Cadillac To Make Changes In China to Appeal to Younger Buyers

This is cool to hear and I hope they bring the stretch version to the US as us tall guys would like a stretched version of a CTS V edition. That extra 16 inches in the rear would be well worth it to have your Rocket performance car with room in it for hauling people.

I bet "right size" means bigger.  The CTS is already the biggest car in its segment, hard to make it any bigger.  If the ATS gets bigger it becomes the size of a 2nd gen CTS, then you get back to that 5-series size at 3-series price problem.  I don't think the size of the car is the problem, packaging is.

I also hope they don't start styling Cadillacs to suit the Chinese market, because that will spell problems here.  

^ Doesn't seem to for mercdees; 1 out of every 2 S-classes are sold in china and it's as soft as baby's bottom, yet they still sell here OK.

^ Doesn't seem to for mercdees; 1 out of every 2 S-classes are sold in china and it's as soft as baby's bottom, yet they still sell here OK.

The S Class does very well in China well also being made there.

^ Doesn't seem to for mercdees; 1 out of every 2 S-classes are sold in china and it's as soft as baby's bottom, yet they still sell here OK.

1/3rd of S-class sales are China.  But when Mercedes sold 373,000 cars in China last year, that beat their US sales so that makes sense.  They sold 738,000 cars in Europe, I think they are more worried with the European market, and the S-class has had the same grille for like 25 years, I don't think they are styling the car for the Chinese.

 

^ Doesn't seem to for mercdees; 1 out of every 2 S-classes are sold in china and it's as soft as baby's bottom, yet they still sell here OK.

The S Class does very well in China well also being made there.

 

The S-class does well everywhere, and it has to be made there to sell there because of the import tax laws in China.  

If you buy an S-class or E-class in the USA it is made in Sindelfigen, Germany.

^ Doesn't seem to for mercdees; 1 out of every 2 S-classes are sold in china and it's as soft as baby's bottom, yet they still sell here OK.

The S Class does very well in China well also being made there.

The S-class does well everywhere, and it has to be made there to sell there because of the import tax laws in China.  

 

If you buy an S-class or E-class in the USA it is made in Sindelfigen, Germany.

According to carscoops from the fall of 2014, it was "nearly one out of every two" S-classes are sold in China.
1 out of 3 is 33.3%, but 'nearly 1 out of two' may run as high as 45% or more.
Without a doubt mercedes has been building the s-class with China heavily in mind; the corporate mindset of 'Revenue Above All Else' is proof enough of that.

China is probably why we never got the F700 (not the Ford HD truck; the future S-class concept MD teased).

Oh sure; it was horribly mutated, but at least you noticed it.

 

 

 

^ Doesn't seem to for mercdees; 1 out of every 2 S-classes are sold in china and it's as soft as baby's bottom, yet they still sell here OK.

The S Class does very well in China well also being made there.

The S-class does well everywhere, and it has to be made there to sell there because of the import tax laws in China.  

 

If you buy an S-class or E-class in the USA it is made in Sindelfigen, Germany.

. That's not what I'm talking about but thanks for playing. We already know that if you had to live in China that you would not buy one that was made there. We've talked about this.

 

If I had to live in China, I would still buy a Mercedes, which in most cases would be made in China.  Just like people that live in the USA and buy a GLC or C-class or GLE are buying a Mercedes made in the USA.   They are often built in the region of the world where the car is sold.  Certain cars with lower volume are only tooled up at one factory though, such as the SL.  High volume like a C-class is built in 3 or 4 different factories.  Every car maker does this.

According to carscoops from the fall of 2014, it was "nearly one out of every two" S-classes are sold in China.

1 out of 3 is 33.3%, but 'nearly 1 out of two' may run as high as 45% or more.

Without a doubt mercedes has been building the s-class with China heavily in mind; the corporate mindset of 'Revenue Above All Else' is proof enough of that.

 

China is probably why we never got the F700 (not the Ford HD truck; the future S-class concept MD teased).

Oh sure; it was horribly mutated, but at least you noticed it.

I read 1/3rd in 2015.  European market S-class sales are only about 17,000 a year, 20-25,000 a year in the USA.   They were on pace for 35,000 in China in 2015, but the S-class sells around 100k a year, so that would be 35%.  If Europe or other parts of the world have economic down turn and the S-class drops to 80,000 but China stays at 35,000 the % gets bigger.

Interestingly enough Audi who sold 570,000 cars in China in 2015, led the way with BMW in 2nd.  The S-class sold as many units as the A8 and 7-series combined there.  It outsells the A8 and 7-series combined in Europe too.  S-class is the global champion, it isn't designed for one country it is designed to win in 200 countries.

Called this a while ago so I'm just gonna be lazy and paste this here

^ Doesn't seem to for mercdees; 1 out of every 2 S-classes are sold in china and it's as soft as baby's bottom, yet they still sell here OK.

The S Class does very well in China well also being made there.

The S-class does well everywhere, and it has to be made there to sell there because of the import tax laws in China.  

