By on August 11, 2008

1948 Cadillac Sixty SpecialBig Cadillacs are an endangered species. Unnamed "people familiar with the situation" told Bloomberg that Caddy is adding more versions of the CTS and smaller SUVs while putting the replacements for updating the DTS and STS on hold. The Hamtramck, Michigan plant where the DTS is built alongside with the Buick Lucerne is scheduled to switch over to produce the Volt in 2010. What happens to the biggest of Cadillac's cars after that is pretty much up in the air. The future of the STS, which is built in the same plant as the CTS, is equally uncertain. While some industry experts say "it's the absolute right thing to do right now" because of declining sales of the big cars and stricter CAFE standards, they're missing an important point completely: when the DTS goes, Cadillac's last ties with its past also go – remember, DTS originally stood for "Deville Touring Sedan." It will mark the final step in taking Cadillac totally downmarket and mainstreaming a brand that once had a proud luxury heritage. Lincoln's done it and now Cadillac is doing it. Sad. Truly sad.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

78 Comments on “Cadillac RIP...”


  • avatar
    86er

    It is sad, Frank, but what else did you expect? Everyone told them to imitate BMW, so they tried, and now they’ve probably had to kill their STS/DTS Zeta replacement because they’re broke, which may have been a worthy 7-Series competitor.

    Of course that wasn’t the sole reason, but that’s the gist of it.

    Goodbye American automobile.

  • avatar
    KatiePuckrik

    I don’t understand this. Most people slate GM for not building smaller (ergo, more fuel efficient) cars. When GM DO start building said vehicles, we lament it! Why?

    This is the way the market is. Audi brought out and are pushing the A3 and their diesel powertrains, Likewise, Lexus are pushing the IS diesel (in the UK) plus their hybrid cars. Mercedes-Benz brought out the A and B class and Bluetec technology, which was a world apart from its top end cars.

    If Cadillac carried on making big cars (irrespective what customers want) then Cadillac would die eventually. Cadillac has to change….

  • avatar
    AKM

    It might be sad from a brand history perspective, but let’s not forget that recent large FWD cadillac sedans are horrible pieces of crap, and I really won’t miss them.

  • avatar
    SherbornSean

    I expect GM to start producing a 5 inch stretch to the STS, as Cadillac sells in China. Nice interior!

  • avatar
    Redbarchetta

    That’s a nice Cadillac in the picture, how long did they make that body style for? My brother-in-law has one sitting in his garage, more like packed int, that he got from his father-in-law, but I think he said it was a 1950.

    While they do need to make those beasts lighter, there is a segment of buyers that want the size. Killing those big cars is going ot be a big mistake, pissing off what few loyal buyers they have left in that niche. What they need to do is get down to one very well made model and ditch all the badge engineering. Make it lighter, RWD, well packaged, with an efficient V8 or turbo 6.

    I’m getting the feeling there is real panic at GM right now, with the frantic poor decision making. The panic might have been a good refocusing if it wasn’t let by a bunch of bozos.

  • avatar

    KatiePuckrik

    I don’t understand this. Most people slate GM for not building smaller (ergo, more fuel efficient) cars. When GM DO start building said vehicles, we lament it! Why?

    Because GM has an entire division that should be concentrating on smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. It’s called Chevrolet. Cadillac is building what Buick or Pontiac should be selling. Instead, Cadillac should be an over-the-top luxury brand aimed squarely at the upper level Benz’, Lexus’ and even Bentleys.

  • avatar
    Scottie

    You are right, Cadillac is thinking fuel efficient, thats why they have a 72K hybrid suv and want more people to buy them…..

    All this really does, is add even more twists to GM’s unclear path to extinction.

  • avatar
    Jordan Tenenbaum

    You’re right, Katie, but Cadillac needs a flagship car. BMW has it in the 7-Series, MB with the S Class, and Jaguar with the XJ. Halo cars such as the XLR need not apply.

  • avatar
    discoholic

    Katie,

    I beg to differ. BMW and Lexus work as luxury brands because the largest cars in their line-ups are pretty much the best mass-produced cars that money can buy. When people buy an A3, they want some of that to rub off on their car, because otherwise, the A3 ist just a glorified VW Golf.

    Cadillac didn’t work as a brand when they were selling FWD pieces of junk, and IMHO it certainly won’t work if they sell glossed-over Chevrolets with a bit of chrome.

  • avatar
    ZoomZoom

    I was thinking this article was crazy, then I read Katie’s post. I agree. What does the market want want, smaller cars or smaller cars?

    No lamenting here, I would feel like a hypocrite.

  • avatar
    Gardiner Westbound

    Cadillac’s ties with its past disappeared much earlier with the 1985 change to front wheel drive.

    GM’s “look-alike”, “drive-alike” syndrome devastated Cadillac. Lincoln advertisements ridiculing Cadillac and GM featured a bewildered valet unable to distinguish Cadillacs, Buicks and Oldsmobiles but having no difficulty recognizing a Lincoln Town Car.

    The ads led to record Lincoln sales and so embarrassed GM and Cadillac executives Roger Smith asked Ford to discontinue them. Ford acquiesced in light of the severe downturn in Cadillac sales and the code of congeniality between Detroit-3 executives.

  • avatar
    N85523

    For some reason I have a slight irrational attachment to older GM front-drive cars and that side of me will be somewhat bummed to see the DTS go, but from a rational standpoint, we should be asking, “Why the Hell wasn’t the DTS dropped four years ago like so many other cars from it’s bloodline?”

    It’s outdated and not competitive in it’s segment. GM needs a car to fill it’s place as the flagship, but it needs the bloodline of the CTS, not the DNA of GM K and E body cars that date back to the mid-sixties.

  • avatar
    Paul Niedermeyer

    Welcome to the new world order! Hyundai’s Genesis sedan is bigger than both the CTS and the STS.

  • avatar
    86er

    N85523:
    “Why the Hell wasn’t the DTS dropped four years ago like so many other cars from it’s bloodline?”

    Fleet and livery markets.

  • avatar
    Mark MacInnis

    With all of GM circling the drain towards C11, or maybe C7, is anyone really surprised by this….this is how the end will come….one by one, GM management will come to realize that they do not have the cash to finance new programs….other than (what they consider to be) home runs like the Volt, or stuff so far down the pipeline (like the Camaro) that it is cheaper to go forward than to cancel…they are boxed in by lack of cash….the anaconda that is Toyota and high gas prices is choking off cash.

  • avatar
    carlisimo

    At least they had the prescience to take the crown off their logo.

  • avatar
    carguy

    Katie is right – demand for luxo barges is down so they are using their limited R&D budget to capitalize on the polularity of the CTS buy producing more variants. Reacting to market forces is good business.
    Also, how many of you lamenting the loss of the DTS would actually buy one?

  • avatar
    ihatetrees

    Gardiner Westbound :
    Lincoln advertisements ridiculing Cadillac and GM featured a bewildered valet unable to distinguish Cadillacs, Buicks and Oldsmobiles…

    I dimly recall that ad…

    … Roger Smith asked Ford to discontinue them. Ford acquiesced in light of the severe downturn in Cadillac sales and the code of congeniality between Detroit-3 executives.

    I don’t know what more pathetic. Roger Smith’s legacy at GM or Ford’s craven response.

  • avatar
    detroit1701

    I agree with Jordan. You need an STS/DTS replacement flagship car, with the best luxury, performance, and technology in your entire brand-wide lineup. The aspirational car. The best American luxury car ever made. Just the car’s existence is enough to make a marketing impact, even if you only sell 5,000 per year.

  • avatar
    Redbarchetta

    Also, how many of you lamenting the loss of the DTS would actually buy one?

    I’m not I happen to own one of those POS, with the real DeVille name. What I’m lamenting is what Cadillac used to build and represent, Cadillac as a tarted up and slightly more expensive Chevy is just a waste of time, they should just make Cadillac a higher trim option at the Chevy store in that case.

    Mark MacInnis is right this is mostly a case of them circling the drain, along with poor product planning and gross waste of their R&D budget with the “on” again “off” again they keep doing.

  • avatar
    toxicroach

    I thought Cadillac was for those rich guys who didn’t worry about gas prices.

  • avatar
    phil

    frank you’re right, this is a sad day indeed. i don’t know if you caught the CNBC special “saving GM” but during the show a pristine 59 caddy was shown and wow, i had forgotten what a rolling masterpiece it was. i was just a kid in 59 but when one of those babies rolled by it caught everyone’s attention. how different from today when 98/100 cars look almost identical.

  • avatar
    jerry weber

    toxicroach, not exactly correct. You see, many upsacale buyers want luxury which means comfort which means space. Lexus,with it’s LS460 actually get’s an all around 21mpg and about 26 on the highway. My point is that luxury buyers don’t need 40mpg and they won’t get it with 115 cubic feet of interior space. However, they don’t want an overpowered thing that gets 15mpg all around. Therefore, they need the latest technology and maybe some engine choices to keep themselves wrapped in luxury but not be the biggest non green drivers in the U.S. Let’s look at can you believe huyndai making this genesis type of rear wheel drive luxury sedan with both a 6 and an 8. A sophisticated large car crammed with the latest technology to go head to head with cadillac; I don’t think so how about lexus. What caddy and lincoln are telling us is that they are out of the luxury game, they can no longer afford it. They will build upscale performance cars mostly with small cabins for two people (even though they have small rear doors and seats) but not true image pieces. Think of this, after 100 years, all limousines will be built on foreign luxury platforms because of the size issue. While this is a miniscule market, it creates the bling for people who will buy the non-stretched version and feel they are as good as the celebrity or president. All of this will be gone and maybe much more.

  • avatar

    The DTS (and its FWD bloodline dating back to 1984) is far from the kind of traditional Cadillac that people truly appreciate. FWD vehicles are often seen as low-rent/disposable to this target market, and the Deville/DTS never had the feel of real American iron.

    Two points to consider:

    1. Cadillac actually died with the passing of the 1996 Fleetwood Bro-ham with the honkin’ LT-1 motor.

    2. Who cares, we still have the Town Car for another 1-2 years.

  • avatar
    NN

    If Cadillac built the Sixteen (still drop-dead gorgeous after all these years) and put the hybrid Escalade powertrain in it, you’d have an amazingly beautiful, high-tech, proud American luxury car that could demand quite a premium.

  • avatar
    Lichtronamo

    Toyota didn’t launch Lexus with the Camry based ES or RX CUV (even through these models make up the volume of sales) – they launched with the LS as a signal to the world that Lexus was to be a Tier 1 automaker. Take away the planned DT7 and Cadillac is an American Infiniti (and Lincoln an American Acura).

  • avatar
    bjcpdx

    Up through the early 1940s Cadillac was truly exclusive. The cars were still high quality after WW2 but sales zoomed and Cadillac became mass-market. They set sales records throughout the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

    These days, the whole Cadillac division should be GM’s halo division. Problem is, GM brass wouldn’t be able to stomach the drop in sales figures. Oh, wait…

  • avatar
    CarShark

    I still think TTAC’s party line on Cadillac is hopeless and in conflict with its general rule of “make what people want”. Why take a brand that’s still trying to regain its prominence and alienate its new, younger customer base by dragging it into the super-competitive rarified air where it’s sure to be killed by the established competition? You’ll turn what was a mini-success into an abject failure because of your own outdated views on luxury cars. Luxury no longer means making a car bigger with more names. Near luxury and luxury have combined. You have to be able to take a 90 degree turn at 30 and not end up on your door handles. That’s fairly plain and simple. Nothing wrong with that, and certainly not anything you can effectively change. Adapt or die. We’re learning that a brand can’t survive by itself in the “near luxury” segment. Mercury, VW, the Swedes: All are floundering because they’re caught in the middle. Some cars are cheaper and just as well-equipped. Others aren’t as well-equipped, but come from more desirable brands.

    And what about the gap vacated by the price bump? What is it supposed to be filled with? Buick? I don’t foresee $55,000 Lucernes selling like hotcakes. Both it AND Pontiac AND Saab are all damaged (IMO) beyond repair. Saturn can’t hang with Toyota or Honda, so they won’t fit the bill, either. Essentially, a strategy like yours will unquestionably lead to you ceding sales to the IS, A4 and 3-Series. Hardly seems like a worthwhile proposition.

    P.S. I’m not saying that the DT7 is a bad idea. Just that it’s the wrong time for it. As much as the site’s staff hates it, the smaller-than-the-CTS sedan could very well be a success without sacrificing brand values. After all, “Standard of the World” only dictates being the best, not a size or price requirement. If Cadillac then proceeds to make the best small car in the world, haven’t they succeeded?

  • avatar
    Bancho

    GM should license production of the Hyundai Genesis and re-skin it with more sharply creased sheetmetal. Add a caddy badge and call it a HTS (Hyundai Touring Sedan).

  • avatar
    Dynamic88

    What Frank said!

