GM's President of North America Says Cadillac Flagship Is On The Table

meaning... they need to platform share with something else.

I agree Platform share with the Aussie full size car or use the Suburban frame for a true full size luxury car.

Reality, I can see a New Full size Unibody that can service the livery business, a large size car for Chevy, Buick and mega lux for Caddilac.

I can think of Sixteen reasons to give such a car the Ciel of approval.

It was a given that the LTS will share a platform somewhere in GM. That is where it will make the engine interesting on how and what they do.

It seems whatever platform replaces Zeta would the appropriate place to build a big Cadillac, a big Chevy to replace the SS and Caprice, a big Holden, and a big Buick for China...

Omega

The wags are NOT going to take kindly to a 'rebadged Chevy' (a Cadillac AND Chevy Omega).

Look at the claptrap we endure RE the LaCrosse / XTS for example here...

I can't believe that such a big company can be so stubborn and obstinate about this.

Cadillac needs to have a flagship vehicle, they cannot be a serious competitor in the market they aspire to be "the standard of" without it. So what if it's expensive. So what if the first generation or two loses money. It will bring people into Cadillac showrooms and have a synergistic effect on the sales of other cars (ATS, CTS, SRX). It will raise the profile and "cred" of the brand which can't do anything bad in the public eye.

It's time to plug in some quarters or leave the phonebooth.

See, I have yet to see the 'trade-up' theory demonstrated. In fact, brand loyalty numbers strictly say otherwise.

While I too would LOVE to see another grand Cadillac flagship in their tradition, I find the entire 'people buy a 1-series because of the 7-series' to be wild speculation.

In other words, I can completely see the BUSINESS case for competing in the entry, mid, full-size, CUV/SUV segments, and still be totally competitive IN THOSE SEGMENTS, and forgo a few hundred/thousand units/yr at a huge loss.

Again- I still am eager to see this proposed Omega flagship, and in the showroom. That's the emotional response...

Seems to me that Cadillac's biggest problem here is that they don't have the same global market that BMW and MB have. That's fine for ATS,CTS, and SRX, but more problematic for the flagship.

Still think that they need to do this though. It would go a long way toward making the doubters take Caddy seriously.

3-Series buyers don't care about the 7. C-Class drivers classify the S as the preferred method of conveyance for dictators.

I'd rather Cadillac put all its dollars into its bread and butter vehicles. Manufacture every Cadillac with the quality and engineering deserving of a flagship before spending money on a totally new project that will not sell in today's economy.

3-Series buyers don't care about the 7. C-Class drivers classify the S as the preferred method of conveyance for dictators.

I'd rather Cadillac put all its dollars into its bread and butter vehicles. Manufacture every Cadillac with the quality and engineering deserving of a flagship before spending money on a totally new project that will not sell in today's economy.

That's one way to look at it.

The other is that Cadillac will never be seen to be on an equal level with its main competitors until it can offer a genuine competitor to the 7 and the S.

It isn't so much that a CTS buyer will lust after the flagship, but that the whole brand's image is lacking because one isn't there.

The brand has something to prove and the flagship level is where that has to be done.

I guess what I'm saying is that they have to prove that they can do it, and the only way is to actually do it.

It's a risk, maybe a dangerous one, but I think it's one they will eventually have to take to get where they want to be.

That's one way to look at it.

The other is that Cadillac will never be seen to be on an equal level with its main competitors until it can offer a genuine competitor to the 7 and the S.

It isn't so much that a CTS buyer will lust after the flagship, but that the whole brand's image is lacking because one isn't there.

The brand has something to prove and the flagship level is where that has to be done.

I don't disagree. But I think it can be argued that BMW built its brand (in North America) on the back of the 3-Series and its predecessors.

Infiniti had a flagship called the Q45. Nobody bought it and Infiniti was regarded as a lame-duck. The goodwill generated after the G35's debut in 2003 is what led Infiniti to become a real luxury car player.

My belief is that the people that don't see Cadillac being an 'equal' brand because it lacks a flagship, won't see it being an 'equal' brand if it has one, either.

^ Well put, Perv.

I see the argument from the 'internet forum contingency', and the handful of people openly shopping in the s-class segment, but EVERYONE ELSE shopping in all the other segments Cadillac is in, I just don't see them caring.

I don't know where the idea of a "Flagship" ever got associated with the XTS. GM never made such a claim or suggestion. The layout, size, powerplant and everything else about the car yells "Lexus ES350". That's not a bad thing, the ES is a huge seller and this can be Cadillac's volume driver. But that has nothing to do with a Flagship.

"The way we're funding Cadillac has been from, sort of, everything else in GM. That leaves the brand with "very reduced scale in terms of individual architectures, engines, technology."

GM should really stop with this crap of constantly keeping this flagship/no-flagship talk in public... Shut the Hell up and don't reply to questions with anything more than "all options are being considered at this point"... Jesus...

Perhaps the word "flagship" gets in the way a bit here.

It implies large, exclusive, and expensive.

Maybe what's missing is just a third size of Cadillac that is clearly the top of the line.

XTS, Escalade, and SRX, are all sort of side business - the legacy of trend.

So, CTS, ATS, and ?

The 7 and the S aren't really two versions of the same formula, perhaps this new Caddy should follow yet another road.

That is a good way to put it. Cadillac needs a third car of bigger size as the market demands, which is better than its competitors. Let the media call it Flagship, Battleship, Mothership or whatever.

I honestly am not averse if it shares bones and muscles with other brands to make a business case for the product. However, it should be a Caddy first before being any other brand.

That's one way to look at it.

The other is that Cadillac will never be seen to be on an equal level with its main competitors until it can offer a genuine competitor to the 7 and the S.

It isn't so much that a CTS buyer will lust after the flagship, but that the whole brand's image is lacking because one isn't there.

The brand has something to prove and the flagship level is where that has to be done.

I don't disagree. But I think it can be argued that BMW built its brand (in North America) on the back of the 3-Series and its predecessors.

Infiniti had a flagship called the Q45. Nobody bought it and Infiniti was regarded as a lame-duck. The goodwill generated after the G35's debut in 2003 is what led Infiniti to become a real luxury car player.

My belief is that the people that don't see Cadillac being an 'equal' brand because it lacks a flagship, won't see it being an 'equal' brand if it has one, either.

Excellent one. One thing I would like to add is BMW, Infiniti started from scratch unlike Cadillac which has over 80 years of history of being a brand on cutting edge of technology, till GM decided to dilute it. So memories of "Cadillac of options", "Cadillac project" will haunt the brand if it does not deliver on the high end.

Bottoms up approach is what Reuss is banking on. If ATS, CTS, and XTS are successful, not only here but around the world, business case can be made for the LTS to the bean counters. However, there is a need for diesel ASAP.

FTS

Starting from scratch is a lot easier than 70 years of great and 30 years of sub par. The issue with today is too few remember the glory years while the rest only remember what you have done for me latley.

the Diesel is important for when they go to Europe again but for here it is really a non factore with the American market.

The Real key is to get the ATS and new CTS to be the class leaders here over the other brands. It is time for Cadillac to take the lead with these cars and not just be as good or just a little better till BMW comes out with a new model in 6 months. They need to advance the brands down the road and far enough ahead that by the time the others catch up they are already to advance the line again.

Time for them to stop playing catch up and take the lead and hold it. This will pave the way for the LTS and other future models.

While this is not the new CTS it looks like the path the CTS will take with a little less squared off hard edges and more rake to the roof.

Taking the lead is easier said than done. I hope that Cadillac CAN do just that, with the current models and future flagship.

Starting from scratch is a lot easier than 70 years of great and 30 years of sub par. The issue with today is too few remember the glory years while the rest only remember what you have done for me latley.

the Diesel is important for when they go to Europe again but for here it is really a non factore with the American market.

The Real key is to get the ATS and new CTS to be the class leaders here over the other brands. It is time for Cadillac to take the lead with these cars and not just be as good or just a little better till BMW comes out with a new model in 6 months. They need to advance the brands down the road and far enough ahead that by the time the others catch up they are already to advance the line again.

Time for them to stop playing catch up and take the lead and hold it. This will pave the way for the LTS and other future models.

While this is not the new CTS it looks like the path the CTS will take with a little less squared off hard edges and more rake to the roof.

It's beautiful - and that comes from a sedan hater who really isn't too interested in luxury cars. If Caddy can up their design mojo to this level - even I might take notice.

NOTE: For those who do not know, the "ZTS" pictured above is the fine work of our own Dodgefan.

Starting from scratch is a lot easier than 70 years of great and 30 years of sub par. The issue with today is too few remember the glory years while the rest only remember what you have done for me latley.

the Diesel is important for when they go to Europe again but for here it is really a non factore with the American market.

The Real key is to get the ATS and new CTS to be the class leaders here over the other brands. It is time for Cadillac to take the lead with these cars and not just be as good or just a little better till BMW comes out with a new model in 6 months. They need to advance the brands down the road and far enough ahead that by the time the others catch up they are already to advance the line again.

Time for them to stop playing catch up and take the lead and hold it. This will pave the way for the LTS and other future models.

While this is not the new CTS it looks like the path the CTS will take with a little less squared off hard edges and more rake to the roof.

It's beautiful - and that comes from a sedan hater who really isn't too interested in luxury cars. If Caddy can up their design mojo to this level - even I might take notice.

NOTE: For those who do not know, the "ZTS" pictured above is the fine work of our own Dodgefan.

The only issue is you are not the target market. You have got to go to the bulk of the buyers not the fringe.

The bulk of the market are like the independent voters. They are the ones who determines who wins and not the die hard supporters. It is not fair but that is how it works.

Please.

Beautiful design is beautiful design.

No fringe required

Please.

Beautiful design is beautiful design.

No fringe required

To you and I but to the masses anymore they have other ideas. Form and function both have to work anymore. This is how you can account for things like the Cube, IQ and Fit.

It is sad but the truth is many classics today would not happen due to the wants and needs of todays public. Just look at the love hate on the CTS Coupe here let alone in the unwashed masses.

So, you are saying that nothing can make it in the market if it is beautifully designed?

Dodgefan's ZTS is well within Cadillac's A&S design language.

Not radical, not quirky, just beautiful.

How did the cube & IQ get into this discussion??

DF's ZTS is no more non-functonal (from what we see) than any other luxury sedan, and the form is striking.

That fits hyper's 'unwashed masses' demands' criteria perfectly.

BTW, in Jan '12, the cube sold a paltry 461 units.

5500 units/yr is NOT the choice of the 'unwashed masses'; it's being solidly rejected.

One can ONLY assume that here, FORM, is a decisive factor.

My point is from drawing that has little to no real measurments to real world they have to change. Case in point G6 drawings to production car.

The point of the Cube [they did sell them more than in just 2012] Fit and IQ is to point out function with many buyers is passing up form. Today companies can sell a cube but then they complain about the rear view out of the CTS. In days of old they would be willing to look through a periscope to drive a good looking car. Today they whine if the c pillar is too big.

There is nothing wrong with the so called ZTS to this point as it is not a real car. Once put to sheetmetal often roofs have to be raised etc. Neither of us can argue about a drawing. My only point is look around and for the most part people do not place styling at the top of the list when buying a car anymore. It used to be one of the top two but now I feel has slipped to 4th-5th on the list. Things like price, function, MPG and Ergo have passed up styling. If this were not true would we have all the garbage on the roads today?

Car companies have to stand the middle ground and try to please both. A little styling matched with the other things most buyers want. Lutz has challanged GM to push things more than they have but there is still a little holding back with some of the styling. Anymore design has become a damn'ed if you do and Damn'ed if you don't thing. I am all for pushing it but the reality of the market does not agree with me.

And no I am not going to argue over the ZTS as it is not even a GM drawing. A very nice one but not even one that is in play. Now oncw we see a full on CTS and we either like or dislike game on.

In days of old they would be willing to look through a periscope to drive a good looking car.

Have you checked Camaro sales numbers, AT ALL?

And the less dramatic Mustang is right there with it.

The A&S toned down by Lutz will be less polarizing but still effective to make a great styling statment. Taking a little of the hard lines back and smoothing the roof line will only open the appeal more. The last CTS was pretty much a love hate design. Todays CTS has wider appeal and the next I expect will have more with a laid back roof line.

"The way we're funding Cadillac has been from, sort of, everything else in GM. That leaves the brand with "very reduced scale in terms of individual architectures, engines, technology."

I think that is the telling statement, Ruess is admitting that Cadillac is basically a parts bin brand. I don't think he wants it that way, but the financials dictate it. I believe he also knows that the parts bin isn't going to cut it in that upper echelon of sedans. And will the beancounters give the money for low economy of scale architectures, engines and technology.

Mercedes and BMW are parts bin brands both.

^ Don't forget audi- going on big time there.

Yes, but I think SMK would admit that.

Audi does run parts bin, but mainly off the 2.0T engine. The 3.0 supercharged V6 isn't really seen elsewhere, and the 4.0 V8 wasn't either until Bentley got a differently tuned version for the Continental this year. Audi does have an 8-speed transmission that VW doesn't have, and that modular platform thing is more for them and not VW. The A3 is the only Audi with a lot of VW gear in it. Most of Audi parts share is with Porsche, Bentley and Lamborghini, which isn't a bad thing.

Audi also doesn't have the cache that BMW or Mercedes have, here or anywhere else really. Audi wins in China because the government loves them and they do cost less than Mercedes.

I am not sure what parts bin Mercedes is sharing with. I didn't know the E-class got it's platform, engine, and transmission from a $25,000 family sedan. Mercedes and BMW are unique in that they don't have many global partnerships, aside from some strategic alliances.

I do think that Cadillac needs to decide if they are a Contender or a Pretender. They have talked for years, let's see action. I do believe they need a flagship car, look at how weak Lincoln, Acura and even Infiniti are without one. Infiniti has 2 strong cars in the G and M, yet they can't crack the German stronghold. It doesn't matter how good the ATS and CTS are, without any halo vehicles or image builders it is going to be a long road to standard of the world.

But Cadillac also has to go big or go home here, they can't run another Allante or XLR-V out there to bomb. It needs to be done right, which will cost a load of money, but I think worth it for the brand in the long run.

And the less dramatic Mustang is right there with it.

The point (since you missed it) is that people STILL are willing to 'look thru a periscope to drive a good looking car'. Hence : Camaro.

Fact is of course that modern cars, and here let's stick with the most comparable units; Camaro & Mustang, are harder on fields of vision than their early ancestors. Therefore, even the "less dramatic" Mustang is, relatively speaking, pulling in buyers who are willing to accept trade-offs to drive a good looking car.

Mustang and Camaro are far from the luxury car market. And most big luxury sedans are not aggressively styled, they are more sedate and elegant. Plus I would say if Cadillac wants to sell an $80-100,000 sedan, there better not be many trade offs in it. At that price point buyers aren't going to want compromises.

"The way we're funding Cadillac has been from, sort of, everything else in GM. That leaves the brand with "very reduced scale in terms of individual architectures, engines, technology."

I think that is the telling statement, Ruess is admitting that Cadillac is basically a parts bin brand. I don't think he wants it that way, but the financials dictate it. I believe he also knows that the parts bin isn't going to cut it in that upper echelon of sedans. And will the beancounters give the money for low economy of scale architectures, engines and technology.

I agree that Ruess' statement is telling, but I heard a slightly different story than you did in his words. To me it sounds like the Cadillac budget is stolen from the other brands (makes me wonder what they have lost because of it). That doesn't necessarily mean that Cadillac is a "parts bin brand". It does, however, make Cadillac a drain on the other brands.

I have no problem with them building a car for Cadillac and then sharing some of it with lesser cars.

I agree that Ruess' statement is telling, but I heard a slightly different story than you did in his words. To me it sounds like the Cadillac budget is stolen from the other brands (makes me wonder what they have lost because of it). That doesn't necessarily mean that Cadillac is a "parts bin brand". It does, however, make Cadillac a drain on the other brands.

Cadillac shouldn't be a drain, they are supposed to be the crown jewel. If GM can't fund 4 brands, then GM didn't cut enough of them in bankruptcy. After Chevy, the #1 priority of GM (globally) needs to be Cadillac.

Nearly every car that is regular production is to some degree a parts bin car as that is just the way it is today with most MFG.

As for budget Cadillac does not support GM, Pick up trucks support GM as does Chevy in general just due to volume. Cadillac is moving to become a low volume MFG but they just can't charge the price yet to support themselves. I think that Mark was just letting it be known that Cadillac still has work to do and do not be suprised to see a version of the Gen V Chevy powering the car. While not a bad thing it is not what they really want but sometimes you have to you just have to take the best you have and make due. Now that does not mean that I do not believe GM should not take this engine and do a special verison only available in the Flagship. Also I feel in place of the cheap plastic covers they should full dress the engine in polished aluminum and poweder coat. Dressing up that engine is would go a long way to present it in a premium form. Hell they dressed up my Fiero 2.8 V6 in red powder coated aluminum and stainless 12 point bolts and made it look unlike any GM engine offered. The key was it still was pretty much the Citation engine but the dress up made it look like a much better and advance engine than it was.

I hate to say it but GM was in a bind. They need Chevy as this is their volume line and their new global mainstay. They need to save Cadillac as they will need to get back to the Luxury market. To save Cadillac on a limited budget will take more time but it would be even more expensive and difficult to relaunch Cadillac at a later time. As for Buick and GMC they are brands GM has to have because GMC is pure profit and Buick is paying it's way in China.

Sharing parts for Cadillac is a given and there is no way around it. They just need to make sure they use only the best needed parts. It is not a sin to use shared parts but it is a sin to use the wrong parts as it sends a bad message. Example the ZR1 Corvette had the same steering wheel as my HHR SS. While it gives me a cool factor to my HHR it is a down right shame to see this in a 100K Vette. For that kind of many it would not be that great expense to have a supplier [Momo] make a special wheel for this car. If you want the HHR wheel in the regular Vette that is fine but not in the top level car you want to make a statment with. This was just as bad as the Vega wheel in the 1977 Vette.

The key to the flagship is while it may share parts do not let any show that may give away where it came from in the first place. The only things it should share that can be seen are things shared with the ATS, CTS or XTS. This would help reflect a division shared heritage.

Anyway I see a shared engine and shared Omega platform coming and if done right they can pull it off if you can tell what is shared it will fail.

The Omega Cadillac must be more of everything. Longer wheelbase and overall length. Special engine and suspension parts. No shared exterior body panels, just windshield and laminated front door glass shared between Cadillac and lesser Omega platform mates. And of course the finest interior GM can build.

It's the only way.

If GMC is pure profit, then GM should have plenty of money to send Cadillac's way. I am not so convinced that GMC is the cash cow many think it is, they are basically running a whole separate marketing campaign to sell what Chevy already does. Buick sells the Verano, LaCrosse and Enclave which are all Chevy under the skin and the Regal came from Opel. And they are selling in China, so where is all GM's money going? And why would GM put money to mid-levels like Buick and GMC or money losing Opel, and keep it from Cadillac? Chevy because volume is GM's most important brand, but Cadillac is their icon and really should be the leader of GM.

I suspect GM could afford to give Cadillac what it needs, but chooses not to. And if they can't afford to give Cadillac the money they need, they still have too many models and too many brands.

If you look at the S-class range, it does it all. You can get 31 mpg, or 0-60 in 4 seconds, 4-matic and adjustable height suspension makes it work in snow or mud, it has ride, handling, technology, luxury, etc. It does everything well, so if Cadillac wants to go there, they need a car that does everything well.

If GMC is pure profit, then GM should have plenty of money to send Cadillac's way. I am not so convinced that GMC is the cash cow many think it is, they are basically running a whole separate marketing campaign to sell what Chevy already does. Buick sells the Verano, LaCrosse and Enclave which are all Chevy under the skin and the Regal came from Opel. And they are selling in China, so where is all GM's money going? And why would GM put money to mid-levels like Buick and GMC or money losing Opel, and keep it from Cadillac? Chevy because volume is GM's most important brand, but Cadillac is their icon and really should be the leader of GM.

I suspect GM could afford to give Cadillac what it needs, but chooses not to. And if they can't afford to give Cadillac the money they need, they still have too many models and too many brands.

They need to cut the GMC budget by 90%. GMC existed for decades on a minimal budget doing rebadges of Chevys. GM does not need two full line truck/SUV/CUV brands.

Small problem, Cubical: If GMC were to be terminated tomorrow, GMC buyers would buy FORD trucks, not Chevy trucks. That is the real reason GMC survived: too much profit on the table to say no.

As for Cadillac, yes a flagship is required. The only problem is where the growth is for Cadillac. Europe is nearly impregnable thanks to the Germans (and to a lesser extent Jaguar/Land Rover). China is helpful, but the current government is bent on ensuring that nothing leaves there except exported product (rather than repatriated profits). Our current corporate tax code is of no help either on this regard. I doubt that Latin America will be a major source of growth since those markets seem to prefer either rugged trucks or relatively small cars (and the elites probably buy German anyways). So what is Cadillac to do to solve the real problem of sales growth outside of NA?