Another Jerry Flint Column to Outrage Everyone

[Chicagoland]

"Everything else in the Cadillac lineup? Almost exclusively blue-hairs."

Those 'blue hairs' are an increasing demographic, adn have more cash then most of the trendy kids at the 7-11. For every rich Lindsay Lhoan wanna-be there at a $$$ club, there are 1000 young 'hipsters' that can only afford a used Kia.

So, ahem, 'blue hairs' define the luxury segment. Most Lexus are older drviers, and high end German cars too.

The 3 series gets the 30 somethings, but they are not 'kids'.

Sure get young kids to desire your products, but who has the real spending $$$, Mom and Dad!!!!

Edited October 25, 2006 by Chicagoland

[turbo200]

I have also peered at Mercedes and BMW and know what I can see inside is miles apart, outside, not so much on the STS body, but thats my taste. I was asking OC himself why he said "STS, you gotta be kiddin me " he is a CTS owner and I want to know how the STS translates into "you got to be kiddin me". Actually items, not some bombardment of fancy words that repeat what I said in an earlier post.

208460[/snapback]

OK

STS body may be your taste, being you are more of a traditionalist, but in the context of today's most sought after luxury cars, the cars that are pushing the design envelope whilst remaining a clear evocation of their marque's identity are what sell. I'm not trying to be fancy. S-Class and CLS are the fanciest looking renditions of MB cues ever seen, all while introducing new and revolutionary [to that brand] cues and elements that make them amongst the most sought after luxury cars on the market. Witness the incredible market share gains of the new S-Class, a car that starts at around 80k and doesn't let off well into the triple digits.

So the STS fails to meet these standards; the standards of forward, current design.

On the inside the STS is a complete failure, nothing more needs to be said about that.

The STS was a good car when it was introduced; it wasn't good enough to hit the top of its class then and since that time several worthy entrants have been released that have greatly overshadowed it. Not to mention pricing, at the top end the STS gets expensive, and it is the only truly desirable STS, at that point you get into territory of a lot more incredible cars.

[Mr.Krinkle]

the original idea from what i recall was to introduce rather stunning designs and then soften them up for the next generation. a lot of the more controversial designs usually win over respect eventually. mbenz can crap out a log like the r class and let it win acclaim over time. they set the standard. therir designs for the most part only get better with time. im sure it will taper off eventually but they certainly enjoy that ride while it lasts.

like cadillac was at one time. the only differenve being more cadillacs are and will always be remembered more fondly. and looked upon that way forever. only the gull wing benz comes to mid instantly as classic whereas caddys list is a little longer.

you dont forget a history like the one cadillac has enjoyed. i think theyre going forward in the right direction and will one day soon be the standard of the world again.

[97regalGS]

lou sir, you really think cadillac will survive pining for the 80,000 dollar market?

UM, NO, scott.  not anytime soon.  you have to be realistic.  Audi can't even sell extreme luxury cars in volume.  ONLY mercedes and BMW commnd big coin.  People who like Lexus even balk at their high prices.

what's wrong with a darn good 55,000-60,000 dollar large DTS?  A large Zeta with a 400hp northstar, mercedes ride quality, and kickass interior is hardly walmart?  WTF are u smoking?

208461[/snapback]

I never said that the high end luxury market WAS Wal-Mart, I said that Cadillac would be the "Wal-Mart OF the luxury market".

I also never said anything about going after the $80,000 market. I haven't got time to research it, but I don't think there are very many BMW, and M-B;s that sell for $80k either.

There is nothing wrong with a $55-$60k DTS. But if it is comparable to offerings from MB and BMW, then why does it have to sell for less?

Audi can't sell cars in volume because they do not have a strng brand in North American market. Cadillac? Well, only 100+ years of history to build on. The funny thing is that Cadillac, despite some of the crap (crap- used for empahsis as opposed to suggesting that all their cars were junk)they have built in the past, as a brand, still has the ability to transform itself to what it represented in the 1950;s, IMO.

Cadillac is the ONLY American nameplate with an opportunity to be a leader in the luxury segment in NA, and globally (Europe more difficult, but China....... ).

However, this is the luxury segment. 'Value' is not why people buy these cars. Excess, image, panache, style is why people buy these cars.

Standard of the World should be the target, not "European quality at lower prices".

[regfootball]

its still hard to sell 50,000 dollar cadillacs without 10,000 off msrp discounts, so i just don't feel cadillac can bank on getting the same transaction prices as Mercedes, etc. anytime soon. I'm just being realistic. Even if caddy's efforts were equal in every way to the big dogs there still be a perception gap that would take ten years to make up. Therefore, in order to exist they need to sell at some higher volume and a bit cheaper. gradually over time they can get their prices up, after all the import humping type a 'i hate America except for what I can skim out of the corporate profits for myself' baby boomers die.

Edited October 25, 2006 by regfootball

[97regalGS]

its still hard to sell 50,000 dollar cadillacs without 10,000 off msrp discounts, so i just don't feel cadillac can bank on getting the same transaction prices as Mercedes, etc. anytime soon.  I'm just being realistic.  Even if caddy's efforts were equal in every way to the big dogs there still be a perception gap that would take ten years to make up.  Therefore, in order to exist they need to sell at some higher volume and a bit cheaper.  gradually over time they can get their prices up, after all the import humping type a 'i hate America except for what I can skim out of the corporate profits for myself' baby boomers die.

208652[/snapback]

agreed, there is still a market perception issue, BUT, product can overcome that. and product can dictate pricing, to a large extent. so far, Cadillac has not come to market with a 'no excuses, no shortcuts' product yet.

Current Escalade is probably the closest thing, and with impact of gas prices I'm not really sure how successful it is, (in general and relative to internal expectations).

NG CTS had better be that product. No excuses. It has to be.

With the right product, it won't take 10 years.

If the business case made sense and the Cien and Sixteen had come to market very quickly and as close to concept as possible, you don't think the world would stand up and take notice? (even if the Sixteen was sized down a bit with a NS V8, it would have been impressive).

On that note, it is time for Cadillac to have another concept car. Two years with nothing is too long. Cadillac needs to debut the CTS and a concept at NAIAS and then show us the CTS coupe and/or convertible 'concept' at NY.

[FAPTurbo]

after all the import humping type a 'i hate America except for what I can skim out of the corporate profits for myself' baby boomers die.

208652[/snapback]

Hey, I happen to hate former hippies too! We should make a gang

[turbo200]

agreed, there is still a market perception issue, BUT, product can overcome that. and product can dictate pricing, to a large extent.  so far, Cadillac has not come to market with a 'no excuses, no shortcuts' product yet.

Current Escalade is probably the closest thing, and with impact of gas prices I'm not really sure how successful it is, (in general and relative to internal expectations).

NG CTS had better be that product.  No excuses. It has to be. 

With the right product, it won't take 10 years. 

If the business case made sense and the Cien and Sixteen had come to market very quickly and as close to concept as possible, you don't think the world would stand up and take notice? (even if the Sixteen was sized down a bit with a NS V8, it would have been impressive).

On that note, it is time for Cadillac to have another concept car.  Two years with nothing is too long.  Cadillac needs to debut the CTS and a concept at NAIAS and then show us the CTS coupe and/or convertible 'concept' at NY.

208675[/snapback]

Yes Yes, finally someone with sense speaks up. On with the product onslaught.

your post is replete with good points

and to futher your point with examples, how many times have we seen recent examples of product changine the tone of publicity for companies? how many? go ahead and think about it..

LX cars

jetta

altima

G35

new G35

legacy GT

Lexus GS, LS

MB S-class, CLS

Edited October 25, 2006 by turbo200

[RichW5]

around here, what sells like fire are A4's and BMW 3's.

Acura does well here with TL's but that's because they are front drive.

I love the fact that the current CTS compares with the 3 series, yet is more suited in size to the big fat American.

to me then, that does leave a void for a 'BLS'; a TSX sized competitor.  It should have available AWD.  But it should only exist in low numbers in the US.  15,000-20,000 TOPS.  and they should all be loaded.  It should have a companion crossover or wagon version, like an X3.

The current CTS should go on in the exact same size and price classes its in now.  A coupe should accompany it.

There needs to exist an AWD/RWD platform for the next STS and DTS.  They should be large cars.  The STS should be A6 sized.  A tish bigger than the 5 series.  Sort of the size of a Lexus GS with more rear room.  The DTS could be built on the same platform, just be larger and more formal, closer in size to the 7 series etc.  That same platform could spawn the two crossovers I would imagine, a mid sized and an mid large sized one.  Sort of to battle the Lexus RX and GX's of the world.

Keep the escalade as an icon, as long as some folks buy it.  it's like GM's "G wagon"

The XLR concept is fine.  helps fund further corvette refinements.  Just please make it as desirable as the Merc. SL.

I would love a Cien type car as a halo.

A cadillac 16 type car would be awesome also, but that would only work if the $$ are flowing.  That car could be a large 16 cylinder aluminum bodied whoop ass car. 

My CTS would give more size etc. than the 3 series for price.  near 5 series accomodations for 3 series price.

My BLS would would approach the total package of a 3 series, for less money.  The CTS would be the big volume car, followed by the DTS replacement.  The RWD/AWD DTS would be a same type of car as now, lots of room and features lot of car great price.  The AWD/RWD STS becomes the mid-large killer sport sedan....i.e. 5 series competitor but a bit larger and maybe a bit less costly.  The DTS and STS are almost polar opposites, but yet still caddy.  The STS would maybe sell up to 40,000 a year but the DTS would go for volume.

208311[/snapback]

Reg is 99% correct here.

I would bring the BLS into the NA market and keep it in the numbers suggested by Reg.

The NG CTS needs to be almost perfect and should be upgraded/redesigned/refined more often (every three model years).

I would switch the DTS and STS and make the STS more exclusive (with outstanding styling), sized similar to Reg's suggestion, but with every available option. It must have GM's second best interior, with the best going to the limited production ULS/Cadillac16.

XLR styling is nice, but it doesn't excite me or apparently many buyers. Go back to the drawing board and give us someting stunning.

I have to comment on my 03 CTS. It has been an outstanding driver and still looks good. There have been no major problems and only a few small one's. Those were quickly fixed by our dealer.

I wish it had the 3.6L engine, but the 3.2L has been a great performer and is extremely reliable. I didn't like the interior at first, but got used to it and it feels like an airplane cockpit when my wife lets me drive it.

Four of our friends or neighbors have bought a CTS because of us. They are all happy with their CTS, so I feel good about my decision to buy it in May of 03.

[97regalGS]

Yes Yes, finally someone with sense speaks up. On with the product onslaught.

your post is replete with good points

208718[/snapback]

hey croc, you see, sometimes I do have some sense.

(at least, according to turbo)

[regfootball]

Hey, I happen to hate former hippies too! We should make a gang 

208678[/snapback]

good sir, that'd be worth an entire topic on its own

[regfootball]

Reg is 99% correct here.

I would bring the BLS into the NA market and keep it in the numbers suggested by Reg.

The NG CTS needs to be almost perfect and should be upgraded/redesigned/refined more often (every three model years).

I would switch the DTS and STS and make the STS more exclusive (with outstanding styling), sized similar to Reg's suggestion, but with every available option. It must have GM's second best interior, with the best going to the limited production ULS/Cadillac16.

XLR styling is nice, but it doesn't excite me or apparently many buyers. Go back to the drawing board and give us someting stunning.

I have to comment on my 03 CTS. It has been an outstanding driver and still looks good. There have been no major problems and only a few small one's. Those were quickly fixed by our dealer.

I wish it had the 3.6L engine, but the 3.2L has been a great performer and is extremely reliable. I didn't like the interior at first, but got used to it and it feels like an airplane cockpit when my wife lets me drive it.

Four of our friends or neighbors have bought a CTS because of us. They are all happy with their CTS, so I feel good about my decision to buy it in May of 03.

208731[/snapback]

the best car test i ever had was an 04 (i think) CTS with the 3.2 and manual. I loved that car. the same day I drove a 325i non sport pkg and i didn't like as much as the CTS.

[Robert Hall]

The materials may not be cheap but the design, IMO, is.  The CTS interior is outclassed by all of its competitors, I think.  The next-gen is a way different story.

207705[/snapback]

Not necessarily cheap, but ugly...what's up with the wierd texturing on the top and front of the dash, for example?

[Robert Hall]

Yea ! It always seemed funny to me why they would build both the CTS and STS on the same chassis/platform. They are so obviously similar sitting side by side in a showroom. That is how I decided I liked the STS sheet metal much better, but not the price. The interiors are a snooze, much like Pontiacs.

I liked my buddies 535's (if thats what it is) interior more than its exterior. He said it was a dog compared to their old turbo A6.

208475[/snapback]

Yeah, the biggest knock I have on the STS is that it is so similar in size to the CTS..not that much bigger...and from some angles (front 3/4) they look very similar...the STS would look better if it weren't so slab sided and with such a short, chopped off tail. The previous STS, though FWD, was a much better looking car, IMHO.

[The O.C.]

A6 is large ? 5 series is large ?

OC......whats wrong with the STS for a "move up" ? I prefer its exterior to the CTS. I know the interior is questionable but what all about the car is wrong ?

Then whats wrong with the CTS V for an upward move ?

208373[/snapback]

First of all.....CTS-v is a niche product (6-speed manual only, yadda, yadda) and a range-topper for the entire CTS line. Similar to going from 3-series to M3.

Regarding the CTS - to - STS debate, let's look at the oft-used BMW example. Compare the 3-series to the 5-series. For someone that is a fan of BMWs, the step from a 3-series up to a 5-series is a significant one in terms of vehicle size, amenities, and prestige.

The STS is barely larger than the CTS.....doesn't seem to have ALL that much more room inside......arguably doesn't have the same "knife edge" styling that made CTS so popular (and controversial.) So how can you look at a car that is almost the same size (built on the same platform actually) and actually has a less-striking design (subjective but I bet most would agree with me) as an "upward" move?

[The O.C.]

I was asking OC himself why he said "STS, you gotta be kiddin me " he is a CTS owner and I want to know how the STS translates into "you got to be kiddin me". Actually items, not some bombardment of fancy words that repeat what I said in an earlier post.

208460[/snapback]

Okay here's MY personal opinions on the STS (as a move-up for me) coming from my own ownership of a CTS Sport.....

To me, STS is bland-beyond-bland. Unattractive? No...not at all. However, compared to the CTS, the STS does nothing for me to get me excited to shell out, say $62+ for a NorthStar Sport STS.

Interior materials are not up-to-par.....certainly for the STS's price-range. I've argued that CTS's materials seem cheap too.....but at least CTS has a uniquely-styled driving environment. To me, the STS interior looks like someone said "...let's make it look like a Lexus interior but use inferior materials and workmanship..."

Finally is the drive. Every STS I've been in has a solid chassis but is far from a sport-luxury sedan. I got to test drive the top-notch V8 "sport" package with 18-inch wheels and it still felt quite soft and uninvolving. The CTS Sport is much further along where I feel this type of car (trying to appeal to import owners) should be.

When you move from a 3-series BMW to a 5-series BMW to a 7-series BMW.....they all feel like they were created from the exact same strands of DNA. Same thing goes (good or bad) for a C-class Benz to an E-class Benz to an S-class Benz.

Cadillac doesn't offer that. It goes from really damn good (the least-expensive, bottom-of-the-range CTS) to really quite archaic (DTS) and STS falls somewhere inbetween the two in my opinion.

That's not how Cadillac's lineup should look......

[The O.C.]

I also never said anything about going after the $80,000 market.  I haven't got time to research it, but I don't think there are very many BMW, and M-B;s that sell for $80k either.

208574[/snapback]

I know this is CA.....but S-Classes and 7-Series are a dime-a-dozen here. I believe the new S-Class starts at around $90K and the 7-Series starts at around $80K.

Maybe the numbers aren't huge nationally, but our market here shows that when people of a certain wealth aspire to a luxury automobile that costs close to six figures, Mercedes-Benz and BMW are filling those needs quite effectively.

[Mr.Krinkle]

I know this is CA.....but S-Classes and 7-Series are a dime-a-dozen here.  I believe the new S-Class starts at around $90K and the 7-Series starts at around $80K.

Maybe the numbers aren't huge nationally, but our market here shows that when people of a certain wealth aspire to a luxury automobile that costs close to six figures, Mercedes-Benz and BMW are filling those needs quite effectively.

209188[/snapback]

9/10 times the most expensive cars i see in and around the city are mercedes and bmws. i just saw a gorgeous sl500 amg today. right next to a brand new escalade as a matter of fact. and a few range rovers....and then a dumpy little aveo cruising right in front....odd to say the least. my brother who isnt a car guy even noticed the whole thing playing out.

but yes that niche is hard nut to crack. most benz buyers are just that. benz buyers. especially in that price range. i was waving at a guy waiting to cross the street in downtown manhattan earlier to go ahead and cross and he wouldnt budge... and i joked with my friend he wouldnt let a guy driving a pontiac wave him ahead.

i made it clear and he moved eventually... its a market that rarely gives another vehicle the time of day.

[Mr.Krinkle]

Okay here's MY personal opinions on the STS (as a move-up for me) coming from my own ownership of a CTS Sport.....

To me, STS is bland-beyond-bland.  Unattractive?  No...not at all.  However, compared to the CTS, the STS does nothing for me to get me excited to shell out, say $62+ for a NorthStar Sport STS.

Interior materials are not up-to-par.....certainly for the STS's price-range.  I've argued that CTS's materials seem cheap too.....but at least CTS has a uniquely-styled driving environment.  To me, the STS interior looks like someone said "...let's make it look like a Lexus interior but use inferior materials and workmanship..."

Finally is the drive.  Every STS I've been in has a solid chassis but is far from a sport-luxury sedan.  I got to test drive the top-notch V8 "sport" package with 18-inch wheels and it still felt quite soft and uninvolving.  The CTS Sport is much further along where I feel this type of car (trying to appeal to import owners) should be.

When you move from a 3-series BMW to a 5-series BMW to a 7-series BMW.....they all feel like they were created from the exact same strands of DNA.  Same thing goes (good or bad) for a C-class Benz to an E-class Benz to an S-class Benz.

Cadillac doesn't offer that.  It goes from really damn good (the least-expensive, bottom-of-the-range CTS) to really quite archaic (DTS) and STS falls somewhere inbetween the two in my opinion. 

That's not how Cadillac's lineup should look......

209186[/snapback]

there isnt enough differentiation, absolutely. but the thing is i prefer the sts over the cts.

cadillac is "rebuilding" and entering territory it hasnt is manhy a year. i dont think its too far fetched to say they were testing the waters with these first reiterations.

what better way to gauge market perception than with two cehicles that are so close in appearance and size. and on the same platform. its a two-fer.

i hope gm has been listening and doing its homework and the next gens will both be showstoppers and fill the voids that were seemingly neglected. if i were to make presumptions based on the srx id say they are bringing it on home.

[razoredge]

Okay here's MY personal opinions on the STS (as a move-up for me) coming from my own ownership of a CTS Sport.....

To me, STS is bland-beyond-bland.  Unattractive?  No...not at all.  However, compared to the CTS, the STS does nothing for me to get me excited to shell out, say $62+ for a NorthStar Sport STS.

Interior materials are not up-to-par.....certainly for the STS's price-range.  I've argued that CTS's materials seem cheap too.....but at least CTS has a uniquely-styled driving environment.  To me, the STS interior looks like someone said "...let's make it look like a Lexus interior but use inferior materials and workmanship..."

Finally is the drive.  Every STS I've been in has a solid chassis but is far from a sport-luxury sedan.  I got to test drive the top-notch V8 "sport" package with 18-inch wheels and it still felt quite soft and uninvolving.  The CTS Sport is much further along where I feel this type of car (trying to appeal to import owners) should be.

When you move from a 3-series BMW to a 5-series BMW to a 7-series BMW.....they all feel like they were created from the exact same strands of DNA.  Same thing goes (good or bad) for a C-class Benz to an E-class Benz to an S-class Benz.

Cadillac doesn't offer that.  It goes from really damn good (the least-expensive, bottom-of-the-range CTS) to really quite archaic (DTS) and STS falls somewhere inbetween the two in my opinion. 

That's not how Cadillac's lineup should look......

209186[/snapback]

First, just to get it out of the way, I have to say, I dont see why anyone would get worked up over the DTS. Cadillac still needs a car like this and its fine for those that want this type of luxury ride. I just dont see the need to place labels on the car such as archaic or the people that tend to buy them such as geriatric. It is what it is. Our neighbor down the road has been in Caddys for as long as I remember. They must be around their 60s now and I think this is what they want, if it wasnt they would have been in a CTS instead of the DTS they threw down the cash on. Their other vehical is a Chevy PU......so that just throws a monkey wrench into the archaic statement.

Then Im wondering if the CTS and STS are the same chassis, and you dont like the STS ride characteristics......they must simply be softer sprung ? They still have to feel like the same DNA however.

Styling - If Harley Earl or Bill Mitchel had overseen the CTS they would have said "pull those edges further, tighter" ! They also would not have allowed that amature side crease to be passed off as styling art. *See Monty Carlo, G1 Tiburon and Santa Fe, Ford Focus or the little divit in the wheel well flares of the .........aura. Now I sum this all up with words like cheezy, amature, grade school talent.

I like the smoothed off look of the STS but if it was edgy, without that silly "crease" I could go for that. I do like the thin taillights also, I dont think the CTS's tails make any statement, what so ever.

Ive already said I couldnt believe they built the two on the same chassis. I, myself would think a platform share with Buick and a larger chassis for the STS would have been a better idea. Too late for that now, but just think about it. We could have had a $30,000 RWD mid size Buick for a few years now and the answer to the size/similarities issues with the STS............but Im no "guru".

I didnt think there was much difference in the interior styling of either car. I guess Ill have to look better. The CTS interior never excited me, that I know. We were looking at them side by side with the Auroras way back and there was simply no comparision. Exterior styling either.......RWD/FWD or not.

Well as usual GM management made a pile of mistakes and today the STS suffers, Buick still suffers and that Aurora is gone and the next one aint commin'.

It will all be better in three years........right ? ... ...

[balthazar]

So how can you look at a car that is almost the same size (built on the same platform actually) and actually has a less-striking design (subjective but I bet most would agree with me) as an "upward" move?

Good question; I wonder what bmw 5-series buyers would say and how few "moved up" from a 3-series?

[evok]

So how can you look at a car that is almost the same size (built on the same platform actually) and actually has a less-striking design (subjective but I bet most would agree with me) as an "upward" move?

Good question; I wonder what bmw 5-series buyers would say and how few "moved up" from a 3-series?

209526[/snapback]

OK - And you base your statements on what exactly?

[balthazar]

"less striking design" >< "upward move"

[evok]

"less striking design" >< "upward move"

209821[/snapback]

OK so what you are saying is you have nothing to support your statements!

"Good question; I wonder what bmw 5-series buyers would say and how few "moved up" from a 3-series?"

Thought so.

[razoredge]

OK so what you are saying is you have nothing to support your statements!

"Good question; I wonder what bmw 5-series buyers would say and how few "moved up" from a 3-series?"

Thought so.

MSRP $32,400

Destination & Handling $695

The quintessential sports sedan is back - and better than ever. With a powerful 230 hp engine featuring Valvetronic technology, a 5-link/5-beam rear suspension, and increased passenger room, performance and luxury are perfectly blended in a more powerful, more agile sedan offering more safety and comfort features than ever before. Advanced Dynamic Stability Control (DSC) and optional Active Steering help keep the driver in total control, while premium interior materials like leather, Poplar Natural wood trim or brushed Aluminum, create an alluring atmosphere to satisfy their senses.

MSRP $43,500

Destination & Handling $695

Powered by a smooth, 3.0-liter, 215-hp engine, the 2007 525i delivers the kind of show-stopping performance you’ve come to expect of a 5 Series—and then some. With a spirited new design, roomier interior, and state-of-the-art handling and safety systems, the 525i offers more of what drivers have come to love about the 5 Series. At a supremely attractive price.

Any more questions ?

Edited October 29, 2006 by razoredge

[balthazar]

>>"OK so what you are saying is you have nothing to support your statements! Thought so."<<

I had no less to support my statement( ) than O.C. did WRT the CTS vs. the STS; why not ask him what he had to support his?

Look at the pic of the 5-series above (thanks razor): less creases, same-old grille treatment, simpler wheels, Grand Am front bumper... it's just as "less striking" as the STS (if not moreso).

[evok]

Any more questions ?

209840[/snapback]

Yes, do you have an actual point? You did not support balthazars opinion nor did you have one of your own.

Edited October 29, 2006 by evok

[razoredge]

gotta love the ponies........though

[razoredge]

Yes, do you have an actual point?  You did not support balthazars opinion nor did you have one of your own.

209847[/snapback]

now that we got that out of the way.........so whats yours ?

[turbo200]

>>"OK so what you are saying is you have nothing to support your statements! Thought so."<<

I had no less to support my statement( ) than O.C. did WRT the CTS vs. the STS; why not ask him what he had to support his?

Look at the pic of the 5-series above (thanks razor): less creases, same-old grille treatment, simpler wheels, Grand Am front bumper... it's just as "less striking" as the STS (if not moreso).

209844[/snapback]

5-series dimmensionally is pretty dramatically larger than 3-series. Most would say the 5-series is more polarizing a design than the 3, but at least they both seem to follow the same design language, STS and CTS are practically indistinguishable, their stacked headlamps/taillamps are ubiquitous and indifferentiable from afar, yet they look like they were designed by two different schools of thought. You are also judging by just one trim level of the 5. Edited October 29, 2006 by turbo200

[evok]

5-series dimmensionally is pretty dramatically larger than 3-series. Most would say the 5-series is more polarizing a design than the 3, but at least they both seem to follow the same design language, STS and CTS are practically indistinguishable, their stacked headlamps/taillamps are ubiquitous and indifferentiable from afar, yet they look like they were designed by two different schools of thought. You are also judging by just one trim level of the 5.

209866[/snapback]

You are correct. The size difference (length, wheelbase and width) between the 3-5-7 and 7-L is significant.

Considering the wheelbase between the CTS and STS differs only by 3 inches. The STS dimensionally is a bastard since it does not go up against either the 5 or 7 very well.

Looking at sales and MSRP, the BMW models are a lot more successful. BMW sells more volume at a higher price point.

Cadillac is having a real tough time moving the STS even with give away leases. And the total dollar for the BMW lease is a lot more than the Cadillac. This past summer when I computed the numbers, it was cheaper to get an STS than a 3.

The Flint article has many good points in it.

[balthazar]

...5-series... 3... at least they both seem to follow the same design language, STS and CTS are practically indistinguishable, their stacked headlamps/taillamps are ubiquitous and indifferentiable from afar, yet they look like they were designed by two different schools of thought.

Funny; I have no problem IDing the CTS from the STS even at extreme distances, yet I have more of a problem doing so with the 3 & 5. Perhaps individual familiarity is the issue here? I see no evidence whatsoever that the CTS and the STS were deisnged with "two different schools of thought"; they are very compatable, design-wise.

[razoredge]

Well, regardless of the BMW/Cadillac debate we have going now, this little provocation began because of this little statement

So how can you look at a car that is almost the same size (built on the same platform actually) and actually has a less-striking design (subjective but I bet most would agree with me) as an "upward" move?

Now Im not too bright.......but my guess would be that Balthazar, myself and possibly one or two other people worldwide........would also feel that the upward move between the 3 & 5 series may also be "subjective" and may also be a less or no more inspiring a design to many people, thereby finding them keep the extra $10,000 and drive the 3 series. There both small cars.

Is their a problem with that ?

I mean I get really inspired by the loss of ponies in the 5 which were not very impressive in the first place, for a 3 litre, yes, but compared my "antiquated 3800" I was shocked and truely uninspired.

Once again let me state my very close friend was very mixed on his feelings about the 535 compared to their older A6 which it replaced. From what I gather it being newer with a few more toys was about the extent of the inspiration.

The STS is a nice car thats overpriced and built on the same Sigma chassis as the CTS..........it was a mistake.......everybody just say it.........DUMB ! Im one that prefers it to the CTS but the price forbids the preference.

[turbo200]

Well, regardless of the BMW/Cadillac debate we have going now, this little provocation began because of this little statement

Now Im not too bright.......but my guess would be that Balthazar, myself and possibly one or two other people worldwide........would also feel that the upward move between the 3 & 5 series may also be "subjective" and may also be a less or no more inspiring a design to many people, thereby finding them keep the extra $10,000 and drive the 3 series. There both small cars.

Is their a problem with that ?

I mean I get really inspired by the loss of ponies in the 5 which were not very impressive in the first place, for a 3 litre, yes, but compared my "antiquated 3800" I was shocked and truely uninspired.

Once again let me state my very close friend was very mixed on his feelings about the 535 compared to their older A6 which it replaced. From what I gather it being newer with a few more toys was about the extent of the inspiration.

The STS is a nice car thats overpriced and built on the same Sigma chassis as the CTS..........it was a mistake.......everybody just say it.........DUMB ! Im one that prefers it to the CTS but the price forbids the preference.

209914[/snapback]

your opinion may be that 5 is not much better than 3. However, OC's argument was that STS was not an upward move because of a less striking design and the size issue. Come on and read with me what evok just said up above, the size difference is significant. Sales also draw the conclusion that most people do think the 5-series is worth it, whereas much much less people think STS is worth it.

Instead of going off of one friend's opinion, you should try giving both some seat time and discovering the advantages of both on paper and in person.

[Robert Hall]

Funny; I have no problem IDing the CTS from the STS even at extreme distances, yet I have more of a problem doing so with the 3 & 5. Perhaps individual familiarity is the issue here? I see no evidence whatsoever that the CTS and the STS were deisnged with "two different schools of thought"; they are very compatable, design-wise.

209901[/snapback]

Hmm....I'm always confusing the CTS and STS, from the front..until I notice the outer edge of the headlight cluster...I've never had trouble distinguishing a 3-series from a 5-series--the size difference alone is noticable. Then again, I'm a BMW owner and fan, so I pay attention to them more, probably..

[razoredge]

I dont care about the Beemers ! Sales conclusions and BMW aspirations in the same paragraph indicate little more than the higher number makes me more important thingy. I dont care about the STS arguement, I already stated over and over my feelings regarding the STS/CTS debacle. My point for adding to the latest direction of this thread was to get after evok with his usual and unecessary fat attitude he interjects into topics here and there with cute little one liners. I had no problems interpreting Balths post and simply could not see any value or purpose to evoks tiny remarks that said nor offered anything.

OK - And you base your statements on what exactly?

OK so what you are saying is you have nothing to support your statements!

Thought so.

and yet one more

Yes, do you have an actual point? You did not support balthazars opinion nor did you have one of your own.[/QUOTE]

While the rest of you may find this person an insiteful inspiration, Ill pass. If and when he has something to really throw out there Ill listen. I prefer a more direct and earnest approach !

[razoredge]

My wasted time researching has revealed – for one... that the dimensions on the Cadillac site for WB and Track are very hard to decipher but I believe I have them correct, questionable ones will have * which was primarily the front track I had the most problems with

The 3 series grows from a 108.7 WB, 5” to the 5 series 113.7 WB, which is at about the CTS’s WB of 113 but the STS grows another 3 “ to a 116 WB

The 3 series front track(FT) 59.1 grows 2.2 “ to the 5 series of 61.3 FT

CTS FT 60.8 grows 4.2” * to STS FT 64.5 *

The 3 series grows from a 59.5 RT, 2.8” to the 5 series 62.3 RT

The CTS grows from a 60” RT, 2.3 “to the STS 62.3 RT

As has already been brought, the 5 series drops in power while the STS increases, the base 2.8 in the CTS is humbling and we so easy forget this is the standard engine. At first I was thinking they were the same with the 3.6 as base on both. Our local Cad dealer never has base models so I forget things.

STS price jump is larger than the 5 series

So, while the obvious has been stated, I don’t see Cadillac being so far off the mark in these dimensional increases as some would have us think, and overall the Cadillacs are a larger car…..for those that think a few inches or less means everything.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I think Cadillac might be in a bit of a lull

BUT< I think the new Escalade (Which the dickheads in C&D just placed 4th behind the INFINITI QX----Give me a break) and CTS will light things on fire again. Eventhough the DTS *SHOULD* be a Buick, to get rid of it now would be suicide for Cadillac... Let it live a few more years, and sell many more units, then we'll find something to replace it.

The STS and SRX (and XLR for that matter) were just to damn tepid. And the new lame ad campaign isn't helping much.

Thank you Lutz for making Cadillac marketing LAME AGAIN

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Keep in mind though, the Cadillac renaissance isn't just about sales either....

It has a lot to do with image and buyers age and consideration/respect which, while intangible, still account for a lot of Cadillacs future success.

Not to mention, down 2% in 3 quarters isn't much considering the age of most of the products compared to the competition.

Of course, the media has been nitpicking and breaking Cadillac down for a few months now... It was the last bastion of "good" at GM and was sure to be attacked.

[bcs296]

But like Flint said, it doesn't matter about Mercedes' crossovers or SUVs......or Lexus' SUVs.....or BMW's "cheap low mile leases"....

THEY are getting the job done.....increasing sales, growing marketshare.....

I think this article is absolutely spot-on and I can't fault any of Jerry's comments or concerns.

Can anyone argue that Escalade and CTS lead the way for Cadillac?  Of course not....BUT....

.......can anyone argue that the current STS and SRX have been mediocre at BEST?

Can anyone argue that DTS has no place in the supposed-new Cadillac lineup?

Can anyone argue that Cadillac needed a 7-series/S-class competitor a LONG time ago?

Out in CA, Escalades and CTSs get respect.....and many times you see young guys and gals driving them.

Everything else in the Cadillac lineup?  Almost exclusively blue-hairs.

207750[/snapback]

WINNER!

[bcs296]

"Everything else in the Cadillac lineup? Almost exclusively blue-hairs."

Those 'blue hairs' are an increasing demographic, adn have more cash then most of the trendy kids at the 7-11. For every rich Lindsay Lhoan wanna-be there at a $$$ club, there are 1000 young 'hipsters' that can only afford a used Kia.

So, ahem, 'blue hairs' define the luxury segment. Most Lexus are older drviers, and high end German cars too.

The 3 series gets the 30 somethings, but they are not 'kids'.

Sure get young kids to desire your products, but who has the real spending $$$, Mom and Dad!!!!

208506[/snapback]

GET REAL. Yes, people will always be getting older, but those soon-to-come old people aren't going to buy Cadillacs. You aren't understanding something: Right now, the old people who drive Cadillacs drive them because of what Cadillac was in their times. In the future, Audi/MB/BMW/Lexus/Infiniti drivers aren't just going to start buying Cadillacs because they "got old."

[balthazar]

tannersoc-

Mercedes...... Lexus..... BMW.... THEY are getting the job done.....increasing sales, growing marketshare.....

Take a look at Cadillac's sales & marketshare in -say- 1998 vs. today, compare mercedes/lexus/bmws marketshare performance over the same period, and you will realize how the implication that Cadillac is not right in the thick of the segment is laughable.

[balthazar]

bcs296= >>"GET REAL.... You aren't understanding something: Right now, the old people who drive Cadillacs drive them because of what Cadillac was in their times."<<

And what of the younger buyers that have dramatically dropped Cadillac's Average Buyer Age by roughly 10 years over the last 10 years? Why are they buying? Stories from their grandparents, I suppose?

>>"In the future, Audi/MB/BMW/Lexus/Infiniti drivers aren't just going to start buying Cadillacs because they "got old.""<<

How about because they appreciate a dynamic, quality product that's thoroughly competitive with an American edge?

No; couldn't be that.

[The O.C.]

And what of the younger buyers that have dramatically dropped Cadillac's Average Buyer Age by roughly 10 years over the last 10 years? Why are they buying? Stories from their grandparents, I suppose?

211411[/snapback]

What are they buying? Well, they are buying CTSs and Escalades (and maybe a few SRXs) but they are NOT buying STSs and DTSs......Caddy's "aspriational" models...

[balthazar]

Is the DTS especially aspirational?? It's certainly not the Cadillac flagship- never has been.

How are Lexus' SC and LS doing, number-wise? Aren't they less than 10K per year each? By sales, aren't around 50% of lexus sales SUVs? Is the RX somehow aspirational? Didn't think so.

What model Cadillacs are selling more than others is really immaterial. The marque has grown their sales in the past 10 years at an enviable clip. It's one thing to have a sparkling reputation, a loyal following, a drooling media and lead the segment (3-series), but it's quite another to come out of nowhere with a new product, take a huge bite out of the segment and moves 60K units annually by it's 3rd year (CTS). Give credit where credit is due.

[The O.C.]

Is the DTS especially aspirational?? It's certainly not the Cadillac flagship- never has been.

How are Lexus' SC and LS doing, number-wise? Aren't they less than 10K per year each? By sales, aren't around 50% of lexus sales SUVs? Is the RX somehow aspirational? Didn't think so.

211742[/snapback]

CTS spans the range of $30K to about $42K (not counting v-Series.)

DTS STARTS at about $42K and goes to about $54-$55K.

To answer your question, NO...my whole point is that the DTS in it's current configuation is NOT aspirational....it's a fuddy-duddy's car. BUT, shouldn't the largest car in the Cadillac lineup, with a price that goes up to the mid-50's BE aspirational for those at the "bottom rung" of the Caddy lineup?

And if NOT....please explain to me WHY.......

[turbo200]

Is the DTS especially aspirational?? It's certainly not the Cadillac flagship- never has been.

How are Lexus' SC and LS doing, number-wise? Aren't they less than 10K per year each? By sales, aren't around 50% of lexus sales SUVs? Is the RX somehow aspirational? Didn't think so.

What model Cadillacs are selling more than others is really immaterial. The marque has grown their sales in the past 10 years at an enviable clip. It's one thing to have a sparkling reputation, a loyal following, a drooling media and lead the segment (3-series), but it's quite another to come out of nowhere with a new product, take a huge bite out of the segment and moves 60K units annually by it's 3rd year (CTS). Give credit where credit is due.

211742[/snapback]

the problem is we all feel Cadillac could have done the same thing they did with CTS to its other lines. DTS didn't follow in the theme of CTS, STS and SRX didn't follow in the line of CTS either. CTS was a breakthrough car, a completely different looking car that took no prisoners in its look. SRX and STS didn't improve on that formula, nor did they stick to it, they are both conservatively designed. Now you look at the luxury landscape and every new car coming out, including high end cars, are bold and distinctive. The more expensive cars also didn't offer enough to convince buyers they were worth the extra money. SRX interior was far behind others in its class, as years went on it only got further left behind. STS was the same way. That's why initially those did better than they are doing now [sRX sales pattern has been unpredictable but it had its peak in its second and third year on the market]. DTS is an anolomy in the lineup.

[balthazar]

To answer your question, NO...my whole point is that the DTS in it's current configuation is NOT aspirational....it's a fuddy-duddy's car.  BUT, shouldn't the largest car in the Cadillac lineup, with a price that goes up to the mid-50's BE aspirational for those at the "bottom rung" of the Caddy lineup? And if NOT....please explain to me WHY.......

That's a rather outmoded mindset (largest = bestest). The Seville has been above the deVille in the heirarchy since '76, and the STS is still above the DTS today. Don't tell me it's price range doesn't reach above the DTS's. Even the Eldorado was higher on the ladder than the DTS... and it too was smaller. Makes sense, right?

Yes; the DTS a bit of an anomoly, but I would hate to see Cadillac turn a cold shoulder to that consumer base; I'd much prefer a gradual 'turning' of that demographic, and with that in mind I'll 'allow' the DTS to continue without hassle. The previous gen was a real sweet design to boot, tho I'm not as hot for the new one.

That leaves us with the current STS. I do not know offhand the projected or the actual sales numbers for it, but I sure see a steady number of them here in BMW/MercedesLand. They look more upscale on the road than the CTS to my eye, but I have not investigated them up close yet. Seems very compatable and very in step with the CTS- more stately and polished, more mature, even tho the rear end is a lil flat.

[Mr.Krinkle]

What are they buying?  Well, they are buying CTSs and Escalades (and maybe a few SRXs) but they are NOT buying STSs and DTSs......Caddy's "aspriational" models...

211688[/snapback]

caddys been there done that... those fuddy duddies ride in the bimmers and benz' too.

Whats wrong with the Escalades being the "aspirational" models for now?

[razoredge]

Once again we have "the world ends East of the Sierra Nevadas" crowd placing their opinion as fact. CTS is not real big around this area. I see nearly as many STS's already............however the DTS and its former Deville far out number the rest.

the CTS was so "cutting edge " most people I know were less than excited. Now today its accepted but old already. Just last night I parked in garage near and walked past one of downtown Albanys classy hangouts for the capitol wealthy and there was the usual BMW's, Mercedes, Lexus, Infinitys but notta one CTS..........there was however one STS and one DTS...........stupid people.......

Edited November 5, 2006 by razoredge