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

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?

I have no issue with Hyundai taking execs from other makers.. such as the Lambo guy for Genesis.. my issue comes into being when Hyundai decides to crib from other makers styling... with little shame. Anyone looking at the current Genesis and not able to see Audi is either blind or in denial

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?

Maybe I have slept through missing the bitching about executives being cribbed away. But Most people here do not care about that as much as the style of the auto's and naming convention. I would say I have seen minimal complaining about taking an executive away from another company and far more complaining about coping a style from others.

Either way, If I was Johan, I would have gone with names for cadillac and use the alpha numeric for the global models if market research truly shows that is what Europe and Asia wants.

 

 

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!

 

Toyota already had T100 before the Tundra.. adding a 0 would serve to confuse people even more. My point had nothing to do with adding zeros.. and more to the idea that the CT7 could.. if it were the El Miraj.. be expanded into a CT7 GC the same way that BMW has done to the 6Series 4-door GC.

Names mean little to me at this point.. the reason for the delve into Alphanumeric in the first place was to bring more focus on the name CADILLAC.. and not CTS. Escalade's iconic status was a fluke in a world that was shying away from big SUVs due to $3.50+ Regular gas prices from 2007-2014. The Lambdas were created, duplicating the size, for the most part, of the GMTs, FWD based.. more able to accommodate advanced drive-trains for this very reason. Gas prices went down.. GMTs as K2XX became hits.. advances in drivetrains made even the V8 more efficient.. and here we are. Escalade is an Iconic name, like Tahoe.. like Yukon and Denali. IMO... CTS is iconic at this point.. but its also the reason why I think the next CTS will be named CT"5." Because, quite frankly, on the rear of a current CTS.. it looks like the S is already a 5

 

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?

 

Maybe I have slept through missing the bitching about executives being cribbed away. But Most people here do not care about that as much as the style of the auto's and naming convention. I would say I have seen minimal complaining about taking an executive away from another company and far more complaining about coping a style from others.

 

Either way, If I was Johan, I would have gone with names for cadillac and use the alpha numeric for the global models if market research truly shows that is what Europe and Asia wants.

 

Cadillac bringing in outsiders, ones that have worked with the luxury competition, Cadillac can be enlightened as to where the market is going and how they can lead in the future. I think that the move to New York will reap untold rewards. 

I think that they were OK with using names.. but updated names. The names from the past, with exception to Fleetwood.. really should have not been used. They were OLD.. and depicted a time of old.

BMW should make a 3-series Grand Sedan then all will be right with the world.

BMW should make a 3-series Grand Sedan then all will be right with the world.

Well, they do have a LWB 3 series sedan in China.   

@Casa

who responded to my post, but also in compliment to Suave`s post about copying others to which Casa also responded to...because all same idea...

I know Casa...about why the alphanumerics...

Before you explained it, I also did.

Not that you mentioning it angered me or bothered me...I just what to point it out that I truly understand it. So we both could focus on to which why you like alphanumerics and I dont...so we both dont repeat ourselves...

Good...

Cconcerning Suave`s post aboput Johan saying that Cadillac should LEAD not follow...I agree with Suave in that Cadillac and EVERYBODY else that went down the road alphanumerics really is just following an OLD standard...a EUROPEAN standard...

The alphanumeric naming scheme on a European car was logical in that it told you what modle it is...Model T...but also told you the displacement of the engine.

Chevy A-Body inline 6 equals A-250

Chevy A-Body 455 equals A-455...we could add the SS if we wanted to as in A-455SS

Chevy B-Body 327 equals B-327

Chevy  B-Body 427 equal B-427 SS

and so forth...

However...in America...we stopped doing that...Ford no longer produced a Model T.

Ford started doing Fairlanes

Chevy did Bel Airs and Impalas and Chevelle Malibus and then Chevelles AND Malibus

Olds did Cutlass...and then they did 442s...OK...there are exceptions to the rule...

BUT...

I do agree with NOT bringing in OLD names like a Fleetwood....Brougham...Seville...Deville...Coupe DeVille...THAT should stay in the past...perhaps even Eldorado...

But a name like Ciel for a flagship land yacht convertible seems like a marriage made in heaven rather than CT7 or CT8...

El Miraj could EASILY take the place of Eldorado....

Cadillac is NOT...was NEVER...a car maker filled with LOGIC and EFFICIENCY....it was ALWAYS about EXCESS and EMOTIONS

V16s...Eldorados...CHROME...stainless steel roofs...bling bling SUVs...mile high fins....stacked headlights...both modern like in a 1st gen and 2nd gen CTS and in late 1960s Devilles...

CT4 and then CT6  and a model above that for CT7 and CT8 is waaaaaaay too logical for the brand...

Cadillac NEEDS attitude...

Cadillac NEEDS emotion...

Numbers dont bring emotion....numbers are science...logic...