    I can only add two things;

    1. Anyone who thinks Caddy should be making smaller cars doesn’t understand branding. There’s a big difference between BMW making a small car and Caddy doing it. BMW is a full range builder with one car division. GM has 8 brands. They can dedicate one to big cars, and Caddy is the one.

    2. I’ve often said GM should just pare down to Chevrolet. Keeping Caddy won’t work because they don’t understand branding and they’ll just end up with Chevillacs.

  • avatar
    limmin

    A friend of mine has a fwd Seville STS, the precursor to the rwd STS. I don’t see the point of it.

    For such a large car, esp. one with no driveshaft tunnel, there’s very little room inside. (I don’t see how this thing could be used for livery purposes.)

    The Northstar mill has an endearing, blue-blood habit: it slurps pricey Mobil 1 synthetic oil like a businessman slurps Bloody Marys. I don’t know why my friend bothers to change his oil, he keeps adding new oil each wk. (Note that the Northstar was designed to do this.)

    The engine lacks torque and it gets 18mpg on a good day. It’s also fabulously complicated.

    In short, a Buick Lucerne is the same darned car for much less. Similarly, a CTS is a better value than the current STS.

    IMO, the entire Seville/STS line was created to keep the Northstar factory humming along. Probably a union contract thing…keep building them even if they ain’t wanted.

  • avatar
    WaftableTorque

    The value proposition of the DTS depends on your point of view. If you view it as a flagship, like an A8L, 7-Class, S-Class, LS460, Phaeton, or XJ8, the car is a bargain.
    If you compare the price point, it’s priced against cars a size class below.
    Cars seem to be the one product where enthusiasts compare price points rather than class. The analogy is shopping for a business suit while cross shopping a velvet sport jacket and a track suit that are the same price.
    I bet it would insult a Camry shopper to suggest looking at a Corolla the same way it would insult a DTS shopper to look at cars other than fullsize luxury sedans.
    Just another way of looking at it.

  • avatar
    davey49

    Isn’t the Escalade (tarted up Chevy) the Cadillac flagship? I believe it is still the best selling Cadillac
    The STS is a RWD large Cadillac on a completely separate platform. (not a tarted up Chevy) It doesn’t sell well at all.
    Maybe tarting up a Chevy isn’t such a bad idea.
    Personally I’d like to see a new Eldorado.

  • avatar
    theraff

    Cadillac Brand should mean Incomparable, Enviable Luxury and Quality…A Red Carpet Experience.

    That doesn’t Equal BIG…and it hasn’t for a Long Time! Geez…you guys have the same Mental Block as The “Management” that has run GM of the Edge of their Flat Earth Version of the World!

  • avatar
    Redbarchetta

    davey49 I was refering to the brand image not specific models when I said tarted up Chevy’s. Their brand image and the cars they are mostly selling (CTS’) are not competing in the same class they used to be. And if they drop the larger high end models that will further lower their status. Not everyone wants a giant Escalade bling mobile, especially all those faithful old folks who buy DTS’ and STS’ year after year because it is a big comfortable Caddy like they used to get way back when. Guess they will be going to another brand to purchase from.

    I am in no way trying to defend the big junk they make now, I have one of those deplorable Caddy’s, that is one of my only regrets in life. But dumping the segment without vastly improving what they make in it even dumber then selling the crap they make now. They can’t afford to lose a single customer. Oh well the quicky they get to the end the quick we start a new beginning.

  • avatar
    Dynamic88

    Cadillac Brand should mean Incomparable, Enviable Luxury and Quality…A Red Carpet Experience.

    That doesn’t Equal BIG…and it hasn’t for a Long Time! Geez…you guys have the same Mental Block as The “Management” that has run GM of the Edge of their Flat Earth Version of the World!

    There’s no mental block, just the realization that there are 7 more divisions. Caddy doesn’t need to provide for all segments of the luxury market. Caddys are big ‘ol boats traditionally. There will always be a market for those, albeit a small one.

    The CTS is absolutely the best Pontiac ever made. What’s wrong with Pontiac making those sales instead of Caddy?

  • avatar

    KatiePuckrik :
    I don’t understand this. Most people slate GM for not building smaller (ergo, more fuel efficient) cars. When GM DO start building said vehicles, we lament it! Why?

    Katie,

    Your lack of understanding is probably cultural. Cadillac is about being the ultimate luxo-barge. The luxo-barge niche is of course shrinking fast; nonetheless, if Cadillac had stuck to its heritage, it might have been able to preserve that niche. Now, I just don’t know what Cadillac can do better than anyone else, and I don’t know why anyone would buy one unless they put loyalty to country over getting the best car in class.

  • avatar
    Detroit-Iron

    They need to make bigger cars, rwd, 4 door convertibles, straight eights, combine MDS with hybrid to get ~25 mpg and put down 600ft/lbs. Double the price but make it worth it. They need to reclaim their brand identity. They should be competing with Mercedes, Rolls Royce, and Bentley, not Lexus and Acura (not that they could).

  • avatar
    taxman100

    The American car is dead – killed by the insane desire to copy boring European makes.

    The last real Cadillac was the Fleetwood Brougham – since then has been pretty much selling Buicks as Caddy’s.

    Globalization just leads to fewer and fewer choices.

  • avatar
    folkdancer

    When I first started noticing cars in the 1950’s I always liked Cadilacs, Lincolns, Packards, and New Yorkers. Made me think of diplomats, gangsters, crooked politicians, CEOs, pimps, and other bigger than life people.

    I never liked big Fords, Chevys, Mercuries, Buicks, Olds, Edsels, and Pontiacs – they just seemed like Cadilac/Lincoln wannabes.

    Sad that GM and Ford just couldn’t keep the Cadilac and Lincoln above the rif raf.

    Letting Cadilac and Lincoln join the SUV and even the PU fads was a terrible insult to these marques. And now it appears that GM and Ford are very confused as to what to do with them.

  • avatar
    Dimwit

    All of you who want GM to bring back the Caddies of yore… they can’t. Not that they wouldn’t or shouldn’t or unwilling, they can’t. There’s is no platform in GM of N.A. available that Cadillac can use. Only the Zeta platform — and that might of been a little marginal — would have allowed for a return to the traditional Detroit Iron but that’s been cancelled … again.

    Otherwise what does Caddy have? The Malibu’s underpinnings? The G8? And get Holden to make them? Good luck in making any money from that! The only other platform likely is what’s under the Lucerne and they’re already using that for the DTS. It’s getting tired. The attachment to the SUV has really started to hit home in the worst possible way.

    The cupboard’s getting bare.

