Say what you want about JB, but the man makes a legitimate point. You might not agree with his proposed solution, but it's def hard to see the ATS succeeding when it literally offers nothing over the 3 besides an "American" badge. Even if you like the ATS, you have to be very optimistic to see it clobbering the 3 as is. But w/a standard V8, it would be a nice :evildude: to all this fucking green bullshit, and I bet they could make the V8 not be a complete gas guzzler. Either way GM has gotta do SOMETHIGN.
www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/05/how-gm-could-save-the-cadillac-ats-from-its-otherwise-inevitable-fate-of-complete-marketplace-failure
QuoteAn Open Letter To The People Who Make Decisions At Cadillac
Dear Cadillac Decision-Making People,
I hate you. Yes, you. You?ve stolen something from me. More specifically, you?ve stolen Cadillac from me. As a child, I was driven around in perhaps the last unapologetically great Caddy ? the 1979 Eldorado ? and I dreamed of the day when I would be able to buy a Cadillac of my own. While I was dreaming, and working, and anticipating that day, you, and people like you, shit all over the greatest brand in America in every way possible. You built and sold cars that were too poorly conceived and built to even earn the title of ?garbage?. Every few years you would bring out some deformed-looking crapwagon, your bought-and-paid for press lackeys would drool all over it, and the name ?Cadillac? would be further degraded in public like a heroin-addicted actress caught turning a trick outside a K-Mart by a giant movie-premiere spotlight.
Since the last real Eldorado died in 1985, you?ve built spacious cars, fast cars, plastichrome Tahoes, economical cars, and even somewhat reliable cars. You just haven?t bothered to build any Cadillacs. What is a Cadillac? It is, simply, a vehicle that is exemplary and desirable.
Now we have the ATS. Aren?t you ashamed of yourselves? Do you really think anybody wants this car? Do you really think anybody is willing to pay more for it than they would for an equivalently-powered BMW? Is this vehicle exemplary and desirable? The answer to these questions: Of course not. This car, along with every other vehicle you sell, should be summarily discontinued and replaced with actual Cadillacs. You?d be better off buying the tooling for the 2003 LS430, welding fins on said LS430, and selling that. It would be closer to the idea of ?Cadillac? than anything you have now.
It?s too late to fix all your mistakes, but I can fix this ATS thing right now, at minimal cost, and it will save the car from the sales scrapheap of history. It is not too late to save Cadillac. I?m not doing it for you, or for GM, or even for the poor American taxpayer who financed this whole boondoggle. I?m doing it for me, because I want my Cadillacs back.
We need to start by discarding the idea that you can beat the Germans by imitating them and charging more for the imitation than the original costs. The path to victory for Cadillac isn?t a racetrack in the Black Forest. What?s next: putting free boxes of Pocky in the glove compartment of the XTS to win over Infiniti M56 intenders? Stop imitating. Stop being fake. Do something authentically American with the product.
You may believe that nobody wants to pay good money for American stuff. You?re wrong. There are dozens of companies, from Alden to Gibson to Oxxford, that charge top dollar for genuinely American luxury goods. Go look at an Alden shoe. It isn?t a copy of a German shoe, or even of an English one. It?s an American shoe. Go look at a Gibson Les Paul. It isn?t an Ibanez rip-off sold for a higher sticker than the Ibanez then back-door comped with mail-in rebates.
Don?t get me wrong. Cadillac doesn?t have a tenth of the credibility that Alden or Oxxford have. Thirty years of dumping sewage on your customers have seen to that. Still, there?s romance and magic in the Cadillac name despite your best efforts, despite the XTS, despite the children-and-luggage-only backseat of the STS, despite the entire interior of every product you sold for at least two decades. Cadillac still means something to some people.
One of those things Cadillac means is simply understood: it means V-8 power.
As we speak, BMW is busy infuriating its loyal audience by putting four-cylinder engines back in their volume models and naming the resulting embarrassments after the outgoing six-cylinder cars. It?s a betrayal of the first order. What are you doing to capture the people who have been disaffected by BMW?s decisions? What?s that? You?re putting four-cylinder engines in the ATS? In the name of G-d, why? Do you really think that imitating BMW?s idiocy is a good idea? Hell, your base car doesn?t even have a turbo. Gosh, what would I rather have: a turbo BMW or a Cadillac with the same engine as a fuckin? Equinox?
This is what you need to do, so listen up: It?s time to make the ATS a real Cadillac. That means V-8 power. Standard. Call up GM Powertrain and tell them, and I am being specific here: ?We need a bunch of LS4, or LR4, or some sort of V-8 in the five-liter range here, and we need them right away.? Then put those V-8s in the ATS. Every single ATS should have a V-8. Every one of them. No fuel-economy specials, no loss-leaders, no rental-only exceptions. If an American man or woman on the street sees an ATS, he or she should understand that there is a V-8 engine beneath the hood of that vehicle.
Having done that, I want you to make this advertisement. Again, I?m being fairly specific. I will provide a script for the TV spot.
(Our scene begins at the bottom of a long, steep road around a mountain. A BMW 328i and MERCEDES C-CLASS are visibly struggling to climb the hill.)
VOICEOVER: BMW and Mercedes have made gutless four-cylinders engines mandatory. It?s time for Cadillac to once again show them what it means to be THE STANDARD OF THE WORLD.
(There is the sound of a NASCAR V-8 being revved. A GIANT EAGLE appears in the sky. It flies down, lands behind the BMW and pins it with its talons. The camera cuts away to the rock face of the mountain and we are made to understand, through shadows, that the GIANT EAGLE is RAPING the BMW. Every twenty-fourth frame of this scene contains a subliminal image of the B-24 LIBERATOR.)
VOICEOVER: Cadillac has made the V-8 standard again. How?s fuel economy? It?s just fine, thanks for asking.
(The EAGLE is now landing on the MERCEDES, where a similar scene takes place. This time, the subliminal frame is of JOE LOUIS winning a boxing match.)
VOICEOVER: The Cadillac ATS costs $29,995. No rebates, no sales, no bull. Come get a real car for the price of a toy.
(The screen fades to black, the Cadillac script logo appears, and we once again hear a V-8 revving.)
FINIS
I apologize for that part with the eagle, I was just getting excited there for a minute. At this point, some of you have some objections. I will now answer those objections.
- What about CAFE? What about it? Pay the government the fine. That?s what the Germans do. Don?t you want to be like them? Man the F up, already. Or get Obama to waive it for you. Either way.
- What about sales volume? With a standard V-8, sales will go up. Trust me. People want V-8 Cadillacs. That doesn?t mean they want V-Series Cadillacs. They want a car with eight cylinders and no excuses. Your competition offers one of these. It is called the 300C. It is a success. Learn from it.
- How are we supposed to make money selling a V-8 at $29,995? By cutting out the rebates and dealer kickbacks. Try selling an honest product at a fair price. It?s the only thing you haven?t tried. It might work.
- What about the CTS and XTS, which don?t offer a V-8? Doesn?t this destroy our brand hierarchy? It?s too late to worry about crap like that. It?s go time. The CTS can and should also get a standard V-8. Every existing XTS should be burned to the ground then dropped into the Marianas Trench. The people who designed and approved it should also be dropped into the Marianas Trench, as a warning to the others.
- It doesn?t fit. You sound like my high school girlfriend when you say that. Make it fit, the same way she did: with an engine hoist and a plasma torch.
- But, but, but, the 3.6-liter direct-injection V-6 offers similar power with greater?More numbers crap, boys. Nobody cares about your numbers. Nobody cared when the 1986 Seville Touring Sedan had more skidpad ?g? than the BMW 528e. The only number that matters is 8. That?s the number of cylinders a Cadillac should have, assuming you have no V-16 available at the moment.
What?s the worst that could happen? I will tell you. The car could completely flop. It could clog up dealer lots, appear in rental fleets, and be the subject of some humiliating $399/month lease. Guess what? That?s all going to happen to the four-cylinder brick of manure you?re about to start selling anyway. With a V-8 engine in the car, you?d at least have some pride in your product. Pride goes a long way. It holds forts, inspires heroism, straightens backs, generates ?Like? clicks on Facebook. Trust me on this.
We all know that nothing like what I have suggested is going to happen. The ATS will be released to glowing reviews in Motor Trend and polite indifference elsewhere. It won?t sell at the intro price. $5,000 rebates will appear. Eventually the car will be competing with the Buick Verano, dollar for dollar. The people who did bother to buy the early ones will hate you for giving the later ones away. The people who got the cheapies later will look forward to owning a real luxury car, like a four-cylinder, vinyl-seat BMW, the next time they lease. The Cadillac name will be worse off as a result. Thirty years from now, my son will speak the sentence ?those two great compact Cadillac failures, the ATS and Cimarron? in a holographic, super-neuro-cortical-interactive version of TTAC. The people visiting said site will mostly have been born after the Cadillac brand was shut down for low sales and non-existent brand equity. That?s the future. It sucks. Avoid it, please.
Sincerely,
Jack Baruth
Cadillac Fan
[/list]
This is the only interesting part of the whole editorial:
"The ATS will be released to glowing reviews in Motor Trend and polite indifference elsewhere."
This article is absolutely ridiculous. There is no reason to throw a V8 in the ATS. And while the author decries the Equinox engine going in the ATS, he's OK with an engine out of a Buick LaCrosse? Look, the LS4 is a cool engine, but it doesn't scream "luxury." The reality of the automotive business is that engines are used across brands. There is nothing wrong with the 4cyl engine that comes standard in the ATS, whatsoever. Maybe he'd be happy to resurrect the Northstar from the scrap heap. Ugh.
There are very few people who are clamoring for 8cyl engines in compact entry-lux cars. He says Cadillac shouldn't imitate BMW, but who says they're imitating them? They're competing with them. The dolt who wrote this column seems as if he's a dinosaur who still wants Cadillac to make the huge land yachts with heavy old V8s that nobody wants. People buy BMWs instead of Cadillacs for a few reasons: first, for years Caddy made huge-ass, gaudy, weird looking cars that only were purchased by senior citizens. And they handled like crap and had wet noodle suspensions, like most American cars do. The ATS seems to have fixed both of these issues.
Good on GM for getting the picture and giving us an innovative car we can be proud of rather than just throwing a V8 under the hood and making a car that is capable of going fast in a straight line, and little else.
The author seems content to ignore the fact that the cushy oversized SUV has largely replaced the cushy oversized sedan, and that Cadillac does quite well there. (With V8s, too.) He also seems to have forgotten that when Cadillac sold a traditional barge sedan right up until last year it did nothing to improve the brand's credibility.
Yeah, almost trolling in its "counterpoint" POV.
First, nobody wanted the CTS, and it did nothing objectively better than the competition, yet it's been a big success and otherwise saved the brand.
Second, GM doesn't have a proper luxury car V8 and it doesn't need one (for the CTS and ATS segments) with the 3.6L thumping out 323 hp.
I know virtually nothing about the ATS, and am not really all that interested, but it sounds like the only possible thing for Cadillac to do.
This guy should've just bought a DTS while they were still making those. Most people who bitch and moan about newer Cadillacs not being true to their H&H would've been well-served to at least have taken a look at the DTS, but unsurprisingly, they don't put their money where their mouth is. As a result, the DTS goes quietly into the night, and the cars that Cadillac has more success in selling are the "BMW wannabes".
I do agree with everything he said about the XTS, though. No reason to buy one over a 300C or even a Genesis. Sad.
Recently, I've been surprised to find that my parents' friends who are habitual Lexus customers have been buying Cadillacs.
Why? They're cheap (relatively speaking).
Everyone ignores the fact that the 2.0T in Audi products is used in almost everything VAG makes?
These cars are virtually on the same plane in regards of performance (to the consumer). Now it comes down to personal preference.
Quote from: Vinsanity on May 07, 2012, 04:28:43 PM
I do agree with everything he said about the XTS, though. No reason to buy one over a 300C or even a Genesis. Sad.
No one has driven the XTS.
I could not stand reading that article.
Fuck this guy, I am really excited for the ATS. The Cadillac engineers used the E46 3-series as a target when engineering the ATS, not the E90. That's big. GM's 270 HP turbo-4 will most likely have more lag than BMW's turbo-4 (and I bet it sounds and feels worse), but let's wait and see how it and the car feel. Be it that Cadillac pegged the ATS to the E46 3-series, we could have an enthusiast's winner here.
Although, I have to agree with him on the V8 front. The ATS-V must have the Corvette's V8. How awesome would this car be with an LS3?
I don't even know what an ATS is, but I can tell it's a dumb article by one word: Baruth.
Quote from: Rupert on May 08, 2012, 01:19:20 AM
I don't even know what an ATS is, but I can tell it's a dumb article by one word: Baruth.
You don't know what an ATS is? This is the internet, but dare I ask... have you been living under a really big rock?
I don't pay attention to, from what I gather, yet another mediocre luxury sporty-ish 3 series wannabe. I don't even pay attention to the 3-series.
Baruth is such a douche. :facepalm:
The guy wants a 'Fuck Yeah!' V8 on the ATS, so he can merge safely off-ramp :lol:
Yeah i stopped reading after the first few lines. Is this from a fan blog or something? Doesn't sound professional at all.
Quote from: mzziaz on May 08, 2012, 01:39:34 AM
Baruth is such a douche. :facepalm:
Agreed, Baruth is just full of fail.
I couldn't read more than half of it before I decided I didn't want to waste anymore of my day.
I still think that while the ATS sounds like it will be a great tribute to the altar of 3, it will also be a great + needless sacrifice. There really is nothing "Cadillac" or "American" about this car, and like dude said, while the 300C wasn't a dynamic rival to the 3 it succeeded because it went its own way.
Personally I think Caddy should really push the style element as the forefront of their brand (like they used to) and stop trying to beat the Germans at their own game. Hate Baruth all you want... I generally find him pretty annoying... but can you really argue with these points...
"We need to start by discarding the idea that you can beat the Germans by imitating them and charging more for the imitation than the original costs." The G35 succeeded because it provided way more car than the E46 for about 80% the cost. Do you think the G35 would have been successful if it had all the same specs as the E46 and cost more?
"What about sales volume? With a standard V-8, sales will go up. Trust me. People want V-8 Cadillacs. That doesn?t mean they want V-Series Cadillacs. They want a car with eight cylinders and no excuses. Your competition offers one of these. It is called the 300C. It is a success. Learn from it." People are still buying 300Cs.
"What?s the worst that could happen? I will tell you. The car could completely flop. It could clog up dealer lots, appear in rental fleets, and be the subject of some humiliating $399/month lease. Guess what? That?s all going to happen to the four-cylinder brick of manure you?re about to start selling anyway." Seriously, why would anyone buy this for as much or more $$$$ than an equivalent 3?
People can say what they want and wax poetic about silent eco friendly turbo 4s... but a small car w/a naturally aspirated V8 in this depressing era of emissions prisons and all is the kind of bold move Cadillac needs to wake out of its CAR slump.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 08, 2012, 10:55:01 AM
There really is nothing "Cadillac" or "American" about this car
So you're saying it won't handle like a boat and be ignorantly overpowered during a time when gas is $4/gallon. Cool! Maybe the "Americans" finally get it!
QuotePersonally I think Caddy should really push the style element as the forefront of their brand (like they used to) and stop trying to beat the Germans at their own game. Hate Baruth all you want... I generally find him pretty annoying... but can you really argue with these points...
Sure I can argue with them. Sorry, but the "imported from Detroit" garbage that is the 300C is just another oversized land yacht that looks to me as if it's a wannabe Bentley for small-town rappers who haven't gotten a record deal yet.
Quote"We need to start by discarding the idea that you can beat the Germans by imitating them and charging more for the imitation than the original costs." The G35 succeeded because it provided way more car than the E46 for about 80% the cost. Do you think the G35 would have been successful if it had all the same specs as the E46 and cost more?
Well, the G35 was about 80% the car the E46 was, at about 80% of the price. It worked out.
Quote"What about sales volume? With a standard V-8, sales will go up. Trust me. People want V-8 Cadillacs. That doesn’t mean they want V-Series Cadillacs. They want a car with eight cylinders and no excuses. Your competition offers one of these. It is called the 300C. It is a success. Learn from it." People are still buying 300Cs.
The people who are buying 300Cs are NOT the people who will buy an ATS. The people who will buy an ATS will cross-shop it with the 3er, A4 and C-Class. None of these people want a gass-guzzling V8 in a compact entry-lux sedan. They just don't. And WHY is this guy so obsessed with the 300C? Everyone I ever see driving one is, ironically, either a senior citizen or someone who looks like they're about to sell me crack. Jesus.
Quote"What’s the worst that could happen? I will tell you. The car could completely flop. It could clog up dealer lots, appear in rental fleets, and be the subject of some humiliating $399/month lease. Guess what? That’s all going to happen to the four-cylinder brick of manure you’re about to start selling anyway." Seriously, why would anyone buy this for as much or more $$$$ than an equivalent 3?
There's a $399 lease option on the '12 328i. Why is this "humiliating?"
QuotePeople can say what they want and wax poetic about silent eco friendly turbo 4s... but a small car w/a naturally aspirated V8 in this depressing era of emissions prisons and all is the kind of bold move Cadillac needs to wake out of its CAR slump.
If you want a V8, buy a fucking Camaro. They might even throw in a free Van Halen record with the purchase.
Man, administration on this board is very different from the admin and mods on my other board.
I'm really excited for the ATS. And considering how much praise the 328i has been getting from car mags, this guy is on crack to think that everyone wants a V8 entry lux sedan.
As I said earlier, all of these cars are virtually on the same plane in regards to performance. Now it just comes down to price and personal preference.
A BMW 328i and MERCEDES C-CLASS are visibly struggling to climb the hill.
Wow, what kind of hills do you have in America that a BMW 328i and MB C-Class can't drive up!?!?!? :facepalm:
Quote from: cawimmer430 on May 08, 2012, 01:53:16 PM
A BMW 328i and MERCEDES C-CLASS are visibly struggling to climb the hill.
Wow, what kind of hills do you have in America that a BMW 328i and MB C-Class can't drive up!?!?!? :facepalm:
"Struggling" is probably being used to mean "making a lot of noise," which is something you generally don't want your luxury car to do just to maintain speed.
Quote from: ifcar on May 08, 2012, 01:55:01 PM
"Struggling" is probably being used to mean "making a lot of noise," which is something you generally don't want your luxury car to do just to maintain speed.
I don't really hear my engine struggling when I drive up a hill in a lowly BMW 118i. And that car is really loud at 140 km/h on the Autobahn. I can't even hear the radio.
What a silly, silly article.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on May 08, 2012, 01:57:56 PM
I don't really hear my engine struggling when I drive up a hill in a lowly BMW 118i. And that car is really loud at 140 km/h on the Autobahn. I can't even hear the radio.
Wimmer, it's a hypothetical commercial in an editorial...stop taking it so seriously.
I've never heard of a car that succeeded by literally doing what others do for the same or more $$$
I really just have two questions.
What does the ATS offer that isn't available?
Why would anyone in the target market get an ATS over any of the competition?
Again the point about the V8 was really tongue in cheek. Why people are freaking out about that I don't know. But the underlying point, questioning the feasibility of this car's potential to sell, is 100% valid.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 08, 2012, 05:08:24 PM
I've never heard of a car that succeeded by literally doing what others do for the same or more $$$
I really just have two questions.
What does the ATS offer that isn't available?
Why would anyone in the target market get an ATS over any of the competition?
Again the point about the V8 was really tongue in cheek. Why people are freaking out about that I don't know. But the underlying point, questioning the feasibility of this car's potential to sell, is 100% valid.
:rolleyes:
The car this article is describing is this:
(http://www.uneedapart.com/images/cadillac-deville-parts.jpg)
And no one wants that.
What does the A4 offer the 3-series can't do? What does the ATS offer the C-class can't do? What does the IS offer the 3-series can't do?
Quote from: Raza link=topic=27381.msg1716691#msg1716691 date=1336510101
Wimmer, it's a hypothetical commercial in an editorial...stop taking it so seriously.
Yeah, but the writer still said it. And it was an absolutely ridiculous thing to say that deserves being called out.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 08, 2012, 09:16:30 PM
What does the A4 offer the 3-series can't do? What does the ATS offer the C-class can't do? What does the IS offer the 3-series can't do?
Exactly. There are varying segments of cars. Within those segments are a bunch of models from a bunch of different brands that compete against each other. Cadillac is introducing a model that will compete with the 3er, C-Class and A4, among others. Why is this such a crazy idea? Was it stupid for Audi to make the A4 because BMW already had the 3er?
Should Honda stop making the Accord because Toyota also makes a mainstream, midsize sedan? Should Chevy stop making the Silverado because Ford makes the F-150?
Quote from: TurboDan on May 08, 2012, 09:30:10 PM
Exactly. There are varying segments of cars. Within those segments are a bunch of models from a bunch of different brands that compete against each other. Cadillac is introducing a model that will compete with the 3er, C-Class and A4, among others. Why is this such a crazy idea? Was it stupid for Audi to make the A4 because BMW already had the 3er?
Should Honda stop making the Accord because Toyota also makes a mainstream, midsize sedan? Should Chevy stop making the Silverado because Ford makes the F-150?
Sporty usually says that most automotive segments are overcrowded, but we don't get anywhere near the choice places like Europe does.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 08, 2012, 09:30:10 PM
Exactly. There are varying segments of cars. Within those segments are a bunch of models from a bunch of different brands that compete against each other. Cadillac is introducing a model that will compete with the 3er, C-Class and A4, among others. Why is this such a crazy idea? Was it stupid for Audi to make the A4 because BMW already had the 3er?
Should Honda stop making the Accord because Toyota also makes a mainstream, midsize sedan? Should Chevy stop making the Silverado because Ford makes the F-150?
Oh come on. When Audi made the A4, the only other cars in the segment were the 3 series, the C-class, and if you want to count them the 9-3 and the S70. The A4 did offer distinct things that the competitors didn't have- the main one being quattro- but other features being its very distinctive style in and out and general "Teutonicness".
Again, when Honda made the Accord I am not even sure the Camry existed, and even still after all these years it is a top 10 seller. Same with the Silverado. And when both cars came out, they brought completely new things to the table- hence their success. So what the hell are you talking about?
Again, A4 came into a segment where there were only 4 other cars (of which only 1 was competitive). ATS is coming into a segment with many more cars that are much more diverse + competitive (3, C, G, IS, S60, TSX, Regal, A3, A4, 9-3 still selling, etc.) and it literally brings nothing new to the table. Hell the CTS base model comes w/much more power and space stock for not much more money, and I bet there are a lot of rebates available for this.
I like the ATS in that "good idea on an internet message board" way, but again, you picked a lot of piss poor examples to show why the ATS would be a success. Literally every car you cited was successful for having the crucial things the ATS lacks- segment creating features and easy reasons to buy it over anything else out there. The Accord literally created the midsize sedan segment and opened the door for Japanese manufacturers. The Chevy C/K trucks helped make pickups more mainstream. A4 was the first car to offer a legitimate alternative to the 3 series. The ATS is literally a Cadillac 3 series w/no discount. Its not a car anyone has been waiting for and its not a car that will take people out of their other entry level sports sedans, no matter how good it is.
Quote from: Raza on May 08, 2012, 02:48:21 PM
Wimmer, it's a hypothetical commercial in an editorial...stop taking it so seriously.
I know. I read the whole thing.
But he's implying that these cars are "underpowered" and cannot go up a hill. It's a silly analogy.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 08, 2012, 10:45:02 PM
Sporty usually says that most automotive segments are overcrowded, but we don't get anywhere near the choice places like Europe does.
What competitors to the ATS does Europe get that we don't? Uncompetitive French cars?
And don't talk about engines... the only reason Europeans still buy 316s is because of those criminal fuel taxes and a culture that shames consumption. If they could they would be buying the same big engines we do.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 09, 2012, 06:10:09 AM
What competitors to the ATS does Europe get that we don't? Uncompetitive French cars?
Hey! The Citroen C5 and Renault Laguna and Peugeot 508 are excellent cars! So is the Skoda Superb! :nono:
Quote from: cawimmer430 on May 09, 2012, 06:24:21 AM
Hey! The Citroen C5 and Renault Laguna and Peugeot 508 are excellent cars! So is the Skoda Superb! :nono:
Why you no mention Passat? :heated: :hammerhead: :devil:
Quote from: AltinD on May 09, 2012, 06:50:52 AM
Why you no mention Passat? :heated: :hammerhead: :devil:
Because that car is really uncompetitive. :evildude:
j/k :lol: :cheers:
I forgot to mention the Passat! :ohyeah:
Passat is on a lower tier, like a Maxima. Good car but not in that "realm"
I am sure those French cars are good cars, but they're not exactly "sport sedans", though I do think they are more realistic in their missions (like a Lexus ES).
I usually can't stand to read much of what Baruth writes, and a lot of his argument is stupid, but he's not wrong in saying that they really needed to bring something else to the table.
There's nothing wrong with bringing a competitive (meaning substantially similar) model into a segment. Plenty of you have sited all the current examples, and they're all pretty similar. I suppose Cadillac did a ton of market research on this segment (NOT that this is always the smartest way to create your product!), and found (and it's pretty obvious) that buyers all want a good-looking but fairly conservative design, and they loaded the car up with the features that the buyers have come to expect (whether standard or optional).
The big problem here is that Cadillac (still, whether you believe it or not) has a shitload of baggage. It was hurt by many years of crappy cars, and yes, they've made progress, but it is still not the equal of BMW, MB, etc in terms of image or perceived quality. I can tell you that in my town, there are loads of all of BMWs, Mercedes, Audis, etc, but I don't think I can recall one Cadillac that isn't an Escalade, and there aren't many of those. It still doesn't seem to be an option for the typical sedan buyer. But I still think that In order to continue their progress in overcoming this, they need to stand out. And I don't think there's much in the way of features that they can do (that won't be quickly copied by someone else), so it has to be either styling or price (value). While I think the ATS looks good, it doesn't look as distinctive as the CTS. The first CTS was awkward, but distinctive and interesting in an odd way. The current one (IMO) is fantastic looking, but a lot of people don't agree. It's polarizing, and I think this has helped it. I assume Cadillac has concluded that the ATS segment doesn't want this, but I think this is their big mistake.
As far as the engine choices go, I think Baruth is delusional in thinking that many people want a V8. Yes, there should be an ATS-V (and maybe just a regular V8 as another choice), but most buyers don't want it today, even in a Cadillac. I think they should have skipped the base 4 at introduction, and perhaps introduced it at a later date. And whether we like it or not, BMW is the leader here, and if they're telling everyone a turbo 4 is the new way to go, people are going to think it's okay. If Cadillac only offered a V6 which isn't as fuel efficient as BMW's four, they'll be seen (again) as dinosaurs. IMO, the only two real issues with the ATS are the styling (which I like, but think it should have been sharper), and the price, which should undercut the competitors (when comparably equipped).
But I suppose we'll soon see how well the ATS sells, and whether is sells without heavy discounts, and whether is sells to people who would have otherwise considered a BMW or Mercedes.
The thing which everyone (including Cadillac) need to understand is that Cadillac needs to play the long game. The ATS isn't going to clobber the 3 Series in the sales charts overnight. It took a very long time to drive Cadillac's reputation into the shitter. Ergo, it stands to reason it will also take them a very long time to rehabilitate Cadillac's image in the minds of the car buying public.
As long as Cadillac keeps striving to build true world-class cars that can be legitimate rivals to the BMW/Merc/Audi hegemony, the negative stigma associated with the Cadillac brand will GRADUALLY evaporate. The worst thing Cadillac can do is to lose their nerve, get cold feet and fall back on their old bad habits.
It CAN be done. Audi went from being a nonentity to a serious contender in just a couple of decades. BMW went from building weird bubble cars which couldn't even reverse to being the world's best selling premium brand. As tarnished as Cadillac reputation is, the name still carries a certain amount of weight. The CTS has done much to redeem the Cadillac brand in the eyes of the buying public. The ATS has the chance to build on that momentum and help drag Cadillac out of the wilderness.
BTW, Baruth is a fecking idiot. Who the hell gave this talentless hack a job writing about the car business anyway? And, more importantly, why hasn't he been fired yet?
Car companies don't do well by progressing "gradually" when they are falling behind. It takes a bold move.
Audi was pretty much DOA until the B5 A4, which they quickly followed up on with the C5 A6. These cars were revolutions, not evolutions.
BMW turned itself around w/the 2002. Again, there was nothing like it on the market before it came out. Revolution, not evolution.
Lexus LS was another revolution, as was, to a large degree, the 2nd gen ES. They saw where their competitors were weak and attacked.
No company has turned itself around by completely piggybacking onto competitors w/o offering something else, or addressing their competitors' weaknesses. The ATS does neither. If I was a car manufacturer this and the mainstream sedan markets would be the last places I'd want to enter.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 08, 2012, 09:25:58 PM
Yeah, but the writer still said it. And it was an absolutely ridiculous thing to say that deserves being called out.
Yeah, but Wimmer's shitting himself saying that the 118i is more than enough for anyone, but it's just some dumbass talking.
The ATS looks promising, but I agree that it had the potential for something greater and bolder. Maybe a sleek 5-door liftback design that doesn't look stubby like most hatchbacks (I guess Audi already did this with the A5 Sportback, but we don't get those in the U.S.). Instead, Caddy played it safe by giving us the spiritual successor to the first CTS, in thinking that fans of the original will come back for the sharp handling of the ATS. But perhaps they're forgetting that the biggest reason the first CTS was a hit was because it was something fresh and new at the time. This is something the ATS lacks, and the biggest reason that the XTS threatens to set the brand back 10 years. Like others have mentioned already, the XTS should've been a Cadillac 300C, not a Cadillac Impala.
That's true. The first CTS was kind of crappy compared to its competition and it came out pretty successfully.
Quote from: Raza on May 09, 2012, 10:56:57 AM
That's true. The first CTS was kind of crappy compared to its competition and it came out pretty successfully.
Crappy? In what way? Quality-wise, it wasn't any worse than a 1st-gen G35 or Merc W203. It was also much more refined and luxurious than the 1st Lexus IS.
Anecdotally, my car's holding up slightly better than my younger brother's E46, and much better than my middle brother's G35.
Quote from: Raza on May 09, 2012, 10:56:57 AM
That's true. The first CTS was kind of crappy compared to its competition and it came out pretty successfully.
True... but it was a very bold design. I'm not sure I'd call it very American, but it was distinctive. It was kind of the precursor to the Chrysler 300
Sometimes it pays to completely uproot a brand's design language every now and then. I like the A&S cars, but I think the theme has run its course, even though it's only been maybe 10 years. It went from something fresh to something aged + lazy. The ATS would have been a good opportunity to try something new.
To be totally honest automotive design is in a bit of a rut right now. Everyone is on that "same bean different stretch" bullshit. Companies are afraid to experiment on mainstream designs.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 09, 2012, 07:23:42 AM
I am sure those French cars are good cars, but they're not exactly "sport sedans", though I do think they are more realistic in their missions (like a Lexus ES).
That's pretty much spot on. They're all comfort biased like a Lexus ES and there's no real optional sports model available. Not that buyers in this class (in Europe) care much. Volkswagen has the Passat R36 - and it sells like crap.
The Laguna comes in coupe form though and is mildly sporty (but still very comfort biased).
(http://www.autohaus.de/fm/3295/renault_lagunacoupe_01.jpg)
What does the ATS have that the 3 series, A4, and C-Class don't? Style. The others have style, but it's very conservative.
They're conservative, but will still look good 10 years later. The first CTS hasn't aged well.
Quote from: CJ on May 09, 2012, 11:44:19 AM
They're conservative, but will still look good 10 years later. The first CTS hasn't aged well.
No, but it had ugly grey plastic slathered all over the front of it. The 2nd gen still looks great.
It's only been out 4 years, but it won't age as well as the Germans. It just won't.
Quote from: Vinsanity on May 09, 2012, 11:04:57 AM
Crappy? In what way? Quality-wise, it wasn't any worse than a 1st-gen G35 or Merc W203. It was also much more refined and luxurious than the 1st Lexus IS.
Anecdotally, my car's holding up slightly better than my younger brother's E46, and much better than my middle brother's G35.
Damn, I forgot you own one. Didn't mean to offend, but now that I have....
The engine is harsh and the transmission is clunky. The interior was cheap. It was just bigger than the competition.
I'll argue that interior quality was absolutely not as good as an E46 or W203.
The interior materials were actually very expensive. The design was just awful.
I thought they felt a bit...Rubbermaid plasticy.
Quote from: CJ on May 09, 2012, 11:55:31 AM
It's only been out 4 years, but it won't age as well as the Germans. It just won't.
It's aging very well so far though. Conservative designs will ALWAYS age better than polarizing designs.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 09, 2012, 11:38:00 AM
What does the ATS have that the 3 series, A4, and C-Class don't? Style. The others have style, but it's very conservative.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 09, 2012, 12:28:29 PM
It's aging very well so far though. Conservative designs will ALWAYS age better than polarizing designs.
