Cadillac's Chief Marketing Officer Calls ELR 'A Big Dissapointment'

Obviously, once they priced this car everyone knew it wouldn't sell.

Better plan to add a plug-in hybrid option to existing cars.

Uh, the disappointing ELR is not a 2-seater.

Well, the ELR was a concept car brought into real life while being as, if not more stunning than the concept.

It's what I think of GM's 2-mode hybrids.

Brilliant in their own right, but just unfortunately timed. 

It's unfortunate that this car wasn't compared to the BMW i8...as a discount i8. And it was actually better as a green halo car, but still that niche is limited.

Kinda like how there is discount John Travolta in Doctor Who; Captain Harkness or the Face of Boe. 

This car should have never happened.

You could just see the failure coming......

But at least GM can tell the government that they tried to sell an electric-powered Cadillac...

When you saw the numbers and pricing of the ELR you just knew that it was going to all hinge on the styling. And even with what I consider to be the best example of Art&Science to date, it just wasn't gonna cut it.

It would have been amazing in 2009. Nowadays? Not so much.

When you saw the numbers and pricing of the ELR you just knew that it was going to all hinge on the styling. And even with what I consider to be the best example of Art&Science to date, it just wasn't gonna cut it.

It would have been amazing in 2009. Nowadays? Not so much.

Style? Nope, there was no way anything could have saved it.....even decent GM Marketing!

It was all just the price. Had they priced it in the mid-50s it probably would have sold decent enough to have a second generation.

The performance was pretty modest as well.

But the styling and interior were off the charts. I remember sitting in one in Toronto and thinking that it was amazing. And I'd just gotten out of an Audi A7.

It was all just the price. Had they priced it in the mid-50s it probably would have sold decent enough to have a second generation.

My dad sees these things go down the line....he and quite a few workers see them as nothing then Caddy badged Volts......and suddenly-we have have flashbacks of an 80s J body....

While yes, it was a bit more different than the Volt, it simply was not enough. Something more "Bolt" like would have been a much better, offering not only something different, but something a Caddy buyer might actually be interested in!

GM killed this....simply by just giving Caddy a pretty Chevy....

I've seen the two together, I would have to agree with my Dad on this one....

Even if they had lowered the price it would have not been a success in business terms. Lets face it the Volt as it was is not making money and the little added for a Cadillac would have not made money either. Odds are it was priced to where it did make money.

Where GM failed here was to market the car as a technology showcase and really get the PR out of it as it was never going to make money with it. They needed to float this one up like BMW does their electric car. No profits but a lot of PR and continued work to make it profitable,

Is suspect the new Volt and Bolt may be down to break even or even might make a little money. This segment has to be grown as you are not just going to walk into this one with out earning it.

The present Cadillac management Is in the honesty mode. They are coming out admitting where Cadillac is failing. Why? Well Honesty can take you a long way and in their case they had nothing to do with it or many other failings as they have only been there 2 years. They want to clear the slate and set their own path to the future and first they need to clean up the messes of the past.

The ELR probably should have never happened. But I suspect they had little money in development here since the Volt did most of it. The styling was robbed from a Show car so they already had that but with the compromise of a show car.

We will see them re enter this segment in a much different way and with much different products.

As for now the ELR may go on to be a prime collector car due to it's great styling and low numbers. I wonder if someone will take one and just make it a 2.0 Turbo and remove the battery. Imagine what it would do with little weight in it.

Uh, the disappointing ELR is not a 2-seater.

It should be. I sat in the back seats and lived to tell the tale.

The ELR was not the whole topic of that conversation. I'm perplexed as to why the other points of the conversation where not discussed:

A great deal of what he talks about confirms a great deal of what I was thinking about the brands bid to go the long haul... and not just add quick sales fixes for the sake of sales. BUILD the brand.. lost customers to gain leadership.

I think there is a 50/50 chance of the CTS going to Omega the next time around. They may need to for additional weight loss. 

I think there is a 50/50 chance of the CTS going to Omega the next time around. They may need to for additional weight loss. 

I'm thinking more like 80/20. If they are seeking more interior room.. and the Omega platform is scalable.. they will go that way. In terms of exterior, but for the sake of the comparos.. say for the ATS/CTS...they need to be on par, if not exactly where the 3series is on the inside dimensions. and I mean EXACT or at least larger. Of course with the clowns that normally review these cars.. the ATS/CTS could stretch that interior out an extra inch larger than the 3/5Series, and suddenly the reviewers would then say that the car is so large there's an echo. 

 

I think there is a 50/50 chance of the CTS going to Omega the next time around. They may need to for additional weight loss. 

 

 

I'm thinking more like 80/20. If they are seeking more interior room.. and the Omega platform is scalable.. they will go that way. In terms of exterior, but for the sake of the comparos.. say for the ATS/CTS...they need to be on par, if not exactly where the 3series is on the inside dimensions. and I mean EXACT or at least larger. Of course with the clowns that normally review these cars.. the ATS/CTS could stretch that interior out an extra inch larger than the 3/5Series, and suddenly the reviewers would then say that the car is so large there's an echo. 

 

All jokes aside.. I think the intent is for the CT4 (ATS) and CT5 (CTS I guess) will get interior dimensions enlarged via the ATS moving up to the CTS's current WB, and the CTS moving into the Omega platform. Similar to what BMW does with the 7, 6, and 5 all being on the same platform

 

I just think they have to use the Alpha platform for the current cars for a bit longer.  At least one big MCE before it switches to the new platform, but that means 6 to 7 years from now. 

 

 

I think there is a 50/50 chance of the CTS going to Omega the next time around. They may need to for additional weight loss. 

 

 

I'm thinking more like 80/20. If they are seeking more interior room.. and the Omega platform is scalable.. they will go that way. In terms of exterior, but for the sake of the comparos.. say for the ATS/CTS...they need to be on par, if not exactly where the 3series is on the inside dimensions. and I mean EXACT or at least larger. Of course with the clowns that normally review these cars.. the ATS/CTS could stretch that interior out an extra inch larger than the 3/5Series, and suddenly the reviewers would then say that the car is so large there's an echo. 

 

All jokes aside.. I think the intent is for the CT4 (ATS) and CT5 (CTS I guess) will get interior dimensions enlarged via the ATS moving up to the CTS's current WB, and the CTS moving into the Omega platform. Similar to what BMW does with the 7, 6, and 5 all being on the same platform

 

 

I just think they have to use the Alpha platform for the current cars for a bit longer.  At least one big MCE before it switches to the new platform, but that means 6 to 7 years from now. 

 

I agree.. I just think the the capacity or numbers will come from the sub ATS.. and a few other cars or CUVs, just not the CTS

I think if the CTS was not using the name of the entry level Cadillac from 2002-2013, it would sell better.  There is problem 1, problem 2 is 2 established players rule that segment, and the E-class is taking a leap forward next year.    Back seat space has nothing to do with why the CTS doesn't sell, the badge on the grille does, and the bland rear styling and CUE.

As far as Uwe saying that when gas was $4 a gallon they didn't think people would want crossovers, that is just nuts.  Crossovers were selling then, the Lexus RX was obviously putting up big numbers, obviously the NX was in the works, Lincoln was working on MKC, the Germans had crossovers, etc.  He should have realized SRX and Escalade as the only 2 SUVs would not be enough, especially when GM is all about trucks and SUVs.  Plus it is possible to develop 2 vehicles at once.  They could have developed a full size V8 sedan and a sub compact 4-cylinder crossover at the same time.

As far as interior size goes, you can't just keep making these cars bigger.  The CTS is already the longest car in its segment, if you make the ATS 190 inches long, it isn't a small car anymore.  They could take the current CTS and price it at $35k against the 3-series to get more rear seat legroom, but a 3-series buyer probably isn't looking for a 196 inch long car.  My car has a 112.4 inch wheel base and 190. inch length.  I am 6'2" and can sit in the back seat without my knees touching the front seat in my driver position.  So if they could do it, Cadillac can do it.

The ATS Coupe, Sedan, and CTS don't sell as well as the Gen 2 CTS for obvious, constantly repeated reasons: Let's do a a crazy kinda of analysis and thro the Gen two a bone.. in its best, mostly singular year.. 2011, that is without the Gen 1 CTS adding to sales, it did 55,042. That included the Coupe Wagon, and Sedan.. not to mention a VSeries of each. Ill even thro in the last remaining 3400 STS sales to sweet the pot. That would equal 58,450 odd CTS/Coupe/Wagon/VSeries+STS/and STS-V sales I'll use 2014 for CTS, ATS.. and U guessed it.. the same priced XTS since this year isn't over.. (I'll come back to that tho) : '14 CTS: 31,115 + ATS 29,890 + XTS 24,335 =85,340

Even if I take out the XTS.. U still had 61,005 CTS and ATS sales last year OK...OK... I see where this is going.. So I'll just do 2015.. "the Year of the CUV." "The year the CUV Pimp Slaps the Car.. of all makes" just so this silly argument can continue on for more pages: This year!!! HELL YES!!! The Year that despite all of us watching front seat to see what I've pointed out above... We still come back to this silliness...

As of right now.. we are at 40,500 ATS Coupe/Sedan/VSeries trickling in+CTS sales (VSeries is not even really avilable yet). So 40,500 +December's probable yield, based on average sales, 4000 more by years end= 44,500 sales. That's about 14K less than 2011 CTS sales including the STS.

OH!!! But wait!!! Can I bring the same priced XTS into this again??? Why not. XTS adds another 22K minimum by years end.. bring that car total up to 66,500 sales.. beating that 2011 peak year of the CTS Gen 2 Sedan/Wagon/Coupe/VSeries on all and STS combined total of 58K. Completely irrational huh??? It sheds waaaaaaaaaaaay too much light on the situation doesn't it???

But alas.. it doesn't paint CAdillac in the bad light that certain people want to paint it in.. so lets get back to the "PEOPLE DON'T WANT THE ALPHAS BECAUSE OF THE REAR SEAT ROOM rhetoric.Let's ignore the fact that the E-Class and 5Series are both down double digits this year. Let's ignore the fact that the Audi A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, and All-Road are DOWN DOWN DOWN...

Cadillac is doing great for what they have, they are adding additional models and no matter what SMK thinks, Cadillac will always be worse then his coveted over rated MB. 

Badge snobs are badge snobs and they will always ignore the science of a superior vehicle. Cadillac is not the standard of the world and I honestly hope they never use that tag line again as there is always room to improve.

BMW - The Ultimate Driving Machine!  Not anymore, plenty of nice auto's out there by various vendors that out drive BMW.

MB - Does ANYONE remember their tag line? Nope I could not and had to bing it and guess what plenty of others could not remember it even in the auto press. Their NEW tag line - The Best or Nothing! 

Interesting note, many say the BMW tag line focuses on the youth where the MB tag line now focuses on the established. Will be interesting to see where they end up over the next few years.

Cadillac - Dare Greatly, Honestly, it does nothing for me. I love my Cadillac products but this latest tag line just does nothing for me and when I ask others they also seem to agree. 

In fact looking at these three tag lines, only BMW came to peoples mind. NO ONE could think of MB or Cadillac tag lines. Also no one I asked could think of what the Asian luxury tag lines were.

End result, Cadillac needs to focus on marketing each and every product they have and get people to be aware of their great quality auto's. 

How would you all do it?

Here's something I wish the media and others understood: the length of the wheelbase means nothing if ts not a space-efficient design to begin with. Pontiac G6 is a classic example-a mid-size car with a 112.3" wheelbase and about 189" overall length, the EPA regarded it as a Compact Car, since it did not make 110 cubic feet of total interior volume (cargo space-a substandard 14 cubic feet in this case) plus passenger cabin volume.

Back to the ELR-I've only seen one out-and that was the Rochester Auto Show a year or two bvack. I've never, ever seen ones otherwise out and in person. More than other Cadillac's and most other GM cars/trucks, this partially-stylish wonder is hideously overpriced!

Here's something I wish the media and others understood: the length of the wheelbase means nothing if ts not a space-efficient design to begin with. Pontiac G6 is a classic example-a mid-size car with a 112.3" wheelbase and about 189" overall length, the EPA regarded it as a Compact Car, since it did not make 110 cubic feet of total interior volume (cargo space-a substandard 14 cubic feet in this case) plus passenger cabin volume.

Back to the ELR-I've only seen one out-and that was the Rochester Auto Show a year or two bvack. I've never, ever seen ones otherwise out and in person. More than other Cadillac's and most other GM cars/trucks, this partially-stylish wonder is hideously overpriced!

Indeed, but sometimes the reverse is true. The EPA regards the Pruis as a mid-size even though it would only feel mid-size if you fill it with sand. 

BTW, Welcome back Mule.

Here's something I wish the media and others understood: the length of the wheelbase means nothing if ts not a space-efficient design to begin with. Pontiac G6 is a classic example-a mid-size car with a 112.3" wheelbase and about 189" overall length, the EPA regarded it as a Compact Car, since it did not make 110 cubic feet of total interior volume (cargo space-a substandard 14 cubic feet in this case) plus passenger cabin volume.

Back to the ELR-I've only seen one out-and that was the Rochester Auto Show a year or two bvack. I've never, ever seen ones otherwise out and in person. More than other Cadillac's and most other GM cars/trucks, this partially-stylish wonder is hideously overpriced!

Here's something I wish the media and others understood: the length of the wheelbase means nothing if ts not a space-efficient design to begin with. Pontiac G6 is a classic example-a mid-size car with a 112.3" wheelbase and about 189" overall length, the EPA regarded it as a Compact Car, since it did not make 110 cubic feet of total interior volume (cargo space-a substandard 14 cubic feet in this case) plus passenger cabin volume.

Back to the ELR-I've only seen one out-and that was the Rochester Auto Show a year or two bvack. I've never, ever seen ones otherwise out and in person. More than other Cadillac's and most other GM cars/trucks, this partially-stylish wonder is hideously overpriced!

Welcome back Mule,

In regards to the ELR, I think it depends on where you are in the country. Washington state with an abundance of Hydro power also is a extreme green state. Here you find plenty of plug in everything including the ELR all over the roads.

A great Mercedes ad in that video, proving that they invented the automobile.    Best or Nothing has been the slogan since 2010, not totally new, and that was Gottlieb Daimler's slogan in the 1800s, so the company used it before.  

Chalk it up to subjective interpretations, but if the definition of the Ultimate Driving Machine or the Best or Nothing or even dare greatly are provisional...

then you can have some nice conflicting logic and musings.

Basically BMW dared greatly to create the original the ultimate driving machines, that displaced at the time Cadillac's idea of their luxury being the best or nothing, while Mercedes had somehow become over time the standard of the world in overall luxury.

S-class. Standard of the world.

CLA - a great dare. A terrible paradigm though.

Escalade - the best of its kind, really. Very apt to say the best or nothing.

New blood Cadillac sedans - the ultimate driving machines.

3 Series - the ultimate "standard of the world" cookie-cutter compact RWD sedans?

i8/X6 truly the best or nothing of their kind. Through some pity points for the ELR as it was a great question, that no one dared ask...

Many more apt definitions that can be mixed and matched. Excellence of understanderings I guess...

What about the relentless pursuit of perfection?  And did they find it since they haven't given a power bump to that 3.5 liter V6 since 2006.

What about the relentless pursuit of perfection?  And did they find it since they haven't given a power bump to that 3.5 liter V6 since 2006.

The perfect munificient moneymakers?

Gotta be the RX and ES brothers.

A great Mercedes ad in that video, proving that they invented the automobile.

My God you're obtuse.

18 years before the Benz tricycle.

 

It was all just the price. Had they priced it in the mid-50s it probably would have sold decent enough to have a second generation.

 

 

My dad sees these things go down the line....he and quite a few workers see them as nothing then Caddy badged Volts......and suddenly-we have have flashbacks of an 80s J body....

 

While yes, it was a bit more different than the Volt, it simply was not enough. Something more "Bolt" like would have been a much better, offering not only something different, but something a Caddy buyer might actually be interested in!

 

 

GM killed this....simply by just giving Caddy a pretty Chevy....

 

 

I've seen the two together, I would have to agree with my Dad on this one....

 

I'm not sure that's a fair comparison.  The J-cars of the 80s had similar door panels, roof lines, pretty much everything except for some trim pieces and the front/rear clips.  I think a better historical comparison for the ELR was the original 1975-1979 Cadillac Seville.  Underneath that car was a massaged Chevy Nova platform powered by a Chevy 350cid small block or the unfortunate Olds V8 diesel.  The exterior lines and interior of that car wasn't anything close to a Nova.  My parents actually had both at the same time...my mother drove a 1979 Seville and my stepdad drove the Nova's twin...a 1975 Buick Apollo.  I learned how to drive on the Apollo and drove the Seville occasionally when I was allowed.  It was hard to believe they were on the same platform (the Buick was a tired piece of junk).  The Seville was also a very expensive car (more expensive than the Fleetwoods of the day) but it was a successful vehicle.

The interior of the ELR was quite bespoke for Cadillac at the time and it had a much tighter amount of interior room than the Volt.  The ELR's rear seats were a joke...I openly commented to my dealer of why the engineers even bothered (my friend's 911 Turbo had more rear leg room).  The 1st gen Volt I sat in during a car show was much roomier, but it had the interior of a Chevrolet that had been looking over the shoulder at a Prius.

At the end of the day, the ELR didn't have enough powertrain separation to make it interesting in the new Cadillac (all show and no go with 8 sec. 0-60).  And man was it too expensive (interesting how the original Seville was a sales success at a high price).  My dealer sold a few of them in the first year but now if you want one, they only come on order.  They don't want to stock them.

But alas.. it doesn't paint CAdillac in the bad light that certain people want to paint it in.. so lets get back to the "PEOPLE DON'T WANT THE ALPHAS BECAUSE OF THE REAR SEAT ROOM rhetoric.Let's ignore the fact that the E-Class and 5Series are both down double digits this year. Let's ignore the fact that the Audi A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, and All-Road are DOWN DOWN DOWN...

There's a lot of truth to this.  My dealer is a family owned business so it's easy to talk to the real owner, a friend of 20 years.  He's also told me a few days ago that all the major luxury makes are seeing lower sedan/coupe sales and buyers have gone over to crossovers of varying sizes.  And this was Cadillac's problem in that they only had one crossover to sell (SRX) but it was selling really well, even into it's final year.  The XT5 should continue the trend but they need to get the three additional cars rumored in the development process to be truly competitive.  At some point there will likely be an XT1, XT3 and XT7.  The dealerships are pining for them but the XT5 is due up first in the spring with the XT3 bowing several months later.

I think if the CTS was not using the name of the entry level Cadillac from 2002-2013, it would sell better.  There is problem 1, problem 2 is 2 established players rule that segment, and the E-class is taking a leap forward next year.    Back seat space has nothing to do with why the CTS doesn't sell, the badge on the grille does, and the bland rear styling and CUE.

 

As far as Uwe saying that when gas was $4 a gallon they didn't think people would want crossovers, that is just nuts.  Crossovers were selling then, the Lexus RX was obviously putting up big numbers, obviously the NX was in the works, Lincoln was working on MKC, the Germans had crossovers, etc.  He should have realized SRX and Escalade as the only 2 SUVs would not be enough, especially when GM is all about trucks and SUVs.  Plus it is possible to develop 2 vehicles at once.  They could have developed a full size V8 sedan and a sub compact 4-cylinder crossover at the same time.

 

As far as interior size goes, you can't just keep making these cars bigger.  The CTS is already the longest car in its segment, if you make the ATS 190 inches long, it isn't a small car anymore.  They could take the current CTS and price it at $35k against the 3-series to get more rear seat legroom, but a 3-series buyer probably isn't looking for a 196 inch long car.  My car has a 112.4 inch wheel base and 190. inch length.  I am 6'2" and can sit in the back seat without my knees touching the front seat in my driver position.  So if they could do it, Cadillac can do it.

I think we have to keep in mind that when a lot of these product decisions were being made, GM was still getting back on it's feet.  So they made an educated guess on the future marketplace, especially on the future of crossovers.  And nobody imagined we'd be back at sub-$2 gas...if we did, I'd be the first to short the futures market. .  But I would have gone to the mat in trying to get a smaller CUV on the same floor at the SRX years earlier.

As for branding, we already know that the ATS and CTS names will go away.  It's a chance to redefine yourself with buyers by introducing a completely "new" car.  The CT6 is coming, and in theory the ATS and CTS will be replaced by "CT2" and "CT4" respectively.  But nobody said you had to limit yourself to two vehicles below the CT6....a CT0 could be a product to compete with the BMW 1/2 line, with the CT2/3 coming in to replace the ATS line and so forth.

Cadillac has had a hard time "skating to where the puck is going" rather than where it is now.  The product line realignment may go a long way to changing that.  The hope is that the CT6 is the vehicle that Cadillac wants at that size, but the jury is very much out on this one.  At least they have priced it aggressively.

A CT0?

True about what you said about Cadillac does not have to limit itself to only 2 cars below the CT6...CT4 and CT2, so a CT0 could very well be a viable option...but CT0 as a name?

If CT0 ever becomes a name for a Cadillac, I think Cadillac pretty much limited themselves to exactly that many sales of a CT0.....which is ZERO...

I get the reasons why of the alphanumeric names...I know the reasons...and more importantly, I understand  why marketing "geniuses" are pushing for alphanumeric names...

Problem is...with a naming scheme like CT6/CT8...CT4...CT3...CT2...CT1 and finally CT0...for a small bite sized sedan....is pretty much dead on arrival...and no room for product growth...Im mean...CT4...CT2....and smaller than that is a CT0....ZERO....ZERO...

That is problem #2...

Problem #1:

Marketing "geniuses" saw how the German car companies have succeeded with the alphanumeric names...COOL!

Now tey want to emulate that...

a. Problem is that they forgot that those alphanumeric names really did not succeed when AMERICAN LUXURY was at its HIGH!!!

b. The German culture is a culture that is based on "efficiency"...so it works for the German car.

     American culture is a culture that is based on emotions...attitudes and emotions...

Casa..a poster that is very well informed and very pro American Cars mainly GM has said something in the past that has stuck with me..it resonted with me...since Im Greek...he said that being an American is an attitude...and he is right...like I said...Im Greek...the original "attitude" culture.

After the war....WW2...there is a reason why the Standard of the World...a superlative with an attitude in itself...left behind the alphanumerics...or at the very least....downsized from them...and went for names....names with attitude I might add...ELDORADO...

There is a reason why ESCALADE...in 2015...the name and the product itself...is so successful...

A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E 

I just felt I had to rant about that...

CT0  made me puke in my mouth...at the thought that Cadillac boxed themselves in with that dumb alphanumeric crap...

There's no reason to skip from 6 to 4.  There can be a CT4 Coupe and a CT4 Sedan.

I agree with Oldshurst, let's bring back Lasalle, Seville, Eldorado and Fleetwood and as Trump would say, Make Cadillac Great Again!

Cadillac was trying so hard to be like BMW, they forgot what worked for them, and what the American consumer wants.  Americans like big vehicles with V8s or at least V6s.  Look at the big SUV and pick up truck sales.  The Corvette sells well, V8 Mustangs and Camaros sell, even the Charger sells, despite being rather dated and unreliable.  People like cars with attitude and heritage, they like size, and with cheap gas they want horsepower.

Cadillac tries to sell them alphabet soup with a 2.0T engine.  Imagine if they changed the name of the Camaro and Corvette to CSC-4 and CSC-6 or the Fusion and Mustang to FS4 and FC6 (ford coupe 6) or something like that.  It would be a mess, that is what Cadillac has done.  These CT# naming schemes also pigeon hole you.

I think a better historical comparison for the ELR was the original 1975-1979 Cadillac Seville.  Underneath that car was a massaged Chevy Nova platform powered by a Chevy 350cid small block or the unfortunate Olds V8 diesel.

...a 1975 Buick Apollo.  I learned how to drive on the Apollo and drove the Seville occasionally when I was allowed.  It was hard to believe they were on the same platform (the Buick was a tired piece of junk).

Seville was a K Body, not an X-body. What gets commonly repeated is that Cadillac started with the X-Body frame, as a starting point in the engineering process, but the frames don't interchange, there is on the order of 10% interchangeability in the entire car, very few direct bits do interchange, and the extensive engineering cost (and the unique frame) was the reason the Seville came out at $12K instead of the initial target of $7.5K.

It was NOT a "massaged Nova frame", which is why they felt like different cars; they were.

Cadillac was trying so hard to be like BMW, they forgot what worked for them, and what the American consumer wants.  Americans like big vehicles with V8s or at least V6s.  Look at the big SUV and pick up truck sales.  

It's not 1985 any longer. Trucks are a separate demographic, irrelevant to your attempted point.

Americans do NOT like big cars, which is why all of them are gone. Regardless of the governmental entity EPA's assertions and the misleading 'interior cubic volume' metric, there are no full-size cars left, haven't been for some time. Americans like BMW/MB size pigeonholes, which is partially why those do well sales-wise and every other arm chair analyst thinks Cadillac has to match them niche-for-niche or die.

Fact of the matter is, when Cadillac was still building V8 powered, fender-skirted Devilles in the late '90s (alongside the Brougham), they had vastly waning respect and decreasing sales. It's not that Cadillac was 'chasing BMW', they were building more modern versions of performance luxury vehicles- that's certainly not owned by BMW… or else MB has been 'chasing BMW" for years, too. 

Where I will agree is that modern stuff is too small overall, mostly in vehicle width.

There's no reason to skip from 6 to 4.  There can be a CT4 Coupe and a CT4 Sedan.

Or they could follow an Audi approach w/ a CT5 coupe and CT4 sedan.    This leaves room for a CT0, CT1, CT2, and CT3 below...

Yes.

The pursuit to create the best or nothing ultimate perfect driving machine by acting upon the great dare of becoming the standard of the world.

Yes.

Cadillac boxed themselves in with that dumb alphanumeric crap...

How so. There is still 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and even higher.. Even if they use just the even numbers for sedans... U still have 5 sedans... Which is 2 more they currently do... If they need more.. They could whore out the odd (opposite) numbers like BMW with the Grand Coupes

 

But alas.. it doesn't paint CAdillac in the bad light that certain people want to paint it in.. so lets get back to the "PEOPLE DON'T WANT THE ALPHAS BECAUSE OF THE REAR SEAT ROOM rhetoric.Let's ignore the fact that the E-Class and 5Series are both down double digits this year. Let's ignore the fact that the Audi A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, and All-Road are DOWN DOWN DOWN...

 

There's a lot of truth to this.  My dealer is a family owned business so it's easy to talk to the real owner, a friend of 20 years.  He's also told me a few days ago that all the major luxury makes are seeing lower sedan/coupe sales and buyers have gone over to crossovers of varying sizes.  And this was Cadillac's problem in that they only had one crossover to sell (SRX) but it was selling really well, even into it's final year.  The XT5 should continue the trend but they need to get the three additional cars rumored in the development process to be truly competitive.  At some point there will likely be an XT1, XT3 and XT7.  The dealerships are pining for them but the XT5 is due up first in the spring with the XT3 bowing several months later.

 

U are seeing a drop in sales due to the fact that Cadillac, out of all the "major" luxury makers in the U.S., is the only one offering less than two CUVs, the hottest selling segment on the market across the board. Cadillac's sole CUV is also its best seller. It is clear to me that even if the SRX were RWD it would sell in this enviroment. It is clear to me that if the XT3 and XT7 are based on Alpha and Omega, Delta or Lambda, Chi, Epsilon, or even GMT360, and were here TODAY, Cadillac would be selling in, at the very least Lexus numbers.

It is to their detriment that they listen to some enthusiasts who only see RWD as teh second coming of automotive. It is to their detriment that they don't just take some of their existing platforms, already CUV used, and make them into, at the very least 2 more CUVs.

Again..

1) the SRX should remain.. rename it XT3 or 4.. change the front to visually make it shorter.. same for the rear, chopping off minimum 4 inches overall..  update the interior.. give it LGX along with a 2.0L Turbo option..

2) If their is a LWB of the Chi platform then make it the XT6. Hell raise the Omega platform up 3 inches and go that route. I don't care. They want sales??? Then MAKE SALES by using GM's global toolbox. 

Well ATPs are just a weighted average.

When the new crossovers from Cadillac come out...

It will most definitely lower the ATPs.

They need new crossovers ASAP.  But if it takes 2 years to do a 2-door ATS, I imagine it will take some time to develop a crossover.  Cadillac is too slow at getting the product out.  That has been a weakness for a while.  This is also why the Cadillac crossovers should be built on Alpha and Omega, so you develop a sedan, coupe, crossover all within a a couple model years.  If they have the same chassis and engines and transmissions, all they have to do is worry about the body shell and interior.  

It's amazing that we have all of this Executive Talent here at CheersandGears.com while Cadillac has to "make do" with Johan de Nysschen and Uwe Ellinghaus

It's amazing that we have all of this Executive Talent here at CheersandGears.com while Cadillac has to "make do" with Johan de Nysschen and Uwe Ellinghaus

Neither of which are engineers.  Which is why Cadillac is supposedly getting a an XT7 based on the new Enclave/Acadia/Traverse, an XT3 based off the new Equinox (which is moving down size since Chevy is getting a 4th crossover) and an XT2 GLA competitor, I guess that would be the Cadillac Traxx.   Although if Johan and Uwe can use their marketing skills to sell a Cadillac face on a Chevy platform, more power to them.  In their quest to make Cadillac stand alone, it seems as if Chevy will have 4 crossovers and Tahoe, Cadillac will have 4 crossovers and Escalade all sharing platforms.  It works for Lexus, doesn't work for Lincoln or Acura though.

 

It's amazing that we have all of this Executive Talent here at CheersandGears.com while Cadillac has to "make do" with Johan de Nysschen and Uwe Ellinghaus

Neither of which are engineers.  Which is why Cadillac is supposedly getting a an XT7 based on the new Enclave/Acadia/Traverse, an XT3 based off the new Equinox (which is moving down size since Chevy is getting a 4th crossover) and an XT2 GLA competitor, I guess that would be the Cadillac Traxx.   Although if Johan and Uwe can use their marketing skills to sell a Cadillac face on a Chevy platform, more power to them.  In their quest to make Cadillac stand alone, it seems as if Chevy will have 4 crossovers and Tahoe, Cadillac will have 4 crossovers and Escalade all sharing platforms.  It works for Lexus, doesn't work for Lincoln or Acura though.

 

The key word in your post is "supposedly". The XT7 will be using the Omega platform share ONLY with the CT6 because that was the first car using it. The XT3 is going to Alpha based, of which no CUV in GM's stable is based off. Those two alone kill your little "Cadillac face on a Chevy platform". Research goes a long way. 

 

Cadillac boxed themselves in with that dumb alphanumeric crap...

How so. There is still 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and even higher.. Even if they use just the even numbers for sedans... U still have 5 sedans... Which is 2 more they currently do... If they need more.. They could whore out the odd (opposite) numbers like BMW with the Grand Coupes

 

Cool...I see that what you are suggesting to me is that numbers on a number line are infinite.

 CT1000, CT2000

Maybe Cadillac could copy the  Terminator  way...

T-100

T1000

and so forth...

Casa, I understand the thought process of alphanumerics...

But going up and down the number line is still boxing yourself up.

Numbers are definitely infinite, and Cadillac really does not need an infinite amount of models either. I get that.

But stupidity in alphanumerics is also infinite. And Cadillac cannot afford infinite amounts of stupidity.

Im NOT sold on alphanumerics.

The Germans had a decent logic to it, but even them they  screwed it up...

a 318 Bimmer had a 1.8 liter engine...

a 325 Bimmer had a 2.5 liter engine...

Yeah, I know...even efficient German CEOs complicated their life when they started over thinking things...

"Like OMG!!!....we once had a 325 BMW 2.5 liter Inline 6...now we have a 2.3 liter 4 cylinder...we cant possibly call that a 323...becasue its too close to the 325 we did a decade ago and people will get confused that this is not an inline 6 but a 4 cylinder so we will just use random numbers higher up on the number line that has nothing to do with engine displacement....it dont matter that this how how we did it for the last 100 years....all of Europe actually...we will re-invent the wheel instead in confusing the peeps less..." 

The  brand is more of value than the model name is what these alphanumerics are suppose to do...

That would be on paper....

In real life...well, Like Drew said...Cadillac pays big bucks to Johan and Ellinghaus.  I actually like what they are doing, even with the naming scheme....I still dont like alphanumerics though!

Just some random quips - discuss!!!

I am amused how Cadillac can get away with cribbing executives of their current luxury rivals...yet when Hyundai's Genesis brand does it; they just get lambasted for it in this forum.

Any level of inspiration is wrong. Johan said it himself. If you follow others you always follow. So why copy the alphanumeric naming style that no one wants, at least in America?