  • avatar
    Gardiner Westbound

    The Northstar mill has an endearing, blue-blood habit: it slurps pricey Mobil 1 synthetic oil like a businessman slurps Bloody Marys. I don’t know why my friend bothers to change his oil, he keeps adding new oil each week. limmin

    When the seals go south, and they will, it will leak another quart.

  • avatar
    Packard

    The assumption that Cadillac must build a small car to build a fuel efficient car is a fallacy. First, what constitutes “fuel efficient” is relative. Second, the purpose of being a leader in technology is to make possible that which previously wasn’t possible.

    General Motors has deliberately chosen to debase the one vehicle upon which its entire image and validity depended: the deVille. The introduced the present DTS in 2000 and, until recently, it was their sales leader. Yet, they twice did the CTS and SRX in that time frame, not to mention the XLR and the STS – while leaving the DTS untouched. Had GM been wise, they would have focused attention on the flagship. They chose not to do so.

    That’s because GM isn’t a leader. It follows whatever its competitors do – and it’s usually two steps behind and a day or to late to the market. So, the stillborn DTS replacement was geared to a 7 Series market that was there five years ago, when the new Cadillac should have been there.

    If there isn’t a V-8 Cadillac, there isn’t a General Motors. Cadillac cannot compete or survive as a luxury brand on the CTS or its varients alone. If GM cannot find a way to build a worthy successor to the DTS, it admits that the bank account is no longer able to withstand the blank checks with current management has been writing everyone, instead of investing in the product and the company’s future.

  • avatar
    willbodine

    I think the eulogies are premature. While the future of Cadillac centers on the CTS and eventual variants, GM (or whoever is running Cadillac in a few years) will not let the DTS-type “traditional large American sedan” die. It would cost very little to “update” the current platform and upgrade the build quality to keep competitive. America, with its “super-sized’ denizens and vast distances to cover, will always find a way to keep the big car alive.
    BTW, if I hadn’t watched “Saving General Motors” on CNBC last night, I wouldn’t have known that GM’s current domestic products now have competitive, high quality interiors (at least according to one Mr. Bob Lutz.)
    Also, the art is a ’48 or ’49 60 Special.

  • avatar
    cheezeweggie

    Who cares. Caddy died on the 70’s anyway.

  • avatar
    Captain Tungsten

    Wow. This thread is testimony to the branding problems at GM. Basically, Cadillac ain’t what it used to be, which is probably a good thing, but GM hasn’t been able to communicate what Cadillac IS now. The addition of the V-series CTS completes that car’s journey to a place where no quarter is given nor any taken on the world stage. It’s a tip-of-the-whip sports sedan. But is it a Cadillac? And how does it jive in the same showroom as Escalade? Escalade is another world-class product for what it is, but way off the mission of the CTS or even the STS. This thread has mainly been an argument about what a Cadillac is and who it’s buyers are. If the Best and Brightest can’t crack that nut, who can?….maybe that is GM’s biggest problem.

  • avatar
    bjcpdx

    The art is definitely a ’48 as stated. The ’49 was almost identical from a 3/4 rear angle, but the grille wrapped around the front fenders above the bumper all the way to the wheel opening.

    OK, trivia time is over.

  • avatar
    Usta Bee

    Big CARS are for retirement communities and old geezers, and for today’s yuppies= not cool. If the people with money want to buy an American luxury vehicle they’ll buy an SUV, not a copy of grandpa’s luxo-barge. The last Cadillac besides the current CTS and Escalade that got any notice with the public was the one that Boss Hog rode in.

    My only question is…..if they kill the DTS what model are they going to use to replace it with for the pink Mary Kay Edition car in the future ?.

  • avatar
    Rix

    If GM doesn’t come up with something for the livery market, it’s a boneheaded move. Because Ford won’t give that market up and will take it all. It will build a new RWD fleet/livery car to replace the Crown Vic/Town Car and own that market for the next 20 years.

  • avatar
    theraff

    ….Dynamic 88:There’s no mental block, just the realization that there are 7 more divisions. Caddy doesn’t need to provide for all segments of the luxury market

    Well…there you have it!!!!…

    So ALL 8 Divisions of GM should make Luxury Cars????? Haven’t they had a tough enough time with 7 Divisions Making Chevys and ONE(Cadillac) PRETENDING that they WERE NOT Making Chevys?

    Cadillac=Luxury

    Luxury= The Buyer’s Definition of Luxury, First and Foremost. The Car, The Buying Experience, etc. There are Big Luxury Cars and all other sizes….(Ok..I’ll stop now)

  • avatar
    Durask

    IMHO, a sensible approach.

    The only competitive car in their lineup is the CTS, including a (finally) modern AWD tranny (as opposed to the ancient open differential with brake control like the STS). When the budget is limited, best to spend it on continuing to refine and improve the CTS. Once (if) they dig themselves out of a hole, then expand the lineup.

    Recently four of my acquaintances who before would never, ever look at Cadillac test drove the CTS. They used to buy German exclusively, but started to look elsewhere because of the usual complaints – German cars getting too expensive, out of warranty repairs and maintenance are insanely expensive, reliability is not what it used to be, etc. All liked it and one even bought one (the rest decided to stick with their old BMWs and Mercs for a few more years). A few years ago the only way to make them look at a Cadillac would have been at gunpoint.

  • avatar
    whatsanobeen

    Instead of drumming up the issues of GM’s luxury division (or GM itself, for that matter), I figured I’d propose a solution.

    Cadillac really doesn’t need a DTS replacement because it doesn’t fit in line with the mass consumer’s expectations for a modern luxury car. I mean, what would you wanna be seen in after your shares of (insert company here) skyrocket? A Mercedes-Benz S550 or the Cadillac DTS?

    For a flagship, Cadillac could (extensively) retool the Pontiac G8’s exterior and interior, maybe stretch the platform to the size of a Holden Statesman, offer only V8s and if it fits, the 3.6 liter DI V6 engine, and sell it as a new Cadillac STS. I know badge-engineering isn’t the best way to compete, but the concept redeems itself when its applied to a decent car. Plus, it would cost more to develop a brand-new platform for a range-topper and the option of badge-engineering would be appealing due to GM’s the current fiscal situation.

  • avatar
    Tom-W

    Cadillac died a long time ago.

    A luxury marque is one-half image (as to performance, quality and exclusivity) and one-half credibility (that it actually has the aforementioned characteristics).

    Not only did GM start making Cadillac vehicles nothing but tarted-up Chevrolets beginning in the 1970’s, but GM overall hasn’t made truly competitive products since the 1960’s.

    For all but the ever-declining number of true believers, a GM product, any GM product, is perceived as junk fit only for rental car fleets. And deservedly so. Millions of Americans are not going to risk their hard-earned money on a GM product, and who can blame them?

