Is Cadillac's Image Dying and Does Anyone Care?

douglasr · January 2007

...True when it was introduced in 1963, 600 ran up against the last of the Cloud series, and for that matter American luxury cars still used drum brakes. The Big Benz was advanced for its time. But...

Introduced at the Frankfurt Auto Show in 1963 Daimler-Benz built 3 cars for the show to introduce the model. Over its 18 year lifespan 600's were built at an average rate of 148 cars per year, with regular "production" ceasing in 1972, and customer orders filled until its demise in 1981 for a total of 2,677. Mean maximum speed was 130mph for the standard wheelbase model weighing in at 5,748lbs, doing 0-60 mph in 9.7 seconds and 17.3 for the quarter mile. Fuel consumption was rated between 11.2 and 13.3 mpg. Granted its myraid of hydraulic systems to operate many features made the car a unique engineering achievement.

However, Rolls-Royce began its development of the Silver Shadow in its "Burma" and "Tibet" prototypes a decade before the final introduction of the Shadow in late 1965, the formal decision being made in 1954---prior to the development of the 600---by Harry Grylls and John Blatchley. Even V8 Hemi-engines were considered at one point before settling on the design that is still being used today in the Bentley Arnage. Out went the 1920's Birkigt designed Hispano-Suiza licensed inertia braking system. In went the Citroen-licensed hydraulic leveling and four wheel disc braking system with no less than four separate systems to stop the car. With the Shadow, R-R became a modern car in the best sense of the word, surpassing most concurrent automobiles. Production commenced in 1966 and ran through late 1981, almost as long as 600. Not counting coachbuilt models and two door varients (or Bentley versions), the Shadow was the most successful Rolls-Royce ever, with 30,009 produced---an average of 1,768 cars per year.

Concurrent road tests of the original Shadow resulted in lively performance for the 4,660lb sedan. While slower than the 600 off the mark, its 0-60 times at 10.9 seconds, it matched 600 in the quarter mile at 17.6 seconds, with top speed at a mean rated 127mph. Fuel consumption provided a greater range between 12.2 and 15 mpg. My own 1975 RHD British Shadow would return 16 mpg@65mph with 100K on the engine. Thus the two cars were essentially equal in performance, yet the Shadow was far more miserly in the fuel economy department.

In a match up between the two cars one tester wrote: "The Rolls just digs its tail in and runs its nose wide...You soon learn that the only way is to corner fast is to aim for the inside apex getting a lock on good and early, leaving room for minor adjustments..." Admittedly gearing between the two cars favored the 600 in 1966, but that would change as the Shadow was developed in later years, improved with a larger engine and rack & pinion steering, plus radial tuned suspension. Of the 600 the same tester wrote: "With the suspension set hard for best handling the Mercedes has a trace of sports car in its ride and certainly falls short of ultimate luxury..." Both cars were assessed fairly, with faults and niggles brought to light. The Rolls took the crown for its attention to detail and finish, whereas the Benz won appropriate laurels for its handling despite weighing nearly 800 lbs more.

While 600 remained the corporate talismen for more than a decade, it was outshone by the 'skunk-works' developed 300 SEL 6.3 using the same 600 engine stuffed into the 109 bodyshell...that was developed by accident by Rudolf Ulhenhaut and Erich Waxenberger, and introduced in March 1968. THAT was a car that put-paid to many a competitor, once you got past the austere interior of the 300SEL compared to Jaguar, R-R, or numerous other makes. It was two seconds faster off the mark in all catagories, top speed of 134mph plus, attained the same fuel economy as a Shadow and wieghed 1,450lbs less than a 600, and 600 less than a Shadow. THAT car attained a benchmark to which everyone paid attention, (or not!).

However the running costs of a 600 are nothing short of astronomical: $1,600 for a new starter, and $4,500 for a 'rebuilt' fuel injection pump to name two items. Having been "caretaker" of a 1966 300SE Coupe, I became well acquainted with the effect of the prices on parts for 300/600 series Benz...upon my wallet. D-B intended the car to be used by ultra-wealthy people and governments, ergo the average cost per annum to keep the car on the road is about $5-7,000. Rolls-Royce never took that view in its corporate history. It built its cars to be run hard, and every day in remote parts of the world---thus many spares are obtainable at reasonable prices---though granted unique parts do come dear, but nothing approaching the Benz running costs. A good Shadow will cost you less than half what a 600 costs to run.

Neither Cadillac or Lincoln offered the kinds of features found en-masse or in-toto on either the 600 or the Shadow. Although Lincoln was first with disc brakes in 1965, Cadillac followed shortly thereafter. Both companies often tried, but discarded numerous features later found on the European cars, and never put them into production or developed them. (Prototype Lincoln's were built with disc brakes in 1957, Eldorado used air-suspension long before Benz went hydraulic in 1961.) Both Lincoln and Cadillac sported engines of nearly the same displacement at 430/462 & 429/472 CID when the Shadow and 600 were new---allowing both brands to at least match the two cars in acceleration and top speed---its extra cubic inches giving them that edge. yet neither company put a premium on road-holding during the 1960's and 1970's vis a vis its German and British competitors. Driving my Lincoln against the Rolls, I could not keep pace with my friend in the Shadow...with both of us pressing hard...what I gained on the straight, I lost in the turns....the Shadow's hydraulically powered brakes and independent suspension all round left me behind...(I had to buy dinner!)

One reason why Cadillac has decided to enter the fray in recent times....making up for much lost ground. Cadillac, today, is at least in the game and giving a fair challenge to German, Japanese and other European makes. Acceptance of the marque is proved by the fact that Cadillac sold 2,185 cars in Europe in 2005. Lincoln is suffering from its disconnected leadership at the top of Ford Motor, and it will be some time before it rejoins the competative ranks---if it can do so at all. The truth is that American luxury marques as Cadillac and Lincoln have taken a long time to see that performance all 'round indeed can be part of the luxury package. But Rolls-Royce and Mercedes-Benz were there along time ago. At least we have Mr. Lutz to thank for today's Cadillac automobiles.

DouglasR

(Sources: 'Mercedes-Benz V8's', F. Wilson McComb, Motorbooks International, 1980; 'Mercedes-Benz since 1945', James Taylor, Motor Racing Publications, 1985; 'Rolls-Royce & Bentl

snakeweasel · January 2007

Work in their finance department for a while that will enlighten you.

imidazol97 · January 2007

>And sorry to burst your bubble but my Toyota Corolla (2002-03) has been one great car.

I recognize the technique you use.

One car, one datum. I have two GREAT leSabres that have served well; two points, two data. Congratulations on your car's service.

lemko · January 2007

The Catera was an import. It was manufactured in Germany and based on the Opel Omega.

I know what you mean about the Country Squire. My Dad had a 1972 Ford Country Squire. That car rusted with a vengeance and always suffered some mechanical malady. My grandfather's 1974 Chevrolet Impala was infinitely better.

lemko · January 2007

Heck, I have two GREAT Cadillacs and a GREAT Buick Park Avenue.

grbeck · January 2007

snakeweasel: Work in their finance department for a while that will enlighten you.

If you are making the (veiled) accusation that Consumer Reports is taking money from a manufacturer, and allowing this exchange to influence its vehicle test scores and the results of reliability surveys, you need to go to the media immediately.

Given the CBS News and The New York Times scandals over the past 2-3 years, it is safe to say that Consumer Reports is more trusted than those media outlets.

If you - or the friend you repeatedly reference - really has proof to back up these accusations, then this would be one of the biggest stories of the year.

If you have documented proof, then contact the media. You (or your friend) are sitting on one of the biggest stories of the year.

Until then, I'm putting as much faith in your accusations as Bigfoot sightings and stories of alien abductions.

sls002 · January 2007

You have forgotten that the Eldorado Brougham had air suspension. I don't think the Eldorado had the Mercedes handling though.

But your post confirms what I was getting at: the 600 was a flop unless of course the purpose was advertising. The Allante may have been a way for Cadillac to boost itself in the marketplace too.

If the Rolls was such a bad car, why did it out sell the 600 by 20 to 1

sls002 · January 2007

Well you did misrepresent the horsepower rating. The Allante's performance, with a tuned intake manifold on the 4100, with 170 horsepower and 235 lb-ft of torque, must have been much better than the Eldorado's performance with the 130 hp, 200 lb-ft of torque 4100. The peak torque on the Eldorado was at 2200 RPMs vs 3200 RPMs for tha Allante. Cadillac was planning the 4.5 liter engine when the Allante was introduced. I think by 1987 they were just getting the problems with the 4100 fixed.

Your point of view on the Allante seems to be that since it was not designed to out perform the Mercedes SL it was junk. My point of view is that the Allante was designed to be a fuel efficient luxury roadster based on Cadillac's FWD drivetrain. The issue at question here is whether there was a market for it. In the 7 years of production, about 20,000 units were sold. This was a very expensive Cadillac, not unlike the Eldorado Brougham, or the Mercedes 600.

