Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
For trucks and SUVs they competed pretty well.
For cars, well, they competed using "cheap" and "fleet".
Are you referring to the great Caddies of the 50s & 60s? If you are, then you might have a point. But you & I both know that the 80s Caddies are a HUGE step down from the earlier cars. You've said as much yourself, & you haven't bothered to deny it when I remind you ot that.
And the CTS-V *is* the answer there - it is neck and neck with a M5 on the track.
(yes a 3 series will whomp on both as it should being lighter and quicker)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShL8rsBwyXg&feature=channel
CTS-V vs M5 part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkSmcViN_qs
Part 2. It's clearly 5 series sized. Drag race. the CTS looks *bigger* in fact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQp5ih_QOE0&NR=1
The followup road course test.
What's hp/lb in M5 (now almost 4 years old) vs CTS-V? How will it compare with the upcoming new M5 engine or any new E63? I am not too concerned with the tuned models, anyway - they are afterthoughts and don't impact the bottom line of the entire segment. The Japanese don't even make them for this segment.
Caddy has tried to redefine a market segment with the price and size of the CTS, and IMO it simply lacks the clout to do so. I don't think Caddy even knows where it goes - engine choices similar to the German entry cars, size closer to the German intermediates, prices inbetween. In theory it has a chance for a value proposition, but I suspect it confuses people too. It doesn't mean it is not a very nice car, but it is questionable strategy.
Good point. I have to agree.
It's not as luxurious, naturally, but at $10-$20K less than a 5 series, well, it's not supposed to be. Consider it the Camry to the E class or the Hyundai to the Buick. Now, I do think that GM could drop $5K into the interior on the CTS and equal the BMW if it wanted to...
There they go, cutting corners again. They'll never learn.
"Then the initial release was fraught with many problems...typical GM. Where is the quality control? "
_______________
Yes, and after conning the government to give them 50billion USA tax dollars, especially when they had the audacity to fly to Wash. D.C. in their private jets, and then emerging from bankruptcy; "typical GM" is not acceptable. It's supposed to be a new corporation.
No one with even the simple synapse firing in their brains is surprised that it's business as usual at GM. The only reason they needed the $50billion was so they could release themselves of the financial liabilities they had, such as retirement costs, health care costs, insurance, expensive employees, etc.. Also there is speculation that it was swindled money to further push their successful operations in China. Gee how American of them. Jeeez, give me a break
__________________
You've just described a gauche pimp car
A fwd SRX to replace a C&D ten best pick isn't going to help the cause. And no amount of Led Zepplin is going to convince buyers that Cadillac is really trying to be anything other than what it's always been about. Bling.
I have driven a CTS-v [ see above ] and I found it to be a truly exciting sedan to drive.
[[ I am also on record as believing that the STS-v would have been better served with an LS2 \ LS3 – than the s/c NorthStar. ]]
Given the weight of the CTS & CTS-v, I expect that such a “CTS V8” with 400-425-ish HP & TQ would have delivered very significantly improved acceleration [ both ultimate and typical ‘real world’ ] over the top DI V6, and also significantly better fuel mileage than the CTS-v. The combination of EPA Highway = 18 [ ! ] and an 18 gallon fuel tank does rather limit cruising range. I do think most Caddy buyers these days actually ** DO ** care at least somewhat about fuel costs.
A version of the LS3 offered in the Corvette & the Camaro SS seems like a logical & reasonable choice – and would allow the use of the [ somewhat smaller, lighter & cheaper ] 6L80 vs 6L90 automatic trans. And even the option of a manual trans. – for those few so inclined.
The L99 version used in the Camaro SS with automatic [ with AFM \ DoD ] is EPA rated at 16 \ 25. Even with a somewhat less slippery body shape than the Camaro & a couple hundred more pound to deal with, I expect that ‘my’ hypothetical CTS V8, with this motor & 6L80, would deliver something like 15 \ 22 – or even 15 \ 23. And quarter mile acceleration numbers in the low 13s @ 108-ish. This would be quite noticeably quicker than the CTS V6s.
This sort of package, I would personally find seriously interesting – when the time comes to trade my G8 GT.
The CTS with 3.6L V6 & Direct Injection is OK, in my view, as a [ near? ] luxury cruiser. Capable & competent & offering many of the amenities expected in the segment – lika touch screen NAV, etc.
I really doubt this would be seen as ‘cost cutting’ by potential customers – though I expect that it could undercut the CTS-v by some $8K or $10K. Particularly if the base model is offered without NAV – now standard on the 2010 CTS-v. And the MagRide [ much as I appreciate & respect this technology ] could also be made optional. Again, I really think this would create a viable \ credible ‘bargain’ BMW 550 competitor.
[ Base MSRP for a 2010 BMW 550i is $60.4K.
Base MSRP for a 2010 BMW 535i is $51.1K. ]
In fact, if GM \ Caddy could bring something like this to market at a base MSRP of $49,995 [ including destination ] I think this would be Marketing Genius.
AND I think this would even be a sales success.
Caddy & GM could certainly use more of THOSE!
AND really I don’t think it would cost all that much to engineer this package – Caddy would effectively leverage much of the CTS-v development & could spread the costs over a larger number of sales.
Just my 0.2 gallons worth . . .
- Ray
NOT a Marketing Genius
Aside: As I recall, this approach appears similar to the direction that Jaguar chose a while back - with the XJ and the XF – with an ‘uplevel’ V8 [ s/c as it happens ] and then a ‘full blown’ R version.
Regards,
OW
________________________________
Caddy is working on it?
What's even more striking is that before Toyota rolled out their Lexus division, they had absolutely no experience or history in the luxury car market whatsoever, at least not in the U.S.A. and they took the world by storm the moment the first LS400 was introduced 23 years ago
I think another part of it is many who do shop in that class have no problem dropping another 10-20K to get the refinement and features they want.
All 4000sq ft houses are not equal.
They are also used to slow the car down when the front seam separates from the steel!
AFAIC, the only place a Caddy should have a landau roof is on a HEARSE!
Regards,
OW
But if Cadillac wants to be the "standard of the world" then why shouldn't they put more money into the interior and equal or even beat the E-class?
I don't think that's a big problem. Audi shares platforms with VW and people aren't complaining about the A4. Toyota shares with Lexus and even though the RX is on the same platform as Camry it is a completely different vehicle. The real problem is rebadging - when a Cavalier becomes a Cimarron - then THAT'S a problem.
It would help to do what Caddy needs to do...make the car better than the competition, for less. Making it almost as good (size, features, engines) for less IMO doesn't do what is needed.
It's about time and that's a great move. Too bad they took 20 years to figure out that they should do this. Unfortunately it is still in the design stage which means about 2012. That indicates that this was not something our friend Wagoner had ever been planning-- another example of why he was such a disaster.
If they can offer a truly great driver's car that has a nice interior, even *I* might become interested.
There they go, cutting corners again. They'll never learn. "
And how is this different from Toyota using the same platform for the Camry, ES, Highlander, Venza, AND the RX???
I should have conveyed this in my previous post, however I thought it would be naturally understood
The DTS reminds me of a cousin of all those floaty "ocean liners" that many drove starting in the 1950s and 1970s. I guess some people like those kind of cars.
The trick will be to add the electronics to manage fuel efficiency and power as requested, regardless of 4, 6 or 8 cylinders (dialed-in power capability). No need for aftermarket CPU chips. Just dial in a combination and experience the results...power or economy and at any blend required.
If I were directing Caddy design, I'd create a car that weighed no more than 3K LBS. and out-handles anything on the road that can carry 4 adults effectively and 3 golf bags, all packaged in the finest interior that money can buy for around $35- $40K.
This is not rocket science, just efficient propulsion and physics...and proper enthusiasm! :mad:
Regards,
OW
No, they don't. The CTS and current (not 2010) SRX are based on GM's global sigma platform, while the STS and DTS use the old "G" platform that also underpins the Buick Lucerne. Platform sharing (in this regard) goes back to the "50's at least. ALL manufacturers with multiple nameplates share platforms.
The question is where does "platform sharing" end and "rebadging" begin. The biggest example of "shameless rebadging" on GM's part would be the Cavalier/Cimarron debacle.
Right now, the only GM car in America on the "Epsilon II" platform is the 2010 LaCrosse. Holden is looking at stretching this platform for use as a full size car, and the STS/DTS may very well end up using this version. Before the $4/gal gas hit, it was rumored that the big Caddy may have been placed on the "Zeta" RWD platform used for the Pontiac G8, and that the next Impala as well (needless to say, this has been scuttled).
This is not rocket science, just efficient propulsion and physics...and proper enthusiasm!”
Well, if it is not ‘rocket science’, then many car manufacturers must surely be selling large volumes of such vehicles in this country today.
For example???
I'm just wondering why they haven't shared platforms before, specifically the Cadillac STS. Why wait till now?
And also the main thing is, many are concerned that sharing platforms that a model of car hasn't shared before will significantly affect the car's performance as far as handling and braking are concerned.
They can move the keyless starter from the center console to the dash where it belongs. And remove the jet parts.
Look, I'm just the messenger. This is GM, remember? They are announcing now; there will be a product in 3-5 years. :P
Sharing platforms does not necessarily mean there needs to be any resemblance between the vehicles other than general size (such as Camry/Venza/RX330). GM has REBADGED in the past but that is more than sharing a platform.
GM should have bought Mazda years ago instead of crud like Saab and Daewoo.
They have. The original Seville was based on the same platform in 1976 as the Chevy Nova.
Any time a car moves to a new platform, performance can be significantly altered. It just is incumbent on the engineers to put the proper suspension and brake parts in place, and tell the accountants to "F" off when they start to meddle.
I'd be willing to bet that a Cobalt would stop on a dime if it had Brembo's all around.