Is Cadillac's Image Dying and Does Anyone Care?

louiswei · March 2007

V6 cheapens a car??!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.

lemko, you really need to join the 21st century man...

Any high performance 6 banger like the Toyota 2GR, Nissan VQ, GM 3.6HF, Honda 3.5, BMW twin-turbo-6 does NOT cheapen the car in anyway. They only make the old V8 pushrod looks like a POS. In this day and age, any V8 that puts out less than 300 HP should be put in a museum up for exhibit and I meant a history museum.

I don't remember what you drive exactly but I am sure it has a V8 in there. However, I'll be willing to bet that many cars out there with those high performance V6s will have no trouble smoking your pushrod V8 Caddy (or Buick) without any sweat. And that's including the Camry, Accord, Altima and the 08' V6 STS :surprise: .

gagrice · March 2007

That's fine, but there is just one problem... Escalades, Yukons and Tahoes are not cars, they're trucks.

And, what's your point?

Many of us old dudes like the ease of entry and exit of the large SUVs. From where I am many young people also like the large SUVs. I'll be danged if I am going on a long trip cramped into a little car. If my wife liked the looks of the Escalade it would be in my garage right now. She is leaning toward the smaller GL320 CDI, whenever CARB gives the go ahead for diesel.

You seem to want to ignore the facts. The Escalade is one of the main reasons that Cadillac is doing so well. Even with $3 gas the Escalade sales are 15% higher than last year this time.

Is Cadillac the standard of the World. Not in my opinion. I don't see any brand as that. I would imagine that Mercedes as a brand comes the closest the World over.

lemko · March 2007

Uh...my current car is a 2002 Cadillac Seville STS with a DOHC 32-valve Northstar V-8.

louiswei · March 2007

Oh, my bad. Forgot that the Northstar is DOHC. I was thinking about the Hemi at that time.

bumpy · March 2007

Many of us old dudes like the ease of entry and exit of the large SUVs.

Ease? It seems to me the ideal seat height for entry and exit is about six inches below the hip, while the Escalade is well above that which would require some rather tricky climbing to get in and out of.

sls002 · March 2007

While the 3.5 DOHC V6's have quite decent horsepower ratings, their peak torque is about 270 ft-lbs. The northstar V8 has about 300 ft-lbs, and the VVT northstar is 315 ft-lbs, with a low end torque of about 260 ft-lbs from about 1500 RPMs.
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2007/HPT%20Library/Premium- %20V/2007_46L_LH2_STS.pdf

I will have to agree with lemko that the base V6 STS is a bit plain compared with the old FWD STS which had a lot of wood trim. The styling of the new STS's interior leaves a bit to be desired too, I think. The car magazines have all said that the performance STS, priced over $60,000, does not have a good enough interior in comparison with BMW or Audi or Mercedes models in that price range.

Mr_Shiftright · March 2007

Well personal anecdotes aside (we can all offer exceptions to any rule ever made), it's in the history books that the Japanese auto industry rolled right over Detroit, and Detroit didn't put up much of a fight until the last ten years.

I'm not sure if it was the staggering blow itself that knocked Detroit into mindless inaction, or the hubris of Detroit that presumed that Japan and Europe just got "lucky", but whatever the case, the American auto industry got slaughtered in the 1980s by superior products and superior reliability.

Once you've been knocked off your horse in the middle of a pretty fast and furious race, it's very difficult to hop back on and catch up. Even IF your horse is now racing at a faster pace than the leader, it's still half a track behind and isn't going to win.

I think it was Vince Lombardi who said "we didn't lose the game...we just ran out of time".

I wonder if this will apply to Detroit or not.