Judged on the basis of what the Allante was, I think that sales were good. It certainly sold better than the much cheaper, and probably less troublesome Reatta. The Allante was not a sports car and was not designed to out perform the Corvette. I did own a 91 Reatta. I also owned an 84 and an 86 Corvette.

xrunner2 · January 2007

The Allante may have been a way for Cadillac to boost itself in the marketplace too.

Recall that Allante was in one comedy TV show of "Married with Children". Shoe salesman Al Bundy's flaky daughter was competing with other young women to be selected as a model to work with an Allante display or commercial. :P

Why did GM/Caddy apparently allow its premier coupe to be used in a silly comedy? Was that a good decision? Did that help Caddy image?

british_rover · January 2007

OH god please just drop the Allante business.

sls002 · January 2007

Consumers Reports collects data for their subscribers from their subscribers. The basic question is whether the data they have is good enough to compare the quality of one make with another. What CR does with the data is to report what problems have been reported for each make. They do some sort of average, so that they make a judgement about above or below average. The basic question is whether there is a comparable sample of each make, or are some makes dominating the sample and the average.

J. D. Powers collects data from all owners of various makes, not just consumer reports subscribers, with the specific intention of comparing one make with another.

xrunner2 · January 2007

On a more relevant note, Cadillac can still muster up in the syle department when it wants to, but substance, uhmmm, I'm still iffy on that subject when it comes to Cadillac. And G.M. seems to disconnected and erratic with the way they do
business.

GM/Caddy went to Italy for Allante body apparently, then put in GM/Caddy parts for engine/susp/etc. Perhaps they could reverse this procedure and take the upcoming CTS body, pretty decently styled, and with agreement with Acura, have Acura engine/susp/brakes/interior. This joint venture would be a win/win for both Caddy and Acura. Buyers would get a very nicely styled CTS with Acura running gear. Also, many Acura fans have been clamoring for a bigger model having RWD to replace the RL model and this would satisfy it.

Mr_Shiftright · January 2007

Well in the 60s and 70s the Rolls had an established market and was resting on laurels from the distant past...and momentum is a very serious factor in marketing (first out of the gate). Rolls demise and sale to the Germans compares to Cadillac's in that sense of momentum "lost"...Cadillac also rested on its laurels and sold some very bad cars in large numbers....until the competition caught up.

So I guess a simplistic way of saying it is that Mercedes saw a plump, slow target in both Rolls and Cadillac and after figuring out how to do it, ate them for breakfast. It just took a few years.

Same with Lexus...they saw an overpriced, rather blase Benz in a market all by itself, (Benz having killed off any potential Lexus competition for them) and figured out how to make a comparable car for a good deal less of an MSRP.

Rolls Royce was kind of an icon, like Harley Davidson. You could capture a buyer, bury him in evidence as to why his car/bike is sub-standard in every respect to another product, as well as grossly overpriced, and then torture them with electric prods, and most of them would still buy their "icon".

Sometimes a product reaches a level of brand equity that defies all logic. You CAN make a substandard product and survive as long as you somehow manage to make money doing it.

Rolls would have continued to make bad cars into eternity if the British government would have been willing to continue subsidizing them.

But somebody in Britain woke up and realized that it was the aviation department of Rolls that was making all the money.

Rolls had a modern car "in theory" but Benz had one in practice. Big diff. Rolls had horrendous problems with their series I Shadows...absolutely horrendous. I'm surprised buyers didn't burn the factory to the ground with that car.

To be fair, later cars were better.

nvbanker · January 2007

The 1982 move to the 4100 greatly improved Cadillac's CAFE (from 18 to 22).

Yes, but it drove their warranty expense up 900% because that engine was total junk, lasting in most cases, just over 20,000 miles before needing a complete replacement engine.

sls002 · January 2007

I have explained the 4100 design problem before, but here is it again. The basic problem had to do with "standardization of parts". When a part is made there is a "tolerance" for the size, so parts that should be 1.000 in size, are allowed to vary from perhaps .999 to 1.001 in size. In any case, the 4100's built with a combination of parts that were both too big and too small resulted in engine failures. I think that the coolant leaked into the oil. engines that were put together with parts that were normal to large were ok, as well as engines with normal to small parts. As I recall about 25% of the 4100s failed. The failures took a while to start showing up, and then it was a while longer before Cadillac realized that too many engines were failing. It also took Cadillac some time to figure out the actual problem. This was reported in the SAE Journal when the problem was sorted out. The handbuilt preproduction test engines most likely did not have this problem.

