Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
You can define clones as you see fit, but I think what you mean is same platform = clone.
None of which exceed the quality of the Cadillac, and IMO, Cadillac is considerably more reliable - maybe not as great a driver, that's debatable, but IME, the Cadillac will go to the garage under its own power. It's just not as complex or prone to little quirks. Between the two, give me the Cadillac.
Btw, I did a research on the 300, and it appears that the LX platform is co-developed by Mercedes based on E-class platform as the source, basically a further modified E platform. Among other MB parts shared with no further modifications are the suspension, steering and transmission but the platform itself isnt taken for granted.
If this means the LX should be considered all-new, then I made a mistake. My apologies
m4dcow: I agree that Mercedes helped with the design of the 300's platform, but I think that the body design is new, not an old Mercedes design, and was designed to make the body as good as possible, while keeping costs low enough that the selling price could be cheap. Mercedes E-class body designs are not cheap to build.
"You can define clones as you see fit, but I think what you mean is same platform = clone. "
Goodness, sls002, I guess you totally missed my post #5608 where I've obviously stated my definition of clones. From what I read its YOU who define same platform as clones, not me. Remember what you said recently "GM will need less platform, which means more clones, not fewer"?
I watched the news, GM's finally shutting down its SUV and truck plants in Michigan and Wisconsin. Laying off thousands in the process. It's a start to the right direction. Kinda late, but better than never.
The Acada/Traverse/+ 2 more, etc. don't seem very different.
Isn't the G3 going to be a rebadged Aveo?
Even the Malibu/Aura are not THAT different.
GM tries to look like a vast, expansive set of products, with Hummer/Saab/Chevy/GMC/Caddy/Buick/Pontiac/Saturn (look at that list of divisions!!!!) - but the actual quantity of unique products it not that high, certainly not enough to support all of those brands. And it's not really fooling many people. And it's costing GM an arm and a leg to support all the retooling for taillights, dashboards, instrument clusters, advertising, divisional overhead, etc. And even us "car-knowledgeable" types ponder in these forums what each division's unique character stands for - which means the public certainly has NO idea. Add the union and you have a recipe for disaster.
I hope they find a way to make it through the next couple of years. It won't be good if they fail. Even if they need to downsize drastically they could become successful again. I'd rather see GM at 1/2 or 1/3 size with really competitive products.
Think of Honda, especially about 10 years ago. Let's see, they had the Civic, and the Accord, and the CRV, and then they had Acura - which had a TL, and a TSX, and an RSX, and an NSX, and an MDX. And that's about it! But each of those vehicles was excellent. If GM could have 10% market share, cut all of the big fat out, and have Caddy and Chevy ONLY, with about 15 *really excellent* vehicles - then they could gain a great reputation and claw their way back up as Honda is doing.
I have to make some comments about the old j-platform or Cavalier. The Buick (my Skyhawk) offered an OVC 4 engine which the Cavalier did not have, or the Cimarron. My Skyhawk had the fully automatic climate control too, which was only available on the Buick. The Cimarron did get the 2.8 liter V6 sometime later, which was not available on anything but a performance 2 door Cavalier. The point I am trying to make is that while the j-platform may have looked like a bunch of clones, there were serious diffences between the makes.
While I think the Escalade is not much more than the GMC Denali, I don't think it would make sense to spend a lot more to make it different. Cadillac dealers should not have the GMC in any case, although my old Cadillac dealer did. My new Cadillac dealer is the old Chevy dealer, and the GMC's are now at the new Buick/Pontiac/GMC dealer.
The thing is I expect significant engineering works to admit a platform mate as not clones. Your automatic climate control is a feature, such simple feature cant define difference. The engine however is a more significant one. That said, for the Cimarron, I believe such cloning within a luxury brand is unacceptable and shameless.
"While I think the Escalade is not much more than the GMC Denali, I don't think it would make sense to spend a lot more to make it different."
It DOES NOT change the fact that Escalade is still a clone. You get different skin inside out, and the 6.2l engine, but the electronics, suspension, awd system? All the same!!! How do I know? There's an 07 Escalade 3 doors from my house and the owner once replaced the whole rear left suspension with a Tahoe's, it was broken right in a small remote town and no Cadillac dealer exist there. Guess what, they're the same. If you wish for a more reasonable comparo, the Denali makes even less sense next to the Tahoe. Kill the Denali and you still have some cloned DNAs left but it'll further distinguish Tahoe and Escalade.
Ok, look, heres another very easy example of how I define clones and platform siblings:
Traverse / Acadia / Enclave / Outlook = Clones, same platform, sharing same engines, suspension, awd system, and also most exterior and interior parts. 1 engineering applied to 1 platform, resulting in 1 product with one theme, then made different by insignificant features and mere styling changes. I've test driven 2 of them, the Acadia and Traverse and I could feel that i was driving the same car. Same engine and gearbox response, same vague steering. Drive them all and I dare you to tell me the difference.
VW Touareg / Porsche Cayenne / Audi Q7 = Siblings, same platform, some engines and suspension sharing (Audi use different suspension), share not even a single bodywork stamping, electronics, and in Audi's case different AWD system. 3 totally different engineering applied to 1 platform, resulting in 3 different cars with 3 different themes/characters. Although all use the same v6 I can tell that VW's v6 pulls the slowest and the reaction to throttle is rubbery. The Cayenne's v6 actually shares the VW's characteristic, but its hampered even further by Porsche's tiptronic system that starts acceleration on 2nd gear. The Audi v6 is the smoothest in operation, with totally different throttle response (more linear than the other 2). VW's steering is light, while the Cayenne is heavier and is the sharpest. Those are actual DIFFERENCES!!! And yes, I've test driven all 3. You can see significant difference in engineering there. Its something you cant describe by looks alone.
Here's one of the most shameless cloning imo: Rolls Royce Silver Spur / Bentley Brookland from the mid 90s, and Bentley Arnage - RR Silver Seraph (though everything changed when BMW finally killed Seraph).
In this regard, I admit I'm probably making a mistake listing Lexus ES as a non-clone to the Camry, as when I test drove the ES the whole spec sheet seem awfully similar to Camry's but I felt different sense when driving it (e.g different steering and throttle response, suspension feel). I will test it again and figure it our. However I stick with my words for the rest of the Camry platform lineup.
I do not get this. There is not one exterior part that is shared. They all look completely different. Interior is the same way except they do share carpet and the basic seat hardware. Each IP is comletely different. Yes they share the suspension and engines but that is true for almost every model in the world. There are NO high volume marques out there that do not share those parts.
Now do I think there are to many Lambdas? Yes but this is one of the few areas in GM where that is an issue now. IN full size SUVsI think GM has a good number (3) witu one each for the dealershop channels but they shold have made them much different looking from each other. Then again until the gas prices they were allo selling great.
Automatic climate control is a feature that was available on all of GM's full size models in the 60's, but by the 80's was only available on full size Buicks and Cadillacs, with the exception of the 83 Skyhawk. After having fully automatic climate contol on a 1971 Riviera, I looked for this feature on cars that I bought thereafter.
I think when you say "clone" you are implying some negative connotations. I see nothing wrong with marketing more than one make from a single platform. The whole idea of a platform is to reduce engineering differences. To me the Touareg & Cayenne are clones, but you can define clones as you see fit.
Obviously, you have no experience with Lexus or Toyota, or you would not make that statement.
The ES does have more "features" but that is not what was being discussed.
Without having looked at the data you are probably right about these two. Part of the reason it seems less ridiculous with Toyota is there are very clear distinctions between Lexus and Toyota in image and intent.
Now imagine as a thought experiment that Toyota has Toyota, Lexus, Scion, and then add Japeno, Bumbo, Tammer, and Flexo as new divisions. But Japeno is a "near-luxury" division slated below Lexus. Bumbo is the sport division. The Tammer division makes American-style cars. And the Flexo is the young, hip growth brand after kids outgrow their Scions. Toyota as a brand is a bit muddled in there, but the images of the brands are *sort of* clear, sometimes.
OK, let's give the Japeno and Bumbo divisions cloned versions of the Camry/ES. So now there are four of the Camry clones. However the Celica Supra belongs to Toyota, even though the Bumbo division is the sport division, because Toyota had the Celica a long time ago and no way is Bumbo going to get it.
Now let's take the RX/Highlander twins and give a couple of clones to Tammer and Bumbo. Well Bumbo is the sport division, but their dealers still want an SUV since they've been so popular. So now the images of these divisions are making a lot less sense and the images are NOT the way today's Lexus/Toyota images are clear.
Move on to the Corolla. Let's rebadge that car and give one to the Bumbo division (which is the sporty division). Put some cladding on it and tighten up the springs a bit. And we also give Flexo a Corolla clone since the kids moving up from their xB's want something small but a little bit better.
You get my drift. In this case the four Camry clones are much more ridiculous since a) there are four of them, not two; b) there are a lot of divisions and everybody knows they're all Toyotas anyway; c) there are lots of sets of twins, triplets, quadruplets, etc.; d) There are ton of dealers to support and advertising to provide.
GM has done a great job (probably its best work) in the last few years resurrecting Caddy and adding differentiation to this brand. The problem is that they don't have the money to support doing that to so many others. I'm not even sure you could slice the market up enough to provide enough brand distinction for *8* divisions and yet have each division provide enough product to keep the dealers in business. So it looked expensive in 1999 or 2002 to cut a couple of divisions, but if that had been done then, GM would be a lot smaller now but much more competitive. It would be a shame if all the good work done at Caddy goes down the drain because of the boat anchor of all the other complexity in their business.
Chevy at the affordable bottom
GMC/Pontiac/Buick in the middle
Cadillac at the very top.
Saturn could go as could Saab.
Now in the middle you could call it one brand, perhaps Buick, but selling Buick trucks would be a tough sell to those GMC buyers. And you could replace the name in any of those 3 with any of the other and the same thing happens. So you are stuck with 3 brands (OK you could call all those Pontiacs, Buick, and that could sorta work).
So a midsize Malibu starting at $20k, LaCrosse at $25k, CTS at $45k. All Midsize. Give the LaCrosse a GNX option.
With the above plan you only have to buy out the Saturn dealers and there are not very many of those so it would only cost $2 BILLION to close them down.
Above could be done today but there would be a loss in volume which is why I dropped it to 20% from about 25%.
Siverado, (Denali)Tahoe (Denali) Traverse, Malibu, Lacross (w/GNX option). Camaro, New Compact, small CUV.
Caddy gets the Lucerne and Enclave and Yukon goes away.
That's a little cleaner in my mind...but if the merger happens, the white board gets erased!
Regards,
OW
For GM to make this work they have to move Cadillac a bit higher in the playing field. With the CTS they have done that. I know we have all this talk about the CTS compared to the 3 series and the 5 series but how about to the Lexus ES or Acura? I think most would say the CTS is steps above the ES in almost all ways from performance to prestige to content. Yes Lexus does have models in the MB and BMW range but the ES is almost an outlier compared to them. So my point is that Cadillac needs to continue to place themselves in these upper segments with top of the line product. This will allow vehicles in the just under Acura pricepoint to slightly above price point.
With a true 20% market share (cut out some more fleet if you wish) GM can support 3 main lines.
It's just cleaner for me.
Regards,
OW
The DTS is not an S-class vehicle. The Lucerne and DTS are the same car for all practical purposes. The CTS is not in the 5-series class, much less the E-class.
Cadillac's have never really been in the Mercedes class for luxury cars. For GM to try and move Cadillac up market will not work. For one thing, I don't think GM has the vision to see what needs to happen to make Cadillac more of an up market car. If and when the global RWD sedans are put into production, then perhaps GM will have a platform that will allow Cadillac to build something like the old Fleetwood Sixty Special, which has been gone since the mid-seventies as far as I am concerned.
First those two primarily exist in the above $40k market. Yea they have some cars that start under $40k but the average ATP is gotta be over $40K so they only sell the high end. They do not exists in the medium market with much. Sure the 1 series starts just over $30k but I bet most sell for over $35k and that is really a compact sized vehicle!!
So if BMW came out with a value line, VALUEXXX, the compact would be $17K. There seems to be room inbetween for another vehicle and I would not want to call it a BMW or VALUEXXX because brand equity would not allow it. So PREMIUMXXX would have a compact at $25K.
But it has worked. The CTS has moved upscale from the last model and the last model moved upscale from the 90's Catera/Eldorado. I know opinion is strong on this but in areas that buy the BMW's and MB's you do see CTS's and STS's. Is Cadillac at equity with those two? No, but it is much closer. ATP for the CTS is around $40k, much higher than it was just 4 years ago and sales keep increasing. Teh STS/DTS replacement will be like the CTS in a larger/higher price range.
The Chevy/Buick division would have all of the pick-ups, economy cars, sport cars and value priced sedans along the price scale. Make them all bullet proof and designed for 10 year ownership.
Simple works better than complex is all that the business model should be going forward.
2 Dealership Brands with a wide range of models in each targeting the entire market.
Regards,
OW
For Cadillac to sell a car in the S-class price range will require a platform with the refinements that the S-class has and should really exceed them. Cadillac should try to build a body that is somewhere between the S-class and the Maybach that they can sell for just under the S-class price. I do not see how this is possible.
One thing Cadillac could do with their current models is put nicer leather into their cars. The "leather" in my SRX looks and feels more like plastic than leather. I have very serious doubts that GM knows how to build Cadillacs in the low priced luxury range, much less how to build something in the mid-priced range. The S-class is above mid-priced luxury.
I congratulate Hyundai for the Genesis. It costs a lot but that's what needs to be done if you want to play with the Global industry. I understand it's not perfect but what a good start.
So, you can't support , what is it, 8 divisions, and be top dog in each while the old business model gets put to bed. It is just not feasible.
I'll take 2, please. Now let's get started today!
Regards,
OW
I think before World War Two, Cadillac did know how to build a world class luxury car in the standards of the S-class. However, after WWII, Cadillac backed away from the high end luxury cars and went with low priced luxury where sales are good enough to make profits.
Building a high end car and selling it at a profit are two different things. Cadillac did make a high end car, the Eldorado Brougham in the late 50's. They sold this car for about $13000, but spent about $23000 building it. The sales rate was about 200 per year, more to start with, but ending with fewer.
Sure Cadillac could build an S-class car, to sell for say $100,000. But it would probably cost at least $150,000 to build, if not $200,000. The good thing is that very few would actually sell.
No kidding but both were replaced by the CTS in a number of ways. The CTS is the cheapest Cadillac. As my example shows the the CTS is a HUGE step up from the Catera and a large step up from the Eldo.
The CTS is really a new car for Cadillac. Cadillac tried to make the Seville FWD into a sports sedan with the FWD STS. This was not successful. As sports sedan the fwd STS was not taken seriously by anyone but Cadillac management. The Eldorado was never a sports sedan, but more of the luxury personal car. The luxury personal car was invented by Ford when they made the Thunderbird into a coupe instead of a sports car to compete with the Corvette. Then Buick got the Riviera, which was a very nice car until the FWD Toronado and Eldorado forced Buick onto the larger platform they were using. The Eldorado continued as a big luxury couple until it was dropped. While I think that the customers who used to buy the "personal luxury coupes" are now buying sports sedans instead, the sports sedan customers are younger, while the old customers have probably moved on to something else.
In particular, I have owned a number of Riviera's, but now have an SRX, which is a sports SUV. Otherwise, I might have bought the CTS wagon.
I assume the CTS makes a profit.
It cost $13,000 to build an Excalade also. The S-Class can be beaten by Caddy for a profit. That is the challenge, otherwise don't even bother competing in the luxury market.
Hyundai isn't waiting around for Caddy to make up it's mind nor is any other luxury Marquee.
Regards,
OW
Well, I would say that they did (in Japan, anyway). The car that was eventually sold here as the LS400 started out in the design stage as a sort of super-Cressida, or more mass-market Crown sort of car. And the Century is the sort of ultra-luxury transportation that GM hasn't built in over half a century (heh).
Now, it's do or die. Let's see what comes out of the ashes when the smoke clears.
I really thought the CTS coupe was one of the best designs I've seen from Caddy, period. Highly desirable and a good decision to go with it.
Regards,
OW
You are exactly right. Here's more proof that Caddy can do what it needs to to compete globally. And make a profit to boot. To save money, forget the STS-V. No point in my book.
Not all that long ago, Cadillac’s lineup consisted of pillowy land yachts that were more at home on the slow driving roads of Del Boca Vista rather than on anything that even resembled a race track. Thankfully, GM’s crown jewel has been the recipient of a major overall over the past few years, culminating in the latest CTS-V. The CTS-V has proven it can hang with the world’s best sports sedans, but what price tag would GM hang on the CTS-V?
In keeping with the CTS-V’s David vs. Goliath mentality, GM announced on Friday that the fastest road-going Cadillac ever will list from $59,995. That undercuts Cadillac’s other V offerings – the STS-V and XLR-V – by at least $20,000. Not only is the CTS-V the most reasonably priced V-badged Cadillac, it is also the fastest by a wide margin.
That bargain basement price – at least for the segment – could also cause a few BMW M5 shoppers to take a look at the CTS-V. The M5 lists for about 23 grand more than the CTS-V, but offers 56 less horsepower and can’t match the CTS-V’s record-setting lap times.
The CTS-V comes pretty much loaded to the gills, with the only available options being a six-speed automatic transmission, Recaro performance seats and an “Ultra-View” sunroof.
Now, for an S-Class beater at $70,000. Please tell me this is possible.
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
Huh??? The Century started life in 1936 as what we call today a "muscle car" A Special w/ a Roadmaster engine. First mass production car to do 100 mph, hence the name Century.
I think you are the only one that feels that. The CTS was a great vehicle. It had a poor interior due to going with the poorly received technicle grains but overall did very well.
In keeping with the CTS-V’s David vs. Goliath mentality, GM announced on Friday that the fastest road-going Cadillac ever will list from $59,995. That undercuts Cadillac’s other V offerings – the STS-V and XLR-V – by at least $20,000. Not only is the CTS-V the most reasonably priced V-badged Cadillac, it is also the fastest by a wide margin.
That bargain basement price – at least for the segment – could also cause a few BMW M5 shoppers to take a look at the CTS-V. The M5 lists for about 23 grand more than the CTS-V, but offers 56 less horsepower and can’t match the CTS-V’s record-setting lap times.
The CTS-V comes pretty much loaded to the gills, with the only available options being a six-speed automatic transmission, Recaro performance seats and an “Ultra-View” sunroof.
Regards,
OW
1. MAP Sensor was intermittently failing causing complete shutdown of the engine. It happened twice as my wife was driving and once to me. Both occurrences were at low speed and she was able to glide to a stop since brakes did not work. This happened at about 2.5 years into the warranty and at about 30K miles. As expected, 2 trips to repair did not fix anything because they could not diagnose it. On the third trip, I invoked the Lemon Law process and documented everything. All at once, the dealer was instructed to call GM Technical Center and they diagnosed the MAP sensor was bad.
2. Power steering pump failed and exploded all of the fluid at the entrance to a busy mall. All power failed (brakes/steering) but engine stayed running and God was there again because my wife was traveling very slow up to a light and just made it stop. The police had to get it towed since On-Star estimated 30 -45 minutes to get a tow. The mall traffic backed up for a mile! The police could not move the truck manually despite the engine running under manual steering!!
All tolled, the repair costs are up to $3,600 so far for this 2003 Denali with 62K miles.
Regards,
OW
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2008115
Lexus..1.2 problems per vehicle
Cad...1.5
BMW...1.6
Mersedes...2.1
Hardly. The 1st-generation CTS was a well-regarded entry-level luxury sedan with only one significant flaw: a plain, unattractive interior.
This is probably what you intended to write, but to save time & attract attention, you decided to call it "junk".
Here's a friendly suggestion: put a bit more thought into your posts before clicking on the "Post My Message" button. Some of your posts make you sound as if you just discovered the Internet this morning.
Strive for quality - not quantity.
CTS pre 2008 is junk? I actually disagree. Yes its somewhat less ideal for a luxury brand for its asking price, but its definitely comparable to Infinti G35, meaning it still deserve an entry level status.
Current CTS is developing, but still an entry level at a not entry level price imo. Actually apart from new engine and new interior materials I fail to see the "leap-forward" the new CTS is making. I'm more impressed by the old one, honestly.
I would ask the owners of the pre-'08 CTS how they feel about what they bought.
Strive for quality - not quantity.
That's exactly what Caddy needs to do with the rest of the line. Until 2008, the CTS was a reminder of it's roots. Unappealing.
Regards,
OW
The point is from Chevy to Caddy, the competition wins. Until the 2008 CTS which is a contender. The previous style was second rate all the way... ie, junk in my book.
Take a look at the concept coupe which they have decided to build. Then let us know if they are headed in the right direction.
Regards,
OW
I do not know why the brakes did not operate. They should work but it's a mystery.
Regards,
OW
I highly respect anyones choice in buying any Cadillac. My opinion is toward GM and Caddy itself from my experiences.
The new CTS is different. So, yes, up until the 2008 model, the CTS was, um, not great!
I think your SRX is pretty nice and considered one a while back as the wife liked it.
Regards,
OW