Is Cadillac's Image Dying and Does Anyone Care?

chevy598 · December 2006

Build quality is every time you go to a dealership with a loose nut or something not installed correctly. JD Powers is measuring everything. Blown motor, loose visor, uneven dash piece, front squeak, short in wire, Alignment off, are all part of either Build or Engineering quality. Build quality example: If you get a short, and your taillight keeps popping. Someone at the Assembly plant cut the wire when chasing it through the frame.

pch101 · December 2006

I believe that there is some disagreement on the semantics here, i.e. what is the definition of "build quality".

Some would measure it in terms of reliability. In that case, your defects per unit measure would make sense.

Those who disagree with you regard "build quality" as a measure of tight tolerances, quality of materials, advanced use of technology, etc. It's in the sheen of the plastics, feel of the leather, the panel gaps, etc. These are the je ne sais quoi qualities that distinguish a high-end marque from a more common one.

If you measure Cadillac by the former metric, then it's pretty good. If you measure it by the latter, it falls flat. No one deals with panel gaps like Lexus, you'd be hard pressed to find more luxury than you would in your typical Benz (excepting Rolls, Bentley, etc.), Audi is tough to beat for top-notch interiors, etc., while Cadillac doesn't seem to have anything in particular that would justify including it on such a list.

Cadillac's problem is that while it has done well with the former, people who buy luxury cars often require the latter. Reliability is a basic expectation of common vehicles. The luxury buyer may or may not demand reliability -- it depends on the customer -- but the luxury buyer definitely demands something special.

Caddy tends to disappoint those looking for that something special. All jokes aside, it does seem to have found a niche in the African-American community that, quite frankly, might be one worth continuing. It's a niche that is largely not considered by other automakers, so if GM has an edge with that group, I see no reason not to take advantage of it.

chevy598 · December 2006

If you go to a dealership for an unscheduled service call. Its either an Engineering problem or a assembly problem. It was either designed wrong or put together wrong. That's what JD Powers is measuring. Not whether you like the color of the radio knobs or how tight your seams are.

douglasr · December 2006

"...whether the leadership be vested in a man or in a manufactured product, emulation and envy are ever at work...in art...in literature...in music...in industry...the reward and the punishment are always the same..."

---2, January 1915. From the "Penalty of Leadership" Cadillac advertisment.

That year in 1915, when Cadillac was fighting for position and reputation then---having won the Dewar Trophy twice and developed its Cadillac "30" V8---against formidable rivals, now long gone as Packard, Pierce, or other long established marques as Rolls-Royce and Mercedes, Cadillac was preparing itself for a battle against future marques as Duesenberg and Lincoln...

All one has to do is look at Cadillac's past to see what is possible in the future.

When the decision was taken up by Owen Nacker, and Alfred Sloan, to build cars that have become part of Cadillac lore----the V12 and V16---Cadillac was not "first" in the marketplace, having sold 36,369 cars in 1927. It main rivals, Packard sold 36,909 cars that year, and Lincoln 7,149. Prior to the introduction of the V12 and V16 for 1930, at the height of the 'Roaring Twenties' and a boom market for luxury products, Cadillac would sell a scant 18,004 Model 341B's, with a total of 40,965 Cadllac-LaSalle in 1929.

Upon introduction of the V12/V16 on December 10, 1929, Cadillac would sell 5,725 V12 chassis and 3,251 V16's in its first year through 1930! Cadillac-LaSalle sales increased that year to 55,770. The 8,976 V12/V16 sales represented 45% of sales beyond the LaSalle range, selling only 11,005 V8 chassis. V12/V16 sales alone surpassed all of Lincoln at 7,641 chassis in 1929, and 3,212 in 1930---the last year of their L chassis. Packard still retained a "leadership" position: selling 47,855 chassis in 1929 and 28,386 in 1930. Introduction of the high end Cadillac's thus brought the marque within 65% of Packard's sales...totalling 19,981 chassis---effectively doubling their market and capturing new buyers.

