1. Interesting. I am only familiar with some people saying that that interior is reminiscent of Acura--not Lexus. I tend to not see either. No interior looks like any other to me--save, maybe the S-Class and 7-Series dashboards which look vaguely similar. Everything else from everyone else is quite unique in their own ways--so there is a lot of design leeway to move.
2. As far as I know, American luxury brands have never had any reliability problems over and above that of the Japanese (especially Buick, Cadillac and Mercury). I do not mention the Germans, because they struggle to be what they used to be in terms of reliability (although they feel very solid). In that sense, I am not sure what role reliability plays in this discussion at all. If anyone is to be "punished" for reliability problems, it is the Germans, and yet they do very well sales-wise. Can anyone explain that phenomenon?
3. I do agree that there are niches to be filled and that each manufacturer has to stake out a territory and go for it. Style may be the last big differentiator, as quality is virtually indistinguishable.
Which brings be to a general question I have:
4. Why is it so difficult to come up with one standard measure for "reliability"?
I "hear" so much, but every time one tries to settle on a methodology, people come along and criticize it for one thing or the other.
They say Consumer Reports is not scientific because they are not transparent and their rating system is not practical. They say JD Power is not comprehensive enough.
And on top of that, more and more people come out of the woodwork every day with a "better method", like TrueDelta.com.
Maybe that is why everybody relies on word-of-mouth, myth, rumor and conjecture. Who can we believe anymore?
Personally, I never like to discount any one brand when looking at cars. I like having lots of cars to choose from and research. I cannot recall the last time I have seen a new car stranded on the side of a road. Most new cars are generally the same in terms of reliability in my experience.
That way, I can look at a wider range of products that may meet my needs. I would be in a pinch if I were to limit myself to only buying Buicks and Porsches because they are rumored to be "most reliable" (although I would love to have that problem if I could get a Porsche 911 ).
Does anybody have any practical idea of what "more reliable" means day to day?
Find the picture on the internet somewhere, then right-click on it and select Properties. Check the size to make sure it's not more than 700 pixels wide (the first number; second number is height).
Highlight the file location, then right-click and Copy it. Paste it into the posting box here, then highlight it and click on the Img button below the posting box.
The constraints of modern factory speeds force them to have some orange peel in paint because of the accelerants used to dry the paint faster and keep the line moving.
I dunno about that because I've read too many times where Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, etc have invested millions and millions in their paint shops to prevent "orange peel". That and the fact that I don't see any orange peel on a new Mercedes, Audi or Lexus makes me think that this isn't accurate. Do you have a link or something on this because just thinking about Mercedes, BMW, Lexus or Audi just "accepting" some orange peel doesn't make sense. Also, just accepting some orange peel isn't what you stated at first, you basically said that carmakers strive for orange peel. No way that is possible, but if you have something that says otherwise I'd like to see it.
1. Interesting. I am only familiar with some people saying that that interior is reminiscent of Acura--not Lexus. I tend to not see either. No interior looks like any other to me--save, maybe the S-Class and 7-Series dashboards which look vaguely similar. Everything else from everyone else is quite unique in their own ways--so there is a lot of design leeway to move.
2. As far as I know, American luxury brands have never had any reliability problems over and above that of the Japanese (especially Buick, Cadillac and Mercury). I do not mention the Germans, because they struggle to be what they used to be in terms of reliability (although they feel very solid). In that sense, I am not sure what role reliability plays in this discussion at all. If anyone is to be "punished" for reliability problems, it is the Germans, and yet they do very well sales-wise. Can anyone explain that phenomenon?
3. I do agree that there are niches to be filled and that each manufacturer has to stake out a territory and go for it. Style may be the last big differentiator, as quality is virtually indistinguishable.
If you choose to live with blinders on, so be it. There is plenty of inspiration to go around. Big bucks are at stake, and a company like Cadillac can't risk using their brains, since that strategy hadn't worked for a generation or two. :sick:
That pic of the CTS looks a lot like the G35 Sport interior. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Anything other than the current nightmare is an improvement!
Regarding Cadillac reliability, any improvement is a recent occurance, as in the mid-90's, it was the VW of it's day. And it still has to climb a generational chasm in public perception. You can't go from World Standard to Cadillac Cimarron, and expect us to forget. Maybe forgive.
Cadillac dropped the ball, Lexus picked it up, and is still running, so Caddy can sit and wait on the bench for all I care. Cadillac deserves no quearter from me, or any American for that matter.
Even Lexus can't manufacture prestige, so BMW and Mercedes will always have a nice sized leash to run with.
Cadillac is reinventing itself, and is making strides in the right directions, but it's still 2nd-tier, and won't be playing at the Main Table for awhile.
Lexus seized the moment in 1989. Those moments come once in a generation. Now is not one of those times. Caddy is just working not to atrophy. Just trying to stay in the game.
I wouldn't go breaking an arm patting them on the back. Their not dead, but they're not ballin' either. They just exist. Which isn't bad. It's light years better than Lincoln. GM is on the right path, but it's along road to hoe. Ford is way off course!:lemon:
"If anyone is to be "punished" for reliability problems, it is the Germans, and yet they do very well sales-wise. Can anyone explain that phenomenon? "
I'll take a stab at that.
I think the reason the Germans get away with it is that while their cars might not be the most reliable, they are definitely, absolutely, without a doubt, the most "durable" in how they look and drive over many years. They "hold up" well, and it would be unusual to find a "rattle-trap" BMW or Benz at 60,000 miles, or one with ratty upholstery or paintwork.
So my criteria for reliability has to include a longterm outlook. I could care less how a car behaves for the 1st 90 days someone owns it. To me, that is utterly useless information UNLESS it is a disastrously bad report.
Which is why (in a long-winded explanation) I don't yet have full confidence in Cadillac. Road & Track's recent longterm Cadillac test, for instance, was very discouraging.
I absolutely agree with this. The cars may not dead-bang reliable, but they do tend to be durable.
Until recently, they have also aged gracefully. (The jury is still out on Bangle, IMO.) One can debate the styling, but the designs tend to get stale more slowly than with other cars. Look at the Lexus LS and Cadillacs from fifteen years ago, and then compare them to an equivalent BMW or Mercedes from the same period, and I think most of us will agree that the Germans have a more timeless, less dated quality about them.