    Even GM’s VERY recent, and widely hyped Lutzian efforts at diminishing the beancounter uber alles design and engineering regime is half-a**ed – GM products are better when “benchmarked” against its own earlier products, but they’re still quite inferior.

    The GM corporate culture seems to regard product excellence (in engineering, materials and assembly) the way a vampire regards sunlight – they’ll expose themselves to quality, but only begrudgingly and will retreat to the dark and the soonest opportunity.

  • avatar
    Phil Ressler

    Cadillacs are visually distinctive, powerful cars with market-leading technology integration, excellent driver & passenger comfort, with a long-legged gait for a comfortable thousand mile day. At least they should be.

    The entire Art & Science theme prevailing in the current line is visually distinctive. With the new DI V6, the mainstream car is relatively powerful, as is the standard 403hp Escalade. The naturally-aspirated Northstar V8 cars are competitive, but that engine needs a renovation to find another 40 ponies or so. And then there are the V-Series cars, which have the sensational 4.4L Supercharged hand-wrenched Northstar variant, and of course the upcoming 6.2L supercharged small block. The V-Series cars are a convincing cap to a current range that campaigns a re-assertive Cadillac.

    I think it was Stephen Hawking who noted that “disorder increases with time because we measure time in the direction in which disorder increases.” Meaning perspective is everything and nothing is static. GM allowed a tragic erosion of the Cadillac brand from about 1970 through 2000 or so, and I don’t think anyone would argue that the present cars are trend-negative compared to what was offered in Y2K. Frank sees a decision and infers that temporally restricted conditions extend indefinitely. There are some practical realities standing in the way of an uninterrupted ramp of ceaseless progress toward restoration of Cadillac’s brand proposition, including the manifold challenges buffeting the parent corporation. However, to assume that a delay in replacing the DTS with a large, RWD statement sedan warrants a R.I.P. send-off to Cadillac is an overreaction. Cadillac is nowhere close to the mid-market retreat by Lincoln.

    The current cars are each built on strong, capable platforms. Owning an XLR-V and CTS-V, I daily witness the rising interest and respect this brand is winning as its post 2004 product and reputational progress chips away at dated market perceptions. While Art & Science is considered polarizing by some, the actual experience of owning these cars is that people who bother to make their opinion known tend to be strongly positive by at least 8.5:1. The new CTS is a surprisingly spacious car inside and by no means small in the current market. The STS-V is an executive express in which a successful person with a 6’3″ frame can “sit behind himself” comfortably. The V cars in particular are both breathtakingly powerful and highly competent, while having a distinctly loping feel at sustained speed when you have to unspool that thousand mile day. And I’ll take Cadillac’s seamless technology integration over the relatively ham-handed efforts of most competing luxury makers who are mixing digital electronics with the analog task of driving. Cadillacs just work. They don’t seem over-teched because the technology integration is genuine and transparent.

    Where Cadillac hasn’t fully restored its prior luxury cues is interiors. I like the clean, masculine interiors of the V-Series cars, but they would be more Caddy with more and better leather, and carpets should be woolly, in the British mold. The CTS interior is a tall step up toward the objective for sumptuousness that Cadillac should achieve, so again they are trend-positive. And Cadillacs should come from the best dealerships. My Cadillac dealer experiences have so far been exemplary.

    It should be easy enough to affordably stretch the STS for a van den plas-like edition as an intermediate step toward a new flagship sedan, plus an interior revamp. Particularly with the V-Series cars advancing people’s perceptions of Cadillac, GM has some time to further restore the brand through additional product. In the meantime, having driven everything — and I mean everything — in the class, I consider every sedan option between an STS-V and a Maserati Quattroporte to be deficient in justifying its existence. Which is why I’ll buy an STS-V when I next need a big four-door.

    Phil

  • avatar
    Jordan Tenenbaum

    Oh boy. I think some people have misconstrued what I meant about Cadillac needing a flagship car. I was certainly not talking about the flaccid DTS. I believe that Cadillac needs the unobtainium-based Zeta platform. I’m aware this won’t happen, and that’s a shame. As I have said before, the XLR is no substitute for a flagship car.

    The last good Cadillac was not the ’96 Brougham with its holier-than-thou LT1; no, that honor goes to the ’76 Fleetwood. That car was the epitome of American over-indulgence.

  • avatar
    Durask

    They do not have the resources to develop a flagship that would beat the S-class and the 7-series. None. Nada. Period. As they said in (forgot which movie) – do or do not, there is no try.

    Stick to the CTS for a few years and re-establsh the reputation of the brand.

  • avatar
    npbheights

    I think the year 2020 CAFE standards will not apply to GM as they won’t be around that long, so that being said GM & Cadillac ought to go out with a big bang. Here is a way to do it on the cheap. Back in the 50’s and 60’s Cadillac threw a new body on the same old frame year after year and it worked. They could take the GMT360 platform from the GMC Envoy XL with its 129″ wheelbase (’76 fleetwood had a 133″ wheelbase and the ’96 Fleetwood Brougham had a 121.5″ wheelbase, for reference) and make an impressive 2 door coupe and convertible and a 4 door formal sedan body for it, put in one of their honkin GM 6.0L V8’s and the hybrid setup as an option, 20″ wheels, etc. It would have the presence of a Rolls Royce or Bentley, with the bulletproof reliability a GM truck platform and would probably get decent milage with cylinder deactivation and a six speed transmission. it would be more aerodynamic than it’s suv forerunners too. Sounds like an awesome flagship caddy. Realistic, and totally american. Since the GMT360 SUV’s will go away after 2009, now is the time to get started.

  • avatar
    Khutuck

    I really cannot understand US car market and GM’s technology levels. A Porsche 911GT2 with a 500hp 3.6 liter Boxer-6 engine goes 22mpg in combined EU circle, a 276 HP 3.6 liter Cadillac CTS goes 16mpg in city circle. I know that they are apples and oranges, Porsche is twice expensive, etc etc, but come on! What a waste of fuel! Almost none of the Cadillac’s can be sold in European market, but all EU cars can be sold (and sales better) than GM/Ford cars. Ford’s European models are much more complete and elegant cars than US models. Just look at European vs. American Ford Focus!

    I’m not old enough to remember the glorious days of US car industry, and I’m quite happy about that. All the model range of GM+Ford is 25-year-old designs with little make-up. That’s how Toyota became #1 saler.

  • avatar
    eggsalad

    My dad drives a DTS. Why? Cuz he’s 82, and he remembers when one *aspired* to a Cadillac, and Mercedes was just a silly little foreign car that cost twice as much.