By contrast, Duesenberg would have their best year with the J chassis---taking 253 orders the first ten months of 1929! Chrysler's Imperial had not arrived, Pierce-Arrow sold less cars combined that the high range Cadillac's at 6,795 chassis. Between the wars, because of the 25-33% tarriff concurrent in 1929-30 (lowered to 10-15% in 1933) only sixteen (16) foreign brand or "imported" automobile came into the U.S. per state on average (800 cars per annum) so the chance to see a Mercedes, Issotta-Fraschini, Hispano-Suiza among others, really was a rare occassion---and a very expensive proposition. We forget too, that Rolls-Royce sold an average of 250 chassis per year built from their Springfield, Massachuesettes plant, which had opened in 1919, in addition to the few RHD Derby chassis exported from Britain.

The V12/16 not only became a "bargain", with prices beginning at $5,950 and rising above $8,750 inclusive of coachwork, but proved quite profitable for GM. Duesenberg chassis prices started at $8,500 without coachwork. Rolls-Royce prices started at $13,865 for the chassis and rose to $19,665 for a "Trouville Town Car". In 1929 Rolls-Royce enjoyed one of its best years in America prior to WWII: selling 350 cars, and making a net profit of $134,764 or $380 per vehicle, (in 1929 dollars, when a good weeks' pay was $62.50! and $2.50 a day was a good wage!) Packard made a net $25Mn profit in 1929, or $458 per car sold, when Cadillac countered. In 1930 when Cadillac sales increased, Rolls-Royce and Duesenberg both suffered as the onset of the depression began to bite, with R-R Springfield selling 212 cars, and Duesenberg down to 151 cars.

It cost GM a $54Mn investment in 1920's dollars to develop the V12-V16, and amortising against the first years' sales that meant each car cost about $6,018---and most were sold above that threshold in the first year for an "average estimated profit" of $450 per car---better or equal to the competition. Over the long haul as the Depression wore on, the story would change, but Cadillac executives and engineers could not forsee that when they engaged to design and build the V12/V16. It was the risk and heights they took on and attempted to attain that matters, even today.

If Cadillac could introduce such a car against stiff entrenched foreign and domestic competition in a tariff bounded market and win---even at the very onset of the Great Depression---in today's open global market, given even tougher entrenched competition, and a domestic reputation far different from that of eighty years ago (with many Americans now biased against domestic products) Cadillac has the choice and opportunity to attain that reputation again---this time finishing the success story they once began so long ago.

If you think it can't done again, guess again. The "uphill" battle is the same, but this time the stakes are higher. GM is still "#1" in terms of sales, but Cadillac must regain its position as much as it was making it in 1929-30. Thus it falls upon the leadership of GM and Cadillac, to Mr. Wagoner and Mr. Lutz, to rise to the occassion. They possess the same advantage today Mr. Nacker and Mr. Sloan did then: few people beyond the corporate confines of GM expect them to succeed. Thus the element of surprise and achievement is working in their favor---just as it was December 10, 1929 when Lawrence P. Fisher introduced the V12 and V16 Cadillacs. When the better Cadillac is built, people will buy them, thus fulfilling the words of Mr. McManus, who wrote 'Penalty of Leadership:

"That which is good or great makes itself known, no matter how loud the clamor of denial---that which deserves to live, lives!"

...thus it can be so again for Cadillac---especially so as the domestic competition regroups and reorganises itself, whether or not Lincoln survives or Imperial returns.

DouglasR

(Sources: 'Any Color so Long as its Black', Peter Roberts, Wm Morrow & Co NY 1976; 'Sixteen Cylinder Motorcars', Roy A Schneider, Heritage House, Acadia Ca, 1974; 'Packard' Beverly Rae Kines, Automobile Quarterly, Kutztown Pa, 2002; 'Rolls-Royce in America', John Webb de Campi, Dalton-Watson, London, 1975; U.S. Government, Bureau of Foreign Commerce and Navigation 1918-1942, Washington D.C.)

rockylee · December 2006

chevy598,

You do make a great argument. I agree the build materials of a Cadillac, isn't quite as good as say a typical Mercedes. I will also say I've seen some MB's with some shoddy material quality issues myself. I believe it was in the early 2000's when some MB models raised a few eyebrows in material quality execution. Audi, I agree has some of the best interiors but the color of wood and design of the most recent models have raised my eyebrows. Lexus, probably has the best interior quality of any car made. Rolls and Bentley have some nice interiors but I've even seen chick let size buttons in some of those models. I don't think its unreasonable to assume GM, will have a competitive interior on the next generation of automobiles. I'm a huge fan of the Escalades interior and in all honesty I don't see anything wrong with the Slades interior. I often wonder how in the world could a S-class Mercedes costing nearly and over 6-digits could be outdone in the interior department by Lexus ? The best car interior I've seen under 6-digits with perhaps the exception of the LS is the new 2007' Volvo S80. Acura, has a great interior also for the money also. Cadillac, needs to be at least in the Volvo's league for interior quality. I also think "gadgetology" can enhance a cars interior perception when it can dazzle the driver and passengers with comfort convenience

Rocky

merc1 · December 2006

Build quality is every time you go to a dealership with a loose nut or something not installed correctly.

True and how many times do you think a person has to take a new car in 2006 back to the dealer for a loose bolt or nut? Ridiculous and absurd at best.

JD Powers is measuring everything.

No they don't. No survey can tell you everything about a car. That is really telling if you think that.

Like I said before you seem not to have a clue as to what build quality is vs reliability. You're trying to link the two together like they're inseperable. They are related sure, but they aren't the same thing either.

If you think that just because a GM car scores higher in a 90 day survey on "quality" it is better "built" than a high-end European car you just don't get it at all.

A Hyundai is more trouble free than cars that cost 2-3 times more yet anyone with common sense can look at and examine the two cars and know which car is physically built better. Same thing goes for a Cadillac compared to a BMW/Lexus/Audi/Mercedes.

M

merc1 · December 2006

If you go to a dealership for an unscheduled service call. Its either an Engineering problem or a assembly problem. It was either designed wrong or put together wrong. That's what JD Powers is measuring. Not whether you like the color of the radio knobs or how tight your seams are.

Yet all these things are a part of build quality, not just the things that get cheaply built, but more "reliable" Cadillacs ahead in a survey. Seams, fits, finish, robustness of materials is all a part of build quality. This about color and radio knobs is nonsense and no one suggest that such things comprise "build quality".

M

chevy598 · December 2006

You're the one who doesn't know the difference between design quality & build quality.
Jd Powers is measuring how many times it takes a crap on you. Not whether the dash looks pretty, but whether its going to fall apart on you. Every Time something is broke and you go to the dealer to have it fixed. Build quality is how often the guy putting it together falls asleep on the job.
Design quality is about fit, finish, and seams.

chevy598 · December 2006

True and how many times do you think a person has to take a new car in 2006 back to the dealer for a loose bolt or nut? Ridiculous and absurd at best.

There's over 30,000 individual parts on every automobile, and workers miss them all the time. Do your job right 99.9% of the time, and build 1,500 cars a week. Thats 1.5 mistakes a week per person on that line. Most are caught, but some make it out the door. Thats how mass production works.

merc1 · December 2006

Jd Powers is measuring how many times it takes a crap on you.

Well duh, that is what I just said a few posts ago, that is reliability not build quality. If JD Powers doesn't measure "whether the dash looks pretty, but whether its going to fall apart on you" then you (with the latter part of that, not how pretty the dash looks) just proved my point. THEY DON'T MEAUSURE BUILD QUALITY. This is per your posts, because I believe they do indeed ask questions about how well a buyer thinks a car is physically built.

Design quality is not how well something fits together or how well it is painted, that is how it is built. Design is how well it works, functions etc. You've let surveys tell you things you should already know for yourself.

This all boils down to one thing, a Cadillac isn't built as well as a Mercedes, Audi, BMW or Lexus when it comes to materials and fit and finish. You can keep harping about what JD Powers measures all day long. It really is sad to see someone rely upon these surveys to the point of confusion.

Go to your local dealers row and examine all these brands up close for yourself and come back and let us know what you find.

M

merc1 · December 2006

There's over 30,000 individual parts on every automobile, and workers miss them all the time. Do your job right 99.9% of the time, and build 1,500 cars a week. Thats 1.5 mistakes a week per person on that line. Most are caught, but some make it out the door. Thats how mass production works.

An this has what to do with anything being talked about here?

M

chevy598 · December 2006

Here's a link to the production version of the CTS. Front end only.

Detroit News

snakeweasel · December 2006

If you measure Cadillac by the former metric, then it's pretty good. If you measure it by the latter, it falls flat.

Here in lies the issue, a lot of the latter is tainted by perception. Especially when it comes to qualifying "quality of materials" and "the sheen of the plastics" and "feel of the leather". Those are very subjective and tends to be at the mercy of biases. I strongly feel that if you put the same interior in a Lexus and in a Cadillac many would proclaim the Cadillac interior inferior on all parts. This tends to come from a segment that believes US car companies cannot do anything right.

Caddy tends to disappoint those looking for that something special.

Oh I don't know, I was looking for something special and found it in my Caddy. It was BMW that really disappointed me.

lemko · December 2006

You gotta get over that fear of "torque-steer" in FWD cars. I have a 2002 Seville STS which is FWD and I barely notice any torque steer. Now, my friend's old 1980 Chevrolet Citation had such bad torque steer it felt that the wheel would rip your arms off at the elbows. Heck, even my 1988 Buick Park Avenue isn't that bad. Personally, I would prefer the DTS be RWD/AWD, but FWD won't deter me from buying the car.

lemko · December 2006

Shoot, I gave a co-worker a ride to work who thought my Cadillac was a foreign make!

imidazol97 · December 2006

>Especially when it comes to qualifying "quality of materials" and "the sheen of the plastics" and "feel of the leather". Those are very subjective and tends to be at the mercy of biases.

Agree. Didn't GM disguise a Toyota (Camry)as a GM test vehicle years ago and have people test it and got a lot of negative feedback because the testers showed their bias?

pch101 · December 2006

Here in lies the issue, a lot of the latter is tainted by perception. Especially when it comes to qualifying "quality of materials" and "the sheen of the plastics" and "feel of the leather".

Subjective or not, it's still in the automaker's interest to build products that are considered by car buyers to have those qualities.

We can argue all day long what "cheap plastic" means, but ultimately, there is enough agreement about what this means that there isn't any excuse for a luxury automaker to use it, at least in places where its customers will notice it. GM and all the other automakers better damn well figure out the difference between stylish and cheap if they want someone other than Hertz and Avis to buy their cars.

douglasr · December 2006

Cadillac like every other manufacturer does not build them majority of their cars. The suppliers do. GM builds roughly 27-34% of its cars, the balance coming from hundreds of suppliers, some of them 'just-in-time' and located conveniently near the assembly plant.

When you talk about build quality, especially at Cadillac, the entire interior of the car is manufacturered by a company called Intier. GM design staff work closely with the supplier, who also does a great deal of the work developing the modeling for the parts. What you "see" may have been the work of part of the GM Cadillac design staff, but what is put in the car that we feel-touch-use-wear is coordinated by people far removed from the assembly floor. Part of what Inteir does it make sure that the pieces fit before they get to the factory.

Currently there is no real "index" for build quality available to the public about each car. J.D. Power and firms like them, measure failures per x number of vehicles and come up with a statistical score and rank the cars accordingly. A problem can range from the failure of a part to whether or not someone likes the size of the cup-holder, or location of a particular knob. Considering that electronic devices exist that are hand-held and can measure sheen of the paint, it is possible to find a method to measure 'built quality'. Surely the manufacturers measure their own cars randomly using in-house systems. But they would not want to publish unfavorable indexes or results---plus raw data would have to "mean" something to the customer. Thus scores like J.D. Power have now become part of the "quality" lexicon of auto sales.

Mercedes-Benz uses a similar supplier arrangement for many of their cars, so it is entirely possible to better their "quality". The same holds for Cadillac's competitors---no matter whom they might be.

It is the integration of the manufacturers designs and the suppliers parts at the factory floor that ultimately determines if a car turns out to be awful, good, or a great one. Given the realities of cad-cam, and many other types of design and finite analysis before the parts are made, build quality can be dialed in prior to 'Job 1'.

VWAG has a holographic competer aided room where engineers can literally 'step into' projections of parts to see how they fit together before they are built. VWAG helped develop the computer program that makes this possible. GM and other companies are working with like-minded programs.

That is why parts tolerances are now so much higher and fit together to a greater degree of accuracy than ever before. It is the executives decisions about how far to dial in that quality and what parameters they make the parts that ultimately determine the build quality and the tactile sense of the car.

When they built V12 and V16 Cadillacs that sense was measured with Johnason gauges, eyeballs and fingertips. Now it can be scanned electronically and measured to a precise degree here-to-fore impossible for each part made. But the WILL to make a great car remains.

Cadillac has the same advantage now they did in the 1920's in terms of public perception and product. But Mr. Lutz and his crew have the means at hand to make a car that far surpasses anything ever built by Cadillac in the past. Some of their competitors like Lincoln and Bill Ford are sleeping, so the chance to strike is now. And with quality you can shut the door on.

DouglasR

grbeck · December 2006

pch101: We can argue all day long what "cheap plastic" means, but ultimately, there is enough agreement about what this means that there isn't any excuse for a luxury automaker to use it, at least in places where its customers will notice it.

The "quality is all subjective" argument is a non-starter, as you noted. People CAN tell the difference - unfortunately for GM in general and Cadillac in particular.

When Mr. Lutz joined GM, he said specifically said that GM needed to work on its interiors. This is as straight from the horse's mouth as it can get on this subject, so I wonder why some people continue to deny the obvious.

I attended the official introduction of the Lexus LS460 for the Harrisburg market at the Antique Automobile Club of America (AACA) Museum in late October. All of the Lexus lineup was on display. The superior level of assembly quality (panel gaps, etc.), higher quality interior materials, and smooth, lustrous paint (absolutely no orange peel) when compared to most vehicles - including Cadillacs - was readily apparent.

If people prefer Cadillacs (or BMWs or Audis or Lincolns) to a Lexus for another reason, that is fine. The cars strike me as rather boring, to be honest. But they are tops for assembly quality and workmanship.

sls002 · December 2006

One thing that Cadillac does is make larger low end luxury models at a lower price. J. D. Powers also has a "dependability survey" for 3 year old vehicles. Lexus is on top, but Cadillac and Buick are very near the top.

merc1 · December 2006

That may be so, but that is hardly anything to hang your hat on. Large FWD cars are outdated and it really doesn't mean anything when you're in a class of one.

M

thomasw · December 2006

>>Cadillac has the same advantage now they did in the 1920's in terms of public perception and product. But Mr. Lutz and his crew have the means at hand to make a car that far surpasses anything ever built by Cadillac in the past. Some of their competitors like Lincoln and Bill Ford are sleeping, so the chance to strike is now. And with quality you can shut the door on.

Even if true in theory, the corporate culture would have to embrace such an endeavor.

Part of the problem is that GM is stuck with the UAW on the premises, so already they're at a cost and productivity disadvantage.

And more importantly, as we've seen for thirty-plus years now, GM's corporate culture responds to excellence the same way a vampire reacts to sunlight.

GM can cost-account to mediocrity with the best of them ... beyond that, it isn't with "the best of them."

In other words, "ain't gonna happen!"

aldw · December 2006

And by your logic GM would still be building the same type of cars from the 60's today...

BS is still that, and GM has shown far more movement and momentum than people give it credit. That will be what enables Caddy to match and exceed its competition in the near future.

fintail · December 2006

Some MB aren't good deals unless they are nearly free.

I can't think of a reliable source that would say MB and BMW build quality "sucks"...

jblaze13 · December 2006

Cadillac builds very nice cars at this point in time (XLR, Escalade). They are making progress but have a long way to go with their product line. The materials question is one of cost. How far do you go? As Cadillac has increased its content as well as the quality of materials the price of its vehicles has climbed closer to other companies in the luxury segment. GM has to weigh the fact that their vehicles will cost the same as other luxury brands without the reputation the others enjoy. Will the market accept that? In some cases it will but in other cases that is questionable. A good example is the $100k XLR-V. Many believe the interior isn't as nice as its competition and the price tag isn't as steep but when you're playing in this field the sales are in the details.

In my humble opinion Lexus clearly has the best interiors. I base that on fit, finish, touch, ergonomics, and my own personal X-factor. This is very much subjective.

chevy598 · December 2006

Part of the problem is that GM is stuck with the UAW on the premises, so already they're at a cost and productivity disadvantage.
Do you have any idea how much more a German automaker makes then an American automaker? Germany is the land of 35 hour work weeks, and holidays for solar eclipses. You can't find a more unproductive place to build cars then Germany. German man hours per vehicle are way higher then the Japanese, Americans, and Koreans. German unions are way more hard line then the UAW.

Kirstie_H · December 2006

Not entirely historically factual, according to these articles/reports:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1153/is_n7_v118/ai_17397051
http://www.globalautoindustry.com/article.php?id=1071&jaar=2006&maand=10&target=- Ameri

lemko · December 2006

Ironically, Korean trade unions are way more militant than the UAW. They make the UAW look like pussycats. You'd have to go back to 1940s Detroit to see police in riot gear beating back the UAW whereas it's a common occurrance in present-day Seoul.

sls002 · December 2006

Setting aside the DTS, the CTS is larger than the 3-series BMW, more the size of the 5-series, but priced more like the 3-series. The STS is in between the 5-series and 7-series for size, but priced like the 5-series. (overpriced for what you get perhaps)

I think for the money, you get a lot of car from Cadillac if you don't over do it. A fully equipped STS is probably not worth it, but a basic STS is a good car.

lemko · December 2006

I really like my current 2002 Seville STS. I would've liked the current STS to be more like it except with a RWD/AWD configuration. I'm quite unimpressed with the current car which appears to be a slightly larger deluxe version of the CTS. I find a V-6 in an STS to be disturbing and a downgrade from my current car. If I were to get a new Cadillac similar to my current car, I'd have to get a DTS with the Luxury III package.

nvbanker · December 2006

a Cadillac isn't built as well as a Mercedes, Audi, BMW or Lexus when it comes to materials and fit and finish.

I don't know, Merc - the Cadillac may be put together as well as a Mercedes, certainly the Mercedes is not known for 0 failure tolerance. But the Mercedes is certainly DESIGNED and ENGINEERED better than the Cadillac. Ergo: The Mercedes is a far better machine, but the Cadillac probably won't be in for little fixins as much.

nvbanker · December 2006

I would've liked the current STS to be more like it except with a RWD/AWD configuration. I'm quite unimpressed with the current car which appears to be a slightly larger deluxe version of the CTS. I find a V-6 in an STS to be disturbing and a downgrade from my current car. If I were to get a new Cadillac similar to my current car, I'd have to get a DTS with the Luxury III package.

Ditto, Ditto, Ditto, Lemko..... Thought it was just me....

chevy598 · December 2006

I'd like to see a better break down of automobile manufacturers. The UAW are pussycats compared to most foreign unions. GM's two Lansing plants are a perfect example of UAW plants being competitive or even better. The UAW has barley any leverage in American plants anymore. Work rules are almost non existent. The company tells the UAW where and how it will be built. All the union is good for now is getting its workers paid good money & decent benefits. On a plant by plant basis most UAW plants now run even in productivity compared to non union American plants.
Legacy costs are the big difference between foreign & domestic automakers in this country. If GM wasn't taking care of 500,000 retirees the ball game would be much different. GM's entire $10.6 billion loss last year could be contributed to retirement obligations.
I do know West Germany has lost many auto jobs to low cost Eastern European countries. Germany unions are now going through what the the UAW has the last 20 years.

bumpy · December 2006

On the topic of "standard of the world", I think Mercedes wrested that from Cadillac somewhere in the 80's, with the W-140.

IMO it happened back in the '60s, when MB was fitting even its lower-line cars with disk brakes and fuel injection while Cadillac was still building early-'50s cars with new sheet metal. The '80s were when Caddy simply quit trying and everyone knew it.

snakeweasel · December 2006

Didn't GM disguise a Toyota (Camry)as a GM test vehicle years ago and have people test it and got a lot of negative feedback because the testers showed their bias?

Don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me.

snakeweasel · December 2006

Subjective or not, it's still in the automaker's interest to build products that are considered by car buyers to have those qualities.

Granted but if prospective buyers have a bias where nothing that the automaker will do will be good enough will the automaker ever make those prospective buyer happy?

There are people out there that will say that Cadillacs quality is poor no matter how good that quality is.

snakeweasel · December 2006

People CAN tell the difference

"CAN" and "DO" are two different realities. Peoples biases will taint their perception. If someone is convinced that every Cadillac has a poor interior the odds are that person will perceive the interior as inferior regardless of its actual quality.

snakeweasel · December 2006

I can't think of a reliable source that would say MB and BMW build quality "sucks"...

I never said that it "sucks", its just not great and cars that cost a fraction of many Benz's do much better than MB does in reliability.

sls002 · December 2006

The current STS is designed to be a sports sedan, whose competition is the 5-series BMW. The BMW offers both a 6 cylinder engine and a V8, so Cadillac is offering both. Where the STS falls short is the interior materials (or so the magazines say). Personally I do not want to replace my SLS with another big FWD sedan. The last three big FWD's that I have had (1995 Riviera, 98 Aurora and 02 Seville) have too much front overhang that tends to scrape pavement on steeper than normal driveways. I also want a wagon.

sls002 · December 2006

One thing about both BMW and Mercedes that the magazine editors say is that the I-Drive (BMW) and the Mercedes I-drive (commando...???) do not work easily -> meaning perhaps that they need to read the 500 or so page manual.

sls002 · December 2006

Yes they do have the trophy, but in the context of what this forum is after, did Cadillac ever exceed the status of the Rolls Royce?

At the time Cadillac won the trophy, they were a mid-range car. The Pierce Arrow was luxury then.

snakeweasel · December 2006

The Pierce Arrow was luxury then.

You mean one of these?

Forget Pierce Arrow, you want luxury you need a Cord.

nvbanker · December 2006

At the time Cadillac won the trophy, they were a mid-range car. The Pierce Arrow was luxury then.

Ah. Just like today, only Mercedes, BMW and Lexus are luxury now. Bentley and Rolls are ridiculous luxury.

imidazol97 · December 2006

Why does that picture (the 2nd one) remind me of a Chrysler 300 with the bold squared off front and low window heights?

snakeweasel · December 2006

Well here is a original look.

fintail · December 2006

I never said you said that...but someone else did say that...

Reliability and build quality are again not one in the same. A Cadavalier might be more reliable than a W220 S-class, but which one has higher build quality?

snakeweasel · December 2006

The use of the term Cadavalier tells of a bias. I seriously doubt that you would claim that Cadillac has a higher build quality regardless of actual facts.

FWIW Build quality does have an affect on reliability.

fintail · December 2006

Bias? Am I not correct? That car was a real retromobile when it was finally killed off. But not in a cool way. However, its likely a more reliable daily driver than a buggy old MB.

Show me some of these "actual facts".

Build quality CAN have an affect on reliability, but it is not a guarantee.

snakeweasel · December 2006

Bias?

Yes

Am I not correct?

Not saying you are, not saying you are not.

Show me some of these "actual facts".

Ditto.

Build quality CAN have an affect on reliability, but it is not a guarantee.

In more ways than you can imagine. Would you believe that to great a build quality can actually hurt reliability.

chevy598 · December 2006

You guys are all confused about build quality. Build quality is used by assembly plants to measure worker defects per vehicle.
Both BMW & Mercedees go for unscheduled service calls more then the indulstrial average. I was the one that said Mercedes & BMW suck. If you look at unscheduled service repairs both companies suck compared to the industrial average. For a luxury brand I expect better then 26th & 27th.

Is Cadillac's Image Dying and Does Anyone Care?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles