By on May 23, 2014

caddyinventory

A report by Ward’s Auto claims that Cadillac is scrapping plans to build a large, three-row crossover, similar to the Buick Enclave or GMC Acadia. Fear of competing with the two Lambda stablemates is being cited as a possible motive, along with a saturation in the large crossover market. They should do it anyways.

Even though they are held up as a symbol of everything that is against the state religion of automotive enthusiasm, crossovers are a global growth segment, especially small ones. And this is also one reason why Cadillac is apparently not going ahead with a large crossover. They want something smaller than the SRX, to help them compete with small luxury crossovers both at home, and in important markets like China and Europe.

This is an easy rationale to understand. Development dollars are finite, small crossovers are growing, and there’s lots of upside potential for something below the SRX. But that doesn’t mean Cadillac should abandon a larger crossover either. Think about the Acura MDX, the Audi Q7 and the Mercedes-Benz GL. These are all big, three-row crossovers that are globally successful (yes, even the MDX, which does sell in markets like Russia), and in the case of the MDX in Q7, they are a way to successfully leverage an existing architecture into something that can be sold at obscene mark-ups.

Cadillac would be foolish not to do this, if for no other reason than to leverage the profit potential at a tarted-up Lambda crossover. In the U.S, there is likely a price ceiling that they could charge for it, but you can bet that legions of affluent buyers would be clamoring for the chance to buy a more car-like big CUV from Cadillac. Given that the SRX is the sole Cadillac vehicle that doesn’t have over 100 day’s worth of inventory, it seems logical that another crossover would be a big seller. Why not kill off the Impala-based XTS entirely and replace it with a three-row CUV that can be sold to older customers and livery car services, as well as people who want something like an Escalade, but without the typical attributes of a BOF SUV (like reduced fuel economy and a more truck-like feel)? With the large car market tanking each passing year, getting out of a dying segment and into one that will be, at worst, stable in the next decade, makes a lot of sense.

And what about world markets? Take that price ceiling, multiply it 2-3x and that’s what you can charge for what is essentially a fancy Chevrolet Traverse. In China, a Buick Enclave sells for $81,000 USD – you can imagine what Cadillac would be able to charge for this kind of vehicle in the Chinese market, to say nothing of Russia, Brazil, Latin America and even India.

Assuming the marginal cost of turning a Lambda CUV into a Cadillac is low, the exercise seems like a slam dunk for GM. But we can’t always make these assumptions. Each individual business case is always a discrete entity, and trying to approach it with a “one-size-fits-all” mentality is a common fallacy in the world of automotive opinion writing. Even so, the case for a big Cadillac CUV seems to make sense – and GM’s track record of mis-managing Cadillac only furthers the thinking that cancelling this project is a mistake.

 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

81 Comments on “Editorial: Cadillac Is Abandoning Large Crossovers At The Wrong Time...”


  • avatar
    Pch101

    Cadillac already has the Escalade, which provides a good tool for squeezing even more margin out of the full-size truck platform.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      Yes, but Chevy has the Suburban/Tahoe and GMC has the Yukon. At the same time they have The Traverse and Acadia. If Cadillac decided that a large crossover would steal Escalade sales, I can see that, but it doesn’t seem to be a problem for the other brands.

    • 0 avatar

      GMC has the Terrain, Acadia, Yukon, Yukon XL, Denali, and by all accounts, it’s doing quite well for GM. Why not give Cadillac another CUV to complement the SRX and offer an alternative to the Escalade?

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        I doubt that there is enough volume to justify spending the kind of money that would be needed to avoid badge engineering and cannibalization.

        There are times when it is better to stick to one model and squeeze the stuffing out of it. To increase the volume, improve the one model.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          I agree with this. GM has this segment wrapped up with other brands. Why spend money to essentially add competition internally? There will be little a Caddy 3 row could do that the Enclave can’t.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Pch101, You echo my thoughts in this case.

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          The Tahoe is a very different car than the Traverse. In places where full sized pickups aren’t common first cars, it’ll feel like something only a small step shy of a tractor trailer.

          Getting in and out of the BOF SUVs aren’t the most elegant looking thing in the world, either, in places where people are shorter and women wear dresses and skirts.

          In many markets, Buick seems to have much of the status that Cadillac does back home. It may make sense to GM to focus on only two “levels” of each car; Chevy for the masses, and Buick for the classes. Instead of trying to segment the upper echelon into two brackets.

      • 0 avatar
        alexndr333

        To me, the SRX would be better positioned as a Buick, properly targeted at the Lexus RX. The SRX is just not top-shelf enough for Cadillac, which should bring out rear-drive CUV’s off the ATS and CTS platforms. I wonder if Cadillac management is still thinking of how poorly the first-generation SRX sold, even though it was among the best of its time. Now, the new SRX sells well, but it drags the brand down, in my opinion. A set of CUV’s off the current rear-drive platforms might have lower volumes, but they should enjoy higher transaction prices and would elevate the brand. In the meantime, a Buick-branded SRX would sell plenty.

      • 0 avatar
        bd2

        This would only be a mistake if Cadillac isn’t planning on an Omega-based CUV to take on the GL and the upcoming X7 from BMW.

        The conundrum for GM is whether for Cadillac to go RWD with its CUV lineup and compete head to head with BMW and Mercedes or go for greater sales volume/lower prices and compete with the FWD-based CUVs.

        The MDX is a midsize (albeit on the larger end).

        I agree that buyers for large crossovers and BOF SUVs are pretty different.

        • 0 avatar
          alexndr333

          Cadillac should never consider Acura a competing marque – that’s Buick’s job. Go for the lower volume, higher priced rear-drive CUV market and Cadillac reaps the long-term benefits of exclusivity.

    • 0 avatar
      bomberpete

      I have mixed feelings about this.

      The XTS is mediocre and overpriced while the Impala is a great value. The Lambda platform is way better than whatever the Lincoln version of the Flex is (along with most people, I never remember their alphanumerics). On that level, this could work. Somehow the Escalade, Yukon/Denali and Tahoe manage to all make a profit, Or at least they did before the recall debacle. Would it really be a big deal to badge-engineer this?

      But I also understand how this makes no sense. Aren’t most Cadillacs already sold alongside GMC and Buick in U.S. dealerships? With three identical Lamdas in there, that’s just more showroom confusion.

      Same with China – if the Enclave is $81K, that could make the Cadillac version 90K. Cadillac has no real brand desirability outside the US.

      What’s the point? Wouldn’t GM do better to market this as an Opel, Vauxhall and (if the name survives) Holden in their home markets? After all, Chevy gets high-end customers for the right product.

      Oh wait, we’re talking about GM….never mind.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        The Lamdas are selling better than the Flex and MKT. However, I looked at an Acadia/Enclave when I purchased a large crossover. The MKT and Flex may have polarizing looks, but I think they are much better products than the Enclave/Acadia.

        Where I live, Cadillac has stand alone stores. However, I live in Detroit and GM probably moves more Caddys here than anywhere else. GMC/Buick are almost always together.

  • avatar
    bball40dtw

    They need at least two more CUVs. People buying luxury CUVs don’t seem to care if they are RWD or based on a Toyota/Honda/Ford/etc.

  • avatar
    davefromcalgary

    My understanding is that the Enclave is really well regarded as a great large crossover. Would a Cadillac branded Lambda eat into the Enclave’s turf?

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    I’m going to disagree with the editorial; the market is becoming saturated and it is time to start looking for something different. Cadillac can no longer afford to be a ‘Me too’ brand–not when it has worked so hard to change its image from pure luxury to luxury performance. A 3-row crossover simply does not fit that new image and to be quite blunt a 3-row crossover is simply too much vehicle for most people.

    We also need to look into the future. Fuel prices are about due for another jump and these oversized 3-row vehicles are likely to bear the brunt of the crash unless they completely change their drivetrain to something far more efficient.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      Cadillac is a me too brand more now than ever. The ATS and CTS want so badly to be German, and are priced like the German competition.

      • 0 avatar
        bomberpete

        Cadillac is spending too much time bragging about how “we got it going on” with some promising products, but its sedan XTS, ATS and CTS sales are flailing. They are both “me too” products and over-priced.

        I think the only retail buyers they can get are the ones who like the vehicles for what they are, and want to save big over the luxe German brands.

        Given Cadillac’s awful marketing and tenuous brand image, it’s no wonder they’re having trouble. Another Lambda CUV would help volume in the short-term, but won’t address the need for a Cadillac segment-buster.

        • 0 avatar
          bd2

          How are CTS sales flailing?

          The CTS is comfortably in 3rd place and with transaction prices close to BMW and Mercedes.

          And that’s with another sedan, the XTS, in the same price range.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        While the cars are great, they’re letting the German competition define them, which is wrong for Cadillac IMO. They could make excellent cars without inspiring to be “German”. Not to say I wouldn’t love a CTS or ATS. Both damn fine cars.

    • 0 avatar
      SC5door

      Luxury Performance with standard front wheel drive on the SRX?

      I don’t think so.

      If the SRX was still on the Sigma Platform then I would tend to agree.

      Twin Turbo 3.6L Sigma Based New SRX? Yes please.

    • 0 avatar

      Three-row CUV as a hedge against the Escalade being hit by another jump? People are going to keep driving three-row vehicles. Why not offer an alternative?

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      It seems many of you misunderstood one of my statements: I said “Cadillac can no longer AFFORD to be a ‘me too’ brand”, clearly stating that they are now and shouldn’t be. Cadillac needs to revert to the pure luxury brand it used to be–competing with the Rolls, the Bentley and other Chauffeur-driven classes rather than trying to play to the lowest common denominator.

      Like it or not, the CUV market is due for a collapse. All it will take is a proper replacement by a vehicle most commenters here consider has no chance in this country.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        The compact pickup? :)

        Its starts…..

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        I’d say wagon, but Cadillac already has one that nobody wants

      • 0 avatar
        George B

        Vulpine, there is no way Cadillac has the brand cachet to compete at the Rolls and Bentley level. I’ll give them credit for building enough good products to move up from Lincoln-class to Infiniti-class, but they still have a relatively low price ceiling for a luxury brand. The still can’t compete head-to-head with the German brands. Like Infiniti, they have to undercut BMW, etc. on price.

      • 0 avatar

        The sedan market will collapse before the CUV market does. Wagons are not coming back either.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        But doesn’t going back to pure luxury mean bringing back the 3-box limo-look Fleetwood and De Ville? Only old people drove those, not the young hipsters Cadillac is going for, despite the fact hipsters can’t afford anything more than a lease on a 3-series, if that. Okay, there will be sales to the carriage trade to replace the Town car, but think of the resulting Cadillac image: old people, prom night and airport shuttles!

        • 0 avatar
          Kenmore

          I’ve got a small-b billionaire BIL in his early 70s. He drives very little but when he does it’s an Escalade. It’s easiest on his old body. Otherwise he private jets/limos places.

          He’s happy and GM is happy to refresh his Slade every year. He feels no abandonment. I don’t think GM needs anything else to attract his kind.

  • avatar

    People want a 4X4 – to handle snow – that isn’t fuel thirsty – yet offers car-like handling – and enough interior space to be like a CUV without the stilts…

    Build an AWD WAGON BASED ON THE IMPALA 3.6-L YOU IDIOTS.

    If Chrysler won’t bring back the Magnum to prove to everyone it would be a great seller – THEN YOU GOTDAMN WELL BETTER!

    • 0 avatar
      carguy

      Unfortunately the reason why the awesome Magnum died is because nobody bought it. I’m sorry to say that the US market likes it’s wagons raised and called CUVs.

      • 0 avatar

        STOP TYPING THAT CAUSE IT’S NOT TRUE.

        The reason the Magnum died was because the credit windows at the Big 3 were closing during the startup and coast of the financial crisis. By the time the crisis was over, the 300, Charger and Magnum had all take huge sales hits (check the 2006, 2007, 2008 sales figures on wikipedia). Chrysler AXED it because they were trying to show “forward-thinking” and better planning – just as GM axed a number of its brands – as well with Ford.

        NO, I CALL BULLISHT.

        If Chrysler was building the 300 Touring as a 3rd row Charger (Magnum) right now, IT WOULD BE SELLING WELL.

        • 0 avatar
          Tim_Turbo

          I was a fleet manager for a rental company. I liked the Magnums a lot-even though most of ours were the 3.5L version. We did get a few of the Hemi AWD’s though.

          Anyway-I liked it-but whenever I took one as my company car nobody I knew did. All I heard was how ugly it was, how it looked like a hearse etc. One girl I dated hated them-but get this-absolutely loved the Dodge Journey I brought home-which I thought was godawful. Sadly, most of America probably would agree with her.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I’m neutral on the Magnum Wagon, but you have to remember most Americans are completely devoid of taste.

        • 0 avatar
          KixStart

          BMSR: “The reason the Magnum died was because the credit windows at the Big 3 were closing during the startup and coast of the financial crisis.”

          Sales peaked at 52K/year in 2005 and fell off to 40K into 2006. And, given Chrysler’s usual mode of operation, this was probably with big incentives to erode the margins. On Wikipedia, a Chrysler exec is quoted as saying that the Magnum, Pacifica and PT Cruiser were being axed because “they weren’t earning their keep.” That’s a pretty simple way to describe the situation.

          At the same time, this consumer credit crisis you blame for the slow sales of the Magnum wasn’t preventing the CR-V and Rav4 from growing sales by leaps and bounds.

          • 0 avatar
            LALoser

            A co-worker had a Magnum. The large front and sloping rear reminded me of a dog relieving itself.

        • 0 avatar
          SC5door

          Do you even know what you’re talking about sometimes?

          Ralph Gilles said straight up: “That vehicle was single-handedly killed by one executive who is no longer with the company. He’s retired. A lot of people in the company still like that vehicle — a lot”

          It’s why the Pacifica died as well.

          • 0 avatar
            KixStart

            Ralph Gilles is certainly entitled to his opinion. Of course, if he had a hand in developing it, he’d certainly resist the idea that it was a flop.

            The thing was on a downward trajectory and the success of the Rav4 and CR-V made it seem as though there were better opportunities out there.

            If the Magnum was such a great idea, hitting an unfilled demand in the market, why haven’t they resurrected the idea since?

          • 0 avatar

            MY ARGUMENT is that the “one guy who isn’t with the company anymore”…KILLED THE MAGNUM right before the best engines and newer technology became available…

            BUT LET’S FORGET THE MAGNUM FOR A SECOND…

            Why can’t GM build an AWD wagon based on the Impala?

          • 0 avatar
            KixStart

            BMSR: “MY ARGUMENT is that the “one guy who isn’t with the company anymore”…KILLED THE MAGNUM right before the best engines and newer technology became available…”

            And your argument also seems to be that it was a mistake, which it was not. In addition to the Jouney, other CUVs have also done well, since. There’s no reason to believe that the market would embrace the Magnum with any more enthusiasm today than they did in 2007.

            GM probably could build an AWD wagon based on the Impala (presently FWD). Why would they want to? They might just as well put resources into the Equinox, which sells fairly well, or the Lambdas, ditto.

        • 0 avatar
          frozenman

          I think the Magnum had to much of a low rent vibe to it, that being said a 300C AWD estate wagon would be absolutely irresistible! Don’t forget the wood trim option either. :)

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        The MPGs on the Magnum were lousy. Otherwise, I liked it a lot and would have bought one to replace my Ranger when I became a parent.

        But smaller vehicles are supposed to have better MPGs than bigger ones, and the Magnum wasn’t competive with the truck I owned then, and isn’t competitive with the minivan I own now.

        It tried too hard to be what Big Truck wants, and didn’t deliver the kong-term efficiency that I want. I went and looked at the Magnum and liked it – until I saw the spec sheet. So, I own a Toyota Sienna now. The Sienna is a little overkill, too, but it’s the sweet spot in terms of efficiency and practicality – and, alas, the Magnum is far from either.

    • 0 avatar
      BigOlds

      I hate to feed the beast, but…

      I thought the Magnum was a great car, and I wanted one. A lot. But I couldn’t afford one then, and they don’t make them now.

      That said, the American public just doesn’t seem to like daring design.

      (Eh, who am I kidding. I wanted one, and I could have afforded it, but I am an incorrigible cheapskate. Sadly that doesn’t seem to be a big problem with people in general)

  • avatar
    carguy

    I’m pretty sure that TTAC would have been the first to lambast Cadillac for badge engineering if they had gone through with a Lambda based CUV.

    Also they already have a 3 row SUV – its the Escalade and its doing quite well.

    If anything they would be better off by just making a third row optional on the next SRX and introducing a compact Alpha based CUV instead.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      I don’t think Derek or Jack would. Derek especially has been beating the CUV drum around here for awhile now.

      • 0 avatar

        I’d just like to state for the record, I “beat the drum” from a commercial/consumer standpoint. I’d rather drive other kinds of cars, but CUVs sell, and to deny that a large number of customers prefer them for sound reasons (not just buying into the marketing hype) is disingenuous.

        Given the importance of scale in the current area of automobiles, everything is badge engineering of some kind. If you’re not “badge engineering”, then you’re Lotus.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          Haha. I should have qualified my statement. Now everyone is going to think you want an XC60 over a V60.

        • 0 avatar
          carguy

          Fully understood that you are looking at this from a market analysis point of view. However, I still disagree with your point of argument that luxury 7 seaters are a hot market. BMW ran the numbers and decided that a CUV larger than the X5 was not needed and instead went with the optional 3rd row seat there. Audi went there but the Q7 is not and never did sell well. Mercedes is doing reasonably well with the GL is doing OK but its not exactly having problems meeting demand.

          If I were running Cadillac I would be more inclined to invest my limited R&D funds on a compact CUV smaller than the SRX (which is bound to grow in the next generation).

          • 0 avatar
            Kyree S. Williams

            Actually BMW is considering—or may have already approved—a seven-seat crossover, not necessarily for the sake of added prestige over the X5, but rather because it’s an important segment that BMW is having to cede to its competitors at the moment.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            ” BMW ran the numbers and decided that a CUV larger than the X5 was not needed and instead went with the optional 3rd row seat there.”

            Huh? BMW is building the X7

          • 0 avatar
            carguy

            Some folks have correctly pointed out that BMW is planning to now build the X7. However, as far as a priority it was lower than the X6 and even X4 so they clearly consider it a lesser market niche than whatever the miniscule market for the X4 is.

          • 0 avatar
            Kyree S. Williams

            “…as far as a priority [the X7] was lower than the X6 and even X4 so they clearly consider it a lesser market niche than whatever the miniscule market for the X4 is.”

            It doesn’t quite work that way. The X4 and X6 didn’t require much development work because they are restyled versions of existing vehicles (the X3 and X5, respectively). The X7, meanwhile, is a bigger fish to fry. Who’s to say that it would share a platform with the X5 or any existing BMW at all? And even if it did, it would require alterations significantly greater than those made between the X5 and the X6.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            The X7 will share a platform with the new X5 and future X6. The platform would also be used in a Rolls Royce SUV

    • 0 avatar
      clivesl

      “If anything they would be better off by just making a third row optional on the next SRX”

      This +1000

      When it comes time to replace my Sienna, I would love a JGC or SRX with a foldaway third row like Volvo offered on the XC70 and XC90.

  • avatar
    Discoman

    We don’t need another Buidillac product; that would just water down the Cadillac line. The models that stand out to me are the ones that are exclusive to the brand. As long as the mentality to slap a dinner plate sized emblem on 20+ year old technology exists, GM’s premium line will struggle with its identity. I doubt their ability to break through the bureaucratic whale of bean counters will change anytime soon though.

    If Cadillac were able to keep their products exclusive and let the R&D technology trickle down to other brands, they might be able to have the image of a truly premium product. Give them a chance to build their own large SUV instead of rebadging, and people might take notice.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    I’ll make it quite simple: If they make it, I won’t buy it. Then again, I wouldn’t buy any Cadillac on the current new-car market–I don’t like any of them.

  • avatar
    KixStart

    I don’t think it’s going to benefit Cadillac to have a badge-engineered version of the Traverse. It’s not big enough to be a luxury liner and it’s not going to be sporty and high-performance, either.

    I think they’re better off sticking with something in the SRX class (sport luxury) and the Escalade (f*ck you luxury).

    • 0 avatar
      bd2

      The SRX isn’t really sport luxury (just like the RX) and if Cadillac is serious about that, then the next SRX needs to be based on the same platform as the CTS or a shortened version of the Omega.

      • 0 avatar
        carguy

        Unlikely to happen – they tried a sporty RWD platform with the previous SRX and it sold poorly. Once they went converted it to a soft FWD CUV it started becoming one of their strongest sellers.

        • 0 avatar
          bd2

          True.

          But the 1G SRX had several issues and at the time, Cadillac really didn’t have anything competitive at the mid-higher end of the luxury market at the time.

          Now that the CTS seems to have gotten some traction, Cadillac might have a shot at going after the X5 and ML instead of lowering its sights and continue to compete against the FWD-based CUVs like the MDX, RX and MKX (plus, GM needs to get more usage out of the Alpha-based platforms).

          The LaCrosse is supposed to compete against the likes of the ES and MKZ, so it only makes sense for Buick’s CUVs to compete against their CUV counterparts as well.

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    “Escalade” is the answer to the question. The new DI 5.3 and 6.2 liter V-8 engines should give it better fuel economy and better performance. I drove the 5.3 in a Silverado pickup a couple of weeks ago, and the engine was impressive all around, in fact, the entire vehicle was too quiet for a truck. What’s not to like? The big CUVs don’t have that much of a weight advantage over the Escalade, and their V-6 engine is not as tricked-out as the new V-8s. Hell, they could certainly put in the 6.6 liter V-8 diesel from the 2500 pickup and have good performance and real world mid-20s highway fuel economy, too. Not quite 400 hp and not quite 800 lb.-ft. of torque. With its companion Allison transmission the 6.6 liter diesel V-8 has become a very impressive powerplant . . . and it’s pretty quiet, too.

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    The prospective Cadillac crossover would have to be noticeably above the MDX and QX60, both of which can be had in nice configurations for well under $50K….and both of which already compete with the Enclave. The Cadillac crossover would have to be right about where the Q7 is in terms of price, and to that end, I think Cadillac should leverage the RWD Alpha platform instead of the Lambda platform. It’s not that the target market would appreciate or even notice the structural upgrade, but the Alpha architecture would allow for more Cadillac-like styling, The Lambdas are kind of bloated-looking—since they’re basically minivan variants—and the platform doesn’t exactly lend itself to Cadillac’s school of design.

    There’s a big gap between the Enclave and the Escalade…and if the large Cadillac crossover were something other than a gussied-up version of said Enclave, its presence would make quite a bit more sense. It would also go a long way in giving Cadillac it’s first world-class large vehicle.

  • avatar
    cpthaddock

    Dig up the Saturn Outlook stampings, throw a cow catcher grille on the front, slap a Cadillac badge on the front – job done.

    Seriously folks, how long has it been since almost everything GM was anything but badge engineering?

  • avatar
    Lorenzo

    If Cadillac is a me-too brand copying the Germans, they SHOULD offer a niche, full size, 3-row CUV. I suspect there are other concerns, like the rising cost of fuel, a weak economy that could slide into recession at the drop of a hat, CAFE, tougher emissions requirements, and higher safety standards. The first two are prudent financial concerns, but the others may be tipping the scales away from giving customers what they want.

  • avatar
    SSJeep

    “Take that price ceiling, multiply it 2-3x and that’s what you can charge for what is essentially a fancy Chevrolet Traverse.”
    … and therein lies the issue and why Cadillac is wise in NOT pursuing a 3-row CUV.

  • avatar
    The Heisenberg Cartel

    Cadillac needs not only a Lambda, but a smaller crossover to go up against the X1 and GLK, and bring that Escalade EXT back for another generation, too. Then possibly start adding more body styles to the crossovers (coupe, LWB etc). Start making enough money to engineer a full size luxo sled and to sedans that aren’t complete reverse engineered ripoffs of 8 year old BMWs.

    Better yet, go old school and split Cadillac into its own company under the GM umbrella, similar to how Audi operates. Oh, and keep the XTS. It works great as a Lexus ES killer and moneymaker.

  • avatar
    slance66

    Whether they build it or not, I’m not buying it. And not because I don’t want a three row CUV, because I probably do. But Cadillacs of all stripes just scream overpriced. How much nicer can it really be than an Enclave? Or an Acadia Denali? And both of those are already too expensive.

    It seems that some here believe that Cadillac’s brand image is back where it was, on par with Mercedes and BMW…not even close. I don’t think it has caught Lexus and probably won’t. It needs to price accordingly.

    I think they are right that a smaller CUV should be the immediate priority, especially since the SRX is ugly as can be.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India