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

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.

That's something I've never understood..why would they go for a very different Ford rather than a Chevy that is virtually identical to a GMC...People are weird. I still see no reason for GM to have two truck brands...Ford and Chrysler each have one truck brand and don't need a redundant brand--they offer their trucks in a wide range of trims from stripped to loaded, Chevy could do the same thing.

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.

That makes no sense. The Sierra and Silverado look the same (sans grille and badge change), drive the same, ride the same, handle the same, have the same equipment and features and cost the same. Why would a Sierra driver go to Ford for something different? Ford cut Mercury, I didn't see every Mercury driver flee to Chevrolet. And the ones that did leave the brand were probably going to leave even if Mercury had stayed.

I'd like to see GM post profit of each brand to see who really makes the money. Really if you put 50% of GMT900 development cost on GMC, they are losing money.

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.

That makes no sense. The Sierra and Silverado look the same (sans grille and badge change), drive the same, ride the same, handle the same, have the same equipment and features and cost the same. Why would a Sierra driver go to Ford for something different? Ford cut Mercury, I didn't see every Mercury driver flee to Chevrolet. And the ones that did leave the brand were probably going to leave even if Mercury had stayed.

I'd like to see GM post profit of each brand to see who really makes the money. Really if you put 50% of GMT900 development cost on GMC, they are losing money.

I think GMC is one of those cases of the triumph of marketing over substance. They are very much like Mercury in that case.

Trucks are simply a different demographic than cars. It's a different type of buyer.

WRT Chevy trucks & GMC... don't look at it as 2 different brands that are mostly alike.... look at it as 1 brand with different trims.... THEN look at Ford's truck portfolio.

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.

That's something I've never understood..why would they go for a very different Ford rather than a Chevy that is virtually identical to a GMC...People are weird. I still see no reason for GM to have two truck brands...Ford and Chrysler each have one truck brand and don't need a redundant brand--they offer their trucks in a wide range of trims from stripped to loaded, Chevy could do the same thing.

Agreed. Then maybe the F150 won't spend the next 30 years kicking the Silverado's ass, as it has done for the past 30 years. I would guess the F150 is more profitable than the Silverado and Sierra combined are, because they advertise once for it and buy one set of parts for it, and they got people paying $1000 extra over the cost of a V8 for a V6.

Trucks are simply a different demographic than cars. It's a different type of buyer.

WRT Chevy trucks & GMC... don't look at it as 2 different brands that are mostly alike.... look at it as 1 brand with different trims.... THEN look at Ford's truck portfolio.

Ford doesn't have to print 2 brochures, run 2 websites, have 2 customer service lines, have 2 sets of office personnel or run 2 different marketing campaigns. If it is one brand, they should just have Chevy trucks and a Denali trim option, and close GMC dealerships down.

Trucks are simply a different demographic than cars. It's a different type of buyer.

WRT Chevy trucks & GMC... don't look at it as 2 different brands that are mostly alike.... look at it as 1 brand with different trims.... THEN look at Ford's truck portfolio.

Ford doesn't have to print 2 brochures, run 2 websites, have 2 customer service lines, have 2 sets of office personnel or run 2 different marketing campaigns. If it is one brand, they should just have Chevy trucks and a Denali trim option, and close GMC dealerships down.

What are you talking about?? Ford prints a brochure for EACH truck line. More than 1 website can easily be run by the same person/team, same deal with 'office personnel' AND marketing campaigns.

It's not one brand, but for those unable to wrap their minds around the reality of the scenario, just please imagine it is.

Trucks are simply a different demographic than cars. It's a different type of buyer.

WRT Chevy trucks & GMC... don't look at it as 2 different brands that are mostly alike.... look at it as 1 brand with different trims.... THEN look at Ford's truck portfolio.

Doesn't really work that way, though, because other than the Denali, Chevy and GMCs trims overlap each other...and they are sold in different dealers, unlike Fords.

Figuratively.....

GMC owners will not flee to Ford. As a three time GMC owner and with many firends who also have been GMC owners we buy them because we like the grill better than the Chevy. It is just that simple. Now that they are doing body panels a little different we go for that. The wife liked the truck look of the Terrain over the Nox with the latest.

Either way other than the few small changes they have made a profitable Chevy even more profitiable higher priced GMC.

The only way out of this is not to kill GMC but to make it a trim level within the truck line. I see little need for many of the low end GMC models as most are mid level and up, Just let Chevy have the low end and use the higher models as up scale GM trucks. We already have many dealers selling Chevy and GMC on the same lots now. since the dealer shake up.

Lutz said the one mistake he made with Hummer is to make it a brand vs a GMC model. It would be much easier to manage that way and cheaper to change and mold to the market needs. GMC could do the same.

When I have owned a Chevy truck it has always been a mid level trim but each one of my GMC;s have been loaded top line models. Look around and you will find that most others only buy mid to top line GMC models and there are few base models sold anylonger.

Personally, I always thought GMC wasn't needed, but I doubt they are going anywhere. We are led to believe that GMC is profitable, as are the four brands that survived bankruptcy. So if all these brands are needed, and making money, then GM should have enough money to give Cadillac what they need.

CTS and ATS will share a platform, Omega can be the second. Two exclusive platforms for Cadillac is very little to ask, especially when Alpha will probably produce a Chevy. Cadillac needs their own engine also, and other technologies and equipment not seen on other GM cars. They stuff on Cadillac can trickle down when they replace that model.

Let's not forget a couple of things:

1) GM is still paying off the past.

2) Without GMC, many a Buick dealer would disappear.

The situation between Chevy and GMC trucks is just one of those quirks in GM's history - one that just happens to work profitwise.

This is one instance where GM has been smart enough to follow the simple logic of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Personally, I always thought GMC wasn't needed, but I doubt they are going anywhere. We are led to believe that GMC is profitable, as are the four brands that survived bankruptcy. So if all these brands are needed, and making money, then GM should have enough money to give Cadillac what they need.

CTS and ATS will share a platform, Omega can be the second. Two exclusive platforms for Cadillac is very little to ask, especially when Alpha will probably produce a Chevy. Cadillac needs their own engine also, and other technologies and equipment not seen on other GM cars. They stuff on Cadillac can trickle down when they replace that model.

BMW is sharing platforms, and Mercedes has already started sharing its platforms and engines with Ghosn. Soon to be found the 3.5L V6 in your local Nissan dealer. The harsh reality is despite your favorite brands have more than five times the sales of Cadillac, they need help from others to survive. With margins getting thin as paper, the automakers have two options increase the price every year or share components. BMW is doing both.

Mercedes uses its V6 from the Sprinter in the E-class

The Mercedes-Nissan/Renault alliance doesn't mean the Nissan V6 is going to Mercedes. Mercedes is going to have Nissan build turbo fours (of Mercedes design) in Tennessee to be used n C-class production in Alabama and for use on future Infinitis. Then there will be platform sharing on the next Smart car and Renault Twingo, and Infiniti is supposed to get an A-class based car. There will also be joint powertrain development for 3-cyldiner engines for Smart and Renault. So the partnership is about compact cars and a Europe-only entry level van.

I pulled this from egmcartech.com

"All rear-wheel drive Benzes of the future will be based on their new global Mercedes Rear-wheel drive Architecture, or MRA. This means that it is subdivided into 93 different modules with the only two fixed points being the front and rear firewalls, leaving different axles and drivetrains to be applied."

Right now Mercedes uses different platforms for the sedans, another for sports cars, another for the ML and GL. So this will allow them to put all the sedans and SUVs on a common platform to give them economies of scale needed. Cadillac could do the same with Alpha and Omega. If they make enough ways to vary length, width, etc, the ATS, CTS, big sedan, SRX, Escalade, etc could all be build off them.

IMHO the million dollar question is "how does Cadillac build scale"? Emphasis on the word how

IMHO the million dollar question is "how does Cadillac build scale"? Emphasis on the word how

By building a car good enough to sell over seas. With better product they can grow a little in the USA, but they need a global winner to get sales. Which is why they need a flagship car to be taken seriously over seas.

IMHO the million dollar question is "how does Cadillac build scale"? Emphasis on the word how

By building a car good enough to sell over seas. With better product they can grow a little in the USA, but they need a global winner to get sales. Which is why they need a flagship car to be taken seriously over seas.

Dude, did you actually get his question? Emphasis on the word "get".

The GMC question is well answered by the dealer I bought my new GMC from. I have a friend who helps out there once in a while and this is what he has to share.

The dealer is one of few GMC only dealers in the country, yes that is all they sell is new GMC vehicles and have done so since losing Pontiac.

As of now they are suviving well and making great pofits with sales to the public and getting vehicles in that they get first choice on and selling to other dealers.

They are able to sell at a good price and still make a large profit per vehicle. Per GM they are showing more profit than the Chevy/Buick dealer 2 miles from them. GM wants to give them the Buick dealer but they are not sure if they want it as the Buick sales at the other dealer are not all that great. Once Buick get more and updated product they may change their mind. But even losing Pontiac did not hurt them nearly as they had expected. They though after building a new building to GM spec and then losing Pontiac it would be the end but so far the GMC models have held them in place and making money.

IMHO the million dollar question is "how does Cadillac build scale"? Emphasis on the word how

I think this is the BIllion Dollar Question.

I think this is the BIllion Dollar Question.

Interestingly, I don't think that sharing Thetas/Epsilons is the way to get there... There might be other alternatives... What Cadillac still needs is a clear focus and then aim for that focal point.

IMHO the million dollar question is "how does Cadillac build scale"? Emphasis on the word how

By building a car good enough to sell over seas. With better product they can grow a little in the USA, but they need a global winner to get sales. Which is why they need a flagship car to be taken seriously over seas.

You don't sell a flagship in volume. You sell 3-series and C-class size cars in volume... which is what Cadillac has in the ATS.

^ Agreed - the whole flagship mantra is overblown.

The 7-series doesn't sell a single 3-series.

I think this is the BIllion Dollar Question.

Interestingly, I don't think that sharing Thetas/Epsilons is the way to get there... There might be other alternatives... What Cadillac still needs is a clear focus and then aim for that focal point.

That was my point they need billions yet to help transform them to where they need to go.

IMHO the million dollar question is "how does Cadillac build scale"? Emphasis on the word how

By building a car good enough to sell over seas. With better product they can grow a little in the USA, but they need a global winner to get sales. Which is why they need a flagship car to be taken seriously over seas.

You don't sell a flagship in volume. You sell 3-series and C-class size cars in volume... which is what Cadillac has in the ATS.

That has been my point all along. The modern BMW was built from the bottom up with the 3 series. The Flagships are to get attention, showcase technology that is tricked down and bring in extra income

nothing more.

The future growth of Cadillac will lie mostly with the ATS and the new CTS.

I think this is the BIllion Dollar Question.

Interestingly, I don't think that sharing Thetas/Epsilons is the way to get there... There might be other alternatives... What Cadillac still needs is a clear focus and then aim for that focal point.

I don't think it is either, but that's an approach that has been successful for Lexus--their two highest volume models (RX,ES) are on generic FWD platforms, and they use RWD platforms for their more serious models. So it is an approach that has precident in the market.

^ interesting that BMW / MB are followers on that business model...

IMHO the million dollar question is "how does Cadillac build scale"? Emphasis on the word how

By building a car good enough to sell over seas. With better product they can grow a little in the USA, but they need a global winner to get sales. Which is why they need a flagship car to be taken seriously over seas.

You don't sell a flagship in volume. You sell 3-series and C-class size cars in volume... which is what Cadillac has in the ATS.

That is what I meant, ATS, CTS and a flagship together that are good enough for people outside the USA to want to buy one. Even if the ATS is good, there is still no image behind it, they need the whole package.

^ interesting that BMW / MB are followers on that business model...

No. BMW/MB are using FWD only for subcompact and compact entry level models...they aren't using them for SUVs or regular sedans (yet).

^ That's the sentiment spoken 5 years ago when anyone suggested BMW build ANYTHING that was FWD.

BMW internal data shows their buyers WANT FWD; it'll spread.

Even if the ATS is good, there is still no image behind it, they need the whole package.

Image comes with time - BMW had ZERO image when they started importing here, and mercedes had next to nothing.

Things change.

That is what I meant, ATS, CTS and a flagship together that are good enough for people outside the USA to want to buy one. Even if the ATS is good, there is still no image behind it, they need the whole package.

I don't think Europeans necessarily have higher standards than North America. What they do have, is a strong attachment to brands that are from their continent.

The ATS could best the BMW 3 in every way and it would still not sell in Germany if it even came oiled with the blood of Charlemagne.

BMW built its image on very expensive RWD Volkswagen Jettas without the reliability.

You guys want to knock BMW and Mercedes, yet Cadillac is powerless to compete with them head on. And without a flagship sedan, what is Cadillac doing to try to catch up. The CTS has been here 10 years and with no impact. Cadillac sales are lower now than 10 years ago. Meanwhile the past couple years BMW and Mercedes have had their best years ever. Mercedes has been around 125 years (they invented the car after all), and 2011 was their best year. Cadillac's best days were 55 years ago.

Whether you like it or not, the CTS is a solid contender in it's segment, and the V has put the german twins on notice. Cadillac wasn't even in this segment before the CTS (OK; and the Catera)- since then its' taken marketshare from the german twins in this market.

Sales are fine to chase.... if you're VW or Ford or toyoyo, but it shouldn't be the direction a lux brand focuses on.

Building garbage trucks, cargo vans, minivans and tens of thousands of fleet vehicles doesn't make nor improve your image. mercedees didn't make it in this country by doing that before (tho they did spend decades 'Americanizing' their tinny, plain sedans), but some of that they do here now, and they've massively ramped that up overseas. Now image-crumbling FWD econoboxes are on the way, and more than 1. All to chase volume.

'Mercedes-Benz' only has 85-some years under their belt- the 2 were independent & competing companies before 1926. It'd be the same thing if Chevy & Ford merged and said they dated to 1902. I don't see how that can be ignored.

And they didn't "invent" the car; numerous self-propelled vehicles were designed / built far earlier.

But thanks for the quotes from mercedees.com.

That was my point they need billions yet to help transform them to where they need to go.

Exactly, but for that money to work long-term they'll need to stop building DTS/XTS over and over again and. Cadillac might need to be subsisdized by the rest of GM and to me the scale side should be covered from sharing mostly within Cadillac itself.

That was my point they need billions yet to help transform them to where they need to go.

Exactly, but for that money to work long-term they'll need to stop building DTS/XTS over and over again and. Cadillac might need to be subsisdized by the rest of GM and to me the scale side should be covered from sharing mostly within Cadillac itself, but it's all about focus, focus, focus...

That was my point they need billions yet to help transform them to where they need to go.

Exactly, but for that money to work long-term they'll need to stop building DTS/XTS over and over again and. Cadillac might need to be subsisdized by the rest of GM and to me the scale side should be covered from sharing mostly within Cadillac itself.

Read the review of the XTS in Autoweek and it sums up the whole idea of the XTS that I have been saying all along.

I would not get too attached to the XTS as I suspect it will not live long and if it does it be as a Service car like the old Fleetwood limo Chassies used to.

I would not get too attached to the XTS as I suspect it will not live long and if it does it be as a Service car like the old Fleetwood limo Chassies used to.

Hope it will; if it won't then better aim for a Chevrolet/Buick GM lineup and forget about Cadillac.

I would not get too attached to the XTS as I suspect it will not live long and if it does it be as a Service car like the old Fleetwood limo Chassies used to.

Cadillac is taking the XTS off the retail market??

XTS would be particularly unsuited for such unless completely discontented. I do not remotely see that happening.

I would not get too attached to the XTS as I suspect it will not live long and if it does it be as a Service car like the old Fleetwood limo Chassies used to.

Cadillac is taking the XTS off the retail market??

XTS would be particularly unsuited for such unless completely discontented. I do not remotely see that happening.

The XTS main work was done long ago and GM pulled it off the shelf and finished it to fill in gaps in the line up. Cadillac is a few years from filling in with other cars and the XTS as it is now is a stop gap. In could in time turn into a Town Car and have majority sales in the livery fleet sales unit to protect the CTS, ATS and LTS from needing to be turned into to fleet whores.

Cadillac is going down the same road Porsche did in the late 80's. They need to turn their lines into lower volume, higher priced and higher profit cars. Porsche tried with the 944 and 924 and do as Cadillac the volume game and that did not work for them and has not worked for Cadillac. Just look at the resale of anything that is not a truck based SUV or V series now.

I see the XTS as a tool to make the remaining DTS lovers happy and to fill in for the livery market. I see it as like the Captiva of the Cadillac line. Autoweek also echo'd this though.

The XTS is not going to be a bad car as Autoweek has pointed out but it also does not fully represent the full futre and direction of Cadillac. I expect the XTS to be phased out or transformed to the next level at the end of this models life.

Great car no but a very good car and one that will support the team till better can be found or developed. It is the one to carry the volume load till they can get Cadillac to the point it can move up to where they need to be.

The XTS life wil be multi tasked and transitional. How long it lives depends on how well it does with the task it was given. If Cadillac was a football team think of the XTS as an offensive tackel. While it is not a high profile place to play it is still important in supporting the star running back and quarterback. It may not be all pro but it is the best option available at this time. Will GM upgrade this tackle? I expect they will but they have many other things Cadillac needs to do first.

Only the first step to Cadillacs future has been shown in the ATS. The next will be the CTS and LTS but we still have some time to kill till we get them. Rebuilding Cadillac will take more time and there are no other options other than to ride it out with the work you have in hand till the rest is ready.

The XTS is the life boat from DTS to the future.

I would not get too attached to the XTS as I suspect it will not live long and if it does it be as a Service car like the old Fleetwood limo Chassies used to.

Cadillac is taking the XTS off the retail market??

XTS would be particularly unsuited for such unless completely discontented. I do not remotely see that happening.

The XTS main work was done long ago and GM pulled it off the shelf and finished it to fill in gaps in the line up. Cadillac is a few years from filling in with other cars and the XTS as it is now is a stop gap. In could in time turn into a Town Car and have majority sales in the livery fleet sales unit to protect the CTS, ATS and LTS from needing to be turned into to fleet whores.

Cadillac is going down the same road Porsche did in the late 80's. They need to turn their lines into lower volume, higher priced and higher profit cars. Porsche tried with the 944 and 924 and do as Cadillac the volume game and that did not work for them and has not worked for Cadillac. Just look at the resale of anything that is not a truck based SUV or V series now.

I see the XTS as a tool to make the remaining DTS lovers happy and to fill in for the livery market. I see it as like the Captiva of the Cadillac line. Autoweek also echo'd this though.

The XTS is not going to be a bad car as Autoweek has pointed out but it also does not fully represent the full futre and direction of Cadillac. I expect the XTS to be phased out or transformed to the next level at the end of this models life.

Great car no but a very good car and one that will support the team till better can be found or developed. It is the one to carry the volume load till they can get Cadillac to the point it can move up to where they need to be.

The XTS life wil be multi tasked and transitional. How long it lives depends on how well it does with the task it was given. If Cadillac was a football team think of the XTS as an offensive tackel. While it is not a high profile place to play it is still important in supporting the star running back and quarterback. It may not be all pro but it is the best option available at this time. Will GM upgrade this tackle? I expect they will but they have many other things Cadillac needs to do first.

Only the first step to Cadillacs future has been shown in the ATS. The next will be the CTS and LTS but we still have some time to kill till we get them. Rebuilding Cadillac will take more time and there are no other options other than to ride it out with the work you have in hand till the rest is ready.

The XTS is the life boat from DTS to the future.

Excellent point made that I totally agree with.

Whether you like it or not, the CTS is a solid contender in it's segment, and the V has put the german twins on notice. Cadillac wasn't even in this segment before the CTS (OK; and the Catera)- since then its' taken marketshare from the german twins in this market.

The CTS (1st and 2nd generation) was sized and priced to compete with Infiniti G, Lexus ES, Lincoln MKZ, and Acura TL. And I agree it is a very solid contender against those cars, better than all but the G37, and the G37 is a bit rough around the edges, the CTS is better than that car in many ways also. CTS isn't competing against an E-class no matter how much Cadillac wishes it was, E-class costs more than the STS did. And an Audi S6 does 0-60 in 3.7 seconds, and gets 17/26 mpg. That is quicker than a CTS-V and only 1 mpg less than a V6 CTS. If the CTS wants to really play with the German trio, and I hope it does, Cadillac needs to step it up.

Size is irrelevant (they're close enough not to matter- not every car in each segment needs to be within 2" of the mean dimension). People don't shop with a tape measure. e-class Is in a different price bracket, c-class is much closer. ES, MKZ, and TL are FWD- isn't that your 'go-to' argument precluding being 'competitive'??? [insert giant red 'X' & erroneous buzzing sound]

'no one buys audis' , so they "don't compete" either ['go-to' weapon #2 : another giant red 'X' & erroneous buzzing sound]. Base A6 comes with the same 4-banger the A3 and everything in between comes with, CTS is still either a 6 or an 8. Audi had better step it up the next gen, if they want to be taken seriously.

Well the C-class, A4 and 3-series could be thrown into that entry lux mix, but the 3-series is not being cross shopped with a Lexus ES or Lincoln. The CTS being a Cadillac does attract some old buyers that are looking for soft ride and not performance or that like domestics and would consider a Lincoln. In that regard the G37 is probably a bit too sporty for most CTS buyers, the Genesis is actually closer to the CTS than the G37 is in terms of ride/handling balance.

Audi sales are okay, they beat Acura, Lincoln and Infiniti and are pretty close with Cadillac. Audi just can't match BMW or Mercedes. The base A6 gets 25/33 mpg, so I can see why they offer that engine. VW has to play the CAFE game too, and some buyers rate fuel economy very high. They do offer a V6 and a V8, so they cover all bases. Audi gets a lot of good press from the car magazines and Audi cleans up in China also, their Chinese sales alone are about Cadillac's total global output. So they're doing fine, although I don't really care for them and wouldn't buy one.

Old buyers looking for the floaty ride of old Lincoln's are NOT going to be happy in a CTS, so they're non-factors.

CTS is a better driving/ riding/ handling/ braking car than the G37- but they are certainly close enough to be actively cross-shopped. G37 is also down on lux features, has a relatively cramped interior & requires premium.

A6 "doesn't compete" because it's FWD.

Old buyers looking for the floaty ride of old Lincoln's are NOT going to be happy in a CTS, so they're non-factors.

CTS is a better driving/ riding/ handling/ braking car than the G37- but they are certainly close enough to be actively cross-shopped. G37 is also down on lux features, has a relatively cramped interior & requires premium.

A6 "doesn't compete" because it's FWD.

I had a G37 rental for several days last year, and I've driven the CTS 3.6. The G37 is much quicker and it corners better too, but the transmission is really jerky and either wants to be in 1st, 2nd or 7th (conversely the Mercedes I drove with a 7-speed is the best transmission i ever experienced). The G37's ride is okay, CTS is a bit softer and smoother, and the CTS has more features. I would take a CTS over a G37, the G37 is too rough around the edges and a terrible transmission, and that is what makes BMW so good, they give you the performance without the roughness.

Cadillac's average buyer is 57, BMW and Audi are around 48. To me, Cadillac still has an old person image that they need to shake, and they need to get younger people in the door, the ATS hopefully can. They need a flagship sedan also to trickle down technology to cars like the CTS. Because the stuff these $100,000 have that 5 years later ends up on $40-50,000 cars can't be introduced on a car like the CTS.

^ ABA numbers are all over the place. I just saw one for MB from 2007, and it was 63.4.

Fact is, the ABA overall is 51, so IF Cadillac is at 57, that's not "old" at all. It's not an entry-level brand.

I would agree Cadillac had an 'old person's image IF we were in 1998, but not now. The floaters are all long gone.