Don't Call It XT3, Call It XT4

Interesting..would have thought they would have used the name XT3 as the compact CUV and leave XT4 for a future compact coupe CUV, and XT6 for a midsize coupe CUV (if they want to match MB, BMW, etc).

Pretty positive Cadillac is not looking to "match" MB/BMW.
And 'compact coupe CUVs' are largely a waste of development dollars- look at X4/X6 sales vs X3/X5. 
Cadillac would be wise to STOP at any CUV smaller than the XT4, and don't for a second think about any 'squashed sedan CUVs.

With the 2.0 is might be quick.....

I do hate numbered schemes that box you in like A3-4-5-6-7-8, or XT4-5-6-7, etc.  Because then if the market changes or you want to introduce a new product your naming scheme doesn't allow it.  

I wonder why they went with XT4, unless they want to make it not like BMW X3.  But I think more likely they see the need for XT2 and XT3 later on, so they want more slots below it to use.

16 hours ago, daves87rs said:

With the 2.0 is might be quick.....

Not as fast as a 505 hp Alfa Romeo Stelvio though.

No one is going to buy a 'stelvio', however, so -no doubt you'll agree- it's a 'failure'.

Here's again to hoping Cadillac bypasses the foolishness of any CUV below the XT4. 

They will need something smaller to compete with Q3, GLA, X1, etc..  and maybe something in the Trax/Encore size or smaller (maybe a Spark based CUV ?)...esp. if they have any plans to compete in Europe in Asia... 

They don't "need" to be in every segment, that's a fallacy. It's about defining the brand, not buttering toast. For example- where's the $30K Porsche (could use the VW 2.0T)? Answer- though it would sell in potential huge numbers, that's not where Porsche had decided to go. They are a lower volume brand that has defined themselves.  

A Spark-based Cadillac CUV?? Dear God- who's asking? 'Because they can' is not a marketing principal (see above). And Cadillac is not a mass market brand- hopefully those calling the shots going forward know that. One of the things within that should be a definition of size range. A car below the ATS in size would be an utter disaster, the least of reasons being it would primarily split that Cadillac segment (ATS/subATS) further.

Very well said balty!

Lexus has confirmed they are putting the UX into production, that will sit below the $35,000 NX.  So you know Cadillac will want a product below XT4, to get in that growing segment.  Infiniti I think has a crossover coming below the one they have based on the GLA, Mercedes is making a GLB, they are all fighting over this low $30s crossover segment because they can get growth there.  Fighting over mid-size sedans is a lost cause anymore.

There's a LOT more to the luxury segment that sub-compact CUVs and sedans.

Quote

So you know Cadillac will want a product below XT4, to get in that growing segment.

Wrong- Cadillac should NOT gun for every segment, every niche. XT4, XT5, XT7 and Escalade, done.
BMW X3 is only 6" shorter than the XT5- the XT4 will be in the X3 segment, there's zero need for something yet again smaller.

2 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Lexus has confirmed they are putting the UX into production, that will sit below the $35,000 NX.  So you know Cadillac will want a product below XT4, to get in that growing segment.  Infiniti I think has a crossover coming below the one they have based on the GLA, Mercedes is making a GLB, they are all fighting over this low $30s crossover segment because they can get growth there.  Fighting over mid-size sedans is a lost cause anymore.

Let Lexus continue in their Buick, Lincoln, Acura battle for mid luxury level auto's. 

Cadillac should stay focused on defining themselves as an upper level Luxury line. No need to go below the ATS / CT3 and XT4.

3 hours ago, dfelt said:

Let Lexus continue in their Buick, Lincoln, Acura battle for mid luxury level auto's. 

Cadillac should stay focused on defining themselves as an upper level Luxury line. No need to go below the ATS / CT3 and XT4.

Should, but won't.  That is why a CT6 is priced like a 5-series and the XT5 starts $15k lower than an X5.  Cadillac doesn't want to go up there and get in a head to head battle with the Germans.

• Cadillac pricing is a growth segment- rising far quicker than at BMW (where sales were down 10% last year). 

• Cadillac CT6 price range : $55K - $90K. 

• Cadillac XT5 is crushing the X5 in sales. You love sales metrics.

Dec 2016 ~
X5 : 6245
XT5 : 7436
X5 down 13% last year (some conquest sales to the XT5)?

But the XT5 is priced like an X3.  If the XT5 was priced like the CT6 was $55-90k, it would have no sales.    XT4 will probably cannibalize a lot of XT5 sales.  Lexus RX crushes all these luxury crossovers in sales, but it is cheap, so that's why.

Doesn't matter what the X3/5 are priced at, this isn't a BMW.

So many internet armchair jockeys have wailed & knashed their teeth that Cadillac is "copying" (lol) the other brands..., that "Cadillac should be Cadillac" with no Earthly idea whatsoever what that may mean- but when Cadillac steps outside the tight, arbitrarily-defined ranges by the critics, suddenly the Cadillac "doesn't compete".  Bullshit. 

This is the product Cadillac has built & priced it where it is.  Where does it rank on your always critical sales chart?

Cadillac does NOT want to compete in every segment, and they are NOT looking to challenge the mainstream luxury brands in volume.  
Write that on a piece of tape, stick it to your screen, read it once in a while; it'll help your comprehension.

2 hours ago, balthazar said:

Doesn't matter what the X3/5 are priced at, this isn't a BMW.

So many internet armchair jockeys have wailed & knashed their teeth that Cadillac is "copying" (lol) the other brands..., that "Cadillac should be Cadillac" with no Earthly idea whatsoever what that may mean- but when Cadillac steps outside the tight, arbitrarily-defined ranges by the critics, suddenly the Cadillac "doesn't compete".  Bull$h!. 

This is the product Cadillac has built & priced it where it is.  Where does it rank on your always critical sales chart?

Cadillac does NOT want to compete in every segment, and they are NOT looking to challenge the mainstream luxury brands in volume.  
Write that on a piece of tape, stick it to your screen, read it once in a while; it'll help your comprehension.

But Cadillac comes up with a product like Escalade, that defines their brand and is their most profitable product, and you don't really see a smaller version of it to capitalize on what Cadillac is.  Not that I want them to make 6 versions of Escalade like there are 5 or 6 "Range Rovers" now, but I don't see a lot of Escalade influence in other Cadilacs, other than vertical lights, which every Cadillac has, and had since like 2003.   Jeep does this well, Compass is a mini Grand Cherokee, Renegade is heavily influenced by Wrangler, because those are the iconic designs, and they get those designs to people at a lower price point. 

Cadillac is supposed to be performance luxury, but the performance is limited to 2 models, when they have 6 models.  6 model lines isn't enough as it is, 2 performance lines surely isn't enough.  People want horsepower and performance, and people now want crossovers a lot more than they want sedans, yet Cadillac hasn't combined the 2 yet, when Porsche, Maserati, Alfa Romeo, BMW, Audi, Mercedes, Bentley, Jaguar, Land Rover all have, and probably soon Aston Martin and Lamborghini will join them.  Huge missed opportunity by not having performance in the crossover space, just like the V-series sedans (and rwd sedans in general) arrived 15 years too late after the M3 and M5 already set the segment.

In 10 years time we will look back on Cadillacs crossovers of the 2010-2020 era as lackluster product that let them fall behind, just as we now look back at the 90s FWD Seville and Deville that failed to get it done and let the Germans take over.  20 years later Cadillac makes the exact same mistake, but with a different body style.

I see it this way, Group A has decided to build crossovers on FWD mass market platforms, this includes Cadillac, Acura, Lexus and Lincoln (and about half the Infiniti and Audi crossovers)

Group B thinks performance matters and uses a more purpose built chassis, boosted engines, etc.  This includes Alfa Romeo, BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar/Land Rover, Bentley, Porsche, Maserati.

Would you want to be in group A or Group B?

Jeep "is supposed to be" about 'total off-road capability', but I don't see them capitalizing on that with the Compass & Renegade, which absolutely aren't.  Orrrrr : maybe a brand can be more than a singular directive (like uber-lux sedans / cheaply-built cargo boxes under the same badge). It's the nature of the industry, I am surprised you are oblivious to it.

[[ Hey- how come you don't bash the Jaguar f-pace, which starts only $1500 higher than the XT5, for "not going head-to-head with the Germans"?? Does that put the f-pace into your 'Group A' by default? Or in this example, is price no longer a factor?]]

The 75% soccer mom buyers of SUVs from BMW, et al, don't have any earthly idea what sort of platform is under there; they're not bought for performance or handling or road manners or anything beyond the badge & creature comforts. I GUARANTEE you if BMW suddenly changed the X5 to FWD/AWD (AWD: the VAST majority of ALL these mentioned are- "it's a growth segment!"), sales wouldn't fall any faster than they have been over the last 2 years.

Cadillac does not conform to your definition of it, and never will. The brand is luxury, it is performance, it is many other things, not necessarily everyone of them at the same time. Just like the E300 can't outrun a Camry V6 to 60. The performance aspect is not necessarily just a screaming 0-60 -these cars aren't put into competition-, but it means general excellent performance.  Cadillac is sorry if you got the impression that meant drag racing; they're sending a card. 

With 33 inches of rear seat legroom, the ATS is already too small.

19 hours ago, balthazar said:

There's a LOT more to the luxury segment that sub-compact CUVs and sedans.

Wrong- Cadillac should NOT gun for every segment, every niche. XT4, XT5, XT7 and Escalade, done.
BMW X3 is only 6" shorter than the XT5- the XT4 will be in the X3 segment, there's zero need for something yet again smaller.

Gotta be honest... I think that while Cadillac does not have to pursue every segment.. they do have to offer something within the realm of each segment as an alternative. The CT6 strategy , for instance is perfect.. if they implement within that, and all future derivatives, variation. They simply have to use their collective imagination.. or better yet simply yank from their own past.. seeing past trends by creating their own. The death of the CTS wagon, for instance.. and coupe.. was short-sighted and has been, IMO, the direct reason why the CTS continues to suffer in sales.. that and the XTS. Its absolutely basic. The E-Class 3340 units last month while the CTS and XTS pulled in 2258. Even adding in the CT6 U still only sold 3060. Size isn't even a factor... These three cars literally overlap in price like a mofo.. The E-Class garnered sales from the simple fact that it comes in every variant under the damn sun. Sedan, Coupe, Wagon. Cadillac could instantly bring the CTS within striking distance if it offered the same. 

So while I think that the XT4, XT5, and XT7, along with the Escalades are fine.. I do think it needs to flesh out its car portfolio to include at minimum 2 wagons and 3 coupes. Business case against cars be damned.. because if it were ONLY about sales in the highest market.. then an XT1, XT3, XT6, and XT8 should be added to that portfolio pronto... and kill all the cars. I won't even mention that building these cars (variants) would be way more cost effective and at the same time pull Cadillac in sales from niche.. which add up quick. Just had to add these pics as I love this car so

7 hours ago, balthazar said:

Jeep "is supposed to be" about 'total off-road capability', but I don't see them capitalizing on that with the Compass & Renegade, which absolutely aren't.  Orrrrr : maybe a brand can be more than a singular directive (like uber-lux sedans / cheaply-built cargo boxes under the same badge). It's the nature of the industry, I am surprised you are oblivious to it.

[[ Hey- how come you don't bash the Jaguar f-pace, which starts only $1500 higher than the XT5, for "not going head-to-head with the Germans"?? Does that put the f-pace into your 'Group A' by default? Or in this example, is price no longer a factor?]]

The 75% soccer mom buyers of SUVs from BMW, et al, don't have any earthly idea what sort of platform is under there; they're not bought for performance or handling or road manners or anything beyond the badge & creature comforts. I GUARANTEE you if BMW suddenly changed the X5 to FWD/AWD (AWD: the VAST majority of ALL these mentioned are- "it's a growth segment!"), sales wouldn't fall any faster than they have been over the last 2 years.

Cadillac does not conform to your definition of it, and never will. The brand is luxury, it is performance, it is many other things, not necessarily everyone of them at the same time. Just like the E300 can't outrun a Camry V6 to 60. The performance aspect is not necessarily just a screaming 0-60 -these cars aren't put into competition-, but it means general excellent performance.  Cadillac is sorry if you got the impression that meant drag racing; they're sending a card. 

The F-pace is a GLC, X3, Macan (soon to be Stelvio) competitor.  F-Pace is based on the XE small sedan.  

And yes an E300 is slower than a V6 Camry, but they offer more powerful engines.  M-B offers AMG engines on every model line, Cadillac can't do a V-series on their Utilities because their platforms couldn't handle the power.  I can't see how Cadillac fans are happy that the CTS-V engine isn't on an XT5, when the Europeans all have big power.

10 hours ago, smk4565 said:

I see it this way, Group A has decided to build crossovers on FWD mass market platforms, this includes Cadillac, Acura, Lexus and Lincoln (and about half the Infiniti and Audi crossovers)

Group B thinks performance matters and uses a more purpose built chassis, boosted engines, etc.  This includes Alfa Romeo, BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar/Land Rover, Bentley, Porsche, Maserati.

Would you want to be in group A or Group B?

Your just moving the goal post again to try and justify that MB is no different than Chevy, Ford, Toyota or VW. They are no longer a luxury only auto builder. They have expanded their brand to cover everything and eventually that will change their badge image in the public's eye. 

Cadillac is rebuilding itself as a luxury builder and is looking at select profitable models over being in everything at every level.

Two different approaches to market segments.

@Cmicasa the Great I agree with you that Cadillac on their current products need 2 door, 4 door sedans, coupes and convertibles.

Love that cadillac you posted, such a beauty.

Anything below an ATS soon to be CT3 and XT4 I think they can ignore.

20 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Your just moving the goal post again to try and justify that MB is no different than Chevy, Ford, Toyota or VW. They are no longer a luxury only auto builder. They have expanded their brand to cover everything and eventually that will change their badge image in the public's eye. 

Cadillac is rebuilding itself as a luxury builder and is looking at select profitable models over being in everything at every level.

Two different approaches to market segments.

And yet M-B is #1 in US market luxury sales, #1 in European market luxury sales, #2 in China market luxury sales and 3 time defending champion in Formula 1.  While posting record profits the past few years.

On the Cadillac front, I agree a sub-ATS car is a waste of time, they need crossovers.  That is what sells.

1 minute ago, smk4565 said:

And yet M-B is #1 in US market luxury sales, #1 in European market luxury sales, #2 in China market luxury sales and 3 time defending champion in Formula 1.  While posting record profits the past few years.

On the Cadillac front, I agree a sub-ATS car is a waste of time, they need crossovers.  That is what sells.

US - by whoring out their name on FWD cars shared with Nissan, and chasing cheap leases. 

EU - not if you remove the Crown Vic spec livery market

28 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

US - by whoring out their name on FWD cars shared with Nissan, and chasing cheap leases. 

EU - not if you remove the Crown Vic spec livery market

In his eyes.. different rulz. He just won't admit.. despite the obvious knowledge that Mercedes is only really a Luxo maker in the U.S. It also shows how unworldly most Americans are in believing that Benz is really special all over the world. Mercedes Benz competes with Chevy, Toyota, Hyundai, Ford, Nissan, Kia, etc in a majority of its markets. I would love to see in fact... what Benzo's sales were JUST in the actually luxio market.. without the mainstream versions. BMW is no better. 

So yeah.. Caddy should not chase mass volume but should settle in around 500K. They could do this.. based on what I see from last year hitting 309K Global. Again.. that's with essentially ONE effin CUV in a market that had they had as many CUVs as Benz has in the U.S. alone.. (7) I think they could already be at that mark.. Hell.. They could've pulled in an extra 50K+ with just variants of the cars they have. 

2 hours ago, smk4565 said:

I can't see how Cadillac fans are happy that the CTS-V engine isn't on an XT5, when the Europeans all have big power.

Probably because true CTS-V fans would just buy a CTS-V instead of a mommy CUV. And then there would be 2% of buyers( women ) who say "those wheels look the best" and buy the V version of the XT5.

2 hours ago, smk4565 said:

 I can't see how Cadillac fans are happy that the CTS-V engine isn't on an XT5, when the Europeans all have big power.

I can see how Cadillac is happy though... they're the second best selling in their market after the RX. 

I'm sure all five GLE AMG Coupe drivers feel so good feeling superior though....

10 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Probably because true CTS-V fans would just buy a CTS-V instead of a mommy CUV. And then there would be 2% of buyers( women ) who say "those wheels look the best" and buy the V version of the XT5.

Let me be the first to tell U how stupid what he always goes to sounds.. 640HP in the XT5 would absolutely overkill.. unnecessary for any real person sides the idiots of the world. Considering its size and weight.. the XT5 shouldn't have  go past 550HP... and even that is overkill. I would settle in between the Macan and Cayenne HP .. say 470-500 and be done. Ironically the heaviest XT5 is still lighter than the smaller Macan.

Technically the XT5 is in between those two in size.. so why not. If they go RWD in the XT7.. then and only then would I say go LT4

At the most, I would like to see Cadillac offer the 3.6TT from the XTS in the XT5... that is sufficient without going overboard.  And they don't have to reengineer the engine to transverse. 

49 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I'm sure all five GLE AMG Coupe drivers feel so good feeling superior though....

I hate that vehicle so f'n much it's irrational. The stupid fkn "coupe" CUVs are the worst thing that's happened to the auto industry since.. since.. since something bad happened. lol

They're ugly, they're useless, they just don't make any got damn sense!

4 worst vehicles on the road today are the GLC Coupe, GLE Coupe, X4 and X6.

48 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

At the most, I would like to see Cadillac offer the 3.6TT from the XTS in the XT5... that is sufficient without going overboard.  And they don't have to reengineer the engine to transverse. 

Cool with me.. 390HP is fine.. and would appease any dude who actually would get one... cause let's face it.. the XT5 is a kinda a chic car. The XT7, IMO should be the performance CUV.. based off the Omega platform. In that I'd run the gambit and go from 3.0L Turbo @ 390HP all the way up to the LT4

4 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I hate that vehicle so f'n much it's irrational. The stupid fkn "coupe" CUVs are the worst thing that's happened to the auto industry since.. since.. since something bad happened. lol

They're ugly, they're useless, they just don't make any got damn sense!

4 worst vehicles on the road today are the GLC Coupe, GLE Coupe, X4 and X6.

While I agree. .. they do sell with both Benzes pulling in almost 7K last month

16 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

While I agree. .. they do sell with both Benzes pulling in almost 7K last month

The Coupes do???? Jesus... People will buy ANYTHING just to be different these days..

I've only seen a couple here but they actually anger me when I see them because they just don't make any sense to me whatsoever. Crappy CUV, Crappy car, proportions are absolute junk...

No..  the coupes don't pull those numbers. The whole GLC and GLE lines might, but that is including the .. erm..... GLE/C "sedan".

14 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

No..  the coupes don't pull those numbers. The whole GLC and GLE lines might, but that is including the .. erm..... GLE/C "sedan".

Hmmm...maybe the next untouched niche BMW and M-B can pursue is SUV sedans.....i.e. X4/6, GLC and GLEs with trunks instead of hatchbacks...

48 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Hmmm...maybe the next untouched niche BMW and M-B can pursue is SUV sedans.....i.e. X4/6, GLC and GLEs with trunks instead of hatchbacks...

Copying AMC, Subaru, and Suzuki.

2 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Copying AMC, Subaru, and Suzuki.

Yes, but in a larger SUV bodied form....not merely raised cars, but SUV bodies with trunks.  Innovation.

Its their (BMW/BENZ) formula and for all the hate we put on them they still sell decently for those companies. I personally don't want to see anything from Cadillac but VSeries and Platinums, but I kno that it is unrealistic if I want the brand to survive.. especially in this "cut if not profitable mode." $54K-55K ATPs are only obtainable if customers come on the lot.. so they can be up-sold into something better than the BS price that was advertised. Bottom line is that it is simply good business for GM to look at Cadillac and the rest the same way that Alfred Sloan did.. as autonomous businesses that are un-linked in survival even if under the skin they are.. of course back then even that last part didn't apply.. as a Cadillac didn't share even an engine with a Buick which didn't share one with a Chevy.. or it a Pontiac.. or an Olds. And they ruled automodom.

I say this to people who say Cadillac doesn't need "this.. or that.. because they have Buick.. or Chevy.." I say eff that. Cadillac needs to be a full line division even if they charge $20K more than the same SIZED Chevy. Let me be clear.. I do not want to see a Cadillac SPARK.. or a Cadillac TRAX. Hell I didn't even want to see a Cadillac Volt.. but that happened. What I do want to see is:

The ATS(CT3) in its current configs, but also fleshed out to have a wagon, a coupe, Vert, a hybrid.. and yes.. a tall wagon. Yup.. a RWD/AWD ATS that sits an extra 2 inches off the ground. Call it CTx3. 

The CTS(CT5) in its current configs, but also fleshed out to have a wagon, a coupe, Vert, a hybrid.. no need for a tall wagon. Because we already have the XT5

The CT6 in its current configs, but also fleshed out to have a wagon, a coupe, Vert, a hybrid (check).. and yes.. a tall wagon. Yup.. a RWD/AWD CT6 that sits an extra 2 inches off the ground. Call it XT6.

OK OK.. the names and marketing need some work.. but U get the point.

I don't give a EFF...what some think on this. I'm talking about survival... and upward mobility in vehicles that people want and are clamoring for. All this and the Cadillac brand still wouldn't have anything under $33K. Nothing... Nada.

U see U get those 5K ATS sales by offering more than just a damn sedan and a coupe that U haven't given a commercial spot since 2013. U get those 5K CTS sales that U used to get.. with an extra $10K tacked on by not having a similar priced, but larger, thus THOUGHT TO BE more upscale, XTS sitting right next to it.. cheaper in fact... AND offering a car that USED to offer in a coupe and a wagon.. and enjoyed very nice sales.. in a GOD DAMNED Coupe and a Wagon. 

4 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

US - by whoring out their name on FWD cars shared with Nissan, and chasing cheap leases. 

EU - not if you remove the Crown Vic spec livery market

Who sold more FWD cars in the US last year, Mercedes or Cadillac?

1 hour ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Yes, but in a larger SUV bodied form....not merely raised cars, but SUV bodies with trunks.  Innovation.

Suzuki X-90.  Based on the Suzuki Sidekick / Geo Tracker

3 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Suzuki X-90.  Based on the Suzuki Sidekick / Geo Tracker

I forgot about that one.   Hasn't really been any recent 4dr compact or midsize CUV/SUVs like that, though...

3 hours ago, ccap41 said:

I hate that vehicle so f'n much it's irrational. The stupid fkn "coupe" CUVs are the worst thing that's happened to the auto industry since.. since.. since something bad happened. lol

They're ugly, they're useless, they just don't make any got damn sense!

4 worst vehicles on the road today are the GLC Coupe, GLE Coupe, X4 and X6.

And yet Audi is adding 2 crossover coupes, Land Rover has that Range Rover coupe thing based on the F-pace.  They are building what sells.  I don't like crossovers in general, I would never buy one, but it is what the market wants, and they charge like $8k more for a GLE coupe than they do a regular GLE and it probably costs $1,000 extra to make it.  Easy money.

1 minute ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

I forgot about that one.   Hasn't really been any recent 4dr compact or midsize CUV/SUVs like that, though...

I know.  Neither AMC nor the Subaru Outback SUS are that recent either.  It was more a comment on the idea of what's old is new again when Mercedes fanbois decide that MB has invented something. (See also, Airbag restraints and Anti-Lock Brakes)

2 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I know.  Neither AMC nor the Subaru Outback SUS are that recent either.  It was more a comment on the idea of what's old is new again when Mercedes fanbois decide that MB has invented something. (See also, Airbag restraints and Anti-Lock Brakes)

Yeah...maybe Cadillac can get ahead of them and do XT5 and Escalade sedans.    Or take the idea behind the Evoque convertible and do them one better with an XT5 4dr convertible..or an Escalade landaulet (convertible top over the rear seat and cargo area only). 

1 minute ago, smk4565 said:

And yet Audi is adding 2 crossover coupes, Land Rover has that Range Rover coupe thing based on the F-pace.  They are building what sells.  I don't like crossovers in general, I would never buy one, but it is what the market wants, and they charge like $8k more for a GLE coupe than they do a regular GLE and it probably costs $1,000 extra to make it.  Easy money.

No... that would not be the case. A lot of work goes into creating a modern body shell. Just having a different rear hatch is enough to push that cost over $1,000.

1 minute ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Yeah...maybe Cadillac can get ahead of them and do XT5 and Escalade sedans.

An Escalade Sedan with a trunk? That's an idea I can get behind if Cadillac decided to invent it.... again...

55 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

Its their (BMW/BENZ) formula and for all the hate we put on them they still sell decently for those companies. I personally don't want to see anything from Cadillac but VSeries and Platinums, but I kno that it is unrealistic if I want the brand to survive.. especially in this "cut if not profitable mode." $54K-55K ATPs are only obtainable if customers come on the lot.. so they can be up-sold into something better than the BS price that was advertised. Bottom line is that it is simply good business for GM to look at Cadillac and the rest the same way that Alfred Sloan did.. as autonomous businesses that are un-linked in survival even if under the skin they are.. of course back then even that last part didn't apply.. as a Cadillac didn't share even an engine with a Buick which didn't share one with a Chevy.. or it a Pontiac.. or an Olds. And they ruled automodom.

I say this to people who say Cadillac doesn't need "this.. or that.. because they have Buick.. or Chevy.." I say eff that. Cadillac needs to be a full line division even if they charge $20K more than the same SIZED Chevy. Let me be clear.. I do not want to see a Cadillac SPARK.. or a Cadillac TRAX. Hell I didn't even want to see a Cadillac Volt.. but that happened. What I do want to see is:

The ATS(CT3) in its current configs, but also fleshed out to have a wagon, a coupe, Vert, a hybrid.. and yes.. a tall wagon. Yup.. a RWD/AWD ATS that sits an extra 2 inches off the ground. Call it CTx3. 

The CTS(CT5) in its current configs, but also fleshed out to have a wagon, a coupe, Vert, a hybrid.. no need for a tall wagon. Because we already have the XT5

The CT6 in its current configs, but also fleshed out to have a wagon, a coupe, Vert, a hybrid (check).. and yes.. a tall wagon. Yup.. a RWD/AWD CT6 that sits an extra 2 inches off the ground. Call it XT6.

OK OK.. the names and marketing need some work.. but U get the point.

I don't give a EFF...what some think on this. I'm talking about survival... and upward mobility in vehicles that people want and are clamoring for. All this and the Cadillac brand still wouldn't have anything under $33K. Nothing... Nada.

U see U get those 5K ATS sales by offering more than just a damn sedan and a coupe that U haven't given a commercial spot since 2013. U get those 5K CTS sales that U used to get.. with an extra $10K tacked on by not having a similar priced, but larger, thus THOUGHT TO BE more upscale, XTS sitting right next to it.. cheaper in fact... AND offering a car that USED to offer in a coupe and a wagon.. and enjoyed very nice sales.. in a GOD DAMNED Coupe and a Wagon. 

I agree with the full line idea and who cares what Buick or GMC have, Cadillac should be thought of as the profit machine and get anything they want.  They should have the best crossovers, convertibles, sports cars, etc.  I would hold off on the wagons though, I don't think they'd sell.

And agreed that XT5 is more of a chic car (all the more reason to offer a man's crossover though) and a 390 hp turbo V6 would be plenty of power for that chassis, it beats what Lexus and Acura have and (I never thought I'd say this) it matches the Lincoln MKX ecoboost.  Right now the MKX out muscles them, which is sort of sad.

2 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

I agree with the full line idea and who cares what Buick or GMC have, Cadillac should be thought of as the profit machine and get anything they want.  They should have the best crossovers, convertibles, sports cars, etc.  I would hold off on the wagons though, I don't think they'd sell. 

In some ways, Buick and GMC are really filler brands to keep people from going to the Chevy dealer across the street (which is literally how the stores are in my Phoenix neighborhood--Cadillac/Buick/GMC dealer across the street from the Chevy dealer).

Why is that sad?  The MKX is an excellent vehicle. I'd put it above the MDX and RX, particularly in top trim. 

Just now, Drew Dowdell said:

Why is that sad?  The MKX is an excellent vehicle. I'd put it above the MDX and RX, particularly in top trim. 

It's a Ford Edge.  The sad part is Cadillac losing in performance to anything Lincoln makes.  But Lincoln recently has been increasing sales while Cadillac is losing sales.  

Just now, smk4565 said:

It's a Ford Edge.  The sad part is Cadillac losing in performance to anything Lincoln makes.  But Lincoln recently has been increasing sales while Cadillac is losing sales.  

So what? S-Classes are used as taxis. An excellent platform is an excellent platform.  The Edge and Explorer are both at the top of their game with Explorer being the best seller in its segment.  This generation of MKX no longer has the same body shell as the Edge, so it is unique in that regard.  I too wish that Cadillac would put the 3.6TT in the XT5, but I'm not going to pity Cadillac being beaten in performance by Lincoln when Lincoln is putting out a fantastic product.  

The MDX is a less than mediocre SUV now... I don't know how Acura sells any of them except for people who refuse to look at anything else. Nearly any similarly sized luxury SUV you can name is better than the MDX. Even some of the "consumer" brand SUVs like Explorer and Grand Cherokee are superior in top trim.  I'd even rate the new Acadia Denali better than the MDX and my enthusiasm for the Acadia is about as bright as a night light. My enthusiasm for the XT5 is similarly dim.

Why is the MDX so bad?  Because they used the badly underbaked Pilot platform.  Sure the Pilot is selling okay, but I suspect that it is mostly out of Honda brand loyalty more than anything else. 

MDX v. MKX... two luxury vehicles that share a platform with more plebian models with very different outcomes.