El Miraj...Ciel...sell dreams...

Cadillac ALAWYS sold you a dream...

Dare Greatly in NYC sells you a dream...that ELR Americans are the Best commercial...sold you THAT attitude!

Production versions of a Ciel full size 4dr convertible and Elmiraj hardtop coupe would go along way towards making Cadillac really stand out again.. if M-B can build 2dr ht coupes, why can't Cadillac?   Sure, build lots of 4cyl X* CUVs for the mass market lux volume, but build some bold low volume, high end models also...

As much as we would like to blame the Cadillac naming on Johan, it wasn't his doing.  Cadillac trademarked the CTx and XTx series names before he got there.   An executive doesn't need to be an engineer to create good cars, he just needs to listen to his engineers and give them the direction they need to aim for.   In fact, there is very little product at Cadillac right now that is Johan's doing at all. Even the CT6 is mostly Mark's baby, but Johan will get the credit for it. 

I'm not Johan's biggest fan, but I'm still taking the "wait and see" approach to find out what he will actually do with the product.   At the moment, all he can really do publicly, is grit his teeth and present someone else's idea on the stage. 

@ Drew.

It is true. Johan was not the one to do alphanumerics  at Cadillac. Neither at Infiniti.

I like what Jo0han did at Audi. At Infiniti his hands were tied. He could not do anything without the top top dogs at Nissan-Infinti-Renault having a final say...and they denied him most of what he wanted to do.

At cadillac, he has carte blanche....it will be awhile before we see what influence he has had though.

I think one move he made that has ALREADY impacted the mentality at Cadillac for the POSITIVE was to head out in NYC.

PS

I made a tine boo-boo.

I meant to write 454...not 455.

454 was Chevy. I tend to do that often.

As much as we would like to blame the Cadillac naming on Johan, it wasn't his doing.  Cadillac trademarked the CTx and XTx series names before he got there.   An executive doesn't need to be an engineer to create good cars, he just needs to listen to his engineers and give them the direction they need to aim for.   In fact, there is very little product at Cadillac right now that is Johan's doing at all. Even the CT6 is mostly Mark's baby, but Johan will get the credit for it. 

 

I'm not Johan's biggest fan, but I'm still taking the "wait and see" approach to find out what he will actually do with the product.   At the moment, all he can really do publicly, is grit his teeth and present someone else's idea on the stage. 

I agree with Drews post and figure the next 5 years will show what Johan has done with Cadillac and the success or failures that go with it.

Going to be an interesting ride.

As much as we would like to blame the Cadillac naming on Johan, it wasn't his doing.  Cadillac trademarked the CTx and XTx series names before he got there.   An executive doesn't need to be an engineer to create good cars, he just needs to listen to his engineers and give them the direction they need to aim for.   In fact, there is very little product at Cadillac right now that is Johan's doing at all. Even the CT6 is mostly Mark's baby, but Johan will get the credit for it. 

 

I'm not Johan's biggest fan, but I'm still taking the "wait and see" approach to find out what he will actually do with the product.   At the moment, all he can really do publicly, is grit his teeth and present someone else's idea on the stage. 

CT6, XT5, etc aren't even on sale yet and Johan has been on the job a year or two now.  Even if they trademarked CT1 through CT100 he could have still pushed for word names if he wanted.   I think he likes alpha-numerics because it he is a marketing guru and marketing gurus like to look smart when they design naming conventions.

I think the type of executive does matter somewhat.  Rick Wagoner was a finance guy, and look at how GM produced the lowest cost products possible under his tenure.  He was about cutting product cost to feed the UAW labor cost and "managing the downward spiral."  If you put an engineer at the top they are going to focus on engineering and product.  

 

As much as we would like to blame the Cadillac naming on Johan, it wasn't his doing.  Cadillac trademarked the CTx and XTx series names before he got there.   An executive doesn't need to be an engineer to create good cars, he just needs to listen to his engineers and give them the direction they need to aim for.   In fact, there is very little product at Cadillac right now that is Johan's doing at all. Even the CT6 is mostly Mark's baby, but Johan will get the credit for it. 

 

I'm not Johan's biggest fan, but I'm still taking the "wait and see" approach to find out what he will actually do with the product.   At the moment, all he can really do publicly, is grit his teeth and present someone else's idea on the stage. 

CT6, XT5, etc aren't even on sale yet and Johan has been on the job a year or two now.  Even if they trademarked CT1 through CT100 he could have still pushed for word names if he wanted.   I think he likes alpha-numerics because it he is a marketing guru and marketing gurus like to look smart when they design naming conventions.

 

I think the type of executive does matter somewhat.  Rick Wagoner was a finance guy, and look at how GM produced the lowest cost products possible under his tenure.  He was about cutting product cost to feed the UAW labor cost and "managing the downward spiral."  If you put an engineer at the top they are going to focus on engineering and product.  

 

Does Mercedes have an engineer running things? If not then does an engineer EVER get final say on a product in ANY company? I only ask this because last time I checked, Dieter Zetsche was not an engineer.

And again, he did not come up with number scheme so why bother even mentioning it? You have been wrong on so many things here SMK, it is just baffling that you keep beating the same dead horse here. From being incorrect about platform origins to nitpicking naming schemes in Cadillacs, it is just baffling. 

 

As much as we would like to blame the Cadillac naming on Johan, it wasn't his doing.  Cadillac trademarked the CTx and XTx series names before he got there.   An executive doesn't need to be an engineer to create good cars, he just needs to listen to his engineers and give them the direction they need to aim for.   In fact, there is very little product at Cadillac right now that is Johan's doing at all. Even the CT6 is mostly Mark's baby, but Johan will get the credit for it. 

 

I'm not Johan's biggest fan, but I'm still taking the "wait and see" approach to find out what he will actually do with the product.   At the moment, all he can really do publicly, is grit his teeth and present someone else's idea on the stage. 

CT6, XT5, etc aren't even on sale yet and Johan has been on the job a year or two now.  Even if they trademarked CT1 through CT100 he could have still pushed for word names if he wanted.   I think he likes alpha-numerics because it he is a marketing guru and marketing gurus like to look smart when they design naming conventions.

 

I think the type of executive does matter somewhat.  Rick Wagoner was a finance guy, and look at how GM produced the lowest cost products possible under his tenure.  He was about cutting product cost to feed the UAW labor cost and "managing the downward spiral."  If you put an engineer at the top they are going to focus on engineering and product.  

 

Wagoner put Lutz in charge of product and that's when things started to turn around.  A large part of GM's issue was the corporate culture. Prior to the BK, they were simply running out of cash to develop things properly. Even if the will was there to do it right, the cash wasn't.   I didn't say the person at the top doesn't matter.  They have to be competent and have an actual passion for the product, but they don't have to be an engineer. Wagoner, Henderson, Akerson... none had both the competence and passion for the product.  Barra appears competent and passion for the product, and has the added benefit of having a cleaner slate to start with. 

 

 

As much as we would like to blame the Cadillac naming on Johan, it wasn't his doing.  Cadillac trademarked the CTx and XTx series names before he got there.   An executive doesn't need to be an engineer to create good cars, he just needs to listen to his engineers and give them the direction they need to aim for.   In fact, there is very little product at Cadillac right now that is Johan's doing at all. Even the CT6 is mostly Mark's baby, but Johan will get the credit for it. 

 

I'm not Johan's biggest fan, but I'm still taking the "wait and see" approach to find out what he will actually do with the product.   At the moment, all he can really do publicly, is grit his teeth and present someone else's idea on the stage. 

CT6, XT5, etc aren't even on sale yet and Johan has been on the job a year or two now.  Even if they trademarked CT1 through CT100 he could have still pushed for word names if he wanted.   I think he likes alpha-numerics because it he is a marketing guru and marketing gurus like to look smart when they design naming conventions.

 

I think the type of executive does matter somewhat.  Rick Wagoner was a finance guy, and look at how GM produced the lowest cost products possible under his tenure.  He was about cutting product cost to feed the UAW labor cost and "managing the downward spiral."  If you put an engineer at the top they are going to focus on engineering and product.  

 

Does Mercedes have an engineer running things? If not then does an engineer EVER get final say on a product in ANY company? I only ask this because last time I checked, Dieter Zetsche was not an engineer.

 

And again, he did not come up with number scheme so why bother even mentioning it? You have been wrong on so many things here SMK, it is just baffling that you keep beating the same dead horse here. From being incorrect about platform origins to nitpicking naming schemes in Cadillacs, it is just baffling. 

 

Dr. Z is an engineer. 

 

 

As much as we would like to blame the Cadillac naming on Johan, it wasn't his doing.  Cadillac trademarked the CTx and XTx series names before he got there.   An executive doesn't need to be an engineer to create good cars, he just needs to listen to his engineers and give them the direction they need to aim for.   In fact, there is very little product at Cadillac right now that is Johan's doing at all. Even the CT6 is mostly Mark's baby, but Johan will get the credit for it. 

 

I'm not Johan's biggest fan, but I'm still taking the "wait and see" approach to find out what he will actually do with the product.   At the moment, all he can really do publicly, is grit his teeth and present someone else's idea on the stage. 

CT6, XT5, etc aren't even on sale yet and Johan has been on the job a year or two now.  Even if they trademarked CT1 through CT100 he could have still pushed for word names if he wanted.   I think he likes alpha-numerics because it he is a marketing guru and marketing gurus like to look smart when they design naming conventions.

 

I think the type of executive does matter somewhat.  Rick Wagoner was a finance guy, and look at how GM produced the lowest cost products possible under his tenure.  He was about cutting product cost to feed the UAW labor cost and "managing the downward spiral."  If you put an engineer at the top they are going to focus on engineering and product.  

 

Does Mercedes have an engineer running things? If not then does an engineer EVER get final say on a product in ANY company? I only ask this because last time I checked, Dieter Zetsche was not an engineer.

 

And again, he did not come up with number scheme so why bother even mentioning it? You have been wrong on so many things here SMK, it is just baffling that you keep beating the same dead horse here. From being incorrect about platform origins to nitpicking naming schemes in Cadillacs, it is just baffling. 

 

Dieter Zetsche is an engineer, he has a PhD in engineering actually.  Remember "Ask Dr. Z"  But he is just the Daimler CEO.

Probably the person what would have more influence on Mercedes cars would be Prof. Dr. Thomas Weber, and oh wait, he has a PhD in mechanical engineering.

Tobias Moers, CEO of AMG, also has an engineering degree.

Head of Daimler trucks Dr. Wolfgang Bernhard, masters in engineering, masters in business, PhD in economics.  And Mercedes, Freightliner, and Western Star make the best trucks. 

We'll see if Cadillacs marketing guys can beat Daimler's engineers, around 2020 all will be revealed.

 

 

As much as we would like to blame the Cadillac naming on Johan, it wasn't his doing.  Cadillac trademarked the CTx and XTx series names before he got there.   An executive doesn't need to be an engineer to create good cars, he just needs to listen to his engineers and give them the direction they need to aim for.   In fact, there is very little product at Cadillac right now that is Johan's doing at all. Even the CT6 is mostly Mark's baby, but Johan will get the credit for it. 

 

I'm not Johan's biggest fan, but I'm still taking the "wait and see" approach to find out what he will actually do with the product.   At the moment, all he can really do publicly, is grit his teeth and present someone else's idea on the stage. 

CT6, XT5, etc aren't even on sale yet and Johan has been on the job a year or two now.  Even if they trademarked CT1 through CT100 he could have still pushed for word names if he wanted.   I think he likes alpha-numerics because it he is a marketing guru and marketing gurus like to look smart when they design naming conventions.

 

I think the type of executive does matter somewhat.  Rick Wagoner was a finance guy, and look at how GM produced the lowest cost products possible under his tenure.  He was about cutting product cost to feed the UAW labor cost and "managing the downward spiral."  If you put an engineer at the top they are going to focus on engineering and product.  

 

 

Wagoner put Lutz in charge of product and that's when things started to turn around.  A large part of GM's issue was the corporate culture. Prior to the BK, they were simply running out of cash to develop things properly. Even if the will was there to do it right, the cash wasn't.   I didn't say the person at the top doesn't matter.  They have to be competent and have an actual passion for the product, but they don't have to be an engineer. Wagoner, Henderson, Akerson... none had both the competence and passion for the product.  Barra appears competent and passion for the product, and has the added benefit of having a cleaner slate to start with. 

 

I will agree with that, and Lutz did push for better products.  If Lutz was CEO they would have even had better product.  But the trio of econ/finance guys that only wanted to cut costs did GM no good.  You don't need to be an engineer, but I think it helps when a "product guy" is in charge.  Look at Apple when Jobs ran the show, when he was gone it was a disaster, when he was there they had the best products and profits were huge.

Lutz was right where he belonged, just like Ruess was when he was head of product. Lutz was too big of a liability when someone with a microphone was nearby to be CEO, (so was Akerson, but even worse because he was a jerk.)

Agreed, Lutz was a bit out there to be CEO, they did use him the right way.  It would be nice if GM had a product guru that wasn't as radical (and sometimes senile) like Lutz was, that could run the show.

As much as we would like to blame the Cadillac naming on Johan, it wasn't his doing.  Cadillac trademarked the CTx and XTx series names before he got there.   An executive doesn't need to be an engineer to create good cars, he just needs to listen to his engineers and give them the direction they need to aim for.   In fact, there is very little product at Cadillac right now that is Johan's doing at all. Even the CT6 is mostly Mark's baby, but Johan will get the credit for it. 

 

I'm not Johan's biggest fan, but I'm still taking the "wait and see" approach to find out what he will actually do with the product.   At the moment, all he can really do publicly, is grit his teeth and present someone else's idea on the stage.

CT6, XT5, etc aren't even on sale yet and Johan has been on the job a year or two now.  Even if they trademarked CT1 through CT100 he could have still pushed for word names if he wanted.   I think he likes alpha-numerics because it he is a marketing guru and marketing gurus like to look smart when they design naming conventions.

 

I think the type of executive does matter somewhat.  Rick Wagoner was a finance guy, and look at how GM produced the lowest cost products possible under his tenure.  He was about cutting product cost to feed the UAW labor cost and "managing the downward spiral."  If you put an engineer at the top they are going to focus on engineering and product.

Does Mercedes have an engineer running things? If not then does an engineer EVER get final say on a product in ANY company? I only ask this because last time I checked, Dieter Zetsche was not an engineer.

 

And again, he did not come up with number scheme so why bother even mentioning it? You have been wrong on so many things here SMK, it is just baffling that you keep beating the same dead horse here. From being incorrect about platform origins to nitpicking naming schemes in Cadillacs, it is just baffling.

 

Dr. Z is an engineer.

Fair enough. Did not see that fact when I read about him. Doesn't change the fact that he is more known for his contributions outside of engineering.

As much as we would like to blame the Cadillac naming on Johan, it wasn't his doing.  Cadillac trademarked the CTx and XTx series names before he got there.   An executive doesn't need to be an engineer to create good cars, he just needs to listen to his engineers and give them the direction they need to aim for.   In fact, there is very little product at Cadillac right now that is Johan's doing at all. Even the CT6 is mostly Mark's baby, but Johan will get the credit for it. 

 

I'm not Johan's biggest fan, but I'm still taking the "wait and see" approach to find out what he will actually do with the product.   At the moment, all he can really do publicly, is grit his teeth and present someone else's idea on the stage.

CT6, XT5, etc aren't even on sale yet and Johan has been on the job a year or two now.  Even if they trademarked CT1 through CT100 he could have still pushed for word names if he wanted.   I think he likes alpha-numerics because it he is a marketing guru and marketing gurus like to look smart when they design naming conventions.

 

I think the type of executive does matter somewhat.  Rick Wagoner was a finance guy, and look at how GM produced the lowest cost products possible under his tenure.  He was about cutting product cost to feed the UAW labor cost and "managing the downward spiral."  If you put an engineer at the top they are going to focus on engineering and product.

Does Mercedes have an engineer running things? If not then does an engineer EVER get final say on a product in ANY company? I only ask this because last time I checked, Dieter Zetsche was not an engineer.

 

And again, he did not come up with number scheme so why bother even mentioning it? You have been wrong on so many things here SMK, it is just baffling that you keep beating the same dead horse here. From being incorrect about platform origins to nitpicking naming schemes in Cadillacs, it is just baffling.

Dieter Zetsche is an engineer, he has a PhD in engineering actually.  Remember "Ask Dr. Z"  But he is just the Daimler CEO.

 

Probably the person what would have more influence on Mercedes cars would be Prof. Dr. Thomas Weber, and oh wait, he has a PhD in mechanical engineering.

Tobias Moers, CEO of AMG, also has an engineering degree.

 

Head of Daimler trucks Dr. Wolfgang Bernhard, masters in engineering, masters in business, PhD in economics.  And Mercedes, Freightliner, and Western Star make the best trucks. 

 

We'll see if Cadillacs marketing guys can beat Daimler's engineers, around 2020 all will be revealed.

Sorry but I remember how those "engineers" treated Chrysler and then left them for dead with their "hand me down" platforms and tech. They have as much crap on their hands as the old guard at GM. They being engineers make it worse if you ask me because they did not act like engineers where Chrysler was concerned. They acted like bean counters with slick PR. Sound familiar?

I also recall being him being President/CEO of Chrysler Group from middle of 2000 to December 31, 2005. How'd that engineering knowledge work out for Chrysler btw? As an owner of his E class platform derived 2006 Magnum, I'm curious to know.

 

Dieter Zetsche is an engineer, he has a PhD in engineering actually.  Remember "Ask Dr. Z"  But he is just the Daimler CEO.

 

Probably the person what would have more influence on Mercedes cars would be Prof. Dr. Thomas Weber, and oh wait, he has a PhD in mechanical engineering.

 

Tobias Moers, CEO of AMG, also has an engineering degree.

 

Head of Daimler trucks Dr. Wolfgang Bernhard, masters in engineering, masters in business, PhD in economics.  And Mercedes, Freightliner, and Western Star make the best trucks. 

 

We'll see if Cadillacs marketing guys can beat Daimler's engineers, around 2020 all will be revealed.

 

Coming from the computer Industry, being a well educated Engineer does not make the company infallible to piss poor management. 

Anyone remember Digital Computer Corporation? Engineered some of the best storage, computers and other technology that much of the industry has been based on especially the AMD CPU's with their memory management and superior throughput for that time.

This was all done by people who had PHD in Engineering and thought if they built superior products they would last forever as a company.

Bought by Compaq who was then bought by HP. Engineers alone do not make a great company. In the long run they will die without much needed assistance from sales, marketing, etc. This does not mean they cannnot hire and get the right people in place but even then one must never take their eye off the end prize.

MB has done great but is not the best company out there, no one is and eventually they will drop the ball and fall from grace as you perceive as the best luxury auto maker. History has proven that over and over again.

Lutz was right where he belonged, just like Ruess was when he was head of product. Lutz was too big of a liability when someone with a microphone was nearby to be CEO, (so was Akerson, but even worse because he was a jerk.)

Yup... having Lutz as CEO would have been almost as bad as having ME as CEO.. I would have blatantly told Toyota buyers who were taking their cars in for the Acceleration recall "I Told U So.. And Eff U if U don't buy Domestic now..."

Non-Jokes aside.. yes. Wagoner and Co were heading the ship when it was going steadfast into an Iceberg.. they did what they had to do to survive. The GM now under Barra's watch is showing huge signs of LIFE.. Profitable.. strong.. products best in class in most segments they compete. Cadillac is hindered more by the products they DON'T HAVE than the ones they do. ATS and CTS are blasted for not having enough room in the rear for everyone' s non-existent.. or moocher friends. That's pretty much where the hate begins and ends.. OH.. and the Envision being imported from China despite Americans having no issue with importing everything else from China losing 10,000,000 jobs .. suddenly they are up in arms about losing 100 jobs.. 

 

 

Dieter Zetsche is an engineer, he has a PhD in engineering actually.  Remember "Ask Dr. Z"  But he is just the Daimler CEO.

 

Probably the person what would have more influence on Mercedes cars would be Prof. Dr. Thomas Weber, and oh wait, he has a PhD in mechanical engineering.

 

Tobias Moers, CEO of AMG, also has an engineering degree.

 

Head of Daimler trucks Dr. Wolfgang Bernhard, masters in engineering, masters in business, PhD in economics.  And Mercedes, Freightliner, and Western Star make the best trucks. 

 

We'll see if Cadillacs marketing guys can beat Daimler's engineers, around 2020 all will be revealed.

 

 

Coming from the computer Industry, being a well educated Engineer does not make the company infallible to piss poor management. 

 

Anyone remember Digital Computer Corporation? Engineered some of the best storage, computers and other technology that much of the industry has been based on especially the AMD CPU's with their memory management and superior throughput for that time.

 

This was all done by people who had PHD in Engineering and thought if they built superior products they would last forever as a company.

 

Bought by Compaq who was then bought by HP. Engineers alone do not make a great company. In the long run they will die without much needed assistance from sales, marketing, etc. This does not mean they cannnot hire and get the right people in place but even then one must never take their eye off the end prize.

 

MB has done great but is not the best company out there, no one is and eventually they will drop the ball and fall from grace as you perceive as the best luxury auto maker. History has proven that over and over again.

 

And that is exactly my point by bringing up his terrible handling of Chrysler. Being an engineer doesn't mean squat in relation to how to run a business. When you are at the top like Dr. Z, then you are no longer an engineer.  

 

 

 

 

As much as we would like to blame the Cadillac naming on Johan, it wasn't his doing.  Cadillac trademarked the CTx and XTx series names before he got there.   An executive doesn't need to be an engineer to create good cars, he just needs to listen to his engineers and give them the direction they need to aim for.   In fact, there is very little product at Cadillac right now that is Johan's doing at all. Even the CT6 is mostly Mark's baby, but Johan will get the credit for it. 

 

I'm not Johan's biggest fan, but I'm still taking the "wait and see" approach to find out what he will actually do with the product.   At the moment, all he can really do publicly, is grit his teeth and present someone else's idea on the stage.

CT6, XT5, etc aren't even on sale yet and Johan has been on the job a year or two now.  Even if they trademarked CT1 through CT100 he could have still pushed for word names if he wanted.   I think he likes alpha-numerics because it he is a marketing guru and marketing gurus like to look smart when they design naming conventions.

 

I think the type of executive does matter somewhat.  Rick Wagoner was a finance guy, and look at how GM produced the lowest cost products possible under his tenure.  He was about cutting product cost to feed the UAW labor cost and "managing the downward spiral."  If you put an engineer at the top they are going to focus on engineering and product.

Does Mercedes have an engineer running things? If not then does an engineer EVER get final say on a product in ANY company? I only ask this because last time I checked, Dieter Zetsche was not an engineer.

 

And again, he did not come up with number scheme so why bother even mentioning it? You have been wrong on so many things here SMK, it is just baffling that you keep beating the same dead horse here. From being incorrect about platform origins to nitpicking naming schemes in Cadillacs, it is just baffling.

Dieter Zetsche is an engineer, he has a PhD in engineering actually.  Remember "Ask Dr. Z"  But he is just the Daimler CEO.

 

Probably the person what would have more influence on Mercedes cars would be Prof. Dr. Thomas Weber, and oh wait, he has a PhD in mechanical engineering.

Tobias Moers, CEO of AMG, also has an engineering degree.

 

Head of Daimler trucks Dr. Wolfgang Bernhard, masters in engineering, masters in business, PhD in economics.  And Mercedes, Freightliner, and Western Star make the best trucks. 

 

We'll see if Cadillacs marketing guys can beat Daimler's engineers, around 2020 all will be revealed.

Sorry but I remember how those "engineers" treated Chrysler and then left them for dead with their "hand me down" platforms and tech. They have as much crap on their hands as the old guard at GM. They being engineers make it worse if you ask me because they did not act like engineers where Chrysler was concerned. They acted like bean counters with slick PR. Sound familiar?

 

Jurgen Schrempp was Chairman and CEO from 1995-2005, sort of the dark days of Mercedes.  He had an engineering background too, but he wasn't a very good CEO.  Dr. Z is a really good CEO.   Chrysler was pretty much beyond saving, and they did give Chrysler the Crossfire and the LX platform, and the Grand Cherokee is still based on a derived ML-class platform.  Notice Chryslers only decent cars are derived from mid 2000s Mercedes.  Perhaps the problem with that merger is Chrysler was still developing their own engines, transmissions and cars, the Crossfire was the only Chrysler with a Mercedes engine/transmission and chassis.  IT was a failed merger, but if Chrysler didn't have Mercedes or Fiat platforms, they wouldn't have anything to sell except Ram trucks and a minivan.

 

 

Sorry but I remember how those "engineers" treated Chrysler and then left them for dead with their "hand me down" platforms and tech. They have as much crap on their hands as the old guard at GM. They being engineers make it worse if you ask me because they did not act like engineers where Chrysler was concerned. They acted like bean counters with slick PR. Sound familiar?

 

Jurgen Schrempp was Chairman and CEO from 1995-2005, sort of the dark days of Mercedes.  He had an engineering background too, but he wasn't a very good CEO.  Dr. Z is a really good CEO.   Chrysler was pretty much beyond saving, and they did give Chrysler the Crossfire and the LX platform, and the Grand Cherokee is still based on a derived ML-class platform.  Notice Chryslers only decent cars are derived from mid 2000s Mercedes.  Perhaps the problem with that merger is Chrysler was still developing their own engines, transmissions and cars, the Crossfire was the only Chrysler with a Mercedes engine/transmission and chassis.  IT was a failed merger, but if Chrysler didn't have Mercedes or Fiat platforms, they wouldn't have anything to sell except Ram trucks and a minivan.

 

Except Chrysler was very profitable at that point in time just before the merger.

Except that "cab forward" design language was the most unique and sexy design language at that point in time.

Except that Chrysler was spending a ton of money on R&D at that point in time before the merger and many effed up projects came to life. Viper being one of them. The Prowler is the other. The Prowler had NO Mercedes Benz input....THAT was ALL Chryco.

Except that RWD was on the table BEFORE the merger and THIS was the Charger that was supposed to be with Chryco's engineering efforts...

But because M-B generously 'gave' Chryco their old platform, Chryco had to improvise...

And Chryco engineers probably did a better engineering job on that platform than what M-B did...

The Crossfire was definitely proof of how M-B viewed Chryco...they viewed Chryco as a second class company...

It was OK for M-B to rake in the billions that the Grand Cherokee and Wrangler raked in though...

Mercedes didn't rake in anything, they spent $38 billion to buy Chrysler and sold it for $7.4 billion.  It was a bad idea from the start, cultures were too different, products too different.  Daimler is better off without them, they can focus on their own car brand and their commercial truck brands.  

That was because M-B screwed the pooch with that merger...

SMK...look at how they engineered and sold the Crossfire...YOUR own example...

THAT was the kind of crap M-B let happen in their showrooms...

BEFORE that...not that Chrysler was a model company for reliability and for quality, but at least their designs WERE class leading and state of the art.

Before that, at least Chrysler was spending money in R&D trying to figure out different ways to manufacture cars...

Prowler was just an experiment to see how they could use aluminium in mass produced cars and how to manufacture mass produced cars withh aluminium.

Cab Forward design was another R&D development program.

The LH cars were some of the most spacious and comfortable cars in that era.

The cloud cars, the JA platform aka, the Breeze and the Stratus and the Cirrus, never mind the build quality, were also some of the most spacious and comfrtable cars in their class.

The merger of equals failed because the German overlords thought they were too good for their American counterpart.

The German overlords FAILED to actually use ALL the resources they had at their disposal..THAT would include Auburn Hills engineers and product planners...

After the 1980s...where Chryco failed...the 1990s were Chryco's finest in terms of products...and product planning...M-B failed to capture  this specialty...

And to tell you the truth SMK...M-B has NOT learned from their mistakes with that merger...

M-B is just producing vehicles in all kninds of niches hoping they would be succesful in them.

Whatever sticks is a huuuuuge success, but whatever fails is a huuuuuuuuge failure.

But there are many failures....

Smart cars for one.

The R-Class for another.

Mercedes screwed the pooch in a lot of ways in the DCA merger.  They screwed up the Liberty by shortening it so it would be CR-V sized.  They had no real idea at all what to do with Jeep.  Their product planning was horendous..... it was evident very early on that they had no idea how to deal with the mainstream consumer market in the US.

Can you imagine being in the product planning meeting where they announce "This is your new boss Wilhelhm Johan.... he thinks it would be a good idea to drop your great selling, highly acclaimed, well reviewed family sedan and replace it with a wagon only model... oh, and it RWD... and V8".   *groan*  "Oh, and you know what else guys?  Chrysler is going to get the sedan version, and it will be cheaper and with a smaller base engine".

Benz has no flipping CLUE how to run Chrysler... the talent we have HERE would have been better.

 

 

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.

 

Point is they put a badge on something they did not need......

As much as we would like to blame the Cadillac naming on Johan, it wasn't his doing. Cadillac trademarked the CTx and XTx series names before he got there. An executive doesn't need to be an engineer to create good cars, he just needs to listen to his engineers and give them the direction they need to aim for. In fact, there is very little product at Cadillac right now that is Johan's doing at all. Even the CT6 is mostly Mark's baby, but Johan will get the credit for it.

I'm not Johan's biggest fan, but I'm still taking the "wait and see" approach to find out what he will actually do with the product. At the moment, all he can really do publicly, is grit his teeth and present someone else's idea on the stage.

CT6, XT5, etc aren't even on sale yet and Johan has been on the job a year or two now. Even if they trademarked CT1 through CT100 he could have still pushed for word names if he wanted. I think he likes alpha-numerics because it he is a marketing guru and marketing gurus like to look smart when they design naming conventions.

I think the type of executive does matter somewhat. Rick Wagoner was a finance guy, and look at how GM produced the lowest cost products possible under his tenure. He was about cutting product cost to feed the UAW labor cost and "managing the downward spiral." If you put an engineer at the top they are going to focus on engineering and product.

Does Mercedes have an engineer running things? If not then does an engineer EVER get final say on a product in ANY company? I only ask this because last time I checked, Dieter Zetsche was not an engineer.

And again, he did not come up with number scheme so why bother even mentioning it? You have been wrong on so many things here SMK, it is just baffling that you keep beating the same dead horse here. From being incorrect about platform origins to nitpicking naming schemes in Cadillacs, it is just baffling.

Dieter Zetsche is an engineer, he has a PhD in engineering actually. Remember "Ask Dr. Z" But he is just the Daimler CEO.

Probably the person what would have more influence on Mercedes cars would be Prof. Dr. Thomas Weber, and oh wait, he has a PhD in mechanical engineering.

Tobias Moers, CEO of AMG, also has an engineering degree.

Head of Daimler trucks Dr. Wolfgang Bernhard, masters in engineering, masters in business, PhD in economics. And Mercedes, Freightliner, and Western Star make the best trucks.

We'll see if Cadillacs marketing guys can beat Daimler's engineers, around 2020 all will be revealed.

Sorry but I remember how those "engineers" treated Chrysler and then left them for dead with their "hand me down" platforms and tech. They have as much crap on their hands as the old guard at GM. They being engineers make it worse if you ask me because they did not act like engineers where Chrysler was concerned. They acted like bean counters with slick PR. Sound familiar?

Jurgen Schrempp was Chairman and CEO from 1995-2005, sort of the dark days of Mercedes. He had an engineering background too, but he wasn't a very good CEO. Dr. Z is a really good CEO. Chrysler was pretty much beyond saving, and they did give Chrysler the Crossfire and the LX platform, and the Grand Cherokee is still based on a derived ML-class platform. Notice Chryslers only decent cars are derived from mid 2000s Mercedes. Perhaps the problem with that merger is Chrysler was still developing their own engines, transmissions and cars, the Crossfire was the only Chrysler with a Mercedes engine/transmission and chassis. IT was a failed merger, but if Chrysler didn't have Mercedes or Fiat platforms, they wouldn't have anything to sell except Ram trucks and a minivan.

Stop with the excuses. He was CEO of th Chrysler division during those crap years and he led the nickle and dime charge on Chryslers entire lineup. I drive proof of that and have for almost eight years. Who care about one motor or tranny? The Crossfire is proof of how Daimler screwed Chrysler. When the new SLK came out, Mr. Z saw fit to give "bless" the Crossfire with the previous gen leftovers of the SLK. Sorry but your engineer took cheap to another level and no excuse you can give changes that. History proves it.

You most certainly cannot be foolish enough to think those were Chryslers best years either. I love my car but I know its shortcomings along with everything else that Daimler tried to pass off as better. If it was so much better, then they would not have needed a desperate sale to Cerebus followed by bankruptcy. That was all Daimlers doing and it is well documented for anyone who is not an overzealous Mercedes fanboy.