True, but I want to say polarizing designs net more short term sales.
Style wise though, I am not even sure the ATS hits the mark. Again, it's a shrunk down, more conservative take on the current CTS. Hardly groundbreaking. This would have been a good idea when the current CTS came out in... 08? BMW was midway through its 3 cycle, hype over the new G was dying down, IMO nothing else really mattered. Now w/the new 3 and the new IS and G right around the corner, this thing is in the position it should have put its competitors in.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 09, 2012, 07:23:42 AM
Passat is on a lower tier, like a Maxima. Good car but not in that "realm"
I am sure those French cars are good cars, but they're not exactly "sport sedans", though I do think they are more realistic in their missions (like a Lexus ES).
Regal, TSX and to a lesser extent the ES are of a different class.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on May 09, 2012, 06:24:21 AM
Hey! The Citroen C5 and Renault Laguna and Peugeot 508 are excellent cars! So is the Skoda Superb! :nono:
Those aren't luxury cars. They are directly comparable to mainstream midsizers like Accord and Camry.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 09, 2012, 06:05:12 AM
Oh come on. When Audi made the A4, the only other cars in the segment were the 3 series, the C-class, and if you want to count them the 9-3 and the S70. The A4 did offer distinct things that the competitors didn't have- the main one being quattro- but other features being its very distinctive style in and out and general "Teutonicness".
Likewise, the ATS is bound to be more American in it's approach. Let's take it downmarket; what does the Elantra do that the Civic doesn't? What does the Corolla do that the Cruze can't? What does the Focus do that the Forte can't? What does the Mazda 3 do that the Dart won't?
Again, when Honda made the Accord I am not even sure the Camry existed, and even still after all these years it is a top 10 seller. Same with the Silverado. And when both cars came out, they brought completely new things to the table- hence their success. So what the hell are you talking about?
The Camry and Accord were both Japanese little sedans. Honestly, they were pretty much the same in their approach; Honda's driving prowess was only thinly established at that time, and Toyota's emphesis on comfort hadn't come about yet. Those cars succeded because of not only the oil crises, but the good reputation for reliability and quality.
Again, A4 came into a segment where there were only 4 other cars (of which only 1 was competitive). ATS is coming into a segment with many more cars that are much more diverse + competitive (3, C, G, IS, S60, TSX, Regal, A3, A4, 9-3 still selling, etc.) and it literally brings nothing new to the table. Hell the CTS base model comes w/much more power and space stock for not much more money, and I bet there are a lot of rebates available for this.
TSX, A3, 9-3, Regal are more downmarket. The ATS is also going for the "fun to drive" segment, but they are going to attempt to do it better than the rest. The CTS is also nearing the end of it's model cycle.
I like the ATS in that "good idea on an internet message board" way, but again, you picked a lot of piss poor examples to show why the ATS would be a success. Literally every car you cited was successful for having the crucial things the ATS lacks- segment creating features and easy reasons to buy it over anything else out there. The Accord literally created the midsize sedan segment and opened the door for Japanese manufacturers. The Chevy C/K trucks helped make pickups more mainstream. A4 was the first car to offer a legitimate alternative to the 3 series. The ATS is literally a Cadillac 3 series w/no discount. Its not a car anyone has been waiting for and its not a car that will take people out of their other entry level sports sedans, no matter how good it is.
People said the same thing about the G35 and the original CTS, and they were huge successes.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 09, 2012, 01:58:44 PM
True, but I want to say polarizing designs net more short term sales.
Style wise though, I am not even sure the ATS hits the mark. Again, it's a shrunk down, more conservative take on the current CTS. Hardly groundbreaking. This would have been a good idea when the current CTS came out in... 08? BMW was midway through its 3 cycle, hype over the new G was dying down, IMO nothing else really mattered. Now w/the new 3 and the new IS and G right around the corner, this thing is in the position it should have put its competitors in.
The 3-series is pretty much the same model as last year but with a weird front fascia. All Audi models look the same, and the S60 looks like a Honda Civic.
My point is, just being "more American" isn't enough. And really, it's not. A&S isn't exactly an American looking design theme... it's more origami than apple pie. The car is not bigger than the competition... actually its dimensions are pretty much exactly the same as the 3 series. So it's not American in size. We already know the deal with the powerplants. I don't even think the car will be built in the US. So what about it is "more American in approach"?
Regarding your questions... the Elantra has way more distinctive style, supposedly better gas mileage, and a 10 year bumper to bumper warranty. Focus/Forte/3? IDK, but neither is a new entry into the field so I'm not sure how that's relevant. Dart is def tenuous.
Again you missed my point... the Camry/Accord brought something new to the table. Efficiency, reliability, higher build quality than the Americans, for the same price as the Americans. The ATS doesn't have any big wow factors like that.
CTS was an American 5 series for the price of a 3 series with a very distinctive look (the lack of latter beign what killed the Lincoln LS). G35 sacrificed the nuances of the 3 for value, interior space, and performance- performance so strong in fact that it elevated the baseline of the segment. Nothing could touch the G35 coupe in its segment for a long time.
Again, the ATS doesn't have anything groundbreaking about it, like any of the new cars people have used to claim it can be a success. Most of those cars came out to little, very weak, or no competition at all. The ATS is jumping into a very crowded field with nothing to warrant picking it over anything else.
Quote from: Raza on May 09, 2012, 11:55:38 AM
Damn, I forgot you own one. Didn't mean to offend, but now that I have....
The engine is harsh and the transmission is clunky. The interior was cheap. It was just bigger than the competition.
The engine doesn't quite feel like it belongs in a luxury car (even an entry-level one), but I wouldn't call it harsh. My transmission only started becoming clunky at around ~70k miles, and only at certain times. Which is unfortunate, really. It was butter-smooth when I first got the car.
Quote from: CJ on May 09, 2012, 12:27:04 PM
I thought they felt a bit...Rubbermaid plasticy.
And yes, the inside is decked with plastic, but it's mostly nice plastic.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 09, 2012, 03:27:32 PM
My point is, just being "more American" isn't enough. And really, it's not. A&S isn't exactly an American looking design theme... it's more origami than apple pie. The car is not bigger than the competition... actually its dimensions are pretty much exactly the same as the 3 series. So it's not American in size. We already know the deal with the powerplants. I don't even think the car will be built in the US. So what about it is "more American in approach"?
It's not a 3-series, so it's not going to drive like a 3-series. The IS is also pretty similar in it's mantra, but do you see Lexus not selling any IS's (yeah, the ES outsells it, but that's not my The A4 is also similar (who cares about quattro?) but yet again, it still commands a sizable force of the market.
Regarding your questions... the Elantra has way more distinctive style, supposedly better gas mileage, and a 10 year bumper to bumper warranty. Focus/Forte/3? IDK, but neither is a new entry into the field so I'm not sure how that's relevant. Dart is def tenuous.
For the sake of this argument; they're honestly on the same plane. One model may have minimal strengths or weaknesses, but they're pretty much all directly comparable.
Again you missed my point... the Camry/Accord brought something new to the table. Efficiency, reliability, higher build quality than the Americans, for the same price as the Americans. The ATS doesn't have any big wow factors like that.
It's also better equipped than the 3-series. The basic 328i is fairly spartan, and options are very expensive.
CTS was an American 5 series for the price of a 3 series with a very distinctive look (the lack of latter beign what killed the Lincoln LS). G35 sacrificed the nuances of the 3 for value, interior space, and performance- performance so strong in fact that it elevated the baseline of the segment. Nothing could touch the G35 coupe in its segment for a long time.
The LS died because it was old and low quality. Cadillac kept the CTS fresh with new engines and interior updates. Ford did a horrible faclift near the end of it's life cycle, but it was hopelessly outclassed by everything else. You could argue that the LS, CTS and Infiniti G were all going for the same mark; the 3-series.
Again, the ATS doesn't have anything groundbreaking about it, like any of the new cars people have used to claim it can be a success. Most of those cars came out to little, very weak, or no competition at all. The ATS is jumping into a very crowded field with nothing to warrant picking it over anything else.
Does it? GM is touting some serious engineering feats that BMW doesn't have; the magnaride suspension for one. It also has engine choices that BMW doesn't have (better economy four-cylinders). It's also not a 3-series, so it obviously isn't going to drive like a 3-series.
Its gonna drive like a 3 series, because a 3 series was its dynamic benchmark :huh:
You missed the point. None of the cars in the compact segment are new, aside from the Dart, which honestly has many of the same problems as the ATS. What's its draw over its competitors? If you are going to make a new entry, it has to be BETTER, not GOOD ENOUGH.
I will have to see the options list. But while it might be better equipped, it's way down on power. So they're not directly comparable.
Again there was nothing like the LS, CTS, or G when those cars came out. The ATS has competition even within its own brand.
Again... why would anyone buy this over any of its competitors? That's the question that should be answered before designing/building it.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 09, 2012, 06:23:07 PM
Its gonna drive like a 3 series, because a 3 series was its dynamic benchmark :huh:
You missed the point. None of the cars in the compact segment are new, aside from the Dart, which honestly has many of the same problems as the ATS. What's its draw over its competitors? If you are going to make a new entry, it has to be BETTER, not GOOD ENOUGH.
I will have to see the options list. But while it might be better equipped, it's way down on power. So they're not directly comparable.
Again there was nothing like the LS, CTS, or G when those cars came out. The ATS has competition even within its own brand.
Again... why would anyone buy this over any of its competitors? That's the question that should be answered before designing/building it.
Elantra, Cruze, Focus, Civic are new. Corolla is near the end of it's model cycle, and the Forte is about to be replaced. In Europe, there are more competitors in this field.
People will buy this because it's a compact Cadillac, and there are buyers who are looking for a car like this from Cadillac. They are looking for a sportier CTS in a smaller, cheaper package.
Why must you rationalize the entire automotive marketplace to only a handful of choices?
Elantra, Focus, Civic were established name plates + models. GM has always had a compact car.
I'm not trying to rationalize out choices, I am just trying to understand how people think this car will sell.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on May 09, 2012, 06:07:04 AM
I know. I read the whole thing.
But he's implying that these cars are "underpowered" and cannot go up a hill. It's a silly analogy.
I agree. It's absolutely insane. And I'm an American who drives on American roads every day. :praise:
Quote from: Madman on May 09, 2012, 09:03:54 AM
As long as Cadillac keeps striving to build true world-class cars that can be legitimate rivals to the BMW/Merc/Audi hegemony, the negative stigma associated with the Cadillac brand will GRADUALLY evaporate. The worst thing Cadillac can do is to lose their nerve, get cold feet and fall back on their old bad habits.
EXACTLY! And this is coming from a guy who was totally biased against American cars until recently. Caddy can re-instate its awesomeness. But not by imitating massive, land-yacht senior citizen cruisers. It's gotta compete where the younger generation is looking, and I'm confident the ATS does it.
I absolutely WANT an American brand to prove we can produce a car as good as the 3er. If Caddy can do that with ATS, that is fucking AWESOME! Let's support that instead of attacking it! :ohyeah:
Quote from: Madman on May 09, 2012, 09:03:54 AM
The CTS has done much to redeem the Cadillac brand in the eyes of the buying public.
So did the XLR. But they never capitalized on it. Everyone LOVED that car. But it never trickled down. That was a major loss for Caddy.
Quote from: Raza on May 09, 2012, 09:38:47 AM
Yeah, but Wimmer's shitting himself saying that the 118i is more than enough for anyone, but it's just some dumbass talking.
I had a 1.8 VW. It was fine for the 7 years I had it. :huh:
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 09, 2012, 06:23:07 PM
Again there was nothing like the LS, CTS, or G when those cars came out. The ATS has competition even within its own brand.
Again, WHAT IS WRONG WITH COMPETITION? Maybe the ATS is better than the 3er! :rockon:
Quote from: 2o6 on May 09, 2012, 03:11:55 PM
Those aren't luxury cars. They are directly comparable to mainstream midsizers like Accord and Camry.
They're not luxury cars but you can order them in luxury trims and then they'll rise out of the Camcord class and be comparable to a Toyota Avalon or Hyundai Azera.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 10, 2012, 01:19:28 AM
Again, WHAT IS WRONG WITH COMPETITION? Maybe the ATS is better than the 3er! :rockon:
When did I say there was anything wrong w/competition?
How many times do I have to say this? There is nothing wrong w/making a new car, IF it has some attributes that separate it from the competition. The Accord/Camry brought levels of quality never experienced at a mainstream price point. The A4 brought AWD and Teutonic style to the sport sedan market and was the first sport sedan to legitimately take on the 3 series. The G35 kicked up the baseline of performance in the sport sedan market up 2 notches. The Chevy C/K trucks modernized the pickup truck and made it palatable to the mainstream. ALL of these cars were released into fields where they had significantly less/weaker competition. The ATS doesn't stand out in any way from its competition, and is up against a lot of very stiff competition as well. I'm not saying this is a Catera or even CTS situation. I'm sure it will be a good car. But so is everything else in the segment. Plus its identity is very confused. Its an American car that benchmarked a 13 year old German car. The whole thing kind of doesn't make sense.
I put it like this. 3 series sells 400K worldwide and 100K here. C Class does about 300/60. Infiniti G does about 60K here. How much do you think the ATS will sell, and who will it take sales away from?
That comercial would be pretty sweet.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 10, 2012, 01:14:10 AM
I had a 1.8 VW. It was fine for the 7 years I had it. :huh:
I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm saying that he's overreacting.
(Still, as I recall, the 1.8T is a lot more powerful than the 118i's naturally aspirated engine.)
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 10, 2012, 08:00:54 AM
When did I say there was anything wrong w/competition?
How many times do I have to say this? There is nothing wrong w/making a new car, IF it has some attributes that separate it from the competition. The Accord/Camry brought levels of quality never experienced at a mainstream price point. The A4 brought AWD and Teutonic style to the sport sedan market and was the first sport sedan to legitimately take on the 3 series. The G35 kicked up the baseline of performance in the sport sedan market up 2 notches. The Chevy C/K trucks modernized the pickup truck and made it palatable to the mainstream. ALL of these cars were released into fields where they had significantly less/weaker competition. The ATS doesn't stand out in any way from its competition, and is up against a lot of very stiff competition as well. I'm not saying this is a Catera or even CTS situation. I'm sure it will be a good car. But so is everything else in the segment. Plus its identity is very confused. Its an American car that benchmarked a 13 year old German car. The whole thing kind of doesn't make sense.
I put it like this. 3 series sells 400K worldwide and 100K here. C Class does about 300/60. Infiniti G does about 60K here. How much do you think the ATS will sell, and who will it take sales away from?
The 3-series also have the home market monopolized by offering very basic trims.
The ATS is aiming to be a fun-to-drive Cadillac, that's it's angle.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 09, 2012, 08:54:43 PM
Elantra, Focus, Civic were established name plates + models. GM has always had a compact car.
I'm not trying to rationalize out choices, I am just trying to understand how people think this car will sell.
These are all the compact cars I can think of off the top of my head for the European Market
Cruze
Astra
Mazda 3
Megane
308
C4
Auris
Focus
Lancer
Golf
Jetta
Giulietta
Bravo
Delta
Civic
Cee'd
Elantra/i30
Leon
Octavia
MG6
Roewe 550
Impreza
I haven't even gotten into the tall B-segments that offer C-segment space.
That is more than what the US gets, offering more choices (we often do not get the option packages they do), yet each model is on sale, and they manage to sell units (some more than others, obviously).
Again, ALL of those cars are relatively high volume cars that have decades of development costs behind them. Toyota spends nothing more than the cost of new panel tools for each new generation/version of the Corolla. And it is sold worldwide.
ATS is, IIRC, based on a brand new platform, and really won't sell too much outside the US, as well as not really sell well within the US. So the two are not comparable. The ATS is not a Cruze, Astra, Mazda 3, Megane, 308, C4, Auris, Focus, Lancer, Golf, Jetta, Giulietta, Bravo, Delta, Civic, Cee'd, Elantra/i30, Leon, Octavia, MG6, Roewe 550 or Impreza, because all of those cars have previous versions + established markets + sales expectations. ATS is, for all intents and purposes, GM's first direct attack on the 3 series, w/an all new platform, jumping into one of the most crowded segments w/no unique factors. How do you not see the difference?
The segment isn't crowded at all.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 10, 2012, 01:37:32 PM
Again, ALL of those cars are relatively high volume cars that have decades of development costs behind them. Toyota spends nothing more than the cost of new panel tools for each new generation/version of the Corolla. And it is sold worldwide.
ATS is, IIRC, based on a brand new platform, and really won't sell too much outside the US, as well as not really sell well within the US. So the two are not comparable. The ATS is not a Cruze, Astra, Mazda 3, Megane, 308, C4, Auris, Focus, Lancer, Golf, Jetta, Giulietta, Bravo, Delta, Civic, Cee'd, Elantra/i30, Leon, Octavia, MG6, Roewe 550 or Impreza, because all of those cars have previous versions + established markets + sales expectations. ATS is, for all intents and purposes, GM's first direct attack on the 3 series, w/an all new platform, jumping into one of the most crowded segments w/no unique factors. How do you not see the difference?
Cadillac chose to chip away at its competitors' market share rather than take a big gamble. GM isn't in the position to take big gambles. Theoretically, the company owes its creditors many billions of dollars (time will tell if Uncle Sam will recoup its investment).
GM has already paid back the government loans including the interest.
Quote from: Colonel Cadillac on May 10, 2012, 10:45:20 PM
Cadillac chose to chip away at its competitors' market share rather than take a big gamble. GM isn't in the position to take big gambles. Theoretically, the company owes its creditors many billions of dollars (time will tell if Uncle Sam will recoup its investment).
I would call creating a brand new platform for one model a big gamble. Remember the Solstice/Sky?
Eh, it's for one model right now.
What else will it underpin, the Camaro? Needs more than that.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 11, 2012, 05:30:49 AM
I would call creating a brand new platform for one model a big gamble. Remember the Solstice/Sky?
Remember, the Camaro will also be on this platform. The next CTS will probably be on a stretched version of this platform as well.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 10, 2012, 11:03:59 PM
GM has already paid back the government loans including the interest.
Yet the government still has a good stake in GM.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 11, 2012, 05:30:49 AM
I would call creating a brand new platform for one model a big gamble. Remember the Solstice/Sky?
Quote from: Vinsanity on May 11, 2012, 10:08:26 AM
Remember, the Camaro will also be on this platform. The next CTS will probably be on a stretched version of this platform as well.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 10, 2012, 11:03:59 PM
GM has already paid back the government loans including the interest.
Uncle Sam still owns a big, big chunk of GM. If the government wishes to make a profit from the sale of its holdings, GM's stock would have to more than double right now.
"Creditor" was perhaps the wrong term, but the government couldn't recapitalize GM fully through debt and no equity. In other words, its equity holdings are sorta loans.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 11, 2012, 09:52:30 AM
What else will it underpin, the Camaro? Needs more than that.
Dude, look at how much Volkswagen can do with a single platform. I mean, think outside the box for a little while.
Quote from: Raza on May 11, 2012, 12:39:32 PM
Dude, look at how much Volkswagen can do with a single platform. I mean, think outside the box for a little while.
The VAG modular platforms are a whole different bag, friend.
Plus in any case, what does it matter. This is not unlike the Lincoln LS, actually, except its facing stiffer competition. Even if the platform lives on, the car can still fail.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 11, 2012, 12:45:09 PM
The VAG modular platforms are a whole different bag, friend.
Plus in any case, what does it matter. This is not unlike the Lincoln LS, actually, except its facing stiffer competition. Even if the platform lives on, the car can still fail.
You really have it out for the ATS, eh?
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 11, 2012, 09:52:30 AM
What else will it underpin, the Camaro? Needs more than that.
The Camaro has sales volumes slightly higher than the Mustang, which is pretty much on its own platform.
Quote from: Vinsanity on May 11, 2012, 12:55:40 PM
The Camaro has sales volumes slightly higher than the Mustang, which is pretty much on its own platform.
Not pretty much. It is.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 11, 2012, 05:30:49 AM
I would call creating a brand new platform for one model a big gamble. Remember the Solstice/Sky?
The Skystace's failures were due to the fact it was hopelessly impractical, and the hydroformed chassis made it far too expensive than it should have been.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 11, 2012, 09:52:30 AM
What else will it underpin, the Camaro? Needs more than that.
Alpha is the next RWD platform and will likely underpin all future GM RWD vehicles. Starting with the ATS, moving to the Camaro, and any other small/medium vehicle.
Besides, Kappa wasn't really super unique. Powertrains came from GM Delta (cobalt), basic suspension design came from GM Sigma (CTS; IIRC Sigma is being phased out) and the floorpan was actually a truncated version of the Corvette's.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 11, 2012, 12:45:09 PM
The VAG modular platforms are a whole different bag, friend.
Plus in any case, what does it matter. This is not unlike the Lincoln LS, actually, except its facing stiffer competition. Even if the platform lives on, the car can still fail.
No, they're not. Although GM likes to bill new platforms as new, usually they share a lot with other platforms in their stable.
GM Theta (small SUV's) actually is just a tall version of GM Delta (C-segments)
GM Gamma (B-segments) is leveraged with Fiat; most of Fiat's B-segments use GM SCCS platform
GM Epislon is also pretty generic (Midsize; platform is cut down for use in Saab 9-3, some Fiat group products; LWB Epsilon II is used in Lacrosse and recently released Roewe 950)
Besides, for the first few years, the Lincoln LS was a success. However, when the CTS and G35 were released, Lincoln failed to keep the product relevant.
Quote from: Vinsanity on May 11, 2012, 12:55:40 PM
The Camaro has sales volumes slightly higher than the Mustang, which is pretty much on its own platform.
The Camaro outsells the Mustang? That's surprising, as I see tons of Mustangs on the road, but hardly ever a Camaro. I see more Ferraris than Camaros in a given month.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 11, 2012, 05:04:43 PM
The Camaro outsells the Mustang? That's surprising, as I see tons of Mustangs on the road, but hardly ever a Camaro. I see more Ferraris than Camaros in a given month.
:wtf:
The Camaro is the go-to car around here when a guy wants to try and look cool. They're everywhere. I don't get it.
Quote from: MrH on May 11, 2012, 05:07:03 PM
:wtf:
The Camaro is the go-to car around here when a guy wants to try and look cool. They're everywhere. I don't get it.
To be fair, they do look pretty cool.
Quote from: MrH on May 11, 2012, 05:07:03 PM
:wtf:
The Camaro is the go-to car around here when a guy wants to try and look cool. They're everywhere. I don't get it.
Really? Seriously, I almost NEVER see them around here. Tons of Mustangs, though. When I was in Florida last month, I actually commented to my girlfriend that I couldn't believe how many people had Camaros. I thought it was a regional fluke in the Tampa area, or something.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 11, 2012, 05:09:01 PM
To be fair, they do look pretty cool.
They're 190 inches long, though. The first generation Chevy Tahoe was only 188. They look pretty cool, but they're friggin' yachts. And I hope they come standard with a rear camera because I don't know how anyone sees out the rear windows.
I live in FL and don't notice too many camaros on the road
Quote from: TurboDan on May 11, 2012, 05:32:39 PM
They're 190 inches long, though. The first generation Chevy Tahoe was only 188. They look pretty cool, but they're friggin' yachts. And I hope they come standard with a rear camera because I don't know how anyone sees out the rear windows.
They're huge. And they look like they're trying too hard. I see a bunch (a guy at my building owns an SS convertible...he seems like a douchebag) around here, and they're just not good looking.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 11, 2012, 05:23:47 PM
Really? Seriously, I almost NEVER see them around here. Tons of Mustangs, though. When I was in Florida last month, I actually commented to my girlfriend that I couldn't believe how many people had Camaros. I thought it was a regional fluke in the Tampa area, or something.
One of the reasons I purchased my G8 was because there is a Camaro on EVERY corner here in Cleveland! It also pisses me off that the V6 models (Camaro and G8) look just like the V8 versions. To the untrained eye they look exactly the same!
Only if the v6 has the rs package.
I'm trained
Quote from: Raza link=topic=27381.msg1718774#msg1718774 date=1336792555
They're huge. And they look like they're trying too hard. I see a bunch (a guy at my building owns an SS convertible...he seems like a douchebag) around here, and they're just not good looking.
When you drove the V6 Camaro you stated you would buy it.
I drove an SS and I loved the power, but the sightlines were so bad that even seeing out the windshield was compromised, mostly because the windshield was like a gunslit and then had a mirror stuck right in the middle of it. The reason the mirror is so low is because the back window is so small that if you put the mirror any higher you wouldn't be able to see out the back window at all. Hell I couldn't even see the other car that was to my right when I was at a 4-way stop, and when I was at a stoplight I couldn't see the light because of the roof. The car feels really wide, really long, really low, and really heavy.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 11, 2012, 12:45:09 PM
The VAG modular platforms are a whole different bag, friend.
Plus in any case, what does it matter. This is not unlike the Lincoln LS, actually, except its facing stiffer competition. Even if the platform lives on, the car can still fail.
I prefer my vag to not be built on a modular platform.
Quote from: Rupert on May 11, 2012, 11:10:23 PM
I prefer my vag to not be built on a modular platform.
Well.... now we're just getting naughty....
Quote from: 68_427 on May 11, 2012, 09:55:05 PM
Only if the v6 has the rs package.
I'm trained
I'm pretty sure anyone on here would know the differance at a glance..........
Looks great in black!
http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2012/05/2013-cadillac-ats-wears-black-tuxedo.html
Color can make all the difference...
Don't see what there is to complain about with this car. It just plain looks good, inside and out, and I can't wait to test drive one and see how it feels on the road.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 12, 2012, 10:08:12 AM
Don't see what there is to complain about with this car. It just plain looks good, inside and out, and I can't wait to test drive one and see how it feels on the road.
Im sure it will be a great car. That doesnt make it a great idea.
Quote from: Vinsanity on May 11, 2012, 12:55:40 PM
The Camaro has sales volumes slightly higher than the Mustang, which is pretty much on its own platform.
It did for awhile, but not the last time I checked (sales volumes, that is)
Quote from: LonghornTX on May 13, 2012, 11:49:31 AM
It did for awhile, but not the last time I checked (sales volumes, that is)
Nevermind, I just checked April and Camaro did indeed sell more (a fair bit more), but it will be interesting to see the next few months, considering sometime in April was when the 2013's first started hitting lots.
Quote from: LonghornTX on May 13, 2012, 11:49:31 AM
It did for awhile, but not the last time I checked (sales volumes, that is)
When was the last time you checked? Since its debut in April 2009 the Camaro has outsold the Mustang:
April - December 2009:
Camaro: 61,468
Mustang: 56,778
2010:
Camaro: 81,299
Mustang: 73,716
2011:
Camaro: 88,199
Mustang: 65,549
Jan - April 2012:
Camaro: 31,551
Mustang: 27,934
April 2012:
Camaro: 9,627
Mustang: 7,801
Quote from: LonghornTX on May 13, 2012, 12:01:13 PM
Nevermind, I just checked April and Camaro did indeed sell more (a fair bit more), but it will be interesting to see the next few months, considering sometime in April was when the 2013's first started hitting lots.
MY2013 Mustang will still be the S197. The all-new Mustang isn't due till MY2014.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 13, 2012, 12:18:42 PM
MY2013 Mustang will still be the S197. The all-new Mustang isn't due till MY2014.
Right, but it is a refresh and some things have changed.
Quote from: LonghornTX on May 13, 2012, 12:35:12 PM
Right, but it is a refresh and some things have changed.
FWIW the MY2011 Mustang refresh, which included massive improvements in engine and drive train and moderate changes in styling (the sum of which are far greater than the MY2013 updates) didn't help - in fact not only was 2011 the Camaro's biggest sales lead year to date Mustang sales actually fell vs. 2010.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 13, 2012, 12:41:28 PM
FWIW the MY2011 Mustang refresh, which included massive improvements in engine and drive train and moderate changes in styling (the sum of which are far greater than the MY2013 updates) didn't help - in fact not only was 2011 the Camaro's biggest sales lead year to date Mustang sales actually fell vs. 2010.
2011 did not include "moderate changes in styling (the sum of which are far greater than the MY2013 updates)". That is simply incorrect.
Quote from: LonghornTX on May 13, 2012, 12:53:45 PM
2011 did not include "moderate changes in styling (the sum of which are far greater than the MY2013 updates)". That is simply incorrect.
Believe or disagree as you may, nonetheless the Mustang received bunches of recent updates since the debut of the Camaro (the sum of which are far more than those of MY2013) and was still outsold by the Camaro.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 13, 2012, 12:58:12 PM
Believe or disagree as you may, nonetheless the Mustang received bunches of recent updates since the debut of the Camaro (the sum of which are far more than those of MY2013) and was still outsold by the Camaro.
Cougs, just admit you made an incorrect statement. 2010 was the last styling change for Mustang that involved any sheet metal changes. 2011/12 were hardware changes.
Quote from: LonghornTX on May 13, 2012, 01:01:44 PM
Cougs, just admit you made an incorrect statement. 2010 was the last styling change for Mustang that involved any sheet metal changes. 2011/12 were hardware changes.
You, admit as in your assertion that the "last time you checked" the Mustang was outselling the Camaro was incorrect? ;)
Quote from: GoCougs on May 13, 2012, 01:14:09 PM
You, admit as in your assertion that the "last time you checked" the Mustang was outselling the Camaro was incorrect? ;)
I don't exactly understand your sentence, but if you are implying that I didn't admit that I was wrong, you should read the post immediately following the one you are referring to.
Now, with that out of the way, I assume you will now admit that you made a factually incorrect statement regarding Mustang's recent styling changes.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 13, 2012, 01:14:09 PM
You, admit as in your assertion that the "last time you checked" the Mustang was outselling the Camaro was incorrect? ;)
Also, I don't know where I got the idea that the Mustang had regained its sales lead, but that doesn't seem to have happened. To be honest, I don't much pay attention to the sales numbers, as I don't think they reflect much about a product.
Quote from: LonghornTX on May 13, 2012, 01:19:40 PM
I don't exactly understand your sentence, but if you are implying that I didn't admit that I was wrong, you should read the post immediately following the one you are referring to.
Now, with that out of the way, I assume you will now admit that you made a factually incorrect statement regarding Mustang's recent styling changes.
No admission of anything, and I'm a bit lost on what you're fishing for anyways; the Mustang has received a ton of updating since April 2009 and the Camaro still outsells it; the uber minor updates for MY2013 are highly unlikely to alter the course of the last three years.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 13, 2012, 01:25:38 PM
No admission of anything, and I'm a bit lost on what you're fishing for anyways; the Mustang has received a ton of updating since April 2009 and the Camaro still outsells it; the uber minor updates for MY2013 are highly unlikely to alter the course of the last three years.
I will re-post it again, with highlights, so that you can clearly see the parts in which you misspoke:
FWIW the MY2011 Mustang refresh, which included massive improvements in engine and drive train and
moderate changes in styling (the sum of which are far greater than the MY2013 updates)The part in bold is factually incorrect (as I have already explained). Please admit that you made a false statement, so that no one else reads you post and makes the same mistake :thumbsup:
Sorry, no admission of anything, which I guess is bound to make the world worse off apparently. Such is the Internet.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 13, 2012, 01:34:39 PM
Sorry, no admission of anything, which I guess is bound to make the world worse off apparently. Such is the Internet.
That's alright, we all now know (if we didn't before) that you are incapable of admitting your own mistakes, even when clearly called out. #CougsFailsWithFacts
Quote from: GoCougs on May 13, 2012, 01:34:39 PM
Sorry, no admission of anything, which I guess is bound to make the world worse off apparently. Such is the Internet.
You were half wrong. 2010 saw the major styling update, but 2011 saw drivetrain changes.
NO MATTER who did what to what the Camaro will continue to outsell the Mustang for MY2013.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 13, 2012, 02:26:17 PM
NO MATTER who did what to what the Camaro will continue to outsell the Mustang for MY2013.
It probably will. I just don't think, having driven both the Mustang and Camaro, that the Camaro is better. I don't like the visibility, I don't like the steering wheel, and I don't care for the brakes. The engine's awesome and it's really quick, but I prefer the Mustang. I can see out of it, the steering wheel's great, and the brakes feel right. It's the "worse" car, but it's the one I'd have.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 13, 2012, 02:26:17 PM
NO MATTER who did what to what the Camaro will continue to outsell the Mustang for MY2013.
Ah, so now you admit that I was right, but to make yourself feel better, you make a statement that no one person can challenge. Haha, ok bud, whatever makes you feel better.
I know which car is better. I have driven both extensively; have you? Why do you like the Camaro so much more? The Mustang GT outperforms the SS in all regards, and it is much easier to drive fast. Not to mention the ergonomics.
Is this all because you had one as your first car?
Quote from: LonghornTX on May 13, 2012, 03:10:14 PM
Ah, so now you admit that I was right, but to make yourself feel better, you make a statement that no one person can challenge. Haha, ok bud, whatever makes you feel better.
I know which car is better. I have driven both extensively; have you? Why do you like the Camaro so much more? The Mustang GT outperforms the SS in all regards, and it is much easier to drive fast. Not to mention the ergonomics.
Is this all because you had one as your first car?
Ha, ha, just so you know, SVT666 went down the same Mustang Jihad road WRT to the Camaro's sales success and performance, and his 'SPINning hasn't recovered since (i.e., it ended poorly, and more than once)...
The Mustang GT does not outperform the Camaro SS. Untold comparisons and road/track tests plainly tell us this; why would you assert otherwise?
Quote from: GoCougs on May 13, 2012, 03:40:36 PM
Ha, ha, just so you know, SVT666 went down the same Mustang Jihad road WRT to the Camaro's sales success and performance, and his 'SPINning hasn't recovered since (i.e., it ended poorly, and more than once)...
The Mustang GT does not outperform the Camaro SS. Untold comparisons and road/track tests plainly tell us this; why would you assert otherwise?
Sorry, your hollow threats won't keep me for exposing you for what you are; another internet jockey who has never driven either of these cars. I ask once more though, because I like picking on someone who has trouble admitting when they misspeak (we are all wrong every once in a while); do you admit that the Mustang wasn't restyled in 2011/12, or are you taking that one to the grave?
Untold comparisons pick the Mustang as #1, and it posts objectively better numbers in everything but the 1/4. For your reference:
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2011-ford-mustang-gt-50-vs-2010-chevrolet-camaro-ss-comparison-tests
http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/comparison/2010-chevrolet-camaro-ss-vs.-2011-ford-mustang-gt
This one shows a second difference in lap times:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/lightning-lap-2011-ndash-feature-ndash-car-and-driver-sortable-times-complete-lightning-lap-times-2006-to-2011-page-8
Ultimately, I ask again, have you driven either of these cars?
Quote from: LonghornTX on May 13, 2012, 03:10:14 PM
Ah, so now you admit that I was right, but to make yourself feel better, you make a statement that no one person can challenge. Haha, ok bud, whatever makes you feel better.
I know which car is better. I have driven both extensively; have you? Why do you like the Camaro so much more? The Mustang GT outperforms the SS in all regards, and it is much easier to drive fast. Not to mention the ergonomics.
Is this all because you had one as your first car?
BTW, I had misremembered that the SS was faster in the 1/4. So you can replace the "all" above with "most".
:facepalm: Don't you realize you just posted that the Mustang GT is no better a performer and the Camaro??? If I was feeling particularly mean spirited I'd post up the ZL1 crushing the GT500 or Boss 302 LS, in addition to the myriad tests showing on average that the Camaro SS is actually the slightly quicker car vs. the Mustang GT (axle hop issues unfortunately).
It worked with SV666 and it shall work for you. Each time you troll the Camaro I shall beat you back with to where this all started. My suggestion is don't; it didn't end well for SVT666 and it won't end well for you. The Camaro outsells the Mustang and the Mustang ain't a better performer. Whether you accept it or not doesn't make it not so. The Beat Back is painful, FYI.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 13, 2012, 04:17:54 PM
:facepalm: Don't you realize you just posted that the Mustang GT is no better a performer and the Camaro??? If I was feeling particularly mean spirited I'd post up the ZL1 crushing the GT500 or Boss 302 LS, in addition to the myriad tests showing on average that the Camaro SS is actually the slightly quicker car vs. the Mustang GT (axle hop issues unfortunately).
It worked with SV666 and it shall work for you. Each time you troll the Camaro I shall beat you back with to where this all started. My suggestion is don't; it didn't end well for SVT666 and it won't end well for you. The Camaro outsells the Mustang and the Mustang ain't a better performer. Whether you accept it or not doesn't make it not so. The Beat Back is painful, FYI.
Wow, threats are what you have you resort to? Hilarious...Keep em' coming bud, it only makes you look like...well, the guy that everyone already has seemingly so little respect for.
Answer this question Cougs. Have you driven either of these cars?
Ok, I will continue. Other than the one acceleration statistic (1/4), the Mustang GT outperforms (braking, skidpad, fuel economy, track times) or performs the same (0-60) as the SS in every objective measure. All while being much easier to drive fast subjectively and having better ergonomics. Have you tried to drive an SS down a narrow winding road with pace? It is not easy, because the Camaro feels BIG.
The Mustang was also picked as the #1 car in other comparison tests. Here are a few more where it ends up #1:
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2010-chevrolet-camaro-rs-page-2
http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/comparison/2011-camaro-ss-convertible-vs.-2011-mustang-gt-convertible
The ZL1 hasn't crushed the GT500, because, as you should know, the newest one isn't out yet. Considering that you seem to obsess over acceleration numbers, only a dolt would think that the ZL1 would have much of a chance in matching the new GT500 in straight line, and I think it will probably beat it out around a track too. That has yet to be seen, and I wouldn't be surprised if the ZL1 still posted better times. It is an impressive numbers car, and was designed seemingly for the track. I have also seen the single comparison test featuring the ZL1 and the Boss 302 LS, and the ZL1 definitely posted some impressive numbers. But that was only one test, and it featured Randy Pobst as the driver, who I have to say isn't the most impressive I have ever seen. He seems to be MT's guy now, so it only serves as another reason to ignore that publication for me. When R&T or C&D do a test, I will pay attention.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 13, 2012, 04:17:54 PM
:facepalm: Don't you realize you just posted that the Mustang GT is no better a performer and the Camaro??? If I was feeling particularly mean spirited I'd post up the ZL1 crushing the GT500 or Boss 302 LS, in addition to the myriad tests showing on average that the Camaro SS is actually the slightly quicker car vs. the Mustang GT (axle hop issues unfortunately).
It worked with SV666 and it shall work for you. Each time you troll the Camaro I shall beat you back with to where this all started. My suggestion is don't; it didn't end well for SVT666 and it won't end well for you. The Camaro outsells the Mustang and the Mustang ain't a better performer. Whether you accept it or not doesn't make it not so. The Beat Back is painful, FYI.
Also, all this bluster from a guy who isn't even man enough to admit that he was incorrect when he asserted that the Mustang had been restyled past 2010, but before 2013...Grow a pair before you go stomping around like some kind of Billy Badass :cheers:
Seems like the Camaro is replacing the Mustang as the go to car for bros and bitches. OU campus is full of 'em.
Can you have just one thread not turn into Mustang vs. Camaro?
Quote from: GoCougs on May 13, 2012, 01:14:09 PM
You, admit as in your assertion that the "last time you checked" the Mustang was outselling the Camaro was incorrect? ;)
Well, one thing that's not in dispute is that the Mustang outsold the Camaro from 2003 to 2009!
:lol:
[
Quote from: LonghornTX on May 13, 2012, 04:07:27 PM
BTW, I had misremembered that the SS was faster in the 1/4. So you can replace the "all" above with "most".
short gearing helps the Stang run with the SS! After that quarter mile the GT is left for dead by the SS. Just my .02
Quote from: Madman on May 13, 2012, 07:02:55 PM
Well, one thing that's not in dispute is that the Mustang outsold the Camaro from 2003 to 2009!
:lol:
Yep! But it was also outperformed by the 04-06 GTO and 08-09 G8 GT! :mask:
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on May 13, 2012, 08:07:19 PM
[short gearing helps the Stang run with the SS! After that quarter mile the GT is left for dead by the SS. Just my .02
It is also hurt by less traction at the rear tire. 255 is not much at the rear tire, with that much hp. But yea, HP eventually plays out, regardless of weight, gearing or traction
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on May 13, 2012, 08:09:18 PM
Yep! But it was also outperformed by the 04-06 GTO and 08-09 G8 GT! :mask:
Those are both quick cars (especially got the GTO). The G8 GT has about the same performance, that would be a close drag race
Quote from: LonghornTX on May 13, 2012, 08:41:04 PM
Those are both quick cars (especially got the GTO). The G8 GT has about the same performance, that would be a close drag race
The 5 Liter Stangs would kick ass but he said 2003-2009! We all know any of those non 5.0 Stangs will get spanked! I haven't had the chance to whip one but I will as soon as the opportunity arises........
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on May 13, 2012, 08:52:56 PM
The 5 Liter Stangs would kick ass but he said 2003-2009! We all know any of those non 5.0 Stangs will get spanked! I haven't had the chance to whip one but I will as soon as the opportunity arises........
2003-2004 maybe, but 2005-2009 will have the same performance as you. Be careful! If they have done any mods, even simple ones, you're in trouble.
Quote from: Xer0 on May 13, 2012, 06:39:22 PM
Can you have just one thread not turn into Mustang vs. Camaro?
Dunno - you'll have to ask the Mustang Jihadists - no one ever spins off into the weeds anytime someone disparages the Camaro. It's kinda like people with class and who have respect - they don't go around telling people they have class and are respected. Reality speaks for itself.
Jesus, that's quite a reaction. ZL1 did more than I'd figured.
Mustang GT > Camaro SS
Period. End of story. Anyone who has driven both agrees and Cougs hasn't driven either car and he flat out refuses to, and that's what matters. CougsFAIL.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 14, 2012, 10:55:44 AM
Mustang GT > Camaro SS
Period. End of story. Anyone who has driven both agrees and Cougs hasn't driven either car and he flat out refuses to, and that's what matters. CougsFAIL.
Camaro vs. Mustang sales:
April - December 2009:
Camaro: 61,468
Mustang: 56,778
2010:
Camaro: 81,299
Mustang: 73,716
2011:
Camaro: 88,199
Mustang: 65,549
Jan - April 2012:
Camaro: 31,551
Mustang: 27,934
April 2012:
Camaro: 9,627
Mustang: 7,801
NEWSFLASH:
Better Sales Numbers /= Better Car
:rolleyes: CougsFAIL
Quote from: SVT666 on May 14, 2012, 12:30:50 PM
NEWSFLASH:
Better Sales Numbers /= Better Car
:rolleyes: CougsFAIL
Camaro vs. Mustang sales:
April - December 2009:
Camaro: 61,468
Mustang: 56,778
2010:
Camaro: 81,299
Mustang: 73,716
2011:
Camaro: 88,199
Mustang: 65,549
Jan - April 2012:
Camaro: 31,551
Mustang: 27,934
April 2012:
Camaro: 9,627
Mustang: 7,801
lmao
I hate to do it, I really do, but I've found nothing better to renormoralizes the Internetry of unhinged Mustang Jihadists.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 14, 2012, 12:32:59 PM
Camaro vs. Mustang sales:
April - December 2009:
Camaro: 61,468
Mustang: 56,778
2010:
Camaro: 81,299
Mustang: 73,716
2011:
Camaro: 88,199
Mustang: 65,549
Jan - April 2012:
Camaro: 31,551
Mustang: 27,934
April 2012:
Camaro: 9,627
Mustang: 7,801
I feel sorry for you. Too bad you didn't buy the better car when you bought yours. BMW 3 series outsells your Infiniti by 62%.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 14, 2012, 12:41:36 PM
I hate to do it, I really do, but I've found nothing better to renormoralizes the Internetry of unhinged Mustang Jihadists.
Sales Numbers /= Better car
CougsFAIL!
Quote from: SVT666 on May 14, 2012, 12:44:31 PM
I feel sorry for you. Too bad you didn't buy the better car when you bought yours. BMW 3 series outsells your Infiniti by 62%.
Bwahahahahahahaha.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 14, 2012, 12:44:31 PM
I feel sorry for you. Too bad you didn't buy the better car when you bought yours. BMW 3 series outsells your Infiniti by 62%.
Ironical attack coming from a guy who drives a gunned-out Focus wagon ;).
But I do still feel bad doing this; the personification of your ruined 'SPINning that has chased you for 3 years:
Camaro vs. Mustang sales:
April - December 2009:
Camaro: 61,468
Mustang: 56,778
2010:
Camaro: 81,299
Mustang: 73,716
2011:
Camaro: 88,199
Mustang: 65,549
Jan - April 2012:
Camaro: 31,551
Mustang: 27,934
April 2012:
Camaro: 9,627
Mustang: 7,801
Quote from: GoCougs on May 14, 2012, 01:03:21 PM
Ironical attack coming from a guy who drives a gunned-out Focus wagon ;).
I don't follow. What does my car have to do with your ridiculous assertion that better sales means the car is better?
QuoteBut I do still feel bad doing this; the personification of your ruined 'SPINning that has chased you for 3 years:
Camaro vs. Mustang sales:
April - December 2009:
Camaro: 61,468
Mustang: 56,778
2010:
Camaro: 81,299
Mustang: 73,716
2011:
Camaro: 88,199
Mustang: 65,549
Jan - April 2012:
Camaro: 31,551
Mustang: 27,934
April 2012:
Camaro: 9,627
Mustang: 7,801
You're persistent, I'll give you that. You contradict yourself though.
Here's how it works - if you're going to cut on a guy's car out of the blue, make sure you drive a better car. That way, instead of looking like a bitter defeated prick, you just look like a prick (lesser of two evils and all that).
Sometimes sales means the better car, sometimes not. The only guys here who assert such things are Mustang Apologists, who railed for months prior to the Camaro's release it was a lousy car and would be a sales flop.
Ha ha. It's fun watching you be defeated.
By the way, sales figures NEVER mean one car is better than the other. They just mean it APPEALS to more people. That does NOT mean it's better.
You Mustangists put so much into a predicted Camaro sales flop, and vest SO much into trolling the Camaro at almost every mention, you STILL haven't recovered three years hence and your SPINning shows it. The lost opportunity cost is ginormous.
Trying to change the subject will get you no where. You got outCougs'd and that pisses you off. Changing the subject is all you have left.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 14, 2012, 01:34:41 PM
Trying to change the subject will get you no where. You got outCougs'd and that pisses you off. Changing the subject is all you have left.
I present the personification of your ruined 'SPINning that has chased you for 3 years; Camaro vs. Mustang sales:
April - December 2009:
Camaro: 61,468
Mustang: 56,778
2010:
Camaro: 81,299
Mustang: 73,716
2011:
Camaro: 88,199
Mustang: 65,549
Jan - April 2012:
Camaro: 31,551
Mustang: 27,934
April 2012:
Camaro: 9,627
Mustang: 7,801
It's already over Cougs. Now you look like you are out of ideas. You're tapped. You've got nothing left. Give up man.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 14, 2012, 01:36:53 PM
It's already over Cougs. Now you look like you are out of ideas. You're tapped. You've got nothing left. Give up man.
Ha, ha. You (and everyone) should full well know by now my Internetry is vastly too sharp to rest on such a non sequitor as best sales = best car. You've built the OH BUT GOCOUGS SAYS BEST SALES = BEST CAR LOL strawman via desperate deflection. The Camaro's market success, despite you vast predictions and desperation to the contrary, is what as personified your Mustang Jihadism - THAT is what is going on here (and I think you full well know that).
You vested so much into things Mustang, it didn't go your way, and now you're bitter and irrational when it comes to anything remotely concerning the Camaro. You've so lost here you don't even see it - I haven't defeated you, my Internetry hasn't defeated you, even the success of the Camaro hasn't defeated you - you have defeated you - the worst and hardest to accept of ALL defeats. Beyond that, there's nothing more to be said - you'll cogitate and adjust, or you won't.
Also, no one disagrees with this post BTW.
:lol: Oh Cougs. if only all that were true. I beat you at your own game and you know it, hence your deperation move of attacking my car and then proclaiming sales numbers don't mean anything despite your assertion that they do.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 14, 2012, 01:27:43 PM
By the way, sales figures NEVER mean one car is better than the other. They just mean it APPEALS to more people. That does NOT mean it's better.
This wasn't the case when the Mustang was out selling the Camaro AND Trans Am back in the 90s. All the mustang guys swore the It was the better car because of sales numbers! Just my .02!
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on May 14, 2012, 03:04:36 PM
This wasn't the case when the Mustang was out selling the Camaro AND Trans Am back in the 90s. All the mustang guys swore the It was the better car because of sales numbers! Just my .02!
No they didn't. Every Mustang guy I knew including myself knew the Mustang was playing second fiddle in the 90s. The Camaro/Firebird were much better cars. Ford stuck with an anemic engine and shitty chassis for way too long while GM was building a couple of fire breathers. The reason the Mustang outsold the F-bodies at that time is the same reason the Camaro outsells the Mustang now...styling. The Camaro was just ugly and the Firebird's styling was overwrought and outrageous. The hump in the floor of the passenger footwell didn't help either. There were variations of the Mustang that were good like the '99-'01 Cobra, 2000 Cobra R, '03-'04 Cobra, and '03-'04 Mach 1, but that's about it. I had a '96 Mustang GT, but I had to modify the fuck out of it to make it any good.
I think we can all agree on one thing...
Toyota Yaris.
Quote from: CJ on May 14, 2012, 04:06:54 PM
I think we can all agree on one thing...
Toyota Yaris.
FUCK. YEAH.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 14, 2012, 12:41:36 PM
I hate to do it, I really do, but I've found nothing better to renormoralizes the Internetry of unhinged Mustang Jihadists.
Ah, but where is the fire now, Cougs? I thought I was supposed to be scared? All you post now are a bunch of sales figures. If that logic meant sh*t to people like us, we would all be proclaiming how badass the new Camry is... Or as SVT thoughtfully pointed out, how crappy your new G must be in comparison to the 3 (I like your car btw).
You still haven't answered any of my questions...so I am just going to assume you have never driven either of the vehicles in question. The Camaro is an alright car (seemingly pretty damn awesome in ZL1 form, performance wise), but it is let down by the driving experience. The way you sit, how huge it feels. The interior. You, having never driven one, wouldn't know this. Sad, because I think you would ultimately be let down when you drove it. I would love to see your head explode when you take a 13' GT out for a spin, ultimately succumbing to the massive forces exerted on it by the cognitive dissonance flowing through your dome.
And back to topic, I think the new ATS is going to be pretty sweet. I am very excited about it and might be looking into one for my new DD. Hopefully the interior turns out nice.
ATS-V for 50k?
Quote from: LonghornTX on May 14, 2012, 07:40:12 PM
Ah, but where is the fire now, Cougs? I thought I was supposed to be scared? All you post now are a bunch of sales figures. If that logic meant sh*t to people like us, we would all be proclaiming how badass the new Camry is... Or as SVT thoughtfully pointed out, how crappy your new G must be in comparison to the 3 (I like your car btw).
You still haven't answered any of my questions...so I am just going to assume you have never driven either of the vehicles in question. The Camaro is an alright car (seemingly pretty damn awesome in ZL1 form, performance wise), but it is let down by the driving experience. The way you sit, how huge it feels. The interior. You, having never driven one, wouldn't know this. Sad, because I think you would ultimately be let down when you drove it. I would love to see your head explode when you take a 13' GT out for a spin, ultimately succumbing to the massive forces exerted on it by the cognitive dissonance flowing through your dome.
Nah, I owned you two turkeys - ha, ha, you know you get owned when you cut on a guy's car outta the blue. Again, my suggestion is to let it go - you two don't stand a chance.
Don't you own an S197 that you modified a decent amount?
Quote from: GoCougs on May 14, 2012, 07:49:11 PM
Nah, I owned you two turkeys - ha, ha, you know you get owned when you cut on a guy's car outta the blue. Again, my suggestion is to let it go - you two don't stand a chance.
Don't you own an S197 that you modified a decent amount?
Owned? How? You haven't posted anything other than threats and rhetorical diarrhea. Actually, I would say SVT did you pretty dirty using your own line of argument.
And now we know you haven't even driven the car you are so thoughtlessly defending. You also were clearly called out for your lack of product knowledge, since you seem to think that the Mustang had a styling refresh in 2011 (or 12').
I do own an S197, an 08', that is substantially modified.
Yeah, thought so.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 14, 2012, 08:03:56 PM
Yeah, thought so.
Oh come on, Cougs! Don't you have more than that?
Quote from: LonghornTX on May 14, 2012, 07:42:30 PM
And back to topic, I think the new ATS is going to be pretty sweet. I am very excited about it and might be looking into one for my new DD. Hopefully the interior turns out nice.
ATS-V for 50k?
Same here. Actually, it's the first American car I'd consider buying in a while. I'll have to drive one, obviously, but I've yet to find anything about this car I don't like.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 14, 2012, 08:24:08 PM
Same here. Actually, it's the first American car I'd consider buying in a while. I'll have to drive one, obviously, but I've yet to find anything about this car I don't like.
When they said they benchmarked the E46, my heart stopped for a second. That has been my favorite 3 series for some time now...
Quote from: LonghornTX on May 14, 2012, 08:16:54 PM
Oh come on, Cougs! Don't you have more than that?
Yes: You two got GoCougs'd.
Finis.
Quote from: LonghornTX on May 14, 2012, 07:42:30 PM
ATS-V for 50k?
For sho'. That would fill a nice gap left by the old CTS-V, and should suffice with whatever V8 is in the next Camaro SS.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 14, 2012, 08:39:39 PM
Yes: You two got GoCougs'd.
Finis.
This was what I was supposed to be afraid of?
Quote from: LonghornTX on May 14, 2012, 09:04:02 PM
This was what I was supposed to be afraid of?
Will you stop goading him please
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 15, 2012, 11:40:06 AM
Will you stop goading him please
Sorry, it is just too easy sometimes. Mea culpa mea culpa
Cougs only wins by remaining calm and deflecting attacks, valid or not. Massive trolling, and pretty hilarious. You guys lose by playing into his hands.
Wow... Cougs failed just because he's Cougs. You two failed for actually letting him do it. Again.
Anyway - ATS. I'm kinda agreeing with Sporty. It's probably going to be a good car, worthy competitor to the 3-er. But it lacks that little something, which would catapult it into this crowded segment IMO. If GM keeps doing it year after year, it'd probably get to H&H level of BMW/MB/Audi... That's a viable strategy too, except GM is not exactly known for such perseverance.
I know, it's supposed to be a volume seller, 3-er beater for Caddy. But to me it looks like an optional v8 (not V-series), would make a nice feature for the buyers to take notice. Especially since LSx engines are supposed to be light and fuel efficient enough. Give it turbo-4 as an entry level engine, ditch v6, and go directly to v8 for higher trims.
Ha, ha. You guys didn't stand a chance. Jesus, you should know that by now; inherently weak if not indefensible position (Mustang Apologism/Camaro Haterism) or not.
The LSx engine is not a luxury car engine; has no business under the hood of the ATS (and won't be). The 323 hp 3.6L V6 will be motor o' plenty if it's done right.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 15, 2012, 08:48:59 PM
The LSx engine is not a luxury car engine; has no business under the hood of the ATS (and won't be). The 323 hp 3.6L V6 will be motor o' plenty if it's done right.
Love you. :wub:
Quote from: GoCougs on May 15, 2012, 08:48:59 PM
The LSx engine is not a luxury car engine; has no business under the hood of the ATS (and won't be). The 323 hp 3.6L V6 will be motor o' plenty if it's done right.
According to Cadillac the 3.6 ATS weighs 3434lbs, using the 318hp that was officially announced at Detroit or something. Too bad it's automatic only.
But there's a tune out there that brings the 2.0T in the Regal GS to almost 350hp, so I'm sure that's an option for those who want an ATS with a manual.
Quote from: Rupert on May 15, 2012, 08:38:21 PM
Cougs only wins by remaining calm and deflecting attacks, valid or not. Massive trolling, and pretty hilarious. You guys lose by playing into his hands.
Cougs lost his cool when he started attacking my car. All I did was use his flawed logic against him.
If you respond seriously, the troll wins.
I win. I didn't participate.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 15, 2012, 08:48:59 PM
The LSx engine is not a luxury car engine; has no business under the hood of the ATS (and won't be). The 323 hp 3.6L V6 will be motor o' plenty if it's done right.
An old caveman OHV V8 does fine under the hood of the 300C :huh:
People who want a 3 series will buy a 3 series. ATS has to be something completely different to succeed
Quote from: SVT666 on May 15, 2012, 10:22:00 PM
Cougs lost his cool when he started attacking my car. All I did was use his flawed logic against him.
Take Rupert for example; like you he also used to cut on my old Accord, and then of course I had no choice but to remind him said was a better performer car than his Porsche. He understood, acquiesced, and am proud to say he got on with improved Internetry. You did not unfortunately and then had the lulz audacity to also cut on my G37 when your Mustangism went poorly as usual. I hold the same hope for you, though you're obviously a much harder case than Rupert.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 16, 2012, 06:23:53 AM
An old caveman OHV V8 does fine under the hood of the 300C :huh:
People who want a 3 series will buy a 3 series. ATS has to be something completely different to succeed
Cadillac is a step above Cadillac though. I agree the ATS does have to be different to succeed, but not
that different - 400+ pooprod hp in car that size is interesting but not a market need.
The 300C has a V8 because it's a big American car and is several classes above the ATS. It's a LARGE car. A V8 makes sense in it.
They dont need 400 HP. They can lower the displacement.
And I am not even saying it needs a V8. But completely aping the 3 series seems like a bad idea. It needs to separate itself more.
Nobody really NEEDS 400 HP, especially when there's a perfectly good V6 option. Since that car is all about excess, it's perfectly fine. A 300C is MOT a canyon carver. It's a luxurious (sort of) vehicle that happens to have a large V8 and RWD, as well as some sportier rode and handling characteristics.
Why does the ATS have to be a canyon carver? There are already a million canyon carvers. Most people in the luxury market don't care about canyon carving. Or at least way more care about style. ATS isn't ugly but its def not very stylish or original.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 16, 2012, 08:46:46 AMMost people in the luxury market don't care about canyon carving.
If that were true, the 3 series wouldn't be the best seller in the class.
Quote from: Raza on May 16, 2012, 11:21:22 AM
If that were true, the 3 series wouldn't be the best seller in the class.
Its the oldest + most recognizable nameplate in the segment. If that were false most 3 series would have the sports package etc (they dont). 3 series is the cheapest way to associate yourself with the roundel. Thats what matters to most folks who buy them.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 16, 2012, 08:46:46 AM
Why does the ATS have to be a canyon carver? There are already a million canyon carvers. Most people in the luxury market don't care about canyon carving. Or at least way more care about style. ATS isn't ugly but its def not very stylish or original.
Because its much smaller than a CTS and that's what they need to really compete with ze Germans.
Quote from: Raza on May 16, 2012, 11:21:22 AM
If that were true, the 3 series wouldn't be the best seller in the class.
Most (new) 3er buyers couldn't care less about "canyon carving." Though the 3er likely has more enthusiast buyers than other marques, it's very small; the others? They're buying a badge.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 16, 2012, 08:11:54 AM
They dont need 400 HP. They can lower the displacement.
And I am not even saying it needs a V8. But completely aping the 3 series seems like a bad idea. It needs to separate itself more.
Why lower displacement? The LSx would remain the same size and weight.
The CTS had a combo that worked well; more on the luxury side than the performance side.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 16, 2012, 11:42:41 AM
Its the oldest + most recognizable nameplate in the segment. If that were false most 3 series would have the sports package etc (they dont). 3 series is the cheapest way to associate yourself with the roundel. Thats what matters to most folks who buy them.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 16, 2012, 12:24:34 PM
Most (new) 3er buyers couldn't care less about "canyon carving." Though the 3er likely has more enthusiast buyers than other marques, it's very small; the others? They're buying a badge.
Yes, and yes.
Sporty must not realize there's going to be multiple suspensions and packages available for the ATS. If someone doesn't want a canyon carver, they can skip the sport suspension, if someone wants a canyon carver, they can have the sport suspension + LSD.
Quote from: 68_427 on May 16, 2012, 12:42:52 PM
Sporty must not realize there's going to be multiple suspensions and packages available for the ATS. If someone doesn't want a canyon carver, they can skip the sport suspension, if someone wants a canyon carver, they can have the sport suspension + LSD.
Jack of all trades = master of none
It's still going to have the same good chassis dynamics no matter how you spec it.
And MRC is about as close as you can get to perfect suspension right now.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 16, 2012, 11:42:41 AM
Its the oldest + most recognizable nameplate in the segment. If that were false most 3 series would have the sports package etc (they dont). 3 series is the cheapest way to associate yourself with the roundel. Thats what matters to most folks who buy them.
The BMW name is still not on the same plane as the Mercedes name, yet the 3 series trounces the C.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 15, 2012, 08:46:32 PM
Ha, ha. You guys didn't stand a chance. Jesus, you should know that by now; inherently weak if not indefensible position (Mustang Apologism/Camaro Haterism) or not.
I now know to just regard you as the village idiot and take your chest beating (see posts two pages back) as you just trying to drum up some self-esteem :ohyeah:
Just because someone isn't a car enthusiast doesn't mean they can't recognize the great driving dynamics of a 3 series.
I think it is pretty clear that the V model will get a V8 of some type. Seeing as the ATS is a direct A4/3/C competitor, the V model will be a direct competitor to the M/AMG versions. GM doesn't have a powerful enough FI V6 to compete in the ~450hp range that those models will be at (unless they develop a new one) and will need an LS_ under the hood to be class competitive. I wouldn't be surprised to see the new smaller displacement LS from the C7 in there.
Quote from: Raza on May 16, 2012, 01:01:50 PM
The BMW name is still not on the same plane as the Mercedes name, yet the 3 series trounces the C.
The BMW trounces the C-Class in driving dynamics, but I think the Mercedes looks better and has a nicer interior. I really don't like BMW interiors.
Amazing how everyone here has already passed judgement on a car nobody (outside of GM's R&D department) has driven yet! :rolleyes:
Quote from: 68_427 on May 16, 2012, 12:42:52 PM
Sporty must not realize there's going to be multiple suspensions and packages available for the ATS. If someone doesn't want a canyon carver, they can skip the sport suspension, if someone wants a canyon carver, they can have the sport suspension + LSD.
Again. Tell me why anyone should buy this instead of a 3er.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 16, 2012, 05:19:01 PM
Again. Tell me why anyone should buy this instead of a 3er.
They like how it looks? They like the interior better? Why do you buy an Altima over and Accord? People have different preferences.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 16, 2012, 05:19:01 PM
Again. Tell me why anyone should buy this instead of a 3er.
Nobody can tell you that until they drive one. At the same time, nobody can tell you why they'd buy a 3er over an ATS until they drive one.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 16, 2012, 06:25:11 AM
Take Rupert for example; like you he also used to cut on my old Accord, and then of course I had no choice but to remind him said was a better performer car than his Porsche. He understood, acquiesced, and am proud to say he got on with improved Internetry. You did not unfortunately and then had the lulz audacity to also cut on my G37 when your Mustangism went poorly as usual. I hold the same hope for you, though you're obviously a much harder case than Rupert.
:nono:
Dude, your Accord arguments never won a thing with anyone.
:loopy: :huh:
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 16, 2012, 01:10:32 PM
Just because someone isn't a car enthusiast doesn't mean they can't recognize the great driving dynamics of a 3 series.
That statement is not inconsistent with "the overwhelming majority can't and don't care"
Quote from: CJ on May 16, 2012, 01:31:53 PM
The BMW trounces the C-Class in driving dynamics, but I think the Mercedes looks better and has a nicer interior. I really don't like BMW interiors.
I meant in sales.
My brother had this discussion the other day. He said that Mercedes isn't trying to compete with the 3 series because not everyone wants the sportier 3, they might want the more relaxed C. I said clearly the class enjoys that, since the 3 isn't a niche car, it's the best seller in its class.
The C class does look better, but I don't think the C's interior is better.
Quote from: Rupert on May 16, 2012, 07:38:43 PM
:nono:
Dude, your Accord arguments never won a thing with anyone.
:loopy: :huh:
Since I'm replacing the Jetta with a sports car, I'm seriously considering an Accord V6.
Quote from: 850CSi on May 17, 2012, 12:09:45 AM
That statement is not inconsistent with "the overwhelming majority can't and don't care"
Like I said, people very often like the way a car drives, handles, and feeds back, but can't verbalize it in a meaningful way to enthusiasts.
Think of it this way. I know a good cup of coffee from a bad cup of coffee. I couldn't explain to you the difference.
Is a base 3 really that much better than the competition dynamically though
And if people like how the 3 drives, why don't cars like the Mazda3 outsell the Corolla
I think its the badge/name/brand, which Cadillac cannot match, despite having truckloads of H&H?. And if the 3's appeal is some unexplained nuanced thing, how probable is it that Cadillac will not only be able to replicate it, but have MORE of that je ne sais quoi (which is what it would take for it to even begin to approach the 3 in sales)
Quote from: Rupert on May 16, 2012, 07:38:43 PM
:nono:
Dude, your Accord arguments never won a thing with anyone.
:loopy: :huh:
Ha!
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 17, 2012, 07:18:04 AM
Is a base 3 really that much better than the competition dynamically though
Yes.
Quote from: Raza on May 17, 2012, 04:52:31 AM
Since I'm replacing the Jetta with a sports car, I'm seriously considering an Accord V6.
Good choice, more than enough. But if you want something truly fantastic, look no further than a G37. Even better with AWD that adds a lot of safety & fun even in slight rain.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on May 17, 2012, 11:07:18 AM
Good choice, more than enough. But if you want something truly fantastic, look no further than a G37. Even better with AWD that adds a lot of safety & fun even in slight rain.
Your sarcasm detector is broken. He would never buy an Accord.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 17, 2012, 11:11:14 AM
Your sarcasm detector is broken. He would never buy an Accord.
How coincidental. Yours is broken too :lol:
Quote from: HotRodPilot on May 17, 2012, 11:16:44 AM
How coincidental. Yours is broken too :lol:
Ah ha! But isn't it
your sarcasm detector that has been broken all along?
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 17, 2012, 07:18:04 AM
And if people like how the 3 drives, why don't cars like the Mazda3 outsell the Corolla
You're smarter than that. It's a different--and not comparable--market.
GoCougsSPIN.
Quote from: LonghornTX on May 16, 2012, 01:23:22 PM
I think it is pretty clear that the V model will get a V8 of some type. Seeing as the ATS is a direct A4/3/C competitor, the V model will be a direct competitor to the M/AMG versions. GM doesn't have a powerful enough FI V6 to compete in the ~450hp range that those models will be at (unless they develop a new one) and will need an LS_ under the hood to be class competitive. I wouldn't be surprised to see the new smaller displacement LS from the C7 in there.
Been confirmed it'll be a FI V6. GM has two in development right now.
Quote from: 68_427 on May 17, 2012, 07:38:43 PM
Been confirmed it'll be a FI V6. GM has two in development right now.
WTF GM. You already have a V8 going into the next Camaro which is going to be on the same platform, so why not use that for the ATS-V...unless...no...please don't tell me...
I'd rather it had a V8 too.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 17, 2012, 07:18:04 AM
Is a base 3 really that much better than the competition dynamically though
And if people like how the 3 drives, why don't cars like the Mazda3 outsell the Corolla
I think its the badge/name/brand, which Cadillac cannot match, despite having truckloads of H&H?. And if the 3's appeal is some unexplained nuanced thing, how probable is it that Cadillac will not only be able to replicate it, but have MORE of that je ne sais quoi (which is what it would take for it to even begin to approach the 3 in sales)
The 3 is probably better but I doubt it makes a difference to the 99.99% of drivers who don't drive it to anywhere near its limits. However that doesn't mean people buy it for that reason anyway because they want to drive "the Ultimate Driving Machine" regardless of whether they exploit these characteristics... Marketing.
If a car has good dynamics, you don't have to thrash it to feel it.
My point is, for the 30th time (no offense nickdrinkwater), for the ATS to succeed, it can't be a Caddilac 3 series in damn near every aspect (engines, dynamics, PRICE), esp when you consider most of its competitors are due for major overhauls within the next 2-3 years. I mean the next IS will be based on the FT-86... that alone could be a paradigm shift. Caddy benchmarked the E46, but some folks are calling the F30 the best 3 series of all time. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I really think GM blew it. This would have been a winning strategy 10, 15 years ago.
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on May 18, 2012, 02:37:19 PM
The 3 is probably better but I doubt it makes a difference to the 99.99% of drivers who don't drive it to anywhere near its limits. However that doesn't mean people buy it for that reason anyway because they want to drive "the Ultimate Driving Machine" regardless of whether they exploit these characteristics... Marketing.
Oh, please. It's not "marketing."
I got in an E90 3er last fall with zero preconceived notions whatsoever while I was looking for a new vehicle. The second I started driving it, it was a magical experience. There is simply no better car in its class than the 3er, period. BMW makes damn, damn, damn good cars ... end of story.
If I did not own a boat I had to occasionally haul, and a business that occasionally required offroad capability, I would be in that 3er today. Period.
And believe me, if Caddy can match or beat it, I'll be the first one to buy one! As an American, I WANT Caddy to succeed and be respected among the younger generation of buyers like myself in their 20s!
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on May 18, 2012, 02:37:19 PM
The 3 is probably better but I doubt it makes a difference to the 99.99% of drivers who don't drive it to anywhere near its limits. However that doesn't mean people buy it for that reason anyway because they want to drive "the Ultimate Driving Machine" regardless of whether they exploit these characteristics... Marketing.
Yup. Lesser 3ers (which most are) are a popular girls car.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 18, 2012, 10:57:17 PM
And believe me, if Caddy can match or beat it, I'll be the first one to buy one! As an American, I WANT Caddy to succeed and be respected among the younger generation of buyers like myself in their 20s!
+1,000,000!!!
Quote from: 68_427 on May 17, 2012, 07:38:43 PM
Been confirmed it'll be a FI V6. GM has two in development right now.
I hadn't heard or seen that...link(s)?
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 16, 2012, 11:42:41 AM
Its the oldest + most recognizable nameplate in the segment. If that were false most 3 series would have the sports package etc (they dont). 3 series is the cheapest way to associate yourself with the roundel. Thats what matters to most folks who buy them.
Why do the folks want to buy the badge? Because the enthusiasts over the years MADE it the go to badge for enthusiastic driveing, which is WHY BMW has stuck with "the ultimate driving machine" as the tagline. Because it matters to the people that influence other's decisions.
The ATS is a credible competitor in this class. So I have to ask why do you think it needs to be MORE than a worthy cometitor? Why is it that there's a double standard that means the caddy HAS to be vastly better than the comeptition to be worthy competition?
i.e. because X has been discriminated against for so long, that it now has to be vastly superior to Y to be considered by the general public to be as good as Y. (X and y can be car brands or races, it doesn't matter, the equation is the same...). Seriously, it's a variation on the exact same thing, just one is aimed at cars and the other aimed at people.
Quote from: Rupert on May 16, 2012, 07:38:43 PM
:nono:
Dude, your Accord arguments never won a thing with anyone.
:loopy: :huh:
Oh, man, you broke down and responded to his trolling.
Quote from: Raza on May 17, 2012, 04:51:48 AM
I meant in sales.
My brother had this discussion the other day. He said that Mercedes isn't trying to compete with the 3 series because not everyone wants the sportier 3, they might want the more relaxed C. I said clearly the class enjoys that, since the 3 isn't a niche car, it's the best seller in its class.
The C class does look better, but I don't think the C's interior is better.
If it weren't for that weird headlight treatment, I'd have to say the 3 is the better looker, but the new C's interior is really, really nice.
Quote from: ChrisV on May 21, 2012, 02:40:53 PM
Oh, man, you broke down and responded to his trolling.
:lol:
But notice that's where it ended.
Quote from: Submariner on May 21, 2012, 05:45:58 PM
If it weren't for that weird headlight treatment, I'd have to say the 3 is the better looker, but the new C's interior is really, really nice.
The 3 series is easily the ugliest car in its class, far behind the A4, C class, and IS.
Quote from: ChrisV on May 21, 2012, 02:36:12 PM
Why do the folks want to buy the badge? Because the enthusiasts over the years MADE it the go to badge for enthusiastic driveing, which is WHY BMW has stuck with "the ultimate driving machine" as the tagline. Because it matters to the people that influence other's decisions.
The ATS is a credible competitor in this class. So I have to ask why do you think it needs to be MORE than a worthy cometitor? Why is it that there's a double standard that means the caddy HAS to be vastly better than the comeptition to be worthy competition?
i.e. because X has been discriminated against for so long, that it now has to be vastly superior to Y to be considered by the general public to be as good as Y. (X and y can be car brands or races, it doesn't matter, the equation is the same...). Seriously, it's a variation on the exact same thing, just one is aimed at cars and the other aimed at people.
First of all please cease and desist from trying to make a race analogy out of this. I'm insulted. This is Mitt Romney level pandering coupled with GWB logic. Second of all nobody is holding anyone or anything to unreasonable standards. Everyone loved the Charger/300C despite their flaws (awful visibility & tupperware interiors). Why? Because they brought people style, comfort and performance at an affordable price in a very American way. Everyone loves the Mustang + Camaro for many of the same reasons.
The ATS is low on style... A&S is getting long in the tooth, period, and its application on the ATS is a little lazy. It doesn't look like an American car or a Cadillac, which are two style elements I think would be critical to its success. ATS has no value- to get the same level of performance as you get in a base 3 series you have to jump to an optional engine. Lexus IS & Infiniti G25 will deliver same performance w/more refined V6s at the same cost (and prob w/more standard equipment). ATS performance is up for debate but I don't think its unreasonable to say it will prob be neck and neck with the cheaper (!) 3 series.
I have said it a thousand times and nobody seems to get it. Runaway hits have very distinct qualities. I put it like this. Would the G35 have been a success if it cost the same as an E46? Would the Genesis have been a success if they priced it like a 5 series? Would the LS be a success if it hadn't delivered such a bitch slap to the Germans, and had just been a carbon copy of a W124 printed on rice paper? What about the ATS will make people want to buy it?
Quote from: Raza on May 22, 2012, 05:09:06 AM
The 3 series is easily the ugliest car in its class, far behind the A4, C class, and IS.
A4 is boring. C class is ugly (perpetually defined by trying + failing to fit the S class look on a small body). 3 series is too safe (hasnt had a good looking non M coupe since the E36. E90 is best sedan). IS250 looks like a Corolla, but the more aggressive IS350 is nice. ATS is lazy A&S application. G coupe looks like it needs to shed some baby weight. G sedan is segment winner aesthetically.
Cadillac needs a Jaguar moment. Ditch A&S (and much of lineup) for a new direction.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 22, 2012, 05:29:17 AM
A4 is boring. C class is ugly (perpetually defined by trying + failing to fit the S class look on a small body). 3 series is too safe (hasnt had a good looking non M coupe since the E36. E90 is best sedan). IS250 looks like a Corolla, but the more aggressive IS350 is nice. ATS is lazy A&S application. G coupe looks like it needs to shed some baby weight. G sedan is segment winner aesthetically.
Cadillac needs a Jaguar moment. Ditch A&S (and much of lineup) for a new direction.
Clearly your tastes are different from mine. I forgot about the G, which is probably the only car that looks worse than the 3 series in the class right now. Infiniti has this challenging bulgy/swoopy thing going on, which makes the cars look fat and stupid. They look good from some angles and shitty as fuck from others.
And Jaguar's styling is the worst thing they can follow, since they went from looking great to being the ugliest fucking reshat dogshit that's available on the market today. The XJ specifically, the XF isn't as bad. The XK used to be really quite lovely, but then they gave it the dopey mutated fish mouth and it's ugly as a gaping asshole now.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 22, 2012, 05:24:22 AM
First of all please cease and desist from trying to make a race analogy out of this. I'm insulted. This is Mitt Romney level pandering coupled with GWB logic. Second of all nobody is holding anyone or anything to unreasonable standards. Everyone loved the Charger/300C despite their flaws (awful visibility & tupperware interiors). Why? Because they brought people style, comfort and performance at an affordable price in a very American way. Everyone loves the Mustang + Camaro for many of the same reasons.
The ATS is low on style... A&S is getting long in the tooth, period, and its application on the ATS is a little lazy. It doesn't look like an American car or a Cadillac, which are two style elements I think would be critical to its success. ATS has no value- to get the same level of performance as you get in a base 3 series you have to jump to an optional engine. Lexus IS & Infiniti G25 will deliver same performance w/more refined V6s at the same cost (and prob w/more standard equipment). ATS performance is up for debate but I don't think its unreasonable to say it will prob be neck and neck with the cheaper (!) 3 series.
Art and Science has gone a full refresh since it was introduced on the CTS.
Quote from: Raza on May 22, 2012, 07:21:33 AM
And Jaguar's styling is the worst thing they can follow, since they went from looking great to being the ugliest fucking reshat dogshit that's available on the market today. The XJ specifically, the XF isn't as bad. The XK used to be really quite lovely, but then they gave it the dopey mutated fish mouth and it's ugly as a gaping asshole now.
I honestly think you are trolling us, because that makes absolutely no sense. Jaguar's cars are arguably the best looking on the market; excellent proportions, pleasing styling inside and out, very well done.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 22, 2012, 05:29:17 AM
Cadillac needs a Jaguar moment. Ditch A&S (and much of lineup) for a new direction.
No, they don't. A&S is a lot more cohesive than the same-shape, different length philosophy that the Germans are using (especially Audi).
Quote from: Raza on May 22, 2012, 05:09:06 AM
The 3 series is easily the ugliest car in its class, far behind the A4, C class, and IS.
I don't understand how anyone can have that strong of feelings towards the new 3-series. It looks exactly the same as the old model, save for the new fascias. After seeing one in person, I don't understand why anyone hates one so strongly.
ATS is credible because it's a reasonably-priced, quality product that will compete with other compact sport sedans. It doesn't need anything else.
Quote from: Raza on May 22, 2012, 07:21:33 AM
Clearly your tastes are different from mine. I forgot about the G, which is probably the only car that looks worse than the 3 series in the class right now. Infiniti has this challenging bulgy/swoopy thing going on, which makes the cars look fat and stupid. They look good from some angles and shitty as fuck from others.
And Jaguar's styling is the worst thing they can follow, since they went from looking great to being the ugliest fucking reshat dogshit that's available on the market today. The XJ specifically, the XF isn't as bad. The XK used to be really quite lovely, but then they gave it the dopey mutated fish mouth and it's ugly as a gaping asshole now.
Jag was getting long in the tooth. You can't complain about Porsche design but clamor for a 2012 Jag that looks like a Mark II.
And I am not talking about what is "right" or what would make Raza happy. Personally I like the idea of the ATS and prefer it to what would actually SELL. But we are talking about what will SELL. A&S is old hat and needs a thorough refresh or scrapping.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 22, 2012, 08:30:58 AM
Art and Science has gone a full refresh since it was introduced on the CTS.
No, they don't. A&S is a lot more cohesive than the same-shape, different length philosophy that the Germans are using (especially Audi).
ATS is credible because it's a reasonably-priced, quality product that will compete with other compact sport sedans. It doesn't need anything else.
It still looks old today. And that's no swipe. Old isn't bad. But old doesn't sell new cars. Put the ATS next to an old CTS, I doubt most people would be able to tell them apart.
Everyone shouldn't be trying to copy the Germans. Thats my whole point. Chrysler's most successful model does not fit in the German mold and I think a lot of people liked it because of that. It provided way more value/character than what the Germans would have offered at that price point (a 3 series clone).
Merely beign competitive is not enough for success in a crowded field.
And don't even talk about Europe. Damn near all the second tier European brands are skrugglin. Opel is on the brink. The French are just barely hanging on. Lancia is selling rebadged Chryslers & Fiats. Etc. etc. So the idea that you can have an infinite # of models competiting within a sector that can all be sales successes is ridiculous. The entry level sport sedan segment is reaching critical mass.
And thats just now. C class, G, and IS are all due for full model changes soon, which will all put a hurting on the ATS' "newness". The timing is bad too.
Again had this come in with the CTS it would be a whole different discussion. I am sure it would be selling well by now in its 2nd-3rd iteration. But right now? As it is? No way.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 22, 2012, 05:24:22 AM
First of all please cease and desist from trying to make a race analogy out of this.
"If I had a car, it would look like the Cadillac ATS."
Quote from: TurboDan on May 22, 2012, 09:04:09 AM
"If I had a car, it would look like the Cadillac ATS."
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: 2o6 on May 22, 2012, 08:30:58 AM
I honestly think you are trolling us, because that makes absolutely no sense. Jaguar's cars are arguably the best looking on the market; excellent proportions, pleasing styling inside and out, very well done.
Have you seen an XJ? With eyes? A restaurateur owns one that he parks in my courtyard very often. Probably in the top 10 worst looking cars on the road today. Everything about it is wrong. The XF is less wrong, mainly because it just looks like a Lexus, and the XK went from best looking in class to worst just changing the front fascia to that upturned fish mouth.
Quote
I don't understand how anyone can have that strong of feelings towards the new 3-series. It looks exactly the same as the old model, save for the new fascias. After seeing one in person, I don't understand why anyone hates one so strongly.
else.
They took an okay design, fixed it mid cycle (the E90 was never class leading in looks to begin with) and then made it far uglier. I don't know how anyone can not feel strongly about it.
C-Class is the best looking sedan in the segment.
I know it's not a direct competitor, but I saw a new Buick Regal GS yesterday. Damn, what a sexy car. I'm impressed.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 18, 2012, 10:57:17 PM
Oh, please. It's not "marketing."
I got in an E90 3er last fall with zero preconceived notions whatsoever while I was looking for a new vehicle. The second I started driving it, it was a magical experience. There is simply no better car in its class than the 3er, period. BMW makes damn, damn, damn good cars ... end of story.
If I did not own a boat I had to occasionally haul, and a business that occasionally required offroad capability, I would be in that 3er today. Period.
And believe me, if Caddy can match or beat it, I'll be the first one to buy one! As an American, I WANT Caddy to succeed and be respected among the younger generation of buyers like myself in their 20s!
You misunderstand, I don't mean it's marketing alone and that the 3 Series doesn't drive better, what I'm saying is that it's marketing/press/perception/reviews/word of mouth that play just as much a part for most buyers. You're an enthusiast but more than half of the population aren't so whilst they know that the 3 Series is a great handling car, it's probably been drilled into them through other channels rather than them driving at the pace necessary to exploit the car's characteristics.
I'm basing this on my own experience. I've only driven 2 generations of 3 Series and I wasn't particularly overwhelmed nor found it magical. But I was driving these cars in urban locations, so was unlikely to do so. However, knowing that if I bought one and/or got chance to take one on a fast, twisty lane or on a track, or just wanted to thrash it, and it would perform really well, makes it desirable. It's word of mouth, reviews, marketing and perception.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 18, 2012, 03:24:18 PM
If a car has good dynamics, you don't have to thrash it to feel it.
My point is, for the 30th time (no offense nickdrinkwater), for the ATS to succeed, it can't be a Caddilac 3 series in damn near every aspect (engines, dynamics, PRICE), esp when you consider most of its competitors are due for major overhauls within the next 2-3 years. I mean the next IS will be based on the FT-86... that alone could be a paradigm shift. Caddy benchmarked the E46, but some folks are calling the F30 the best 3 series of all time. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I really think GM blew it. This would have been a winning strategy 10, 15 years ago.
Agree to take a different route but where do you go? Mercedes has the "expensive luxury" box ticked. Audi is a compromise between sporty and luxury. Lexus is luxurious, high quality and few sporting pretensions. What's left?
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 22, 2012, 08:57:28 AM
It still looks old today. And that's no swipe. Old isn't bad. But old doesn't sell new cars. Put the ATS next to an old CTS, I doubt most people would be able to tell them apart.
Everyone shouldn't be trying to copy the Germans. Thats my whole point. Chrysler's most successful model does not fit in the German mold and I think a lot of people liked it because of that. It provided way more value/character than what the Germans would have offered at that price point (a 3 series clone).
Merely beign competitive is not enough for success in a crowded field.
And don't even talk about Europe. Damn near all the second tier European brands are skrugglin. Opel is on the brink. The French are just barely hanging on. Lancia is selling rebadged Chryslers & Fiats. Etc. etc. So the idea that you can have an infinite # of models competiting within a sector that can all be sales successes is ridiculous. The entry level sport sedan segment is reaching critical mass.
And thats just now. C class, G, and IS are all due for full model changes soon, which will all put a hurting on the ATS' "newness". The timing is bad too.
Again had this come in with the CTS it would be a whole different discussion. I am sure it would be selling well by now in its 2nd-3rd iteration. But right now? As it is? No way.
That is simply your opinion. Have you seen an ATS in person? I have, and it looks pretty bad ass. That sentiment seems to be shared by all of my car enthusiast friends, FWIW. Designs evolve and styling language eventually becomes a part of a brand. Cadillac is sticking with A&S and I think it is serving them pretty well.
I also think it is pretty funny watching everybody take such extreme positions to guard their opinions about style. I don't think there is really an "ugly" car in this segment...
Quote from: Raza link=topic=27381.msg1723823#msg1723823 date=1337700750
Have you seen an XJ? With eyes? A restaurateur owns one that he parks in my courtyard very often. Probably in the top 10 worst looking cars on the road today. Everything about it is wrong. The XF is less wrong, mainly because it just looks like a Lexus, and the XK went from best looking in class to worst just changing the front fascia to that upturned fish mouth.
I'm calling you out on taste.
You think this:
(http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/200703/2008-jaguar-xj-11_800x0w.jpg)
With it's decades-old chassis, incredibly dated styling and equally tacky interior is better than
This:
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/07/jaguar-xj_08blk_usa_opta.jpg)
A thoroughly modern design which finally brings Jaguar into the 21st century? I've been inside an XJ, it's beautiful car inside and out. Still not feeling the black paint on the D-pillar, but it looks amazing.
The old one looks old and cheap. The new one is fantastic.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=27381.msg1723823#msg1723823 date=1337700750
They took an okay design, fixed it mid cycle (the E90 was never class leading in looks to begin with) and then made it far uglier. I don't know how anyone can not feel strongly about it.
Having seen one on the street, I literally cannot tell the difference if I don't see the front fascia. Aside from some questionable design details, the 3-series honestly has the best proportions of any car on the market. And to me, the first statement is the problem of the 3-series. Luxury cars are fashion items, they're meant to be flashy and glitzy. The 3-series IMO isn't, especially with the new model that did basically nothing to the original design.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 22, 2012, 08:57:28 AM
It still looks old today. And that's no swipe. Old isn't bad. But old doesn't sell new cars. Put the ATS next to an old CTS, I doubt most people would be able to tell them apart.
Everyone shouldn't be trying to copy the Germans. Thats my whole point. Chrysler's most successful model does not fit in the German mold and I think a lot of people liked it because of that. It provided way more value/character than what the Germans would have offered at that price point (a 3 series clone).
People forget that the Chrysler 300 is first and foremost a large car. It's not all that expensive. A Basic 300 starts at the same price of roughly the new Acura ILX and the old Volvo S40. it's not as nice, or refined, or as good (in a sense) as the compact luxury from Germany, Detroit and Japan.
And don't even talk about Europe. Damn near all the second tier European brands are skrugglin. Opel is on the brink. The French are just barely hanging on. Lancia is selling rebadged Chryslers & Fiats. Etc. etc. So the idea that you can have an infinite # of models competiting within a sector that can all be sales successes is ridiculous. The entry level sport sedan segment is reaching critical mass.
I want to see sources of this, because that sounds like hearsay.
And thats just now. C class, G, and IS are all due for full model changes soon, which will all put a hurting on the ATS' "newness". The timing is bad too.
If anything, GM is right on time.
Again had this come in with the CTS it would be a whole different discussion. I am sure it would be selling well by now in its 2nd-3rd iteration. But right now? As it is? No way.
So they should abandon a market entirely? What do you propose they do different?
Quote from: LonghornTX on May 22, 2012, 11:37:03 AM
I also think it is pretty funny watching everybody take such extreme positions to guard their opinions about style. I don't think there is really an "ugly" car in this segment...
I agree. There are some designs I prefer over others, but I can't explicitly call any design in the small luxury segment "ugly".
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on May 22, 2012, 10:40:37 AM
Agree to take a different route but where do you go? Mercedes has the "expensive luxury" box ticked. Audi is a compromise between sporty and luxury. Lexus is luxurious, high quality and few sporting pretensions. What's left?
I dont know man I am just a mid level mechanical engineer. Automotive product planning is a professional field all unto itself. All I know is this. The sport sedan field has never been as crowded/competitive as it is now. And the more competitive a field, the more it becomes necessary for a car to be "phenomenal/unique" rather than "merely competitive".
Americans are OK w/mediocre performance if it comes in a stylish package. Cadillac needs to stop aping the Germans and go back to making cars that make statements. Again this doesn't mean reintroducing land yachts. But def not throwing A&S headlights/tailights on a 3 series/5 series. They gotta do more than that to win.
Their old nameplates are not completely dead. A futuristic Seville, an opulent Fleetwood, a premium GT Eldorado... they could use existing platforms and even cheap out on the engines and all that shit if they just delivered on style. I am thinking the same with Lincoln too. A new Continental worthy of the name in the price range of the MKS would rejuvinate the brand. America needs to stop aping... our luxury car industry is a joke because we stopped leading and started following.
Quote from: LonghornTX on May 22, 2012, 11:37:03 AM
That is simply your opinion. Have you seen an ATS in person? I have, and it looks pretty bad ass. That sentiment seems to be shared by all of my car enthusiast friends, FWIW. Designs evolve and styling language eventually becomes a part of a brand. Cadillac is sticking with A&S and I think it is serving them pretty well.
I also think it is pretty funny watching everybody take such extreme positions to guard their opinions about style. I don't think there is really an "ugly" car in this segment...
Youre right in that people (including myself) are engaging in some level of hyperbole. None of the cars in the segment look much better or worse than others. None really blow any of the others away in performance (aside from the 328i vs its equivalents). None really have any unique features or hard to ignore value. Which comes back to my point. The ATS doesn't either. GM has placed it to fight an uphill battle.
I do sort of agree that the styling of Art and Science isn't as bold as it once was.
My favorite Art and Science design (MK1) is the Imaj Concept
(http://www.shorey.net/Auto/American/GM/Cadillac/2000%20cadillac%20imaj-01.jpg)
A lot was there, but not much was done.
Converj is hot, but the concept needs to be on sale by now. Makes the Audi TT look old.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_d_u-dfTHDhk/S8ckYkbgJ2I/AAAAAAAAAgA/AspiQJ5JJgk/s1600/Cadillac-Converj_Concept_2009_1024x768_wallpaper_09.jpg)
Quote from: 2o6 on May 22, 2012, 11:46:43 AM
I'm calling you out on taste.
You think this:
(http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/200703/2008-jaguar-xj-11_800x0w.jpg)
With it's decades-old chassis, incredibly dated styling and equally tacky interior is better than
This:
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/07/jaguar-xj_08blk_usa_opta.jpg)
A thoroughly modern design which finally brings Jaguar into the 21st century? I've been inside an XJ, it's beautiful car inside and out. Still not feeling the black paint on the D-pillar, but it looks amazing.
The old one looks old and cheap. The new one is fantastic.
You're calling me out on taste? As in I have taste and you don't? Because if you meant it the other way around, it's fucking laughable. The new car is a thoroughly modern mash up of bad design points. It's like they looked at all the cars on the market, saw what the ugliest detail was, added it, and then looked at two street curs fucking and modeled the rear end after that. Seriously, anyone who thinks that is good looking needs their fucking eyes checked because they're goddamned blind.
Quote
Having seen one on the street, I literally cannot tell the difference if I don't see the front fascia. Aside from some questionable design details, the 3-series honestly has the best proportions of any car on the market. And to me, the first statement is the problem of the 3-series. Luxury cars are fashion items, they're meant to be flashy and glitzy. The 3-series IMO isn't, especially with the new model that did basically nothing to the original design.
You must have no eye for detail then. And yes, it just takes a few tiny detail changes to make a car ugly.
You're being insane, and I'm going to walk away from this. Saying the old XJ looked great is like saying the 911 fascia isn't hackneyed.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 22, 2012, 11:53:08 AM
Their old nameplates are not completely dead. A futuristic Seville, an opulent Fleetwood, a premium GT Eldorado... they could use existing platforms and even cheap out on the engines and all that shit if they just delivered on style.
Come on, sporty. No way anyone in their 20s or 30s (or even 40s) is going to buy a car named a "Fleetwood" or "El Dorado." Even worse, "Lincoln Continental."
These nameplates have tons of baggage by being associated with ugly, old land yachts and they should be retired forever. Cadillac needs to purge these types of vehicles from its memory and continuing becoming the "new standard of the world," as its advertisements on TV say. Lincoln is a lost cause altogether, IMO. Ford should've blown it up and started a new luxury brand.
"People forget that the Chrysler 300 is first and foremost a large car. It's not all that expensive. A Basic 300 starts at the same price of roughly the new Acura ILX and the old Volvo S40. it's not as nice, or refined, or as good (in a sense) as the compact luxury from Germany, Detroit and Japan."
Americans generally don't give a shit about what makes the ILX or S40 a "superior" car to the Charger/Magnum/300. Which is why the LX trio handily outsells each of the highest selling models in the sport sedan segment. Hell the Lexus ES/Toyota Avalon outsell a lot of those cars. A luxury brand doesn't have to be 3/5/7/x-overs. It makes no sense at this point to follow that brand model.
"I want to see sources of this, because that sounds like hearsay."
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/01/2011-new-car-sales-around-the-world-divided-europe/
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/05/europe-in-april-2012-car-sales-down-6-9-percent/
Renault, PSA, Fiat, all damn near hemorrhaging market share.
"If anything, GM is right on time."
Based on what? What market need does this car fill?
There were 2 cars that were way more unique, way better priced/optioned and in a much less crowded segment of the segment. The 9-3/9-5... and look what happened to them
Even if the 300C had the interiors to match, if they tried to sell them for what they sell 550i's for the car would have been an instant flop. Unfortunately American luxury brands have squandered their brand equity to the point that they can't charge what the Germans charge for what amounts to the same cars. Which is exactly why trying to play with them both in brand architecture AND pricing is a sure fired way to fail. Remember the STS? XLR???
"So they should abandon a market entirely? What do you propose they do different?"
I think they should stop trying to be German and start trying to be American. When gas was cheap it was all about the Escalade. For better or worse that was Cadillac's flagship. What they need to do is make an Escalade for current times. A car that makes a big statement everywhere it goes that is somewhat affordable and economical to run. And they need to call on their old marques and ditch this alphanumeric garbage. Cadillac will never be German. I don't see why that is seen as a bad thing. It should be liberating. They can make the cars they and the people want instead of what competes nicely in car magazines the avg buyer doesn't give a shit about.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 22, 2012, 12:15:23 PM
Come on, sporty. No way anyone in their 20s or 30s (or even 40s) is going to buy a car named a "Fleetwood" or "El Dorado." Even worse, "Lincoln Continental."
These nameplates have tons of baggage by being associated with ugly, old land yachts and they should be retired forever. Cadillac needs to purge these types of vehicles from its memory and continuing becoming the "new standard of the world," as its advertisements on TV say. Lincoln is a lost cause altogether, IMO. Ford should've blown it up and started a new luxury brand.
You would be surprised. I think the same contingent that helped bring Chrysler back would jump on those, as long as they were well styled + had a presence.
Shit, I remember being excited as hell when I saw this:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-twWxrtlU4R0/TrUam06W0UI/AAAAAAAACYw/85CEJIBzQQ4/s1600/Lincoln-Continental-Concept-1.jpg)
I would not be surprised if Chrysler "drew inspiration" for that when they decided to make the 300. And regardless of the awfulness that followed, the 61-69 Continental
still oozes cool.The Mustang, Camaro and ESPECIALLY the Challenger went through some really low points. But thats the thing about heritage. You can draw on it
selectively. The cool Continental is a case where laying on the retro thickly (while remaining appropriately modern) could be a winning strategy.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 22, 2012, 11:59:02 AM
I do sort of agree that the styling of Art and Science isn't as bold as it once was.
My favorite Art and Science design (MK1) is the Imaj Concept
That was the car that gave me...err... "inspiration" for my brand way back in the day. I made a 4 door luxury sport hatchback I used to play with in Need For Speed on my PC all the time. It is really an awesome design.
Its not too late. I think people would really like a Cadillac Panamera- as long as it was well styled. The A&S theme can still work, but it can't be applied so lazily. They have to push it to the ragged edge to bring Caddy back.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 22, 2012, 11:46:43 AM
I'm calling you out on taste.
You think this:
(http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/200703/2008-jaguar-xj-11_800x0w.jpg)
With it's decades-old chassis, incredibly dated styling and equally tacky interior is better than
Decades old chassis?
The 2004 XJ (Chassis code X350) was an
ALL NEW stressed aluminium monocoque chassis and very similar to that of the groundbreaking Audi A8. In fact, the current XJ (X351) is based on the previous model's platform.
Yes, the X350's styling was considered dated but the technology underneath was bang up to date.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 22, 2012, 12:20:05 PM
"People forget that the Chrysler 300 is first and foremost a large car. It's not all that expensive. A Basic 300 starts at the same price of roughly the new Acura ILX and the old Volvo S40. it's not as nice, or refined, or as good (in a sense) as the compact luxury from Germany, Detroit and Japan."
Americans generally don't give a shit about what makes the ILX or S40 a "superior" car to the Charger/Magnum/300. Which is why the LX trio handily outsells each of the highest selling models in the sport sedan segment. Hell the Lexus ES/Toyota Avalon outsell a lot of those cars. A luxury brand doesn't have to be 3/5/7/x-overs. It makes no sense at this point to follow that brand model.
It's also a totally different product. It's like saying why doesn't the Camry outsell the RAV4? (it does) They cost about the same, they are about the same size.
"I want to see sources of this, because that sounds like hearsay."
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/01/2011-new-car-sales-around-the-world-divided-europe/
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/05/europe-in-april-2012-car-sales-down-6-9-percent/
Renault, PSA, Fiat, all damn near hemorrhaging market share.
And lest we forget the financial collapse of Europe? Remember, last year EVERYONE lost marketshare in the US, and our market has fewer competitiors.
"If anything, GM is right on time."
Based on what? What market need does this car fill?
Those who want a compact Cadillac, duh. Driving prowess honestly is totally irrelevant to the average driver (somewhat).
There were 2 cars that were way more unique, way better priced/optioned and in a much less crowded segment of the segment. The 9-3/9-5... and look what happened to them
The 9-3 and 9-5 failed because they were old and uncompetitive. The 9-5's basic architecture dated back to the original 1988 Opel Vectra. Volvo S60 occupied a similar segment, and it has been a success.
Even if the 300C had the interiors to match, if they tried to sell them for what they sell 550i's for the car would have been an instant flop. Unfortunately American luxury brands have squandered their brand equity to the point that they can't charge what the Germans charge for what amounts to the same cars. Which is exactly why trying to play with them both in brand architecture AND pricing is a sure fired way to fail. Remember the STS? XLR???
STS failed because it was too similar to the CTS, and was no nicer. XLR was also not as nice inside as they should have been.
"So they should abandon a market entirely? What do you propose they do different?"
I think they should stop trying to be German and start trying to be American. When gas was cheap it was all about the Escalade. For better or worse that was Cadillac's flagship. What they need to do is make an Escalade for current times. A car that makes a big statement everywhere it goes that is somewhat affordable and economical to run. And they need to call on their old marques and ditch this alphanumeric garbage. Cadillac will never be German. I don't see why that is seen as a bad thing. It should be liberating. They can make the cars they and the people want instead of what competes nicely in car magazines the avg buyer doesn't give a shit about.
Although I do agree that the Escalade needs attention now, relying on a quintessentially American appeal is a cheap shot, especially if the product isn't all that strong (Chrysler...).
The market shows that there is a demand for a small, sporty Cadillac. The ATS is the answer.
Quote from: Madman on May 22, 2012, 12:29:01 PM
Decades old chassis?
The 2004 XJ (Chassis code X350) was an ALL NEW stressed aluminium monocoque chassis and very similar to that of the groundbreaking Audi A8. In fact, the current XJ (X351) is based on the previous model's platform.
Yes, the X350's styling was considered dated but the technology underneath was bang up to date.
It still didn't have the styling it deserved, then.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 22, 2012, 12:31:58 PM
It still didn't have the styling it deserved, then.
Styling is subjective. You criticized the X350 for having a "decades old" chassis which is patently false.
If you're trying to prove a point at least have to decency to know what you're talking about.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 22, 2012, 12:12:17 PM
You're being insane, and I'm going to walk away from this. Saying the old XJ looked great is like saying the 911 fascia isn't hackneyed.
The last generation XJ may not have been the best looking car Jaguar ever made, but it's in the top five. The new one is probably the worst looking car Jaguar has ever made.
"It's also a totally different product. It's like saying why doesn't the Camry outsell the RAV4? (it does) They cost about the same, they are about the same size. "
My point was, not everyone spending $40-50K on a luxury car wants a 3 series, and there are a million and one choices without the ATS for folks who do.
"And lest we forget the financial collapse of Europe? Remember, last year EVERYONE lost marketshare in the US, and our market has fewer competitiors."
Market share != sales. Those folks lost share, but other folks gained it. Europe was pretty much flat over 2011, but the second tier European brands all were negative. Their relevance is fading.
"Those who want a compact Cadillac, duh. Driving prowess honestly is totally irrelevant to the average driver (somewhat)."
Who wants a compact Cadillac????????
"The 9-3 and 9-5 failed because they were old and uncompetitive. The 9-5's basic architecture dated back to the original 1988 Opel Vectra. Volvo S60 occupied a similar segment, and it has been a success."
Americans don't care about that shit... the Chrysler LX was based on an old E-class among other things. The Corolla has been pretty much unchanged since 1998.
"STS failed because it was too similar to the CTS, and was no nicer. XLR was also not as nice inside as they should have been."
It was roomier + had the V8. Real failure was that it was done half assed. If they had positioned the STS between a 5 and 7 series in size I think it would have succeeded. I guess we agree on this.
"Although I do agree that the Escalade needs attention now, relying on a quintessentially American appeal is a cheap shot, especially if the product isn't all that strong (Chrysler...)."
The Escalade is DOA in these times of $4/gal gas. But I am not suggesting to rely solely on American appeal. The cars should be decent. But to remove American appeal from American cars is essentially saying "American is no good, European is the way". Which then begs the question, why buy a fucking Cadillac, when you could have the real thing for the same price. Of course the point is, American IS good, and American luxury brands should pursue individuality & "Americanness" instead of essentially admitting defeat and aping the Europeans.
Quote from: Raza on May 22, 2012, 12:34:56 PM
The last generation XJ may not have been the best looking car Jaguar ever made, but it's in the top five. The new one is probably the worst looking car Jaguar has ever made.
Worse than the... you know what, you're right
Quote from: 2o6 on May 22, 2012, 11:46:43 AM
People forget that the Chrysler 300 is first and foremost a large car. It's not all that expensive. A Basic 300 starts at the same price of roughly the new Acura ILX and the old Volvo S40. it's not as nice, or refined, or as good (in a sense) as the compact luxury from Germany, Detroit and Japan.
I'm sorry, but those are horrible examples. The Acura ILX is a joke, and the old Volvo S40 is old. A Chrysler 300 would be a better choice than those two even if you didn't like the Chrysler 300.
But I think sporty is not giving enough credit to the appeal of the A&S styling. By now, it's pretty much come to define what Cadillac is, and to some degree, the look of modern American auto design. When people think of a modern-day Cadillac, an A&S-styled car immediately comes to mind. And to enough buyers, a 3-series in an A&S wrapper is appealing enough to stand out in a sea of 3-serieses for someone who wants something more unique.
I will agree, though, that a Panamera in an A&S wrapper is exactly the kind of car Cadillac needs. Might even give them enough street cred to someday sell a RR Ghost in an A&S wrapper.
All y'alls opinions suck.
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 22, 2012, 01:08:56 PM
All y'alls opinions suck.
Seriously, this thread is retarded. Lets visit it again when the ATS launches and we can better evaluate it.
Raza is nutz. I really dig the new XJ (except for the black D-pillar).
LOL! "everyone lost market share"
Quote of the day.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 22, 2012, 11:46:43 AM
I'm calling you out on taste.
You think this:
(http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/200703/2008-jaguar-xj-11_800x0w.jpg)
With it's decades-old chassis, incredibly dated styling and equally tacky interior is better than
This:
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/07/jaguar-xj_08blk_usa_opta.jpg)
A thoroughly modern design which finally brings Jaguar into the 21st century? I've been inside an XJ, it's beautiful car inside and out. Still not feeling the black paint on the D-pillar, but it looks amazing.
The old one looks old and cheap. The new one is fantastic.
Having seen one on the street, I literally cannot tell the difference if I don't see the front fascia. Aside from some questionable design details, the 3-series honestly has the best proportions of any car on the market. And to me, the first statement is the problem of the 3-series. Luxury cars are fashion items, they're meant to be flashy and glitzy. The 3-series IMO isn't, especially with the new model that did basically nothing to the original design.
I agree. There are some designs I prefer over others, but I can't explicitly call any design in the small luxury segment "ugly".
(http://pictures2.autotrader.co.uk/imgser-uk/servlet/media?id=2038651600)
I'm with Raza on this, it doesn't work when it's all put together.
The LWB XJ is downright silly but the SWB one is gorgeous... in the flesh.
And the interiors are a class ahead of the competition. I know a good exterior is important but on a luxury car the interior is more important (and a place where American luxury marques have fallen short)
Quote from: 2o6 on May 22, 2012, 11:46:43 AM
I'm calling you out on taste.
You think this:
(http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/200703/2008-jaguar-xj-11_800x0w.jpg)
With it's decades-old chassis, incredibly dated styling and equally tacky interior is better than
This:
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/07/jaguar-xj_08blk_usa_opta.jpg)
A thoroughly modern design which finally brings Jaguar into the 21st century? I've been inside an XJ, it's beautiful car inside and out. Still not feeling the black paint on the D-pillar, but it looks amazing.
The old one looks old and cheap. The new one is fantastic.
Having seen one on the street, I literally cannot tell the difference if I don't see the front fascia. Aside from some questionable design details, the 3-series honestly has the best proportions of any car on the market. And to me, the first statement is the problem of the 3-series. Luxury cars are fashion items, they're meant to be flashy and glitzy. The 3-series IMO isn't, especially with the new model that did basically nothing to the original design.
I agree. There are some designs I prefer over others, but I can't explicitly call any design in the small luxury segment "ugly".
For starters, the new XJ uses a modified chassis from the X350, which was an all new design when it hit the market. The engine and transmission too, are updated versions of what was used in the X350.
I've gotten more complements in it than in a G500, 911, E63, S600, etc. Lay off the angel dust, it's a good looking car.
On the other hand, I love the new XJ too. It's damn good looking, and that interior is best in class without a doubt.
Quote from: Vinsanity on May 22, 2012, 01:02:23 PM
I'm sorry, but those are horrible examples. The Acura ILX is a joke, and the old Volvo S40 is old. A Chrysler 300 would be a better choice than those two even if you didn't like the Chrysler 300.
But I think sporty is not giving enough credit to the appeal of the A&S styling. By now, it's pretty much come to define what Cadillac is, and to some degree, the look of modern American auto design. When people think of a modern-day Cadillac, an A&S-styled car immediately comes to mind. And to enough buyers, a 3-series in an A&S wrapper is appealing enough to stand out in a sea of 3-serieses for someone who wants something more unique.
I will agree, though, that a Panamera in an A&S wrapper is exactly the kind of car Cadillac needs. Might even give them enough street cred to someday sell a RR Ghost in an A&S wrapper.
I will retract. A&S can work, but it has to be kept fresh. ATS is not a bad looking car, or even a bad application, but as far as boldness goes there's nothing there. It would have been bold 10 years ago. Something like the Imaj/Caddy Panamera, albeit pared down to reality (but not uglified), would do a couple of good things for Caddy.
- Depending on price, it could make the 3/5/7 structure irrelevant.
- It could be an example of the innovation Cadillac USED to be known for. The hatchback shape could lend itself to class leading aerodynamics, as well as price defying space. And with no need to adhere to a RWD platform or a meaningless Nurburgring lap time, it could be equipped w/the 2.0 turbo as the base motor.
- It could cover a somewhat wider market space. LWB, hybrid, V8, it could be an all encompassing platform.
- It could isolate itself from competing directly with the Europeans, which could be a double edged sword but IMO would be a net plus
Essentially, it could be a Cadillac C6/ES350, which would appeal to a lot more of the American marketplace and be more in line with what Caddy has been about historically.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 22, 2012, 01:21:31 PM
The LWB XJ is downright silly but the SWB one is gorgeous... in the flesh.
And the interiors are a class ahead of the competition. I know a good exterior is important but on a luxury car the interior is more important (and a place where American luxury marques have fallen short)
I still think they look odd in the metal, L or SWB. There's no elegance like you have with the German marques. Hurts to say it since Jag is a British car!
And this is an interior
(http://images.cdn.autocar.co.uk/sites/autocar.co.uk/files/imagecache/car_review_image_645/audi-a8-1.jpg)
Not this
(http://images.cdn.autocar.co.uk/sites/autocar.co.uk/files/imagecache/car_review_image_645/jaguar-xj-1_1.jpg)
IMO of course
Yea I guess it comes down to opinion. I find the Audi interiors to be pretty cold. Jag interiors are a place I could see myself spending a lot of time.
Quote from: Rupert on May 21, 2012, 10:50:54 PM
:lol:
But notice that's where it ended.
Actually, it ended here:
Quote from: GoCougs on May 17, 2012, 08:22:39 AM
Ha!
I was temped to post 7th gen Accord vs. Porsche 944 performance stats (in addition to vs. 2001 740i stats) but didn't have the heart for it - there is such a thing as too much WinSPIN.
Like I keep saying, you guys don't stand a chance. ;)
I'd wage that the driver of the Porsche will have far more fun driving than the Accord driver. Considering that I've spent large amounts of time in my mom's 7th gen V6 Accord, it's a surefire bet that the Porsche is better to drive.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 22, 2012, 01:35:56 PM
Actually, it ended here:
I was temped to post 7th gen Accord vs. Porsche 944 performance stats (in addition to vs. 2001 740i stats) but didn't have the heart for it - there is such a thing as too much WinSPIN.
Like I keep saying, you guys don't stand a chance. ;)
O Cougs, ye of little automotive knowledge
Taking bench racing stats as the sole indication of a car's enjoyability
I can say w/confidence nobody on this board, aside from you, would rather drive an Accord DX V6 over a 944 if the sole purpose of the drive is fun, and the road has any curves in it
But go ahead and post your stats, lmao. You've got the juice now
Quote from: SVT666 on May 22, 2012, 01:14:20 PM
Raza is nutz. I really dig the new XJ (except for the black D-pillar).
Have you seen it? With eyes? Directly? It's hideous. When I first saw it in person, it was so ugly that I thought it was some sort of Lincoln that was trying to be a Lexus and a Citroen's aborted demon child. I see these things everyday and they're terrible. Not as disgusting as cars like the Juke, tC, and Veloster, but not that far off.
The current XK may be my second favorite Jag of all time, next to only the old E-Type.
It's just amazing, inside and out. Would love to own one.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 22, 2012, 01:30:29 PM
I will retract. A&S can work, but it has to be kept fresh. ATS is not a bad looking car, or even a bad application, but as far as boldness goes there's nothing there. It would have been bold 10 years ago. Something like the Imaj/Caddy Panamera, albeit pared down to reality (but not uglified), would do a couple of good things for Caddy.
- Depending on price, it could make the 3/5/7 structure irrelevant.
- It could be an example of the innovation Cadillac USED to be known for. The hatchback shape could lend itself to class leading aerodynamics, as well as price defying space. And with no need to adhere to a RWD platform or a meaningless Nurburgring lap time, it could be equipped w/the 2.0 turbo as the base motor.
- It could cover a somewhat wider market space. LWB, hybrid, V8, it could be an all encompassing platform.
- It could isolate itself from competing directly with the Europeans, which could be a double edged sword but IMO would be a net plus
Essentially, it could be a Cadillac C6/ES350, which would appeal to a lot more of the American marketplace and be more in line with what Caddy has been about historically.
ES350? No. The XTS is already a glorified ES350, and I still think that car will be a step back for Cadillac. I'm thinking a Cadillac CLS/A7 as far as market segment is concerned.
Quote from: CJ on May 22, 2012, 01:39:05 PM
I'd wage that the driver of the Porsche will have far more fun driving than the Accord driver. Considering that I've spent large amounts of time in my mom's 7th gen V6 Accord, it's a surefire bet that the Porsche is better to drive.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 22, 2012, 01:42:24 PM
O Cougs, ye of little automotive knowledge
Taking bench racing stats as the sole indication of a car's enjoyability
I can say w/confidence nobody on this board, aside from you, would rather drive an Accord DX V6 over a 944 if the sole purpose of the drive is fun, and the road has any curves in it
But go ahead and post your stats, lmao. You've got the juice now
Guys, the point being is that "enthusiasm" is not defined by the car you drive. See, you proven my point - one can be an enthusiast with mom's car, with no car at all, or by buying cars on credit (can't be afforded).
(http://auto-week.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Jaguar-XJ-Diamond-Edition.jpg)
yum
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8014/7214987974_73819d6404_h.jpg)
nice!
(http://strumors.automobilemag.com/files/2012/05/2013-Cadillac-ATS-front-three-quarter-track-21-623x389.jpg)
oh baby
Seems like you guys are all stupid and blind n shit
Quote from: 68_427 on May 22, 2012, 02:06:58 PM
yum
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8014/7214987974_73819d6404_h.jpg)
nice!
oh baby
Seems like you guys are all stupid and blind n shit
What the hell is going on with those proportions
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on May 22, 2012, 02:24:26 PM
What the hell is going on with those proportions
I know, right? Needs more wheelbase.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 22, 2012, 01:55:24 PM
Guys, the point being is that "enthusiasm" is not defined by the car you drive. See, you proven my point - one can be an enthusiast with mom's car, with no car at all, or by buying cars on credit (can't be afforded).
And you're not wrong. But for an enthusiast who CAN afford a second car, an old Porsche certainly isn't a bad choice. Rupert's car is fun to him and that's all that matters.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 22, 2012, 02:25:50 PM
I know, right? Needs more wheelbase.
Trunk's a little long.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=27381.msg1723984#msg1723984 date=1337718480
Trunk's a little long.
It's also too high in the air.
Quote from: CJ on May 22, 2012, 02:27:12 PM
And you're not wrong. But for an enthusiast who CAN afford a second car, an old Porsche certainly isn't a bad choice. Rupert's car is fun to him and that's all that matters.
Don't feed the troll.
Quote from: Vinsanity on May 22, 2012, 01:52:44 PM
ES350? No. The XTS is already a glorified ES350, and I still think that car will be a step back for Cadillac. I'm thinking a Cadillac CLS/A7 as far as market segment is concerned.
The reason the XTS sucks is because its a boring application. What I am thinking is pretty much a slightly smaller XTS w/a hatchback and sportier profile. That's really all Caddy needs.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 22, 2012, 01:55:24 PM
Guys, the point being is that "enthusiasm" is not defined by the car you drive. See, you proven my point - one can be an enthusiast with mom's car, with no car at all, or by buying cars on credit (can't be afforded).
Interesting change of tone, being that you've repeatedly brought up the fact that I don't own a car as a discredit to my enthusiasm
Quote from: 2o6 on May 22, 2012, 02:25:50 PM
I know, right? Needs more wheelbase.
The hood is way too short. Looks like a transverse 4-banger is trying to drag around a body the size of a Lexus LS. Reminds me of a little kid carrying a huge backpack on his back.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 22, 2012, 02:30:05 PM
The reason the XTS sucks is because its a boring application. What I am thinking is pretty much a slightly smaller XTS w/a hatchback and sportier profile. That's really all Caddy needs.
I don't think Cadillac should give up their quest for superior driving dynamics. It still plays a large part in changing consumers' views of the brand in a positive way. Younger buyers in this segment still don't want a car that drives like lipstick on an Impala.
Quote from: CJ on May 22, 2012, 02:27:12 PM
And you're not wrong. But for an enthusiast who CAN afford a second car, an old Porsche certainly isn't a bad choice. Rupert's car is fun to him and that's all that matters.
BOTH an old 944 AND an Accord are equal in the respective beholder's eye, and THAT'S all that matters.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 22, 2012, 02:31:34 PM
Interesting change of tone, being that you've repeatedly brought up the fact that I don't own a car as a discredit to my enthusiasm
Um, only in a mirror-is-a-harsh-mistress tactic in showing how ridiculous it was to challenge one's "enthusiasm" based on what one owns/drives/likes; i.e., I was playing
your game for games' sake to make a point.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 22, 2012, 02:56:15 PM
BOTH an old 944 AND an Accord are equal in the respective beholder's eye, and THAT'S all that matters.
Yep.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 22, 2012, 02:28:44 PM
It's also too high in the air.
I'm not sure I see it. Do you mean ground clearance, wheel gap, beltline, or overall height?
Quote from: GoCougs on May 22, 2012, 01:55:24 PM
Guys, the point being is that "enthusiasm" is not defined by the car you drive. See, you proven my point - one can be an enthusiast with mom's car, with no car at all, or by buying cars on credit (can't be afforded).
I think we can all agree to that.
But my mom's got the fastest car on the board, so I win!
Quote from: Raza link=topic=27381.msg1723966#msg1723966 date=1337715908
Have you seen it? With eyes? Directly? It's hideous. When I first saw it in person, it was so ugly that I thought it was some sort of Lincoln that was trying to be a Lexus and a Citroen's aborted demon child. I see these things everyday and they're terrible. Not as disgusting as cars like the Juke, tC, and Veloster, but not that far off.
Admittedly I haven't seen it in the metal. Just in pictures.
Quote from: Vinsanity on May 22, 2012, 02:50:21 PM
I don't think Cadillac should give up their quest for superior driving dynamics. It still plays a large part in changing consumers' views of the brand in a positive way. Younger buyers in this segment still don't want a car that drives like lipstick on an Impala.
There's a long way between an E46 and that. They should make it nice to drive, but not throw anything away to make it super engaging.
Plus in any case, cars like the 1st gen Mazda6 and 3rd gen Altima show you don't need a super focused chassis to have a fun daily driver.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 22, 2012, 04:35:32 PM
There's a long way between an E46 and that. They should make it nice to drive, but not throw anything away to make it super engaging.
Plus in any case, cars like the 1st gen Mazda6 and 3rd gen Altima show you don't need a super focused chassis to have a fun daily driver.
Is there anything the ATS is throwing away for it to be super engaging? It doesn't even have a "super focused chassis"; it's going to use the same one as the next Camaro.
I do agree with you that Cadillac has a good opportunity to try out a sleek new hatchback body style; the CTS coupe still turns quite a few heads, and the company even looks to the bustleback Seville with fond memories. But I don't see a reason they should soften up and target the Lexus ES all of a sudden. If anything, they should have their RWD version of the A5 Sportback, their version of the A7/CLS/Panamera, and an actual 2-door coupe/convertible sandwiched in between.
Quote from: Vinsanity on May 22, 2012, 05:09:55 PM
Is there anything the ATS is throwing away for it to be super engaging? It doesn't even have a "super focused chassis"; it's going to use the same one as the next Camaro.
Well, it's RWD & confined to the footprint of the 3 series. Might not seem crazy next to an Elise, but for a 4-5 passenger car it is a little restrictive. If they stretch the wheelbase to make it roomier, it gets heavier. A FWD based chassis would be inherently roomier. Thats one compromise.
They should ditch the ATS/CTS and combine them into something like the A5 Sportback. Then make a flagship Panamera style. But they have to make the design something that stops people in its tracks. I think they can do it, even within a budget.
Quote from: Raza on May 22, 2012, 02:28:00 PM
Trunk's a little long.
Not as long as this, which also has a larger front over hang.
(http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee19/whitejeep1989/Audi/Elegant-Audi-A8side-view.jpg)
Quote from: 68_427 on May 22, 2012, 06:55:29 PM
(http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee19/whitejeep1989/Audi/Elegant-Audi-A8side-view.jpg)
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8014/7214987974_73819d6404_h.jpg)
This is actually a good way to see what's wrong with the XTS.
The problem with the XTS are numerous. The biggie though is the MPV like intersection of the wheel arch and the front door. There's no "hood". The shoulder line is too high, and overall the car's profile is too tall to let the lines settle, despite it being such a long/huge car. With the A8 there's a clear distinction between the nose, cabin, and trunk. With the XTS it all kind of melts together in a way that reminds you more of a Nissan Sentra than a luxury car. Hopefully it won't be so bad in the flesh.
Looks alot lower in the flesh.
Yeah, the lack of a clearly defined 3-box design does draw attention to the big ass.
Quote from: Vinsanity on May 22, 2012, 02:43:32 PM
The hood is way too short. Looks like a transverse 4-banger is trying to drag around a body the size of a Lexus LS. Reminds me of a little kid carrying a huge backpack on his back.
I don't think FWD proportions are not necessarily a bad thing. I think an emphesis on cabin and wheelbase would have been a better idea for the XTS than the proportions it has now; sort of a kammback profile with emphesis on a big cabin. I will have to draw out this idea and show you guys....words don't do that much.
Quote from: Raza on May 22, 2012, 03:37:57 PM
I'm not sure I see it. Do you mean ground clearance, wheel gap, beltline, or overall height?
The ascending beltline and sheetmetal make the rear look visually very high in the air.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 22, 2012, 06:00:27 PM
Well, it's RWD & confined to the footprint of the 3 series. Might not seem crazy next to an Elise, but for a 4-5 passenger car it is a little restrictive. If they stretch the wheelbase to make it roomier, it gets heavier. A FWD based chassis would be inherently roomier. Thats one compromise.
When was the last time Cadillac used a FWD based chassis good enough to outshine its competitors? Don't worry, I'll wait...
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on May 22, 2012, 02:24:26 PM
What the hell is going on with those proportions
Yeah, that car is worse than the Lincoln MK lard-assed Taurus.
Quote from: Raza on May 22, 2012, 01:45:08 PM
Have you seen it? With eyes?
Yes...it's astonishing. White with the SS package. Yum.
Quote from: Vinsanity on May 22, 2012, 08:30:08 PM
When was the last time Cadillac used a FWD based chassis good enough to outshine its competitors? Don't worry, I'll wait...
Does GM still own any of Saab's guts? They could probably raid the final 9-5 for parts and come up with a fun FWD vehicle.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 22, 2012, 09:18:55 PM
Does GM still own any of Saab's guts? They could probably raid the final 9-5 for parts and come up with a fun FWD vehicle.
The 9-5's platform is super old...the last vehicle to use it was the Saturn L-series. (aside from the 9-5) It's an old platform and it shows, it's not a good base to use.
The late 9-5 didn't have that old platform. It had the same one the Insignia/Regal is on.
Quote from: MrH on May 22, 2012, 01:15:50 PM
LOL! "everyone lost market share"
Quote of the day.
:lol:
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 22, 2012, 12:45:10 PM
"It's also a totally different product. It's like saying why doesn't the Camry outsell the RAV4? (it does) They cost about the same, they are about the same size. "
"The 9-3 and 9-5 failed because they were old and uncompetitive. The 9-5's basic architecture dated back to the original 1988 Opel Vectra. Volvo S60 occupied a similar segment, and it has been a success."
Americans don't care about that shit... the Chrysler LX was based on an old E-class among other things. The Corolla has been pretty much unchanged since 1998.
The Corolla's platform was all new in 2003, and again in 2009 (revised). The 9-5 was uncompetitive because it couldn't compete with it's competitors in terms of nearly everything.
It was roomier + had the V8. Real failure was that it was done half assed. If they had positioned the STS between a 5 and 7 series in size I think it would have succeeded. I guess we agree on this.
CTS and STS were virtually the same size inside.
This thread is dumb. No one has even driven the car or even seen it in person.
Quote from: CJ on May 22, 2012, 09:23:46 PM
The late 9-5 didn't have that old platform. It had the same one the Insignia/Regal is on.
Forgot that car existed. Shame, it really is a pretty car.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 22, 2012, 09:27:58 PM
Forgot that car existed. Shame, it really is a pretty car.
That siren's song finally got old enough to kill off the company. They're nice, they're fun, they have tons of cool stuff in the cockpit, and you'll buy every part twice. ;)
I've seen the ATS XTS in person. It's massive and awkwardly proportioned.
Oops. Meant XTS.
Quote from: CJ on May 22, 2012, 09:23:46 PM
The late 9-5 didn't have that old platform. It had the same one the Insignia/Regal is on.
In that case, I'd rather have my Caddy based on a Camaro than a Buick, thanks.
Quote from: Raza on May 22, 2012, 12:05:01 PM
You must have no eye for detail then. And yes, it just takes a few tiny detail changes to make a car ugly.
Such ridiculous hyperbole from you, Raza. This thread has really gotten you in a tiff, hasn't it?
And please, don't even act like the X350 was some masterwork (it was long-in-tooth, but still attractive), or that all the new Jags are horrendous. It just makes you look like the guy you are trying to make me out to be...the one with no eye for detail.
Quote from: Vinsanity on May 22, 2012, 08:30:08 PM
When was the last time Cadillac used a FWD based chassis good enough to outshine its competitors? Don't worry, I'll wait...
Thats the whole point... one doesn't have to compete with the 3/5/7 crew to sell luxury cars (Lexus ES)
I'm not saying the chassis is not important. But at the limit dynamics aren't. They could tune a FWD chassis to feel "German"
Quote from: Vinsanity on May 22, 2012, 10:16:39 PM
In that case, I'd rather have my Caddy based on a Camaro than a Buick, thanks.
The Regal is one of the sharpest cars in the entire GM lineup. It drives well and has a great interior. It also looks extremely handsome.
Quote from: CJ on May 23, 2012, 09:25:54 AM
The Regal is one of the sharpest cars in the entire GM lineup. It drives well and has a great interior. It also looks extremely handsome.
Agreed. The Regal is an excellent car but not right for a Cadillac. I feel Cadillacs should be rear drive and should have a hint of menace about them. Think mafia chic. The Chrysler 300 (with "Luxury" interior) would have made an excellent Cadillac.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 23, 2012, 06:49:47 AM
Thats the whole point... one doesn't have to compete with the 3/5/7 crew to sell luxury cars (Lexus ES)
I'm not saying the chassis is not important. But at the limit dynamics aren't. They could tune a FWD chassis to feel "German"
In other words, spend development dollars to toss out one of the most important characteristics that made the CTS successful. This makes no sense.
Quote from: CJ on May 23, 2012, 09:25:54 AM
The Regal is one of the sharpest cars in the entire GM lineup. It drives well and has a great interior. It also looks extremely handsome.
The Regal is a great alternative to the Acura TSX, Nissan Maxima, and VW CC. But it's not a good basis for a Cadillac. Cadillacs should be engineered from the ground up as world-beaters. Using a design targeted toward 2nd-tier marques won't produce a world-beater.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 23, 2012, 06:49:47 AM
Thats the whole point... one doesn't have to compete with the 3/5/7 crew to sell luxury cars (Lexus ES)
So what would you want instead of the ATS? Lexus makes nice cars but, as an enthusiast, I have no desire to drive or own any of them. I don't get the objection to the ATS, a car that is looking as if it's going to have an aggressive exterior, nice luxury interior and great driving dynamics designed to compete with the benchmark of the class.
For real, I've never heard people hate so much on a car that promises to be pretty damn great!
Quote from: TurboDan on May 23, 2012, 04:47:36 PM
So what would you want instead of the ATS? Lexus makes nice cars but, as an enthusiast, I have no desire to drive or own any of them. I don't get the objection to the ATS, a car that is looking as if it's going to have an aggressive exterior, nice luxury interior and great driving dynamics designed to compete with the benchmark of the class.
For real, I've never heard people hate so much on a car that promises to be pretty damn great!
This
Quote from: TurboDan on May 23, 2012, 04:47:36 PM
So what would you want instead of the ATS? Lexus makes nice cars but, as an enthusiast, I have no desire to drive or own any of them. I don't get the objection to the ATS, a car that is looking as if it's going to have an aggressive exterior, nice luxury interior and great driving dynamics designed to compete with the benchmark of the class.
For real, I've never heard people hate so much on a car that promises to be pretty damn great!
The cars I want built != the cars that will save the likes of Cadillac
That is the POV I'm looking at the ATS through. The Americans will never succeed if they try to compete directly with the Germans. Theres no room left in that niche. There is plenty of room to be American.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 23, 2012, 07:28:40 PM
The Americans will never succeed if they try to compete directly with the Germans. Theres no room left in that niche. There is plenty of room to be American.
What Cadillac needs is the performance, handling and quality of the German cars but combined with American style. I think the comment I posted earlier about "Mafia-Chic" perfectly sums up the look Cadillac needs to cultivate.
The new Escalade for 2014 is going to be classier looking. Research by Cadillac shows that for every customer turned on by the rap/ballah reputation there's four that are tuned off.
Quote from: 68_427 on May 23, 2012, 07:43:25 PM
The new Escalade for 2014 is going to be classier looking. Research by Cadillac shows that for every customer turned on by the rap/ballah reputation there's four that are tuned off.
Source?
Who's going to pick up the rapper market?
http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2012/05/gm-gives-cadillac-escalade-a-reprieve/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews
Quote from: Madman on May 23, 2012, 07:36:29 PM
What Cadillac needs is the performance, handling and quality of the German cars but combined with American style. I think the comment I posted earlier about "Mafia-Chic" perfectly sums up the look Cadillac needs to cultivate.
For once, I agree with you.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 23, 2012, 07:28:40 PM
The cars I want built != the cars that will save the likes of Cadillac
That is the POV I'm looking at the ATS through. The Americans will never succeed if they try to compete directly with the Germans. Theres no room left in that niche. There is plenty of room to be American.
So you want them to build boats, like they did for 25 years during their decline?
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 23, 2012, 07:28:40 PM
The cars I want built != the cars that will save the likes of Cadillac
That is the POV I'm looking at the ATS through. The Americans will never succeed if they try to compete directly with the Germans. Theres no room left in that niche. There is plenty of room to be American.
"Being American," unfortunately, has meant huge, poor-handling land yachts with big gas-guzzling engines.
GM has realized nobody wants those kinds of cars anymore. It took them going pretty much bankrupt to do so, but they finally realized it. The ATS is the realization that unique, aggressive American style can be harnessed in a car that can compete with the class-leaders, which happen to be German. And you can do it in a small package with an efficient engine so long as the car handles like a champ.
