2007 China SLS

[evok]

http://www.worldcarfans.com/news.cfm/count...auto-china-2006

Cadillac China

http://www.cadillac.com.cn/cadillac2006/ga...y.asp?model=sls

Edited November 10, 2006 by evok

[mjdecker]

I don't get it.. is it a longer wheelbase? If not, why a different name?

Also I thought Buick was the luxury market in China.

EDIT: Nevermind

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...showtopic=13316

Edited November 10, 2006 by Decka

[ZL-1]

It certainly doesn't have that weird "my-rear-doors-are-way-too-long" look that LWB XJs had!

BTW: this isn't the extensively revised car that CadillacCTS saw at the GM dealer event, right?

[ToniCipriani]

This is the spied STS that they were mentioning earlier, the one with the Shanghai GM badge.

Wheelbase is longer. 3057mm = 120.35 inches. US Version is 116.4 inches.

[turbo200]

wow, from that angle it actually looks pretty decent. I think 120 inches is way too long for the STS in its current market positioning for a replacement of the current car, but somewhere in the middle of 116 and 120 ought to differentiate the cars plenty enough.

[evok]

BTW: this isn't the extensively revised car that CadillacCTS saw at the GM dealer event, right?

214194[/snapback]

The car they saw WAS NOT the 08 MCE.

[Robert Hall]

wow, from that angle it actually looks pretty decent. I think 120 inches is way too long for the STS in its current market positioning for a replacement of the current car, but somewhere in the middle of 116 and 120 ought to differentiate the cars plenty enough.

214206[/snapback]

?? Why not? The Chrysler 300 has a 120 inch wheelbase...the STS/SLS should certainly have as long or a longer wheelbase...

[SuperSport623]

does the US sts have the same rear console?

cause i really like it!

[Drew Dowdell]

no

[ZL-1]

The car they saw WAS NOT the 08 MCE.

214277[/snapback]

Aha, so would that clay model be the next-gen STS?

And would that mean the US/Europe get the '08 MCE enhancements (new interior/new grille) with the LWB model to be a Chinese market exclusive?

[evok]

Aha, so would that clay model be the next-gen STS?

And would that mean the US/Europe get the '08 MCE enhancements (new interior/new grille) with the LWB model to be a Chinese market exclusive?

214324[/snapback]

I do not know about the lwb being sold in the US or Europe but the interior . . . you bet ya.

Remember GM is acting global.

Edited November 11, 2006 by evok

[ZL-1]

I do not know about the lwb being sold in the US or Europe but the interior . . . you bet ya.

214387[/snapback]

Being larger, the lwb wouldn't suffer from the "too-close-to-the-CTS" issue. Re the interior, I like it: that dashboard leather is very nice!

Remember GM is acting global.

214387[/snapback]

Yep, they finally got that figured out.

[ichbinjohnk]

I say the STS should ride on the 120" wheelbase, and a possible (though from what I gather, not likely so far) STC (or 6-Series competitor) should ride on the 116" wheelbase. In many of the current car's reviews, lack of rearseat legroom has been a common complaint. Judging by the pics, four extra inches will seem to remedy that.

Maybe I'm just talking out of my ass. I don't know.

[caddycruiser]

Why did someone start a second thread for a pre-exisiting topic?

[evok]

Why did someone start a second thread for a pre-exisiting topic?

214528[/snapback]

Read the posting times.

[evok]

Being larger, the lwb wouldn't suffer from the "too-close-to-the-CTS" issue.

214507[/snapback]

I agree 100% If GM is able to build it in the US, hold the price than let the phase out of the DTS begin.

The big if is if GM can build it in Lansing. I am not sure to what extent or level China is going to build the vehicle. i.e. I am unsure if the stampings will be US or China built, and to what level China wil build knock down kits.

[Croc]

But what about width? The DTS would still be a larger car than a LWB STS.

[evok]

But what about width?  The DTS would still be a larger car than a LWB STS.

214622[/snapback]

What does that have to do with anything?

STS rear hip room 55.6 in

DTS rear hip room 55.7 in.

The only significant difference between the China SLS compared to the DTS and S-Class type of vehicle is truck space.

Edited November 11, 2006 by evok

[Croc]

The trunk space is a big issue. But yes the DTS could use better interior packaging, but some people (my father included) like the wider cars. I don't think a LWB STS could completely supplant a DTS on, say, Zeta. A Cadillac based on the new Statesman, however, would fit the bill perfectly. JMO

Looking at all the stats, here is one you didn't mention and would better explain why the STS felt smaller inside than the DTS width-wise:

DTS

Hip Room

57.3 in. Front

55.7 in. Rear

Shoulder Room

60.0 in. Front

59.2 in. Rear

STS

Hip Room

54.6 in. Front

55.6 in. Rear

Shoulder Room

58.6 in. Front

57.4 in. Rear

Sorry, but those extra inches all add up. I could see the LWB STS coming over here to replace the current one as long as a bigger, S-Class (read: more luxury) fighter DTS on Zeta is in the lineup too. And yes, I realize this conjectured DTS would be double the price of the current DTS, but that's what RWD luxury vehicles of that size go for everywhere else, and the buyers put off by that price can go and get a Zeta Lucerne (which will now be able to offer more features without stepping on Cadillac's toes)

Edited November 12, 2006 by Croc

[razoredge]

good points Croc

must be the ?door panels/arm rests? in DTS keep hip room narrow but shoulder room is larger ?

there is more or equally important issues with width too.

Track: longer wheelbase w/same track is going to handle worse, wont fly in the US market when magazines do their BMW, Mercedes comparisions.

[thegriffon]

The trunk space is a big issue.  But yes the DTS could use better interior packaging, but some people (my father included) like the wider cars.  I don't think a LWB STS could completely supplant a DTS on, say, Zeta.  A Cadillac based on the new Statesman, however, would fit the bill perfectly.  JMO

Looking at all the stats, here is one you didn't mention and would better explain why the STS felt smaller inside than the DTS width-wise:

DTS

Hip Room

57.3 in. Front

55.7 in. Rear

Shoulder Room

60.0 in. Front

59.2 in. Rear

STS

Hip Room

54.6 in. Front

55.6 in. Rear

Shoulder Room

58.6 in. Front

57.4 in. Rear

Sorry, but those extra inches all add up.  I could see the LWB STS coming over here to replace the current one as long as a bigger, S-Class (read: more luxury) fighter DTS on Zeta is in the lineup too.  And yes, I realize this conjectured DTS would be double the price of the current DTS, but that's what RWD luxury vehicles of that size go for everywhere else, and the buyers put off by that price can go and get a Zeta Lucerne (which will now be able to offer more features without stepping on Cadillac's toes)

214697[/snapback]

If you consider the STS as a competitor to the LS430 it stacks up quite well in size, price and volume (although the STS has the benefit of a cheaper V6). Compared to the more expensive European entries and the new LS460, it is too narrow and consequently cramped. Not too much of a problem since it is priced closer to the 5-Series, M-Series and A6 to which it matches more closely in terms of size, inside and out. IMHO Toyota f—d up by not making the new GS large enough to attract LS430 buyers priced out of a larger and more expensive LS460. Those more expensive grosser limousines priced above the mittelklasse (unlike the LS430) are primarily lwb models not only wider, but another 100 mm longer than the SLS. The Statesman and Lucerne are at the bottom end of this class size wise, larger than only the LS 460L, but in most measures at least match typical interior room for the class (unlike the LS 460 L which lacks the required shoulder and hip room front and rear to be truly competitive).

[evok]

Sorry, but those extra inches all add up. 

I am sorry - but you do not understand the measurements, how they are taken and what they mean with respect to occupant seating.

I refer you to Griffons post.

Think about it before your reply. If a vehicle has an extra inch of should room, how much usable shoulder room is that for an outboard occupant? Hip room, that is another story all together.

Edited November 12, 2006 by evok

[Flybrian]

An STS of this size clearly opens up room above for this long-drooled-over ultralux Cadillac. There has always been a sizing issue with Cadillac's sedans, whether it be CTS vs. STS or Seville vs. DeVille. This solves it.

[Croc]

I am sorry - but you do not understand the measurements, how they are taken and what they mean with respect to occupant seating.

I refer you to Griffons post.

Think about it  before your reply.  If a vehicle has an extra inch of should room, how much usable shoulder room is that for an outboard occupant?  Hip room, that is another story all together.

214755[/snapback]

Yea and front hip room is almost 3" less in the STS.

Don't get snippy, buddy. And don't get too hung up on the numbers, either. My point is that there should be another vehicle above the STS with a bigger trunk, slightly wider dimensions and more luxury. This vehicle I would call DTS, and I'd size it (overall) extremely similarly to Statesman, and because of this, put it on Zeta since that engineering is already in place.

Refer to FlyBrian's post, and think about it before you reply. And can the attitude because I have no use for it.

And as for your question about the value of shoulder room, it does more for the perception of spaciousness and comfort than it does for the actual comfort of the occupant. I don't think I need to explain the value of perceptions to you.

Edited November 12, 2006 by Croc

[thegriffon]

As it stands most European manufacturers don't specify hip room at all, and Mercedes-Benz USA's numbers are suspect. It's quite common instead to specify shoulder and elbow room, although it's not always clear which is which.

Edited November 12, 2006 by thegriffon

[evok]

Don't get snippy, buddy.

Child - Grow up and actually work and live a day in your life. You are a CHILD! You do not know $h! about this industry and with your Buickman attitude you never will. GROW UP. I will not take crap from a teenager.

[Croc]

Child - Grow up and actually work and live a day in your life.  You are a CHILD!  You do not know $h! about this industry and with your Buickman attitude you never will.  GROW UP.  I will not take crap from a teenager.

214812[/snapback]

Buickman attitude? Please. Frankly you're the one who needs to grow up, carrying on like this and all. Instead of addressing the points that I have brought up, you are resorting to personal attacks and ranting.

I don't know $h! about the industry? So you're telling me there is no need, no pent-up demand whatsoever for a vehicle wider than the STS, with a bigger trunk, that is still RWD and manages to be feature-packed in the Cadillac lineup to compete with the S-Class, 7er and A8? You think Cadillac should just stop competing at the A6 level? Is that what you're telling me? Because I call bull$h!.

You're just mad I did some research of my own and pointed out the STS's lack of front hip room compared to the current DTS and near-dimensionally-identical Holden Statesman instead of agreeing with everything you said and taking your post as truth. Get over yourself. You compare me to Buickman? Get some self-awareness.

You think I don't work? Wrong again. It may not be the most glamorous job at the moment but it's a step in life that leads to greater things.

And finally, I am not a teenager. Haven't been one for a while now, either. Of course, you seem to imply teenagers are beneath you in some way and I can assure you that with an attitude like that you will not garner much respect from them, or anyone else for that matter.

You can send the apology via PM anytime.

Edited November 12, 2006 by Croc

[turbo200]

Don't get snippy, buddy. 

This is where it started

And don't get too hung up on the numbers, either.

and this is where you questioned his knowledge, which has decades on you and I, need i remind you

My point is that there should be another vehicle above the STS with a bigger trunk, slightly wider dimensions and more luxury.  This vehicle I would call DTS, and I'd size it (overall) extremely similarly to Statesman, and because of this, put it on Zeta since that engineering is already in place.

I'm sure he doesn't disagree with you on this.

And can the attitude because I have no use for it.

this is where you made a fool of yourself, talking like that, at your age, to a man with experience. tell me, if your father is successful at whatever he is successful at, and you are arguing with him, is this how you're going to talk to him when he gets pissed off at you because you are acting like the profession he has put his whole life into, and you've put maybe 30 minutes in comparison, is really not anything you haven't figured out with all your mighty intellect.

I don't think I need to explain the value of perceptions to you.

yet again that self-serving attitude

[turbo200]

Buickman attitude?  Please.  Frankly you're the one who needs to grow up, carrying on like this and all.  Instead of addressing the points that I have brought up, you are resorting to personal attacks and ranting

I don't know $h! about the industry?  So you're telling me there is no need, no pent-up demand whatsoever for a vehicle wider than the STS, with a bigger trunk, that is still RWD and manages to be feature-packed in the Cadillac lineup to compete with the S-Class, 7er and A8?  You think Cadillac should just stop competing at the A6 level?  Is that what you're telling me?  Because I call bull$h!.

You're just mad I did some research of my own and pointed out the STS's lack of front hip room compared to the current DTS and near-dimensionally-identical Holden Statesman instead of agreeing with everything you said and taking your post as truth.  Get over yourself.  You compare me to Buickman?  Get some self-awareness.

You think I don't work?  Wrong again.  It may not be the most glamorous job at the moment but it's a step in life that leads to greater things.

And finally, I am not a teenager.  Haven't been one for a while now, either.  Of course, you seem to imply teenagers are beneath you in some way and I can assure you that with an attitude like that you will not garner much respect from them, or anyone else for that matter.

You can send the apology via PM anytime.

214820[/snapback]

and this is where you got funny, haha you're funny.

[turbo200]

The car they saw WAS NOT the 08 MCE.

214277[/snapback]

what did they see?

[Croc]

This is where it started

and this is where you questioned his knowledge, which has decades on you and I, need i remind you

I'm sure he doesn't disagree with you on this.

this is where you made a fool of yourself, talking like that, at your age, to a man with experience. tell me, if your father is successful at whatever he is successful at, and you are arguing with him, is this how you're going to talk to him when he gets pissed off at you because you are acting like the profession he has put his whole life into, and you've put maybe 30 minutes in comparison, is really not anything you haven't figured out with all your mighty intellect.

yet again that self-serving attitude

214821[/snapback]

and this is where you got funny, haha you're funny.

214822[/snapback]

None of this was really necessary. You could have sent me a PM if you wanted to give me your input instead of perpetuating an argument I have no interest in continuing further in public. Edited November 12, 2006 by Croc

[Flybrian]

Croc, you will end this bickering now. Period.

[Drew Dowdell]

Croc, you will end this bickering now. Period.

214857[/snapback]

[aldw]

Wouldn't a S-class competitor from Cadillac be based on a Sigma II chassis, curiously?

[Croc]

Wouldn't a S-class competitor from Cadillac be based on a Sigma II chassis, curiously?

214902[/snapback]

We've been told in the past that Sigma is expensive and not as flexible as originally hoped. If this has changed, and the cost would work out, then yes, that would be ideal.

[evok]

We've been told in the past that Sigma is expensive ...

For a Chevrolet!

... and not as flexible as originally hoped. 

Nonsense! All of the current sigma vehicles fit within the bandwidth of the original plan for the architecture and the SLS actually exceeds it in one criteria. The addition of the SLS illustrates the flexibility.

Edited November 13, 2006 by evok

[Croc]

For a Chevrolet!

Nonsense!

215036[/snapback]

That was the reason given originally for the current NA STS having very similar dimensions to the CTS.

[razoredge]

I am sorry - but you do not understand the measurements, how they are taken and what they mean with respect to occupant seating.

I refer you to Griffons post.

Think about it  before your reply.  If a vehicle has an extra inch of should room, how much usable shoulder room is that for an outboard occupant?  Hip room, that is another story all together.

214755[/snapback]

evok  Oct 29 2006, 08:49 AM 

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.

anyhow, as far as I know, typically in modern non bench seats, hip and butt location is mostly predetermined by seat design and dont move around. However most people move their shoulders and elbows around a bit.

thegriffon  Today, 01:20 AM 

As it stands most European manufacturers don't specify hip room at all, and Mercedes-Benz USA's numbers are suspect. It's quite common instead to specify shoulder and elbow room, although it's not always clear which is which.

anyhow, all above points taken in I'd say

Croc  Yesterday, 02:43 PM

But what about width?

was a very legitimate concern...even with ignoring the many benefits of a wider track

or they could just half bake it in typical fashion

[evok]

That was the reason given originally for the current NA STS having very similar dimensions to the CTS.

215069[/snapback]

No it was not - it was poor product planning. As I posted years ago the original STS was to be even smaller than the current vehicle.

Edited November 13, 2006 by evok

[turbo200]

is cadillac planning on killing the current STS with the next gen and just upgrading cts along the way? we've heard some reports the CTS could use a northstar V8, though with the DI 3.6 I see even less reason to use the NS. Will STS grow in size and become the flagship, with a smaller RWD under CTS? As it is, CTS is going to be competing tit for tat with 5-series and E-class, just not in price, but I would put money on Cadillac raising the price with the NG CTS.

[turbo200]

SLS really is what the Cadillac ULS should have been all along, at least dimmensional wise. Why has Cadillac deprived this market of this car all along? And why the heck does China come along with a fledgling market and all of a sudden get budget support for a large Sigma car?

EDIT: I am not saying the SLS has "the right size" for the ULS class, but it's obviously much closer to what it should be for the class.

Edited November 13, 2006 by turbo200

[ZL-1]

I think we as enthusiasts tend to analyse too much into these ULS rumours. Cadillac and GM need to take care of the core cars first (as it seems they're doing), and then venture into other things.

But damn it, now I feel compelled to throw the question out there: What exactly does everybody read into what a ULS should be? A 7-Series/S-class competitor?

If so, then the current STS should have been that car, at least in terms of content/dimensions/packaging. It's no surprise Cadillac doesn't have the pricing power that allow is to sell at MSRPs close to the industry's top - yet - so it would make sense to align the lineup with the Germans (which are percieved to be the top), both dimensionally and technologically and let quality/dynamics and the improved perception that comes along raise the brand's pricing power over time.

[aldw]

If the STS/SLS becomes the S-class competitor, it will need the options loadout of it as well, especially the V-12.

[97regalGS]

No it was not - it was poor product planning.  As I posted years ago the original STS was to be even smaller than the current vehicle.

215073[/snapback]

sounds like the original A&S was on the right track, but the product planners had their heads in the sand. in that scenario, the STS would have been a similarily sized ugly looking car with a V8 option. (wasn;t it supposed to be Imaj-like with a weird front end and next to no decklid?)

given that lutz put the brakes on the STS, sounds like things were pretty messed up at GM.

in reality, evok, how much credit to you attribute to lutz and the impact he has had on GM's product planning & globalization turnaround? is he the right guy at the right time, or was he instrumental in turning the big ship?

[Croc]

Personally I thought the original STS design was more attractive as it had more character. It looked much more aggressive, but at the same time it didn't look quite upmarket enough for its intended segment...of course, that's just based on a grainy black and white pic of a clay model from way back...

[evok]

given that lutz put the brakes on the STS, sounds like things were pretty messed up at GM.

in reality, evok, how much credit to you attribute to lutz and the impact he has had on GM's product planning & globalization turnaround? is he the right guy at the right time, or was he instrumental in turning the big ship?

215347[/snapback]

The original pre-lutz intent for the GMX-295 program was to be a direct competitor in price and size against the BMW 5 Series. The vehicle was only to be 2-3 inches longer than the CTS. So you have to ask yourself, what was the point?

Obviously Lutz ask the same question. I am not sure what the whole story was but from when I saw the vehicle until I saw the first post Lutz prototypes, a lot changed from what I remembered. The pre-Lutz 295 was awkward but it moved Art and Science forward. It was certainly not the status quo vehicle that eventually came out. One of the big problems I had with the vehicle was it was too upright. The tumble home issue Lutz had with the vehicle also. Problem was it appears he changed the whole styling direction of the C-Pillar on back to get the tumble home the way he wanted it.

For clarity, the grainy photo mentioned above was not the 295 program Lutz changed from what I remember.

The original 295 program on size did not make sense given the CTS, what ultimately became the STS made only a little more sense.

As for your question on Lutz, well what can I say from what I hear. He is an over paid spokesman for GM. It is my understanding that John Smith's product planning group holds the power. This is not to say Lutz did not bring design back to the fore front at GM, but it was coming in spite of him anyway. The whole globalization of GM was in the process before he arrived. In the last 5 years, there just has been more corporate discipline.

As I have been saying for years, the team Wagoner has in place is really first class and have a direction for the company that should be successful given the limited resources. Lutz as I understand it is just another part of a larger puzzle.

I think the best thing that happened since his arrival was Zarrella decided to leave.

Edited November 13, 2006 by evok

[97regalGS]

Personally I thought the original STS design was more attractive as it had more character.  It looked much more aggressive, but at the same time it didn't look quite upmarket enough for its intended segment...of course, that's just based on a grainy black and white pic of a clay model from way back...

215362[/snapback]

anyone got a copy of that thing? Northstar?

I saw it once or twice, but don't recall much about it.

[Croc]

i don't think i saved it. Northie might have it.

[turbo200]

The original pre-lutz intent for the GMX-295 program was to be a direct competitor in price and size against the BMW 5 Series.  The vehicle was only to be 2-3 inches longer than the CTS.  So you have to ask yourself, what was the point?

Obviously Lutz ask the same question.  I am not sure what the whole story was but from when I saw the vehicle until I saw the first post Lutz prototypes, a lot changed from what I remembered.  The pre-Lutz 295 was awkward but it moved Art and Science forward.  It was certainly not the status quo vehicle that eventually came out.  One of the big problems I had with the vehicle was it was too upright.  The tumble home issue Lutz had with the vehicle also.  Problem was it appears he changed the whole styling direction of the C-Pillar on back to get the tumble home the way he wanted it.

For clarity, the grainy photo mentioned above was not the 295 program Lutz changed from what I remember.

The original 295 program on size did not make sense given the CTS, what ultimately became the STS made only a little more sense.

As for your question on Lutz, well what can I say from what I hear.  He is an over paid spokesman for GM.  It is my understanding that John Smith's product planning group holds the power.  This is not to say Lutz did not bring design back to the fore front at GM, but it was coming in spite of him anyway.  The whole globalization of GM was in the process before he arrived.  In the last 5 years, there just has been more corporate discipline.

As I have been saying for years, the team Wagoner has in place is really first class and have a direction for the company that should be successful given the limited resources.  Lutz as I understand it is just another part of a larger puzzle.

I think the best thing that happened since his arrival was Zarrella decided to leave.

215379[/snapback]

The grainy photo that leaked, I beleive, has been quoted to have been something like 80% accurate, and that it was one design proposal, for the original STS evok speaks of here. That car was totally a crappy design anyways; I have no constructive criticism, it was just all wrong.

[red]

These pictures show a much more competitive interior - not world-class, but pretty damn nice. The STS continues to be too timid in design, however, and doesn't really make a statement.

I remember following this program (much thanks to evok) back in the day. From the things I remember being tossed around about the pre-Lutz STS were: poor stance, disproportinate greenhouse, cheap bumper designs, etc...but I collected that the design was alot more ballsy than what came out - similar to the LaCrosse program. Now that GM seems to be fixing the 'interior' program, it'd be great if they could recapture the forward thinking concepts from the late 90s (ie more balls) while using the newfound discipline that the former organization clearly lacked.