Is Cadillac's Image Dying and Does Anyone Care?

chevy598

"just in Time" is 100% Japanese. Gm learned a lot from Toyota because of their joint NUMMI venture. That helped GM gain a lead over companies like Chrysler in productivity.

rockylee

Yep, the Japanese have invented at least a few things. They usually take our idea's and make them way better.

Rocky

chevy598

The Japanese ignorance in the truck market is strange??? Japanese companies are so good at building cars, and so lost at building trucks. That is just odd to me.

dhamilton

so which is it rocky? Is it the Japanese media conspiracy CR, or the UAW who made it impossible to make changes. Who is responsible for the GM crap?

anythngbutgm

Lost or learning? We haven't seen or heard final details of the new Tundra but if Toyota is pissed off enough, they certainly have the funds and the capability of putting together a top notch truck.

And I seriously don't think Honda was looking to compete with the big 3 trucks with the Ridgline.

Nissan, I don't know, the Endurance 5.6l Motor is a gem. And when it arrived, I would say it competed very well with the big 3. Quality glitches brought it down, not capability. Big 3 trucks certainly aren;t perfect in the quality dept. but their are far too many blind loyalists to conquer right out of the gate, first try.

chevy598

If I was Chevy I wouldn't worry about the new Tundra. Toyota has given the truck market a couple shots with mild success. Toyota just misses by an inch every time they try trucks. They are just not in touch with the average truck buyer.
The new Tundra CC is a perfect example. It's huge just like the megacab from Dodge. Megacab sales have been slow compared to Chevy/Ford 4 doors. Dodge gets destroyed in reviews against Chevy/Ford 4 doors because of its sheer size. Turning radius & the ability to park it are a nightmare.

bumpy

Japanese companies do just fine building what we used to call "compact" pickups. Except for the Ford Ranger and its Mazda clone, these don't exist in the US market anymore. The rest of the world outside North America buys them by the boatload. The "full-size" truck is a uniquely North American phenomenon, and only in the last decade have Nissan and Toyota decided to tackle a product that doesn't sell in anything more than trivial amounts elsewhere. The biggest market for the F-series outside of North America is Australia, and Ford only sold a few hundred pickups there in 2005 (versus some 17,000 Falcon utes).

fintail

"Doesn't appear like it to me"

So where am I wrong? How is the "Cadavalier" nickname, one given to what can easily be argued to have been the most antiquated passenger car in production when it was mercifully put out to pasture wrong?

You mention facts when you say "regardless of actual facts" in terms of build quality. Where are these "facts"? I didn't mention "actual facts" you did, so take some responsibility and show these "facts".

You make the claim, you support it.

anythngbutgm

But, Toyota is swimming in cash. They could throw everything but the kitchen sink at this new redesign and if they had the capacity to build a dominating offering, I garauntee they could and they would.

They are looking to sell what 200k this time around? About double what the last one sold? That's certainly "Moving Forward" progress... And they must be doing something right.

They'll sell every single one they build and still make buco profits on them. That's what counts.

fintail

Will this be an image boost for Caddy?

Bad mileage = bad vehicle to be chased in. Maybe that Hybrid Slade will do better in chases.

rockylee

You can blame the crap on the GM beancounters. They took cost cutting in the 80's to a whole new level. :surprise:

CR's clout didn't emerge until the late 90's.....It became the Koran for generation X and Y :mad:

Rocky

lahiri

Caddy and Buick are dead. Lincoln and Mercury are dead too. GM is now busy putting Chevy badge on Korean subcompacts.

Well, 'Vette continues to be an exception. And, Mustang is an exception too. 2 icons that Detroit failed to kill.

Chrysler is now working hard to kill PT Cruiser - Chrysler still spends all its energy on hemi and the vehicles that can carry a hemi!

grbeck

rockylee: That is a history book lie according to my father, and grandfather. Both said GM engineers were the one that came up with building in modules and different models in the same plant but said the UAW, never allowed it to see the light of day until a few years ago because they feared it would of meant tens of thousands of workers to be laid off. Perhaps they were right ?

The Toyota Lean Production System goes far deeper than modular-based construction or flexible plants, although it does make the adoption of flexible plants easier.