This is not the sort of problem one would expect the winner of Dewar Trophy for standardization to have.

nvbanker · January 2007

Indeed, and thank you for that info - I missed it last time, and am interested to know that. In my case, I happened to have 3 of them, an 83 in a Fleetwood Brougham, and an 85 in the "new smaller, smarter Fleetwood (no Brougham)", and an 87 Sixty Special. I had to trade the 83 on the 85 because the engine was failing, and I didn't want to have it replaced, so I just traded it. Unfortunately, I had to trade the 85 on the 87 for the same reason. To its credit, the 87 lasted 3 years till I traded it on my last Cadillac, in 1990 on another Fleetwood, which had the 4.9L motor in it that, burned oil like gas. It was like "fill the oil and check the gas please"..... As I said, my last Cadillac, I tried a Lincoln in 92, and never went back. I learned slow, but I learned well, and still have no interest in Cadillac.

That's why I wonder if they ever can regain the "standard" title, even if they deserved it - which I doubt they ever will.

But I'm not bitter.

xrunner2 · January 2007

I have explained the 4100 design problem before, but here is it again. The basic problem had to do with "standardization of parts".

The question should be: Did they know how to properly address manufacturing tolerances and variation to best of their knowledge back in 50's, 60's and thus build engines without problems back then? Did the GM corporation know best practices and procedures on variation throughout 70's and 80's of what they had previously learned? If so, what happened in 1982 on that 4100 design?

Think that Japanese manufacturers embraced American statistical/quality experts such as Deming and Juran after WWII to continuously work on reducing variation in manufacturing and other processes. American car companies finally discovered Deming/Juran in mid to late 80's and are still working to catch up to Japan.

sls002 · January 2007

The 4100 had an aluminum block. GM had problems with previous aluminum engines. I suspect that the aluminum was part of the problem, not that it should have been. But I also think that the 4100 was really designed for the FWD 1984 models, and was put into production early because the 1981 8-6-4 did not meet Cadillac's expectation for fuel consumption at the EPA testing grounds. Cadillac had expected a much better highway rating I think.

nvbanker · January 2007

Very plausible explanation, and clearly, the V-864 not only disappointed in mileage, but also in reliability. The new DOD engines don't do much better in mileage except in perfect conditions, however, they are bound to be more reliable.

sls002 · January 2007

The DOD engines require a certain style of driving to get good results. The PBS show, Motorweek, did a comparison of two Chrysler 300C's with two different drivers, one driving for fuel efficiency, the other hot rodding through traffic. The hotrodder got about 17 where the other driver got 24.

My question is: would the 300C with a nice 4.5 liter engine get better mileage and still have decent performance?

lemko · January 2007

Either I'm fierociously lucky or doing something right where everybody else is doing wrong. I had a 1994 Cadillac DeVille with the 4.9 litre V-8. It was only rated at 200hp, but the car seemed really fast. It could do 100mph with no effort and would often get away from me on the PA Turnpike if I wasn't paying attention as the ride was so smooth and the engine so quiet. I had absolutely no trouble with the 4.9 engine - no oil burning or leaks and no cooling problems. I could pound railroad spikes all day with that engine and it would keep running.

nvbanker · January 2007

Two things, lemko - one, you buy the right year Caddy, so you maybe are lucky there. The other is, you have the right mindset about your machine, so you are pleased with it pretty much no matter what. That's how I am with Fords generally, although I've had some turkeys over the years. I used to be that way with Cadillacs, but eventually got put off with them. I think I bought them all in the worst years, probably. Starting in 83 was not at their finest moment.

sls002 · January 2007

In the 1980's and 1990's I owned Buicks with the 3800, so I have no first hand experience with Cadillac engines. The 4.9 had 275 lb-ft of torque, which is very close to the northstars 300 lb-ft rating. So performance should be good.

I just figured out where my 1986 info on the Riveria/Toronado was. Anyway, the 86 BMW 635CSi ($41,000) would do 0-60 in 10.5 seconds, while the 3800 Buick/Olds's would do it 11.1 seconds. The Allante was about 10.3 seconds. If the BMW was an indicator of good performance, then in the late 80's a 0-60 time of 10 seconds is not bad.

imidazol97 · January 2007

>They do some sort of average, so that they make a judgement about above or below average.

Exactly right. And the word "judgement" in there is where they end up adding their own opinions and preferences.

grbeck · January 2007

The original suggestion - or accusation may be a better word - was that Consumer Reports is allowing some sort of financial support to influence its vehicle rankings and reliability results. That is how I read the original post.

That is a far more serious accusation than saying that their survey results are not accurate because of a limited responder base, or even the built-in bias of the staff at Consumer Reports.

If this is true, it is a huge story, given the influence that Consumer Reports wields over vehicle buyers, and the attention their annual auto issues receives when it debuts with its reliability survey results.

fintail · January 2007

I wonder if CR is being paid to make some cars look good, or to make some look bad. Or both?

It's a conspiracy!

sls002 · January 2007

Consumer reports have always maintained that they don't have advertising so that they are immune to advertizer influences. If they are taking money under the table to report bogus results that would be another matter. I doubt that they do this. They sort of accuse the other car magazines, like Motor Trend, of doing this to make one or another car the Car of the Year, by taking advertizing dollars.

I do think that if one is looking for a used car, looking through back issues of Consumer Reports might be useful in deciding what years to avoid, or possibly what might be a good one to buy. One needs to look through several issues to really see a trend though, and sometimes there really isn't one.

plekto · January 2007

As you see it? Then you must have cataracts. How do you explain the instant phenomenal success that Toyota has had with their Scion line? It's because Toyota does their homework and doesn't dump their products on the public to test them.
****
You do realize that almost everything we gt over here in the U.S. is a generation old? In Japan, Toyota and Honda have just as many reliability problems as GM and Ford do - and they're not seen as special at all - just average.

We just get them over here after the problems have been worked out. So first generation "imports" are closer to second generation domestics.

That said, the CTS will be a good entry. Bugs worked out, good interior, and yeah, it's no Porsche, but it's also no Camry, either.(and don't even get me started on Totoya's bonehead move to ditch the manual in the IS350)

lemko · January 2007

Wow! Great observation. Heck, Toyota probably has the Yakuza put a hit out on anybody who complains. Maybe the domestic automakers should introduce new car models to consumers in the old Soviet bloc. When they're a generation old, they can introduce them to the American market after all the bugs have been discovered and eliminated.

sls002 · January 2007

At one time at least, before the Japanese had a lot of factories here, I think that new models were put into production for the home market first, and brought here after the problems were sorted out.

plekto · January 2007

And it still happens. Note the Fit and the Prius. The first versions were already on sale in Japan for several years before they came over here.

Even now, there's a 1-3 year lag time for most manfacturers. It's not much, but it does spare us most of the glitches. And makes them look artificially good(which is admittedly part of their plan)

GM and Ford - they could do the same. Just sell us the European models, which are pretty much debugged after a few years - and often better than what they sell in the U.S.

snakeweasel · January 2007

If you are making the (veiled) accusation

Just saying that the subscription charged barely covers the cost of printing and mailing their magazine, if it even covers that. Now where do they get the gobs of cash to pay their staff and buy everything they test?

If you have documented proof,

Tell you what, come on over and we can have a few beers with a friend of mine and you two can talk CR. I'll tell you what to say to get him going.

louiswei · January 2007

Okay, besides Fit and Prius what other evidences do you have?

As matter of fact, many of the Japanese models are designed right here in the states and are exclusive for US market only.

mediapusher · January 2007

That's all fine and dandy, but the fact remains for many that buying a car made by General Motors is a wild card chance that it will perform as expected or promised especially in terms of reliability.
________________________________________

imidazol97 wrote ----
Heck, I have two GREAT Cadillacs and a GREAT Buick Park Avenue.

mediapusher · January 2007

How could Cadillac/G.M. be so stupid as to not put the Northstar engine in the Cadillac Allante. And they wanted $60,000 for it? (ROFLMAO)

mediapusher · January 2007

The Cadillac Catera was G.M.'s gleaming example of being able to mess a good thing up. It suffered the same fate as the Cadillac Allante. When the Allante became defunct after only 6 years or so, it had become a decent car, the same can be said for the German Opel Omega, which was rebadged into the Cadillac Catera for the U.S.A.

They must have done much more than just rebadge it, cause I'm tellin' ya, the Cadillac Catera was a stinker

How does Cadillac expect to become the "standard of the world" when in the recent past they produce nonsense like the Cadillac Catera. And keep in mind most people know, unless they are brain dead that that Cadillac also means General Motors, so it in turn also makes not just the Cadillac brand look bad, it makes the corporation look bad too.
_________________________________________________

The Catera was an import. It was manufactured in Germany and based on the Opel Omega.

I know what you mean about the Country Squire. My Dad had a 1972 Ford Country Squire. That car rusted with a vengeance and always suffered some mechanical malady. My grandfather's 1974 Chevrolet Impala was infinitely better.

mediapusher · January 2007

Old age tends to do this to some people. They get very set in their ways and don't like change

62vetteefp · January 2007

The only slang term I hear Cadillacs being called is "Caddy"

How about "Slade"?

snakeweasel · January 2007

grbeck · January 2007

snakeweasel: Just saying that the subscription charged barely covers the cost of printing and mailing their magazine, if it even covers that. Now where do they get the gobs of cash to pay their staff and buy everything they test?

I've heard that they receive donations...now, if the allegations are that the donations are from Japanese manufacturers, and that these donations influence both their tests and reliability results, then that is a HUGE story.

One that is far too big to merely be bandied about on Edmunds.com.

snakeweasel: Tell you what, come on over and we can have a few beers with a friend of mine and you two can talk CR. I'll tell you what to say to get him going.

He shouldn't waste his time on me. As I said, if true, this would be one of the hottest stories of 2007. And I'm not saying that to be facetious. He needs to gather his evidence and take it to a major paper. (What is the big newspaper in Chicago? Doesn't Jim Majeta - I believe that is the correct spelling - write a regular automotive column for that paper? He would be perfect to break this type of story.)

Given the faith that not only consumers, but major media outlets and the automakers, place in Consumer Reports test results and reliability surveys, this would be front-page news across the country.

imidazol97 · January 2007

>Old age tends to do this to some people. They get very set in their ways and don't like change

That's certainly stereotyping a whole group of people in a negative way.

Does that fit Rules of the Road?

mediapusher · January 2007

You're joking right? It looks like a BATMOBILE

gsemike · January 2007

I'm a GM basher and this beating up on the Allante is getting old even for me. That car is ancient history and there have been plenty of other cars to bash since then.

mediapusher · January 2007

I said SOME people, not ALL
_________________________________
Old age tends to do this to some people. They get very set in their ways and don't like change

That's certainly stereotyping a whole group of people in a negative way.

imidazol97 · January 2007

Sorry, don't buy the excuse. "Some" is meaning the older part of the total population of people.

imidazol97 · January 2007

>imidazol97 wrote ----
Heck, I have two GREAT Cadillacs and a GREAT Buick Park Avenue.

Hey. I don't have two Cadillacs and one Buick. I think someone got their links mixed up. First sign of old age, my older friends tell me.

You might mean our friend Lemko. I have two great, comfortable Buicks that will whip around corners as much as I need them to do.

mediapusher · January 2007

The beating up of the Allante shouldn't get "OLD" to you because it just goes to show you how scatterbrained General Motors is. The mistakes of the Cadillac Allante can still be seen recently. And blunders such as the Allante burn deep into people's psyches ---- something General Motors and its fans don't want to acknowlege.

The most recent examples are the Cadillac Catera and the way they degraded an Australian import --> Holden (the ill fated and now defunct Pontiac GTO) How long did the Pontiac GTO last before they scrarpped it, 1 year? Holden brand cars in Australia last for years and years and sell like hotcakes, but General Motors managed to turn it into lead like many things they touch, when it comes to cars. The American Holden (Pontiac GTO) probably didn't sell because it was marketed totally wrong

Mr_Shiftright · January 2007

The topic really is about what GM can do to make Cadillac "the best" or "one of the best" again.

We've already beaten the dead horse about "don't make bad cars anymore", haven't we?

HOw 'bout someone suggests a whole new line up for 2010? What more successful makes or models should Cadillac try to mirror? Should they go upscale, downscale, all across the board? Should they give up something they are making now?

mediapusher · January 2007

You're correct, however you're also forgetting that they also get money from direct marketing on TV and through mail order efforts of their CR magazine and other books and magazines that they publish--
----mediapusher
__________________________________________
grbeck wrote:

I've heard that they receive donations...now, if the allegations are that the donations are from Japanese manufacturers, and that these donations influence both their tests and reliability results, then that is a HUGE story.

laurasdada · January 2007

The GTO actually got pretty good reviews, especially (if I recall correctly) for the interior (a GM interior!) and, of course, performance. What probably really hurt was the (lack of) styling (and maybe the price?). Look at a Mustang. Now look at the GTO...

You could be right re: marketing. I'm not sure that I can actually recall any marketing/advertising of note for the "New Goat."

Is Cadillac's Image Dying and Does Anyone Care?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles