, room and adequate performance.... not whatever the fuck Cadillac is trying to do.

While Caddy has been cannibalizing itself in the $50-60K range, Lincoln came out with the MKC.... a $35-50K Ford Escape. MKC outsold the CTS and is within 2K of the ATS in the US. Factoring in:

- the $1B development cost of the Alpha platform
- the fact that the MKC's segment is up 39% from 2015 vs 2014, vs 8% up for the ATS segment and 15% down for the CTS segment
- the fact that there are like 1/2-3/4 the number of entrants in the MKC's segment vs the ATS/CTS
- the CT6's segment has been in a ~15 year decline in volume
- the only people who care about "fighting the Germans" are Johan de Nysschen and non-luxury buyers on the Internet
- the ES & RX pretty much outsell every luxury car that isn't a 3 series or C Class

can u honestly sit here and say with a straight face and tell me GM's developing of not 1, but TWO limited use RWD platforms was a smarter, more profitable idea than leveraging the FWD platforms and PHEV tech they already had?

Have u seen the commercial for the Malibu where they took the badges off and people thought it was a $50-70K luxury car? The average consumer doesn't know jack shit but how expensive a car feels..... as Audi and Lexus show, drive wheels and chassis balance are irrelevant for making and profitably selling luxury cars.

No, my view on Cadillac and Lincoln are abundantly clear.... u took a huge fail on this one. But not as big as GM :evildude:

Lincoln is doing well, and even if they fail their gamble is small. Omega platform will be the third unnecessary RWD platform GM has developed in the last decade (Alpha, Omega and whatever the Solstice was on). They will NEVER recoup the billions WE PAID for them to make these terrible decisions.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 28, 2016, 11:30:17 AM
While Caddy has been cannibalizing itself in the $50-60K range, Lincoln came out with the MKC.... a $35-50K Ford Escape. MKC outsold the CTS and is within 2K of the ATS in the US. Factoring in:

- the $1B development cost of the Alpha platform
- the fact that the MKC's segment is up 39% from 2015 vs 2014, vs 8% up for the ATS segment and 15% down for the CTS segment
- the fact that there are like 1/2-3/4 the number of entrants in the MKC's segment vs the ATS/CTS
- the CT6's segment has been in a ~15 year decline in volume
- the only people who care about "fighting the Germans" are Johan de Nysschen and non-luxury buyers on the Internet
- the ES & RX pretty much outsell every luxury car that isn't a 3 series or C Class

can u honestly sit here and say with a straight face and tell me GM's developing of not 1, but TWO limited use RWD platforms was a smarter, more profitable idea than leveraging the FWD platforms and PHEV tech they already had?

Have u seen the commercial for the Malibu where they took the badges off and people thought it was a $50-70K luxury car? The average consumer doesn't know jack shit but how expensive a car feels..... as Audi and Lexus show, drive wheels and chassis balance are irrelevant for making and profitably selling luxury cars.

No, my view on Cadillac and Lincoln are abundantly clear.... u took a huge fail on this one. But not as big as GM :evildude:

Why are you yelling at yourself?

MKC sells well because it's a crossover.

I don't think anyone has said Cadillac shouldn't build crossovers, in fact they need to come out with one yesterday.

Did Sporty forget about the runaway success of this?


(http://icdn4.digitaltrends.com/image/2015-cadillac-srx-front-angle-970x546-c.jpg)



Also, the Alpha platform was a needed change - the Sigma and Zeta were old platforms, and I think Alpha is sort of a combination of those two/new tech. It's GM's only RWD platform now. The new Sigma II, is just a wider, longer variant of the Alpha platform.


Lincoln is LATE to the game, not early.

Quote from: SVT666 on January 28, 2016, 11:32:02 AM
Why are you yelling at yourself?

You asked me a question, I answered it. Don't get snarky because you didn't like the answer :huh:

No, I don't have a problem with Lincoln. As I have said in the past, I think their strategy makes a lot more sense than Cadillac's, and I documented the evidence to back up my thinking.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 28, 2016, 12:52:43 PM
You asked me a question, I answered it. Don't get snarky because you didn't like the answer :huh:

I was referring to you mistakenly quoting yourself.  Stop taking this so damn serious.

QuoteNo, I don't have a problem with Lincoln. As I have said in the past, I think their strategy makes a lot more sense than Cadillac's, and I documented the evidence to back up my thinking.

