By on September 4, 2009

Paul West of Mahoning Automotive Design is a tenacious guy. While most merely rolled their eyes at Cadillac’s front-drive “XTS” flagship plans, West wasn’t going to take Cadillac’s flailing sitting down. With Mahoning, D&D Classics and some promising industrial design students, he mocked-up an SRX-based study for a potential Cadillac flagship. “We did our best with the prototype,” he says “but only Cadillac can do the idea full justice.” It takes balls for a few upstarts from Ohio to show a major luxury brand how it should be preparing a flagship, and West knows it. But Cadillac’s inability to develop a true flagship gives West’s study a significance that is more than just skin-deep. It’s a provocative, gutsy way to shake up the thinking at Cadillac. And if nothing else it’s provided plenty of food for thought. [West’s complete powerpoint proposal can be found in the gallery below]

TTAC: What attracted you to the idea of designing a Cadillac flagship sedan?

Paul West: While at Ford I pushed pretty hard for an update to the traditional sedan. The idea was for a car with more comfort, utility and value. And compelling road presence. The problem I ran into was that in this industry everyone has an opinion but few have data to back it up. The idea generated lots of interest but ultimately I couldn’t get the execs to bite. So I made the decision to do it independently and get real consumer feedback. Limited finances meant a vehicle mod rather than an all-new ground-up design but luckily the SRX was available. It had good proportions particularly from the B-pillar forward, and an added significance in that I felt it could help Cadillac leverage the precedent they set with the fabulous Gen 2 CTS. My vision was basically for a taller, larger version of the CTS with extra utility. It would sell alongside CTS and negate the need for the DTS (and XTS), the new SRX and possibly even the Escalade/EXT. And it would allow Cadillac to stick with the RWD commitment it made a number of years ago. Once I completed the prototype, exhibited it at this year’s Cleveland Auto Show and gathered ten days’ worth of mostly positive feedback, I realized that if designed properly the vehicle could legitimately carry the flag for Cadillac—especially in the absence of an ultra exclusive vehicle such as a production version of the Sixteen concept.

TTAC: What should a Cadillac flagship be? What’s at stake in the design of a new flagship for Cadillac?

Paul West: Cadillac’s history is in comfortable, luxurious travel for 4 to 6 passengers. Through the years the brand ran the gamut from sporting to spacious but at its best, Cadillac always showcased innovative, predictive engineering and classy, extroverted styling with elegant flowing proportion. A Cadillac flagship of today should possess all those elements too, and the good news is that they have the tools and talent to create it. Art & Science is one of the strongest design languages in the business and CTS is an example of its proper application. What’s missing is the big brother, the one you take cross-country. The one that makes everyone’s jaw drop when you pull up.

Today I think Cadillac is in a conundrum. The traditional multi-passenger American vehicle is caught in a four-way tug-of-war between roomy mundane FWD sedan, high tech Euro performance sedan, imposing thirsty SUV and humble practical crossover. If you lump Escalade and EXT together and exclude STS and SLS, both of which are probably on their way out, Cadillac fields one vehicle in each category. The problem is that because the customer base for each is so discrete, the distance between each so great, that owners wishing to upgrade have nowhere to go. For example, the CTS owner looking for more room, comfort and utility may look elsewhere if he wants to continue driving a high-performance styling statement. Escalade and EXT owners may leave to get the visually substantial vehicle they demand but with improved efficiency and handling. Competitive alternatives abound for the upcoming SRX, most of which are just as practical, some of which are more exciting. And DTS owners are nearing their last vehicle purchase and want the familiar sedan but would appreciate a taller package that they don’t have to fall into or hoist their bad back out of. If Cadillac doesn’t provide all these folks with a reason to stay, they’ll lose them.

While brand retention is an important factor, even more important is Cadillac’s credibility in offering the market a consistent and compelling set of ideals and in making good on their claim to be an innovative leader. Their recent abandonment of RWD in two of their vehicles is an example of the wavering they need to avoid. I think they wavered because the STS and original SRX failed in their missions, which was unfortunate because the problem with those cars wasn’t the platform, it was the unwanted top hats they carried. The market didn’t need and couldn’t support another expensive performance sedan nor did it want a 7-passenger CUV with almost nonexistent 3rd row seating. What my prototype and photo-altered images try to demonstrate is a top hat that lots of people will want. Really, passionately, emotionally want. Something that leverages the design and performance ideals laid down by the award-winning Gen 2 CTS, reduces the vehicles in the showroom to a number that is financially supportable, generates higher net volumes and profits, gives each of Cadillac’s four customer groups a place to go and a place to stay, and speaks to the industry’s future rather than its past. For those automotive planners who espouse market fragmentation, this proposal shouts the opposite by collapsing the industry’s decades-long entropy build-up into a single product that delivers a higher level of customer value. This wouldn’t be the first time the industry has experienced such an event and likely won’t be the last.  In a later question I discuss a similar paring down event that began in the late 1930s and from which came the modern sedan.  Who initiated it?  Cadillac.

TTAC: Why did you base your prototype on the SRX? Interior packaging? Performance? Styling?

Paul West: The SRX had classic long hood and short deck proportions and was the most car-like CUV out there, aligning with my vision for a sophisticated super sedan rather than a 3-box truck.  It also had a good interior package and offered a pretty cool ride from the vantage point of the driver’s seat.  Critically, it had a C-pillar and rear door window frame of sufficiently fast rake that I thought I could avoid a costly redesign of the rear door’s frames, glass, seals and rain channels, and the roof and side air bags.  It also permitted Vistaroof, which looks impressive from inside the car.

TTAC: What do you think of GM’s decision to go with a stretched FWD platform for the planned XTS flagship?

Paul West: I assume they chose the platform for fairly straightforward reasons:  DTS owners, who are larger in number than STS owners, wanted the traction and security of front wheel drive, the platform was less expensive than GM’s global RWD platform and came with a comprehensive set of low-cost commodities, the Two-Mode HEV fit, the interior room promised best-in-class dimensions, Cadillac had available plant capacity and… GM ran out of time debating and had to make a decision!  Assuming Cadillac opted out of a taller package to avoid the fuel economy hit, the only unknown is whether they widened the track and flared the fenders.  Cadillac dealers told me this was very appealing to Gen 2 CTS customers.  That car appears to have borrowed the STS suspension.  The XTS likely required a costly redesign.

I mentioned FWD in Question 2 but think it’s important to get into the details a little more.  There are many designers in Detroit who are frustrated that they haven’t been given the best platform upon which to design a winning product.  In this regard, Cadillac may end up being a victim of its own success because GM did give their designers the correct platform, and the designers made the Gen 2 CTS so damn good that even Cadillac has been challenged to live up to it.  But such a stroke of brilliance should be harnessed, not run away from.  I think Cadillac needs to recognize that there is a difference between design language and styling.  The Art & Science design language as manifested in the Gen 2 CTS is much more than diamond-faceted surfaces, jeweled lighting and a signature grill.  It embodies the CTS’s RWD proportions and promise of performance.  I haven’t seen the XTS but must assume they nailed it with styling, but spectacular styling alone does not make a spectacular car.  Look at the new SRX.  When Cadillac applied Art & Science to that FWD platform, with its cab-forward greenhouse and long front overhang, and made it a crossover wagon of all things, they reduced their award winning design language to mere styling.  Shallow, almost gimmicky styling.  I heard this consistently, if articulated in varying words, from hundreds of Cleveland show-goers who had just seen the 2010 SRX exhibit.  I have no doubt that Engineering met the program’s attribute targets but the car’s shape simply does not telegraph anything inspirational.  Cadillac might be able to get away with a wagon body on a RWD platform as with the new CTS, because the long hood still communicates performance.  They also might be able to get away with a crossover sedan on a FWD platform as with the MKT image that I provided for this article, because the height still communicates presence.Your browser may not support display of this image.

But a tall wagon on a FWD platform is pushing their luck too far.  Will the XTS be any better?  I have my doubts and believe my proposal would attract most of the XTS and SRX buyers Cadillac is looking for, some Escalade/EXT buyers not in need of a tow vehicle, and a whole lot of new buyers.

If Cadillac were to conclude this pared down strategy insufficient for dealer volume or in attracting younger buyers, I would caution against a smaller RWD platform because it might prove expensive to build and overly cramped inside.  Nor would I put a new top hot on an existing FWD platform for reasons already stated.  There might be an opening for a transverse mid-front engine, a transverse rear engine or a pure electric powertrain, with 3-passenger seating described in my comments about the Chevrolet Spark later in this article.  Beyond that, there is potential for a premium personal mobility vehicle, probably electric, of similar scope to BMW’s Project i.  Think of it as a companion accessory to Cadillac’s main line-up, like the Viking microwave that matches the company’s big ovens in color and badging but deviates completely in size, shape, technology and intended use.  The bottom line is that if Cadillac wants the gold they need to roll up their sleeves and dig for it, and the flagship that I am suggesting is just the first in a series of bold steps needed to get out in front of the competition.

TTAC: Talk about the challenges and limitations of mocking up a Cadillac flagship concept independently, without GM’s support.

Paul West: We did our best with the prototype and in the presentation I tried to clean it up with photo alterations, but only Cadillac can do the idea full justice.  GM’s resources would have allowed it to be vetted in terms of design, engineering, dimensions, interior package and manufacturability.  Interestingly, one of the people who saw my car said he saw something similar at a Cadillac design clinic a few years ago.  I can’t speak to what Cadillac presented or the feedback they received, but I can say that the feedback on my prototype from people who saw it up close was extremely positive, at times even ecstatic.  That’s pretty good testimony to the underlying idea particularly since, although the prototype’s craftsmanship was fabulous and the dual trunk/hatch worked as planned, none of us involved in the project were happy with the car’s formal roofline, upright C-pillar, high decklid, raised suspension and small wheels.

Although there were challenges creating an LLC and driving the project forward, there was also a positive side.  Doing the build independently allowed us to set up a lean, fast moving skunk works operation. We leveraged the industry’s parts bin and invented only the must-haves that didn’t exist.  The people at D & D Classic were amazing.  There did it all – fabrication, design, CAD, clay modeling, engineering, paint – and were professional, knowledgeable and excellent problem solvers.  It’s easy to see why people trust them to restore vintage Duesenbergs, Ferraris and the like.  An added benefit was that they regularly hire co-op students from U. of Cincinnati’s Industrial Design School.  The students were well-schooled in automotive design and exceptionally talented, and I’d hire them instantly if I were an OEM.

One added note about the build experience.  The shop was 3 hours south of Detroit, my place of residence.  I’d come down every 3-4 weeks for a day or two, we’d move the project along and D & D would continue in my absence. I gotta tell you, what with the beautiful classic cars everywhere, the smell of clay in the air, the hammers banging and Zeppelin cranking, it was pure heaven.  OEMs of late have been denying too many employees the true car design experience.  That’s a shame.  Car nuts come to this industry to make cars, not data charts, org charts, bar charts, process charts and cover-your-ass charts, and certainly not to be treated like nameless, faceless numbers that eventually get deleted with a keystroke.  There has to be a better way.

TTAC: Talk about the low-cost electric AWD proposal mentioned in your presentation.

Paul West: Mechanical AWD systems add cost, weight and internal friction that reduce fuel economy and most of the time are just there for the ride.  Some AWD sedan and crossover buyers see the feature as an added level of performance or a necessity for the occasional off-road jaunt, but most just want to get up their snowy driveway or out of a wet intersection.  For roughly the cost of a mechanical AWD system, electric AWD gives a RWD platform all-wheel traction when customers need it most, and captures energy at every braking event.  It’s a win-win that OEMs can get real revenue for.  The key is to keep the cost down by downsizing the electric motors (one per wheel, mounted inboard), the battery or ultracaps and the voltage level.  The last spec permits less expensive inverter technology.  One of the reasons you don’t see the system is, I suspect, that it flies against an HEV engineer’s inclination to maximize fuel economy.  With this system an engineer has to find happiness in a 2 mpg improvement over a standard RWD system and be content in helping the customer avoid a 2 mpg hit.  What OEM wouldn’t take a 4 mpg net improvement with profit margins maintained?

TTAC: Your proposal mentions avoiding mainstream “traditional sedan” segments for the Cadillac flagship, but also for potential Chevy variants. Why?

Paul West: Wow, that’s a completely different ball game.  Talking about Chevy requires a different language.  Permit me to switch gears and have a little fun by laying it out the way a coach would if his team were down 3 touchdowns with a quarter to play…

“Malibu!  Comeeer!!!” “Yes, Coach.”  “You’re get’n manhandled up and down the field, boy.  What’s with that namby pamby FWD stuff?  “I was just trying to be like Camry, sir.” “Camry!  If you want to be like him, go to the other side of the field and join THEIR team.  On this side if you’re gonna carry 5 people, FWD is for sissies, and most of the sissies already love Camry, got it? “Yes, sir.” Now look kid, I know you tried hard and it ain’t entirely your fault.  I need to have a word with the boys in the front office.  In the meantime, take your pads off and have a seat.” “Yes, sir.”

“Camaro!  Comeeer!!!” “Yes, Coach.” “You’re a real hot shot out there, flying off the lots like you’ve been.  Nice job.  Take a look at this kid, team.  He knows what revs up Americans!  Good pep, a long hood, big wheels, coke bottle shape and ROAD PRESENCE.” “Thank you, Coach.” “Shut up.”

“Global RWD Platform!  Comeeer!!!” “Yes, Coach.” “I need you to play a different position.  You need to carry 5 people and swallow all their gear, look like a car but stand tall and tough, and you need cleats that will get you through the mud, got it?  Caddy’s flagship will show you the new plays, Camaro will help you bulk up and work on your smile.”  “Yes, sir.”

“Spark!  Spark!!! Where is that little pip squeak?”  “I’m over here, Coach.” “Sorry, kid, didn’t see you.  Well comeeer boy!!!” “Yes, sir.” Look kid, you’re the linchpin to this whole plan.  Since Global RWD is going to be sucking down a bit more gas than Malibu – ‘HEY GLOBAL, NOT TOO MUCH MORE, RIGHT?!!! ‘Right, Coach’ – right, well the thing is, I need an offset on fuel, the customer needs to travel for pennies and the country needs to wean itself off the bottle.  Now I know the boys in the front office pegged you as the one to pull in the stingies, the greenies and the emaciated college kids with no money, but I need you to carry the ball five times more often than the volume call they gave you, OK?  “Yes, sir.” Good. Now what I need you to do is take Jane and Joe Commuter to work every day, drop off the little one at day care and hit the grocery store on the way home, got it?” “Got it, sir.” “Now stand back, let’s take a look at you.  Mmm . . . you’re too tall, your cowl’s too high and your tires are too small.  Go see Camaro when we get done.”  “Yes, sir.” Now open up the door, let’s take a look inside.  Aaaaaahhhh!!!  No wonder you get the emaciated ones!  Look, kid, you can’t carry four people like the linebackers over there, it’s gonna make your driver cramped and miserable, and if he’s miserable you’ll sit on the dealer’s lot.  You wanna be a bench warmer?  “No, sir.” Neither do I and neither does your country.  Here’s what I want you to do:  get rid of that front passenger seat, nobody ever sits there anyway.  Scoot your driver’s seat inboard and make it wider.  Put the child’s seat in the right rear where nothing’s in front of it.  Now, where’s your storage?  “I don’t execute that play too well, sir.” “Well you’re gonna have to if you want the Commuters to love you every day!  Get a big wide console in there, make it go all the way to the right, and run the exhaust under it.  Your gonna need to carry breakfast, lunch and dinner up top and the lady’s purse in a pull-out drawer below, got it?  “I think so, sir.” “Go See Corsa, I worked with him on this play in training camp.  And don’t worry, kid, you’re gonna be alright.”Your browser may not support display of this image.

TTAC: Your proposal has many similarities to the upcoming BMW GT and Acura ZDX.  What do you think of those products and the prospects for this new type of vehicle?

Paul West: I applaud BMW and Honda for reading between the lines and discerning what’s really going on in the consumer’s head.  What they are attempting is historic.  I do wonder if BMW’s dual-action liftback has a large enough throat opening when the smaller decklid is used, and am concerned that the awkward 2-box fastback styling and poor rear visibility of both vehicles might stunt the growth of the new segment.  On this last point there’s a relevant historic automotive milestone that I believe offers an important lesson.  Prior to the early 1930s, with the exception of a few expensive customs all 4-door passenger cars were of the “2-box” variety with no defined, integrated trunk.  Throughout the 1930s manufacturers began increasing the rear overhang and integrating a trunk in the form of rear “bustle” that gave a “2-1/2 box” appearance.  Then all of a sudden, the mold was cracked and the modern 3-box sedan was born.  The sledgehammer was the 1938 Cadillac Sixty Special.  It was lower and wider than most cars of the time, had close-coupled front/rear seating and, at last, a big trunk.  Although it was priced higher than Cadillac’s traditional touring sedan, which the company continued to produce, it sold extremely well.   GM, confident in its success, followed up with C-body torpedo sedans in 1940 and the rest is history.  A key lesson from that history, apart from Cadillac’s proving that innovation and styling leadership tend to make a brand embarrassingly rich, is that it confirmed the aesthetic appeal in the eyes of the consumer of the 3-box’s visually balanced profile.  When I look at the new 2-box BMW and Acura vehicles I see an opportunity not fully realized.

One additional factor worth mentioning is vehicle height. In this, both new products succeed.  I spend a lot of time at classic car shows and have a special passion for the heavy iron of the 1930s. Standing next to a 70-inch high Packard with a hood almost as long as a B-car tends to leave a person awestruck. Although my prototype looks awkward in pictures and from 20 feet away, when people stand next to it they feel its presence. That’s what a tall 3-box sedan with a long hood can do, and it’s a truism almost as old as the industry itself. Cadillac has a big opportunity here. I hope they give the voices outside GM a chance to be heard.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

19 Comments on “Interview: Paul West and the Search for a Cadillac Flagship...”

  • avatar

    I thought the Flagship of Cadillac was ESCALADE.

    Originally I was going to add that I thought Cadillac should build a flagship based on the Lacrosse, but when I researched the XTS, I realized they already planned to do that.

    Cadillac has a bunch of cars coming out based on the CTS such as the CTS wagon and the one I’m waiting to buy: CTS-V Coupe, so I suggest that they make the XTS a $60,000 full size with an “s-class like interior/exterior”.

    Just copy the S550 – Mercedes has already done the work for ya.

    Its not hard…all they need is a sharp yet conservative angled car with stiched leatherette interior, lots of technology inside (like on the current cars) and great seats with heating/cooling/massage (or active seats like the SHO) and plenty of interior space.

    And they’d goddamn sure better have an available V8, with a twin turbo V6 standard.

  • avatar

    An interesting interview.

    He says all the right things. “Cadillac always showcased innovative, predictive engineering and classy, extroverted styling with elegant flowing proportion.” This statement summarizes it all.

    The economics of GM severely restrict options but to really “fix” Cadillac, they need a top sedan.

  • avatar

    Honestly I could never see myself trusting the mechanicals of that back gate combination – not from GM, Honda, or anybody else. And the whole thing still looks too porky for my eyes. But massive kudos for doing the skunkworks and putting ideas out there.

    And btw:
    Permit me to switch gears and have a little fun by laying it out the way a coach would if his team were down 3 touchdowns with a quarter to play…

    That was hilarious!

  • avatar

    The first thing that comes to mind is that making the rear liftgate (or double-folding whatever) go that high as a one-touch is at high risk for it to hit objects above the car. And when a product from an American automaker hits objects above the car, then people on the Internet and magazine writers make fun of the engineers who designed the mechanism. That’s why the rear liftgate of SUVs doesn’t extend above the roofline of the car.

    I also get a chuckle at how every vehicle proposal that targets the “baby boomer” set assumes they’ve got ridiculous amounts of disposable income and have an unmet need in the market-place. I’d put money down that the original SRX proposal from back in 2001 (assuming it launched late 2003) mentions baby boomers wanting a nicely appointed car to haul the grandkids around.

  • avatar

    Pardon me for being brusque, but a tall sedan with a complicated trunk lid (simply to avoid the “hatchback” stigma) just ain’t it.

    Ford already tried it (‘Tall Sedan”) with the 500 (Taurus), and the shrinking demographic is shirking it.

    Maybe the tallness of this re-do does something to mitigate the “wide-boat” look of the previous flagships, but that’s about it.

    Honda would probably sell more Crosstours than this Caddy adaptation, because seniors and near seniors are more worried about value and utility these days, rather than paying for a styling statement (they don’t give a shit, ’cause they’re old).

  • avatar

    Flashpoint is correct. Cadillac’s flagship is the Escalade and it has been for the past decade.

    No other Cadillac in recent memory did a better job of hauling 4-6 people and all their stuff in roomy comfort with power to spare and real panache, just like the huge cars at Cadillacs zenith in the 1950s and 1960s.

    The President’s limo also captures what an ideal Cadillac flagship should be.

    As politically incorrect as it may be, GM would be smartest to continue to enhance the Escalade instead of dumbing it down into something traditional Escalade and Cadillac buyers won’t want on the Lambda structure.

    As for their XTS plan, it’s a bad one. It’s a car that will never sell as much as the DTS and will bomb about as badly as the last STS.

    If Cadillac wants a real flagship car it has to have every bit of presence as the Escalade as well as the quiet and comfort with the power. It also has to have a real name. GM needs to ditch the alphabet soup names at Cadillac pronto.

  • avatar
    Paul Niedermeyer

    I generally like tall-boy cars, but Ouch!, that one is all wrong. It’s way to narrow, and basing it on the old CTS makes the wheels like ridiculously tiny (not that I’m a lover of oversized dubs). Interesting idea, but not this execution of it.

  • avatar

    I don’t get it? What is the supposed difference between the planned XTS and the existing DTS?

    DTS isn’t a bad car. Just refine it further without raising the price and it will be OK.

  • avatar

    The point I got from the interview was that Cadillac doesn’t necessarily need the proposed XTS (to maintain the status quo) but they need something to seperate themselves from everyone else.

    With a design done right they could create this ‘super sedan’ to replace a bunch of models (DTS/STS/Escalade) and still offer the same functionality.

    Isn’t getting rid of redundant vehicles and gas guzzling SUV’s been one of the meme’s that everyone has been saying would fix GM?

  • avatar
    Gardiner Westbound

    Too chunky for my taste. Not sure Cadillac’s audience will appreciate the articulated trunk lid. Kudos for the effort.

  • avatar

    That thing is uglier than a Cimarron. There; I said it.

  • avatar

    Great interview. Too bad I read it before I looked at the pictures.

    Congrats to them, they built a Cadillac Outback Sedan.

  • avatar

    This is a joke, right?
    That is the ugliest car that I can think of. I like the Pacer better than this thing. The Aztek looks like a Pininfarina creation next to this thing.
    Maybe rather than sell this idea to Cadillac they could sell it to AMC as the 21st century Eagle.

  • avatar

    SkiD666 :
    September 4th, 2009 at 1:11 pm

    Isn’t getting rid of redundant vehicles and gas guzzling SUV’s been one of the meme’s that everyone has been saying would fix GM?


    Yes, but you don’t get rid of redundant vehicles by introducing yet another redundant vehicle.

    Cut STS. Improve DTS. That’s all.

  • avatar

    Cars of the 30’s had small trunks because the spare tire(s) was in a sidemount, and people had not yet gotten into the habit of hauling so much junk around–that was a job for teamsters and railroads. And of course, most stores delivered stuff.

    So I’d lengthen the trunk, and widen the body. Come to think of it, the result would be a refreshed DTS. Which has a lot of potential, IMO, especially if Cadillac ditches those ridiculous letter-names.

    That said, I must add that these guys are good. Cadillac should hire them pronto.

  • avatar

    Wow! Those guys are good! I really wonder if GM will sit up and notice this? Such enthusiasm is what it will take to save it.

  • avatar

    I bought a 2006 DTS earlier this year and it is without a doubt the best car I’ve ever had the pleasure of owning. Though I didn’t buy it new I gave GM over $1k for the certified warranty.

    Having owned Panther (IE Town Cars) cars for over a decade it was refreshing to get into something that feels nice and got some mojo under the hood.

    I think the DTS should still soldier on. Its a great value and most of the Northstar quirks have been ironed out.

    I’ve put a number of miles on mine and have had no major mechanical troubles and most of the maintenance has been a breeze for the DIY’er.

  • avatar

    I read the article all the way through before looking at the pictures of Mahoning prototype. Paul West says all the right things and has a good grasp of the situation Cadillac is in.

    I was expecting that the Cadillac prototype would look something sort of like the Chrysler Imperial prototype shown a couple of years ago (based on the Chrysler 300 chassis, but taller and with more room, and obviously inspired by the Rolls Royce Phantom).

    However, the resulting Cadillac prototype just doesn’t quite live up to its hype. It reminds me of the tallboy version of the Volkswagen Golf sold in Europe, or maybe of a Toyota Echo. All things considered, the Mahoning Cadillac prototype was a noble, but failed experiment.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Land Ark: Yes, and 22,000 Maitas sold in that time. Sales are not reflective of how exciting something is. I get it,...
  • AutoPatriot: Personally, I feel like it would help for EVs need to be thought of range similar to a cell phone....
  • 285exp: You could put a charger on every pole, getting the power to them is a different story.
  • Astigmatism: I’ve lived in the Northeast for most of my life and never had my power go out for more than a few...
  • Jeff S: @JMII–The Santa Cruz was also on my list and I am well over 50. Seems the car companies don’t...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

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