Most of all, there is the driving experience. It's hard to describe, but anyone who knows German cars can appreciate that they have a certain intangible je ne sais quoi that can be felt behind the wheel. I'm not sure what they dial into their suspensions or steering gear, but there's something special there that won't be found in a Lexus, Infiniti or Acura, and absolutely won't be found in a Lincoln or Caddy. Of those, perhaps Honda comes closest to getting it, but they still manage to fall short.
There's an interesting story about this. When Mercedes and BMW finally came on strong into the United States a wide variety of luxury products, I think they presumed that Cadillac would be their target---but in fact, the older Cadillac driver of the time simply could not get used to the "harsh" driving qualities of a Benz or BMW---that is, anything less than a soft pillow of a ride---and so Benzes and BMWs got sold to a younger demographic, more middle aged affluence professionals in the case of Benz, and "yuppie" aged strivers in the case of BMW.
Cadillac kept the old folks. I'd say this happened late 70s to around 1990.
Then around 1990, Lexus startled Benz with the LS400, and Cadillac kind of woke up to the fact that they might end up the first American car whose entire clientele all died.
I think Lexus parked right in the middle between Benz and Cadillac in "driving dynamics".
Now Cadillac is more like Lexus, and no longer a clumsy sofa of a car (and in some cases surpassing Lexus easily in handling) but BMW, Audi and Benz still hold that elusive "driving machine" mystique.
Whatever this mystique is, it's a powerful marketing tool and speaks to "precision", "engineering" and, by extension, "prestige".
It's a "standard" in other words, to which all other cars still aspire (or don't care to aspire to).
I think Lexus parked right in the middle between Benz and Cadillac in "driving dynamics".
I agree with that, but do you think that was their target, i.e. to come down in between, or just how things worked out? I had always figured (just a guess) that the original LS benchmark was somewhere between the E- and S-class Mercedes, not necessarily to compromise between the Germans and domestic luxobarges.
That hard-to-describe quality is what I might call "connectedness" (whatever that means), which is partly based on the ride, but not necessarily the softness or harshness of it, so much as the overall feel. The boost of the steering is part of it, but even that doesn't quite describe it. (Yeah, this is tough, I know...)
What I'm getting at is that I'm not sure that Lexus, Infiniti or Acura can capture this German road feel, even if they try. (And I think that Lexus, in particular, does try.) They do American very well -- look at the Toyota Avalon for the Japanese Buick, while the outgoing G35 sedan evokes aspects of the old muscle car, as just two examples -- but they haven't quite mastered the Germans just yet. If Lexus can figure out how to make the IS or GS drive like a BMW and develop styling that doesn't become dated as quickly as it does, then the Germans will be in very serious trouble, IMO.
I also hope so also lemko. I wished they would give us a loaded V8 Cadillac STS with all the gadgets and that interior for about $57K I just think they are a bit to expensive now. If that STS interior does make it over to our shores it will be something worth looking at
They "hold up" well, and it would be unusual to find a "rattle-trap" BMW or Benz at 60,000 miles, or one with ratty upholstery or paintwork.
Nowadays I think it would be unusual to find that in most models of cars. Even my Elantra with 140K miles still has pretty good paint and interior and has held together very well.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Most automakers through joint ventures have learned a lot about each others assembly methods. Almost every GM plant uses the Toyota system. Thats why reliability numbers are close between good brands & bad brands.
I was just commenting of Shiftrights comment that German cars get away with reliability issues because their cars hold up over time and that it was unusual for a Benz with 60,000 being ratty. I was just stating that holds true for just about any vehicle today, even up to and beyond 100,000 miles.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The Toyota production system has more to do with efficiency--not quality. No, thats not true at all. Quality is built right into the Toyota system. Operator input is a must when running a Toyota System. There are quality checks through out the build process. Any worked can stop a line for quality reasons. The average line losses $40,000 a minute when you hit the stop button.
Of course any car can be made to stay nice if the owner cares enough about it. But there is a pride of ownership and a pocketbook to match with a high end German car than you might not find in cars like yours or mine. You can easily prove this by perusing want ads for 1980s used cars, and comparing the condition of the Benzes you see with Camaros or Nissans that have 150,000+ miles on them.
Whether this is the result of the car's build quality or the owner's affluence is hard to differentiate...probably a combination of both?
Build quality is not readily observable---really you'd have to cut a Benz in half, or dissect it layer by layer, to see why it's not a GM product. A trip to a wrecking yard would tell an interesting tale I think.
In other words, sound-deadening is not quality and well-dressed leather is not the same as good leather.
How do you tell the difference? Time and use---which is why reliability and build quality need to be assessed only in longterm testing.
F'instance, nobody knew in 1990 that Lexus leather interior wouldn't hold up to a Benz interior---but they didn't hold up well at all.
NOW they do.
One thing you have to give the Japanese credit for---they do their homework prior to launch and they are pretty good about correcting defects. Neither of these are GM's strongest points at the moment.
If I were GM's CEO, I'd buy back that Cadillac from Road and Track, tear it down and find out why it felt like such an old car after 50,000 miles. One time thing? Abuse? Defect?
snakeweasel: Lets go and actually look at the cars not what others may or may not say.
I do on a regular basis, which is why I'm confident in what I say.
snakeweasel: FWIW if CR tells me the sky was blue I would check just to make sure. I go by the saying "if CR says it it must not be true".
Except that it is not just Consumer Reports noting these differences. It is publications as diverse as this site, Car & Driver,Automobile and USA Today.
Build quality is not readily observable---really you'd have to cut a Benz in half, or dissect it layer by layer, to see why it's not a GM product. A trip to a wrecking yard would tell an interesting tale I think.
There are a pair of body shops behind our dealership so I see a lot of wrecked cars driving buy. The wrecked mercedes/BMW/Audi always seem to be in better shape then either the domestic or Japanese equivelents.
My boss used to sell mercedes and he told me a story that happend back in the summer of 2001. He has just sold a new E-Class to a couple in their mid 30s and as they were crossing the intersection in front of the dealership they got T-boned by a Box truck that ran the red light. They were hit on the driver's side and everyone feared the worst as the accident was at pretty high speed, probably about 40 or so mph, but they were both fine.
Very shaken up with some bruises, cuts and burns from the air bags but no serious internal injuries and no broken bones. Just lookint from the passenger side of the E-Class you couldn't even tell it had been wrecked. The back bone of the car had not been broken so I didn't wrap itself around the front of the truck.
One thing you have to give the Japanese credit for---they do their homework prior to launch and they are pretty good about correcting defects. Neither of these are GM's strongest points at the moment.
This is what I've been saying for years. GM doesn't sweat the details that make a Mercedes, BMW, or Lexus what they are. So many think that just because a GM car can put down the same numbers or has the same "features" on paper that they are somehow equal to their competition, this is so not true once you examine the cars.
I question that Cadillac was really THE standard of the world. Yes, they have a trophy, but that is not the context of this forum. In the sense that this forum is getting at, Cadillac probably was never THE standard, and I doubt any other car ever really was either. Rolls is probably closer to being THE standard than anyone.
When Cadillac won the Dewar Trophy in 1908, it was because its parts were interchangable. From the manufacturers' standpoint, that was a significance advance for the potential for mass production, back in an era were parts were often handmade and didn't have sufficiently close tolerances to match each other.
Without relatively close tolerances, the mass production era would have been impossible, and cars would have remained costly handmade toys for the rich. But the award was not meant to signify whether the cars were uniquely prestigious, or either good or bad to drive.
In the sense that this forum is getting at, Cadillac probably was never THE standard, and I doubt any other car ever really was either.
I think the problem with saying standard of the world is people in different markets and with different needs out of a car have very subjective viewpoints. For example, I agree that probably no other car has ever been the standard of the world; even Rolls Royce can be faulted for not offering obtainable luxury, IMO. I think a standard is something you use to compare all else to. Problem is in today's markets we have sedans, coupes, SUVs, crossovers, pickups, wagons, minivans, and NO brand can be perfect in all of these areas.
Strictly speaking historically, Cadillacs were some of the best cars money could buy back when Packard and DeSoto and Duesenberg were around. They pretty much invented many of the things we now take for granted in cars (like independent front suspension and automatic climate control). Take a trip to Pebble Beach sometime if you can afford it--
Maybe we're getting caught up on the word "standard", and what the is supposed to mean.
Ok forget "standard" for a moment. There is no doubt in my mind from all that I've seen in my short time drooling over cars in general, all the historians agree, reading about the past histories of all the greats.......that....at some point there were brands that were considered the best in the world. Cadillac, Mercedes-Benz, Rolls-Royce, and others were at one time considered by most as the best in the world. Mercedes held that title longer than most and undeniably up until recent times, before a newcomer like Lexus and resurgence of BMW. I'm told there was a time in which Mercedes felt compelled to imitate Cadillac's styling (fins) because Cadillac was considered the best or the "standard" of that day.
There was a period of time in which the best car money could buy was a Rolls-Royce, someone with more experience can tell us the exact years or era. Just like Cadillac, they'd been run over by Mercedes in the 70's 80's and 90's as far as who built the better car, not in prestige. Ditto for Bentley. An 80's or 90's Bentley or Rolls was at least 10-20 years behind a much cheaper S-Class or LS400 in suspension/engine design safety, and overall technology, but, but, but...they had their name and that is what kept them alive.
Cadillac was a joke from the late 70's until the early part of this decade. We all know the history in play there.
Things have changed, Mercedes is bouncing back from their darkest period ever (from about 1998-2004) with cars that are built much better. Just like Cadillac, Rolls, and others, the 1998 ML, 2000 S-Class, 2001 C-Class a few others should have never seen an assembly line with the quality they lacked.
There is a newcomer that with a rich parent (Toyota) will be around from now on.
BMW is all of a sudden on fire.
Will Acura or Infiniti ever have a true flagship sedan and luxury roadster for prestige/clout?
Bentley and Rolls-Royce now have proper funding and access to some of the best engineers on earth. I mean really if you see a Phantom rolling down the street what in people's mind is going to top that? Not a Mercedes, Cadillac, BMW, Lexus, Jaguar. Maybach makes the best Mercedes possible, but it doesn't have the name recognition though it is likely the better "car" (functionality wise) compared to a Rolls.
Cadillac is merely competitive in a few segments and that is their main problem. They don't have any worldbeaters and the classes aren't filled with slackers anymore either.
Maybe we're getting caught up on the word "standard", and what the is supposed to mean.
I think that we all have to remember that this "standard of the world" stuff was ultimately just an advertising slogan. Just as one paper towel isn't necessarily better than another just because it claims to be the "quicker picker-upper", a car isn't necessarily better than another just because the manufacturer says that it is.
Cadillac is merely competitive in a few segments and that is their main problem. They don't have any worldbeaters and the classes aren't filled with slackers anymore either.
That's absolutely right. Not only are the cars behind the competition, but there's also a lot more and much tougher competition than there used to be. The automakers have to work much harder to stay ahead than they ever have.
Rolls Royce is an excellent example of perception over reality. The Rolls reputation comes from the 1920s, when they were hands down the best car in the world....after WWII, while beautiful in construction, they were really pretty bad cars compared to a '55 Chevy. Rolls lived on its laurels way beyond its time. Hence it went broke.
I think after the death of the "3Ps" in America---Pierce, Peerless and an ailing Packard, then Cadillac was certainly the best American car made and possibly the best car in the world from post the late 1930s to the mid 50s. A 60s era Rolls wouldn't probably go 1000 miles without a breakdown or $10,000 in maintenance...they were very old-fashioned technically and well...British electrics....need we say more?
So Cadillac has some street cred from the 30s at least through 1957, definitely.
Cadillac basically taught the world that you could mass-produce a quality luxury car. Mercedes later took this talent away from Cadillac, and Lexus grabbed it from Mercedes.
Cadillac basically taught the world that you could mass-produce a quality luxury car. Mercedes later took this talent away from Cadillac, and Lexus grabbed it from Mercedes.
Good way of looking at it, but I think Mercedes did it to themselves moreso than Lexus taking anything from them. Under Shremp Mercedes went into a "Mercedes in every garage" expansion that meant quality and their legendary testing regimine went out the window. It has only recently been put back in place along with other changes under the mustache guy. They seem to be moving back towards more specialized/custom models too, and concentrating more on AMG, though they aren't ignore their bread and butter models either. Quite a balancing act.
Quality wise something similar seems to be happening at Toyota with all the recalls and talk from their head guy about Toyota not taking the time to ensure quality under their rapid expansion. So far though it has more or less been Toyota, not Lexus having the problems with quality.
I think Mercedes did it to themselves moreso than Lexus taking anything from them. Under Shremp Mercedes went into a "Mercedes in every garage" expansion that meant quality and their legendary testing regimine went out the window.
Yes and no. Let's remember that Toyota's "lean production" methods involve an approach to building cars that results not only in superior quality, but also the ability to increase or decrease production volumes without a degradation in quality. JIT and supplier cooperation lead to superior parts, and the flexible lines and team building approach ensure better QC through the entire build process.
Mercedes and the other German makers still use the traditional Ford method of assembly -- keep the line moving, and QC mostly at the end. Mercedes was historically able to make the best of this with superior engineering and design, and by using better materials and more rigorous QC, so the cars were still very good. However, this method's main weakness is that it isn't very flexible and not very scalable, which makes it difficult to rapidly increase volumes without losing quality. (All of that back-end QC costs a lot of money, and will still miss a fair number of defects.)
Lexus is in a better spot to ramp up volumes than the Germans, and this remains one of its major advantages, for a hot car can be produced in sufficient volumes without quality taking a nosedive, and quality is likely to be less of an issue. The American and European automakers have borrowed bits and pieces from this method, but I can't see that any of them have integrated enough of it to get the same results. Lean production is one of those all-or-other nothing propositions -- doing it halfway will get less than half of the results.
It was mostly hype and marketing, indeed. However, it worked, and whether or not Cadillac was the finest car built ever, it became the American standard for everything from cars to dishwashers, and still remains so today. "The Cadillac of Skateboards" for example..... Despite the General's efforts to make it a laughingstock as a car, the legend lives on, though nobody really believes it anymore.
All of that is true which is why I think that once Mercedes expanded from 1997-2000 it stretched that method of production beyond its limits. When I look back at some of the old MB brochures, say like 1994 they only had the C,E,S,SL. Now they have the A,B,CLK,ML,GL,R,SLK, among others. Now some of these models were there all along like the CL which is nothing more than an S-Class coupe or SEC from back in the day, but still. They went from 800K units a year to 1.1M, far to much to ensure quality the way they used to do it.
I think they've change their production methods somewhat overall, I know they have at the Bama plant (though not nearly enough quality wise) as ex-Toyota guy runs the plant, but of course they haven't even come close to wholly adopting lean production totally. It might be too big of a change for the Germans to fully adopt at this point.
GM has made Cadillac into what it is. GM's primary goal is to sell more cars so profit margins are maximum. Price and cost are GM's primary concern. Quality constuction is a secondary concern. Cadillac's are designed to be good, but not overly expensive to build. From time to time either GM or Cadillac have made efforts to exceed expectations, but they have usually abandoned the project -> for example the Eldorado Brougham of the late 50's. Another example is the 8-6-4 engine that lasted 1 year. This engine concept is now used since technology caught up.
Lexus is in a better spot to ramp up volumes than the Germans, and this remains one of its major advantages, for a hot car can be produced in sufficient volumes without quality taking a nosedive, and quality is likely to be less of an issue. The American and European automakers have borrowed bits and pieces from this method, but I can't see that any of them have integrated enough of it to get the same results. Lean production is one of those all-or-other nothing propositions -- doing it halfway will get less than half of the results. GM's Cadillac Lansing plant has taken the "Toyota Model" to the next step. Lansing rivals Lexus of Japan in quality & reliablility. It's something to see in person. Definatley the best way to build cars, and the ability to udate on the fly. Toyota dosen't do joint ventures, but they did one with GM to get a plant in America. GM studied and modified the "toyota System". Plants like Oshawa & Lansing are perfect examples of "best in class" assembly plants.
GM has made Cadillac into what it is. GM's primary goal is to sell more cars so profit margins are maximum. Price and cost are GM's primary concern. Quality constuction is a secondary concern. Cadillac's are designed to be good, but not overly expensive to build. From time to time either GM or Cadillac have made efforts to exceed expectations, but they have usually abandoned the project -> for example the Eldorado Brougham of the late 50's. Another example is the 8-6-4 engine that lasted 1 year. This engine concept is now used since technology caught up.
1. Show me a manufacturer whose aim is to have an expensive car to build. Show me a manufacturer for whom price and cost are not primary concerns. You should avoid ever going into business, you won't have very much success with a philosophy like that. Even Bentley wants to improve the bottom line.
2. That 8-6-4 engine was cutting-edge for its time but was exactly what sent technology-shy consumers like yourself squealing for cover from less innovative manufacturers. As a new technology it had problems, and compounded Cadillac's image issues.
I just thought I'd post pictures of a concept I liked.
In response to #1: I think that the old Rolls Royce is a good example. One more example was the Cadillac Eldorado Brougham. The S-class Mercedes is probably not that profitable either. The Lexus LS was probably sold at a loss in the early days (1989).
In response to your #2: why am I interested in getting an SRX with the VVT V8?
Is that concept the Sixteen? You do realize that it is a pushrod V16, not a DOHC engine with 64 valves?
Well, of course it is!! Gm is stubbornly holding on to the Pushrod engine, they're cheaper to build, and they have their advantages, usually tough in the long haul. Not as easy to manipulate for efficiency, horsepower, and emissions, but somehow, GM gets good mileage out of their cars anyway. Nothing wrong with a Pushrod engine, or a flathead engine either, right? Just old tech.
In response to #1: I think that the old Rolls Royce is a good example. One more example was the Cadillac Eldorado Brougham. The S-class Mercedes is probably not that profitable either.
Strongly disagree with the S-Class, that is the car that put Mercedes way back into the black this past year. The E and S are Mercedes biggest profit sedans.
The Rolls-Royce likely doesn't turn as much of a profit as we think.
What year Cadillac Eldorado are you talking about? I don't see why they wouldn't turn a huge profit for the General.
It has a "pushrod" alright. If it's anything like the LS7, I want one!
P.S. If that V-16 were DOHC, it would most likely be twice as large and twice as heavy. So much for economy and packaging... If that is "modern" you can keep it.
Both engines have advantages and disadvantages. One big advantage of OHC is that you can vary the timing and lift of the intake and exhaust camshafts.
If you are talking about Variable Valve Timing (VVT), "pushrod" or "OHV" engines can in fact have this feature.
In fact, you can get it right now in the 6.2L Vortec V8 in the Cadillac Escalade/GMC Yukon. Both have the same engine, with Variable Valve Timing.
It's always tricky to use racing engines as an example since each engine they build costs more than your house.
That's very true--although the LS7 in the production Z06 is an amazing engine that shares many characteristics with its parent--the LS7.R racing engine. One thing that makes racing engines so expensive ids their hand-built, limited-production nature. The LS7 is also hand-built and that affects it as well--although not even close to the same degree as the racing engine. You can purchase an LS7 crate engine for $13,000.
What I meant was you can't vary the exhaust and intake camshafts at different rates on an OHV engine.
Well.... you mean I think "hand-assembled"---it's not hand-built, and actually I think that hand assembly is a liability not an asset for normal driving. Humans make mistakes more often than robots.
Besides, a real racing engine would cost $40,000--$60,000 easily.
Anyway, for the street you wouldn't want the tolerances built into a race engine---they are not built to run for years and years...they are built rather loose, so as to be durable for a short time under extreme conditions. Often they are built after every race, depending on the venue.
I've seen more than one OEM stock Vette and Viper engine disintegrate in the crazy man rallyes in Nevada. You aren't going to win Lemans in a factory stock engine that you get in a crate.
But still $13K is a great deal for all that power for street use. A Ferrari crate engine would cost...ahem...a good deal more than that.
Probably the inflexibility of the OHC engine to variable camshaft timing is what causes GM to keep that dreadful "skip-shift"---they can't beat the gas guzzler tax without it.
Computers are what really saved the pushrod engine, and it's had an amazing run all these years.
Mostly OHC and DOHC is a marketing thing--people want cars that give the perception of "high tech".
Understanding and agreeing with all you say above, shifty, can you explain GM's stubbornness in continuing to put out pushrod mills? Chrysler's Hemi is Pushrod also, but mostly because this engine was designed a decade or two ago, and shelved as "unmarketable" at the time - then brought out, dusted off, and marketed with genius a few years ago. If Pushrods are all that, as reader says, why do the companies that produce the state of the art mills, BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, all use OHC motors in their cars? That to me, is very telling......
My brother is a GM defender and pushrod fanatic. We had a great conversation on Christmas because he insists that OHCs are so poorly suited to "everyday driving" due to the lack of torque and peaky power delivery. The question I kept asking him is that if that is so, why do all the top selling cars have OHC? You wouldn't think that hundreds of thousands of people would buy Camrys, Accords and Altimas if they were so poorly suited to veryday driving.
If I can opine on this subject, Caddy isn't even the standard of America any more. They're under too much pressure to share components with their lesser brethren to approach the esteem shared by Lexus, MB and BMW.
The question I kept asking him is that if that is so, why do all the top selling cars have OHC?
Marketing? Something different, something new supposively making it better. Sort of like "Try new Prug, now with CX27". What is CX27? What does it do? Who cares, its in there so it must be better.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Comments
I tend to not see either.
No interior looks like any other to me--save, maybe the S-Class and 7-Series dashboards which look vaguely similar.
Everything else from everyone else is quite unique in their own ways--so there is a lot of design leeway to move.
2. As far as I know, American luxury brands have never had any reliability problems over and above that of the Japanese (especially Buick, Cadillac and Mercury).
I do not mention the Germans, because they struggle to be what they used to be in terms of reliability (although they feel very solid).
In that sense, I am not sure what role reliability plays in this discussion at all.
If anyone is to be "punished" for reliability problems, it is the Germans, and yet they do very well sales-wise.
Can anyone explain that phenomenon?
3. I do agree that there are niches to be filled and that each manufacturer has to stake out a territory and go for it.
Style may be the last big differentiator, as quality is virtually indistinguishable.
Which brings be to a general question I have:
4. Why is it so difficult to come up with one standard measure for "reliability"?
I "hear" so much, but every time one tries to settle on a methodology, people come along and criticize it for one thing or the other.
They say Consumer Reports is not scientific because they are not transparent and their rating system is not practical.
They say JD Power is not comprehensive enough.
And on top of that, more and more people come out of the woodwork every day with a "better method", like TrueDelta.com.
Maybe that is why everybody relies on word-of-mouth, myth, rumor and conjecture.
Who can we believe anymore?
Personally, I never like to discount any one brand when looking at cars. I like having lots of cars to choose from and research.
I cannot recall the last time I have seen a new car stranded on the side of a road.
Most new cars are generally the same in terms of reliability in my experience.
That way, I can look at a wider range of products that may meet my needs.
I would be in a pinch if I were to limit myself to only buying Buicks and Porsches because they are rumored to be "most reliable" (although I would love to have that problem if I could get a Porsche 911
Does anybody have any practical idea of what "more reliable" means day to day?
Personally, it's because I can't figure out how the hell to do it!
part 1
Highlight the file location, then right-click and Copy it. Paste it into the posting box here, then highlight it and click on the Img button below the posting box.
part 2
If you did it right, your picture will show up.
I dunno about that because I've read too many times where Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, etc have invested millions and millions in their paint shops to prevent "orange peel". That and the fact that I don't see any orange peel on a new Mercedes, Audi or Lexus makes me think that this isn't accurate. Do you have a link or something on this because just thinking about Mercedes, BMW, Lexus or Audi just "accepting" some orange peel doesn't make sense. Also, just accepting some orange peel isn't what you stated at first, you basically said that carmakers strive for orange peel. No way that is possible, but if you have something that says otherwise I'd like to see it.
M
I tend to not see either.
No interior looks like any other to me--save, maybe the S-Class and 7-Series dashboards which look vaguely similar.
Everything else from everyone else is quite unique in their own ways--so there is a lot of design leeway to move.
2. As far as I know, American luxury brands have never had any reliability problems over and above that of the Japanese (especially Buick, Cadillac and Mercury).
I do not mention the Germans, because they struggle to be what they used to be in terms of reliability (although they feel very solid).
In that sense, I am not sure what role reliability plays in this discussion at all.
If anyone is to be "punished" for reliability problems, it is the Germans, and yet they do very well sales-wise.
Can anyone explain that phenomenon?
3. I do agree that there are niches to be filled and that each manufacturer has to stake out a territory and go for it.
Style may be the last big differentiator, as quality is virtually indistinguishable.
If you choose to live with blinders on, so be it. There is plenty of inspiration to go around. Big bucks are at stake, and a company like Cadillac can't risk using their brains, since that strategy hadn't worked for a generation or two. :sick:
That pic of the CTS looks a lot like the G35 Sport interior. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Anything other than the current nightmare is an improvement!
Regarding Cadillac reliability, any improvement is a recent occurance, as in the mid-90's, it was the VW of it's day. And it still has to climb a generational chasm in public perception. You can't go from World Standard to Cadillac Cimarron, and expect us to forget. Maybe forgive.
Cadillac dropped the ball, Lexus picked it up, and is still running, so Caddy can sit and wait on the bench for all I care. Cadillac deserves no quearter from me, or any American for that matter.
Even Lexus can't manufacture prestige, so BMW and Mercedes will always have a nice sized leash to run with.
Cadillac is reinventing itself, and is making strides in the right directions, but it's still 2nd-tier, and won't be playing at the Main Table for awhile.
Lexus seized the moment in 1989. Those moments come once in a generation. Now is not one of those times. Caddy is just working not to atrophy. Just trying to stay in the game.
I wouldn't go breaking an arm patting them on the back. Their not dead, but they're not ballin' either. They just exist. Which isn't bad. It's light years better than Lincoln. GM is on the right path, but it's along road to hoe. Ford is way off course!:lemon:
DrFill
Can anyone explain that phenomenon? "
I'll take a stab at that.
I think the reason the Germans get away with it is that while their cars might not be the most reliable, they are definitely, absolutely, without a doubt, the most "durable" in how they look and drive over many years. They "hold up" well, and it would be unusual to find a "rattle-trap" BMW or Benz at 60,000 miles, or one with ratty upholstery or paintwork.
So my criteria for reliability has to include a longterm outlook. I could care less how a car behaves for the 1st 90 days someone owns it. To me, that is utterly useless information UNLESS it is a disastrously bad report.
Which is why (in a long-winded explanation) I don't yet have full confidence in Cadillac. Road & Track's recent longterm Cadillac test, for instance, was very discouraging.
Until recently, they have also aged gracefully. (The jury is still out on Bangle, IMO.) One can debate the styling, but the designs tend to get stale more slowly than with other cars. Look at the Lexus LS and Cadillacs from fifteen years ago, and then compare them to an equivalent BMW or Mercedes from the same period, and I think most of us will agree that the Germans have a more timeless, less dated quality about them.
Most of all, there is the driving experience. It's hard to describe, but anyone who knows German cars can appreciate that they have a certain intangible je ne sais quoi that can be felt behind the wheel. I'm not sure what they dial into their suspensions or steering gear, but there's something special there that won't be found in a Lexus, Infiniti or Acura, and absolutely won't be found in a Lincoln or Caddy. Of those, perhaps Honda comes closest to getting it, but they still manage to fall short.
Cadillac kept the old folks. I'd say this happened late 70s to around 1990.
Then around 1990, Lexus startled Benz with the LS400, and Cadillac kind of woke up to the fact that they might end up the first American car whose entire clientele all died.
I think Lexus parked right in the middle between Benz and Cadillac in "driving dynamics".
Now Cadillac is more like Lexus, and no longer a clumsy sofa of a car (and in some cases surpassing Lexus easily in handling) but BMW, Audi and Benz still hold that elusive "driving machine" mystique.
Whatever this mystique is, it's a powerful marketing tool and speaks to "precision", "engineering" and, by extension, "prestige".
It's a "standard" in other words, to which all other cars still aspire (or don't care to aspire to).
I agree with that, but do you think that was their target, i.e. to come down in between, or just how things worked out? I had always figured (just a guess) that the original LS benchmark was somewhere between the E- and S-class Mercedes, not necessarily to compromise between the Germans and domestic luxobarges.
That hard-to-describe quality is what I might call "connectedness" (whatever that means), which is partly based on the ride, but not necessarily the softness or harshness of it, so much as the overall feel. The boost of the steering is part of it, but even that doesn't quite describe it. (Yeah, this is tough, I know...)
What I'm getting at is that I'm not sure that Lexus, Infiniti or Acura can capture this German road feel, even if they try. (And I think that Lexus, in particular, does try.) They do American very well -- look at the Toyota Avalon for the Japanese Buick, while the outgoing G35 sedan evokes aspects of the old muscle car, as just two examples -- but they haven't quite mastered the Germans just yet. If Lexus can figure out how to make the IS or GS drive like a BMW and develop styling that doesn't become dated as quickly as it does, then the Germans will be in very serious trouble, IMO.
I also hope so also lemko.
Rocky
Rocky
Nowadays I think it would be unusual to find that in most models of cars. Even my Elantra with 140K miles still has pretty good paint and interior and has held together very well.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
No, thats not true at all. Quality is built right into the Toyota system. Operator input is a must when running a Toyota System. There are quality checks through out the build process. Any worked can stop a line for quality reasons. The average line losses $40,000 a minute when you hit the stop button.
Of course any car can be made to stay nice if the owner cares enough about it. But there is a pride of ownership and a pocketbook to match with a high end German car than you might not find in cars like yours or mine. You can easily prove this by perusing want ads for 1980s used cars, and comparing the condition of the Benzes you see with Camaros or Nissans that have 150,000+ miles on them.
Whether this is the result of the car's build quality or the owner's affluence is hard to differentiate...probably a combination of both?
Build quality is not readily observable---really you'd have to cut a Benz in half, or dissect it layer by layer, to see why it's not a GM product. A trip to a wrecking yard would tell an interesting tale I think.
In other words, sound-deadening is not quality and well-dressed leather is not the same as good leather.
How do you tell the difference? Time and use---which is why reliability and build quality need to be assessed only in longterm testing.
F'instance, nobody knew in 1990 that Lexus leather interior wouldn't hold up to a Benz interior---but they didn't hold up well at all.
NOW they do.
One thing you have to give the Japanese credit for---they do their homework prior to launch and they are pretty good about correcting defects. Neither of these are GM's strongest points at the moment.
If I were GM's CEO, I'd buy back that Cadillac from Road and Track, tear it down and find out why it felt like such an old car after 50,000 miles. One time thing? Abuse? Defect?
I do on a regular basis, which is why I'm confident in what I say.
snakeweasel: FWIW if CR tells me the sky was blue I would check just to make sure. I go by the saying "if CR says it it must not be true".
Except that it is not just Consumer Reports noting these differences. It is publications as diverse as this site, Car & Driver, Automobile and USA Today.
Should we ignore all of them?
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=4053
There are a pair of body shops behind our dealership so I see a lot of wrecked cars driving buy. The wrecked mercedes/BMW/Audi always seem to be in better shape then either the domestic or Japanese equivelents.
My boss used to sell mercedes and he told me a story that happend back in the summer of 2001. He has just sold a new E-Class to a couple in their mid 30s and as they were crossing the intersection in front of the dealership they got T-boned by a Box truck that ran the red light. They were hit on the driver's side and everyone feared the worst as the accident was at pretty high speed, probably about 40 or so mph, but they were both fine.
Very shaken up with some bruises, cuts and burns from the air bags but no serious internal injuries and no broken bones. Just lookint from the passenger side of the E-Class you couldn't even tell it had been wrecked. The back bone of the car had not been broken so I didn't wrap itself around the front of the truck.
This is what I've been saying for years. GM doesn't sweat the details that make a Mercedes, BMW, or Lexus what they are. So many think that just because a GM car can put down the same numbers or has the same "features" on paper that they are somehow equal to their competition, this is so not true once you examine the cars.
M
If all the the magazines that have had a CTS_V long term test car have had similar problems as Road & Track, then Cadillac does have a problem.
Without relatively close tolerances, the mass production era would have been impossible, and cars would have remained costly handmade toys for the rich. But the award was not meant to signify whether the cars were uniquely prestigious, or either good or bad to drive.
Same here.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I think the problem with saying standard of the world is people in different markets and with different needs out of a car have very subjective viewpoints. For example, I agree that probably no other car has ever been the standard of the world; even Rolls Royce can be faulted for not offering obtainable luxury, IMO. I think a standard is something you use to compare all else to. Problem is in today's markets we have sedans, coupes, SUVs, crossovers, pickups, wagons, minivans, and NO brand can be perfect in all of these areas.
Take a trip to Pebble Beach sometime if you can afford it--
Just a little bit of history there...
Ok forget "standard" for a moment. There is no doubt in my mind from all that I've seen in my short time drooling over cars in general, all the historians agree, reading about the past histories of all the greats.......that....at some point there were brands that were considered the best in the world. Cadillac, Mercedes-Benz, Rolls-Royce, and others were at one time considered by most as the best in the world. Mercedes held that title longer than most and undeniably up until recent times, before a newcomer like Lexus and resurgence of BMW. I'm told there was a time in which Mercedes felt compelled to imitate Cadillac's styling (fins) because Cadillac was considered the best or the "standard" of that day.
There was a period of time in which the best car money could buy was a Rolls-Royce, someone with more experience can tell us the exact years or era. Just like Cadillac, they'd been run over by Mercedes in the 70's 80's and 90's as far as who built the better car, not in prestige. Ditto for Bentley. An 80's or 90's Bentley or Rolls was at least 10-20 years behind a much cheaper S-Class or LS400 in suspension/engine design safety, and overall technology, but, but, but...they had their name and that is what kept them alive.
Cadillac was a joke from the late 70's until the early part of this decade. We all know the history in play there.
Things have changed, Mercedes is bouncing back from their darkest period ever (from about 1998-2004) with cars that are built much better. Just like Cadillac, Rolls, and others, the 1998 ML, 2000 S-Class, 2001 C-Class a few others should have never seen an assembly line with the quality they lacked.
There is a newcomer that with a rich parent (Toyota) will be around from now on.
BMW is all of a sudden on fire.
Will Acura or Infiniti ever have a true flagship sedan and luxury roadster for prestige/clout?
Bentley and Rolls-Royce now have proper funding and access to some of the best engineers on earth. I mean really if you see a Phantom rolling down the street what in people's mind is going to top that? Not a Mercedes, Cadillac, BMW, Lexus, Jaguar. Maybach makes the best Mercedes possible, but it doesn't have the name recognition though it is likely the better "car" (functionality wise) compared to a Rolls.
Cadillac is merely competitive in a few segments and that is their main problem. They don't have any worldbeaters and the classes aren't filled with slackers anymore either.
M
I think that we all have to remember that this "standard of the world" stuff was ultimately just an advertising slogan. Just as one paper towel isn't necessarily better than another just because it claims to be the "quicker picker-upper", a car isn't necessarily better than another just because the manufacturer says that it is.
Cadillac is merely competitive in a few segments and that is their main problem. They don't have any worldbeaters and the classes aren't filled with slackers anymore either.
That's absolutely right. Not only are the cars behind the competition, but there's also a lot more and much tougher competition than there used to be. The automakers have to work much harder to stay ahead than they ever have.
I think after the death of the "3Ps" in America---Pierce, Peerless and an ailing Packard, then Cadillac was certainly the best American car made and possibly the best car in the world from post the late 1930s to the mid 50s. A 60s era Rolls wouldn't probably go 1000 miles without a breakdown or $10,000 in maintenance...they were very old-fashioned technically and well...British electrics....need we say more?
So Cadillac has some street cred from the 30s at least through 1957, definitely.
Cadillac basically taught the world that you could mass-produce a quality luxury car. Mercedes later took this talent away from Cadillac, and Lexus grabbed it from Mercedes.
Good way of looking at it, but I think Mercedes did it to themselves moreso than Lexus taking anything from them. Under Shremp Mercedes went into a "Mercedes in every garage" expansion that meant quality and their legendary testing regimine went out the window. It has only recently been put back in place along with other changes under the mustache guy. They seem to be moving back towards more specialized/custom models too, and concentrating more on AMG, though they aren't ignore their bread and butter models either. Quite a balancing act.
Quality wise something similar seems to be happening at Toyota with all the recalls and talk from their head guy about Toyota not taking the time to ensure quality under their rapid expansion. So far though it has more or less been Toyota, not Lexus having the problems with quality.
M
Yes and no. Let's remember that Toyota's "lean production" methods involve an approach to building cars that results not only in superior quality, but also the ability to increase or decrease production volumes without a degradation in quality. JIT and supplier cooperation lead to superior parts, and the flexible lines and team building approach ensure better QC through the entire build process.
Mercedes and the other German makers still use the traditional Ford method of assembly -- keep the line moving, and QC mostly at the end. Mercedes was historically able to make the best of this with superior engineering and design, and by using better materials and more rigorous QC, so the cars were still very good. However, this method's main weakness is that it isn't very flexible and not very scalable, which makes it difficult to rapidly increase volumes without losing quality. (All of that back-end QC costs a lot of money, and will still miss a fair number of defects.)
Lexus is in a better spot to ramp up volumes than the Germans, and this remains one of its major advantages, for a hot car can be produced in sufficient volumes without quality taking a nosedive, and quality is likely to be less of an issue. The American and European automakers have borrowed bits and pieces from this method, but I can't see that any of them have integrated enough of it to get the same results. Lean production is one of those all-or-other nothing propositions -- doing it halfway will get less than half of the results.
I think they've change their production methods somewhat overall, I know they have at the Bama plant (though not nearly enough quality wise) as ex-Toyota guy runs the plant, but of course they haven't even come close to wholly adopting lean production totally. It might be too big of a change for the Germans to fully adopt at this point.
M
GM's Cadillac Lansing plant has taken the "Toyota Model" to the next step. Lansing rivals Lexus of Japan in quality & reliablility. It's something to see in person. Definatley the best way to build cars, and the ability to udate on the fly.
Toyota dosen't do joint ventures, but they did one with GM to get a plant in America. GM studied and modified the "toyota System". Plants like Oshawa & Lansing are perfect examples of "best in class" assembly plants.
1. Show me a manufacturer whose aim is to have an expensive car to build.
Show me a manufacturer for whom price and cost are not primary concerns.
You should avoid ever going into business, you won't have very much success with a philosophy like that.
Even Bentley wants to improve the bottom line.
2. That 8-6-4 engine was cutting-edge for its time but was exactly what sent technology-shy consumers like yourself squealing for cover from less innovative manufacturers. As a new technology it had problems, and compounded Cadillac's image issues.
I just thought I'd post pictures of a concept I liked.
In response to your #2: why am I interested in getting an SRX with the VVT V8?
Is that concept the Sixteen? You do realize that it is a pushrod V16, not a DOHC engine with 64 valves?
Strongly disagree with the S-Class, that is the car that put Mercedes way back into the black this past year. The E and S are Mercedes biggest profit sedans.
The Rolls-Royce likely doesn't turn as much of a profit as we think.
What year Cadillac Eldorado are you talking about? I don't see why they wouldn't turn a huge profit for the General.
M
Both SOHC and DOHC engines are about 100 years old. There were DOHC engines on Duesenbergs!
There is nothing "modern" about either design.
As a matter of fact, it's a good old "pushrod" engine in this beast that brought the traditional Europeans to their knees since it came out:
Based on this stormer with the same engine that walked away from everything in its class at LeMans this year:
And managed to win plaudits upon plaudits:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9bByWD4Oxs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8px4QuTe1_A
Including Global Motorsport Engine of the Year in Racing form:
http://www.corvetteracing.com/history/2006releases/general/racing8.shtml
It has a "pushrod" alright. If it's anything like the LS7, I want one!
P.S. If that V-16 were DOHC, it would most likely be twice as large and twice as heavy. So much for economy and packaging... If that is "modern" you can keep it.
It's always tricky to use racing engines as an example since each engine they build costs more than your house.
If you are talking about Variable Valve Timing (VVT), "pushrod" or "OHV" engines can in fact have this feature.
In fact, you can get it right now in the 6.2L Vortec V8 in the Cadillac Escalade/GMC Yukon.
Both have the same engine, with Variable Valve Timing.
It's always tricky to use racing engines as an example since each engine they build costs more than your house.
That's very true--although the LS7 in the production Z06 is an amazing engine that shares many characteristics with its parent--the LS7.R racing engine. One thing that makes racing engines so expensive ids their hand-built, limited-production nature.
The LS7 is also hand-built and that affects it as well--although not even close to the same degree as the racing engine.
You can purchase an LS7 crate engine for $13,000.
Well.... you mean I think "hand-assembled"---it's not hand-built, and actually I think that hand assembly is a liability not an asset for normal driving. Humans make mistakes more often than robots.
Besides, a real racing engine would cost $40,000--$60,000 easily.
Anyway, for the street you wouldn't want the tolerances built into a race engine---they are not built to run for years and years...they are built rather loose, so as to be durable for a short time under extreme conditions. Often they are built after every race, depending on the venue.
I've seen more than one OEM stock Vette and Viper engine disintegrate in the crazy man rallyes in Nevada. You aren't going to win Lemans in a factory stock engine that you get in a crate.
But still $13K is a great deal for all that power for street use. A Ferrari crate engine would cost...ahem...a good deal more than that.
Probably the inflexibility of the OHC engine to variable camshaft timing is what causes GM to keep that dreadful "skip-shift"---they can't beat the gas guzzler tax without it.
Computers are what really saved the pushrod engine, and it's had an amazing run all these years.
Mostly OHC and DOHC is a marketing thing--people want cars that give the perception of "high tech".
If I can opine on this subject, Caddy isn't even the standard of America any more. They're under too much pressure to share components with their lesser brethren to approach the esteem shared by Lexus, MB and BMW.
Marketing? Something different, something new supposively making it better. Sort of like "Try new Prug, now with CX27". What is CX27? What does it do? Who cares, its in there so it must be better.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D