I would bet Caddy's new styling and CUE are the two biggest reasons for their recent sales slump.  The ATS is nice looking but a bit boring.  The CTS looks fantastic in person, but not in pictures, and again, it's a little on the boring side.  The previous CTS had character out it's ass.  CUE is a ridiculously horrendous failure and difficult to use even for tech savvy people.  Especially difficult when you consider that most people who buy these cars are older.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 28, 2016, 12:52:43 PM
You asked me a question, I answered it. Don't get snarky because you didn't like the answer :huh:

Come on, man. Don't accuse people of being snarky or looking for zingers when you post stuff like this:

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 28, 2016, 11:30:17 AM

No, my view on Cadillac and Lincoln are abundantly clear.... u took a huge fail on this one. But not as big as GM :evildude:

In one thread, we have people bitching about Cadillac sticking to its guns and keeping up its attacks on the Germans even though sales aren't the greatest.  While in another thread, we have people bitching about FCA abandoning a whole segment it wasn't doing too hot in order to build more trucks and SUVs that it is making tons of money on. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: SVT666 on January 28, 2016, 01:47:24 PM
I was referring to you mistakenly quoting yourself.  Stop taking this so damn serious.
I would bet Caddy's new styling and CUE are the two biggest reasons for their recent sales slump.  The ATS is nice looking but a bit boring.  The CTS looks fantastic in person, but not in pictures, and again, it's a little on the boring side.  The previous CTS had character out it's ass.  CUE is a ridiculously horrendous failure and difficult to use even for tech savvy people.  Especially difficult when you consider that most people who buy these cars are older.

CUE & styling can be fixed and have nothing to do with GM's fundamental issues with Cadillac. Cadillac has too many sedans and not enough small/midsize CUVs, which is where luxury money is going. GM blew a billy on a platform for cars nobody is willing to buy at the prices or volume they need to get their money back. To a large degree it's too late.... JdN shat in the bed and they have to ride out the Alpha platform pretty much forever. But that billion dollars would have been much better spent turning Malibus & Equinoxes into Cadillacs. In fact that opportunity is still there.

3/4 sedans is not too many.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 28, 2016, 04:24:09 PM
CUE & styling can be fixed and have nothing to do with GM's fundamental issues with Cadillac. Cadillac has too many sedans and not enough small/midsize CUVs, which is where luxury money is going. GM blew a billy on a platform for cars nobody is willing to buy at the prices or volume they need to get their money back. To a large degree it's too late.... JdN shat in the bed and they have to ride out the Alpha platform pretty much forever. But that billion dollars would have been much better spent turning Malibus & Equinoxes into Cadillacs. In fact that opportunity is still there.

Cadillac sedans:
ATS
CTS
CT6
XTS (being discontinued soon)

BMW sedans:
3 series
3 series Gran Turismo
4 series Gran Coupe
5 series
6 series Gran Coupe
7 series
7 series LWB

Mercedes-Benz sedans:
CLA
C-Class
E-Class
CLS
S-Class
Maybach S-Class

Whats your point

As the CLA shows MB can put a 3 pointed star on a turd and move units. Same with BMW and those god awful GTs. And even they aren't immune. Only cars on your list that aren't down in sales year over year are the 3, C and CLA. In the luxury market everyone is moving to crossovers Cadillac somehow doesn't seem eager to make. And Cadillac doesn't have the luxury of selling the Alpha cars, which are not bad cars by the way, profitably, let alone CLA grade turds. No, the Caddy brand has been destroyed to where all they can reasonably expect to move are "5s for 3 money" like the old CTS, the Escalade and rebadged Chevys. Nobody is going to pay more than $50K for a Cadillac that doesn't tow boats.... it doesn't matter how good it is.

Quote from: SVT666 on January 28, 2016, 05:25:29 PM
Cadillac sedans:
ATS
CTS
CT6
XTS (being discontinued soon)

BMW sedans:
3 series
3 series Gran Turismo
4 series Gran Coupe
5 series
6 series Gran Coupe
7 series
7 series LWB

Mercedes-Benz sedans:
CLA
C-Class
E-Class
CLS
S-Class
Maybach S-Class

BMW also sells the 5GT.

Why do you keep pretending the SRX never existed

Quote from: 2o6 on January 28, 2016, 06:51:54 PM
Why do you keep pretending the SRX never existed

That would go against his "GM has never done anything right" jihad.

Secondly, the development costs for the GT and GC models at the BMW range are minimal. And a shocking amount of people love the 5GT and 3GT; it's more upright and comfortable to get in and out of than a 3-series, but isn't an SUV like the x3. It's a niche that has it's buyers (old people).

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 28, 2016, 06:24:30 PM
Whats your point

As the CLA shows MB can put a 3 pointed star on a turd and move units. Same with BMW and those god awful GTs. And even they aren't immune. Only cars on your list that aren't down in sales year over year are the 3, C and CLA. In the luxury market everyone is moving to crossovers Cadillac somehow doesn't seem eager to make. And Cadillac doesn't have the luxury of selling the Alpha cars, which are not bad cars by the way, profitably, let alone CLA grade turds. No, the Caddy brand has been destroyed to where all they can reasonably expect to move are "5s for 3 money" like the old CTS, the Escalade and rebadged Chevys. Nobody is going to pay more than $50K for a Cadillac that doesn't tow boats.... it doesn't matter how good it is.

What's my point? My point is that 3/4 sedans is actually about perfect for the # of sedans a manufacturer should have. BMW has gone overboard with the # of sedans they make. No manufacturer needs more than 3 of anything. 3 sedans, 3 coupes, 3 SUVs, 3 trucks, and 3 hatchbacks/wagons.

And what's this silliness about the Alpha platform? Not only does it perform admirably if not class leading in the Cadillac cars, it puts the ~80,000+ units/year Camaro at least a generation ahead of its competition, and on par with the such $60,000+ cars as the RS5, M4 and C63 coupe.

Yeah, the Alpha platform in no way hurts Cadillac. The few problems with the ATS and CTS have nothing to do with the platform they are on, and GM was going to make Alpha for the Camaro anyway. Makes sense to share it.

Quote from: 2o6 on January 28, 2016, 06:51:54 PM
Why do you keep pretending the SRX never existed

SRX proves my points about CUVs being it (it outsells all of Caddy's sedans combined) and GM not needing a new RWD platform (still on the old platform outselling the Alpha sedans)

It's still ugly and dodgeballesque too.... a good looking midsize Caddy CUV would do numbers.

Quote from: GoCougs on January 28, 2016, 09:27:57 PM
And what's this silliness about the Alpha platform? Not only does it perform admirably if not class leading in the Cadillac cars, it puts the ~80,000+ units/year Camaro at least a generation ahead of its competition, and on par with the such $60,000+ cars as the RS5, M4 and C63 coupe.

You yourself have guffawed at the fact that the old Camaro is on par with those same cars. Not to mention the Alpha platform seems to have WORSENED the Camaro's livability problems (visibility, rear seat and trunk space). Alpha Camaro is sweet but I bet Magnaride on the SS, the new engines and a G37 -> Q50 grade restyle would have got the old chassis 99% there

The guy who bitches about every single pound in a car is now complaining that they shouldn't have bothered with the new platform that saves the Camaro 200-400 lbs?

Stop with this simplistic drive by goalpost moving bullshit. Weight loss for the Camaro is nice but not worth the $1B+ GM spent for the new platform. Old car was competitive with the new Rustang and the platform change hasn't provided any kind of sales lift.... compare that to the 2015 Mustang which jumped in sales by 50% with the generation change :huh: Old CTS outsold the ATS/CTS combined. SRX just had its best sales year ever and is still on the old platform. Aren't you a car industry guy? What exactly do you see as successes from the Alpha platform from a BUSINESS standpoint? ATPs are about the same and volume is down. Only ones singing its praises are internet geeks and auto mag writers. Meanwhile cars like the Q50 are outselling the ATS/CTS on 13 year old platforms with 20 year old engines :wtf:

Don't get me wrong, the Alpha platform is a good platform... my point is simple though, it isn't what GM needed to spend $1B on. None of the shit it's done for the Camaro or Cadillac have helped the bottom line.

You're just taking out of both sides of your mouth.

This car is 20 lbs too heavy!  That platform that saves hundreds of lbs isn't worth it!  You just like to bitch about it all.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 29, 2016, 06:57:19 AM
Stop with this simplistic drive by goalpost moving bullshit. Weight loss for the Camaro is nice but not worth the $1B+ GM spent for the new platform. Old car was competitive with the new Rustang and the platform change hasn't provided any kind of sales lift.... compare that to the 2015 Mustang which jumped in sales by 50% with the generation change :huh: Old CTS outsold the ATS/CTS combined. SRX just had its best sales year ever and is still on the old platform. Aren't you a car industry guy? What exactly do you see as successes from the Alpha platform from a BUSINESS standpoint? ATPs are about the same and volume is down. Only ones singing its praises are internet geeks and auto mag writers. Meanwhile cars like the Q50 are outselling the ATS/CTS on 13 year old platforms with 20 year old engines :wtf:

Don't get me wrong, the Alpha platform is a good platform... my point is simple though, it isn't what GM needed to spend $1B on. None of the shit it's done for the Camaro or Cadillac have helped the bottom line.

You can't know this. GM is experience record profits FWIW, so they are doing something right.  :huh:

Its funny you are the one claiming others are moving the goal posts. I don't think there is anything Cadillac can do to make you agree with them. I think you have it in your head that "CADILLAC AM BAD!!!" and nothing will change your mind at this point.

I mean seriously..."Cadillac has too many sedans!" Wat?  :lol:

Ouch, Sporty and his Internetry...

Previous to Alpha Camaro was on the Zeta and the CTS on the Sigma. Both are now on Alpha, and now so is the ATS (which perhaps may not even exist without Alpha). It's called economies of scale and scope, and putting three cars on Alpha enabled GM to justify spending more which resulted in a world class platform (and theoretically, more sales). And whose to say Alpha won't underpin other RWD cars in the future. And just in general, platform sharing is common in the industry.

But as to $1B+ not worth it? Presume each of the current Alpha cars runs for 6 years each:

Camaro: 80,000 units/year * $35,000 average sales price
ATS: 25,000 units/year * $50,000 ASP
CTS: 20,000 units/year * $60,000 ASP

Total revenue: $34B. Jesus.

Quote from: MrH on January 29, 2016, 07:30:32 AM
You're just taking out of both sides of your mouth.

This car is 20 lbs too heavy!  That platform that saves hundreds of lbs isn't worth it!  You just like to bitch about it all.

There are ways to save weight without wasting $1B on an all new platform. Maybe its different where you work but from what I understand it's more important for a car company to be financially solvent than light weight. Just ask Lotus :)

Quote from: SJ_GTI on January 29, 2016, 07:57:47 AM
You can't know this. GM is experience record profits FWIW, so they are doing something right.  :huh:

Its funny you are the one claiming others are moving the goal posts. I don't think there is anything Cadillac can do to make you agree with them. I think you have it in your head that "CADILLAC AM BAD!!!" and nothing will change your mind at this point.

I mean seriously..."Cadillac has too many sedans!" Wat?  :lol:

Those profits are all from low fuel prices pushing out high profit trucks, and Buick in China. Cadillac is a definite sore spot. Holla @ me when gas goes back up

Sedan point is pretty clear. ATS segment only grew 8% in 2015. CTS segment shrank 16%. CT6 segment shrank 12%. By contrast SRX segment is up 10% and the segment right below (Q5, NX etc) is up almost 40%. SRX and Escalade are the only Caddy models seeing year over year sales gains and again the ATS + CTS are way down in volume from the old CTS peak. Caddy needs less sedans and more CUVs. Things would look totally different if the ATS/CTS had been CUVs instead

And if they absolutely had to have new sedans they should have been Epsilon based hybrids. They bungled bad and I find it fascinating.

Quote from: GoCougs on January 29, 2016, 08:05:24 AM
Ouch, Sporty and his Internetry...

Previous to Alpha Camaro was on the Zeta and the CTS on the Sigma. Both are now on Alpha, and now so is the ATS (which perhaps may not even exist without Alpha). It's called economies of scale and scope, and putting three cars on Alpha enabled GM to justify spending more which resulted in a world class platform (and theoretically, more sales). And whose to say Alpha won't underpin other RWD cars in the future. And just in general, platform sharing is common in the industry.

But as to $1B+ not worth it? Presume each of the current Alpha cars runs for 6 years each:

Camaro: 80,000 units/year * $35,000 average sales price
ATS: 25,000 units/year * $50,000 ASP
CTS: 20,000 units/year * $60,000 ASP

Total revenue: $34B. Jesus.

Lol

1 your #s are optimistic. Take $10K off your ATS/CTS ATPs.

2, revenues <> profits (ask Apple's competitors)

3, surprised at you. Camaro & CTS existed before the Alpha platform. And in the CTS case, it had HIGHER ATP, volume and presumably profit as well (nowhere near as many incentives as are on the ATS/CTS now). Again Infiniti is outselling the ATS/CTS with their 13 year old platform, and you yourself have proudly boasted about how the old Camaro bests the new Mustang dynamically. So wat exactly has the $1B investment in the Alpha platform netted GM that they didn't have already?

They bungled so bad they're making record profits!  Curse that Cadillac!

Quote from: MrH on January 29, 2016, 08:29:36 AM
They bungled so bad they're making record profits!  Curse that Cadillac!

Escalades and SRXs are up, as I said

How did either benefit from the Alpha platform?

You keep acting like they developed Alpha and Omega platforms (see what they did there?  :lol:) instead of SUV/CUV platforms. They have been developing both.

They have two of the best selling luxury SUV/CUVs in the market. They are introducing more (XT5 will replace SRX and there are more coming).

Alpha platform is used for both ATS/CTS. XTS had almost no development cost (its just a reskinned Buick, you should love it). CT6 is the first new platform they have introduced in a while and it looks promising (stretched longer than the CTS, and it relatively lighter than Alpha and most of the competition. Will is change their world? Probably not, but considering they are currently doing well (profits and cash flow) NOW is the time to invest in improved platforms. ATS/CTS/XTS sales are mediocre, so they are trying to do better. CT6 seems like an interesting proposition to me. Larger and less sporty than the CTS for only a little bit more money. Not my kind of car personally (even the CTS is too big for me), but I can see why it would appeal to others.

XTS is the better play on the sedan front IMO. They bungled it a little bit but they lost nothing from it. I just think the CUVs should have come first. Even with the SRX and Escalade doing well they are still missing a huge opportunity with no indication of rectifying it. I feel like we will see a high performance coupe from Cadillac before we see the Q5 fighter they need

Is the XT5 not a Q5 competitor?

The SRX has only just begun to slow sales, replacing it sooner would have been dumb.


The XT5's release date is in a few weeks.

The Alpha platform yet again, 1 billion dollars ain't shit - MQB and other modular platforms for cars with less profit margins cost more or at least the same, and yet again - Zeta and Sigma were old platforms.

Secondly, Alpha sounds more modular. I would not be surprised if the stretched, and jacked it in the air for a RWD based Cadillac CUV - more akin to the X5 than the RX.

Besides - the Q5 fighter is the fucking SRX. And it's been selling strongly since its instruction.

Quote from: MX793 on January 29, 2016, 08:54:18 AM
Is the XT5 not a Q5 competitor?

It is! The SRX matched the Q5's performance and dimensions basically tit for tat. 3.6L, or earlier cars had the mediocre 2.8 twin turbo.

SRX is 8" longer and is classified as a midsize.... Q5 is a compact. They are not competitors

How is the SRX/XT5 not a Q5 fighter? It seems to line up pretty straight up with the X3/Q5/GLK. Its a little bigger, but not a full class up. Escalade competes (and handily outsells) the X5+/Q7/Whatever.

Caddy needs something smaller than the XT5 I think, but that isn't going to make or break them any more than having good sedans, but every report from inside and outside GM says Cadillac is targeting something like 5 SUV's (likely 4 CUV's of various sizes + the Escalade). Right now the SRX/Escalade cover the biggest sectors of the SUV markets and they are expanding in to the smaller (but growing) niches. But they need platforms first, which is what GM is investing in.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 29, 2016, 08:17:41 AM
Lol

1 your #s are optimistic. Take $10K off your ATS/CTS ATPs.

2, revenues <> profits (ask Apple's competitors)

3, surprised at you. Camaro & CTS existed before the Alpha platform. And in the CTS case, it had HIGHER ATP, volume and presumably profit as well (nowhere near as many incentives as are on the ATS/CTS now). Again Infiniti is outselling the ATS/CTS with their 13 year old platform, and you yourself have proudly boasted about how the old Camaro bests the new Mustang dynamically. So wat exactly has the $1B investment in the Alpha platform netted GM that they didn't have already?

Do you feel guilty for being this wrong?

What the hell is an xt5?

Quote from: GoCougs on January 29, 2016, 06:47:13 PM
Do you feel guilty for being this wrong?

Wrong about what? The pre-Alpha CTS outselling the ATS/CTS at higher ATPs and the Alpha Camaro selling at the same volume and price as the old one? Profit being more important than revenue? Your ATPs being wrong? What exactly?

You do realize that at some point GM would need to invest in a RWD platform soon, right? Alpha will likely go on for at least 10 years


Also, Alpha is actually design wise a very freshened version of Zeta. The new Omega platform, is s longer, wider version of Alpha.


Sigma got phased out - the original Sigma platform debut'ed on the 2002 CTS.

The Alpha platform is so good I would be surprised if it doesn't last 15 years with an update in the middle somewhere. It's easily a generation ahead of the competition.

Quote from: SVT666 on February 08, 2016, 08:13:42 AM
The Alpha platform is so good I would be surprised if it doesn't last 15 years with an update in the middle somewhere. It's easily a generation ahead of the competition.

Then why is Cadillac's sedan segment in freefall?

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 08, 2016, 11:48:12 AM
Then why is Cadillac's sedan segment in freefall?

Oh my god.

Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on February 07, 2016, 08:00:40 PM
What the hell is an xt5?

Successor to the SRX, apparently.  Crossover Touring 5.  Cuz five doors!

"The XT5 will feature innovative technology such as a streaming video rear-view mirror, and the first application in a Cadillac of GM's Electronic Precision Shift, which replaces the standard hydraulic shifter with an electronic controller."

(http://autoguide.com.vsassets.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/cadillac-xt5-spied.jpg)

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 08, 2016, 11:48:12 AM
Then why is Cadillac's sedan segment in freefall?

It's certainly not because the cars suck. The styling is too conservative, and CUE is a fucking disaster.

Quote from: SVT666 on February 08, 2016, 02:42:43 PM
It's certainly not because the cars suck. The styling is too conservative, and CUE is a fucking disaster.

Good chassis <> good car

And in these segments, brand + value matter. At MSRP, unfortunately an ATS/CTS has neither. Germans have them beat in everything that doesn't involve turning a corner, which is everything to most of the people in this market

So keep old platforms and have outdated cars along with no brand image? Yeah that'll work.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 08, 2016, 02:52:55 PM
Good chassis <> good car

And in these segments, brand + value matter. At MSRP, unfortunately an ATS/CTS has neither. Germans have them beat in everything that doesn't involve turning a corner, which is everything to most of the people in this market

ATS/CTS are great cars.

The cars are priced too high for the market to bear. GM has delusions about Cadillac's cachet.

Quote from: Laconian on February 08, 2016, 04:39:17 PM
The cars are priced too high for the market to bear. GM has delusions about Cadillac's cachet.

:hesaid: Undercutr the Germans like the last Gen CTS did and they'll be ok.

Quote from: SVT666 on February 08, 2016, 04:12:28 PM
ATS/CTS are great cars.

Great cars aren't always the right cars for the market, and ultimately that is what defines whether or not a car will survive. Lot of tweaks would have completely changed the ATS/CTS trajectory. If they were crossovers. If they were priced $10-15K cheaper. If they had come out 15-20 years ago (obviously at whatever level of tech and competitiveness was necessary for that time). GM just did not play this one smart, as excellent as the cars are (and I do think they are excellent)

Quote from: Laconian on February 08, 2016, 04:39:17 PM
The cars are priced too high for the market to bear. GM has delusions about Cadillac's cachet.

I'm not sure if being the bargain brand is a good long term strategy, though.

Quote from: CaminoRacer on February 08, 2016, 06:17:50 PM
I'm not sure if being the bargain brand is a good long term strategy, though.

You can't not be the bargain brand if you're offering a product nobody's willing to buy at more than a bargain brand price. Something has to change.

Luxury brand strength is not rational. Cadillac is basically fighting ghosts.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 08, 2016, 06:04:36 PM
Great cars aren't always the right cars for the market, and ultimately that is what defines whether or not a car will survive. Lot of tweaks would have completely changed the ATS/CTS trajectory. If they were crossovers. If they were priced $10-15K cheaper. If they had come out 15-20 years ago (obviously at whatever level of tech and competitiveness was necessary for that time). GM just did not play this one smart, as excellent as the cars are (and I do think they are excellent)

Regardless, a great car is a great car. If I was in the market, the CTS would be the first car I look at.

I think Cadillac should be unabashedly American. They can't play the German game as well as the Germans, so why bother?

Quote from: 280Z Turbo on February 08, 2016, 09:18:29 PM
I think Cadillac should be unabashedly American. They can't play the German game as well as the Germans, so why bother?

Actually, Cadillac built better BMW's than BMW. The problem is Cadillac wants BMW money, the styling is a little boring compared to the previous generation, and that fucking CUE.

Quote from: 280Z Turbo on February 08, 2016, 09:18:29 PM
I think Cadillac should be unabashedly American. They can't play the German game as well as the Germans, so why bother?

Agreed, been saying this from day one. ATS has no V8 and both have boring modest styling and cramped rear seats compared to the competition. Those are like ground zero pillars for any successful American sedan.

3 series doesn't have a v8 either...

Although ATS-V should totally have an LT4 or something

Quote from: CaminoRacer on February 09, 2016, 08:41:51 AM
3 series doesn't have a v8 either...

Although ATS-V should totally have an LT4 or something

I will say it seems like Caddy missed an opportunity to differentiate by not putting the big V8 in the ATS-V. While it is arguably better to drive, having a big ole V8 instead of a standard turbo'd 6-banger would have been a decent selling point to lure in buyers (IMHO).

Quote from: CaminoRacer on February 09, 2016, 08:41:51 AM
3 series doesn't have a v8 either...

Although ATS-V should totally have an LT4 or something

BMW isn't known for V8 engines.  Prior to the early 90s, BMW had only ever built 1 V8 engine that was offered starting in the early 50s until the mid 60s.  Then nothing until '92.

Quote from: CaminoRacer on February 09, 2016, 08:41:51 AM
3 series doesn't have a v8 either...

BMW isn't in crisis....

https://jalopnik.com/cadillac-ceo-no-one-will-buy-our-sedans-because-teens-1823707548

If this is what the Cadillac team believes internally, Cadillac is done, at least for another 20 years (ie. it will remain a bit player and descend into medicocrity).  Maybe if they get some leadership with heads out of their asses they can recover in 20 years.

After reading about Allan Mullay's overhaul - specifically the shitty leadership prior to hiring- and now this, I'm aghast that functioning adults are paid so much money to do such shitty work (or at least present such shitty leadership).

Cadillac sedans/coupes don't sell well because:

- The Germans and Lexus have been entrenched in this market for decades while Cadillac previously made crappy vehicles
- Not any cheaper (without dealer incentives)
- Interior quality doesn't match rivals
- Poor lease rates/poor resale value
- Reliability not any better than rivals. Not near Lexus.
- Poor dealership luxury experience compared with rivals
- Warranty is no better than rivals
- Lazy styling of entry level ATS
- Flagship sedan is what?  CT6. What happened to the STS. Oh, the CTS replaced it.  So they had the CTS and STS and then just the CTS because the CTS replaced the STS. 
- Cadillac XTS is priced like the CTS, looks similar to a CTS, but drives nothing like the CTS.
-They're not planning to continue the ATS, CTS, or XTS beyond this generation. 
- The very first Cadillac CTS-V was basically a Corvette with a Cadillac body and tires. Because the rear tires weren't massive Corvette tires, it couldn't be floored off the line because of wheel hop. Complete engineering fail on their coming out AMG/BMW M rivalry.

It doesn't matter what the CEO is saying. He can't tell the automotive journalists that for the last decade, our marketing, finance, design, and engineering teams have been in general incompetent. 

Quote from: veeman on March 13, 2018, 06:57:52 AM
- The very first Cadillac CTS-V was basically a Corvette with a Cadillac body and tires.

This is like saying a Silverado is basically a Corvette with a truck body and tires because it shares an engine. 

There are several factors outside of Cadillac that are hammering its sedans. Sedans in general are DOA- particularly sedans that are bigger, more expensive and from unpopular brands. Caddy has that trifecta. Caddy also put money into the wrong things with these sedans (the MKZ outsells the Caddy Alpha trio IIRC). And de Nysschen demonstrates over and over that they don't understand the market.

Caddy needs a revolution, not to me-too the Germans. But I said this 6 years ago and everyone called me nuts :huh:

Cadillac's marketing is mediocre, and as much as I dislike Lincoln, Lincoln interiors are far more interesting than Cadillac's. I like the ATS et al, but I don't see any reason to get one.

Quote from: giant_mtb on March 13, 2018, 07:02:52 AM
This is like saying a Silverado is basically a Corvette with a truck body and tires because it shares an engine. 

Oh calm down. 

Quote from: veeman on March 13, 2018, 07:13:22 AM
Oh calm down. 

You're the one making baseless claims. :huh:

The CTS-V was a great car.

The couple of times I drove an ATS I really liked it. Far more agile than the S4 I owned at the time. I will say the glossy surfaces on the interior could be irritating in direct sunlight, but they did look good.

The issue for me is that they just didn't quite hit the right set up options. Manual + AWD with their V6 would have been great. But now that I have made the switch back to a hatchback it is hard for me to see myself in a sedan again anyway, so pretty much not going to be shopping in this category in the future I don't think.

Quote from: giant_mtb on March 13, 2018, 07:30:12 AM
You're the one making baseless claims. :huh:

https://www.caranddriver.com/flipbook/15-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-640-hp-200-mph-2016-cadillac-cts-v#3

"The CTS-V's heart, lungs, and brain all come straight out of the 2015 Chevrolet Corvette Z06."

That's the way it's always been with this car. So yes, calm down.  Neither is my claim baseless, nor is it meant to be taken so literally.  You know that full well and are being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

Quote from: veeman on March 13, 2018, 07:52:11 AM
https://www.caranddriver.com/flipbook/15-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-640-hp-200-mph-2016-cadillac-cts-v#3

"The CTS-V's heart, lungs, and brain all come straight out of the 2015 Chevrolet Corvette Z06."

That's the way it's always been with this car. So yes, calm down.  Neither is my claim baseless, nor is it meant to be taken so literally.  You know that full well and are being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

(https://media2.giphy.com/media/5VKbvrjxpVJCM/giphy.gif)

Quote from: veeman on March 13, 2018, 07:52:11 AM
https://www.caranddriver.com/flipbook/15-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-640-hp-200-mph-2016-cadillac-cts-v#3

"The CTS-V's heart, lungs, and brain all come straight out of the 2015 Chevrolet Corvette Z06."

That's the way it's always been with this car. So yes, calm down.  Neither is my claim baseless, nor is it meant to be taken so literally.  You know that full well and are being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

There is a huge difference between sharing an engine/powertrain and being "a Corvette with a Cadillac body".  Cadillac sold a Corvette with a Cadillac body.  It was called the XLR.  Oddly enough, while the chassis underpinnings came from the Corvette, the powertrain did not.

Quote from: MX793 on March 13, 2018, 10:18:58 AM
There is a huge difference between sharing an engine/powertrain and being "a Corvette with a Cadillac body".  Cadillac sold a Corvette with a Cadillac body.  It was called the XLR.  Oddly enough, while the chassis underpinnings came from the Corvette, the powertrain did not.

https://jalopnik.com/2016-cadillac-cts-v-a-640-horse-missile-disguised-as-a-1679217881

First paragraph says what I said.  It's obviously not meant to be taken super literally.  Geez us...

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 13, 2018, 07:08:19 AM
There are several factors outside of Cadillac that are hammering its sedans. Sedans in general are DOA- particularly sedans that are bigger, more expensive and from unpopular brands. Caddy has that trifecta. Caddy also put money into the wrong things with these sedans (the MKZ outsells the Caddy Alpha trio IIRC). And de Nysschen demonstrates over and over that they don't understand the market.

Caddy needs a revolution, not to me-too the Germans. But I said this 6 years ago and everyone called me nuts :huh:

I didn't!

Cadillac has the Escalade, which they should rename the QE2 to better fit in with their confusing brand nomenclature, and the XT5, which up until the latest iteration looked and felt like a blocky Chevy Traverse.  Eww.  Merc has a A, C, E, and S sized crossovers (along with those stupid crossover coupes), Audi has a Q3, 5 and 7.  BMW has the X5, 3, 7(?), 1, -1, etc, Lexus has 15 different crossovers, Infiniti is still trying to figure out what it does as a business, and even Jaguar has entered the 21st century with not one but two crossovers which, by all accounts, are rather good.  Cadillac has a XT5 with some bland advertising shot in SoHo, trying to look hip but coming across as entirely forgettable.  "Look at us sophisticaled ladies in this Cadillac" one desperate actress tries to convey, when in reality the only people buying this are Mary Kay reps and people who couldn't quite justify the lease payments on an X5.

And now they're looking to shake up their entry and midsize cars again with the CT5.  They're  reusing the same "one car, two segment" strategy that failed them so spectacularly with the CTS.  It's a mezmoring train wreck to behold.

My real estate agent drives an XT5. hah

Quote from: Submariner on March 13, 2018, 10:59:21 AM
And now they're looking to shake up their entry and midsize cars again with the CT5.  They're  reusing the same "one car, two segment" strategy that failed them so spectacularly with the CTS.  It's a mezmoring train wreck to behold.

IIRC the only time the CTS was successful was when it was a tweener (5-series sized but at 3-series pricing). The split ATS/CTS strategy that matched the Germans is what failed (from a sales perspective...).

Quote from: Submariner on March 13, 2018, 10:59:21 AM
I didn't!

Cadillac has the Escalade, which they should rename the QE2 to better fit in with their confusing brand nomenclature, and the XT5, which up until the latest iteration looked and felt like a blocky Chevy Traverse.  Eww.  Merc has a A, C, E, and S sized crossovers (along with those stupid crossover coupes), Audi has a Q3, 5 and 7.  BMW has the X5, 3, 7(?), 1, -1, etc, Lexus has 15 different crossovers, Infiniti is still trying to figure out what it does as a business, and even Jaguar has entered the 21st century with not one but two crossovers which, by all accounts, are rather good.  Cadillac has a XT5 with some bland advertising shot in SoHo, trying to look hip but coming across as entirely forgettable.  "Look at us sophisticaled ladies in this Cadillac" one desperate actress tries to convey, when in reality the only people buying this are Mary Kay reps and people who couldn't quite justify the lease payments on an X5.

And now they're looking to shake up their entry and midsize cars again with the CT5.  They're  reusing the same "one car, two segment" strategy that failed them so spectacularly with the CTS.  It's a mezmoring train wreck to behold.

To be fair, as I've said before, the "5 series for 3 money" is a good strategy for brands without the cachet to charge 5 series money for a 5 series. And compared to now, the CTS was a success... the old one outsold all the Alpha sedans in the US handily for most years.

Problem now is sedan interest is in short order, and what interest is left is in the brands with cachet- the Germans. Yet Caddy has 2 crossovers and 4 sedans, the latter of which are all in sales freefall. Cadillac should have 6 crossovers all styled like the Escalade. It's truly been an unmitigated disaster, made worse by de Nysschen's pride. OK, you turned Audi around 20 years ago. Things can change over that time. You can't run the same play everywhere and expect it to work the same. It's infuriating.

Quote from: SJ_GTI on March 13, 2018, 11:09:06 AM
IIRC the only time the CTS was successful was when it was a tweener (5-series sized but at 3-series pricing). The split ATS/CTS strategy that matched the Germans is what failed (from a sales perspective...).

You're right.  I got it backwards.

It's a good thing I'm not running Cadillac.  :lol:

Too lazy to look on this forum but the facelifted ct6 is being offered with a 4.2L hot v TT V8.  500hp in regular tune and 550hp/627tq for the v sport model

Quote from: 68_427 on March 29, 2018, 02:08:02 PM
Too lazy to look on this forum but the facelifted ct6 is being offered with a 4.2L hot v TT V8.  500hp in regular tune and 550hp/627tq for the v sport model

Who cares?  Cadillac is going to get three additional sales out of it and the CT6 will still be entirely forgettable and 2nd rate.

Quote from: Submariner on April 09, 2018, 08:01:06 AM
Who cares?  Cadillac is going to get three additional sales out of it and the CT6 will still be entirely forgettable and 2nd rate.

You're probably right why should we care about this engine they developed solely to sell 3 extra CT6s

Quote from: 68_427 on April 09, 2018, 09:11:59 AM
You're probably right why should we care about this engine they developed solely to sell 3 extra CT6s

Because Cadillac decided not to stick it in the Escalade (the only vehicle cadillac has that matters) or one of their two actually good sports cars (that don't sell).  They put it in their participation-trophy flagship which buyers will continue to not care about. 

It hurts to hear but it's 100% true. Good money after the bad. They should have spent that money on a Tesla fighter (or Tesla itself)

Wait you guys really think this engine won't be sold in any other model?

Quote from: 68_427 on April 09, 2018, 11:21:46 AM
Wait you guys really think this engine won't be sold in any other model?

:wtf: lol right.  This engine will proliferate all over GMs lineup.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/cadillac-has-patented-an-escala-inspired-sportback-coupe

(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/cadillac-patent-106-1530907601.jpg?crop=1xw:1xh;center,center&resize=900:*)

Looks great, but I don't think it'll sell well.  Why does Cadillac keep aiming so low in the market.  They should have an 8 series competitor, but this looks the size of an ATS.

Looks like a Mustang too. Not that that's a bad thing in and of itself, but that's the narrative the rags will use to pooh-pooh the car.

A legit gripe IMO. Caddy has yet to fully leverage A&S in production cars.