Is Cadillac's Image Dying and Does Anyone Care?

circlew · February 2008

But please do not tell me they set the global standard! They are getting a little warmer.

Regards,
OW

lemko · February 2008

Infiniti builds a 1957 Rambler wagon on steroids instead.

sls002 · February 2008

I don't think Cadillac ever set the standards for luxury cars. Cadillac has been a top of the line GM car, where it was priced to sell. The V16 Cadillac's were probably comparable to upper end cars in the '30's, but after WWII Cadillac's were all lower end (compared to the pre-war models) models. The Eldorado Brougham was a try at making something better, but it was more flash than substance.

The early Cadillac's were mid-priced cars (like Buick is now). When GM took over Cadillac, they made it the top of the GM line.

circlew · February 2008

Agreed. The Europeans and Japaneses are much higher in terms of standard luxury/performance/quality.

Regards,
OW

sheepdog1 · February 2008

I am very happy with my 06 Cadillac SRX and when it goes into service, I get a Cadillac loaner. I disagree with the quality statement being higher on European and Japanese cars. I have had both!

circlew · February 2008

I am glad you are happy your SRX. Just remember, it becomes history soon as it will be discontinued. That is another reason why I moved away from Cadillac. They do not support their model lineup, as in all GM except trucks and the 'Vette.

I would hardly call any Cadillac World Class at this point, let alone the Standard. Quality, Workmanship or Service. Just my opinion.

The desire to reverse this is always available. The culture needs to own that desire.

Regards,
OW

sls002 · February 2008

I think that any model lineup has to change as the market changes. The SRX is a new model for Cadillac and may move to a different platform. The STS is supposed to be merged with the DTS onto a new platform and become a single model. Cadillac has had a "de Ville" model with various series names since the beginning of the brand "Cadillac". The series name de Ville first appeared in the 50's, but was put on their popularly selling model, the series 62, which probably goes back to the model 30.

When you talk about "World Class", you have to define what you mean by that. I think in some sense the Rolls Royce is world class, but only in the sense that it is a very recognizable luxury car. The Rolls is not a sports sedan, which is another class entirely.

Cadillac does own the "Standard of the World" slogan because they did win the Dewar Trophy. That did not make them a World Class whatever though. I think that some Cadillac models (Car&Driver has rated the SRX best since it was introduced) are competitive with their competition, and this does make them world class, but not best in class.

cooterbfd · February 2008

Just remember, it becomes history soon as it will be discontinued. That is another reason why I moved away from Cadillac. They do not support their model lineup, as in all GM except trucks and the 'Vette.

Huh??? :confuse: I was just at the dealer 2 months ago and inquired about the headlight assy. on my Aunt's 1988 Park Ave. (it was cracked when someone backed into it). They still had 3 in stock at the Boston warehouse. And this is for a 20 year old car!!!! As the SRX gets older, you will still be able to get parts and service for it. Contrary to popular opinion, GM is NOT going anywhere.

lykourinou · February 2008

Hasn't Infinity had some problems with their Armada based QX 56?

Yes in 2004 Nissan/Infiniti had problems with the brakes on the QX and Armada. They have been remedied and no major problems have occured since. As a matter of fact JD power rates the 07 QX with above average reliability.

lykourinou · February 2008

Cadillac is still much closer to the German makes in product panache than Infiniti, even with missteps.

Cadillac does not have an intelligent key in their Escalade, nor a folding flat 3rd row seat, not even a push button start. Nissan Maximas from 2004 and up have either a push button start or fob to turn to start, without ever using a key (intelligent key). Cadillac doesn't even offer that on their Escalade, matter of fact they still use solid rear axles, and OHC engines. GM will continue to fail unless they meet the build quality of standards of imports, not to mention import luxury manufacturers.

lykourinou · February 2008

Agreed. The Europeans and Japaneses are much higher in terms of standard luxury/performance/quality

Truer words have never been spoken.

carnaught · February 2008

Cadillac and other GM vehicles still have a way to go in improving interior design and luxury as far as their materials are concerned.

The new CTS and revised STS interiors are but a step in the right direction. The ergonomics in Cadillacs have been improving as well.

circlew · February 2008

I know parts are available...that's not my point.

Regards,
OW

circlew · February 2008

Perhaps Caddy should import a BMW or Merc-based platform to gain ground like they are doing for the G-8 out of Aussie Land.

That'll give 'em a jump start for sure!

Regards,
OW

cooterbfd · February 2008

Perhaps Caddy should import a BMW or Merc-based platform to gain ground like they are doing for the G-8 out of Aussie Land.

First of all, GM OWNS Holden, and part of GM's restructuring has been to marry these foreign divisions w/ US divisions to streamline the design process, as well as share global platforms to cut costs.

What good would striking a deal w/ BMW or Mercedes do. Then people would say Caddy couldn't cut the mustard and had to buy from the Germans to compete w/ them.
I believe the biggest gripe the car mags had w/ the CTS in comparison w/ the 3 series was that it was too big (heavy). But the CTS gives you a 5 series sized car for a 3 series price. Yet they don't think it would be fair to compare the 5 w/ the CTS because the 5 comes w/ equiptment not available on the CTS because of the price difference. So I think it would be fair to say that Caddy gives you the same quality car for the same price as BMW, only the BMW handles better because it's smaller, and the Caddy is more comfortable to ride in because it's bigger. And don't give me any bs about quality, because the Germans have had their fair share of quality bugs as of lately.

jkr2106 · February 2008

Cadillac doesn't even offer that on their Escalade, matter of fact they still use solid rear axles, and OHC engines.

OHC...puhleeze. GM/Cadillac would never use such an inferior engine on its flagship SUV. They went with the more potent OHV design.

circlew · February 2008

Your assessment is fair. I just have a different opinion and until 2008, Caddy wasn't in the same league as the rest of the global luxury leaders let alone the standard. In all areas as previously noted, IMO of course.

Regards,
OW

lykourinou · February 2008

You are funny...tomato....tomatoe...Point is, the rest of the world uses DOHC ENGINES AND INDEPENDENT SUSPENSIONS AND GM DOESN'T. someone needs to let GM know that this is 2008 not 1978.

lykourinou · February 2008

I agree with you, I am disapointed in GM putting the bare minimun in the Escalade ans selling it at the same prices as competitors. GM didn't even put a air filtration system in the new Escalade. Compared to the QX, GL, and Land Rover, people have a clear choice of which SUV not to choose. Hopefully GM will do more with the Escalade in the future.

lemko · February 2008

Wow! Your aunt also has a 1988 Buick Park Avenue? Great car, huh? Unlike today's vehicles, the headlight assembly on the 1988 Buick Park Avenue is actually GLASS and won't fog or yellow with age. I was able to buy a new grille this past December after some idiot backed into the car and cracked it.

lemko · February 2008

The only thing that will be jumping is me jumping the Cadillac ship for some other make if they start rebadging unreliable and atrociously expensive Bimmers and Mercs as Cadillacs. At least I can depend on my Cadillacs to get me to work and without a vicious financial wallet-raping.

sls002 · February 2008

hold it right there:
My SRX has a DOHC V8 and an independent rear suspension. It also does not have McPherson struts.

The Escalade is a rebadged Chevy anyhow and not a real Cadillac.

circlew · February 2008

The Escalade is a rebadged Chevy anyhow and not a real Cadillac.

How true it is. Nice for a truck but not the World Standard for SUV's in terms of overall performance, style and luxury.

Regards,
OW

bumpy · February 2008

It also does not have McPherson struts.

Really? I thought the CTS platform was front struts and multilink rear?

rayainsw · February 2008

From cadillac.com:

"Suspension & Handling
Suspension 4-wheel independent design that utilizes a short/long arm, coil-over strut with anti-sway bar in front, and a modified multi-link with anti-sway bar and automatic rear level control system in the rear; both benefit from monotube performance shock absorbers "

bumpy · February 2008

Struts, but at least they're coilovers.

62vetteefp · February 2008

What is Mcpherson?

It is a shock absorber that also contains the spring and is the action by which the wheel camber motion is controlled and is a structural component. A vehicle with an upper control arm and a lower control arm is not using a McPherson. Sure it is not the same as having the coil ride on the lower control arm but the camber action is driven by the control arms and therefore not a Mcpherson.

bumpy · February 2008

I did find this:

Looks like some sort of Macpherson derivative with a pseudo-wishbone upper setup.

sensai · February 2008

You are funny...tomato....tomatoe...Point is, the rest of the world uses DOHC ENGINES AND INDEPENDENT SUSPENSIONS AND GM DOESN'T. someone needs to let GM know that this is 2008 not 1978

Wow, you better stop using those DOHC engines right out of the 1920s then. At least the OHV engines are more modern

lykourinou · February 2008

What GM uses is outdated, they still use pushrods in this day and age....push rods. It is not rocket science why Japanese cars last longer...less parts. Mean a less likely chance of break down. GM knows this, but it costs too much (they say) to meet the standards of the world. Nissan, Toyota, BMW, and Mercedes and every other manufacturer in the world are more than happy to accomodate us with world standards.

lemko · February 2008

Really? Longer lasting? I have a 1988 Buick Park Avenue with the 3.8 litre V-6 and a 1989 Cadillac Brougham with a 5.0 litre V-8. Both are pushrod engines. They're still here as are millions of older cars with pushrod engines. Most of the Japanese cars of the same vintage around here have collapsed into piles of iron oxide dust about five to ten years ago.

My 2002 Cadillac Seville STS had a DOHC Northstar V-8 and my current 2007 Cadillac DTS Performance has the same engine. To be brutally honest, I can't tell the difference between how well a OHC/DOHC engine performs versus a OHV design except that the pushrod engine has more of a punch with the torque. I miss that little "kick in the butt" with the OHC/DOHC designs.

sls002 · February 2008

If one counts the cam lob as one part and valve as a second part, then a DOHC engine with 4 valves per cylinder (the usual case), has eight valve train parts per cylinder and at least two, if not four cams per engine. The pushrod has the valve, lob and the pushrod and rocker arm for a total of four parts per valve. However, the pushrod engine has half as many valves per cylinder, so the total parts in the valve train are the same. But there is one one cam per engine, so a pushrod engine has fewer expensive parts.

sls002 · February 2008

Your STS's engine is tuned for high speed performance and does not have much low end torque. The 3800 is tuned for low end torque and has little power or torque at high engine speeds (over 5500 RPMs). My supercharged 95 Riviera and my 98 Aurora had very similar performance. My 2002 Seville, tuned for low end torque, was very similar to the Riviera for performance. The Riviera's supercharger made icy roads much more difficult to start up on.

imidazol97 · February 2008

More reliable? I have 2 3800s in full-sized comfortable cars that get great gas mileage and don't cost me double for service in a foreign car store's service department for repair let alone piled on maintenance mandates from a dealer who sold me a totally reliable car but seems to think it needs constant over-servicing and replacements to keep it 100% perfect?

I'm not sure where this world commission is that determines what is out-dated and what is world standard choices. I want a car that has lots of torque and doesn't have to wind to 5000 rpm before high torque appears and then it's time to shift again...

As for Japanese cars don't break down--I have been collecting complaint posts asking for help with those Japanese brand cars failing their owners in my Watched Items page. I can link to some of them if lykourinou needs help finding them.

Sometimes I realize that people live in the past and think they can still hang problems of the 80s and 90s where a higher problem rate occured for some owners of US brand cars rather than stepping into the current world where JDPowers ratings show US built cars on a par with the Japanese brands. Things have changed in the build of US brand cars; and things have changed in those Japanese cars.
Does anyone have a link to the JDPowers ratings. I have to look through lots of bookmarks to find the last ones I saved and can't find it quickly.

bumpy · February 2008

I've driven my fair share of OHV engines over the years, and I didn't find the low-end torque to be a "kick in the butt" at anything less than WOT, and even then the "kick" didn't last long. I don't think that's a good trade for the loss of rpm range, horsepower, and smoother power delivery.

sls002 · February 2008

I think that it can be said that a well designed pushrod engine will last just as long as a well designed DOHC engine. I also think that in the case of a poorly designed DOHC engine, the cost of replacing it when it fails will probably be twice as much as a failed pushrod engine.

lykourinou · February 2008

the 3 of you must work for GM. I give up, It will make you happy to hear this so I'll say it.ok GM builds the most modern and most dependible cars in the world. The rest of the world is wrong for having standard intelligent keys with push button start on base models.

The rest of the world is also behind GM for having DOHC engines and independent rear supsensions. Although GM is starting to sway and build cars backwards. 2007 Buick Enclave DOHC engine, 2007 CTS DOHC engine.

sls002 · February 2008

I don't think I would agree with that either.

GM does have DOHC engines. Their 4 cylinders are either all, or mostly all DOHC designs. The V6 and V8 engines are a mix.

Intelligent keys are cute, but not needed for anything useful.

sls002 · February 2008

while I am not sure, I think that the SRX's (and CTS and STS) shocks can be replaced without replacing the strut. This would save money.

circlew · February 2008

Hey, what about me? I gave up on GM and they will need to show vast improvement going forward before I go back to the below par offerings in recent memory. I wonder why they are bleeding at the bank? Is that the gold standard of the automotive industry?

Why is Porsche the most successful earner year after year? Because they make junk? They are rolling in the dough so it must be that their customers are "not in the know" regarding pride of ownership.

That pride is long gone from everything except US Trucks and the Corvette, IMHO.

If they keep offering CTS, Malibu, Lambda, Camaro products that prove reliable and strong enough to win back from the rest of the World, the tide will eventually turn back. Time alone will tell.

Pontiac needs to get rid of the "G" designation and Buick needs a car with a soul or die.

Regards,
OW

victrolajazz · February 2008

"I want a car that has lots of torque and doesn't have to wind to 5000 rpm before high torque appears and then it's time to shift again..."

There's still no substitute for CUBIC INCHES--as opposed to litres. The mid-50's to the early 70's were the glory days for those kinds of cars. The ultimate would be a 1970 Buick Electra with a 365 HP 455 driving a 2.56 axle ratio--loafing along at about 1,800 RPM at 60, it could be kicked down to second and blast to 75 with no strain whatever at 15 MPG--those days and engines are gone for good. The engines were still large into the 70's, but they became strangled with emissions gadgets. I still keep one on hand, 'tho--I've got my 4th '77 Mercury Grand Marquis in 23 years. It has a 460 with a 2.5 axle ratio--only 202 HP, but the torque from the displacement is incredible. Just by default of their size, these engines were virtually indestructible--they were designed to power motor homes and trucks. Placed in a 4,700 lb. chassis and running around 1,900 RPM to move a car is like they're not even working.

If the coming trend over the next 10 years is indeed to smaller engines to meet mileage requirements, then we'll be back to screaming little four cylinders that will work their hearts out like they did in those hilarious Castrol ads back in the 80's. High specific horsepower can indeed be gotten out of little engines, but they can't make the torque that gives you that satisfying feel of effortless performance.

The single worst mistake Cadillac ever made was in placing that disgusting 4.1 litre engine with 125 HP in the full size chassis--a chassis that just three years earlier had 425 cubic inches. You literally had to go back to the late 40's to find performance that was as sluggish as those cars--'49 six cylinder Chevy territory. I remember driving a couple on used car lots just to laugh at them. Cadillac lost so much momentum with that boondoggle, plus all the other GM blunders, an entire generation only remembers Cadillacs as trash. My frame of reference is the Cadillacs of the mid-50's on--cars easily the equivalent of anything BMW or Mercedes can produce today.

lykourinou · February 2008

I was being facetious, I think GM builds the worse vehicles, because they build them cheaply.I've had my share of GM vehicles, and I've had my share of imports. I can say it is like night and day in quality. And you should rent a car with intelligent key, you will wonder how you ever lived without out it. You never have to touch a key at all to enter, exit, start, open the trunk, or get gas. The key stays in your pocket and as long as you have a finger you can do all of the above. GM will probably incorporate them in the next 10 years or so.By then the rest of the world will have moved on to the latest technology.

And by the way remote start...is cute, That is what the 56k Escalade has. I had remote start that came with a Viper alarm that I had on my lowrider back in 1997.

lykourinou · February 2008

Hey, what about me? I gave up on GM

As of today I have offiically given up on them I wanted to get my mom a full sized SUV. I have decided on the QX, just talking to these guys in here helped me to realize, that GM wont' change. I refuse to pay full price for outdated technology. Besides the reveiws on the Escalade are horrible, I was literally ignoring them. Hoping that GM would turn it around and offer what other manufacturers offer, most consumers have been burned. Sucked in by the looks and left broken hearted due to mechanical failure.. If we built cars that way we build weapons....we would have an owner loyalty, a hundred times stronger than Toyota or Nissan.

I'll be hanging out in the Infiniti forums.....

lykourinou · February 2008

I know of all that I have said about the lade and GM's committment to quality. That being said, if GM incorporates a DOHC V8 and an independent rear end, including the implementation of STANDARD power fold flat 3rd row seats AND IMPROVE ON QUALITY I would gladly purchase an Escalade. Even in all it's glory due to ride height the LX570 does not have HID lights....that is pretty bad for a 74k SUV. I love HID driving at night is alot better for me, and I have to hand it to GM the Vette and the Escalade do have some of the best HID I have seen. I'm not being funny either...

circlew · February 2008

I have to hand it to GM the Vette and the Escalade do have some of the best HID I have seen. I'm not being funny either...

That's what always frustrates at GM...every once in a while they do really good things in the midst of the usual games.

BTW, the wallet ripping on the imports is mainly due to the U.S. auto companies themselves. High costs have driven their quality and profits down so their cars, including Cadillac ARE NOT the Gold Standard of the world. Yes, the cars do not break as much but the craftsmanship and quality of parts/materials is inferior.

Can they be the standard? Only if the desire is there. Do I have faith it will happen? Not really. The competition has a HUGE lead and the desire is in spurts and dies.

Regards,
OW

cooterbfd · February 2008

Well, how about paying full price for THIS technology:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080221/COL14/802210312/1015/BU- SINESS02

lykourinou · February 2008

I think you are right.

62vetteefp · February 2008

Why the heck would I ever buy a full size SUV that gets 26 mpg when it lacks the push start button the competition has? Come on. If I have the money for a top line SUV damn the gas. I can suck every last gallon while I push the start button. :P

sls002 · February 2008

My SRX has everything that you want, but the size. I do like the HID lights. They light up both sides of the road so that you can see deer if they are looking to cross in front of you.

lykourinou · February 2008

I saw on NBC news that they said the cost of the GM Hybrids are not worth it, they recommended the Lexus hybrid instead. Also, Edmunds.com said that the Chevy hybrid is not worth it. I saw the vid review about 2 weeks ago.

Is Cadillac's Image Dying and Does Anyone Care?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles