Cadillac Escala Concepts Previews the Future of Brand's Design

I don't like the horizontal headlights. Cadillac needs the front vertical blades.

I would agree on the horizontal lights, it gives it a bit of an Impala look and a Cadillac should have vertical lights.  Overall I like this car.  I am not a big fan of lift back rear ends, but it does add to cargo space, so that is a plus.   Few minor issues aside, I think it looks good.

The name is stupid, I thought right away of Escalade without the "de" and Spanish for scale?  Why would you name a car scale.   I guess it won't matter because it will be called CT8 if they build it.

Thing is though, this is a small segment that is shrinking.  Many here have said how the S-class has sinking sales, but the S-class outsells the A8, 7-series and Jag XJ combined.

Not sure the headlamps will be an issue unless some laws are changed. 

The car is interesting and too difficult to judge in photo's. It for sure is a concept and not really close to production outside. But inside the cars is as close as any of the show cars have been. What they have in there is pretty close to possible at a higher price point. 

I have seen claims of it looks like an Audi A7, Jag, Aston, Lexus and the hatch hints at Tesla in a odd way. 

I think the car has some real global appeal and the real key is the styling would play well but they must execute top trim materials and features. They need to lead the way on some technologies and not just add Apple play and call it a day. 

While this may be a show car I think there are elements of the future of A&S on the car. I picture this with a more formal roof line and even in a coupe and while I will not pass final judgment till I see it in person I think it is decent. 

The responses on the web have been all over as expected as some of the traditialist are ranting not enough chrome or no bench seat and others appear to like it. One survey had a 75%+ approval which is good. 

This is some of the first work JDN may have had some influence on so this will give us some direction  to where to expect changed. We know he has been very critical on present interiors and this one shows a new direction. 

I feel things will be getting very interesting in 2019 and later. 

While I am not blown away with the photos I am not put off. I expect it will be like the Lacrosse where I was ok with it and then when I saw the first one I was shocked at how well the proportions played out. The wider look really better balanced the car and design. 

The only criticism I have is consistent with everyone else so far - the headlights need to be vertical.  Otherwise, the front end looks a bit too much like a new Mustang.  Everything else seems like Cadillac is tipping the scale in the right direction.

I have no problems with the car or design, I think big grill is good and can translate to other products.  I do have a problem with Johan saying this :  

“Escala is a concept car, but one based upon the unrelenting rise of our product substance. Depending on the development of market segment for large luxury sedans, Escala is a potential addition to our existing product plan.”

Unrelenting rise of product???  What the CT6 and the $39k XT5?  Not really unrelenting or all that much of a meteoric rise.    The thing for Cadillac fans to worry about though is when he says depending on development of the large sedan segment.  Well the large sedan segment is shrinking, people just want crossovers.  Johan has already built in an excuse why not to build the car.

Don't understand the light issues some are having. It's just a concept and those kind of lights will never see production. Overall, I like what I see here and the numbers are a plus. It measures longer than the S class while having way more cargo room. That's a nice start in my book. 

The grille reminds me of a 1969 Coupe De Ville.  That gives props to the old school design.  I want more details about these new V8s though.  How many will there be and what kind of output will they have?

Good looking car, but doesn't identify as a Cadillac in the slightest bit. You could replace the badge with Kia, Hyundai, or Audi logo and never no the difference.

I don't know what to think of it honestly. It seems like there are bits and pieces with vague familiarity to other cars but not sure what is taking priority here, form or function. As well, I feel they do not want to keep A&S stagnant, but some themes like vertical blade lights appear a little to watered down and the rear reminds me of a GT BMW wagon.

Given Cadillac's recent history of concept cars, I am alright with it as the nice gesture they seem to do for pebble beach, but outside of that I see the same kind of stagnation and trying to cater to old and new with this design as anywhere else.

Yeah....

This concept's face looks familiar to me in the form of Elmiraj grille and Aston Martin Lagonda fascia rolled into one.

I like it but like others, I would prefer vertical headlamps like the Elmiraj had.

It did not blow me away like the other concepts, it is pretty, but like Frisky said, it dont feel like a Cadillac.
Im ready to let go of Arts&Science, but only if it is replaced by something that identifies what a Cadillac should look and feel like.I dont know what that is, but this concept's exterior does not have a Cadillac feel to it.

Let me repeat, I like it, and Im sure it will be quite imposing in person, but so far, I aint feeling any Cadillac vibes with it.

Interior is simplistic in a very elegant way.

I LOVE THAT.

Im not sure about the suit material effect they chose, its different and its cool, and I think it could work...instead of the usual all around leather that has been the go to luxury material. Suede is leather, but I was never a fan of it either on a jacket or car interior.

I think I might like the expensive personally tailored designer suit look of it all!

LOVE THAT TRUNK.

The  way it opens, the volume, the way its designed and the way the interior materials of it gel. It looks expensive..

Who ever thought that a trunk could be so luxurious and beautifully made to look expensive like the rest of a car's interior???!!!

17 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

 

 

 

 

I ran out of editing time...

And best of all with that trunk, no need to go SUV with a trunk opening and space like that!!!

Interior is cool, not sure on some of the fine details they did, but hey, it is a concept. Exterior, Hate the coupe look. Been done to death. Rear Sucks, keep a more traditional vertical tail light. Front, over all fine but loose the horizontal head lights like everyone has mentioned and get to a vertical set, a true symbol of Cadillac.

That awkward moment when the new guy drops his bags on your designers and says "make me a Cadillac A7!  I'm going to turn this new house into a home!"  Also, Cadillac lights simply do not zig like that.  Needs vertical lights without branches, front and rear.  I do like the interior and the engine and the RWD chassis.

I forgot to mention the interior. It is a total knockout. Highlight of the car by far.

The name reminds me of La Scala, the opera house in Milan.   The fastback roofline reminds of the A7 mixed with the Citroen C6... the front makes me think Mazda mixed w/ current Cadillac styling...I like the dimensions--127 inch wheelbase, 210 long... maybe a preview of a possible CT8? 

Cadillac La Scala, circa 1973 :

- - - - -

RE the Escala ~ IMO its very crisp & contemporary, but as with the El Miraj, I find a number of details I don't think are optimum WRT being on a Cadillac. I am digging' the dimensions, but I would love to see the Escala & CT6 next to each other, in person.

Sadly with where the market is today, Cadillac could roll out 10 crossovers and all 10 would outsell a full size sedan.  

It is amazing how similar the La Scala looks to the 1992 Seville, took them a long time to get there.

I was thinking the same thing, SMK...

And Bob Lutz was thinking the same thing you said about the SUV thing.....

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a30065/bob-lutz-on-cadillac/

Lutz is pretty much right on, Cadillac advertising is doing nothing, and they need crossovers in a bad way.   Too many 5 year plans and lack of consistency to stay on the attack.

I liked the Seville of the 90s and the 98 redesign as well, and the Northstar in the 90s was very competitive, it beat most other V8s in power.  Then they let it rot on the vine like GM often did with products back then.

'Cadillac Needs More Crossovers and Less Rear-Drive Sport Sedans' - Bob Lutz 

"OLD CRANK, CLIMATE SCIENTIST AND SOMEHOW AUTO INDUSTRY EXPERT FINALLY REPEATS WHAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR 5+ YEARS"

On 8/19/2016 at 8:20 PM, Frisky Dingo said:

Good looking car, but doesn't identify as a Cadillac in the slightest bit. You could replace the badge with Kia, Hyundai, or Audi logo and never no the difference.

It's funny, because when i first saw the pictures of this thing, I thought, what the eff is this?

Tesla is the first thing that popped into my head.  Then, it's got some of the Hyundai Genesis going on.  A little bit of an Acura greenhouse even.  Then, Cadillac A7.  And then I am like, there really isn't much traditional Cadillac going on.  Front end is totally bland.

Johan wants to, or thinks he can, or has been told to make Cadillac more global and exclusive.  So it's interpreted as throwing the baby out with the bath water.  Anytime you have a 'new design direction' it's supposed to be a stunning statement.  Think Chrysler's cab forward for example, or the mid 00's new 300.  This really doesn't achieve that sort of statement.  Anything that was maybe positive on the Elmiraj is totally gone also.

It basically is throwing out art and science. Well, it was interesting because while on vacay, in a small bodunk town we visited this wkd sat a brand new ATS coupe in that really stunning red color.  So mad i didn't take a pic.  If i had seen the car in profile first i would have been like 'second ever G6 coupe'.  But all the bling and detailing on the car apart from its being not a spot on the car it was a stunner.  PArt of the reason for that was whatever the residual leftover of the Cadillac A&S cues....the bladed front and rear (albeit moderately expressed) The vertical taillights, the highly detailed and sharp edged grille....the bombastic logo.  And this is with the ATS and CTS that have the mutt styling of A&S and some weak attempt at trying to look German.  (where the ATS fails the wow meter here is it's physical size just isn't large enough to convey wow like a CTS sized car could....not enough width, not enough length and wheelbase).  If this had been a gen 2 CTS coupe with a similar new era eased over styling of the last CTS coupe and with a bit more rakish look I think it would have been more effective.

Cadillac is having so much trouble putting a face on the cars like the CTS and CT6, and finishing the rest of the car too.   

Johan's probably wanting to take a dump on the traditional Cadillac fan base in every way.  Jack up the prices, get rid of the old styling, rather have them be big in other countries.  GM prob thinks Buick will pick up the old fan base with its lower prices, etc.  At the same time, they'll give up on sedans now and stock the house with a bunch of crossovers.

IMO Cadillacs biggest failures of the last 5-8 years is the ATS came out and quite simply is way too small to appeal to any customer base that would even consider Cadillac.  Even those who may be lured by its performance.  The new CTS went up too far in price and really with its ugly front end, wtf rear end, and confusing sides messed with the Cadillac look too much.  The XTS really should have been promoted more to at least get some customers in the showroom (and yes, it's ok to have your XTS at a discount and basically offset cars like the Lexus ES). Many Cadillac customers never even knew what an XTS was, they were told the DTS was dead and nothing to replace it.  The CT6 just arriving may have confused everything even more.  No v8, it's long but not wide, rear lacks length and presence, and pricing is again an issue.  Cadillac hasn't done anything to compete with Tesla and as for gas engines, they really could stand to have a much better 2.0 turbo.  Only just now is Cadillac putting a respectable turbo 6 in their cars.  And then, CUE.

It would be one thing for Cadillac to price their cars way up if the cars they were selling were desirable.  When you miss the mark badly with new and existing customers on styling or size or powertrains or features, and your ad campaigns suck, how are you supposed to build brand equity or expect to get big profits?

^^^^92 Seville, still the total package.  My folks didn't have the STS version, they had the SLS equivalent.  It's fine for Cadillac to have maybe 1 model with the four door coupe / hatch look but i hope they don't turn their whole lineup to these jellybeans.  Cadillacs should have some creases, some blades, edges, angles, etc.  ELR gets big thumbs up for it's styling (it just is limited to electric) and look at it's creases.  Cadillacs didn't ever have hofmeister kinks like this confused thing has.

I don't think Johan is going to work out the way it's been going.

SAVE THE CREASES

Cadillac has already done the 'a7 fastback / 4 door coupe look'

(this would have made a great badge engineered Saab 9-9 too)

They could put the Evoq concept into production now and it would be the best looking and most modern looking Cadillac and it was from 1999.  The XLR washed out a lot of the good looks and had weird shape.  The Evoq still looks stunning today.

13 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Lutz is pretty much right on, Cadillac advertising is doing nothing, and they need crossovers in a bad way.   Too many 5 year plans and lack of consistency to stay on the attack.

I liked the Seville of the 90s and the 98 redesign as well, and the Northstar in the 90s was very competitive, it beat most other V8s in power.  Then they let it rot on the vine like GM often did with products back then.

Not too many plans but to many managers with too many new plans that had no full support or vision from GM. 

Lets face it the issue has been the leader roll at Cadillac had been a revolving door. Before much could get done they were gone. Mark has tried to lead and even he took crap from the board on the CT6 and the things he wanted. He has brought in JDN and got GM to give him the time and money to bring to the market a full plan properly funded. Will it work well for once we will find out as they are giving him the chance unlike the others. 

The things of the past were hit an and miss. While the Nstar made a lot of news they suffered investment issues where they had many head gasket and ring issues. The Seville of the 90's was a nice car but GM would not fund a RWD version. A real missed opportunity. Then they do silly things like the Catera and the XLR that did nothing to help Cadillac if anything did more damage. 

The SUV or lack of is due to one Cadillac coming out of bankruptcy wit no real new products. The only left over was the XLR. They needed a new CTS and the ATS was also put in since the Alpha needed more than one car on it. The SUV deal was holding its own with the Clade and SRX. Then the revolving door. 

We know now Mark and JDN will bring the rain with SUV and CUV models and they will do well. GM is one of the best with both. They may be late but they will make a big splash.

 If I recall they called Lutz late to the party with the HHR and it turned out to be everything and more than they could have hoped for. They sold in six figures most of the years it was sold and even on the used market they are still $7K-10K for a good one. While others said it would flop it did really well and better than any Cobalt wagon would have ever done. 

16 hours ago, smk4565 said:

t is amazing how similar the La Scala looks to the 1992 Seville, took them a long time to get there.

I see the La Scala and I immediately see the '76-79 Seville.

In hindsight, it would have been better to use the Alpha platform to launch 2 crossovers rather than ATS and CTS.  Or use another platform for 2 crossovers.  The front drive SRX went on sale around 2011, they could have followed in 2012 or 13 with a smaller crossover and a CTS size crossover at 195 inches long, they could get a small 3rd row in there and still have room for a Lambda sized bigger crossover.  

They could have left the 08 CTS run on a couple more years and just used discounts to move them and the XTS.  The ATS and CTS were sort of a waste of money, if they had 4 crossovers right now plus the Escalade and an 8 year old CTS, XTS and CT6 they would be selling more cars and making more profits.  Chrysler has done this, they sell 10 SUVs and a 10 year old and 2 or 3 sedans that are just discounted like crazy, and they seem to make money doing it.

"Cadillac makes plenty of profit, so they can afford not to build 5-6 SUVs/CUVs."

Chevy only has 3 CUVs, plus the Tahoe/Suburban SUV. That's 4. Why would Cadillac have FIVE??

16 hours ago, regfootball said:

Cadillac has already done the 'a7 fastback / 4 door coupe look'

(this would have made a great badge engineered Saab 9-9 too)

 

 

 

God, the things I would do for that Klondike bar!!!

On 8/19/2016 at 7:09 PM, smk4565 said:

I would agree on the horizontal lights, it gives it a bit of an Impala look and a Cadillac should have vertical lights.  Overall I like this car.  I am not a big fan of lift back rear ends, but it does add to cargo space, so that is a plus.   Few minor issues aside, I think it looks good.

 

The name is stupid, I thought right away of Escalade without the "de" and Spanish for scale?  Why would you name a car scale.   I guess it won't matter because it will be called CT8 if they build it.

Thing is though, this is a small segment that is shrinking.  Many here have said how the S-class has sinking sales, but the S-class outsells the A8, 7-series and Jag XJ combined.

U would name a car "Scale" as a trumpet to what is coming in the near future... scale, being measurement of what is and will be luxury. The fact that U are bitching about a effin CONCEPT name is indicative of your constant hate of the brand anyway. I guess in your mind "Y-Job" was absolutely moronic. 

As for the car... I love it. The only place I see anything outside the realm of Cadillac is the headlight design and integration. I could easily see the current headlight design being put in its place with little effort. The body design in still A&S but with a nice bit of Elmiraj flare. Personally I prefer it over the El, except for the headlights and the lack of framing above the grill where the hood meets.. again he Ciel was top notch, but the El, IMO, was always non-production ready and looked more concept the more U looked at it. This is gorgeous.. except the front end needs to take back the current headlight design and completely frame the grille. The interior is to die for.. and it would be awesome if Cadillac offered a fabric blend like this in everything including the lower offerings.

From Cadillac:

Quote

PERFORMANCE

In addition to the technology and craftsmanship, the Escala offers a robust performance system featuring a powerful 4.0L V8 engine and a new RWD-centric mixed-material construction which makes it as powerful as it is beautiful.

This is something new.. as I was under the impression that this was a 4.2L. Either way.. I am hearing that the TTV8.. that is set to debut in the CT6 will be rated in the 580HP range. If this is the case.. I promise U that my CTS-V will be replaced with a CT6 a year after it debuts

That overused dogleg C pillar kink truly bothers me! Cadillac can do much better! Great platform and drive line but the styling just does not say Cadillac in the least!

55 minutes ago, Carguy said:

 the styling just does not say Cadillac in the least!

And perhaps that's just the point.  Cadillac styling,  as beautiful as I think it is,  remains a bit polarizing.  This car in all ways still sings Art and Science,  but with sexier lines instead of ballz out masculine ones.  That could be the motivation..  to attract more women and men,  via women to the already exeplararly engineered vehicles.  BTW,  I saw what someone else saw..  The Seville.  When that car was reintroduced in 1976 it was and remained a completely different looking car within the Cadillac range.  That and the Eldorado.  The lights on those cars in the 90s were always horizontal..  as was the rest of the line,  including the first Escalades.  Cadillacs signature has always been FINS,  or at the very least,  a simulation of those fins.  This continues the tradition.  I have to remind people that it is a design study and not an actual production car... Altho if it were I might be making a  deposit now

I'm in love with this concept. The new take on Art and Science design completely fixes everything I never liked about the CT6 and XT5 front ends.

I bet with designs following this, they can double their sales. I think the 3rd gen CTS is a stunner in any form, and the two V series cars are just utterly badass, but as far as sales strategies, something is still putting people off and the awkward shaped "crying" headlights of the CT6 are not the answer.

If we see a CT-based ATS replacement as a scaled down version of this car, they'll sell the sh!t out of them.

On August 21, 2016 at 5:29 PM, balthazar said:

"Cadillac makes plenty of profit, so they can afford not to build 5-6 SUVs/CUVs."

Chevy only has 3 CUVs, plus the Tahoe/Suburban SUV. That's 4. Why would Cadillac have FIVE??

BMW has X1, X3, X4, X5, X6, and X7 on the way.   Jeep has 6 SUVs, 2 of which are over 10 years old and people still keep buying them, Jeep sales are on fire.  Crossovers outsell sedans, Cadillac has ATS, CTS, XTS, CT6, which is 4 sedans, they could easily have 5 crossovers plus Escalade as none of those sedans at the Escalade base price.

Chevy needs more crossovers too.  I don't like crossovers, but sadly the new look car line of the 2020s will be 5-6 crossovers, 3 sedans, 1 coupe/convertible, 1 van, 1 pick up.

BMW is not anything Cadillac should emulate. Just because they have 5 doesn't mean it's working.

No one buys the X4 or X6, so might as well eliminate them from consideration.
X4 is down 17% YTD, only on pace for 5000 units annually.
X6 is down nearly 10% YTD, on pace to move 6700 units. Neither of these 2 can be making a profit on the U.S. sales.
X5 has volume (around 42K), but it's down 30% !! No doubt the X3 is pulling buyers here.
Any X7 is going to struggle to move 1000 units. Pointless.

X3 and X1 move well (38K & 24K), and only those BMW CUVs are up this year. The BMW buyer is marching rapidly to the downmarket vehicles, those 2 already are outselling the other 3 (might as well add in the X7 here).

I would like to see a XT3, but would burn any XT1 with a flamethrower.
There's also room for a vehicle between the XT5 andy Escalade. That'd make 3 CUVs and 1 SUV. 

No more.

BMW as a brand caters to driving enthusiasts and people that are more likely to want a car.  But Cadillac being an American brand and a GM brand could win truck and SUV buyers more easily.  GM is a truck/SUV company for the most part.   5-6 crossovers might be too much for Cadillac, but crossover is what the people want, people are paying $40-50k for Ford and Honda crossovers in droves, yet Cadillac can't most ATSes.

• I assume you meant "move" where you typed 'most'. Cadillac sells ATSs, on pace for 20K units this year in the U.S.. I have no problem with that number. It's just not that crucial.

• BMW doesn't "cater to driving enthusiasts", they sell badges. They're a badge company for the most part.

• Cadillac isn't 'GM', the brands have different buyers; they are not interchangeable for the most part. Gotta accept that fact.

4 hours ago, smk4565 said:

BMW has X1, X3, X4, X5, X6, and X7 on the way.   Jeep has 6 SUVs, 2 of which are over 10 years old and people still keep buying them, Jeep sales are on fire.  Crossovers outsell sedans, Cadillac has ATS, CTS, XTS, CT6, which is 4 sedans, they could easily have 5 crossovers plus Escalade as none of those sedans at the Escalade base price.

Chevy needs more crossovers too.  I don't like crossovers, but sadly the new look car line of the 2020s will be 5-6 crossovers, 3 sedans, 1 coupe/convertible, 1 van, 1 pick up.

They

do 

not

need

five 

CUVs

They are part of GM, which offers them across the board while Benz and BMW have to offer that many being singular brands with no other branches like GM. How many times does the same thing have to be said to you before you get the hint?

It looks like a frigging Chrysler.

There. I said it.

BMW has to sell bottom feeder X1s to survive. Cadillac doesn't... GM can sell plenty of Traxes and Encores outside of the Cadillac brand.   

What BMW is trying to do is be General Motors without multiple brands (Mini is niche of a niche and has been struggling big time, Saturn sold more cars in 2009 (79K) the year they were canceled than Mini sold in all of 2015 (58k)

44 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

BMW has to sell bottom feeder X1s to survive. Cadillac doesn't... GM can sell plenty of Traxes and Encores outside of the Cadillac brand.   

What BMW is trying to do is be General Motors without multiple brands (Mini is niche of a niche and has been struggling big time, Saturn sold more cars in 2009 (79K) the year they were canceled than Mini sold in all of 2015 (58k)

My point exactly. He acts like Cadillac is a stand alone brand that has to do everything like Benz and BMW when it is exactly the opposite. 

10 hours ago, Blake Noble said:

It looks like a frigging Chrysler.

There. I said it.

Which Chrysler? Sure doesn't look like any Chrysler I've seen. 

46 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

BMW has to sell bottom feeder X1s to survive. Cadillac doesn't... GM can sell plenty of Traxes and Encores outside of the Cadillac brand.   

What BMW is trying to do is be General Motors without multiple brands (Mini is niche of a niche and has been struggling big time, Saturn sold more cars in 2009 (79K) the year they were canceled than Mini sold in all of 2015 (58k)

Buick sold more Encores last year (67K) than the entire Mini brand, and the Encore's base price is about $4k higher than the base Mini.

Since we have many various thoughts on the design direction, I thought it might be nice to grab and compare the current products that are still with us and the evolution they have taken. 

The one thing this does prove is that the headlights need to stay a vertical design. Yet we can find horizontal headlights in the past but we do not need to mimic BMW, MB or Audi. Cadillac needs to keep their own styling trend and Johan need to man up focus on the rich history of the Unique Cadillac rather than copying his German lovefest of Sausage!

Cadillac Escalade 1999 to 2016

SRX-XT Generations

SRX 2004 to 2009

SRX 2010 to 2016

2017 XT5

CTS Generations

Gen 2003-2007

Gen 2008 to 2013

Gen 2014 to 2016

The blades are simply a signature of Cadillac.

Just like the angel eyes were on BMWs.... so when people put them on Camaros, they were putting "BMW headlights on a Camaro"

And how Audi has it's lower "eyeliner" emo look 

The difference is, Cadillac's rear blades have far more heritage than either Audi or BMW.  The rear blades go back to 1960 and have continued basically uninterrupted in some form or another ever since.  The front blade showed up in 2008 with the CTS, but it immediately took to being Cadillac. 

Great Point Drew, I wish more would understand the history and would respect the blades that they have had on the auto's.

I would also like to add that the front "blade" headlights reminisce of stacked headlights of the 1960s in which Pontiac and Chrysler (although slanted) made famous...and Cadillac.

Cadillac in 1964 or 1965.

This is from 1968 and to me, best exemplifies the stacked, blade look of Cadillac that modern Cadillacs use...

43 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

I would also like to add that the front "blade" headlights reminisce of stacked headlights of the 1960s in which Pontiac and Chrysler (although slanted) made famous...and Cadillac.

Cadillac in 1964 or 1965.

This is from 1968 and to me, best exemplifies the stacked, blade look of Cadillac that modern Cadillacs use...

I was going to bring that up as well, but it's been less consistently used over the years than the tails. 

3 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

Which Chrysler? Sure doesn't look like any Chrysler I've seen. 

That sloping, fastback six-window roofline... That particular mix of straight lines and curves... That faux-ducktail trunklid...

What I'm ultimately saying is, there's enough hackneyed design elements there that, when GM starts watering down the design for a production car, it's probably going to wind up looking like this:

Well, OK, best case scenario, maybe this:

Sure, the Escala has better proportions than the Chrysler 200 (thank goodness) or the Audi A7. And it had better, being built on a rear-drive platform and all. But there is nothing refreshing or unique about the rest of the design. It's boring and trite.

The only thing that remotely says "Cadillac" about the entire design are the taillights. Take those away, and this could be any old thing.