The GM modular plant plan was dubbed "Yellowstone," if I recall correctly, and it was first aired by a GM executive in the 1990s. The company was forced to backtrack by the UAW reaction. But it was not nearly as deep or far-reaching as the Toyota Lean Production System, which remains the biggest change to auto making since Henry Ford perfected the production line.

gsemike

So this is where all the "what will it take to save GM" loyalists and bashers went

snakeweasel

I agree...people determined not to see the difference in the build quality between a Cadillac and, say, a Lexus will have their perception tainted.

Or is it the other way around?

snakeweasel

Toyota invented new production techniques that made the greatest leap forward since Ford invented the assembly line.

Actually most of the Japanese production techniques were copied from US manufacturers that created them during WWII to meet the production demands for the war.

snakeweasel

You make the claim, you support it.

I made no claim, just questioned yours, If yiou want a claim supported support yours.

snakeweasel

If he only went 30 miles it wasn't because of poor gas mileage but an near empty tank. I think the moral of the story is if your going to make a dash for it make sure you have enough gas.

snakeweasel

CR's clout didn't emerge until the late 90's.....It became the Koran for generation X and Y

Sorry I knew way to many people who took CR as gospel in the early 80's.

fintail

My bad, when you mentioned "actual facts" I mysteriously assumed you were privy to such facts. Completely blind assumption on my part, I am sure...

fintail

Indeed...it's not gen X and gen Y who buy Camcords because CR says so

snakeweasel

I would say there are plenty of them that do. I know a few people that would dance a jig naked in the middle of the road if CR says it was good for them.

derrado1

I hate cynicism. I really do. It just eats at me.

However, cynicism aside... that is still one of the stupidest posts I've seen on this forum. Yeah, Cadillac (which has been in a product renaissance for the past few years and is rising to compete against BMW and Mercedes), is dead. Yeah, Buick, which is finally being streamlined and put into a nice, near-luxury niche with high-quality vehicles like the Enclave, is dead.

The one thing I agree with you on is Mercury. And hell, monkeys would agree Mercury is dead.

I hope my tone wasn't too biting but... your post really irked me.

ontop

I think the moral of your story is learn how to spell you're

snakeweasel

I would brush up on your netiquette.

fintail

I'm 29, right at the odd boundary between gen X and Y. Personally, I don't know anyone who could care less about what CR says. Most of my friends/acquaintances are educated and now have a little money in their pocket, and are buying on impulse and visual appeal as much as anything else. I don't know any Camry drivers, and I only know 2 Accord drivers. I know more 3er drivers than Accord drivers. Heck, a youngish guy at my previous work location even had a CTS. I think in another 10 years, these people become the CR-worshipping Camcord (Camry esp) buyers.

Oh yeah, and one of the Accord drivers I know really likes the STS. He's shocked when I show him how cheaply he can get a previous year's model.

brightness04

Actually most of the Japanese production techniques were copied from US manufacturers that created them during WWII to meet the production demands for the war.

Precious little new production method was invented during the war. War demand was based on "cost + 10%" so efficiency was not a high priority despite what the propaganda said. Mass production was adopted by Ford on a large scale starting in the late 1910's and early 1920's, and rapidly took hold in the US auto industry. Ford and GM also opened subsidiaries/joint-ventures in Europe (including Germany), Russia and Japan. Some of those countries were reluctant to embrace the mass production techniques because the political pressure to preserve jobs.

What's unique about the Japanese production technique since the 1970's is the Just-In-Time production method and Six-Sigma technique on quality control. Those were new concepts that were initially invented at some of the Management Schools in the US (such as Sloan School at MIT), but the domestic manufacturers turned them down. They went to Japan instead, and the Japanese carmakers trying to break into the US and casting aside the stigma (akin to today's Hyundai) eagerly embraced these new production methods.

ontop

I no how to spel more bettar then yew

snakeweasel

Bad spellers of the world untie!

But seriously it is considered bad manners on the net to correct someones misspellings/typos.

snakeweasel

Precious little new production method was invented during the war. War demand was based on "cost + 10%" so efficiency was not a high priority despite what the propaganda said.

Actually there were major changes in production during the war. Remember efficiency was not determined by dollars and cents but in producing war material. What was important is making war materials from raw materials to fighting in the quickest way possible. The best case of this is the Liberty Ships where early on it took 230 days to build one, by wars end it was reduced to an average of 42 days.