I come from an American auto family (they worked for Packard Motor Car Co) so my loyalties run deep, but if I were forced to bet my life savings on one random new car taken off a showroom floor, as being trouble-free for 100K miles, I would not bet on a Detroit car over a Japanese one. I could lose the bet, but I think the odds are still with me. My two cents....

sls002 · March 2007

Both Japanese and European auto makers were building smaller, more fuel efficent cars in the 1980's. They were also using fuel injection and for a time the OHC with multi-valve engines seemed to be the optimum solution for emission standards. Detroit was way behind on putting any of this into production. GM had developed electronic fuel injection (the first Seville in the late 70's), but this was analog fuel injection and the digital micro-processor was seem by GM as the solution to both fuel economy and emissions, so the analog fuel injection was not put into production. Digital fuel injection was put into production on the 1980 Cadillacs, and phased in over the 80's as various models were re-engineered.

Body design was set aside in the late 70's and 80's while fuel consumption and emissions were worked on. GM did develop the large FWD platform, but the basic body design was not greatly improved until the G-body/platform of the mid-90's was put into production.

While GM was working on those things, the Lexus was introduced in the late 80's, with a mercedes like body structure, RWD and a very nice interior. Pricing was low ball to get customers into the showroom and the cars off the dealer's lot.

Mr_Shiftright · March 2007

It seems like Japan and Europe were always one step ahead, and it seems like they still are. Detroit is always rolling out last year's ideas (with a few exceptions, like Magna-ride).

Detroit's strong card is still VALUE--you can get a lot more car for your money---but whether that car actually works or not all the time is still a problem.

When it comes to first year models, I have to say in Detroit's defense that I wouldn't buy a first year European car either---but I would buy a first year Japanese model.

imidazol97 · March 2007

>Pricing was low ball

Do you mean less than the real cost should have been? As in dumping?

That practice was used heavily in the past by Japan to undercut and open markets in US. REmember the surcharge, tariff, on cars-was that Jimmy Carter's era?

sls002 · March 2007

European's have had expensive fuel, so in terms of fuel consumption they have been ahead, but Mercedes was working on the safety cage body structure in the 60's (if not before), so body design was well ahead of Detroit.

I have owned a number of Buicks over the years and have very few problems. However, I do get interested in something new after 3 to 5 years of owning a car, so usually I only keep them for 60 to 80 thousand miles.

My brother has a recent Honda with a 4 cylinder engine. The engine has needed a $3000 overhaul because of some inherent design fault, not covered by warranty (expired). So, Japanese models may be quite good, but they are not bullet proof either.

sls002 · March 2007

Let us say the the Lexus LS priced at about $40,000 probably cost about $39,000 to build and ship to the US. I don't know this for sure, but I think they were selling at or even below cost to make a market in the US. The current LS is probably profitable, although I think that the real money maker for Lexus is the overpriced ES model, based on the Camry platform.

imidazol97 · March 2007

Someone posted that fuel injection was used by the small foreign cars. Didn't Honda use carbs into the 90s? I can't recall if my friend's 95 Civic had a carb or not when it wouldn't start several different times.

I do know the motor was under 100K and used some oil. I marveled at the size of the motor. Small. But it hauled the car and 4 adults and luggage to Toledo to Maine and back before the dumped it due to rust, headliner falling down repeatedly, not starting sometimes, deteriorating paint in areas like bumpers. She accepted the warts as just normal maintenance concepts.

bumpy · March 2007

The engine has needed a $3000 overhaul because of some inherent design fault, not covered by warranty (expired).

Which one was that?

sls002 · March 2007

I know that European engines had fuel injection, I am not sure about the Japanese engines. I do know that there was a lot of designs to meet emission standards, some better than others.

sls002 · March 2007

He has a CR-V. The problem was the head and possibly camshaft. Not quite sure what went wrong, but a common problem with that engine, or so my brother was told by the dealer (who should know).

Someone I know with a 99 Deville also had a problem (coolant leak that was allowed to go too long) that required a new engine at a cost of $5000. This was partly covered by an extended warranty and Cadillac cover some of the cost, so the owner was not left with too much of the total cost.

bumpy · March 2007

I can't recall if my friend's 95 Civic had a carb or not...

Not on a '95.

Mr_Shiftright · March 2007

First full production European fuel injection was in 1955, Mercedes---and it worked very well.

First "cheapo" European car with fuel injection was 1968 VW.

DUMPING: Oh I think Lexus definitely dumped the LS400 on the market. It was easily $10,000 less than a Mercedes and a better car, too. No wonder they took the luxury market by storm. Only glitch I remember about the car was inferior leather.

In the 80s, the slogan among auto journalists was: "when the US government tightens emissions standards, the Japanese call their engineers and Detroit calls their attorneys".

gagrice · March 2007

Actually the leather in my wife's 1990 LS400 is still pretty decent. It is always garaged and rarely sits in the sun. She did have issues with handling when the car was new. Almost told Lexus to take it back. She was used to her Mercedes handling. They did some changes and she liked it. It is better looking than any of the new Lexus. The Lexus SC400 from the early 1990s may be one of the best looking cars ever. The new SC is grotesque. May be why folks are headed back to Cadillac for some nice styling.

sls002 · March 2007

Mechanical fuel injection and electronic fuel injection are two different things. GM had mechanical fuel injection as an option on the Corvette for a period of time too. Modern electronic fuel injection in the 70's used an analog computer (at one time I learned how to program analog computers). Analog computer controled fuel injection would need "tuning" at periodic intervals to keep it operating best. Digital computers can tune themselves to keep the electronic fuel injection at optimum operation, until they need a new sensor, which can usually be flagged (check engine light on).

Mr_Shiftright · March 2007

Problem was that early GM fuel injection was very problematic, hence did not become popular. You could even get it in 1958 on Pontiacs! (worth a lot of money, a fuelie Bonneville convertible).

To me, being "first" means having something that really works, and that is fully developed. I'd give VW credit as the "first" with practical electronic fuel injection that actually worked in mass production.

I think the early Lexi had trouble with the steering, that is true....something with the steering boxes or racks.

Lexus still doesn't steer and handle like a Mercedes, 17 years later!

sls002 · March 2007

In the early 60's GM developed a new automatic transmission to replace the old 4-speed hydramatic and the Buick dynaflow (or turbine) transmissions. The hydramatic was actually a fuel efficient transmission, with a partial lock up of the fluid coupling. The new transmission was modern with 3 speeds and a torque converter, but the torque converter would slip at cruising speeds. What GM might have done is develop a 4 speed automatic with a locked up torque converter in the higher gears. This would have done two things: 1) it would have been more efficient; 2) with four speeds the need for 450-500 cubic inch engines would have been reduced.

They might have developed better bodies too, but the 4-door hardtop was stylish, if unsafe at any speed.

sls002 · March 2007

I think VW was first, at least I am sure that the Europeans had the first electronic fuel injection. I know that the fuel injection that GM had in the late 50's was troublesome and only available as a performance option.

The Lexus is still cheaper than a Mercedes though.

bumpy · March 2007

Should Cadillac sell a sub-CTS RWD sedan in the US? There's no question that they need to develop one, if only to have something to sell in Europe and Asia.

sls002 · March 2007

is to make a good 3 speed automatic (the turbohydramatic). Then then made bigger and bigger engines and reduced the axle ratios from about 3.23:1 to 2.73:1 in hopes of getting better fuel economy while maintaining performance. The problem is that torque converters need to spin at higher speeds to be efficient fluid couplings.

GM did not get serious about body design until the mid-90's when they developed the G-body for the 1995 Aurora and Riviera. GM in Europe and Australia are exceptions I think.

sls002 · March 2007

If I understand Cadillac's plans, the BLS will become the lowend Cadillac on a FWD epsilion II platform. My opinion is that GM might just as well eliminate both Buick and Pontiac when they introduce this lowend Cadillac. I am assuming that Chevy can sell something cheaper than the BLS, so they might remain in production.

rayainsw · March 2007

"That report doesn't prove anything. It's just more delusional public relations spinning from General Motors. They did the same thing in January 2007 with their Chevrolet Volt Electric Concept Car, which they don't and sadly engough never did intend on bringing to production.

---mediapusher"

= = =

Um.
I do not see how this announcement ( the changes actually being made to the actual production Caddy STSs for 2008  to begin production and to be available by mid-summer ) is in any way the same thing as the Chevrolet Volt Electric Concept Car. This is a list of Model Year changes to an existing Caddy model line.

Anyway  my point ( sometimes I do not have time to write much in posts I make during work hours, but wanted to note here the announcement of the official changes to the STS line ) was rather that these [[ actual ]] changes, though I see them as generally positive, do not impress me as the moves Caddy needs to make to significantly enhance their brand image.

Perhaps I need to preface this here with the fact that I currently drive ( and I am overall very happy with ) a GM vehicle. Approaching 7,000 miles on a 2007 Corvette Coupe  with no quality-related issues. So far, so good. And I did very seriously consider purchase of a Caddy a while back  an STS V8.

Regardless of whether or not we can agree on a definition of SOW, the issue of whether or not Caddy can elevate the brand image & be perceived by enough potential customers as a viable alternative to BMW, Lexus, Audi, ( et al ) is what I wonder. And whether or not the Caddy sales volume can increased - by enough??

Last month, I note that STS & CTS inventories were both at well over 100 days.
(Automakers typically consider a 60 Day Supply to be ideal. )

The announced enhancements strike me as too little, too late. And the V8 version ( pricing issues aside ) soldiers on with the 320 HP version of the Northstar  still. To impress ME with changes to the STS, well: Add 40 or 50 HP to THAT V8 motor, and Id be much more impressed.

I drove a couple of STS V8s. They were & are nice cars  to me. In late 2004, when initially introduced, they were OK  though if Id bought a sedan in that price class, at that time, it would have been an M45 Sport.

I see the STS-v as a nice car  and again I do respect GM & Caddys commitment to the R&D and bringing a true RWD Sport Sedan to market - but IMHO, the v is horribly overpriced.
And no MagRide  standard or even available on the -v?
That was one technology I found attractive, in my STS test drives.
I drove an STS-v before buying my 2007 Corvette. With better low end TQ and a trans. that worked more like the ( very similar ) 6 speed automatic in the Corvette - regarding manumatic shifting, I might have been sorely tempted.

I see the XLR-v ( at $100K MSRP ) as misguided in a couple of respects. And in no way do I see it as worth essentially twice what my reasonably well equipped Corvette cost. And it appears not to have accomplished any perceptible enhancement to the Caddy brand image.

Continued . . .

rayainsw · March 2007

Pricing

And unless Caddy becomes very aggressive on pricing, I see no OTHER compelling reason to choose a Caddy over most other competing sedans.

Aggressive pricing, to me, in this context, means not just dropping the MSRP on the STS. Though I think that would be a positive step. Additionally: A substantial revamp of the option & package bundling would also potentially help here. I would have been MUCH more likely to purchase an STS V8, if I could equip one with ONLY the options I actually want and I am willing to pay for.

Last I knew, one could ( for example ) select a fairly comprehensive Sport Package on a BMW 3 or 5  without selecting any other option(s) or package(s).

Yet the original QAF Performance Handling Package was only available on the 1SG ( highest option package on an STS V8 )  that starts at over $60K.

The PCZ Performance Handling Package for 2007 ( added Brembo brakes = good ) is also only available on the 1SG.

At $51.6K for a 1SE, adding $2,000 ( my estimate here, based on current $1,600 on a 1SG with larger wheels & tires ) for the tire & wheel & brake upgrade ( only ) would create a pretty complete, V8 Sport Sedan. With a Caddy level of luxury  since the 1SE is reasonably well equipped. At MSRP $53.6K.

Id also want to be able to order the LSD ( now \ still only available as part of that 1SG ) that others often price separately at $500 - $1,000.

I just think that ** IF ** Caddy does want to compete in attracting buyers interested in Sport Sedans ( as currently defined by BMW ), then a 300+ HP \ TQ V8 Sport Sedan available for $50K or a bit less MIGHT attract some attention & some publicity. And ** IF ** Caddy wants to develop credibility in this segment, they need to sell a bunch of cars equipped as Serious Sport Sedans. And not ( only ) as Luxury Sedans  and ( OBTW ) if you insist and if you buy every other luxury bit we can think of, we WILL sell you one with a Sport Suspension & Brakes  if you insist. But well have to order than for you, Sir. No, Sir, we dont keep anything like that in our inventory for test drives. . . But our STS-v is very Sporty, Sir  and only (?) $75K.

( sigh )

Well see.

I do see a Caddy Sedan with V8, the 6L80 six speed automatic and true sporting intentions

( vs. the CTS-v, a materially different sort of sedan  rather narrowly focused and available now, still only with that 6.0L V8 and only with a manual trans.  and essentially NO OPTIONS )

and available at an MSRP \ actual transaction price near or below $50K as having real potential to move the brand forward.

** IF ** that is & continues to be the direction Caddy chooses to move. The CTS-v and the STS-v and the XLR-v suggest that they are serious about spending money on the Sporty Side.

In fact, I do see the CTS-v as something Caddy ought to be able to build upon, in the Serious Sporting Sedan Segment. ( SSSS ??? )

Again, Well see.

In this context, I see the improvements to the V6 STS as worthwhile  but leaving the V8 essentially untouched does not impress me.

- Ray
Not a potential Caddy buyer  today.

imidazol97 · March 2007

Those are the cars where they set up wine glasses stacked stem on lip to make a triangle and then drove the car? were they on the hood? or inside? I'll bet it's on Utube. Everything else is. That and the ball bearings rolling along the body panel openings which were perfect.

sls002 · March 2007

I think perhaps that the cost of options available only on the 1SG trim are partially included in the base cost of the 1SG trim. I am not sure what features you don't want, but if it is the audio/nav system that is standard with the performance trims, then that is about $2000. My guess is that if the packages were done to suit you, your price tag would run about $58,000. The options you want would be more.

andres3 · March 2007

Thats news to me!

Mr_Shiftright · March 2007

GM could have easily stolen it from Packard, who introduced lock up converters in 1955 models, along with electronically shifted automatics and active suspension (well, self-leveling, not dynamically active).

Of course hindsight is always 20-20, but it seems that in the 1960s there were all these ripe fruits ready for the pickin'---well developed technology, but GM chose to stick with tried and true.

Welcome to the Global Automotive Industy...any company sitting on its fat butt right now is in danger of being dealt a nasty surprise. There's no resting on laurels anymore, like Rolls, Cadillac or Mercedes did.

Again, a great example of how competition would have improved the breed.

sls002 · March 2007

It is easy to look back and say what should have been done. I do think before World War Two, Packard was probably more of an up market car than Cadillac, more "Standard of the World".

I think that GM's hydramatic somehow routed some of the engine's torque "around" the fluid coupling. I do not understand how this works, but a transmission book (history) that I have looked at indicated that this was done. I do know that the Cadillacs up through the 1963 model year were more fuel efficient than those beginning with the new turbohydramatic in model year 1964.

rayainsw · March 2007

I think perhaps that the cost of options available only on the 1SG trim are partially included in the base cost of the 1SG trim.

Meaning what? Looking only at the suspension, for example:

BMW 530i from their web site:

Sport Package

Sport suspension calibration
Active Roll Stabilization(ARS)
18x 8.0 Star Spoke (Styling 123) alloy wheels, 245/40R-18 performance run-flat tires*
Shadowline exterior trim
20-way power multi-contour front seats (includes articulated upper backrest, 4-way lumbar support, passengers-seat memory, and active head restraints with adjustable side and thigh support)**
3-spoke leather-wrapped multi-function sport steering wheel with controls for audio system, cruise control, and Bluetooth wireless communication for hands-free mobile phone***

$2,800  and available no matter what else is or is not ordered. But as shown, this includes a substantial upgrade to the front seats. Not a bad idea to include additionally bolstered seats  but in my pricing for the STS, I am only adding the wheels, tires & brakes to a 1SE.

[[ Caddy could certainly add the front seat cooling as a separate option & Id be very appreciative. ]]

Anyway, I see nothing in the 1SG trim that would effect the cost of substituting wider wheels & tires and upgrading the brakes. What am I missing?

And yes, Id basically want to cherry pick options, when there is no true & real dependency between them. Sure, offer me a package of popular options, at a discount. Offer me 3 at the price of 4. Fine. But what I am really asking here is that GM \ Caddy NOT force me to buy ( for example ) an upgraded stereo and a DVD NAV system in order to upgrade the wheels, tires & brakes. And add the LSD.

Makes no sense to me. They are in no way interdependent, from any standpoint  except marketing. The current Caddy STS option packaging on the V8 ( my personal focus ) strikes me as a basically good idea run seriously amuck.

Last year, for example, Caddy DID separate out the sunroof from all packages. You may now have or have not a hole in your roof, regardless of package or trim level. Why not extend that thinking to other options?

Just my ideas . . .
And rhetorical questions.

- Ray
Again, at one point, a very serious potential STS buyer . . .

rayainsw · March 2007

And my recent reading indicates that BMW has confirmed they will be building something much like the mythical $50K Caddy Sport Sedan I described above for 2008. The 535i.

This will have a 300+ HP \ TQ motor  though a 3.0L TT straight six. And though rated at 300 \ 300, seems from many reports here & elsewhere to be even more under-rated than most BMW motors. And with a 530i now starting at $47.xK, I expect that will mean the 535i will start right at $50K + Dest. & Handling & Dealer Prep. And just over $53K for a 535i with their Sport Package  and no other options or packages. [[ What I have read on other forums corroborates this pricing. ]]

And with a pretty competent ( and sporty ) suspension as standard, for that $50K base price.

Again, I am only suggesting that BMW is widely considered to be the Gold Standard from a performance standpoint in the Sedan realm. And if Caddy seriously wants to compete, they need to offer something to go head-to-head against the 535i for 2008. And I dont see anything on the horizon to suggest that the STS will offer such a package.

And I guess I am sentimental ( or stupid ) enough to be disappointed by that. After all Caddy has done, they still dont have something to compete with the most obvious RWD Sport Sedan competitor. And no, at 296 HP but only 268 TQ, I do not expect that the STS V6 will be able to post competitive acceleration numbers. It may prove to be a lovely motor  but wont provide the acceleration in the STS that would make it comparable to the 535i.

The 335i with automatic has posted 13.6 @ 104 in Automobile magazine testing. Based on the weights, Id expect the 535i to be 13.8 or 13.9 at over 100.

I have not seen the new STS 2008 Order Guide, so Caddy could still surprise me  but I remain skeptical.

- Ray
Not a born skeptic  but developed over many years . . .

mediapusher · March 2007

A V8 isn't necessary unless you're going to be towing motor homes, etc. A nicely built V6 is fine. Also, it matters what size the cylinders are

mediapusher · March 2007

Talk about bias! DUMPING?? Excuse me, but why shouldn't a a car manufacturer be allowed to sell a car for whatever the hell they want? Do you accuse Coca-Cola of "DUMPING" their products. After all their cola sodas may cost less than PEPSI's.. Puhleeeez.

At the time the Lexus LS400 was introuced, Cadillacs trying to compete with it were an ABSOLUTE JOKE.

mediapusher · March 2007

A Lexus doesn't have to steer like a Mercedes. They do just fine, and actually thrive steering as Lexus. Many people don't like the BANK VAULT feel of Mercedes cars.

mediapusher · March 2007

My point is, shouldn't GM worry about the fact they can't compete effectively when it comes to selling cars in the U.S.A.? Or are they competing just fine and I'm deluded.

If they were competing just fine we wouldn't be having this "Standard of the World" discussion.

gagrice · March 2007

You have to decide if you are deluded. I am saying it was not their cars that brought them from the brink of extinction. It was the ESCALADE. You may want them to have great cars. I have no idea if they do, nor could care less. At this time in my life I would doubt that I would buy another car. Just don't like the direction most cars have gone. If I want sporty I will buy Carrera. I agree with those on this thread that are not believing that any company is the standard of the World. That brand does not exist.

As far as GM (another thread). I think they should use their extensive manufacturing in China to make cars. Lots of cheap cars. It is obvious that is what the bulk of Americans want and buy. I doubt it will take China as long as it did Japan to build a quality car for the masses.

snakeweasel · March 2007

Yes, snakeweasel, based on your personal experience, if I was you I wouldn't buy a Toyota either. However, that's not the case for many others.

Might I add engine sludge?

By the way, what's the warranty on that?

IIRC 4 years/50k miles

I would feel insecure to keep it around much longer after the warranty (powertrain) expired.

Oh I don't know, that 5.7 liter engine and 6 speed manual is pretty good, It should give me plenty of miles after the warranty expires.

Why's she still keeping that Toyota anyway since it's in the shop almost every other month.

Because she is a true believer that will think that Toyotas are perfect regardless of their experience. She is not the only one I have met with that perception.

snakeweasel · March 2007

Not sure if they actually did some dumping but it is illegal to do so.

bumpy · March 2007

shouldn't GM worry about the fact they can't compete effectively when it comes to selling cars in the U.S.A.?

I'm thinking they don't care but so much. They are seeking their fortune in more inviting climes.

bumpy · March 2007

If "dumping" means selling below cost of production, then the answer is either no, or Toyota dumped it even worse at home. A 1990 Celsior retailed for less in Japan than an LS400 did here.

snakeweasel · March 2007

No thats not what dumping means. Dumping is selling at a price that is lower than the cost or market in your home market. So if Toyota sold it for significantly less here than in Japan than it would be dumping.

Mr_Shiftright · March 2007

Dumping is illegal and yes, they were probably doing it. Of course they deny it but everybody suspects. The price jumped up dramatically as soon as the car was a hit. 38K in 1991 and 50K in 1995 and 55K in 97....I mean, c'mon. Same car going up close to 50% in 6 years? BMW 7 series went from 54K to 61K same time period and Benz 76K to 89K. Somethin' fishy, no?

There was a big stink about this but nothing came of it---or maybe it did, in the form of quite a few new domestic (USA) manufacturing plants for Japanese automakers....

bumpy · March 2007

Same car going up close to 50% in 6 years?

The prices on all sorts of Japanese cars went through the roof in the early 90s: 300ZX, Supra, Legend, etc.

1/90: 144.98 yen per dollar
1/93: 124.04 yen per dollar
1/96: 105.75 yen per dollar

Mr_Shiftright · March 2007

true...true...like I said...dumping is very hard to prove....but it's a great way to grab market share :P

62vetteefp · March 2007

If I understand Cadillac's plans, the BLS will become the lowend Cadillac on a FWD epsilion II platform.

Noooooo

62vetteefp · March 2007

China builds excellent cars. They jsut do not build small cheap excellent cars worth exporting. The higher line vehicles (VW, Buick, etc.) have great quality.

Is Cadillac's Image Dying and Does Anyone Care?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles