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
Why buy new? Buy used, Buy at auction, and save yourself $25,000. Cars are bad investments anyway.
I think you have it just backward. The hard cardboard seats they are pushing off as sporty are built for our average citizen that has a fat cushy posterior. A fat rear end has its own built-in padding.
Cadillac built its reputation on plush cars with plush seats. I think it is a mistake to try and compete with automakers that strictly build sport sedans like BMW.
Of the new luxury SUVs I have checked out, the only seats that did not feel like they were cheap cardboard backed, was the Mercedes GL/ML. The 2007 Cadillac is headed that direction and the worst seats are in the 2007 Acura MDX. sorry Rocky. The nicest was the 2006 Escalade.
Rocky
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I believe Datsun beat Toyota into the US market around 1959. The Datsun patrol was a better built vehicle than the Toyota Land Cruiser. I only had enough cash to buy the LC so I left the Datsun Patrol the the wealthier off road guys. Both were cheaper than the Jeep CJ.
PS
No Caddy off-road vehicles in 1964. Though my father in law took his Caddy 4 door sedan way out into the desert camping.
Bill P.
What are you talking about. Obviously this is something you don't know. The Aveo (Korean-Daewoo) is the only so-called outsourced car for a small car. It was designed in Italy, now how does that through you off. If you want to talk about outsourcing you have to put Toyota in front of that comment. The GTO and Prizm are not even made anymore. The Prizm was a compact car from Toyota just like the Chevy Nova was before it, and the GTO is a mid-sized car from Holden of Australia. The previously imported GTO wasn't a joke in anyway according to the magazine writers, and with its price was the best bang for the buck with more performance than its closest rival Ford Mustang. I am surprised mediapusher that you didn't like that car. It had the usual Japanese car look so I would think you would have liked it. I personally didn't like it because I owned an original 1960's GTO that I sold a couple years ago so yes, I didn't care for Pontiac putting a GTO name on a car with no heritage resemblance.
Obviously you don't pay attention to current auto news, business reports. The latest at Toyota labor is not good in the U.S. because of Toyota's practice of hiring part-time employees to avoid labor costs/benefits. Employees are starting to complain and people are listening. Toyota is now under the watchful eye of the UAW and there has already been organized meetings that have taken place. There was an article on the autoblog a couple weeks ago on how Toyota is really worried about the unions becoming a problem for them. That is one of the reasons they build in non-union states but it looks like their running from the unions has finally caught up to them. Don't be surprised if something comes out of this in the next 6-months. Toyota has peaked and now the downfall looks just over the horizon.
Sorry to correct you again but the above cars are not icons, some are just excellent sellers. An icon (classic car) is something that stands out, something that is special and is produced at low levels not mass produced. The 1969 Toyota 2000 GT is such a car and possibly the Toyota Stout pickup truck from the 1960's as well.
It wasn't a bad car either. We had the original one (1976) in our family after inheriting it from our grandmother who passed away in California. The 1976 model was supposed to be problematic for whatever that means. Other than replacing the 1 barrel carburator once or twice, it was a great econobox that returned about 30 mpg highway. I would have hate to gotten in an accident with a car this size but it always started. What I hated about it was the lack of manual transmission, AM radio, and no air-condioning. My sister and her husband took it to Ohio as a second car after they got married and had it for a few years before my sister got it broadsided, and it was losing motor power after 18-years so they retired it. A friends mom also had one in the 1980's. As far as looks it wasn't any less unattractive than the other cars out at this time.
Or it may say built in Ontario, Canada where a good amount of the Camry's and I believe the Corolla also come from.
Not sure I know what you mean bumpy. I did say the Camry also comes from Canada based on a news report that I saw. There are several Japanese manufactures up there.
Camry, and Supra, are American icons.
Oh yeah!
It would be nice if Cadillac could build a flagship sedan. Sixteen is, or was, their chance. I guess they just aren't ready to sit at the Big Table.
DrFill
Per icons - Cadillac has MANY!!!
1930-40 Cadillac V-16s
1938-1941 Cadillac Sixty Special
1949 Cadillac Coupe DeVille
1953 Cadillac Eldorado
1957-58 Cadillac Eldorado Brougham
1959 Cadillacs with the big fins
1967-70 Cadillac Eldorado
1971-76 Cadillac Eldorado convertible
1975-79 Cadillac Seville
Shoot, I'd say just about any late 1940s through mid 1970s Cadillac can be an icon. I, personally, like the 1977-79 Cadillac DeVilles and Fleetwoods.
I don't even think about rust when purchasing a car anymore, especially if I'm purchasing new.
Even if it is built in the U.S.A, where do the parts come from??????
This mentality of STAND OUT doesn't jive in the real world. That's old school thinking. If a person wants to stand out, they can "trick" out any car with a little help from talented people like those on the TV show of MTV's "Pimp My Ride". That's for people that don't have anything else better to do than lust over their cars, or be arrogant and show off or for whose employment status it helps.
Most people want practicality, reliability and functionality when it comes to a car. Iconic doesn't factor.
Since when has Cadillac ever built anything remotely close to a Ferrari, Maserati or Rolls Royce. Those are iconic cars. I don't remember Cadillac as ever being that. The Cadillac Allante wasn't even this. It was laughable at best for reasons other than its looks.
I think the first generation Miata is another iconic car and I'd like to have one for the reasons you list (not so functional I suppose, but good on gas for road tripping and that's a required "function" for some of us).
The Escalade is so over the top, or was when it was first adopted by the b-ball players, that I think it could qualify as a genuine icon. Before the bling dubs it had the bling badges. It's what I think of now when people say they drive a Caddy.
Corolla may be the biggest selling car in the World. When it is worn out they crush and make another one. It is no different than buying a washing machine. No class or lasting appeal.
1930-40 Cadillac V-16s
1938-1941 Cadillac Sixty Special
1949 Cadillac Coupe DeVille
1953 Cadillac Eldorado
1957-58 Cadillac Eldorado Brougham
1959 Cadillacs with the big fins
1967-70 Cadillac Eldorado
1971-76 Cadillac Eldorado convertible
1975-79 Cadillac Seville
Just because you're too narrowminded doesn't make Caddy any less of a top level manufacturer. :P
And uhhh, excuse me, but how long ago was 1979, How long ago was 1930? You're living in the past. You're still thinking that style will conquer substance. Wrong. People don't buy cars simply based on style anymore.
We are talking about car sales here and what people WANT TO BUY, aren't we?? The only people worried about iconic are the ones participating in this blog with the exception of me. Ask Cadillac if they're worried about iconic. Puhleeeez.
Who in the hell remembers a 1930 Cadillac V-16? And I'm sorry to burst your bubble, the Cadillac Seville was not iconic. At best it was a land barge style luxury Toyota Camry.
Maybe if Cadillac would stop churning out such "wonders" of automotive design and engineering as the Cadillac Cimarron, Cadillac Catera :lemon: , Cadillac V-8-6-4 tech engines :lemon: , people would have more respect for their nameplate.
You people can say what you want as if you know what you're talking about, cause it seems that many have already voted with their WALLETS, and they're not buying Cadillac.
All Cadillac knows how to build for the most part are "land" ocean liners, certainly not what a driving enthusiast wants. The Cadillac STS seems to be the best attempt at blending these concepts of peformance, style, size, but for some reason not many want the STS.
And I admit, perhaps my thinking is bit biased, but I live on the west coast (left), and apparently we think very differently. The only Cadillac I see on the road is the Cadillac CTS. It USED to sell in droves. It doesn't sell that well out here anymore, hmmmm, I wonder why that is....:\ I know the answer, and you should too.
______________________________
reference text:::::::::::::
As lemko mentioned, these are quite iconic Caddies:
1930-40 Cadillac V-16s
1938-1941 Cadillac Sixty Special
1949 Cadillac Coupe DeVille
1953 Cadillac Eldorado
1957-58 Cadillac Eldorado Brougham
1959 Cadillacs with the big fins
1967-70 Cadillac Eldorado
1971-76 Cadillac Eldorado convertible
1975-79 Cadillac Seville
Just because you're too narrowminded doesn't make Caddy any less of a top level manufacturer.
_______________________
reference text::::::
lemko Apr 16, 2007 (12:48 pm)
Replying to: mediapusher (Apr 16, 2007 11:31 am)
...uh, I can afford a Lexus, BMW, or Mercedes. Cadillac is on my radar bigger than a meteor the size of Texas. I'm not interested in an Escalade or any other SUV regardless of the manufacturer.
One could say that all Cadillac's have been little more than tarted up Chevies, which may be a valid point about the Cadillac's of the 50's and 60's, but I think that they were somewhat better than that. The Escalade is little more than a tarted up Suburban. The CTS, STS and SRX at least do not share a platform with any other GM model.
As one member of the masses, however, I'll have to weigh in with Lemko on this one. Not all of us of the masses who can afford a Lexus, BMW, or Mercedes would buy one over a Cadillac.
________________________
reference text:::::::
mediapusher Apr 16, 2007 (12:58pm)
I'm talking about the masses, not just one person or a few.
I agree with that. I've picked cars very carefully and enjoyed the making of the decision. I might choose the Lucerne model of the Cadillac again, but I certainly can pick whatever I want from the ones listed. I notice doctor's parking lots in hospitals and branch hospitals as well as certain offices (not a random survey) contain a mixture of cars mentioned along with Avalon or two and lots of GM SUVs from Chevs, GMCs, to Cadillacs.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I agree with that. I've picked cars very carefully and enjoyed the making of the decision. I might choose the Lucerne model of the Cadillac again, but I certainly can pick whatever I want from the ones listed. I notice doctor's parking lots in hospitals and branch hospitals as well as certain offices (not a random survey) contain a mixture of cars mentioned along with Avalon or two and lots of GM SUVs from Chevs, GMCs, to Cadillacs.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
A bit???? That's like saying your wife is a BIT pregnant!!
The Catera was not a lemon. People didn't think of an Opel as a Caddy. The V8-6-4 eng was a good idea. Only problem was computers weren't fast enough to keep up with the engine. IT's a technology employed today, and it works fine.
CTS sales are slowing because the body style is old and a HIGHLY regarded replacement is around the corner.
I look forward to that dilemma!
Rocky
Oh my gawd
In response to my earlier posts people see nothing wrong with comparing SUVs to cars. This strikes ME as strange.
How anyone can sit here with a straight face and claim the Cadillac Catera :lemon: wasn't a lemon is preposterous. I'll let you WASTE your money and I'll use mine wisely.
The CTS was a top selling car. It's reliability has always been average. Cadillac is fine with that :sick: . It's not selling because of the reasons you mentioned I agree, yet Cadillac will do nothing to speed up the release schedule for spring or summer. This is NOT good marketing.
And I don't have a wife, so I don't know what you're talking about. I have a husband.
_______________________________
reference text::::::::::::
by cooterbfd Apr 16, 2007 (5:32 pm)
Replying to: mediapusher (Apr 16, 2007 11:31 am)
And I admit, perhaps my thinking is bit biased
A bit???? That's like saying your wife is a BIT pregnant!!
The Catera was not a lemon. People didn't think of an Opel as a Caddy. The V8-6-4 eng was a good idea. Only problem was computers weren't fast enough to keep up with the engine. IT's a technology employed today, and it works fine.
CTS sales are slowing because the body style is old and a HIGHLY regarded replacement is around the corner.
That's not how things are supposed to be done. The car should be ready for market. Management should have a well planned strategy with a pretty good idea that the car is going to sell. Cadillac should have know the Allante wouldn't sell. How many people did they ask in terms of whether they would mind spending $65,000 on a half baked idea for a Cadillac nameplate car that was put together with what seemed like every corner of the world?
I don't think of Escalade when I think of Cadillac, I think of the CTS. It's what Cadillac should have been years ago. The CTS is far to late in arrival to the market. But again, that's my bias. I don't like land barges, and I never have. The new CTS seems to be inching up when it comes to length. This could or could not be a good thing. It certainly worked with the Honda Accord. But the Honda Accord is not a sports sedan/coupe.
Am I the only one that thinks the new CTS looks too Eldorado retroish in the back?
And I have to admit, I'm not the kind of person who buys a car cause a celebrity is driving it. It's too important of a type of purchase for me to buy just based on that. I do my research. Only rich people buy cars like that.
____________________
reference text:::::::
Most people want practicality, reliability and functionality when it comes to a car. Iconic doesn't factor.
I think the first generation Miata is another iconic car and I'd like to have one for the reasons you list (not so functional I suppose, but good on gas for road tripping and that's a required "function" for some of us).
The Escalade is so over the top, or was when it was first adopted by the b-ball players, that I think it could qualify as a genuine icon. Before the bling dubs it had the bling badges. It's what I think of now when people say they drive a Caddy.
To me and many others, GM cars have never had any lasting class or appeal. With their ill fitted body panels, GAPS galore, and other pieces that clearly don't fit, poor craftsmanship, faulty mechanics, no ergonomics whatsoever, pervasive aura of gaucheness, cheap and flimsy quality interiors and materials, etc... Saying GM cars have class is like saying Larry Flynt has class. Like Larry Flynt, GM cars have style, they don't have class. There's a difference.
Your "I remember" intro speaks volumes. What happened 55 years ago has nothing to do with want people want today when it comes to cars. Would you buy a Model-T Ford?? Based on your logic we should all be desiring Model-T Fords.
________________________
I remember when a Pop star, Sports star or Movie star would not feel like they had made it until they had a Caddy Convertible. Not sure if any Japanese car ever had that kind of pop following. What Japanese car will bring at auction as much as the early Cadillacs are bringing. Just a run of the mill 1950s Caddy will bring $30k plus. I would consider that a collectible Icon.
Corolla may be the biggest selling car in the World. When it is worn out they crush and make another one. It is no different than buying a washing machine. No class or lasting appeal.