Cadillac XT5's Platform To Underpin New Seven-Seat Crossover, Turbo 2.0L May Come to U.S.

 

 

Wonder what will happen to Cadillac's image with 3 front wheel drive crossovers and a sub-ATS, and a front drive XTS.   If 2 front drive Mercedes is doom and gloom, oh my.

 

It's not just the drive train layout.  The interior of the CLA/GLA is sub-par too unless you really load it up into C-Class territory.   

 

Cadillac pioneered FWD in luxury cars, so at least they have some history with it. 

 

 

Exactly. The CLA has been widely panned as being "cheap" by just about every publication out there. The fact that it is FWD is the least of its concern. Being FWD doesn't makes it a bad car. Being cheap does.

 

Exactly.  The CLA and GLA are not the quality one expects from Mercedes.

I have the same exact feelings for the Audi A3 and that one was always going to be FWD based because their entire lineup is.  The A3 just feels like a luxury Jetta to me, and not at all at the level of competence of the other Audis.

 

 

 

Wonder what will happen to Cadillac's image with 3 front wheel drive crossovers and a sub-ATS, and a front drive XTS.   If 2 front drive Mercedes is doom and gloom, oh my.

 

It's not just the drive train layout.  The interior of the CLA/GLA is sub-par too unless you really load it up into C-Class territory.   

 

Cadillac pioneered FWD in luxury cars, so at least they have some history with it. 

 

 

Exactly. The CLA has been widely panned as being "cheap" by just about every publication out there. The fact that it is FWD is the least of its concern. Being FWD doesn't makes it a bad car. Being cheap does.

 

 

Exactly.  The CLA and GLA are not the quality one expects from Mercedes.

 

I have the same exact feelings for the Audi A3 and that one was always going to be FWD based because their entire lineup is.  The A3 just feels like a luxury Jetta to me, and not at all at the level of competence of the other Audis.

 

Sat in and drove one of those too (the A3 Sportback). Nice enough car (not a big Audi fan here) but is clearly their "bargain basement" answer to a question that was never asked. I did like how the car drove though, just for the record.

The A3 is a fine driving car because the Jetta is a fine driving car..... but it is still an expensive Jetta. 

The only FWD car that I think ever looked premium in the modern days is the pre-refresh VW CC.

And it's because they made the car to make a statement that a car that is FWD based can be luxurious and very appealing, and make many people stare back, jaw-dropped.

Everything else that has gone this route will never be quite like the disruption to the market this thing was in terms of ushering in a new styling trend for all cars.

I never heard anyone say 'their jaw dropped' WRT the CC, but it IS where VW should have gone on their upper cars. Nicely done.

Problem is; it's 'out-Audi'ed Audi'.

I know the history of Cadillac very well. I can see that, but Cadillac of the '40s were not on the level they were in the '30s either, same for the '50s… but no one is going to say they 'started to decline in the '40s. Simply different eras/markets. But from the standpoint of image & perception, Cadillac did not see a measurable degredation in the '60s and it absolutely still 'meant something' to own a Cadillac then. Volume was inching upward, but didn't explode until the '70s. They offered the same position entry-level model in the '50s (Series 61) as in the '60s (Calais), and neither sold well at all vs the deVilles.

 

These are amorphous things to even try and quantify, but I am 100% positive I am accurate on this point. Arguemens can be made RE the '70s, but they are without substance when you dial back to the '60s.

 

I can see you get what I am getting at. Yes the 40's, 50's and 60's showed a slow decline from what they were in the 30's. I use the 60's as the cut off as by this point this is where Benz got their post war footing and the 70's BWM and then the 80's Audi. 

The 60's were the tipping point where the others were taking up the space left from Cadillac and where Cadillac has not yet returned to. 

GM as a whole started to focus more on trying to do too much and to do it cheaper and they started to pay a price for it in the 70's as a whole. Lowering quality, more badge engineering and the lack of true divisional engines  etc made it a mess for all of GM not just Cadillac. 

Just as the rebuilding of Cadillac today is not an over night or even a 5-10 year deal the decline likewise was not an over night drop from the top. 

I have been able to work on most decades of Cadillac and this is where you really see what made each one special and how thing began to go missing over time. Also the level of Cadillac was seen in their owner base. There was a time you really had to be someone of means to own one but then it got to where just anyone could own one. 

Guys the need for the smaller cheaper Benz is simple they need to add volume to help control development cost of all their models. These cost are high and this is what is driving companies like GM to make a Buick, Opel, Holden or sharing cost of a transmission with Ford. Even the deal with Honda on Hydrogen is just another example. 

With Benz they have their main line of cars. Seat in Spain and the Smart car. Also they hold some truck lines but that is about it. The low volume high priced Benz line is sustainable but hard to grow profits. They are working on these cheaper and smaller cars to increase that volume. 

Now it is not without risk as this is just how you can cheapen you image and brand. Porsche did this in the 80's with the 924-944-968. They went cheap for volume and pretty much started to kill their image as Collage kids and even some high school kids showed up in a 924. They did it in the name of volume and they paid the price in the Camaro price range. They killed these cheaper cars and moved to the Boxster for the volume at a more Corvette price and little lower volume. It has not harmed the image as much but their resale sucks. 

AMF tried the same thing with cheaper Harley models in the 70's and paid the price in image till they nearly went bankrupt. 

The other factor is all these companies need to find a way to sell cheaper and more efficient cars for many countries. The Liter taxation and the fact fuel is not cheap everywhere is important to many globally. Regulations will only continue to increase so they need to find a way to sell smaller and more efficient cars to keep volumes up globally. 

While Benz may look like they are in a good place their challenges are as tough as anyone else. They are larger than the niche companies like Aston and Ferrari so they need to do things much like a GM but they have less models to do it in. 

VW is doing it buy volume with many brands. They bought up all they could to spread out the cost. While they share platforms they still run the risk of badge engineering with so many models like GM did. It is a temptation that may be stronger now with the Diesel cost becoming a factor. I hope they do not short cut the models but the risk is increased with the scandal. They may even lose Bentley and Lambo over this if they have to pay for more than expected. 

The fact is in this market and escalating cost it is damn hard to make cars and make a profit. The prices of the cars are too high as it is and will continue to climb with the weak economy and increased regulation and technology.  

Even Toyota, Honda and GM will partner projects with more companies to spread out the cost. 

In a way Sergio was correct that MFG need to control cost. His idea was spot on to do what you really need it to do but competition negates it. It is one of those cases that while he may be right it just would not work.  

You can argue models and brands all day but this is a big picture development cost issue no matter how you twist it and it affects everyone. 

Lowering quality, more badge engineering and the lack of true divisional engines  etc made it a mess for all of GM not just Cadillac. 

Yes, but those things bolded above didn't happen @ Cadillac in the '60s.

The only tangible thing I lament is Cadillac dropping real wood after '66; a mistake, but a very minor one. I cannot whitewash Cadillac as "declining" because of merely that.

Mercedes doesn't own Seat, VW does.

The A/B-class level cars have been in Europe since the 90s, that market favored them. The CLA/GLA are much more geared to the American market. These cars are needed mostly for the fuel economy mix. It isn't about economies of scale when most of the parts aren't on the higher end cars. Unless you are talking thinks like wiper stalks and a gear shifter.

 

Lowering quality, more badge engineering and the lack of true divisional engines  etc made it a mess for all of GM not just Cadillac. 

Yes, but those things bolded above didn't happen @ Cadillac in the '60s.

The only tangible thing I lament is Cadillac dropping real wood after '66; a mistake, but a very minor one. I cannot whitewash Cadillac as "declining" because of merely that.

 

No but that is where the decline started. 

Note they did share the X frames of other GM cars. 

But my point is you never got cars close to the Cadillac  Barritz in the 60's as it was the last of the real efforts for the exclusive ultimate approach. 

Switch gear and other details were becoming more shared with other divisions. This progressed over time and then to the engines in the 70's as in the Olds engines X body based Seville. 

The truth is the decline of GM is like a Drug addict. It starts with something simple and over time can built to things that absolutely destroy you. GM started to lose the little things in the 60's and then moved to full dependency as time moved on. 

Platform sharing really came to light in the 50's with frames and suspension. Then with the Corvair with the Buick and Olds models just being converted Front Engine units. The Pontiac Polaris was to have nothing but a rebody till someone woke {I assume John D} and went to the Rope drive shaft to drive the trans axle shared with Corvair. 

215 Engines were shared also in the early 60's. This is where much of the decline started.

Like I said GM did not fail in the last few years but over decades. It was really a death by a thousand paper cuts. 

Cadillac in the 60's just did not have the content and attention to detail as they once had. On one hand they were not as exclusive as they once were and all the while the other brands at GM also improved. Chevy marketed the 57 Chevy as having features Cadillac had at much lower prices. The Buick 225 started to take sales as it was as good of a car and offered basically what Cadillac had at a little lower price. Also some folks hated the fins and went to Buick in the 60's. 

Cadillac was pretty innovative over the years with leading technology. The 60's offered little other than the FWD Eldo. Their engines were stale and got staler as time went on. While the Euro cars offered many advanced or technical features Cadillac offered a Failed Air Bag suspension. 

The Grand Canyon was created over time and at first it was just a little erosion but we know where it ended up. 

Mercedes doesn't own Seat, VW does.

The A/B-class level cars have been in Europe since the 90s, that market favored them. The CLA/GLA are much more geared to the American market. These cars are needed mostly for the fuel economy mix. It isn't about economies of scale when most of the parts aren't on the higher end cars. Unless you are talking thinks like wiper stalks and a gear shifter.

You are correct my mistake. Even more reason for Benz to try to increase volume of their auto lines since they have nothing else to fall back on. 

Note to be fair all the American brands declined. Lincoln really lost their edge and the Chrysler Imperial become a cheap imitation of itself. Cadillac held on a little longer but as like the car in the photo above there really was nothing really special there. You paid more but what did you really get? 

Also the people who bought the cars were not the same. Before leaders in business and politics were only seen in Cadillac's. By the 50's and 60's you could see a hair dresser or factory worker in one. It was once the car of the movers and shakers and then it became the car of the common man. 

The one thing that made Cadillac special was that it was not the car of just anyone. Then it became the car of just anyone. Not good for image. 

Mercedes and Audi and BMW think they can do that too. I hope they decline vigorously and swiftly.

Sadly, in order to compete and achieve volume goals, Cadillac is under-pricing itself the most.

They need to stop going for volume. Seriously. 

Or go for favourable volume. Which means definitely make the longer wheelbase 3-row XT7.

But don't make an XT1.

I can see this is going our traditional route when we fence over a point. But I must correct erroneous information.

hyperv6 ~>>Note they did share the X frames of other GM cars.<< 

Cadillac did not share frames with other GM cars. Divisional X-frames were proprietary; they shared the architecture, just like perimeter frames share the architecture of other perimeter frames, but they were still of Cadillac's design & dimensions. The exception is the FWD Eldorado, there is a slight wheelbase difference and undoubtedly chassis tuning differences with the Toro, but there's likely a degree of sharing there; haven't made a case study here. Still; top shelf stuff, not a "decline". 

hyperv6 ~>>Platform sharing really came to light in the 50's with frames and suspension.<<

Again, conceptually, but not interchangeably. I'm still talking about Cadillac here, you seem to be selectively folding 'GM' into the discussion.
There is no interchanging in the '50s. Well, less than 5%. That's not "coming into the light" tho.

hyperv6 ~>>215 Engines were shared also in the early 60's. This is where much of the decline started.<<

Not at Cadillac.

hyperv6 ~>>Chevy marketed the 57 Chevy as having features Cadillac had at much lower prices.<<

I have dozens & dozens of '57 Chevy print ads, Cadillac is NEVER mentioned or alluded to/shown. GM did NOT do inter-corporate advertising in this period. 

Other than superlatives, the only features Chevy mentioned in '57-58 were V8s and automatics.

hyperv6 ~>>Cadillac was pretty innovative over the years with leading technology. The 60's offered little other than the FWD Eldo.<<

Climate Control, dual-zone HVA/C, heated seats, energy-absorbing steering column, variable-ratio steering, dual master cylinder, tilt & telescopic steering, Twilight Sentinel, self adjusting brakes, fiber optics, cornering lamps, Automatic Level Control… Cadillac was far busier than you realize. 

Also the people who bought the cars were not the same. Before leaders in business and politics were only seen in Cadillac's. By the 50's and 60's you could see a hair dresser or factory worker in one. It was once the car of the movers and shakers and then it became the car of the common man. 

You're just wildly making stuff up here.

My grandmother was a full-time hair dresser in 1940, and she made $1040 that year. 

In 1960 money, that was $2196. In 1960 a Coupe deVille started at $5252. 

In 1964, my grandmother bought a Rambler American 2-dr, which started @ $1907.

1950s & 1960s hair dressers were NOT buying Cadillacs. That's ludicrous.

My dad talks about Cadillac and Buick and Lincoln all the time - especially with their TV commercials.

He would say,"I don't know why the rest of the world doesn't like them"

..."when I was young our textbooks (in India) were filled with references to the greatness of Cadillac, Lincoln etc."

..."I came here and I was shocked why Americans didn't like their own cars - when I drove all kinds of cars (he had a car allowance from work) I loved the Cadillac's, the Buicks, the Impala...greatness, luxury, the feeling of being powerful"

..."you see that car [CT6] and it looks great in what appears to be San Francisco, New York, all over - you drive a Cadillac, you mean business"

Like he's a true fan. Like CADILLACHUGEFAN.

I never understood why people think Cadillac declined so much. I think Cadillac did at times do very bad things, but people still remember that at one time greatness was to be had, and it could only really be had in a Cadillac. Cadillac needs to live up to itself - not anyone else. They can really kill it.

My examples were just growing trends and yes I did see hair dressers buy Cadillac's back then. They did not buy them because they made a lot of money they bought them because of the image and they because they were more accessible.  

As I pointed out before being more accessible is not a way to grow a brand that is to have the top image. 

You know as well as I do that Cadillac's decline began long ago and did not happen over night. The 60's were not as good as the 50's and the 70's declined from the 60's. The 80's things began to really show badly. By then others had taken their place as well as the Lincoln and Imperial. 

Mercedes doesn't own Seat, VW does.

The A/B-class level cars have been in Europe since the 90s, that market favored them. The CLA/GLA are much more geared to the American market. These cars are needed mostly for the fuel economy mix. It isn't about economies of scale when most of the parts aren't on the higher end cars. Unless you are talking thinks like wiper stalks and a gear shifter.

That's because Europe is used to Mercedes and BMW being taxies.  Those A/B class cars in Europe are nothing more special than a Ford Focus.   There is significant price overlap in the MB A-class/B-Class/CLA class lines with the ford Focus/C-Max/S-Max lines.  When you're playing in those price classes, of course you're going to sell well. (the Fords still sell better though)

My examples were just growing trends and yes I did see hair dressers buy Cadillac's back then. They did not buy them because they made a lot of money they bought them because of the image and they because they were more accessible.  

 

As I pointed out before being more accessible is not a way to grow a brand that is to have the top image. 

You know as well as I do that Cadillac's decline began long ago and did not happen over night. The 60's were not as good as the 50's and the 70's declined from the 60's. The 80's things began to really show badly. By then others had taken their place as well as the Lincoln and Imperial. 

they were buying used ones most likely...

My examples were just growing trends and yes I did see hair dressers buy Cadillac's back then. They did not buy them because they made a lot of money they bought them because of the image and they because they were more accessible.  

 

As I pointed out before being more accessible is not a way to grow a brand that is to have the top image. 

You know as well as I do that Cadillac's decline began long ago and did not happen over night. The 60's were not as good as the 50's and the 70's declined from the 60's. The 80's things began to really show badly. By then others had taken their place as well as the Lincoln and Imperial.

 

they were buying used ones most likely...

No they were bought new. I knew these people and knew their incomes and circumstances.

One man had a 60's Cadillac and put it up for limited driving. He bought it new and by the 70's it had less than 10K miles. Yet he lived in a run down house and drove a used 225 daily that was not even safe for the road.

Worse yet I had another customer with a 65 Riv GS that had around 5K miles with the duel quad. he passed away and the son drove and crashed the car. It remains in a yard rotting today and he will not sell it.

Even my mother In Law wants a Cadillac for the image even though she is not Cadillac material. She is a left over of this thinking of the past. It was very prevalent in the mid west and in the south to where you were judged often by what you drove and they wanted to appear to be affluent than they were. It was very common.

Hell back in the 70's the dealer selling the most Rolls Royce was in Charleston WV back then.

Working in a tough neighborhood really opened my eyes to the way of life of many that I never saw. Same for a lot of the time I have spent in California. Even now just with dealing with people globally on my job I have see the many differences in culture.

the bottom line still is Cadillac was in slow decline for many years and it accelerated as time went on. they did not just fail with the 8-6-4.

Like stated before just what did Cadillac offer in technology and innovation in the 60's, 70's? A crude FI system for a little while that was about it. Part quality were declining. The Market was moving on to other models from Europe that offered more technology and intrigue.

The wheels really came off when they down sized and tried technology that was not ready for use like the 8-6-4.

While Cadillac may hold some romance you your look back you must yet still focus on the fact they were not the car they used to be and the rest of the cars offered pretty much anything they did. Again it was not just Cadillac but Lincoln and Imperial too.

While Many Baby Boomers aspired to own a Cadillac, many could not till they were used and sitting on 3rd hand used auto lots.

Today, technology and leasing has allowed many to pretend to be wealthy while barely living paycheck to paycheck.

Back onto our core topic of the XT5 and the Platform, 

I am excited to see what Cadillac brings to market with this platform and the various auto types and performance levels. I am also interested in seeing what luxury EV Cadillac does to compete against Tesla.

Could a pure XT5 EV make sense with a Bolt type battery pack that is a bit bigger so you get 300-400 miles?

I can see that a battery pack like this would give crazy stiffness to the over all handling of the auto.

The biggest change on this car is in the packaging.  While the exterior dimensions are largely unchanged, the interior volume has grown.  It feels so much larger inside than the SRX

 Waiting till Early April for XT5 to show up at my caddy dealership to take it for a test drive.

This talk about what type of person bought a Caddy back then is missing one key piece of information. When one says that the "common man" was driving Caddy's back then, even though they were quite expensive, thus deluding their brand (what is Implied anyway), one must remember that you still have folks today buying cars, like BMWs, Benz, and Audis, that they cannot afford technically. Have those brands been deluded because of that? No. Neither was Cadillac. They lost their mojo in the late 70s all the into the 90's because of &#036;h&#33;ty GM management. It's not exactly news.

I think you really need to only look to GMC to find how to sell vehicles today. 

Kelly Blue Book has it where people say GMC is one of the most refined high quality vehicles on the road. 

The truth is they really are not any different than Chevy. 

GMC adds some chrome. Rocker lights, or projection headlamps and build their vehicles on the same platform in the same plant with the same tools by the same people yet they are seen as better. 

That is a attribute of good styling mixed with good marketing. 

Controlling what people perceive is what sells cars. 

Case in point. the German cars were well known for orange peel on their paint. Many customers saw it and perceived it as being higher quality because they thought it meant more paint was on the car. Ford did clinics on this and even went to add Orange peel to some of their own cars to give the impression of better paint.

The truth is it was a bad paint job and most consumers had no idea it really was bad. 

GMC with their added trim and some minor features has really impressed a lot of people for things that really amount to very little. 

Case in point I saw on another web site a Terrain owner praise his Terrain for better panel gaps and higher quality vs. the Nox. The truth is even the Denali only offers some extra plastic chrome, lighted rockers, some struts that most customers never notice on the front and some stitching and fake wood inside. None of this is really a major improvement but most see it as that. That is a win for GMC.

Even on the Colorado and Canyon they are the same. But some small details like the lighter colors offered inside vs the Chevy and the addition of fake carbon fiber or plastic wood make the same interior much more rich looking over the dark Chevy interiors. 

Cadillac needs to work on the perceived qualities of their cars more than anything. That is where much of the image is built or lost today. 

As for who is buying sure some buy the German cars that are not collage grads but most are. Even some of them can not afford them. 

The other thing is most of the non professional factory workers who did buy Cadillac are now buying trucks for $60K. They have no use to impress with the car at the club as they do not go to the club. It is a smaller market today as there are so many options today, Benz has seen this and will do a truck soon, How well it works we will soon know. 
 

Back in the 50s and 60s you had fewer car companies too, or at least fewer large companies.   The Big 3 pretty much had free reign to do whatever.  Enter Toyota, Honda, BMW, Mercedes, VW, Nissan, etc, and competition changes everything.

Cadillac was ruined by poor management at GM, plain and simple.  They either thought they were untouchable, didn't think the Germans and Japanese were a serious threat, or just plain didn't care.  Maybe they just wanted to rake in as much short term profit, cash in their bonus and retire.  Regardless we all knew the slew of bad decisions made from the last 70s into the 90s.

As far as income vs the car people buy, that is irrelevant.  People have always bought cars above their means, and some value a car more than they value other things.  There are millionaires that drive a Prius because they don't care about cars, there are people making $37,000 a year driving a $50,000 F150 on a 7 year loan because they had to have it to go hunting or to haul tools in.  The car company wants to sell their product, I don't think they care what the occupation of the buyer is.