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 23, 2012, 09:29:39 PM
So you want them to build boats, like they did for 25 years during their decline?
No, the Chrysler 300 is American and doesn't handle like a boat. Not handling like a GT3 doesn't mean handling like a boat, there's a pretty healthy medium between the two.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 23, 2012, 09:50:55 PM
"Being American," unfortunately, has meant huge, poor-handling land yachts with big gas-guzzling engines.
GM has realized nobody wants those kinds of cars anymore. It took them going pretty much bankrupt to do so, but they finally realized it. The ATS is the realization that unique, aggressive American style can be harnessed in a car that can compete with the class-leaders, which happen to be German. And you can do it in a small package with an efficient engine so long as the car handles like a champ.
Unique? Derivative
And again, just competing is not enough, nor is it the way forward for Caddy. Calling on their heritage/not competing head on with the Germans doesn't automatically mean making piece of shit V8-6-4 land barges. Again, Chrysler did exactly what I'm talking about with the 300... made a good car w/o playing by the Germans' rules, and got a win
Quote from: Laconian on May 23, 2012, 07:56:19 PM
Source?
Who's going to pick up the rapper market?
Range Rover has had about 50% market share in the ballah/rapper/gangsta since '01-ish. I assume they'll just increase their cut.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 23, 2012, 10:04:41 PM
Unique? Derivative
And again, just competing is not enough, nor is it the way forward for Caddy. Calling on their heritage/not competing head on with the Germans doesn't automatically mean making piece of shit V8-6-4 land barges. Again, Chrysler did exactly what I'm talking about with the 300... made a good car w/o playing by the Germans' rules, and got a win
You still haven't told us what you want, though. "Not German" doesn't cut it. What should Cadillac do differently than they did with the ATS?
No matter what you do, you compete with someone. Maybe GM realized that cars like the 3er and A4 are cars people shopping in this segment WANT. And they want to give it their best shot. I just don't understand your problem with the ATS whatsoever.
Yeah, I'm not sure how improving a car dynamics make it a crappier car. What's wrong with better handling (assuming it doesn't kill the ride)?
:pee:
Sporty's opinion
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 23, 2012, 07:28:40 PM
The cars I want built != the cars that will save the likes of Cadillac
:facepalm:
The CTS offers German handling and between it and the Escalade, they saved Cadillac.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 23, 2012, 11:50:27 PM
:facepalm:
The CTS offers German handling and between it and the Escalade, they saved Cadillac.
:hesaid:
Caddy was going nowhere fast until the CTS came along (and I'll give the XLR credit for generating some excitement too). The CTS coupe still turns heads everywhere it goes. The ATS is going to build on that vision big time.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 23, 2012, 10:11:22 PM
You still haven't told us what you want, though. "Not German" doesn't cut it. What should Cadillac do differently than they did with the ATS?
No matter what you do, you compete with someone. Maybe GM realized that cars like the 3er and A4 are cars people shopping in this segment WANT. And they want to give it their best shot. I just don't understand your problem with the ATS whatsoever.
12 pages in you guys still dont get it and I dont think you ever will. I said it ten times. You don't compete with the 3 series by making a 3 series w/no engine or price advantage. It doesnt matter what the car looks like or how it drives. The segment is too crowded to not make something that goes beyond just being competitive if its new.
American companies shouldnt be completely aping... I will stop using that word since people dont seem to know what it means... American companies cannot beat the Germans by completely shadowing their every move. I said it a thousand times but the Chrysler 300 is an example of this. What BMW does it compete with? None, but it in its first year out it outsold BMW's whole car (not SUV) lineup (look it up!). By abandoning that 3/5/7 garbage they were able to free themselves of the associated constraints and create a new niche + make a car that was more reflective of American tastes, as well as not toss their hat into the ring of a Royal Rumble
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 23, 2012, 10:28:08 PM
Yeah, I'm not sure how improving a car dynamics make it a crappier car. What's wrong with better handling (assuming it doesn't kill the ride)?
Who said anything about not improving dynamics? Dynamics should be A priority, but not THE priority. Plenty of successful luxury cars exist w/o having been "tuned on the Nurburgring".
Like I also said a thousand times, I have nothing against the car, I am just questioning how Caddy expects it to sell, and whether the investment into this platform was the right one. Even the Germans themselves are delving into different niches, because they know their core segments are saturated.
Caddy is hoping to sell 60-75K of these a year. Who thinks thats realistic? For reference the 3 series sells about 90-120K cars here. C class does about 60,000. Infiniti G does about 50,000. A4 does about 30-40K. Hell Caddy's own CTS only does about 50-60K. And the CTS is bigger, comes w/100HP more in base form, and only costs about $2K more in base form. So even w/o looking outside of Cadillac, as is the ATS is up against stiff competition
I'm not being negative, I'm being realistic. Like I said I'm sure the car will be great. But it seems very poorly positioned.
As far as what to do, I don't know. Nobody saw the 300 coming. But Caddy needs to look outside the German box. Hell the CTS was a look outside. It had an American design, with big value- the space of a 5 series with the dynamics of a 3 series and a price undercutting the 3 series. The ATS just has the American design. You think that will be enough to pull 60,000 people away from 3s, A4s, Gs, Cs etc?
Time to agree to disagree and sit back and see how it pans out.
Im fine to do that as well, but I am just tired of people misconstruing/misinterpreting what I'm saying
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 23, 2012, 10:04:41 PM
Unique? Derivative
And again, just competing is not enough, nor is it the way forward for Caddy. Calling on their heritage/not competing head on with the Germans doesn't automatically mean making piece of shit V8-6-4 land barges. Again, Chrysler did exactly what I'm talking about with the 300... made a good car w/o playing by the Germans' rules, and got a win
The irony is, the 300 used the transmission and suspension bits from an old E-class.
But point taken.
And it was built damn near everywhere but the US. Point still stands
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 24, 2012, 10:17:28 AM
Im fine to do that as well, but I am just tired of people misconstruing/misinterpreting what I'm saying
Well, that's because you came out the gate like the ATS ruined your life and you want to see it swallowed up by a whale like Jonah.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=27381.msg1724970#msg1724970 date=1337880413
Well, that's because you came out the gate like the ATS ruined your life and you want to see it swallowed up by a whale like Jonah.
I did no thing of the sort. Said what I've been saying all along- Cadillac's return to greatness won't happen with a German blueprint, and while I'm not sure what is the right path, I know the 3/5/7 route is the wrong one. Never said anything bad about the car itself, aside from its exterior design, which while not ugly is a pretty derivative/lazy application of A&S... in fact I said many times the car prob will be very good, but again, in this segment very good is not good enough. To a degree throwing a hat in this ring at this point isn't even worth it unless you have a package that is ironclad. ATS looks like a good car but again, its 10 yrs late. The ATS/CTS/STS should have all come out with the original CTS.
You know what would make a 300 even better? If it lost a bit of weight and handled better (without losing ride quality, like I said before). That's what Cadillac is doing. They have their American style down pat, so they are working on providing a good performing car now. You just don't like their particular style for some reason.
300 losing weight would be good, but that would require either making the car smaller or using more expensive aluminum components. For what it was made to achieve neither would have worked.
A trip to a Caddy dealer in 2013 will be interesting. You can get an ATS, or for $2K more get a CTS with much more engine and space. Or go to the BMW dealership, and get an F30 w/much more engine and the BMW roundel for not much more $$$. Or go to a Lexus/Infiniti dealer and get the same amount of car for the same amount of $$$. Obv people spending $30-40K on a car prob aren't super value conscious, but w/the level of saturation in this segment the cars are essentially commodities, which does introduce an element of "well, why you instead of cars x, y, z" into the mix. We already established folks in this segment aren't super concerned w/dynamics- if so nobody would buy anything but a 3 with the sport package.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 24, 2012, 11:52:47 AM
I did no thing of the sort. Said what I've been saying all along- Cadillac's return to greatness won't happen with a German blueprint, and while I'm not sure what is the right path, I know the 3/5/7 route is the wrong one. Never said anything bad about the car itself, aside from its exterior design, which while not ugly is a pretty derivative/lazy application of A&S... in fact I said many times the car prob will be very good, but again, in this segment very good is not good enough. To a degree throwing a hat in this ring at this point isn't even worth it unless you have a package that is ironclad. ATS looks like a good car but again, its 10 yrs late. The ATS/CTS/STS should have all come out with the original CTS.
You mean compact, midsize, and large is the wrong strategy? The one employed by every car maker?
Quote from: Raza on May 24, 2012, 01:23:06 PM
You mean compact, midsize, and large is the wrong strategy? The one employed by every car maker?
Nope, not really, especially in the luxury field. Lot of good manufacturers have rightfully abandoned the 3/5/7 brand structure and failed in the 3/7 segments...
Did you ever consider the fact Cadillac needs more than just one decent car if they are to survive? Did you also take into account that the 3-Series/C-Class/A4 "Compact Executive" segment is still by far the largest and most lucrative segment in the premium car market? The question you should be asking is "Why the hell did Cadillac wait so long to go after a piece of that business?".
Cadillac has two successful models actually - CTS and SRX.
My bet is the ATS goes down like the STS - decent enough but why buy it over the competition? The CTS has a unique value proposition and the SRX has class-unique styling.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 24, 2012, 10:44:42 PM
My bet is the ATS goes down like the STS - decent enough but why buy it over the competition?
That's what I was thinking too, actually.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 24, 2012, 10:44:42 PM
Cadillac has two successful models actually - CTS and SRX.
My bet is the ATS goes down like the STS - decent enough but why buy it over the competition? The CTS has a unique value proposition and the SRX has class-unique styling.
Unfortunately I kind of agree. Unfortunate because I really like the ATS and want it to do well, but the market just seems way too crowded for yet another competitor (and the fact that it can't offer the same value proposition as the CTS unless they want to compete with Accords and Camries on price).
From an "outsider" perspective and obviously not having driven the cars, I'd go for the Lexus ES 350 model over a Cadillac, if I wanted a so-called entry level comfortable luxury car. If I wanted something sporty, then the BMW comes into play. I agree with Sporty that Cadillac is better off going down a different route than following BMW as I'd not consider a Cadillac sports-focussed unless you are talking about the CTS-V models which are like AMGs?
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 24, 2012, 02:08:01 PM
Nope, not really, especially in the luxury field. Lot of good manufacturers have rightfully abandoned the 3/5/7 brand structure and failed in the 3/7 segments...
Name some.
Quote from: Raza on May 25, 2012, 06:50:11 AM
Name some.
RL, Q45, Lincoln LS, Catera, STS, X-Type, Phaeton (to a lesser degree)
The 3er segment is crowded as fuck, throwing a hat in the ring is pointless + unnecessary. I don't know what car they should have made instead but the ATS was not it, no matter how good it may be.
Quote from: Madman on May 24, 2012, 09:07:10 PM
Did you ever consider the fact Cadillac needs more than just one decent car if they are to survive? Did you also take into account that the 3-Series/C-Class/A4 "Compact Executive" segment is still by far the largest and most lucrative segment in the premium car market? The question you should be asking is "Why the hell did Cadillac wait so long to go after a piece of that business?".
I know why Cadillac waited. Beancounters + general planning stupidity. ATS/CTS/STS should have come out all together in the late 90s/early 00s w/clear targets and no internal overlap. Now they are a decade late and hundreds of millions of dollars in sales/investments short, jumping into one of the most saturated + competitive segments in the automotive industry w/a car that competes with another car within the brand (and not even well).
Like Cougs said, the car will prob be fine on its own, but what makes it a standout choice among the hundreds of other $40K luxury car choices? What about it will lure 60K buyers from other brands/the CTS annually? Will it add to Cadillac sales or take sales away from the CTS? Everyone rooting for the car doesnt seem to want to answer these questions.
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on May 25, 2012, 05:36:12 AM
From an "outsider" perspective and obviously not having driven the cars, I'd go for the Lexus ES 350 model over a Cadillac, if I wanted a so-called entry level comfortable luxury car. If I wanted something sporty, then the BMW comes into play. I agree with Sporty that Cadillac is better off going down a different route than following BMW as I'd not consider a Cadillac sports-focussed unless you are talking about the CTS-V models which are like AMGs?
The V-Series Caddies are more like BMW's M-series than they are like AMG. The V-Series has gobs of power, but with a real focus on handling. AMG doesn't focus on handling at all. Hell, even the standard CTS is a sporty drive that competes well with BMW for handling.
I think one thing everyone is ignoring is Europe and the rest of the world. Cadillac, unlike the cars with which is wants to compete - BMW, MB, Audi - is not a world player. It wants to be one, and if it can succeed to some degree, it will be a much more successful company than one that only sells 120,000 or so units in the US.
The compact segment is the major segment - THAT'S why the ATS needs to be like the 3 and all the others. But, as I said earlier on one of the ATS threads, I do believe the styling should have been bolder and that the price should be lower.
Bold styling is what set apart the CTS, the SRX, and the Escalade. In content and dynamics, most of the class is similar - or at least similar enough for most of the buyers. And the baggage of having sucked for the last 20 years or so puts Cadillac at a disadvantage, so they need to be a better value proposition, at least until people desire these cars (relatively) regardless of price.
So no, I don't think the ATS needed to be anything radically different. It just needs sharpe styling and a lower price, at least initially. And I'd have launched the base engine later, so that reviewers would have less to criticize at launch.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 25, 2012, 07:27:58 AM
RL, Q45, Lincoln LS, Catera, STS, X-Type, Phaeton (to a lesser degree)
The 3er segment is crowded as fuck, throwing a hat in the ring is pointless + unnecessary. I don't know what car they should have made instead but the ATS was not it, no matter how good it may be.
You named specific cars, not manufacturers and [crappy] cars that failed nonetheless. You really just chipped away at your own argument.
Quote from: Colonel Cadillac on May 25, 2012, 11:12:47 AM
You named specific cars, not manufacturers and [crappy] cars that failed nonetheless. You really just chipped away at your own argument.
??????????
Theres nothing to really compare the ATS with- every luxury car released in the last 20-30 years that was successful was either
- Priced at a steep discount WRT its competition while being either as good, significantly better, or addressing a specific weakness of the competition (Lexus LS, Infiniti G, Caddy CTS)
- Segment free or segment creating/bending (Lexus RX, Lexus ES, Chrysler 300, MINI)
- Created by the Germans whose brand equity + cash enables them to create + sell pretty much anything (CLS, SLK, TT)
ATS doesn't have any of these traits. Youre a business dude. Whats the case for the ATS?
Quote from: Hachee on May 25, 2012, 10:35:04 AM
I think one thing everyone is ignoring is Europe and the rest of the world. Cadillac, unlike the cars with which is wants to compete - BMW, MB, Audi - is not a world player. It wants to be one, and if it can succeed to some degree, it will be a much more successful company than one that only sells 120,000 or so units in the US.
The compact segment is the major segment - THAT'S why the ATS needs to be like the 3 and all the others. But, as I said earlier on one of the ATS threads, I do believe the styling should have been bolder and that the price should be lower.
Bold styling is what set apart the CTS, the SRX, and the Escalade. In content and dynamics, most of the class is similar - or at least similar enough for most of the buyers. And the baggage of having sucked for the last 20 years or so puts Cadillac at a disadvantage, so they need to be a better value proposition, at least until people desire these cars (relatively) regardless of price.
So no, I don't think the ATS needed to be anything radically different. It just needs sharpe styling and a lower price, at least initially. And I'd have launched the base engine later, so that reviewers would have less to criticize at launch.
I am not sure banking on Europe was the smartest idea.
(http://www.tradingeconomics.com/chart.png?s=eugnemuq&d1=19950101&d2=20120531)
And Europe is OK w/cars bearing American badges designed exclusively for the European market, but only in the mainstream arena. No American company has been able to challenge the Germans in that 3/5/7 realm in Europe and I don't think the ATS will break that losing streak.
I'm sorry, why are judgments being made about the car before anyone has driven it? Does that make sense?
Quote from: VetteZ06 on May 25, 2012, 11:41:51 AM
I'm sorry, why are judgments being made about the car before anyone has driven it? Does that make sense?
Nobody has said anything bad about the car itself.
Quote from: Madman on May 24, 2012, 09:07:10 PM
Did you ever consider the fact Cadillac needs more than just one decent car if they are to survive? Did you also take into account that the 3-Series/C-Class/A4 "Compact Executive" segment is still by far the largest and most lucrative segment in the premium car market? The question you should be asking is "Why the hell did Cadillac wait so long to go after a piece of that business?".
Like Cougs said Caddy has more than 1 decent + successful car. 3 if you count the Escalade. And in any case nobody is suggesting Caddy rely on one car. This whole post is fail.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 25, 2012, 11:47:29 AM
Nobody has said anything bad about the car itself.
So would having an orgasmic driving experience be something it offers over the competition?
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 25, 2012, 11:31:39 AM
??????????
Theres nothing to really compare the ATS with- every luxury car released in the last 20-30 years that was successful was either
- Priced at a steep discount WRT its competition while being either as good, significantly better, or addressing a specific weakness of the competition (Lexus LS, Infiniti G, Caddy CTS)
- Segment free or segment creating/bending (Lexus RX, Lexus ES, Chrysler 300, MINI)
- Created by the Germans whose brand equity + cash enables them to create + sell pretty much anything (CLS, SLK, TT)
ATS doesn't have any of these traits. Youre a business dude. Whats the case for the ATS?
Why does the Lexus IS sell well? It has none of those traits either.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 25, 2012, 11:41:06 AM
I am not sure banking on Europe was the smartest idea.
(http://www.tradingeconomics.com/chart.png?s=eugnemuq&d1=19950101&d2=20120531)
And Europe is OK w/cars bearing American badges designed exclusively for the European market, but only in the mainstream arena. No American company has been able to challenge the Germans in that 3/5/7 realm in Europe and I don't think the ATS will break that losing streak.
That's right - nothing has worked so far. And maybe the ATS won't either. But it's their best effort so far (regardless of the fact that we may think it's got some shortcomings that may hamper its success), and it's part of the reason why it's so closely aimed at the heart of the compact luxury class.
Quote from: VetteZ06 on May 25, 2012, 11:51:22 AM
So would having an orgasmic driving experience be something it offers over the competition?
We don't know if it will, and in any case some of its competitors do too, so no
Quote from: Colonel Cadillac on May 25, 2012, 11:55:48 AM
Why does the Lexus IS sell well? It has none of those traits either.
When the IS came out, the only other competitive cars in the field were the 3, C and A4. And when it came out, it didn't sell well. 20,000 US sales made for a good year on the 1st gens. 2nd gens increased sales by 5x in all segments, mainly because they offered 5x as many engines (including previously unavailable diesels), and a much longer list of standard equipment at a $2-4K discount over the German competition. Plus it was released and revamped in the midst of an economic uptick, before the painful auto sales contraction of '09. So the conditions the 1st and 2nd gen IS' came into are not comparable to the conditions the ATS is facing.
Quote from: Hachee on May 25, 2012, 12:10:32 PM
That's right - nothing has worked so far. And maybe the ATS won't either. But it's their best effort so far (regardless of the fact that we may think it's got some shortcomings that may hamper its success), and it's part of the reason why it's so closely aimed at the heart of the compact luxury class.
I don't think the car will have any shortcomings. This looks like Caddy's best effort since the CTS, on paper anyway. But its in for a hell of a fight, especially if its supposed to be Caddy's ticket to big volume.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 25, 2012, 12:30:03 PM
I don't think the car will have any shortcomings. This looks like Caddy's best effort since the CTS, on paper anyway. But its in for a hell of a fight, especially if its supposed to be Caddy's ticket to big volume.
It's the kind of thing Cadillac would have shied away from in the past. If they're going to build their reputation further, they need to build products exactly like the ATS that unabashedly compete directly with competitors from Germany, Japan, etc.
One good way to ensure failure is refraining from building (what looks to be) a damn fine sedan because some people think the competition is too stiff.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 25, 2012, 12:30:03 PM
I don't think the car will have any shortcomings. This looks like Caddy's best effort since the CTS, on paper anyway. But its in for a hell of a fight, especially if its supposed to be Caddy's ticket to big volume.
You just went on a 13 page rant about its shortcomings (i.e., why it's not or, rather, won't be competitive). You've said it's not different enough or offers anything over the 3 series. These sound like shortcomings, relative to the competition.
Quote from: VetteZ06 on May 25, 2012, 12:39:19 PM
It's the kind of thing Cadillac would have shied away from in the past. If they're going to build their reputation further, they need to build products exactly like the ATS that unabashedly compete directly with competitors from Germany, Japan, etc.
They can build their reputation AND compete directly w/Germany + Japan w/o sinking $$$ into cars that compete internally and won't sell.
Quote from: VetteZ06 on May 25, 2012, 12:39:19 PMOne good way to ensure failure is refraining from building (what looks to be) a damn fine sedan because some people think the competition is too stiff.
The competition may or may not be too stiff, but its definitely the strongest its ever been, and the ATS offers no reason for anyone to default from any of the existing choices... which is what it will have to do to be a success for Caddy as a
business. Folks really seem to be having trouble separating a car's value as a car vs a car's value as a product to be sold for a profit. The ATS prob will be a great car, but I don't know that it will be a good investment for Cadillac, and vague allusions to "having to compete directly" and all that don't lessen the harsh realities of the market conditions its entering.
Quote from: VetteZ06 on May 25, 2012, 11:41:51 AM
I'm sorry, why are judgments being made about the car before anyone has driven it? Does that make sense?
Holy shit back from the dead?
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 25, 2012, 12:52:33 PM
They can build their reputation AND compete directly w/Germany + Japan w/o sinking $$$ into cars that compete internally and won't sell.
Compete internally? The New CTS should be on sale next year man. Come on.
Quote from: Hachee on May 25, 2012, 12:52:11 PM
You just went on a 13 page rant about its shortcomings (i.e., why it's not or, rather, won't be competitive). You've said it's not different enough or offers anything over the 3 series. These sound like shortcomings, relative to the competition.
Right. As a car on its own, or a product from Cadillac in the context of its history, it's fine. People think I am dumping on the car because I think it will suck, and that's simply not true. I am betting this will be excellent. What I am questioning is its position within its own brand (WRT the $2K more CTS), and how it will fare against the competition w/no gimmes in content or value. I'm questioning building a car for a region w/over 10 years of <2% growth that has been in serious trouble over the last couple of years. I'm questioning benchmarking a competitor's grandfather when its been established that its current iteration is its best iteration ever, dynamically. There's a lot about how the car came to be that I am just trying to figure out.
It is a bit unfortunate that the new CTS can't come sooner. There may be a bit of overlap with the current CTS and ATS, but once the next-gen CTS comes around there won't be any confusion.
I also love the fact that a certain someone in this thread is (apparently) claiming to speak for every potential car buyer in America by saying the ATS offers nothing appealing/new/whatever you want to call it versus the competition. How in the world do you know that? That's presumptuous in the worst way.
I feel like it's pretty obvious that Cadillac desperately needed a legitimate 3er/A4/G/C-Class competitor.
Whoa. From the dead, whence he came.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 25, 2012, 12:28:09 PM
We don't know if it will, and in any case some of its competitors do too, so no
When the IS came out, the only other competitive cars in the field were the 3, C and A4. And when it came out, it didn't sell well. 20,000 US sales made for a good year on the 1st gens. 2nd gens increased sales by 5x in all segments, mainly because they offered 5x as many engines (including previously unavailable diesels), and a much longer list of standard equipment at a $2-4K discount over the German competition. Plus it was released and revamped in the midst of an economic uptick, before the painful auto sales contraction of '09. So the conditions the 1st and 2nd gen IS' came into are not comparable to the conditions the ATS is facing.
You're way overthinking it. People buy the IS because it's a good car, just like they'll buy the ATS if it's a good car.
Quote from: VetteZ06 on May 25, 2012, 01:51:53 PM
It is a bit unfortunate that the new CTS can't come sooner. There may be a bit of overlap with the current CTS and ATS, but once the next-gen CTS comes around there won't be any confusion.
I also love the fact that a certain someone in this thread is (apparently) claiming to speak for every potential car buyer in America by saying the ATS offers nothing appealing/new/whatever you want to call it versus the competition. How in the world do you know that? That's presumptuous in the worst way.
I feel like it's pretty obvious that Cadillac desperately needed a legitimate 3er/A4/G/C-Class competitor.
A huge price spike for what will essentially be the same car should help CTS sales
And I dont think the need was desperate at all, people were happy w/the CTS
Quote from: Colonel Cadillac on May 25, 2012, 05:23:18 PM
You're way overthinking it. People buy the IS because it's a good car, just like they'll buy the ATS if it's a good car.
You asked a question, I gave an answer, you dont like the answer lmao.
ATS was not the right move for Caddy period
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 25, 2012, 05:29:50 PM
You asked a question, I gave an answer, you dont like the answer lmao.
Isn't that the point of a debate....?
I do kind of agree with your point that this won't really change Cadillac, as good a car as it may be. The IS is a bad example, because Lexus has brand equity on its side. Cadillac has tarnished that over the past few decades.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 25, 2012, 05:29:50 PM
ATS was not the right move for Caddy period
You seem to have all the answers. What is the right move for Cadillac?
Quote from: Colonel Cadillac on May 25, 2012, 05:37:00 PM
You seem to have all the answers. What is the right move for Cadillac?
Like I said a hundred times, I dont know what the right move is. That is a retarded question. Tell me why the ATS is the right move, if you disagree.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 25, 2012, 06:16:06 PM
Like I said a hundred times, I dont know what the right move is. That is a retarded question. Tell me why the ATS is the right move, if you disagree.
I don't think it's the wrong move, per se. A Cadillac Cruze/Verano would be the wrong move, but not the ATS.
Really, Cadillac's in a weird position. I think I'd go the route of the ATS if I were in that situation.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 25, 2012, 06:16:06 PM
Like I said a hundred times, I dont know what the right move is. That is a retarded question. Tell me why the ATS is the right move, if you disagree.
It's a good move because BMW, Audi, Mercedes, and Lexus among others have been very successful pursuing essentially the same strategy. Building a car that that is different and unproven is very risky, and the evidence shows that people like cars just like the ATS. Otherwise, those automakers I just mentioned would not sell nearly as many cars in the class as they do. Why deviate from a proven successful strategy?
You say Cadillac is wrong, but have no idea what is right. What does that indicate?
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 25, 2012, 05:29:50 PM
A huge price spike for what will essentially be the same car should help CTS sales. And I dont think the need was desperate at all, people were happy w/the CTS
Have you been following Cadillac at all? This puzzle is pretty easy to construct for even the casual observer, so your continued stubbornness is a bit surprising. The CTS is going up in size and price to compete with the 5, E and A6 (in other words, calling it "essentially the same" is wrong). The CTS is a good/great car in its own right, but it's always been a tweener of sorts - the size of a 5-Series with the price of a 3-Series. With the ATS, next-gen CTS and much discussed flagship that Cadillac is looking at building, they'll have a lineup of cars that directly competes with the 3/A4/C, 5/A6/E and 7/A8/S. This is what needed to happen all along.
QuoteATS was not the right move for Caddy period
I will posit that you and Baruth are incorrect, and that the ATS is exactly the right move for Cadillac because it helps to align their lineup with the industry norm that has brought success to similar manufacturers. If they build a kick ass vehicle--which, by all accounts, they have--then good things are likely to follow. The perennial king 3-Series is still good, and it will take a huge effort to get anywhere close to its sales numbers just because of the car's reputation, but it's not untouchable by any means. Looking at the competition, in fact, I can see the ATS being in the top 2 or 3 sales wise in a pretty short amount of time. I just feel like a smaller, lighter, boldly-styled and extremely fun to drive 3-Series competitor has been needed in Cadillac's lineup for a long while.
Now, what should they have done instead? Don't flake out on us.
Oh well, I guess since the 3 series is the dominant benchmark in this class that means Cadillac should just give up and not bother fielding a competitor. Come to think of it, the Camry is the number-one family sedan in America so I guess that means GM should also stop trying to compete with that car, too. Oh, and Ford's F Series trucks have been the best selling truck longer than most of you guys have been alive, so I guess that means GM should just stop trying to compete with Ford and discontinue their Silverado and Sierra trucks, too.
I mean, if it's just too hard, then why bother doing anything at all, right?
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Colonel Cadillac on May 25, 2012, 06:31:28 PM
It's a good move because BMW, Audi, Mercedes, and Lexus among others have been very successful pursuing essentially the same strategy. Building a car that that is different and unproven is very risky, and the evidence shows that people like cars just like the ATS. Otherwise, those automakers I just mentioned would not sell nearly as many cars in the class as they do. Why deviate from a proven successful strategy?
Because you can't keep deriving sales from a finite market ad infinitum, and again, the entry luxury market is reaching saturation both in choice and sales. What was a proven successful strategy for one company or at one time in the game might not be a successful strategy for another company at another time. Someone couldn't come out with the "Ipod II" and instantly sell 50 million units a year. So the idea that Caddy can find another 60K in a market that maybe does 500-600K is unrealistic to me.
Folks here seem to think if a luxury car isn't "tuned on the 'Ring" its worthless, but the reality is most people don't give a shit. Even folks who buy 3 series. For every 3 series there's 2-3 non-sporty competitors. Most 3 series are automatic.
And like I already said... if luxury cars had to be super sharp, Lexus would be a failure. Hell Mercedes would be a failure. Folks seem to have tunnel vision with this car and don't realize that folks like us are not the typical luxury car buyer. If it were up to me for me only, Caddy would build some Panamera like thing based on the Corvette. But that makes no sense from a business POV from the real world. Nobody would buy a $100K Caddy hatchback.
Quote from: Colonel Cadillac on May 25, 2012, 06:31:28 PMYou say Cadillac is wrong, but have no idea what is right. What does that indicate?
It indicates that I understand Caddy could go a million ways right now. And that there is more than one way to run a luxury brand.
By your logic, the 300 shouldn't have happened. They should have made something to fit into the neat 3/5/7 boxes and honed the little one on the Ring. Meanwhile the LX cars handily outsold the 3/5/7 in their debut year. They got killed by high gas prices in the end, but even still, they move about 30-40K a year, which I honestly don't know that the ATS will hit. Overall point is, their success, along with the success of "luxury cars that shouldn't have been made" like the Lexus ES show the path to luxury brand success doesn't have to be strict adherence to German architecture. The Lexus ES outsells the IS, GS, and LS combined. They better get rid of it though, doesn't compete with a 3, 5, OR 7. How the hell did they find a market for it? :rolleyes:
Quote from: VetteZ06 on May 25, 2012, 06:40:48 PM
Have you been following Cadillac at all? This puzzle is pretty easy to construct for even the casual observer, so your continued stubbornness is a bit surprising. The CTS is going up in size and price to compete with the 5, E and A6 (in other words, calling it "essentially the same" is wrong). The CTS is a good/great car in its own right, but it's always been a tweener of sorts - the size of a 5-Series with the price of a 3-Series. With the ATS, next-gen CTS and much discussed flagship that Cadillac is looking at building, they'll have a lineup of cars that directly competes with the 3/A4/C, 5/A6/E and 7/A8/S. This is what needed to happen all along.
I will posit that you and Baruth are incorrect, and that the ATS is exactly the right move for Cadillac because it helps to align their lineup with the industry norm that has brought success to similar manufacturers. If they build a kick ass vehicle--which, by all accounts, they have--then good things are likely to follow. The perennial king 3-Series is still good, and it will take a huge effort to get anywhere close to its sales numbers just because of the car's reputation, but it's not untouchable by any means. Looking at the competition, in fact, I can see the ATS being in the top 2 or 3 sales wise in a pretty short amount of time. I just feel like a smaller, lighter, boldly-styled and extremely fun to drive 3-Series competitor has been needed in Cadillac's lineup for a long while.
Now, what should they have done instead? Don't flake out on us.
The CTS & Escalade do not fit in with "industry norms", but I think we can all agree that they were instrumental in Caddy's return to legitimacy. So now why all of a sudden is Caddy required to fall in line with the Germans?
If a kid is headed down a bad path, do you have to know EXACTLY what they should do instead to know that what they are doing isn't right? "Its not right that he blew off college to train for a Halo tournament, but if you cant tell him what he should do instead shut the fuck up" :rolleyes: This goofy demand for a day by day plan of what Cadillac needs to do instead is a mindless diversion. How about you guys answer the questions I've been asking all thread, and then we can talk about what Caddy should do instead? Why does Cadillac HAVE to take the route of the Germans when diverting is what brought them back from the brink??
CTS was absolutely a step towards the Germans. The only thing different was the styling, which the ATS continues.
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 25, 2012, 09:10:47 PM
CTS was absolutely a step towards the Germans. The only thing different was the styling, which the ATS continues.
It def went against them, but also attacked a weakness in their rigid structure. There's no reason one can't make something 5 series size for 3 series money, and thats the kind of value that goes far in the American market, and contributed greatly to the CTS success.
Even in the luxury market, people care more about space than razor sharp dynamics, so if US volume is the end game it seems pretty obvious to me which of the two you'd make a priority (again, Xler 300)
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 25, 2012, 10:12:38 PM
There's no reason one can't make something 5 series size for 3 series money,
Yes there is. There are very good reasons why the CTS isn't 5 series money. The interior is at least two ladder rungs below the Bimmer. Hell the CTS' interior is at least one ladder rung below the 3 Series. Creaks and groans have no place in a new car, never mind a new luxury car. Also, a sport sedan deserves better seats, you know, ones with lateral support. That's where GM saved their money and why they could price it so low. The chassis, drivetrain, etc. were all up to snuff and very close to their Bimmer competition, but the interior is not. The interior is also the reason why I excluded it from my search. However, I could look past the interior if I could get a wagon with the 3.6 DI in my price range. I would tear that console down and find the damn squeaking and do what I had to do to get rid of it for that car.
If my dad's Sonata doesn't creak, then there's no reason for the CTS to.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 25, 2012, 10:20:21 PM
Creaks and groans have no place in a new car, never mind a new luxury car.
FWIW, the creaks and groans are present in the $90K XLR, too. :devil: :banghead:
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 25, 2012, 09:10:47 PM
CTS was absolutely a step towards the Germans. The only thing different was the styling, which the ATS continues.
A&S with 3er handling/driving dynamics = WIN!
Sporty -- you're wrong on this one, dude! While non-enthusiasts may not be able to articulate the difference between the 3er and other vehicles (handling, etc.) it doesn't mean they don't realize an AWESOME driver's car when they drive one. Take whatever focus groups, per-conceived notions, etc. and throw them out the window. A fun-to-drive car is a fun-to-drive car, regardless of whether you can explain WHY that is or not.
The Infiniti G was about the same size as a same year 5... 1st gen interiors were pretty bad but not creaky, 2nd gen interiors were a big improvement, almost on par IMO. So the CTS' quality issues are not proof that nobody could ever build a sport sedan the size of a 5 series for the price of a 3 series
And a sports sedan doesnt have to mimic the 3 series' dimensions down to the milimeter + be dynamically benchmarked on a 3 series to be fun to drive. What they had going with the CTS was working... had they just cut weight w/the new chassis it would have been fine. Now they are trying to move it upscale, when the failure of the STS showed people don't want to pay $50K for a Caddy when one for $30-40K offers 99% of the content, functionality and performance. But because you guys are enamored w/the concept of a Caddy 3 series and believe the ONLY way a luxury company can succeed is the 3/5/7 route, you think Caddy should go the same route that already failed. Makes no fucking sense.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 25, 2012, 10:20:21 PM
Yes there is. There are very good reasons why the CTS isn't 5 series money. The interior is at least two ladder rungs below the Bimmer. Hell the CTS' interior is at least one ladder rung below the 3 Series. Creaks and groans have no place in a new car, never mind a new luxury car. Also, a sport sedan deserves better seats, you know, ones with lateral support. That's where GM saved their money and why they could price it so low. The chassis, drivetrain, etc. were all up to snuff and very close to their Bimmer competition, but the interior is not. The interior is also the reason why I excluded it from my search. However, I could look past the interior if I could get a wagon with the 3.6 DI in my price range. I would tear that console down and find the damn squeaking and do what I had to do to get rid of it for that car.
GM just sucks at making sports seats. See: Corvette. Additional bolstering costs nothing. They just don't bolster the seats because they don't want to alienate fat people. And like I said others have made the 5 for 3 money w/o the creaking interiors. So one Cadillac being unable to fulfill that goal is hardly proof that its impossible.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 26, 2012, 06:16:49 AMAnd a sports sedan doesnt have to mimic the 3 series' dimensions down to the milimeter + be dynamically benchmarked on a 3 series to be fun to drive. What they had going with the CTS was working... had they just cut weight w/the new chassis it would have been fine. Now they are trying to move it upscale, when the failure of the STS showed people don't want to pay $50K for a Caddy when one for $30-40K offers 99% of the content, functionality and performance. But because you guys are enamored w/the concept of a Caddy 3 series and believe the ONLY way a luxury company can succeed is the 3/5/7 route, you think Caddy should go the same route that already failed. Makes no fucking sense.
The CTS is a much, much better car than the STS ever was. The problem with using the STS as any kind of example/harbinger for future Cadillacs is that it was mostly a half-assed effort, and it was trumped in pretty much every way by the CTS from day one. If the ATS is obviously a better car than the next CTS, then I'll be worried. However, plenty of people buy 5ers, Es and A6s over their smaller siblings every day, and I'm sure you of all people could argue that the 3er, C-Class and A4 offer "99% of the content, functionality and performance" for quite a bit less. What the STS showed was that people don't want to pay $50K+ for a Cadillac when there's one they can buy between $30K and $40K that is simply a better car.
One of the things that has always pissed me off about GM (and especially lately) is that they appear to be capable of making amazing, world-beating cars when they put their collective minds to it, but it doesn't always happen, and we end up with a vehicle that is compromised or flawed in some way. The ATS, thankfully, appears to have gotten the royal treatment, and I think it's going to be a fantastic car with as good a chance at succeeding in the entry luxury class as basically any of its competitors.
You are right that one of GM's greatest flaws is half-assing cars they need. But on the flip side, if they are gonna go whole hog, they should try and position the cars so they will have advantages over their competitors and sell. I guarantee if the CTS had come out the size of the 3 series when it debuted it would have been a failure. A&S was a big part of its success, but so was its American style value (more for less) A Caddy 3 for legitimate 3 money didn't make sense then, and it doesn't make sense now.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 26, 2012, 06:16:49 AM
But because you guys are enamored w/the concept of a Caddy 3 series and believe the ONLY way a luxury company can succeed is the 3/5/7 route, you think Caddy should go the same route that already failed. Makes no fucking sense.
Yeah, what car manufacturer would want to offer a compact, a midsize and a full size? Crazy talk! Nobody buys those three kinds of cars!
:hammerhead:
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 26, 2012, 09:31:48 AM
You are right that one of GM's greatest flaws is half-assing cars they need. But on the flip side, if they are gonna go whole hog, they should try and position the cars so they will have advantages over their competitors and sell. I guarantee if the CTS had come out the size of the 3 series when it debuted it would have been a failure. A&S was a big part of its success, but so was its American style value (more for less) A Caddy 3 for legitimate 3 money didn't make sense then, and it doesn't make sense now.
I guess I'll just never understand your argument here. Why do American cars have to be larger than their competitors? You hold up the 300 as an example time and time again. It's not a bad car, but I would never even THINK of buying it because it's too large. Why should I have to buy a boat if I want to buy American luxury? It makes ZERO sense.
People in the entry-lux market generally don't want huge-ass cars. That's why the most successful entry-lux cars are the 3er, A4, etc. Why should Caddy make a larger car than the kind most people shopping in this segment want?
The 300 is a terrible example in my opinion anyways. Chrysler is like Buick, mostly econo-cars with some luxury sprinkled in. Cadillac aims to have a full luxury car lineup. Cadillac does not want to compete with Chrysler.
The problem with the current CTS is that it makes filling the $50k and $80k car markets much more difficult. Will Cadillac's entries to those markets be substantially larger than the competition as well?
Quote from: Colonel Cadillac on May 26, 2012, 11:19:00 AM
The 300 is a terrible example in my opinion anyways. Chrysler is like Buick, mostly econo-cars with some luxury sprinkled in. Cadillac aims to have a full luxury car lineup. Cadillac does not want to compete with Chrysler.
The problem with the current CTS is that it makes filling the $50k and $80k car markets much more difficult. Will Cadillac's entries to those markets be substantially larger than the competition as well?
CTS is nearing the end of it's life cycle. Next generation will be a true 5-series fighter.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 26, 2012, 11:20:07 AM
CTS is nearing the end of it's life cycle. Next generation will be a true 5-series fighter.
We know
My point is that keeping the 5-series sized car in the 3-series' segment makes it difficult to build cars that compete in the upper ranges of the luxury market. Look at Infiniti--it's having a lot of trouble in the 5er's market (and they have nothing for the 7er's segment).
Quote from: SVT666 on May 25, 2012, 10:20:21 PM
Yes there is. There are very good reasons why the CTS isn't 5 series money. The interior is at least two ladder rungs below the Bimmer. Hell the CTS' interior is at least one ladder rung below the 3 Series. Creaks and groans have no place in a new car, never mind a new luxury car. Also, a sport sedan deserves better seats, you know, ones with lateral support. That's where GM saved their money and why they could price it so low. The chassis, drivetrain, etc. were all up to snuff and very close to their Bimmer competition, but the interior is not. The interior is also the reason why I excluded it from my search. However, I could look past the interior if I could get a wagon with the 3.6 DI in my price range. I would tear that console down and find the damn squeaking and do what I had to do to get rid of it for that car.
I mean, they have to cut costs somewhere.
Though reviews have initially been good, I'm still weary about how the XTS's innards will actually stack up against the competition. They're reading just like they were for the CTS, which is to say, everyone is wowed. Yeah, the center stack looks great and so do the gauges. It even had great looking plastics on the dash. But then you get around to the fine details and underlying build quality. Yeah, the vents on the dash felt good, but the seat controls felt like shit. Sure, the plastic on the upper door looked nice, but the stuff on the lower half looked warn after just two years. Alright, the headliner looks and feels nice, but it's already starting to show signs of sagging. The shifter
looks great, but it feels flimsy. The whole car at a quick glance looks the part, but when you get into it, the price disparity between it and it's overseas rivals becomes immediately apparent.
A lot of a cars quality is in how it
feels. Look at the Mercedes G-500. Up until recently, it borrowed heavily from the C-class parts bin, the
old C-class parts bin. Compare the inside with that of a Range Rover - the Range Rovers over all design blows it out of the water. But there is something going for the G-class that not even the Range Rover can top - it's immaculately assembled. The doors close with a solidity not found in any vehicle, it's structure is (even for a BOF) remarkably sound. Even after 9 years and 110k miles, my dads G-500 looks almost new inside. I've never been in a car that's held up so well after nearly a decade. That's what Cadillac misses out on. The Escalade interior looked great! But sit in one for just a few minutes and it becomes evident they cut costs just about everywhere that wasn't the center stack. I remember sitting in a new Platnum ESV not long ago with build quality that wouldn't make it through a KIA plant, let alone a Luxury brand with the name of Cadillac. What a let down.
So, maybe they have finally gotten past that point, but it wouldn't be the first time beauty has been only superficial with them.
This is stupid.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 26, 2012, 09:54:04 AM
I guess I'll just never understand your argument here. Why do American cars have to be larger than their competitors? You hold up the 300 as an example time and time again. It's not a bad car, but I would never even THINK of buying it because it's too large. Why should I have to buy a boat if I want to buy American luxury? It makes ZERO sense.
People in the entry-lux market generally don't want huge-ass cars. That's why the most successful entry-lux cars are the 3er, A4, etc. Why should Caddy make a larger car than the kind most people shopping in this segment want?
The CTS and G35 are hardly boats, but they are larger than the 3er & A4 and are still successful. In fact, they were successful partially BECAUSE they are bigger. So again, the concept that an entry lux car will fail if it is not the exact size of a 3 series is ridiculous, as is the notion that if a luxury brand strays from 3/5/7 it will fail.
Quote from: Colonel Cadillac on May 26, 2012, 11:20:37 AM
We know
My point is that keeping the 5-series sized car in the 3-series' segment makes it difficult to build cars that compete in the upper ranges of the luxury market. Look at Infiniti--it's having a lot of trouble in the 5er's market (and they have nothing for the 7er's segment).
Well now we get into the questions of the value of competing on every level, and what exactly prompts folks who drop $90K on a car to pick one car over the other. I live on the UES and I see a lot of the owners of these cars. The only Cadillacs they go for are Escalade ESVs, because their young kids need a lot of room that no European cars offer. Other than that, I don't see ANY Caddys (or Hyundais for that matter), and a DTS is just as competent a chauffeur car as any German car. I think the difference is solely brand bias, which takes way more than 1 "good enough" car to change.
Submariner's post brings up another good point about the success of Lexus. The assembly quality of the original LS was so far beyond that of the Germans at the time it really blew people away. It took an extraordinary level of effort + quality (as well as what prob amounted to a sacrificial attitude towards initial profitability) to get the American public to buy into high level luxury cars. Let's really reexamine the first LS and show what it takes to change perception in 1 car.
The LS cost $36K, or ~$16K less than the cheapest German full sizers. It had more HP than
every Benz on sale. The build quality was 1-2 notches above the Germans. And even with all that,
Lexus still has no presence in Europe. The hope is the ATS will be
as good as the 3er, and in being just good enough will shift perceptions. Do you see the disconnect?
Quote from: 2o6 on May 26, 2012, 11:43:19 AM
This is stupid.
No, its a good discussion. I don't get why people are angry.
Quote from: Submariner on May 26, 2012, 11:40:51 AMThough reviews have initially been good, I'm still weary about how the XTS's innards will actually stack up against the competition.
Just for fun:
QuoteCase in point: I came and left the XTS drive in a Mercedes-Benz CL63 AMG, and the XTS's innards are noticeably finer overall.
Did anyone ever say the CTS's interior was "noticeably finer" than a much more expensive Mercedes?
I'm just not understanding the claims the ATS is going to be this awesome contender; especially with I4 engine options. My hunch is Cadillac doesn't expect it to make a huge splash either. Relatively new entrants that found success had compelling propositions (G series had big power and good dynamics for a way cheap price and the IS had the Lexus name behind it) - not really seeing anything here other than somewhat polarizing Cadillac-esque styling and the touchscreen interface.
Quote from: VetteZ06 on May 26, 2012, 12:32:39 PM
Just for fun:
Did anyone ever say the CTS's interior was "noticeably finer" than a much more expensive Mercedes?
Who ever said the CTS' interior was one of its strong points?
Quote from: GoCougs on May 26, 2012, 01:27:53 PM
I'm just not understanding the claims the ATS is going to be this awesome contender; especially with I4 engine options. My hunch is Cadillac doesn't expect it to make a huge splash either. Relatively new entrants that found success had compelling propositions (G series had big power and good dynamics for a way cheap price and the IS had the Lexus name behind it) - not really seeing anything here other than somewhat polarizing Cadillac-esque styling and the touchscreen interface.
Exactly. This doesn't make it a bad car but it def makes it a very probable sales disappointment for GM.
Quote from: VetteZ06 on May 26, 2012, 12:32:39 PM
Just for fun:
Did anyone ever say the CTS's interior was "noticeably finer" than a much more expensive Mercedes?
I like how you left out the part where the reviewer lambasted Cadillac for the terrible seats.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 26, 2012, 12:03:57 PM
The CTS and G35 are hardly boats, but they are larger than the 3er & A4 and are still successful. In fact, they were successful partially BECAUSE they are bigger. So again, the concept that an entry lux car will fail if it is not the exact size of a 3 series is ridiculous, as is the notion that if a luxury brand strays from 3/5/7 it will fail.
Well now we get into the questions of the value of competing on every level, and what exactly prompts folks who drop $90K on a car to pick one car over the other. I live on the UES and I see a lot of the owners of these cars. The only Cadillacs they go for are Escalade ESVs, because their young kids need a lot of room that no European cars offer. Other than that, I don't see ANY Caddys (or Hyundais for that matter), and a DTS is just as competent a chauffeur car as any German car. I think the difference is solely brand bias, which takes way more than 1 "good enough" car to change.
Submariner's post brings up another good point about the success of Lexus. The assembly quality of the original LS was so far beyond that of the Germans at the time it really blew people away. It took an extraordinary level of effort + quality (as well as what prob amounted to a sacrificial attitude towards initial profitability) to get the American public to buy into high level luxury cars. Let's really reexamine the first LS and show what it takes to change perception in 1 car.
The LS cost $36K, or ~$16K less than the cheapest German full sizers. It had more HP than every Benz on sale. The build quality was 1-2 notches above the Germans. And even with all that, Lexus still has no presence in Europe. The hope is the ATS will be as good as the 3er, and in being just good enough will shift perceptions. Do you see the disconnect?
You see UES folk in the S550. Now, which Cadillac competes with the S550? Not a single one, so obviously you will not see UES snobs driving around in a Cadillac. In addition, you don't see that many Cadillacs because the brand itself offers little to nothing special as of now. The brand has products that are all over the place and there is little congruency within its product line. This strategy is bad and clearly cannot continue. Cadillac is attempting to build a luxury brand, starting from the bottom and expanding up. Sure, a blowout vehicle can do wonders for the brand, but that is just one blowout vehicle (and what will that be?). All the other successful luxury brands have a full line of luxury cars. Audi was nowhere 10-15 years ago, and offered not a single knockout car. However, it developed a full line of good cars and as a result its sales are growing faster than Lexus, BMW, and Mercedes. Cadillac can still make a lot of money repeating the strategy.
It has been said before: Cadillac has little brand equity. They cannot build brand equity if they continue to offer random products that serve no particular market or need. Consistency and reliability will build its brand equity. Making big bets on unproven niches, some of which will be failures, does nothing for its brand equity. The XTS is a mistake. The ATS is not.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 26, 2012, 02:11:37 PM
Who ever said the CTS' interior was one of its strong points?
When it first came out, I'm pretty sure most reviews were positive about the CTS's interior. But, my point is that it's not nearly as well done as the XTS interior. With the CTS it was more, "Well, at least GM can build something that's class-competitive."
Edit - Upon further examination, here's what C&D and Edmunds said about the CTS when it was first released a few years ago:
QuotePossibly the most dramatic improvement to the CTS is the upscale and coherently flowing interior, complete with classy materials and top-notch fit and finish. Cadillac's least-expensive car certainly doesn't feel that way, and it upstages the '08 Mercedes C-class. It also doesn't hurt that even with a steeply raked rear window, the CTS offers a much larger and usable back seat (the smallest Caddy is similar in size to a 5-series BMW) than those in the smaller luxury sedans it competes with price-wise.
QuoteThe CTS's new interior treatment has a visual warmth, and interiors from BMW and Mercedes seem cold and austere in comparison, while a Lexus seems antiseptic.
So, yes, it appears the interior was considered to be a strong point.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 26, 2012, 03:14:15 PM
I like how you left out the part where the reviewer lambasted Cadillac for the terrible seats.
So it had squishy seats. Okay. One point for you. Happy?
The fact remains that the guy felt a $60,000 Cadillac had a "noticeably finer" interior than a Mercedes that costs about $150,000. When's the last time you ever heard such effusive praise for a Cadillac interior?
Quote from: VetteZ06 on May 26, 2012, 04:29:53 PM
The fact remains that the guy felt a $60,000 Cadillac had a "noticeably finer" interior than a Mercedes that costs about $150,000. When's the last time you ever heard such effusive praise for a Cadillac interior?
Uh, the C-class isn't a $150,000 car. The 08 model also had a pretty bland interior and was nothing to write home about. Its faint praise at best.
Reading comprehension fail. He was talking about the XTS.
Quote from: Xer0 on May 26, 2012, 04:57:21 PM
Uh, the C-class isn't a $150,000 car. The 08 model also had a pretty bland interior and was nothing to write home about. Its faint praise at best.
With a full understanding of the context, I'm sure you will come to regret this post. Too bad.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 26, 2012, 05:07:54 PM
Reading comprehension fail. He was talking about the XTS.
Quote from: VetteZ06 on May 26, 2012, 05:16:22 PM
With a full understanding of the context, I'm sure you will come to regret this post. Too bad.
Doubt it. The post itself was vague in the first place. Besides, at introduction praise is very, very easy to come by so we'll see how it holds up. And even then, that quote was in response to a pretty unflattering review from another member. If your little quote means something, why doesn't his? It really doesn't prove much of anything. Besides all that, comparing it to a CL63 is pointless since you get much the same quality in the much, much cheaper CL550 so its inflating prices for no reason. The XTS is a mistake and hopefully just a place holder. It looks frumpy and weird and doesn't do Caddy any favors.
Regardless, this whole thread is stupid. The ATS is an American 3 series. The fact that its American is what differentiates it. Cadillac has spent a decade building bigger, cheaper, ?not quite as good as the Germans? cars and now it feels like it can create a vehicle that has the chops to go toe to toe with the 3 series. Good for them. If the ATS is as good as the 3 series it will succeed in the US. Honestly, it?s a freaking American car that is as good as its competition (well, theoretically). Patriotism stands for something and if it?s tied to a good product then all the better.
Quote from: Colonel Cadillac on May 26, 2012, 04:21:02 PM
You see UES folk in the S550. Now, which Cadillac competes with the S550? Not a single one, so obviously you will not see UES snobs driving around in a Cadillac. In addition, you don't see that many Cadillacs because the brand itself offers little to nothing special as of now. The brand has products that are all over the place and there is little congruency within its product line. This strategy is bad and clearly cannot continue. Cadillac is attempting to build a luxury brand, starting from the bottom and expanding up. Sure, a blowout vehicle can do wonders for the brand, but that is just one blowout vehicle (and what will that be?). All the other successful luxury brands have a full line of luxury cars. Audi was nowhere 10-15 years ago, and offered not a single knockout car. However, it developed a full line of good cars and as a result its sales are growing faster than Lexus, BMW, and Mercedes. Cadillac can still make a lot of money repeating the strategy.
It has been said before: Cadillac has little brand equity. They cannot build brand equity if they continue to offer random products that serve no particular market or need. Consistency and reliability will build its brand equity. Making big bets on unproven niches, some of which will be failures, does nothing for its brand equity. The XTS is a mistake. The ATS is not.
Audi has had a full line up since the 80s. So why did it take the B5 A4 to bring it to legitimacy? Its cars were competitive + unique, and even through the mid 90s before the A4 most of their cars had good reason to be bought over a comparable Bimmer for a large amt of customers. Hell the Audi 5000 was a huge precursor for modern auto design. So what happened?
GM is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. They and you guys are trying to rationalize them selling less car for more money in the name of "competing with the Germans". When really, for $34-35K, they're gonna be going from selling a midsize car w/a 270HP V6 to a compact car w/a 170HP 4 banger. Maybe thats "German" to you, but to me that's stupid + a ripoff. Im def curious to see how GM adds 10-15K worth of content to the CTS w/o upgrading the engines. You think folks are gonna go for that? The only companies that can get away w/that are companies w/the brand equity to get away w/selling vinyl seats in a $40K car. Cadillac is NOT one of those companies.
Porsche is a GERMAN luxury brand (according to folks here) that doesn't follow the 3/5/7 architecture. Lexus' volume models do not fit within the 3/5/7 architecture (ES, RX). BMW, Audi, Mercedes have tapped out the volume on their 3/5/7s and are growing through niches. The 3/5/7 brand model is DEAD. There's no growth in it, and barring a car that is 1000x better/different than the competition (i.e. 1990 LS) theres no way to muscle in.
Quote from: Xer0 on May 26, 2012, 05:36:42 PM
Patriotism stands for something and if it?s tied to a good product then all the better.
:wtf:
I would bet there are more "foreign" cars built in the US than domestics. And the top sellers in pretty much every segment are foreign. So "patriotism" doesn't stand for much to the avg American buyer. If so the domestics would rule every segment
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 26, 2012, 06:01:29 PMGM is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. They and you guys are trying to rationalize them selling less car for more money in the name of "competing with the Germans". When really, for $34-35K, they're gonna be going from selling a midsize car w/a 270HP V6 to a compact car w/a 170HP 4 banger. Maybe thats "German" to you, but to me that's stupid + a ripoff.
Which ATS comes with 170 horses? Unless I'm totally reading it wrong, you're suggesting such a car exists.
QuoteIm def curious to see how GM adds 10-15K worth of content to the CTS w/o upgrading the engines.
Has anyone suggested the engines will NOT be upgraded? I'd be shocked if they aren't. That's pretty standard procedure.
Edit - I have a feeling the TT V-6 will find its way into the next CTS.
Quote from: Xer0 on May 26, 2012, 05:36:42 PM
Doubt it. The post itself was vague in the first place. Besides, at introduction praise is very, very easy to come by so we'll see how it holds up.
Right. It's pretty normal for early reviews to say Car X's interior trumps Car Y's interior despite Car X having a sticker nearly $100,000 less.
And there was nothing vague about it, given that nobody else made the same mistake you did.
Quote from: VetteZ06 on May 26, 2012, 06:53:49 PM
Which ATS comes with 170 horses? Unless I'm totally reading it wrong, you're suggesting such a car exists.
Has anyone suggested the engines will NOT be upgraded? I'd be shocked if they aren't. That's pretty standard procedure.
Edit - I have a feeling the TT V-6 will find its way into the next CTS.
My bad I thought the ATS was getting an older Ecotec for the base engine
And standard procedure? What procedure are we talking about? Why would Cadillac use completely different engines for the CTS/ATS, when its standard German practice to share engines across models?
They'll share a few (I can see the CTS having either the 2.0T or the 3.6 as a base engine), but I can almost guarantee that the CTS will either offer engines not available on the ATS (the aforementioned TT V-6, for example), or engines that are tuned for more power. If you think the CTS is only going to offer 200, 270 and ~320 horses to exactly mirror the ATS, I'm betting you'll be wrong. And, for that matter, there's no way the 2.5L shows up with 200 horses in the CTS.
I'm also very interested in seeing how Magnetic Ride Control will affect the ATS's suspension. Being that it transformed the Camaro from a bit of a dud into a revelation in ZL1 guise, I think MRC is something unique and noteworthy that none of the ATS's competitors offer. Granted, it's not something your average car buyer will know much about, but it's an awesome piece of technology that makes a very tangible difference.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 26, 2012, 06:01:29 PM
Audi has had a full line up since the 80s. So why did it take the B5 A4 to bring it to legitimacy? Its cars were competitive + unique, and even through the mid 90s before the A4 most of their cars had good reason to be bought over a comparable Bimmer for a large amt of customers. Hell the Audi 5000 was a huge precursor for modern auto design. So what happened?
GM is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. They and you guys are trying to rationalize them selling less car for more money in the name of "competing with the Germans". When really, for $34-35K, they're gonna be going from selling a midsize car w/a 270HP V6 to a compact car w/a 170HP 4 banger. Maybe thats "German" to you, but to me that's stupid + a ripoff. Im def curious to see how GM adds 10-15K worth of content to the CTS w/o upgrading the engines. You think folks are gonna go for that? The only companies that can get away w/that are companies w/the brand equity to get away w/selling vinyl seats in a $40K car. Cadillac is NOT one of those companies.
Porsche is a GERMAN luxury brand (according to folks here) that doesn't follow the 3/5/7 architecture. Lexus' volume models do not fit within the 3/5/7 architecture (ES, RX). BMW, Audi, Mercedes have tapped out the volume on their 3/5/7s and are growing through niches. The 3/5/7 brand model is DEAD. There's no growth in it, and barring a car that is 1000x better/different than the competition (i.e. 1990 LS) theres no way to muscle in.
Those brands have established model lineups. Cadillac does not. The A7 does not sell as well as the A6 or the A8. Nor does the CLS sell as well as the E or the S. Audi and Mercedes have ESTABLISHED model lineups. Cadillac DOES NOT. BMW and Mercedes are creating niche products because they can and to increase sales. Cadillac could do exactly the same, but would not achieve nearly the success BMW or Mercedes does now simply because they lack the brand equity. Cadillac must establish itself with a solid, marketable model lineup before they can enter the obscure niche markets that sell far less vehicles than the standard markets.
How do you suppose Cadillac will get to be a volume seller like those brands without an ESTABLISHED model lineup? Cadillac has the CTS, the Escalade, SRX, and the dying bread also known as the DTS. The brand sells nowhere near as well as BMW, Mercedes, Audi, or Lexus. You want Cadillac to shock the world with something new and exciting, but what is that going to be? And how many cars will they actually sell in this new market you suggest they create?
In addition, you just said it yourself: the A4 brought Audi back to life. It was in no way, shape, or form better than the BMW 3-series, but it was JUST LIKE IT.
Car markets are very established these days. The Lexus RX forged a new market and has done tremendously, but BMW demonstrated with the 5-series GT that forging new markets is difficult. Companies can either create new markets or steal market share from competitors in current markets. Those are the two options. Why must Cadillac create a new market in the $30k range? And how successful can they be at creating a new market in that range, when clearly people like purchasing cars that adhere to the already well established formula?
Quote from: VetteZ06 on May 26, 2012, 08:13:54 PM
I'm also very interested in seeing how Magnetic Ride Control will affect the ATS's suspension. Being that it transformed the Camaro from a bit of a dud into a revelation in ZL1 guise, I think MRC is something unique and noteworthy that none of the ATS's competitors offer. Granted, it's not something your average car buyer will know much about, but it's an awesome piece of technology that makes a very tangible difference.
True, MRC is a tangible differentiator but then again even without MRC the Camaro still outsells the Mustang (and has for 3 years straight).
In the least the CTS and ATS will have overlap with the 3.0 and/or the 3.6; maybe even the turbo-4.
A bit of Googling says the ATS 3.6 will base at $42k. Huh? That's above both the G37 and IS350...
Quote from: Colonel Cadillac on May 26, 2012, 08:26:39 PM
Those brands have established model lineups. Cadillac does not. The A7 does not sell as well as the A6 or the A8. Nor does the CLS sell as well as the E or the S. Audi and Mercedes have ESTABLISHED model lineups. Cadillac DOES NOT. BMW and Mercedes are creating niche products because they can and to increase sales. Cadillac could do exactly the same, but would not achieve nearly the success BMW or Mercedes does now simply because they lack the brand equity. Cadillac must establish itself with a solid, marketable model lineup before they can enter the obscure niche markets that sell far less vehicles than the standard markets.
How do you suppose Cadillac will get to be a volume seller like those brands without an ESTABLISHED model lineup? Cadillac has the CTS, the Escalade, SRX, and the dying bread also known as the DTS. The brand sells nowhere near as well as BMW, Mercedes, Audi, or Lexus. You want Cadillac to shock the world with something new and exciting, but what is that going to be? And how many cars will they actually sell in this new market you suggest they create?
In addition, you just said it yourself: the A4 brought Audi back to life. It was in no way, shape, or form better than the BMW 3-series, but it was JUST LIKE IT.
Car markets are very established these days. The Lexus RX forged a new market and has done tremendously, but BMW demonstrated with the 5-series GT that forging new markets is difficult. Companies can either create new markets or steal market share from competitors in current markets. Those are the two options. Why must Cadillac create a new market in the $30k range? And how successful can they be at creating a new market in that range, when clearly people like purchasing cars that adhere to the already well established formula?
The A4 also came out at a time where its only real competition was the 3 series. How do you not see the difference in the conditions the A4, CTS, IS and G were released compared to the conditions the ATS were released? How do you not see how those cars justified themselves more in the market vs the ATS?
I am not making any specific suggestions besides Caddy not going the German route, because going other ways has worked for them in the past, and going the German route makes it more difficult for Caddy to make its cars have clear value + advantages over the competition. So you saying I suggested Caddy "create a new market in the 30k range" is false... Caddy didn't "create a new market" with the CTS, but they did do something the competition wasn't that worked. So why shouldn't they do that now?
Quote from: GoCougs on May 26, 2012, 08:38:47 PM
A bit of Googling says the ATS 3.6 will base at $42k. Huh? That's above both the G37 and IS350...
People will pay the premium for the Cadillac, just like they always have :confused:
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 26, 2012, 06:03:29 PM
:wtf:
I would bet there are more "foreign" cars built in the US than domestics. And the top sellers in pretty much every segment are foreign. So "patriotism" doesn't stand for much to the avg American buyer. If so the domestics would rule every segment
Your point being? Who cares where cars are built nor does the avg buyer know. They do know, however, that the Cadillac is an American brand. You're delusional if you think that American buyers wouldn't appreciate an American car. And patriotism isn't in place of a good product but it does add to the appeal. So you have a product that's as good as the 3 series but is also American.
Do you honestly hate this car, and are that far up Jack's ludicrous point, that you aren't even willing to consider that American car buyers value a good American car?
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 26, 2012, 02:11:37 PM
Who ever said the CTS' interior was one of its strong points?
Quote from: VetteZ06 on May 26, 2012, 12:32:39 PM
Just for fun:
Did anyone ever say the CTS's interior was "noticeably finer" than a much more expensive Mercedes?
I don't remember what was said word for word, but the CTS was praised day and night for how good it's interior was. They still look great, but then you sit in one and...oh dear.
Quote from: VetteZ06 on May 26, 2012, 04:29:53 PM
When it first came out, I'm pretty sure most reviews were positive about the CTS's interior. But, my point is that it's not nearly as well done as the XTS interior. With the CTS it was more, "Well, at least GM can build something that's class-competitive."
Eh, I think they tried to best everyone, and at the time, they at the very least, came close. It didn't hold up over time though, unfortunately.
Quote from: VetteZ06 on May 26, 2012, 04:29:53 PM
The fact remains that the guy felt a $60,000 Cadillac had a "noticeably finer" interior than a Mercedes that costs about $150,000. When's the last time you ever heard such effusive praise for a Cadillac interior?
That's one reviewers opinion. The CL gets every, single, miniscule detail right. Top to bottom, it's over engineered and designed to the point of obsession. Even the plastic on the door sills feels substantial. I mean, I'll reserve final judgement for a drive, but it's going to have to be
exceptional in every detail big and small to match the Germans, Japanese or Brits.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 26, 2012, 08:43:57 PM
People will pay the premium for the Cadillac, just like they always have :confused:
The point being the base CTS 3.6 costs $43k (with the base CTS 3.0 at $36k). I'm not sure what is going on here with this pricing overlap...
I'm kind of surprised that anyone cares this much about Cadillac.
Quote from: Rupert on May 26, 2012, 10:19:51 PM
I'm kind of surprised that anyone cares this much about Cadillac.
Neat
Quote from: Xer0 on May 26, 2012, 04:57:21 PM
Uh, the C-class isn't a $150,000 car. The 08 model also had a pretty bland interior and was nothing to write home about. Its faint praise at best.
Not a fan of the C's interior. My cousin is here for the weekend, and she drives an '09 C350. It's a nice looking car, but not feeling the positioning of the LCD screen. Looked cheap to me. :huh:
Quote from: Xer0 on May 26, 2012, 09:11:08 PM
Your point being? Who cares where cars are built nor does the avg buyer know. They do know, however, that the Cadillac is an American brand. You're delusional if you think that American buyers wouldn't appreciate an American car. And patriotism isn't in place of a good product but it does add to the appeal. So you have a product that's as good as the 3 series but is also American.
Do you honestly hate this car, and are that far up Jack's ludicrous point, that you aren't even willing to consider that American car buyers value a good American car?
Like I said, if Americans appreciated good American cars, American cars would dominate American sales charts. Instead their volume models rely on fleet sales to move units (despite the cars not being that far off from foreign competition). The death of cars like the Contour, G8, STS, and GTO show Americans don't even appreciate
legitimately good American cars. So lets put that to bed.
I have no stake in this car's success or failure so I don't know what you're trying to insinuate. How/why would I hate this car? I have said a hundred times it will prob be one of, if not THE best car to come from Cadillac- but its market position all but dooms its chance of success based on what is known about it and the market its entering. If this had come out 10 years ago w/the CTS and STS moving up to 5/7 spots it would succeed. This position was ripe for the taking THEN. Now, not so much.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 26, 2012, 10:19:41 PM
The point being the base CTS 3.6 costs $43k (with the base CTS 3.0 at $36k). I'm not sure what is going on here with this pricing overlap...
I was being sarcastic. To be fair, the CTS is getting a big revamp that will supposedly warrant a $10-15K price hike while using the ATS top engines. Like I said it will be interesting to see where GM spends that $$$.
Quote from: Rupert on May 26, 2012, 10:19:51 PM
I'm kind of surprised that anyone cares this much about Cadillac.
Everyone likes an underdog story, sometimes beyond the point of reason.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 26, 2012, 06:01:29 PM
Audi has had a full line up since the 80s. So why did it take the B5 A4 to bring it to legitimacy? Its cars were competitive + unique, and even through the mid 90s before the A4 most of their cars had good reason to be bought over a comparable Bimmer for a large amt of customers. Hell the Audi 5000 was a huge precursor for modern auto design. So what happened?
If it took 20 years, it took 20 years. But remember, in that time period they had to deal with the BS "unintended acceleration" issue with 60 Minutes. My dad's Audi GT from the late 80s was still running when he got rid of it in 2002 in favor of an A6 (which he still has, generally trouble free except maintenance items). I'd take that car over a comparable Bimmer in a second, but while it was unique, it wasn't the massive boat with a V8 engine you're proposing. Your preconceived notions of American cars are blinding you to market trends that don't support the previous American model.
QuoteGM is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. They and you guys are trying to rationalize them selling less car for more money in the name of "competing with the Germans". When really, for $34-35K, they're gonna be going from selling a midsize car w/a 270HP V6 to a compact car w/a 170HP 4 banger. Maybe thats "German" to you, but to me that's stupid + a ripoff. Im def curious to see how GM adds 10-15K worth of content to the CTS w/o upgrading the engines. You think folks are gonna go for that? The only companies that can get away w/that are companies w/the brand equity to get away w/selling vinyl seats in a $40K car. Cadillac is NOT one of those companies.
Why is the ATS "less than" the German competition? Forget the engine for a second. It doesn't look ANYTHING like a 3er or an A4 or an IS. I happen to love A&S and that would be an attractive trait right there. And vinyl seats in a $40K car was INVENTED by BMW, by the way. I could price out a $50K 3er with "leatherette" in no time.
QuotePorsche is a GERMAN luxury brand (according to folks here) that doesn't follow the 3/5/7 architecture. Lexus' volume models do not fit within the 3/5/7 architecture (ES, RX). BMW, Audi, Mercedes have tapped out the volume on their 3/5/7s and are growing through niches. The 3/5/7 brand model is DEAD. There's no growth in it, and barring a car that is 1000x better/different than the competition (i.e. 1990 LS) theres no way to muscle in.
WTF? 3er = IS. 5er = GS. 7er = LS. The only wildcard is the ES. They fit the mold perfectly, but threw an extra model in.
Quote from: Submariner on May 26, 2012, 10:09:16 PMThat's one reviewers opinion. The CL gets every, single, miniscule detail right. Top to bottom, it's over engineered and designed to the point of obsession. Even the plastic on the door sills feels substantial.
Well, I suppose it bodes well for Cadillac that the XTS makes a strong enough first impression to put a chink in the CL's impenetrable armor, no? Maybe he was just shocked that he legitimately couldn't find anything to complain about, but the fact that the car is inviting such comparisons is good news.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 26, 2012, 11:20:35 PMThe death of cars like the Contour, G8, STS, and GTO show Americans don't even appreciate legitimately good American cars. So lets put that to bed.
Thank goodness you were able to come up with an exhaustive list of "good American cars." I'm surprised there are only four of them.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 26, 2012, 11:20:35 PM
The death of cars like the Contour
Ummmm..... Presenting the 2013 Ford Fusion......
Quote from: TurboDan on May 26, 2012, 11:27:13 PM
WTF? 3er = IS. 5er = GS. 7er = LS. The only wildcard is the ES. They fit the mold perfectly, but threw an extra model in.
The SUV lineup fits a similar mold; small, medium, large. RX, GX, LX = GLK, ML, GL. RX, GX = X3, X5 (and BMW is dumb for not building an X7)
Quote from: TurboDan on May 26, 2012, 11:27:13 PM
If it took 20 years, it took 20 years. But remember, in that time period they had to deal with the BS "unintended acceleration" issue with 60 Minutes. My dad's Audi GT from the late 80s was still running when he got rid of it in 2002 in favor of an A6 (which he still has, generally trouble free except maintenance items). I'd take that car over a comparable Bimmer in a second, but while it was unique, it wasn't the massive boat with a V8 engine you're proposing. Your preconceived notions of American cars are blinding you to market trends that don't support the previous American model.
Right. Because Audi's rep was ruined, even though they made good cars it took an extraordinary car to get them back on track in the US. And again, I never proposed a V8 boat for Cadillac. I don't even know how a boat would help them, they are a car company :rolleyes:
Quote from: TurboDan on May 26, 2012, 11:27:13 PMWhy is the ATS "less than" the German competition? Forget the engine for a second. It doesn't look ANYTHING like a 3er or an A4 or an IS. I happen to love A&S and that would be an attractive trait right there. And vinyl seats in a $40K car was INVENTED by BMW, by the way. I could price out a $50K 3er with "leatherette" in no time.
Never said the ATS was less than. In fact I have said repeatedly that it will prob be an excellent car, and is basically a Caddy 3 series.
My point was, is, and will be after you still fail to understand it, a Caddy 3 series clone in price/engines is not a good idea in the current market conditions. NOT that they need to replace it with a marine vehicle, NOT that Caddy can't make a 3 series beater, not any of the goofy fucking points you guys keep falsely attaching to me.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 26, 2012, 11:27:13 PMWTF? 3er = IS. 5er = GS. 7er = LS. The only wildcard is the ES. They fit the mold perfectly, but threw an extra model in.
And like I said, the ES has outsold every other model in Lexus' 3/5/7 lineup... in some years it outsold the WHOLE lineup. And its not cheap! It costs more than the IS. Should they get rid of it because it doesn't compete w/any BMW? Was it a bad idea? Why can't Cadillac come up with their own wildcard cars? Their only successes in the last decade (CTS, Escalade) were wildcards.
A lot of successful cars are wildcards. The 3 series was a wildcard when it came out. The Camry was a wildcard when it came out. The Lexus LS and ES were wildcards. The Prius was a wildcard. 911 was a wildcard. If a successful car wasn't a wildcard, it had a clear distinction from its competitors that justified its place in the marketplace. CTS, G, new Sonata, 2002 Altima... The manufacturers who succeeded by playing it safe are the ones who have established marques they don't want to alienate people with by deviating too much (3 series, Camry, 911). Caddy should be taking risks, not playing it safe. I'm getting tired of repeating myself. If you guys don't get it now you never will
Well, just so we're clear, being a contrarian douche along with Baruth doesn't necessarily mean you're right. You understand that, don't you?
This will be fun to revisit if the ATS does well.
GM wants this to sell 60K. If it sells half that I will be surprised.
And how have I been a douche? I haven't insulted anybody, I haven't made any personal attacks, I haven't made any psychological inferences, I haven't twisted around anything anyone has said. But everyone who disagrees with me has. Rather than call me a douche, why not explain how I'm wrong?
Sporty, you're a "douche" for not agreeing with a fanboy. It's a unique concept that my very well change the whole of the Innertards.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 27, 2012, 09:35:09 AMI'm getting tired of repeating myself. If you guys don't get it now you never will
Seriously, douche to the max right here. You make a few valid points here and there, but statements like this piss away any desire I have to agree with you. If you can so accurately feel the pulse of the American car buying public, perhaps you're in the wrong profession. You have convinced yourself beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're right, so perhaps it's best for you to let the blind idiots eat their crow in about a year or so.
I firmly believe the ATS is a necessary move for Cadillac to make, and I'm very happy with what I've seen so far. I think it would've been risky to assume they could grow and succeed to their full potential as a brand without having a player in this segment. However, the ATS isn't the end of the line. In the next few years we're going to see more new cars coming from Cadillac that will flesh our their future to a greater degree. Personally, if they're going to take a "risk," I'd like to see it in the form of a full size sedan/halo car that takes styling cues from the Ciel concept. Now that would be awesome.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 27, 2012, 11:16:46 AMSporty, you're a "douche" for not agreeing with a fanboy. It's a unique concept that my very well change the whole of the Innertards.
No comments from fleet drivers, please.
Quote from: VetteZ06 on May 27, 2012, 03:09:41 PM
No comments from fleet drivers, please.
What's a fleet driver?
Quote from: VetteZ06 on May 27, 2012, 03:44:24 PM
You tell me, Carfax.
I don't know what that means.
So what do you drive?
I'm sure you don't.
I usually prefer shopping at Enterprise or Avis, but to each his own, right?
Quote from: VetteZ06 on May 27, 2012, 03:50:09 PM
I'm sure you don't.
I usually prefer shopping at Enterprise or Avis, but to each his own, right?
So what do you drive?
I should probably kick myself for getting dragged into a pissing match with you. Not much has changed over the years, apparently.
In any case, depending on the day, either a Ram Laramie Quad Cab or a Wrangler Sahara (two-door, not Unlimited).
Fortunately, because both were new, I can also ensure they've received proper maintenance.
Quote from: VetteZ06 on May 27, 2012, 04:01:41 PM
I should probably kick myself for getting dragged into a pissing match with you. Not much has changed over the years, apparently.
In any case, depending on the day, either a Ram Laramie Quad Cab or a Wrangler Sahara (two-door, not Unlimited).
Fortunately, because both were new, I can also ensure they've received proper maintenance.
Dragged? Nah, son, you just done got called out a bit. Your 'SPINning needs a bit of improvement, and I'm here to help.
Also, with such a gaggle of pooprod motors, solid axles, and leaf springs, by definition you're
way closer to being a fleet driver than I.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 27, 2012, 04:15:08 PM
Also, with such a gaggle of pooprod motors, solid axles, and leaf springs, by definition you're way closer to being a fleet driver than I.
Well, you've known pleasure to which only a manager at Hertz can relate. I'm humbled.
I think pushrods and leaf springs haunt your dreams, by the way. You do have a certain obsession with them. However, I'm sure you know more about the DOHC Pentastar V-6 than I do. With the 5.7, I just don't care. :lol:
Love this thread.
Fellow 'SPINners, please help with translation if you have ideas. His trolling is absolutely terrible, and I'm not only talking about fanboying the never seen/never driven/never tested ATS to irrational levels.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 27, 2012, 10:51:54 AM
GM wants this to sell 60K. If it sells half that I will be surprised.
Meh, Cadillac sold 55,000 2008-era CTSes last year at a higher price point. I don't see why the ATS can't pull that off. The bigger question is going to be how many ATS buyers would have just bought the CTS anyway, and how Cadillac handles the upcoming transition of the CTS to a higher class.
I don't know what's going on here, but it seems to me, the ATS won't sell well. It'll be a good car that performs well, but it's not going to be as good as the Germans. It'll be the same old "well, it's good...for a GM product" kinda thing we've been hearing for years.
Quote from: ifcar on May 27, 2012, 04:51:29 PM
Meh, Cadillac sold 55,000 2008-era CTSes last year at a higher price point. I don't see why the ATS can't pull that off. The bigger question is going to be how many ATS buyers would have just bought the CTS anyway, and how Cadillac handles the upcoming transition of the CTS to a higher class.
This is the biggest problem I see on the horizon. Because there's going to be some serious overlap, I feel like some may choose the CTS because it appears to be more car for the money (even though that may not be true), but I can also see CTS sales going in the tank temporarily because it's a bit of a lame duck until the new model comes around.
On another note... Cougs, if I pay everything up front, can I have the G37 for a weekend? Just for old time's sake?
LOL!
Jesus. Read a couple pages of this cluster fuck on my phone. Again, sporty you're so off base, it's painful to read. The sheer arrogance that comes with your posts is what's funny. I'll post something of substance when i can get to a computer tomorrow, along with pretty graphs and numbers instead of just subjective bullshit like what's been tossed around so far. :lol:
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on May 27, 2012, 04:54:13 PM
I don't know what's going on here, but it seems to me, the ATS won't sell well. It'll be a good car that performs well, but it's not going to be as good as the Germans. It'll be the same old "well, it's good...for a GM product" kinda thing we've been hearing for years.
What's going on is a weak sauce GM/Detroit fanboy troll getting steamroller'd. It's actually kinda interesting - we really don't get such fresh tasty fodder for the MeatSPIN grinder all that often.
A distinct possibility the ATS will be a repeat of the 2nd gen STS save for some yet-to-be-unveiled Cadillac wildcard; other than some interesting bits it ain't got nothing on the competition - the base N/A I4 is a huge 'lol' for starters.
Quote from: VetteZ06 on May 27, 2012, 05:05:03 PM
This is the biggest problem I see on the horizon. Because there's going to be some serious overlap, I feel like some may choose the CTS because it appears to be more car for the money (even though that may not be true), but I can also see CTS sales going in the tank temporarily because it's a bit of a lame duck until the new model comes around.
On another note... Cougs, if I pay everything up front, can I have the G37 for a weekend? Just for old time's sake?
Ha, ha, you're terrible at this - you don't stand a chance. ;)
Quote from: GoCougs on May 27, 2012, 06:15:09 PM
Ha, ha, you're terrible at this - you don't stand a chance. ;)
You seem to do a lot more talking about winning than actually winning.
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 27, 2012, 06:48:05 PM
You seem to do a lot more talking about winning than actually winning.
No one mentioned "winning" in any context; his Internetry is just terrible.
I can't even bear to read all this, but I can guarantee that at this point in the game, no one is right.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 27, 2012, 07:27:14 PM
No one mentioned "winning" in any context; his Internetry is just terrible.
You don't specifically mention it, but it's inferred. You said "you don't stand a chance", pointing to the fact that you think you're winning. Thing is, that's all you seem to do. You say you're winning, but you have no subsistence behind it. If I'm going to read your posts, at least make them worthwhile and provide a real counterpoint other than "my internetry is awesome and yours sucks".
This thread = FAIL
Speaking of fail...
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 27, 2012, 10:51:54 AM
GM wants this to sell 60K. If it sells half that I will be surprised.
And how have I been a douche? I haven't insulted anybody, I haven't made any personal attacks, I haven't made any psychological inferences, I haven't twisted around anything anyone has said. But everyone who disagrees with me has. Rather than call me a douche, why not explain how I'm wrong?
Somebody grab a fork and knife, time for sporty to eat his humble pie:
(http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/2122/atsproductionvolume.jpg)
Production forecast for the ATS from a giant third party analytics company that a ton in the industry use. They're usually pretty spot on (closer than the OEMs predict for their own programs at least).
You have no idea what you're talking about.
We'll see :huh:
Quote from: sportyaccordy on June 01, 2012, 12:46:05 PM
We'll see :huh:
:wtf:
You spend 17 pages trying to argue your point, and it all hinged on your baseless opinion? Nothing more than just a gut feeling that's how the industry was going to go?
If you want me to post forecasts on how that market is still expanding, I can do that too...
Quote from: MrH on June 01, 2012, 12:53:56 PM
:wtf:
You spend 17 pages trying to argue your point, and it all hinged on your baseless opinion? Nothing more than just a gut feeling that's how the industry was going to go?
If you want me to post forecasts on how that market is still expanding, I can do that too...
Post them
Like I said, I was basing my POV on the idea that I didn't see anywhere for the market to go. 3 series sales are flat after you account for the "new model" swell. Same w/C Class and the A4. Plus they are hoping this will generate volume in Europe which was flat during a global economic boom and is entering into a crisis... a crisis that will cascade onto our economy as well. So it wasn't just a "gut feeling".
So yes, post the projections as well as projections of cars from the past (so we can validate the prediction's accuracy), and feel free to gloat + be a dick about it as that adds to the discussion. You will at least be the first person to post some hard evidence that we can talk about.
You haven't posted much evidence, either. You pretty much said the car was going to fail because essentially you don't like it.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on June 01, 2012, 01:02:04 PM
Post them
Like I said, I was basing my POV on the idea that I didn't see anywhere for the market to go. 3 series sales are flat after you account for the "new model" swell. Same w/C Class and the A4. Plus they are hoping this will generate volume in Europe which was flat during a global economic boom and is entering into a crisis... a crisis that will cascade onto our economy as well. So it wasn't just a "gut feeling".
So yes, post the projections as well as projections of cars from the past (so we can validate the prediction's accuracy), and feel free to gloat + be a dick about it as that adds to the discussion. You will at least be the first person to post some hard evidence that we can talk about.
I'll post some more tomorrow when I get a chance.
If you don't like my gloating, stop being wrong so much :lol:. Problem solved. You're the one who came to the table making claims based on zero evidence.
And you're going to say your opinion has any validity to it, when tons of analysts you get paid to do this disagree?
Quote from: 2o6 on June 01, 2012, 01:05:13 PM
You haven't posted much evidence, either. You pretty much said the car was going to fail because essentially you don't like it.
I never said I don't like the car.
Quote from: MrH on June 01, 2012, 01:05:52 PM
I'll post some more tomorrow when I get a chance.
If you don't like my gloating, stop being wrong so much :lol:. Problem solved. You're the one who came to the table making claims based on zero evidence.
And you're going to say your opinion has any validity to it, when tons of analysts you get paid to do this disagree?
My stance is based on more than my opinion. Like I said and have been asking for, post the evidence.
Not to mention, obviously these folks know a lot more than I do, but to say they've never been wrong? Did they see the economic crash coming? Did they see the spike in gas prices? How much stock can you really put into a prediction of car sales 12 years from now?
So yes I would love to see their old predictions and compare them to how things actually panned out. If they are as on point as you say then I will gladly eat my hat.
So the burden of proof is always on everyone else, but not yourself? Even though you're the one making ridiculous claims? And you're going to try and pick apart my source before ever providing any evidence to support your claim? :rolleyes:
Quote from: MrH on June 01, 2012, 02:06:32 PM
So the burden of proof is always on everyone else, but not yourself? Even though you're the one making ridiculous claims? And you're going to try and pick apart my source before ever providing any evidence to support your claim? :rolleyes:
What specific info do you want? 3 series sales? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_3_Series#Production_and_sales) Euro Area's decade of lackluster growth? (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/chart.png?s=eugnemuy&d1=19950101&d2=20120630) Do I have to post a link to say the G8, GTO and STS failed?
And you are the one who offered the evidence + claim the analysts are "usually pretty spot on (closer than the OEMs predict for their own programs at least)." Can you post their old forecasts for the X-Type? STS? Galant? You claim they are spot on, all I asked was to see that. I already provided the background info for my reasoning. If you don't agree that's one thing, but don't lie and say I didn't post anything.
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 28, 2012, 08:36:50 AM
You don't specifically mention it, but it's inferred. You said "you don't stand a chance", pointing to the fact that you think you're winning. Thing is, that's all you seem to do. You say you're winning, but you have no subsistence behind it. If I'm going to read your posts, at least make them worthwhile and provide a real counterpoint other than "my internetry is awesome and yours sucks".
Please stop with the strawmanism - after "all these years" of absence his Internetry didn't stand a chance of fulfilling his aim.
Bullshit. You were predicting victory for yourself.
Quote from: SVT666 on June 01, 2012, 06:21:04 PM
Bullshit. You were predicting victory for yourself.
Predicting?
Base model ATS. Base rims look pretty decent. I can't tell you how many 325/8 I see with like 16in rims and they look awful.
(http://i.imgur.com/aIZI0.jpg)
Uh, not digging that - the wheel + well looks too small especially the rear...
Quote from: 68_427 on June 07, 2012, 01:13:31 PM
Base model ATS. Base rims look pretty decent. I can't tell you how many 325/8 I see with like 16in rims and they look awful.
You wanna see awful? I should show you the 16" factory rims that came on my car when I first bought it. Yechh.
Man that is a lot of metal between that back wheel and the window. And that communist state issue house gray is not doing the body any favors... need moar
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 25, 2012, 07:27:58 AM
RL, Q45, Lincoln LS, Catera, STS, X-Type, Phaeton (to a lesser degree)
The 3er segment is crowded as fuck, throwing a hat in the ring is pointless + unnecessary. I don't know what car they should have made instead but the ATS was not it, no matter how good it may be.
Cadillac follows the 3/5/7 structure (CTS/STS/DTS or whatever) and is adding a smaller car now (like the 1 series). Lincoln follows it as well. I was under the assumption that Jaguar was planning an X-Type replacement too, but that may not be happening.
It's true about Infiniti though. They're essentially an SUV maker and not a luxury car group anymore. I didn't even know they dropped the Q45.
Acura and Volkswagen are not luxury makes.
Quote from: VetteZ06 on May 25, 2012, 11:41:51 AM
I'm sorry, why are judgments being made about the car before anyone has driven it? Does that make sense?
Whoa! Still kicking, eh?
Quote from: Raza on June 07, 2012, 02:02:27 PM
Cadillac follows the 3/5/7 structure (CTS/STS/DTS or whatever) and is adding a smaller car now (like the 1 series). Lincoln follows it as well. I was under the assumption that Jaguar was planning an X-Type replacement too, but that may not be happening.
It's true about Infiniti though. They're essentially an SUV maker and not a luxury car group anymore. I didn't even know they dropped the Q45.
Acura and Volkswagen are not luxury makes.
Can you really call any Lincoln competitive with any German car
Lets be serious
And Chrysler doesn't follow that structure either (though I am not even sure you can call them a luxury brand)
Quote from: sportyaccordy on June 07, 2012, 02:53:21 PM
Can you really call any Lincoln competitive with any German car
Lets be serious
And Chrysler doesn't follow that structure either (though I am not even sure you can call them a luxury brand)
I didn't say they were competitive, I said they follow the same structure. And Chrysler is most definitely not a luxury brand.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=27381.msg1731281#msg1731281 date=1339099347
They're essentially an SUV maker and not a luxury car group anymore.
wat
I saw/sat in an XTS today. I'll save a full review for when I have time, but my most immediate thoughts are:
- It's not as ill proportioned as I thought it would be. Pictures led me to believe it would suffer from the same bloat that the Lincoln MKS does, and that the super short nose would look silly. From the side, it's not too bad, but looking at it from the front 3/4ths isn't terribly flattering. The same goes for the rear. It was, however, better than expected. I suspect the smallish, cheap looking wheels took away from the overall effect. The 20's I've seen in press photos look much better.
- The interior isn't that special once you get past the center stack and the TFT instrument cluster. Everything at eye level - air vents, center console, the dash, door pulls, etc look and feel great, but it's evident they cheeped out on everything below your thighs. It's almost as if they went to Gucci for the top half, and Ikea for the bottom. The seats just felt weird, they could use a few extra inches of padding all around, and the seat controls felt like they came straight out of an old TrailBlazer. Other details bothered me too. The hooks for the rear sunshades, for example, were a cheap and visible blemish on the doors, and the overhead console looked and felt second rate.
It's frustrating to see, really. It's like they spent countless hours getting the big details right (the overall design, the slick infotainment system, etc) then got lazy and said "to hell with it" when faced with designing the small things. It's what puts the Germans, English and Japanese in a class above this - they get it all right, not just the big details.
Is it a bad car? Not at all, and FWIW, I didn't drive it, but it was a mixture of fantastic visual stimuli and numerous, small letdowns. I may be able to drive one next week, so I'll post a more extensive review then.
Looking forward to that. Shame they cheaped out to the point you can detect it. They need these cars to be winners.
The "English"?
Quote from: 2o6 on June 25, 2012, 09:45:59 PM
The "English"?
Should he have said the Indians and Germans instead?
Quote from: 2o6 on June 25, 2012, 09:45:59 PM
The "English"?
Yea, Jag has the best interiors in the business
Quote from: AltinD on June 26, 2012, 04:11:16 AM
Should he have said the Indians and Germans instead?
Did something get lost in translation here
Forgot Jaguar existed.
First thought came to mind was Roewe.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 26, 2012, 07:11:26 AM
Forgot Jaguar existed.
First thought came to mind was Roewe.
ROEWE?????????????????????????
Quote from: sportyaccordy on June 25, 2012, 06:39:30 PM
Looking forward to that. Shame they cheaped out to the point you can detect it. They need these cars to be winners.
I don?t think the XTS is meant to be a permanent model in Cadillac?s lineup but more of a stop-gap until a true flagship comes out. At least for their sake I hope so.
Quote from: Submariner on June 25, 2012, 02:24:12 PM
I saw/sat in an XTS today. I'll save a full review for when I have time, but my most immediate thoughts are:
- It's not as ill proportioned as I thought it would be. Pictures led me to believe it would suffer from the same bloat that the Lincoln MKS does, and that the super short nose would look silly. From the side, it's not too bad, but looking at it from the front 3/4ths isn't terribly flattering. The same goes for the rear. It was, however, better than expected. I suspect the smallish, cheap looking wheels took away from the overall effect. The 20's I've seen in press photos look much better.
- The interior isn't that special once you get past the center stack and the TFT instrument cluster. Everything at eye level - air vents, center console, the dash, door pulls, etc look and feel great, but it's evident they cheeped out on everything below your thighs. It's almost as if they went to Gucci for the top half, and Ikea for the bottom. The seats just felt weird, they could use a few extra inches of padding all around, and the seat controls felt like they came straight out of an old TrailBlazer. Other details bothered me too. The hooks for the rear sunshades, for example, were a cheap and visible blemish on the doors, and the overhead console looked and felt second rate.
It's frustrating to see, really. It's like they spent countless hours getting the big details right (the overall design, the slick infotainment system, etc) then got lazy and said "to hell with it" when faced with designing the small things. It's what puts the Germans, English and Japanese in a class above this - they get it all right, not just the big details.
Is it a bad car? Not at all, and FWIW, I didn't drive it, but it was a mixture of fantastic visual stimuli and numerous, small letdowns. I may be able to drive one next week, so I'll post a more extensive review then.
You...uh... want to bother explaining why it was so cheap?
Or is this just like how the materials looked cheap on the 3D rendering? :lol:
Ikea has some nice stuff.
I just read in Bloomberg Business Weekly how some movers refuse to guarantee safe passage for Ikea furniture. They should just make it out of granola, so after the year or so of functionality it gives you can eat it.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on June 26, 2012, 06:45:50 AM
Did something get lost in translation here
I think he's referring to the fact that Tata Motors (an Indian company) owns a majority stake in Jag at the moment. It's still a British-run company, though. I don't believe Tata has much to do with the operational aspects of the business on a day-to-day basis.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on June 26, 2012, 09:35:18 AM
I just read in Bloomberg Business Weekly how some movers refuse to guarantee safe passage for Ikea furniture. They should just make it out of granola, so after the year or so of functionality it gives you can eat it.
I don't know, we have some Ikea stuff that we had for about 10 years or so and it's still as good as the day we bought it.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 26, 2012, 07:11:26 AM
Forgot Jaguar existed.
First thought came to mind was Roewe.
What? Roewe? Jaguar, Aston Martin, and Land Rover didn't come to mind?
Quote from: MrH on June 26, 2012, 08:46:28 AM
You...uh... want to bother explaining why it was so cheap?
Or is this just like how the materials looked cheap on the 3D rendering? :lol:
He does drive a Jag XJ...
Quote from: sportyaccordy on June 26, 2012, 09:35:18 AM
I just read in Bloomberg Business Weekly how some movers refuse to guarantee safe passage for Ikea furniture. They should just make it out of granola, so after the year or so of functionality it gives you can eat it.
I've had my stuff for a year and a half. Other than the hardware on my bed falling out on one side (I just removed it, much happier now sleeping lower anyway) and a dropped watch putting a divot in my coffee table, it's all holding up fine. It looks good and was cheap (although it must be said I didn't get my sofas or mattress from there), so who cares that it's particle board and a veneer? I'm a man; should I ever enter a serious relationship, the chick will throw out all my shit anyway, buy throw pillows, tea lights, and potpourri.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on June 26, 2012, 08:29:21 AM
ROEWE?????????????????????????
Yeah, which is why I was going to ask what planet he is on if he think a Roewe is better than a Cadillac.
Quote from: Raza on June 26, 2012, 11:51:40 AM
I've had my stuff for a year and a half. Other than the hardware on my bed falling out on one side (I just removed it, much happier now sleeping lower anyway) and a dropped watch putting a divot in my coffee table, it's all holding up fine. It looks good and was cheap (although it must be said I didn't get my sofas or mattress from there), so who cares that it's particle board and a veneer? I'm a man; should I ever enter a serious relationship, the chick will throw out all my shit anyway, buy throw pillows, tea lights, and potpourri.
Both me and my old roommate destroyed two copies of the same bed, as well as 2 dressers. To be fair though, that was when I was moving once a year. I think the deal w/Ikea is its OK, if you don't move it. But I move.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 26, 2012, 12:31:52 PM
Yeah, which is why I was going to ask what planet he is on if he think a Roewe is better than a Cadillac.
ROEUWUE isnt even a luxury brand. They dont even consider Roequwe a luxury car in its own country.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 26, 2012, 12:31:52 PM
Yeah, which is why I was going to ask what planet he is on if he think a Roewe is better than a Cadillac.
Ok, but what kind of twisted mind thinks first of Roewe, when he hears the phrase "British car"?
Quote from: sportyaccordy on June 26, 2012, 02:12:46 PM
Both me and my old roommate destroyed two copies of the same bed, as well as 2 dressers. To be fair though, that was when I was moving once a year. I think the deal w/Ikea is its OK, if you don't move it. But I move.
Yeah, I didn't even move it to my apartment. I had all my shit delivered, then I built it there.
Quote from: Vinsanity on June 26, 2012, 02:15:48 PM
Ok, but what kind of twisted mind thinks first of Roewe, when he hears the phrase "British car"?
My first thought is always of the Morris Marina.
My first thought is a Jag XJS that blinks the highbeams and brake lights when you hit the turn signals.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 25, 2012, 09:45:59 PM
The "English"?
Jaguar?
I mean, it's owned by Tata, but w/e it's still a British car.
Quote from: MrH on June 26, 2012, 08:46:28 AM
You...uh... want to bother explaining why it was so cheap?
Or is this just like how the materials looked cheap on the 3D rendering? :lol:
Like I said, I'll elaborate more when I have the time.
The materials felt second rate. I don't know how to describe it other than that.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on June 26, 2012, 09:35:18 AM
I just read in Bloomberg Business Weekly how some movers refuse to guarantee safe passage for Ikea furniture. They should just make it out of granola, so after the year or so of functionality it gives you can eat it.
I broke my girlfriends Ikea bed three days after she got it.
Shoddy stuff.