 

If you buy an S-class or E-class in the USA it is made in Sindelfigen, Germany.

. That's not what I'm talking about but thanks for playing. We already know that if you had to live in China that you would not buy one that was made there. We've talked about this.

If I had to live in China, I would still buy a Mercedes, which in most cases would be made in China.  Just like people that live in the USA and buy a GLC or C-class or GLE are buying a Mercedes made in the USA.   They are often built in the region of the world where the car is sold.  Certain cars with lower volume are only tooled up at one factory though, such as the SL.  High volume like a C-class is built in 3 or 4 different factories.  Every car maker does this.

Funny because that's not what you said a few weeks ago. Back then you said you'd never drive a Chinese made Mercedes (on the CT6 made in China thread). Interesting.

And you are proving Balthazaars point.

 

Called this a while ago so I'm just gonna be lazy and paste this here

 

Like the 5series which shares a platform with the BMW 7 Series and is essentially a downsized 7 Series, the CTS will most likely be getting Omega as its bones, and be the same as the 5series in terms of sharing a larger platform. Basically the (current CTS)CT5 or 4 will be a "SWB CT6" still with the same body length as the current CTS, just larger inside via a wider and more space efficient platform called Omega. Count the need for Buick to chime in and get a flagship larger than the LAX for China and U.S (possibly). The "Avista" goes to Buick because they are continuing the trend down the age demographic.. and a sporty coupe could be the fix and seriously help Alpha along with the Camaro. 

 

 

 

Again... and based on what JDN said a few months ago about the next "CTS" and next "ATS" we should be seeing a simple change of size formula for the sake of these issues that critics have brought up about the legroom etc. I'm thinking for the most part the Alpha based ATS replacement will essentially get the Chinese ATS-L Wheelbase of 112.6 inch vs what it has right now of 109.3. This would dwarf the current 3series' 110.6 in WB by a few inches. I think that the ATS replacement will be, along with the Sub-ATS, the only Cadillacs on the Alpha platform, with the Camaro, and this Avista helping out with the numbers a bit more. 

 

The CTS replacement will probably go to Omega. I could see it staying at 196 inchs.. and getting a bump in Wheelbase (currently at 114.6 inches) too coming in at around 117 in N.Amer, like the 5Series. It has been said that the CT6 handles as well as the current CTS.. so certainly I would think that an OMega based... smaller than CT6... CTS would handle as well or better, not losing any of its agility, and losing a few hundred lbs in the change over. This would be beneficial in amortizing the Omega platform even quicker.. (altho I would still push it out to an Impala at Chevy and a Park Ave or Avenir at Buick) along with the CT7 and CT8

 

But how big do these cars get?  Does a CTS or CT5 become the size of a Chrysler 300?  Does the ATS become the size of Infiniti Q50 or Acura TLX?   BMW is just as guilty, they have had some bad size creep on the 3 and 5-series as of late.    I don't get the notion of forcing low end cars up market such as was done with  CTS.   Making the car bigger could hurt sales, not help.

Even Chevy and Ford are doing it.  The Cruze is way bigger than a Cobalt was, the Malibu has grown, pretty soon the Impala will be pushed out.  Ford is making the Focus larger, the Fusion longer, killing the Taurus.  These brands are killing the nameplates of their larger, more profitable vehicles to push low end models up.

In Chevy's example, they shoudl drop the Spark name plate, make the subcompact the Sonic, what is currently the Sonic becomes the Cruze, the Cruze becomes Malibu and the current Malibu/Impala merge into one car that is an Accord/Camry fighter.  This lets Chevy sella $17,000 Malibu which seems like incredible value, but really it is the same car a $16,000 Cruze would be, yet GM pockets $1,000.

Called this a while ago so I'm just gonna be lazy and paste this here

 

Like the 5series which shares a platform with the BMW 7 Series and is essentially a downsized 7 Series, the CTS will most likely be getting Omega as its bones, and be the same as the 5series in terms of sharing a larger platform. Basically the (current CTS)CT5 or 4 will be a "SWB CT6" still with the same body length as the current CTS, just larger inside via a wider and more space efficient platform called Omega. Count the need for Buick to chime in and get a flagship larger than the LAX for China and U.S (possibly). The "Avista" goes to Buick because they are continuing the trend down the age demographic.. and a sporty coupe could be the fix and seriously help Alpha along with the Camaro. 

 

 

 

Again... and based on what JDN said a few months ago about the next "CTS" and next "ATS" we should be seeing a simple change of size formula for the sake of these issues that critics have brought up about the legroom etc. I'm thinking for the most part the Alpha based ATS replacement will essentially get the Chinese ATS-L Wheelbase of 112.6 inch vs what it has right now of 109.3. This would dwarf the current 3series' 110.6 in WB by a few inches. I think that the ATS replacement will be, along with the Sub-ATS, the only Cadillacs on the Alpha platform, with the Camaro, and this Avista helping out with the numbers a bit more. 

 

The CTS replacement will probably go to Omega. I could see it staying at 196 inchs.. and getting a bump in Wheelbase (currently at 114.6 inches) too coming in at around 117 in N.Amer, like the 5Series. It has been said that the CT6 handles as well as the current CTS.. so certainly I would think that an OMega based... smaller than CT6... CTS would handle as well or better, not losing any of its agility, and losing a few hundred lbs in the change over. This would be beneficial in amortizing the Omega platform even quicker.. (altho I would still push it out to an Impala at Chevy and a Park Ave or Avenir at Buick) along with the CT7 and CT8

But how big do these cars get?  Does a CTS or CT5 become the size of a Chrysler 300?  Does the ATS become the size of Infiniti Q50 or Acura TLX?   BMW is just as guilty, they have had some bad size creep on the 3 and 5-series as of late.    I don't get the notion of forcing low end cars up market such as was done with  CTS.   Making the car bigger could hurt sales, not help.

 

Even Chevy and Ford are doing it.  The Cruze is way bigger than a Cobalt was, the Malibu has grown, pretty soon the Impala will be pushed out.  Ford is making the Focus larger, the Fusion longer, killing the Taurus.  These brands are killing the nameplates of their larger, more profitable vehicles to push low end models up.

 

In Chevy's example, they shoudl drop the Spark name plate, make the subcompact the Sonic, what is currently the Sonic becomes the Cruze, the Cruze becomes Malibu and the current Malibu/Impala merge into one car that is an Accord/Camry fighter.  This lets Chevy sella $17,000 Malibu which seems like incredible value, but really it is the same car a $16,000 Cruze would be, yet GM pockets $1,000.

Mercedes does the exact same thing. They pushed up the C Class to be able put out the sub $30k CLA for example. As a matter of fact, all companies do this.

And I am so glad SMK is not charge of marketing for any of there companies he mentioned. 

 

 

Called this a while ago so I'm just gonna be lazy and paste this here

 

Like the 5series which shares a platform with the BMW 7 Series and is essentially a downsized 7 Series, the CTS will most likely be getting Omega as its bones, and be the same as the 5series in terms of sharing a larger platform. Basically the (current CTS)CT5 or 4 will be a "SWB CT6" still with the same body length as the current CTS, just larger inside via a wider and more space efficient platform called Omega. Count the need for Buick to chime in and get a flagship larger than the LAX for China and U.S (possibly). The "Avista" goes to Buick because they are continuing the trend down the age demographic.. and a sporty coupe could be the fix and seriously help Alpha along with the Camaro. 

 

 

 

Again... and based on what JDN said a few months ago about the next "CTS" and next "ATS" we should be seeing a simple change of size formula for the sake of these issues that critics have brought up about the legroom etc. I'm thinking for the most part the Alpha based ATS replacement will essentially get the Chinese ATS-L Wheelbase of 112.6 inch vs what it has right now of 109.3. This would dwarf the current 3series' 110.6 in WB by a few inches. I think that the ATS replacement will be, along with the Sub-ATS, the only Cadillacs on the Alpha platform, with the Camaro, and this Avista helping out with the numbers a bit more. 

 

The CTS replacement will probably go to Omega. I could see it staying at 196 inchs.. and getting a bump in Wheelbase (currently at 114.6 inches) too coming in at around 117 in N.Amer, like the 5Series. It has been said that the CT6 handles as well as the current CTS.. so certainly I would think that an OMega based... smaller than CT6... CTS would handle as well or better, not losing any of its agility, and losing a few hundred lbs in the change over. This would be beneficial in amortizing the Omega platform even quicker.. (altho I would still push it out to an Impala at Chevy and a Park Ave or Avenir at Buick) along with the CT7 and CT8

 

But how big do these cars get?  Does a CTS or CT5 become the size of a Chrysler 300?  Does the ATS become the size of Infiniti Q50 or Acura TLX?   BMW is just as guilty, they have had some bad size creep on the 3 and 5-series as of late.    I don't get the notion of forcing low end cars up market such as was done with  CTS.   Making the car bigger could hurt sales, not help.

 

Even Chevy and Ford are doing it.  The Cruze is way bigger than a Cobalt was, the Malibu has grown, pretty soon the Impala will be pushed out.  Ford is making the Focus larger, the Fusion longer, killing the Taurus.  These brands are killing the nameplates of their larger, more profitable vehicles to push low end models up.

 

In Chevy's example, they shoudl drop the Spark name plate, make the subcompact the Sonic, what is currently the Sonic becomes the Cruze, the Cruze becomes Malibu and the current Malibu/Impala merge into one car that is an Accord/Camry fighter.  This lets Chevy sella $17,000 Malibu which seems like incredible value, but really it is the same car a $16,000 Cruze would be, yet GM pockets $1,000.

 

It's like you didn't actually read what he actually wrote and are still asking the same questions as before (that have been answered ten fold). 

 

 

Called this a while ago so I'm just gonna be lazy and paste this here

 

Like the 5series which shares a platform with the BMW 7 Series and is essentially a downsized 7 Series, the CTS will most likely be getting Omega as its bones, and be the same as the 5series in terms of sharing a larger platform. Basically the (current CTS)CT5 or 4 will be a "SWB CT6" still with the same body length as the current CTS, just larger inside via a wider and more space efficient platform called Omega. Count the need for Buick to chime in and get a flagship larger than the LAX for China and U.S (possibly). The "Avista" goes to Buick because they are continuing the trend down the age demographic.. and a sporty coupe could be the fix and seriously help Alpha along with the Camaro. 

 

 

 

Again... and based on what JDN said a few months ago about the next "CTS" and next "ATS" we should be seeing a simple change of size formula for the sake of these issues that critics have brought up about the legroom etc. I'm thinking for the most part the Alpha based ATS replacement will essentially get the Chinese ATS-L Wheelbase of 112.6 inch vs what it has right now of 109.3. This would dwarf the current 3series' 110.6 in WB by a few inches. I think that the ATS replacement will be, along with the Sub-ATS, the only Cadillacs on the Alpha platform, with the Camaro, and this Avista helping out with the numbers a bit more. 

 

The CTS replacement will probably go to Omega. I could see it staying at 196 inchs.. and getting a bump in Wheelbase (currently at 114.6 inches) too coming in at around 117 in N.Amer, like the 5Series. It has been said that the CT6 handles as well as the current CTS.. so certainly I would think that an OMega based... smaller than CT6... CTS would handle as well or better, not losing any of its agility, and losing a few hundred lbs in the change over. This would be beneficial in amortizing the Omega platform even quicker.. (altho I would still push it out to an Impala at Chevy and a Park Ave or Avenir at Buick) along with the CT7 and CT8

But how big do these cars get?  Does a CTS or CT5 become the size of a Chrysler 300?  Does the ATS become the size of Infiniti Q50 or Acura TLX?   BMW is just as guilty, they have had some bad size creep on the 3 and 5-series as of late.    I don't get the notion of forcing low end cars up market such as was done with  CTS.   Making the car bigger could hurt sales, not help.

 

Even Chevy and Ford are doing it.  The Cruze is way bigger than a Cobalt was, the Malibu has grown, pretty soon the Impala will be pushed out.  Ford is making the Focus larger, the Fusion longer, killing the Taurus.  These brands are killing the nameplates of their larger, more profitable vehicles to push low end models up.

 

In Chevy's example, they shoudl drop the Spark name plate, make the subcompact the Sonic, what is currently the Sonic becomes the Cruze, the Cruze becomes Malibu and the current Malibu/Impala merge into one car that is an Accord/Camry fighter.  This lets Chevy sella $17,000 Malibu which seems like incredible value, but really it is the same car a $16,000 Cruze would be, yet GM pockets $1,000.

Mercedes does the exact same thing. They pushed up the C Class to be able put out the sub $30k CLA for example. As a matter of fact, all companies do this.

 

I hate this but it's so true. I think the best example is the Honda Civic. It isn't a compact car in my eyes any more. The Malibu has grown so much since 2000, C Class, 3 Series, all half ton trucks, Mid-size trucks.. everything. 

There are only a couple cars that come to mind that haven't blown up and that's the '16 Camaro and Miata. The Mustang is huge compared to the 99-04 gen that I've owned. Those had useless back seats, if either driver or passenger were larger than myself at 5'8" 180lbs then only one person gets the arm rest in the middle..the bigger guy.. 

The size creep of low end models could kill off the larger sedans, especially as larger sedan sales are tanking anyway.  Consumers are moving away from large cars, but manufactures keep making cars bigger?   Hmmm.   You'll all realize it when the Impala dies in the 2020s and the Cruze is a mid-size car for $30,000 and not selling because no one wants to pay $30k for a Cruze.

*Except the S Class which is god* 

That it is, but the E-class has only grown about 4 inches in length in the past 25 years.  The late 80s E-class was 187-188 inches long, a 1996 E-class has length of 189.4 and a 2016 model is 192.1.  Height is up an inch and width up 2 over 20 years.  Small growth

The 1991 S-class was 205.2 inches long, the 2016 is 206.5 inches long.  So it also grew slightly over time, it actually downsized in 2000, then went back up in 2007.

But look at a 1990 Civicor 3-series and compare it to today, it isn't even close.

That it is, but the E-class has only grown about 4 inches in length in the past 25 years.  The late 80s E-class was 187-188 inches long, a 1996 E-class has length of 189.4 and a 2016 model is 192.1.  Height is up an inch and width up 2 over 20 years.  Small growth

 

The 1991 S-class was 205.2 inches long, the 2016 is 206.5 inches long.  So it also grew slightly over time, it actually downsized in 2000, then went back up in 2007.

 

But look at a 1990 Civicor 3-series and compare it to today, it isn't even close.

What about everything else? 

C Class?

CLK? S? SL? ML? GL? GLK? CLS? And all of the wagon and coupe variations that go with all of those.. have those all only grown 4 inches in 25 years? I would wager good money that isn't the case.. 

ML/GLE(whatever you want to refer to it as):

1997: 180.6 inches long

2016: 189.1 inches long

GLK/GLC

2009(first year it was made): 178.2 inches long

2016: 183.3 inches long

 

 

Called this a while ago so I'm just gonna be lazy and paste this here

 

Like the 5series which shares a platform with the BMW 7 Series and is essentially a downsized 7 Series, the CTS will most likely be getting Omega as its bones, and be the same as the 5series in terms of sharing a larger platform. Basically the (current CTS)CT5 or 4 will be a "SWB CT6" still with the same body length as the current CTS, just larger inside via a wider and more space efficient platform called Omega. Count the need for Buick to chime in and get a flagship larger than the LAX for China and U.S (possibly). The "Avista" goes to Buick because they are continuing the trend down the age demographic.. and a sporty coupe could be the fix and seriously help Alpha along with the Camaro. 

 

 

 

Again... and based on what JDN said a few months ago about the next "CTS" and next "ATS" we should be seeing a simple change of size formula for the sake of these issues that critics have brought up about the legroom etc. I'm thinking for the most part the Alpha based ATS replacement will essentially get the Chinese ATS-L Wheelbase of 112.6 inch vs what it has right now of 109.3. This would dwarf the current 3series' 110.6 in WB by a few inches. I think that the ATS replacement will be, along with the Sub-ATS, the only Cadillacs on the Alpha platform, with the Camaro, and this Avista helping out with the numbers a bit more. 

 

The CTS replacement will probably go to Omega. I could see it staying at 196 inchs.. and getting a bump in Wheelbase (currently at 114.6 inches) too coming in at around 117 in N.Amer, like the 5Series. It has been said that the CT6 handles as well as the current CTS.. so certainly I would think that an OMega based... smaller than CT6... CTS would handle as well or better, not losing any of its agility, and losing a few hundred lbs in the change over. This would be beneficial in amortizing the Omega platform even quicker.. (altho I would still push it out to an Impala at Chevy and a Park Ave or Avenir at Buick) along with the CT7 and CT8

 

But how big do these cars get?  Does a CTS or CT5 become the size of a Chrysler 300?  Does the ATS become the size of Infiniti Q50 or Acura TLX?   BMW is just as guilty, they have had some bad size creep on the 3 and 5-series as of late.    I don't get the notion of forcing low end cars up market such as was done with  CTS.   Making the car bigger could hurt sales, not help.

 

Even Chevy and Ford are doing it.  The Cruze is way bigger than a Cobalt was, the Malibu has grown, pretty soon the Impala will be pushed out.  Ford is making the Focus larger, the Fusion longer, killing the Taurus.  These brands are killing the nameplates of their larger, more profitable vehicles to push low end models up.

 

In Chevy's example, they shoudl drop the Spark name plate, make the subcompact the Sonic, what is currently the Sonic becomes the Cruze, the Cruze becomes Malibu and the current Malibu/Impala merge into one car that is an Accord/Camry fighter.  This lets Chevy sella $17,000 Malibu which seems like incredible value, but really it is the same car a $16,000 Cruze would be, yet GM pockets $1,000.

 

Dude it happens every generation in almost every company. Honda's Civic is damn near the size of the Accord from 2007. The BMW, as U mentioned is clearly sizing up. The current 5Series looks on par in size with the old 7 Series from early 2000s. At a point.. that additional interior space goes beyond just magic packaging and the car has to actually grow in exterior dimensions as well. The trick is to make them as efficient. WHO CARES is the vehicle (place name here)  is larger as long as there is an alternative for smaller size, and that aforementioned nameplate is as efficient if not more so than the gen it replaces.

A Malibu for example.. while now larger is more efficient than the car it replaces and certainly more so than the gen before 2013. The Cruze might be larger, but before the Cruze.. the Cobalt didn't have the steps of the SPARK > Sonic>.. then the CRUZE or Volt.. then Malibu.. then Impala.. hell.. bringing back an old argument.. Chevy has the Camaro in stead of a Malibu COUPE.. as the Accord benefits from being the large, mid, and coupe of Honda.. thus taking all the sales under one name. But I digress

The size creep of low end models could kill off the larger sedans, especially as larger sedan sales are tanking anyway.  Consumers are moving away from large cars, but manufactures keep making cars bigger?   Hmmm.   You'll all realize it when the Impala dies in the 2020s and the Cruze is a mid-size car for $30,000 and not selling because no one wants to pay $30k for a Cruze.

Yeah.. and still get resurrected about 4 years later. Come on Brah.. the Impala is quite possibly.. behind two other Chevys.. (Vette and Suburban) the longest running name in automotum. 

Personally I don't think that's what's gonna happen anyway. I see the Impala as we kno it going away.. hence the Malibu's jump.. and becoming a combined entity of the Impala name and legend, SS's performance, and Caprice's size.. all on OMEGA for the sake of amortizing the platform

But in the case of Impala, since it is Chevy's best sedan name, and longest running, why not make that the Camry/Accord fighter. Make Malibu a Corolla/Civic/Focus competitor. The Malibu nameplate has proven it can't win against the Camry and Accord, maybe it will have better luck against Civic.  Cruze then becomes the Fiesta/Accent/Versa competition. 

Wouldn't an Omega platform Chevy cost as much as a CTS?  What is the point in that? 

My guess for Cadillac is the ATS grows to 185 inches long, so a car at 180 can go in below it.  CTS stays the same size it is.  They can't make CT6 any bigger, or it will be bigger than an S-class and a CT8 won't be needed, and we know they want a CT8. 

This is just making my head hurt. Is cherry picking the "in" thing these days?

That it is, but the E-class has only grown about 4 inches in length in the past 25 years.  The late 80s E-class was 187-188 inches long, a 1996 E-class has length of 189.4 and a 2016 model is 192.1.  Height is up an inch and width up 2 over 20 years.  Small growth

 

The 1991 S-class was 205.2 inches long, the 2016 is 206.5 inches long.  So it also grew slightly over time, it actually downsized in 2000, then went back up in 2007.

 

But look at a 1990 Civicor 3-series and compare it to today, it isn't even close.

What about everything else? 

 

C Class?

CLK? S? SL? ML? GL? GLK? CLS? And all of the wagon and coupe variations that go with all of those.. have those all only grown 4 inches in 25 years? I would wager good money that isn't the case.. 

 

ML/GLE(whatever you want to refer to it as):

1997: 180.6 inches long

2016: 189.1 inches long

 

GLK/GLC

2009(first year it was made): 178.2 inches long

2016: 183.3 inches long

GM is not going to any of the things SMK has brought up and with good reason. Because they know better than him.

The Chinese seem to like extended length versions of smaller cars... but extending an ATS 3 inches does not make it CTS sized because it doesn't have the width. A CTS stretched 3 inches doesn't make it CT6 sized because it doesn't have the width. 

BMW makes extended length 5-series in China. 

They can't make CT6 any bigger, or it will be bigger than an S-class and a CT8 won't be needed, and we know they want a CT8. 

Cadillac doesn't care how long the s-class is.

But they very well may wish to -coincidentally- exceed that length anyway- since it's not all that lengthy as it is.

A CT8 could be 215"-ish and leave plenty of room for the 204" CT6.

But in the case of Impala, since it is Chevy's best sedan name, and longest running, why not make that the Camry/Accord fighter. Make Malibu a Corolla/Civic/Focus competitor. The Malibu nameplate has proven it can't win against the Camry and Accord, maybe it will have better luck against Civic. Cruze then becomes the Fiesta/Accent/Versa competition.

Wouldn't an Omega platform Chevy cost as much as a CTS? What is the point in that?

My guess for Cadillac is the ATS grows to 185 inches long, so a car at 180 can go in below it. CTS stays the same size it is. They can't make CT6 any bigger, or it will be bigger than an S-class and a CT8 won't be needed, and we know they want a CT8.

First let me say that if the Malibu beats the Accord, let alone the Camry, considering that the Malibu has the Impala selling in the numbers it does.. not to mention the Camaro, then Honda needs to pack it up and get the f@#k outta here like I want them to in the first place. The Malibu's numbers are about to rise.. the Impala will still do well.

And an Epsilon Impala can cost almost as much as a CTS or 5series. So what's your point? Besides I'm pretty sure GM can make an Omega Lite platform that will utilize some of the great aspects of the CT6 but not all

But who buys all these sedans, especially large sedans?  Large sedans are a dying breed.  The sheeple want crossovers.   The CT6 will be a sales dud, so why make a CTS bigger and wider to make it more like a CT6?   Mid size and small cars still sell in both mainstream and luxury segments.  That is the space to play, and any carmaker could run a 4-5 crossover line up out there and probably sell all of them.  

But who buys all these sedans, especially large sedans?  Large sedans are a dying breed.  The sheeple want crossovers.   The CT6 will be a sales dud, so why make a CTS bigger and wider to make it more like a CT6?   Mid size and small cars still sell in both mainstream and luxury segments.  That is the space to play, and any carmaker could run a 4-5 crossover line up out there and probably sell all of them.  

Higher priced large sedans at low volumes still make a lot of money. In fact they are often nearly as profitable as the Trucks. This is why all the automakers are investing in their luxury lines and all are offering larger sedans. Again these cars are also sold on a global basis so the volume is spread out around the world not dependent on just one market. 

Come on it is 2016 not get with what is going on today. 

Cadillac's global sales aren't that good though.  The Audi A6 sells over 500,000 units a year world wide.  Cadillac's whole brand doesn't do that.  I am all for investing in global luxury cars, but Cadillac is nonexistent in Europe, and they sell like 75,000 cars a year in China, Audi sold 570,000 cars in China last year.  

But even the S-class which is the #1 selling large luxury car by far sells 80-100,000 units globally per year.  Cars like the 7-series and A8 sell closer to 40,000 units per year globally.   Lexus LS460 even less than that.   So the full size segment is not where it is at.  The mid-size and small segments are.

^ Those are fine… IF mass market global sales numbers is your mission statement.

But that's not Cadillac's.

(Another ghost sighting)

Anyways, I think the S-Class is largely regarded at the superlative in its class. Is it a sales success because of branding or is it because it is actually good.

Well the market research says the companies that build their brand succeed - by catering to their buyers needs.

The S-Class sells to wealthy people in the majority of the world that do not drive themselves. Which means who the hell cares about the driver's needs at that point? Okay benevolent benefactor. Good point.

And I'd say the S-Class AMG vs potential CT6-V is akin to a Challenger Hellcat vs a 5th GEN Camaro ZL1.

And there are real reasons to consider the S-Class - superior interior, more powa and more expensive. Actually probably double as expensive. But that's branding. That's what's called earning quality revenue. 

And I swear to all of you. Cadillac wants a piece of that kind of business. That's what they are building towards. But to get there they first have to build driver's cars combined as luxury cars before making that pinnacle shift. They have cleared that path.

But why not just give us what us non-paying non-existent customers want - a production Elmiraj realized as a CT8.... Which I'm sure would make such a huge wave even if they lost money on every single one sold.

Consider the loss as the initial capital outflow to build the brand. or re-build in this case. Which changes the formula.... But you get the point.

^ Those are fine… IF mass market global sales numbers is your mission statement.

 

But that's not Cadillac's.

Is Cadillac's goal to post profit?  Cadillac should be producing more dollars of profit than Chevy.   That is what luxury brands are for.

Yes: profit is the goal, profit drives all future development.

But no one outside of General Motors Accounting knows exactly what Cadillac's profit level is. Via ATPs, it's going up- that much we know.
I also loosely recall some official statement WRT the CTS wagon (IIRC), that Cadillac had to sell an absurdly low quantity to break even (which I believe they eclipsed).

Cadillac's goal is profit at their own lower volume. They are not like Benz and BMW that have to sell all and be all as GM has Chevy and all the other divisions in their quiver. Lots of arrows to cover the same ground all doing different jobs for once. 

As for judging Cadillac today vs. where they are going you really need to get back to the time line of what it takes to bring new product to market and just when the folks in charge got here. What we have now is not where it is going. 

Also we need to remember what show cars really are and that they are not real production cars let alone done under the people in charge today. 

You can debate this all you like but we have yet to see the first real product or first real major changes under the present management.  They finally were given the time, money and autonomy to do what they need to do and we should grant them the time to show us what they will be doing. To pass judgment on them and the division a this point is impossibly short sighted. 

Cadillac went from standard of the world to equal with the world then sub standard of the world. We are now back to nearly equal ground but their full return is when they are the undisputed leader and that will give the ability to recapture their image.  

You can build the best car in the world but yet not be viewed as being it. You do need to build the best but you still have to earn that respect. 

At this point Cadillac is making gains and do have the right tools but they still have to earn it. The greatest asset is they don't hold the burden of being a Taxi in Johannesburg or a police car in Berlin let alone a base model for a family in Poland and an ultra luxury car in China. Yet they will net  50%+ more sales profits than all the GM car sales even at higher volumes. 

Cadillac's current management did nothing at Infiniti, and while head of Audi USA, what did he really do?  They are selling the same Audi around the world, and Audi does worse in the USA than they do in Europe or China, and Audi has grown in the USA since Johan left.   And the current plan is to make a Cadillac Enclave, a Cadillac Terrain, and, a CT8 that won't sell.  That is the path to success?  

You are still equating "sell" with "sales volume".

A CT8 is not meant to be high volume, just as Cadillac isn't.

^ Those are fine… IF mass market global sales numbers is your mission statement.

 

But that's not Cadillac's.

Not to mention he is constantly trying to compare MBs overall sales numbers with ONE GM company that has a mere fraction of models that MB has on top of the fact that the ONE company is not looking for volume sales (which he has been told at least million times up to this point). More cherry picking by SMK does not change that fact (go ahead and down vote that children).

Wouldn't GM be better off if they were selling 300,000 Cadillac CTS per year (globally) at a $5,000 per car margin?   If you told any exec at GM would you rather sell 300,000 Cadillacs or 300,000 Malibus, 100% of them would take 300,000 Cadillacs and zero Malibus.  

This "Cadillac needs to limit volume to be exclusive" mentality is an excuse for poor sales.  Should they limit the Escalade to 15,000 units per year to keep it exclusive, and turn away another 15,000 people willing to spend $85,000 on their product?

Cadillac wants volume sales. Plain and simple.

That's why they're supposedly bringing to market 12 all-new models within the next 5 years to fill all the niches.

You are still equating "sell" with "sales volume".

A CT8 is not meant to be high volume, just as Cadillac isn't.

You would think with you and I repeating this at some point it would stick but?????

Well, it's because Cadillac has no market presence, and cars like Mercedes S-Class coupe/convertibles and Bentley Continental GTs own that segment.

So CT8 will not have amazing, but I'd bet that Cadillac would love to reverse the situation in a heart beat, woudn't they.

And Cadillac isn't meant to be high volume, I agree. But their brass doesn't agree, and is largely copying Germans to go toe-to-toe against them in all the niche segments.

Wouldn't GM be better off if they were selling 300,000 Cadillac CTS per year (globally) at a $5,000 per car margin?   If you told any exec at GM would you rather sell 300,000 Cadillacs or 300,000 Malibus, 100% of them would take 300,000 Cadillacs and zero Malibus.  

 

This "Cadillac needs to limit volume to be exclusive" mentality is an excuse for poor sales.  Should they limit the Escalade to 15,000 units per year to keep it exclusive, and turn away another 15,000 people willing to spend $85,000 on their product?

The idea of whoring out production selling a lot of at bargain prices to fill up the Walmart parking lots of America is no way to build an exclusive image. 

Porsche tried to build an image this way with the 924-944 and paid a large price for it till they wised up. 

Volume is great for Chevy at a value price but a expensive car needs to hold value and gain image volume does nothing for it. Even Benz learned this on the old 190. Sure they sold a lot of them but not as good in profits and the image suffered much. It was even a joke on Top Gear once. 

What is your next idea. We take a Malibu and make a Cadillac out of it and sell it cheap so we can say we sold 200K of them? 

I bet you though the Saab based Cadillac's in Europe also were a good idea? BTS or what ever they called it. 

What you want is a Cadillac POS because you can not grasp the global concept of building a low volume high profit  luxury brand .

I am not saying make the CTS cheeper, I am saying sell 300,000 CTS per year and raise the base price $3,000 as well.  $60,000 ATP times 300,000 units = $18 billion in sales.  At a 10% margin that is $1.8 billion in profit.  That alone would represent 20% of GM's total net income for 2015. 

I think they should have given Cadillac $24 billion for new product, not $12B.  If Cadillac is #1 profit margin brand, it should get the most product.  There are plenty of people spending $40-50k (or more) on Explorers, pickups, Chevy Tahoes, Avalons/Maximas, etc.   Vehicles not from a luxury brand, but yet still cost $50k.  Cadillac should try to steal all those customers.  Why pay $47k for an Explorer when for $52 you could get a Cadillac SUV or CTS, it is just $20 more a month.  That could even be their billboard.

 

You are still equating "sell" with "sales volume".

A CT8 is not meant to be high volume, just as Cadillac isn't.

 

You would think with you and I repeating this at some point it would stick but?????

 

Suppose CT8 costs $500 million to develop, which is actually cheap for a car, but we'll assume most of the work was spent on CT6 or other GM product.   If they make $10,000 profit per CT8 sold (which is a strong number, but doable for a $100k car), they need to sell 50,000 cars just to break even.  If the car costs $1 billion or the profit margin is lower, it could be as many as 100,000 units  to break even.  

Let's split the difference and say 75,000 units is break even, they would need to sell 15,000 per year for a 6 year life cycle just to break even.  With only China and U.S. sales they could probably hit that, but at that low volume they aren't making any money.  They probably need more like 30,000 units a year to make money on the car.  The XLR was low volume, and how did that work out?  It lost money and got cancelled.  

Even Jaguar was thinking of ending the XJ or making the XJ a large crossover because sales have fallen.  

So you mean to tell me that the CT6 is underpriced because they want to build a CT8 that the CT6 was supposed to be?!

The CT6 is the answer to a question no one asked, and the 2.0T model exists the same way that a 320i exists for the BMW 3 Series. Because they're paralyzed by catharsis. Hey, let's build a low volume, high margin brand, yet let's debut a penetration priced, high volume car, and only sell it in markets where we have guaranteed sales. Then let's risk the prestige of our brand, by sourcing part of the models for that car from a place of origin that devalues the entire premise for the brand to exist in the home market of the car.

And that customer buying the base model CT6 is better served by a higher trim, loaded XTS that is far more profitable. 

But I love the CT6 all the same, though I can see behind the viel and say it how it is. 

The CT6 is the answer to a question no one asked, and the 2.0T model exists the same way that a 320i exists for the BMW 3 Series. 

320i is wretched. CT6 2.0T is not.
 

And that customer buying the base model CT6 is better served by a higher trim, loaded XTS that is far more profitable.

Not the same car and choice appeals to luxury buyers. I have no issue with the XTS getting phased out & the CT6 occupying that (general) spot in the catalog. It's a great move forward on many fronts.

The 320i is faster than the ATS 2.5L, and a cheap tune away from destroying the terrible excuse of a base model for the ATS. I don't think people driving an ATS 2.5 at the limit will get out of it and into the BMW and say it's soft. They are just there to get the cheapest premium RWD car.

But is there any extra value created for someone buying the base model CT6? You can't get AWD or the advanced safety features. And the interior reflects its price tag - it's no upgrade over the CTS at that price.

You're stuck with an artificially low priced entry point for the car. Which answers a question no one asked.