    In other words, the market for the DTS is just about expired.

  • avatar
    Phil Ressler

    A Porsche 911GT2 with a 500hp 3.6 liter Boxer-6 engine goes 22mpg in combined, a 276 HP 3.6 liter Cadillac CTS goes 16mpg in city.

    You will be hard-pressed to do as well as 16mpg in the city in a 911GT2, while a CTS with the base 3.6L engine can readily deliver 22mpg combined. The CTS highway rating is 26 mpg. It also weighs about 600 lbs. more than the Porsche and being a sedan, it sits taller. In the U.S., the Porsche is *not* rated 22mpg combined — that’s its highway rating. City rating is 15 mpg, which I think is optimistic. Some reviewers have reported 9 – 12 mpg mixed, driven aggressively of course.

    I know that they are apples and oranges, Porsche is twice expensive, etc etc, but come on! What a waste of fuel!

    Yup, apples and oranges, and the Cadillac is more efficient. My 443 hp 4.4L V8 XLR-V is also more efficient than the 911GT2, but then they’re apples and oranges too.

    All the model range of GM+Ford is 25-year-old designs with little make-up.

    With the exception of the Ford Ranger compact pickup truck, this is simply not true, although some would argue the Mustang qualifies, in principle by adhering to its solid rear axle roots.

    GM’s 3.6L DI V6, its 2.0L Ecotec 4 turbo, the stellar 5.3L, 6.2L and 7.0L “small block” V8s and their new 6L80 and 6L90 smart double-clutch automatic transmissions, along with magneto-rheologic suspension (adopted by Ferrari) are but a few indicators of GM’s technology level.

    The CTS V6 starts in the mid-$30Ks. The GT2 is, last I saw, $192,000.

    Phil

  • avatar
    Khutuck

    @Phil

    Porsche is a bad example for CTS, but it still consumes 12.5 lt/100km in EU combined circle, which is about 20mpg US by driving nomally.

    Even Chinese can (and are) build the same engines of GM at the moment on their photocopied cars. Getting 500Nm torque on 15 liters V16 engine is not a technological breakthrough. I’ll stick to Porsche as an exmple, Porsche’s current flat-6 powerplant is almost identical to 1990 911 (964) 3.6lt Turbo with a power of 360PS. Same 3.6L flat-6 today produces 530HP, and still consumes 30% less fuel fuel. What about GM? L37 engine was 295 HP in 1993, now it’s 292, consumes only 15% less with same output.

    I’m no even comparing PDK with 6L90. It won’t make sense. It will be like comparing an Formula 1 car with an Indycar.

    But…
    I’m not an American. I live in Europe. I used some grey market imported US cars, and the best of them, Lincoln Navigator, was worse than a Range Rover for my taste. We dont have many highways around here, oil is 3 times expensive, and you need a lot of torque and a manual transmission to compete with curly mountain roads.

  • avatar
    Phil Ressler

    Porsche is a bad example for CTS, but it still consumes 12.5 lt/100km in EU combined circle, which is about 20mpg US by driving nomally.

    But it was your example. I doubt your conversion of the EU combined circle would hold up in real US driving here, but we’ll just have to find an owner.

    The European view of looking at engine efficiency relative to internal displacement is only one way of seeing efficiency. There is also the perspective of efficiency relative to a powerplant’s external volume. GM’s Corvette pushrod engines are fully modern, compact and lightweight, with smaller external dimensions than many lower-displacement multi-cam engines of both European and American origin. The GM 5.7L small block was 300hp in 1992, while the 6.2L standard equivalent today is 436 with better fuel economy, and pops to 505 in the 7.0L version developed for the Z06. Meanwhile, the Cadillac V Series 4.4L supercharged engine outputs 469hp in the STS-V, but the 6.2L pushrod is externally smaller. GM is playing on both sides of the multi-cam vs. pushrod equation, for specific applications. European and Japanese companies have no equivalent to the modern iteration of the GM small block V8, and the excellent efficiency possible from a large displacement loping V8 and tall final gearing, which is one reason they are hard pressed to field a car with Corvette performance at comparable economics.

    The 6L90 and PDK are for entirely different purposes, but in its class the 6L90 is fully contemporary and intelligently adaptive, as is the 6L80. The PDK is a double clutch manual with electronic control. The 6L80 and 90 are double clutch automatics, with smart, quick shifts for juice drives, and manual option. Not really the same. Corvette manages to trailer Porsche models that cost half again more, with a familiar between-the-seats stick.

    Phil

  • avatar
    Dynamic88

    So ALL 8 Divisions of GM should make Luxury Cars?????

    No. But Caddy doesn’t need to make smaller cars. Nor should it be making near luxury cars. One should not be able to get into a new Caddy for around 34K. One should not be able to buy a Caddy PU.

    Alternatively, Caddy can continue to go downmarket, but then, as FW said, it’s building what Buick and Pontiac should be building. IOW, Caddy doesn’t have to be what it traditionally was, but GM should (and doesn’t) understand that it will loose what Caddy traditionally was – large powerful luxobarges. There will always be a market for those, but it will always be small. If Caddy is going to go in a new direction, that’s fine, but GM already has Buick for a lower level of luxury, and Pontiac for performance. Caddy doesn’t really need to go there. That’s why people keep saying the CTS is a Buick or a Pontiac. It’s not that GM doesn’t need the CTS, it’s just that it doesn’t need to be a Caddy.

    Haven’t they had a tough enough time with 7 Divisions Making Chevys and ONE(Cadillac) PRETENDING that they WERE NOT Making Chevys?

    Yes, which is why GM should just trim down to Chevrolet alone. They’ll never keep two divisions separate in the market. Chevillacs and Cadolets will be produced.

  • avatar
    jerseydevil

    I drive a DTS as a work car. At first, I had the knee jerk response that I see alot here. BIg awlful car, meant for octogenarians. Fuel hog, etc, et. After all, I drive a litle VW Golf.

    What I found was quite diferent. It is a truly magnificent car. Ridiculously comfortable, sublime quiet engine, quiet quiet inside. Excellent sound system. While it is not much on the twisties, it is composed, easy to drive fast, and did I mention quiet and comfortable? It is front wheel drive, but that does not matter. Drive this car in the relaxed manner it is intended to be driven, and it is a delight. Clients are usually impressed. “What kind of car IS this, they say. I REALLY like it”.

    So I am real suprised and impressed by this car. It returns about 20 mpg in mixed relaxed driving. Not bad. Certainly not the 35 plus I get with the VW, but not bad.

