QOTD: Could Cadillac Make It on Its Own?

Aaron Cole
by Aaron Cole

About three years ago, a friend of mine who lives in Dallas called me to ask my opinion on cars he should buy.

He was cross-shopping a C-Class and 3-Series before the inevitable question came up:

“What do you know about the Cadillac ATS?” he asked.

“I like them. It’s a good start for Cadillac,” I said.

“But isn’t it just a glorified Cavalier or something?” he replied.

Joe (that’s his real name, screw protecting the innocent) may not know as much about cars as the rest of you, but he’s indicative of a typical car buyer who may not be well versed in verticals, corporate structure or Johan de Nysschen. But he does know enough to know there’s a relationship between Cadillac, Chevrolet and GM

The Cadillac CEO yesterday said the luxury arm of General Motors would have more autonomy in the next few years, including sales reporting and presumably profits that it would like to keep behind the Cadillac family crest.

I didn’t bother going into where the ATS came from, or why it’s around, global sales goals and overall platform. Cadillac hasn’t outrun the Cimarron shadow, according to Joe.

In that respect, a further separation from GM would help the brand succeed in becoming a larger, global luxury carmaker.

But it’s undeniable that Cadillac wouldn’t be where it is today without the Escalade — firmly a GM product, first — and the profit it provides. Furthermore, Cadillac gains much from GM’s economy of scale and global reach. On its own, Cadillac wouldn’t have direct access to the same resources without GM — even if it were to contract build every single car from GM.

It’s clear that GM wouldn’t be as profitable without Cadillac, but is it possible that GM is what’s holding Cadillac back from sales success in Europe and beyond?

As de Nysschen pushes Cadillac further from the GM model, a split could come into view, but for Cadillac — a brand that was weaving on the ropes only a few years ago — would breaking away from the mothership be a good thing?

Would Joe, our new luxury car buyer, be tempted into buying a new Cadillac if he knew the flagship luxury brand for GM was a brand all by itself?


Aaron Cole
Aaron Cole

More by Aaron Cole

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 65 comments
  • Inside Looking Out Inside Looking Out on Aug 15, 2015

    I did not know that Chevy still makes Cavalier. Another proof that Merc/BMW owners are clueless about cars and buy car based on badge and gauges/interior with the only difference from Camry owners that Camry owners have less money to spend and do not care about gauges/interior either.

  • Frylock350 Frylock350 on Sep 30, 2015

    I will say this; the Camaro will go a long way in paying for the ATS's development.

  • ToolGuy First picture: I realize that opinions vary on the height of modern trucks, but that entry door on the building is 80 inches tall and hits just below the headlights. Does anyone really believe this is reasonable?Second picture: I do not believe that is a good parking spot to be able to access the bed storage. More specifically, how do you plan to unload topsoil with the truck parked like that? Maybe you kids are taller than me.
  • ToolGuy The other day I attempted to check the engine oil in one of my old embarrassing vehicles and I guess the red shop towel I used wasn't genuine Snap-on (lots of counterfeits floating around) plus my driveway isn't completely level and long story short, the engine seized 3 minutes later.No more used cars for me, and nothing but dealer service from here on in (the journalists were right).
  • Doughboy Wow, Merc knocks it out of the park with their naming convention… again. /s
  • Doughboy I’ve seen car bras before, but never car beards. ZZ Top would be proud.
  • Bkojote Allright, actual person who knows trucks here, the article gets it a bit wrong.First off, the Maverick is not at all comparable to a Tacoma just because they're both Hybrids. Or lemme be blunt, the butch-est non-hybrid Maverick Tremor is suitable for 2/10 difficulty trails, a Trailhunter is for about 5/10 or maybe 6/10, just about the upper end of any stock vehicle you're buying from the factory. Aside from a Sasquatch Bronco or Rubicon Jeep Wrangler you're looking at something you're towing back if you want more capability (or perhaps something you /wish/ you were towing back.)Now, where the real world difference should play out is on the trail, where a lot of low speed crawling usually saps efficiency, especially when loaded to the gills. Real world MPG from a 4Runner is about 12-13mpg, So if this loaded-with-overlander-catalog Trailhunter is still pulling in the 20's - or even 18-19, that's a massive improvement.
Next