Most of those techniques adopted by the Japanese were actually used in one way or another by US manufacturers during the war, but were later on abondonded as no longer being needed.

derrado1

It shouldn't be. Typos are perhaps an exception, but there are people out there who genuinely use the wrong "there/their/they're" or place apostrophes where apostrophes should never be placed. If they don't get taught now, they'll never learn.

I don't like saying I'm "pedantic" about spelling and grammar, rather I expect people to spell/type things correctly. Thus, I don't see how it can be considered 'rude' to correct people. So long as you're not snarky about it, it shouldn't be an issue.

snakeweasel

It shouldn't be.

Well it is since communication like this is an informal method so typos poor grammar and lack of proper punctuation (or any punctuation) is supposed to be excused. Especially since postings like this are done on the fly and are very prone to those problems.

Thus, I don't see how it can be considered 'rude' to correct people.

Because forums like these are informal and should remain as such and not become English classes. We are not typing up a business proposal.

I would suspect that if one would examine all of your posts one could find your share of issues.

booyahcramer

Typos are perhaps an exception, but there are people out there who genuinely use the wrong "there/their/they're" or place apostrophes where apostrophes should never be placed.

I agree - especially when posted by someone who feels they need to edchekate us with they're nollech.

Their posts seem less credible if the writing is subprime.

Mr_Shiftright

My understanding of this is that Americans like Mr. Deming came up with the CONCEPTS that the Japanese incorporated, but that American manufacturers rejected Mr. Deming's concepts outright. I think that is correct.

I'm not sure an A+ in CR would save a car company from ruin, but getting straight mediocre C+s can't possibly help a car company that is struggling. I think one reaches a point, like with Mercury, Daewoo, Oldsmobile and perhaps Plymouth, where CR doesn't matter whether it's As or Fs.

pch101

Your family members are wrong about this. The inspiration for the methods developed by Toyota were inspired by Deming, an American who shopped his quality ethos to American industry, only to be rejected. But Deming found a receptive audience in Japanese manufacturers, who had to start from scratch and work with limited resources at the end of WWII.

Toyota invented just-in-time (JIT) inventory management and "lean production", which uses team building methods and requires cooperative relationships with suppliers. In contrast, GM spearheaded the movement in the '90's to improve its margins by -- you guessed it -- squeezing its suppliers, the exact opposite of what Toyota does.

Contrary to what Snakeweasel claims, the American companies were not using these methods at all, as they continued to use the traditional Ford-designed assembly line, with QC squeezed in at the end. The original Ford assembly lines had no QC at all, it was quite literally an afterthought that was added later. One reason that Toyota leads the pack is that QC occurs at every step, and isn't just shoved into the back as was the case with the domestics.

Even today, the American makers haven't completely embraced these concepts. They are still too hung up on short-term profits (which they don't end up making, anyway) to really make the effort. Look at a lot of the products that they are turning out, and you can see that they still don't get it. If GM took this stuff seriously, they would have already made a Cadillac sedan that could compete effectively with BMW, Lexus, etc. without resorting to a lower price to get there.

brightness04

Liberty Ships also happened to be some of the most shodily built ships ever. They were engineered to last only a couple dozen Atlantic crossings before falling apart because the average life span of a cargo ship traversing the North Atlantic in early 1942 was about half a dozen trips before being torpedoed by a U-Boat.

Likewise, manufacturing precision was not high priority for war material. War demanded simple (to maintain) weapons cheaply, and lots of them. That's not the formula for success in the North America car market.

What Japanese carmakers brought into play (or more precisely, what the management schools brought up, but the Japanese competitors picked them up first) were modern lean manufacturing techniques and very high quality standards. That's quite different from anything made during the war years.

douglasr

It is entirely incorrect to believe that "precious little developed from WWII" in terms of production benefits. Prior to 1941 manufacturers took as much time as needed to develop a new model. The cycle then was 24-48 months depending upon the company. WWII changed the basis from which the manufacturers operated: they adopted war time exigencies in developing their post-war products. Whereas the quick turn-around time was not the norm, it became so.

Rationalisation of production methods used at Willow Run, and numerous other defense production plants followed the auto industry in 1946-1948. It is one reason why the U.S. was able to out-produce its enemies during WWII---both Japan and Germany DID NOT have rationalised production systems for making aero-craft, ships, machine guns etc. They were very much dependent on the guild and craft system for production. German Armanents Minister Albert Speer indicated that was his first task when he was "appointed" by Hitler to do so---owing to the fact that the U.S. was out-producing Germany in Air-craft and ship production by the middle of 1941.

Packard's production of Merlin engines during the war (all 55,523 of them) is a perfect example. Ford rejected the project, and Packard's Alvan MacCallley and George Christopher took up the request of General Knudsen to build the Merlin. Packard had to "re-tool" for the British Whitworth standard used by Rolls-Royce to build the Merlin AND make its own set of blue-prints based from tear-downs of engines sent over for example. Plus they had to make the Merlin standardised and able to fit more than one application in four war theatres. In this excercise Packard gained valuable experience that enabled it to prosper between 1946-1954. They did so because the Merlin excercise forced them to take a design that was hand-crafted, and manufacture it for mass production and still meet a tolerance of +/- .0002"

Quite simply the U.S. produced most Japanese cars between 1925-1939, often holding 85% of the Japanese market prior to the political clamp down that essentially nationalised production in Japan of Ford, Chrysler and GM holdings. After the war the first place that Eiji Toyoda visited, when Japanese were able to travel abroad, was the Ford Rouge Plant in 1954. Toyoda based much of his production methods from Ford, and especially the 'just-in-time' methods pioneered by Ford Tracter and Truck production in the 1920's. The Japanese did NOT invent just-in-time, Ford and other American manufacturers did---eighty years ago. Henry Ford published a book to that effect in 1930.

Cadillac led the way during the war with production of automatic transmissions used in Grant & Sherman Tanks, which is one reason why the British 8th Army, equipped with American Armour, under Montgomery was able to defeat Rommel at El Alamein---American tanks could turn faster than the older German Panzer tanks. What they lacked in armour, they made up for in speed and meanoverability.

German and Japanese auto industrial capacity was bomnbed flat in 1945. Mercedes-Benz alone was the victim of four massive air raids between August 1944 and March 1945 that effectively caused the company, in thier own words as having "ceased to exist." They rebuilt with new factories and facilites, often aided by American and British technicians, using the most modern equipment and methods.

The U.S. auto industry was far ahead and remained so until the 1960's where foreign competition, design, cost and exchange advantage, not to mention labour rates made foreign cars sometimes a better bargain. We forget that Ford helped establish Hyundai in 1968-69 signing 160 technological agreements, and helping build the first plant to produce the "Pony"---a car Henry Ford II rejected in favor of the Pinto. The Pony would have sold for $1,595 in America against $1,995 for the Pinto. Ford also rejected merging the remains of the VW plant at Wolfsburg in 1945 with Ford's German operations because they considered VW: "Not worth a damn" in the words of Ford President Earnest Breech.

Shortsightedness of American auto executives have caused the current situation they now face...not necessarily design or production inefficiencies. A Mercedes-Benz requires only 21-27 hours worth of labour to build. The average Japanese car, Toyotas included, require about 17-21 hours worth of labour. American cars in general fall into the same catagory as Mercedes.

Many of the Japanese firms merely changed the efficiency within which they work vis a vis American companies to gain an advantage. The designs and style are not always inherently better. If you change the way you build a car and it saves you 5 hours worth of labour, mutliplied many times over considering the volumes produced and the number of workers required and you get a $1,500 cost advantage.

GM and Cadillac have a hard road ahead. But not beause they can't build a better car. The entire process has to be streamlined to beat the competition. But not the inherent value of the components and the build quality of the car.

Sadly Lincoln is languishing, but soon perhaps to regain itself. In the mean-time Cadillac must become the talismen of American Luxury for the global market and show the world that we are far from dead, beaten, or conceding defeat at the hands of Lexus, Mercedes, etc.

As for Cadillac, it became the "Standard of the World" when it won the coveted Dewar Trophy twice: once for interchangability of parts, and again for the Kettering Self-Starter---both features revolutionised production and driveabiliy of cars. Prior to that most manufacturers never made the same car, engine, or part the same twice, nor could the average person start a car on a cold morning without the risk of a broken arm. Prior to that, a horse still looked like reliable transporation.

DouglasR

thomasw

>>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.

I'll believe it when I see it.

When the STS and SRX came out - the stars of the supposed Cadillac renaissance - I sat in them at an auto show.

The drivers door lock on the 60k didn't work - you had to reach inside the open window to open the car using the inside handle.

Both the STS and SRX had crappy interiors - better than those in a Cavalier to be sure - but crappy for their price range.

Typical GM corner-cutting.

And when they scrimp on the obvious, you know that they're really scrimping on the stuff you don't see.

brightness04

In case you did not know, WWII took place between 1939 and 1945. Willow Run was turning out a lot of cars using mass production methods even in the 1920's. US outproduced Germany and Japan combined because the mass production process already in place since the 1920's, not anything new. A Ford Model T cost $200 in 1925, compared to thousands of dollars for a Mercedes. So how can one argue that war brought mass production when mass production was already in place a decade and a half earlier?

thomasw

>>The union was a lot more militant in the 80's & mid 90's. Back then it was hard to make productivity gains when the UAW fought tooth & nail against change. Now it's a different story. Today the UAW almost goes out of their way to help automakers make productivity gains. All in the name of saving what jobs are left. If a plant has a militant local union they are on a short list to close.

Typical union morons. The UAW membership is about half of what it once was. The members who actually keep their jobs think the union is great because the union bosses point at their (excessive by market standards) pay and benefits ... but don't realize that that higher compensation comes at the cost of job loss.

Add back in the "0" pay of the UAW members who no longer have jobs, and all of the sudden the union pay scales don't look so hot.

Choose your poison: market pay and more jobs, or above-market pay and fewer jobs.

The UAW has chosen Door#1 - because the union bosses realize that terminated UAW employees can't vote against them anyway, and the ones who are left look at their pay scales and are brainwashed into believing that the union is benefitting them ... and they're right, right up until the time their job is the one on the chopping block.

rockylee

snake,

ROTFFLMAO, dude that was very funny !!!!

Rocky

rockylee

Your family members are wrong about this. The inspiration for the methods developed by Toyota were inspired by Deming, an American who shopped his quality ethos to American industry, only to be rejected. But Deming found a receptive audience in Japanese manufacturers, who had to start from scratch and work with limited resources at the end of WWII.

pch101, my family might be wrong but dad said it with confidence. Dad, said the reason why those methods never got implemented was because the UAW feared they wouldn't need nearly as many workers thus creating a major loss in memebership. That is why the UAW in the past was so worried about job classifications to save jobs. It ended up hurting them as we've seen but back then they didn't look that far into the future. I'm sure if they could of called "CLEO" the psychic lady back then perhaps they would of done things back then different to help save the future.

Rocky

pch101

The funny thing is that the job classification system for which the UAW is so often blamed was actually first imposed by Henry Ford long before there were unions in Ford plants. The idea came from Taylor, who believed in "scientific management", which included the elimination of craftsmen in favor of assembly line employees who focused on performing a very specific repetitive task. The idea was to turn people into machines, in the belief that machines were more efficient. Job classifications were created to ensure that assembly line workers stayed put, foremen stayed in charge and that the ancillary workers such as the sweepers kept sweeping.

The original purposes of the union were to create job security, a shorter workday and better safety standards. The irony is that by fighting for job classifications, they were campaigning for the very thing that had prompted the workers to unionize in the first place. If they had been treated less like machines and more like people, Ford could have implemented a less mechanized, more human alternative to the regimented classification system, and been more receptive to a revolutionary like Deming who threatened to completely overturn Ford's ideas.

snakeweasel

Only privy to the fact that I have actually been inside many of the cars being discussed and seen the quality of build with my own two little peepers.

pch101

There are plenty of others who see the "quality" and who aren't impressed. Why should we believe that they are "biased", yet you are somehow better?

douglasr

To correct a misconception:

Willow Run was built at the edge of Wayne County in 1941, by Ford Motor Company to produce B17 and B24 bombers.* The project was approved February 25, 1941, and by November 15 of that year the first production man hours began---and by July 12, 1942 the first knock down units were completed. Production would rise thereafter up to 4,611 Bombers per a year, with a maximum rate of 650 per month. Prior to that Aero firms as Consolidated had used hand-craft methods to build planes. By contrast Ford's giant $1.5Bn River Rouge plant had been the brainchild of Charles Sorensen and Henry Ford to rationalise production and supplies in one spot. The moving assembly line was the solution to the problem of meeting demand for a product they had created, but could not satisfy using concurrent methods prior to 1913. It took a decade to complete, but by October 31, 1925 The Rouge was able to produce 10,000 cars per day and displacing Highland Park as the most modern U.S. manufacturing plant. Ford's compeitotrs all took note...many of them touring the plant to measure the methods.

What Eiji Toyota changed, was not just-in-time delivery of materials as Ford had begun, but elimating wastage at the assembly line---preventing excess inventory from clogging the factory floor---effectively creating a 'demand-pull' system through its suppliers. Not unlike what Wall-Mart does today with its suppliers in China. This was borne of necessity since most Japanese factories do not have the luxury of square footage of American ones, not could Toyota afford to "stock" large amounnts of inventory after WWII. Toyota also based many of designs off one platform, so that cost advantages could be gained. But in this he merely copied what Alfred Sloan had implanted at GM.

There's no doubt the Japanese improved upon the American manufacturing system. It is where they started for inspiration after 1945. Toyota imported its first two cars to the U.S. in 1958, but their target then was VW---not Ford or Chevy. But look where Toyota and other Japanese manufacturers are now.

Why it is equally important for Cadillac to step up to the plate, and show the home team colors. Cadillac has also revised its platforms to meet demands of the Chinese market, and is a leader there. But they must lead here too.
The WWII experience of the American manufacturers proved that under duress, great things could be achieved, overcoming often impossible odds. The same can be attained again today.

DouglasR

*Willow run literally sat on the county line. By doing so, Ford skiirted the Wayne County UAW rules, allowing them to hire workers with greater flexibility. When President Roosevelt toured Willow Run September 18, 1942 the Presidential Lincoln turned left down the long assembly line hall, FDR turned to Henry Ford and said: "So this is the county line?"

(Source: 'My Forty Years with Ford', Charles E. Sorensen, Collier Books, NY 1962)

fintail

Same here. When it comes to physical build quality, there's hardly a difference...most of these cars are screwed together properly.

grbeck

snakeweasel: Or is it the other way around?

No. Come with me to an auto show sometime, and I'll show you exactly where Lexus outdoes Cadillac in build quality and fit and finish - both interior and exterior.

Smooth paint without a hint of orange peel; even application of metallic colors (no hint of "blotching" - whereas the Cadillac CTS-V in slate blue at the local dealer was very bad in this regard); higher quality interior materials; better fit of interior panels; smaller gaps between exterior panels - these all set Lexus apart.

Cadillac is getting better with each new model, but Lexus still leads.

grbeck

douglasr: In this excercise Packard gained valuable experience that enabled it to prosper between 1946-1954. They did so because the Merlin excercise forced them to take a design that was hand-crafted, and manufacture it for mass production and still meet a tolerance of +/- .0002"

I wouldn't say that Packard "prospered" between 1946-54. The company experienced considerable difficulty in getting automobile production up to speed after the war was over. George Christopher promised his dealer body that Packard production would hit 200,000 per year...which it never did, thus leaving dealers demoralized (and open for recruitment by other manufacturers).

Packard rode the crest of the postwar sellers' market until 1950, when its sales fell as buyers switched to the more stylish and up-to-date Buicks and Cadillacs. It tried to come back with a new 1951 model, but that model never really caught on, and the company thrashed about, using precious cash to essentially buy Studebaker and stumbling badly with its revamped 1955 line.

For Packard, it was really all over by 1948, when it ceded the luxury car market to Cadillac by pushing the medium-priced models and staking its hopes on the bulbous "pregnant elephant" model.

douglasr: GM and Cadillac have a hard road ahead. But not beause they can't build a better car. The entire process has to be streamlined to beat the competition. But not the inherent value of the components and the build quality of the car.

But does GM have the time to do this? The competition is ferocious, and getting worse. Despite the promises of GM's leaders, many of the key models that were supposed to relaunch Cadillac as a serious competitor in the luxury market have fallen flat - STS, SRX and XLR, for example.

Outside of sites such as this (or, put another way, in the real world), I get the impression that Cadillac just isn't on the radar of most luxury car buyers.

imidazol97

Where is the Lexus built? Japan?

>No. Come with me to an auto show sometime, and I'll show you exactly where Lexus outdoes Cadillac in build quality and fit and finish - both interior and exterior.

Smooth paint without a hint of orange peel; even application of metallic colors (no hint of "blotching