    Would I buy one? It is a sedan, i like to carry my bike around. Maybe a little tighter on the suspension so it can carve a litle… but no, not if if disturbes the magnificent highway ride. If they made a station wagon-er-sport back or whatever… I understand the CTS will be a station wagon soon. If it is as comfortable and relaxed as this is, it will be a contender – offering something different.

    So there it is. I like this car. And I am as suprised by that as anyone.

  • avatar
    Tom-W

    >>I drive a DTS as a work car.

    Dunno your age, but I would be embarrassed; I’m 52 and consider myself waayyyy too young for Cadillac or Buick. (Which is ultimately irrelevant, even though I’m eligible for the GM Family Plan through an in-law, I wouldn’t touch a GM product with a ten foot pole. But I digress.)

    I understand that back in the 1950’s Cadillac was a true prestige, aspirational brand, and that it rode this reputation into the 1960’s.

    But today, pulling up in a Cadillac is akin to showing up at a high class event wearing a polyester leisure suit – one is signaling ignorance, unsophistication and being way, way out of date. Such is how far the brand has fallen.

    Cadillacs still have cache among the assisted-living set and low-class blinged-out rappers, but beyond that …

  • avatar
    adam0331

    Cadillac should be an over-the-top luxury brand aimed squarely at the upper level Benz’, Lexus’ and even Bentleys.

    Say what?!? It would take literally generations for Cadillac to replace enough of the on the road fleet to have an image that competes with the likes of BMW, MB & Lexus. I don’t care how great the CTS might be, there are just too many shit box Caddy’s on the street today tarnishing the image.

    As for “big” cars. I see those old big Cadillac’s all the time when I drive through the “high forclosure” parts of town. They are all jacked up with 22″ rims and driven by wannabe pimps and gangsters. And Cadillac wants to compete with BMW?

    What GM needs to do is take every single Caddy from the 1970’s forward off the streets and crush them like the EV1. After a few years people might forget about their ills of the past, i.e. craptastic “big” cars from the 70’s, 80’s & 90’s. Only then will people start to embrace the showroom floor with a clear head.

  • avatar
    doctorv8

    Khutuck,

    Phil knows what he’s talking about. Porsches routinely get comparable or poorer EPA highway fuel economy than their Corvette contemporaries despite the fact that the Vettes have 50-100% more displacement, more torque, and better acceleration. Why? More low end torque allows for taller gearing, and Corvettes have fastidious attention to aerodynamics and weight savings.

    What is the benefit of a motor that makes more HP/liter if it is physically larger, far more complicated/expensive to build/design/maintain, and makes peak torque over a much narrower RPM range?

    Unless there is a tax based on displacement (not an issue here) or you are conforming to sanctioning bodies in a particular racing league….more displacement is not a bad thing by itself. This seems to be a uniquely European/Japanese viewpoint that I have debated with countless people on countless forums…and eventually most do acknowledge the facts.

  • avatar
    WildBill

    I drove my dad’s ’66 Sedan Deville one summer a did an internship out of town (this was in 1975). It was a big long thing, silver color, BIG honking V-8 (a 490 something?) with the most beautiful red leather interior I’ve ever seen. Would cruise all day at 100 mph if you had the guts to run it that fast (I did, once!). That car was the standard of luxury then. Sad to see that legacy tarnished.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    Unless there is a tax based on displacement (not an issue here) or you are conforming to sanctioning bodies in a particular racing league….more displacement is not a bad thing by itself. This seems to be a uniquely European/Japanese viewpoint that I have debated with countless people on countless forums

    The issue is based upon the market. Consumers in the US have largely moved away from the big V8, but Detroit keeps pretending that it’s 1968 instead of 2008, and ignores the fact that tastes have changed in ways that go against them.

    It’s fine if you want to debate folks on the internet, but companies that debate these issues with their customers are doomed to lose money and fail. There should be no argument between the company and the customers who provide it with the cash that keeps them in business.

    Cadillac is a relic brand among a collection of relics. V8’s alone are not going to save it. Personally, I doubt that it can be saved.

    But unfortunately for GM, it’s the best brand that they have to work with. Obviously, that isn’t saying much.

  • avatar
    doctorv8

    Pch101,

    We were talking about sports cars. Obviously there is no need for V8s in mass market cars, but if a high performance car can have a 5+ liter powerhouse that gets 28-30 mpg at 75 mph/1700 rpm on the highway….then why replace it with a 3 liter 6 that turns 3000 rpm at 75 mph and returns 25 mpg?

    Cadillac is a different story, but as Sajeev’s CTS review noted…it’s a great car (not a relic in any sense)in need of a small displacement V8 motor to differentiate it from the 6 cyl Japanese and Euro offerings.

  • avatar
    BuckD

    Maybe it’s my age, but I can’t relate to TTAC’s nostalgia for the Cadillac land yachts of yore. Whatever luster the brand may have had with sub-retirement age buyers died a good forty years ago. GM somehow figured out that Baroque monuments to past automotive excellence won’t attract young buyers and changed course before Cadillac went extinct along with its demographic.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    We were talking about sports cars. Obviously there is no need for V8s in mass market cars, but if a high performance car can have a 5+ liter powerhouse that gets 28-30 mpg at 75 mph/1700 rpm on the highway….then why replace it with a 3 liter 6 that turns 3000 rpm at 75 mph and returns 25 mpg?

    It’s in part a function of balance, weight and size. I doubt that an LS3 from a Vette would fit very well into the back of a 911, for example.

    You are correct that it isn’t displacement that consumes fuel, so much as it is power output and vehicle weight. A small turbo running at 10/10th’s will use as much fuel as a larger V8 that is producing a similar level of output. The smaller engine provides fuel savings when it is running at a fraction of peak, not when run full out.

    However, the point of the thread is the issue/ burden of the legacy brand. Because Detroit has real difficulty with building competitive motors with fewer than eight cylinders, it reinforces the belief that they are dinosaurs who can’t face the modern era.

    It also hurts them in building an export market, because of the displacement taxes that are imposed by other countries that make these cars expensive propositions to own in many countries abroad. They aren’t able to smooth out their North American production business with exports and are completely beholden to the American economy and its cycles. A lot of eggs in one basket, and eggs have a tendency to break.

  • avatar
    doctorv8

    It’s in part a function of balance, weight and size. I doubt that an LS3 from a Vette would fit very well into the back of a 911, for example.

    You might be surprised to know that not only does it fit….but the LSx motor weighs less than the old air cooled flat sixes, even with the addition of a radiator and waterpump!

    http://toy-jet.com/

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    Porsches routinely get comparable or poorer EPA highway fuel economy than their Corvette contemporaries…Why? More low end torque allows for taller gearing, and Corvettes have fastidious attention to aerodynamics and weight savings.
    And Corvettes have a number of throttle and gearing tricks to game the EPA test cycle. If the Porsche skipped three gears on the city cycle, it’d probably do better in EPA, too.

    I know a few people who have Corvettes. They’re good cars, but driven remotely hard their mileage doesn’t quite live up to EPA standards. I don’t know if Cadillac’s V8 powertrains do the same thing, but I wouldn’t be suprised if they did.

    That said, aggressive upshift logic would be a useful addition to any car, though perhaps not as useful as a real-time fuel economy gauge that measured consumption in dollars per mile.

  • avatar
    billc83

    Sorry, I’m a little late to the party here.

    Frankly, I don’t think Cadillac has been the same since the 80’s. I can argue against the multiple debacles during that period, including the V 8-6-4 engine, Caddies fitted with horrid diesel engines, and the subsequent downsizing and switch to FWD in 1984. Let’s not even begin to talk about the Cadillac Cimarron, a car that, much like Packard’s 120 (“Junior Packard”) produced during the Great Depression, single-handedly left the brand’s credibility in shambles.

    Though Cadillac has made great strides to regain a foothold in the luxury market, even I, an admitted fan of the “Crest and Wreath,” would agree they haven’t quite reached the top of the summit. I agree with many of the posters who say Cadillac needs a flagship model, and I am an advocate of putting the Sixteen concept into production yesterday. Also, the badge-engineered Saab 9-3 Cadillac BLS is slated to come to the states (I believe in 2010), despite near non-existent sales across the pond. Cadillac simply cannot afford to do this. Another badge-engineered model, especially one priced lower than the current CTS, would be suicide (lest we forget the aforementioned Cimarron and Opel-based Catera).

    The current CTS is a righteous vehicle; I had the chance to drive one and thought it extremely capable. I don’t think the death of the DTS should merit a tombstone for the brand, as long as it is replaced by something good, fast. If a flagship Sixteen were being produced, this could serve as the 7-Series/S-Class/LS fighter, the replacement DTS/STS as the 5-Series/E-Class bogie, while the CTS continues against the 3-Series/C-Class segment. One of Cadillac’s many problems is that the DeVille/DTS (or is that Seville/STS?) has been the flagship Caddy since the death of the Fleetwood, leaving the upper-end luxury sedan game open for BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus to play.

    By the way, this is my first post at TTAC, so don’t massacre my arguments too hard. Looking forward to being part of the community.

  • avatar
    doctorv8

    I know a few people who have Corvettes. They’re good cars, but driven remotely hard their mileage doesn’t quite live up to EPA standards.

    And what car does? The EPA standard loop, though revised for 2008, is not meant to be a performance oriented drive. My Vettes have actually delivered 30+ mpg on the highway, which is even higher than EPA ratings, and I’m not obeying the speed limit, either.

    As the saying goes…..YMMV!

  • avatar
    davey49

    I believe that Cadillacs should be big. The longest and widest vehicles made/sold in the US. I’d rather not see a 3-series fighter from Cadillac as that could be handled by Saturn or Pontiac.

  • avatar
    USluxuryman

    Please don’t turn your back on or abandon your Customers, GM! I hope like hell that GM doesn’t kill the replacement for the STS/DTS models! I own a 2006 DTS, and I love it! GM has gold in their hands, if the make some decent decisions, like they have recently with Cadillac!

    The BMW is small,hard-riding,over-priced, and over-rated! The Mercedes is small for the money,over-priced, and unreliable mechanically!

    I am 53 yrs. old, don’t consider myself old,or a Senior Citizen (although there is not a damn thing wrong with being one!), or old-fashioned or stuck in the past because I didn’t buy a Japanese or German Luxury Sedan instead of a Cadillac DTS! When I go around curves, my suspension tightens up fine, and I didn’t have to pay $70,000 plus another $3,000–$5,000 for a Sport Package to get it either!

    I am just as proud of my buying decision as a person with a Lexus that has trouble finding the right gear with their new 8-speed Tranny! Check the Sept. issue of Motor Trend! GM needs a Flagship, and this should be the competitor to the ‘Benzes/BMW/Lexus/AUDI models! It doesn’t need to cost $100,000, but needs to exude Luxury,Power,Elegance, Status,Technology,Craftsmanship,and updated ATHLETICISM!

    A Lexus may be a quiet,refined Appliance, but it has no Soul or character except being TECHNICALLY POLISHED! At least a Mercedes or BMW or Cadillac has a distinct character and soul for you to experience and enjoy as you drive! You Domestic-haters try to criticize Caddy and Lincolns as being to soft,floaty, or isolated from the road? What the hell do you think a Lexus is?

    I hope GM is not stupid enough to kill these cars, you need to look around and see how many foreign cars that are still Front-Wheel Drive! I know that they were gonna go RWD on the replacement, and they need it LIKE YESTERDAY!

    GM is capable of building great Cars, but must be given an open-minded chance, despite the Idiots that hate everything GM and the rest of the Big Three make, even if they HAVEN’T DRIVEN THEM! This is a Halo Car, even though they have sold Big Numbers of the Deville/DHS/DTS models over the years!

    Reviewers have biases, just like customers have preferences, although many potential customers have been unfairly and/or inaccurately misled by the Auto press on issues of quality, reliability, and durability!

    BMW just announced a recall on their 200,000 of their 3-Series and 5-Series Sedans due to the right front Air Bag not deploying! It happens to everybody from time to time! I do think that Japanese and European Manufacturers have much more long-term vision in running their companies. There are not so richly rewarded when they are not doing well as a company either!

    GM can and does build, some Great cars! Of course they have made some mistakes over the years, but this is the same company that makes the Corvette and CTS and Malibu! The effect of buying foreign cars over many fine Domestic Cars, is devastating to our economy, and flies in the face of some solid logic and facts. GM has many old Chevys,Pontiacs, and Buicks running the street these days(many with carburetors) as a testament to their durability!

    GM needs a flagship to show the World that they can compete with anyone! GM you need this vehicle, and you need a HOME RUN!

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Mike Beranek: Seems to me that no matter how much you spend, all wipers wear out within a couple of months. I’d...
  • Inside Looking Out: Slavuta, welcome back!
  • ToolGuy: After playing around with various options, I have become a wiper blade snob. I go to rockauto in the...
  • sgeffe: Especially the one where the poor father-to-be injures himself “south of the border” while attempting the...
  • Art Vandelay: Pile of S H I T

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber