CTS may spawn wagon, coupe

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

So basically, we're getting a wimpy, scaled back Cadillac.. YAY! :rollseyes:

The Escalade is NOT a flagship car because it is so LOATHED by the media and the hippies. The CTS and STS need to be the bulk of the line up, Cadillac ABSOLUTELY needs an S-Class/7 Series competitor to be taken seriously (Not a Maybach competitor... YET) and to can the XLR would be blasphemy, ESPECIALLY if they are trying to promote "RWD performance"

What Cadillac needs is a line up that's done right! It doesn't need to be downsized, or tepidized because it's first effort (A damn good one) stumbled just a little bit.

It's not going to be an easy journey back to the top after 20 years of doing everything in the world to try and sink to the bottom.

[Polish_Kris]

The Escalade is NOT a flagship car because it is so LOATHED by the media and the hippies.

Here we go again, with you constant bull$h! of blaming the media. The Escalade is NOT a flagship TRUCK because it looks hot on the outside, however feels like crap on the inside (hence, dollar-store plastics).

[Northstar]

Here we go again, with you constant bull$h! of blaming the media. The Escalade is NOT a flagship TRUCK because it looks hot on the outside, however feels like crap on the inside (hence, dollar-store plastics).

The Escalade is not a flagship of any kind because outside of brands that only produce trucks, I don't think and truck/SUV is the flagship. And your assessment of the interior makes me laught.

[Drew Dowdell]

The Escalade is not a flagship of any kind because outside of brands that only produce trucks, I don't think and truck/SUV is the flagship. And your assessment of the interior makes me laught.

Now that Pheaton is gone, the Tourege for VW

The B9-Tribecca for Subaru

Enclave for Buick

QX shares the title with the Q...

Escalade for Cadillac

Navigator for Lincoln

[Paolino]

Now that Pheaton is gone, the Tourege for VW

The B9-Tribecca for Subaru

Enclave for Buick

QX shares the title with the Q...

Escalade for Cadillac

Navigator for Lincoln

Wouldn't the XLR top the Escalade though?

[Drew Dowdell]

Wouldn't the XLR top the Escalade though?

I think that would be the distinction between Flagship and Halo.

The Allante was never the Cadillac flagship even though it was the most expensive, that title was held by the Seville for the past 30 years until the 2nd gen Escalade.

[Paolino]

I think that would be the distinction between Flagship and Halo.

The Allante was never the Cadillac flagship even though it was the most expensive, that title was held by the Seville for the past 30 years until the 2nd gen Escalade.

Technicality. :AH-HA_wink:

[evok]

Most likely.... but there would<should?> be minimal investment. All the changes should be behind the C-pillar. If you get an additional 8k sales globally, well, that's 8k more CTSes that you hadn't sold before.

Exactly - minimum investment and tuning unlike a SRX like sportwagon.

[Sixty8panther]

Yes! I've always wanted a car with fins.

So buy a nice 1950s or early 1960s survivor... they're a great toy/investment.

Or better yet... RESTORE one:

[Northstar]

Now that Pheaton is gone, the Tourege for VW

The B9-Tribecca for Subaru

Enclave for Buick

QX shares the title with the Q...

Escalade for Cadillac

Navigator for Lincoln

Enclave is interim.

Q is the flagship. QX just means its the flagship SUV

XLR is the flagship

Lincoln has nothing outside of the Navigator.

On the subject of CTS Wagon: I see no reason why it can't do 1k/month in the US. Look at the R-Class. It's much less stylish than the CTS would be, and much more expensive, and I'm pretty sure it does at least that.

[Viperfan07]

So buy a nice 1950s or early 1960s survivor... they're a great toy/investment.

Or better yet... RESTORE one:

Yea I was thinking bout findin a 1958 Plymouth Fury. But I've always wondered how a modern car would look with fins.

[jbartley]

this post just proves that we have to stop thinking in "USA only" terms. Sure the CTS wagon might not sell great here, but sales in Europe and Asia would likely be outstanding if the rest of the car is right.

We want GM to be a Global player... well they need to start acting like one.

Back up. Caddy is a global player, but where is caddy big? china, the middle east, and the usa.

i don't see europe scrambling for the BTS, i realize it was a half-hearted attempt but still. Do you really think a CTS wagon is going to break-into the market? hardly.

i doubt arts & sciences will translate "nicely" onto a wagon. caddy needs to focus on what it can make that will not only look fantastic, but sell. GM will make a bigger return on small crossover than it will off a wagon. period.

[Drew Dowdell]

Back up. Caddy is a global player, but where is caddy big? china, the middle east, and the usa.

i don't see europe scrambling for the BTS, i realize it was a half-hearted attempt but still. Do you really think a CTS wagon is going to break-into the market? hardly.

i doubt arts & sciences will translate "nicely" onto a wagon. caddy needs to focus on what it can make that will not only look fantastic, but sell. GM will make a bigger return on small crossover than it will off a wagon. period.

Caddy is a global wannabe. I wouldn't judge Europe's reaction to the BTS as an indicator of it's reaction to Cadillac as a whole. It was up against the 9-3, 3-series, C-class, A4, Passat, yet it didn't even have a diesel option.

[Robert Hall]

Here we go again, with you constant bull&#036;h&#33; of blaming the media. The Escalade is NOT a flagship TRUCK because it looks hot on the outside, however feels like crap on the inside (hence, dollar-store plastics).

The Escalade is just a tarted up Tahoe.. it's hardly a flagship. If Cadillac has a flagship, it's the XLR.

[97regalGS]

The Escalade is just a tarted up Tahoe.. it's hardly a flagship. If Cadillac has a flagship, it's the XLR.

right, a tarted up Corvette!

[Robert Hall]

right, a tarted up Corvette!

It has very little in common with the Corvette...just some dirty bits underneath.

[ZL-1]

Caddy is a global wannabe. I wouldn't judge Europe's reaction to the BTS as an indicator of it's reaction to Cadillac as a whole. It was up against the 9-3, 3-series, C-class, A4, Passat, yet it didn't even have a diesel option.

The BLS has a 1.9L diesel engine.

[turbo200]

I know when the SRX goes bye bye - I will not be getting a fwd based BRX or a truck based Escalade - the CTS wagon it will have to be.

Personally - I would prefer a real CTS based NG SRX sports wagon along the lines of an X5 instead of a "station wagon", but with the BRX in the line up it makes no sense.

PS: CTS wagon sales in the US and globally will be modest.

are you saying SRX won't be produced anymore?

[balthazar]

No: evok is talking about his own personal SRX.

The Escalade is no more a 'tarted up Tahoe' than a Tahoe is a decontented Escalade.

Completely different sheetmetal & interiors and different engines makes for 2 different vehicles in my book.

[evok]

are you saying SRX won't be produced anymore?

Yes - The NG sigma based SRX has been shelved in favor of the TE BRX or whatever they will call it and the CTS coupe and wagon late in the decade.

It makes me wonder what LGR will build since CTS products should fill the plant?

Edited December 29, 2006 by evok

[balthazar]

My bad: then will there be nothing between the 'BRX/SRX" and the Escalade?- that's an awful big size jump.

[evok]

My bad: then will there be nothing between the 'BRX/SRX" and the Escalade?- that's an awful big size jump.

yes and for that reason I will get a CTS wagon...

What I saw of the BRX it was not small but I could be wrong.

Edited December 29, 2006 by evok

[turbo200]

yes and for that reason I will get a CTS wagon...

What I saw of the BRX it was not small but I could be wrong.

well, I guess GM must know what it's doing. I hope the BRX can compete effectively with leaders MDX, RX, X5, etc.... MDX had 6000 sales last month, that is an awful lot to just give up and not try and compete. SRX was always a wonderful product with the wrong look for the market. It wasn't understood. The hearse comparison made by one of the first C&D articles on it was accurate. And that is how most people saw it, a station wagon. Meanwhile, segment leaders like the FX and X5 were praised for their sporting looks. They didn't look geriatric, meanwhile the themes on SRX seem bold, but the shape was all wrong. The shape on the FX is still attractive. Every other SUV/crossover in the category pull the hatchy look better, especially the XC90, MKX, FX, and X5. Pretty much the whole segment has a shape that is more universal than the SRX. Most people I know look at it, and acknowledge it's a very nice car, but it looks too much like a station wagon to them, and it turns off. The most successful long wagon that pulls off the crossover look/shape are the X5 and XC90, imo.

I just remembered the Vizon concept, it's shorter length pulled off the look better too

Edited December 29, 2006 by turbo200

[turbo200]

Yes - The NG sigma based SRX has been shelved in favor of the TE BRX or whatever they will call it and the CTS coupe and wagon late in the decade.

It makes me wonder what LGR will build since CTS products should fill the plant?

you also make it seem like STS won't be too much of an issue there either. Makes one wonder on that product's future too...

[Northstar]

I don't know, but I think Cadillac's lineup may look something like this:

BLS (sedan, convert?): New Rear-drive platform (coming sooner than you might think :AH-HA_wink: ) This would slot in a little lower than the current CTS.

CTS: (sedan, coupe, wagon): Moves up in price to $35-50k with the V-Series around $60k. Takes the place of current higher-end CTSs and lower-end STSs.

ULS: STS and DTS are dropped, and we something priced from $65-80k for a regular length version, and then we get a streched version from $75-90k. This is basically an S-Class competitor, but also competes with V8 5er, A6, E-Class, etc., models.

XLR: Same idea as currently.

Then we have BRX and Escalade line for trucks.

I would really like to see a CLS competitor, but I don't think this is happening. I think Cadillac will have another model somewhere, as it's supposed to be a full-line manufacturer, but I don't know where. The CLS competitor would be an idea, and the SRX, if made less wagon-like could definitely fit the slot between BRX and Escalade. I assume GM knows what it's doing, so I hope that it doesn't F it up.

[Croc]

Pity about the SRX. The 2007 is truly best-in-class. Maybe they will reconsider if sales go up due to the redesign...

What's the last MY the current generation will be produced?

[Northstar]

It does suck, because the new interior is awesome. The dealership has a 2006 V6 AWD for $29.9k, and I'm thinking next year we may have to see if they have any 07s for the same price, because that's a steal for $16k off sticker with 9000 miles.

The NG was to be a 2010MY, so I assume they'll let the current one go to '09.

[Sixty8panther]

Agreed Balthazar! Tahoe/Escalade are NOt the same truck.

Esp. in an era when Honda can have a separate division of

separate "models" which basically consist of nothing but

Accords & Civics & Pilots with slightly less ugly styling and

the Honda emblem turned upside down.

VP07:

Your enthusiasm is great, however a 1958 Plymouth fury is

very rare and expen$ived collector car... a 1958 Plymouth

4dr post sedan is not a big money car but the Fury IS. Esp.

since Christine is such a cult classic.

[evok]

Agreed Balthazar! Tahoe/Escalade are NOt the same truck.

Yes they are. I would even go out on a limb and say the 900s have more in common than the 800s. If what I was told was correct, even the suspension tuning for the 900s are the same including shocks and springs.

This time around - the execution is a lot better, leading to a better perceived differentiation between the 900s.

i.e. The 800 Escalade I/P is as different from the 800 Tahoe as the 900s. It just does not look it to the casual observer.

Edited December 29, 2006 by evok

[evok]

Pity about the SRX. The 2007 is truly best-in-class. Maybe they will reconsider if sales go up due to the redesign...

It is a shame - since driving wise, packaging and now with the new interior, the vehicle IMO is the best thing they have in the showroom, especially given the market transition to more crossovers. The BRX might get the styling and packaging right, but driving dynamics will not match the SRX especially in 2 wheel drive configuration.

Drive a Lexus RX back to back with the SRX and the Cadillac makes the Lexus feel exactly what it is, a tarted up Camry.

I just wish GM spent some more money on a more aggressive nose in line with the 08 CTS for the 07 MCE.

[enzl]

It is a shame - since driving wise, packaging and now with the new interior, the vehicle IMO is the best thing they have in the showroom, especially given the market transition to more crossovers. The BRX might get the styling and packaging right, but driving dynamics will not match the SRX especially in 2 wheel drive configuration.

Drive a Lexus RX back to back with the SRX and the Cadillac makes the Lexus feel exactly what it is, a tarted up Camry.

I just wish GM spent some more money on a more aggressive nose in line with the 08 CTS for the 07 MCE.

Agreed.

I'm afraid the BRX is going to be a gussied up Theta (not known for its stellar dynamics)---the SRX, like a few other GM products (Allante, some of the Last Olds lineup) will probably be perfect just about the time they kill it.

[jbartley]

Agreed.

I'm afraid the BRX is going to be a gussied up Theta (not known for its stellar dynamics)---the SRX, like a few other GM products (Allante, some of the Last Olds lineup) will probably be perfect just about the time they kill it.

i still have hope that the BRX won't be sold in the states. With a buick and saab version as well, the BRX might just be overkill.

[Northstar]

There is no Buick TE as of yet. I think the SRX's biggest downfall is its size. it's 195 inches long, and most of it's competitors are 10 inches shorter. My aunt really liked the one she drove but she felt that it was just too big for her.

[Sixty8panther]

I love the SRX... I sure as hell hope it sticks around.

The enclave is sexy as hell but I'm pretty sure I'll buy a Horse & Buggy

before I ever go back to a transverse mounted motor. God I hate how

everyone has sold out to transverse monuted motors... it's disgusting.

I might at some point own a FWD car again if a great deal comes along

on a Bustleback or a Razorback Cadillac (or maybe an L29) but I'm

very much against transverse mounted motors.

[turbo200]

It is a shame - since driving wise, packaging and now with the new interior, the vehicle IMO is the best thing they have in the showroom, especially given the market transition to more crossovers. The BRX might get the styling and packaging right, but driving dynamics will not match the SRX especially in 2 wheel drive configuration.

Drive a Lexus RX back to back with the SRX and the Cadillac makes the Lexus feel exactly what it is, a tarted up Camry.

I just wish GM spent some more money on a more aggressive nose in line with the 08 CTS for the 07 MCE.

everything underneath the skin and everything that truly matters is about perfect on the SRX. it's the styling that put them behind the game. Cadillac had no reason for the SRX not to be a success. Similar to the CTS and Escalade, they would finally offer a new competitive vehicle in a burgeoning segment where they could conquer some sales territory. Unfortunately, the look confused. When you categorize what the SRX is just based on the look, it's for: a woman, older person, and is a station wagon. These were truly things to get away from at that time, and even moreso now, when there have been very successful intrepretations of the SUV/crossover look. My verdict is they should never give up on a vehicle that could potentially add 4000 units [on the low end] of volume.

It's not too big. It's the perfect size.

[dado]

What do you guys think,is there going to be CTS coupe V?

Edited December 29, 2006 by dado

[Croc]

everything underneath the skin and everything that truly matters is about perfect on the SRX. it's the styling that put them behind the game. Cadillac had no reason for the SRX not to be a success. Similar to the CTS and Escalade, they would finally offer a new competitive vehicle in a burgeoning segment where they could conquer some sales territory. Unfortunately, the look confused. When you categorize what the SRX is just based on the look, it's for: a woman, older person, and is a station wagon. These were truly things to get away from at that time, and even moreso now, when there have been very successful intrepretations of the SUV/crossover look. My verdict is they should never give up on a vehicle that could potentially add 4000 units [on the low end] of volume.

It's not too big. It's the perfect size.

No. What killed the SRX was the cheap-looking 80s Star Trek throwback interior...with the price. Cadillac tried to price it too upmarket too quickly, without establishing the brand recognition first. Add in a third-rate interior design, it simply came across as $10 grand overpriced.

The pricing is essentially the same now, but the new interior makes it worthy of all the Benjamins.

The only issue with the exterior is that from some angles and in some colors the rear 3/4 can resemble a hearse due to the shape of the pillars and cargo area/third row windows. I personally don't see it, but enough people have remarked it in my presence that I'm lending credence to that viewpoint.

[evok]

No. What killed the SRX was the cheap-looking 80s Star Trek throwback interior...with the price. Cadillac tried to price it too upmarket too quickly, without establishing the brand recognition first.

ding ding ding - we have a winner

New front fascia - and relaunch the vehicle - and Cadillac might be ahead of the curve in the station wagon/crossover/however you define it game these days.

The only issue with the exterior is that from some angles and in some colors the rear 3/4 can resemble a hearse due to the shape of the pillars and cargo area/third row windows. I personally don't see it, but enough people have remarked it in my presence that I'm lending credence to that viewpoint.

It does - especially in black.

[Flybrian]

With people complaining about how the X5 and its ilk are too small while hating the RX and the like for being too sloppy, its a crying shame to see Cadillac ditch the SRX.

[turbo200]

No. What killed the SRX was the cheap-looking 80s Star Trek throwback interior...with the price. Cadillac tried to price it too upmarket too quickly, without establishing the brand recognition first. Add in a third-rate interior design, it simply came across as $10 grand overpriced.

The pricing is essentially the same now, but the new interior makes it worthy of all the Benjamins.

The only issue with the exterior is that from some angles and in some colors the rear 3/4 can resemble a hearse due to the shape of the pillars and cargo area/third row windows. I personally don't see it, but enough people have remarked it in my presence that I'm lending credence to that viewpoint.

I'll concede that both the pricing and interior were weak points. HOWEVER,!!!!!, Escalade proved it doesn't take a good interior'd Cadillac to win sales and conquests. Same story with the CTS, so both you and evok are wrong if you believe the exterior shape had nothing to do with it. Ask enough people what they think about the design. Ask enough people what they like, then observe why they like what they like. When people say it just doesn't feel right to them, it doesn't suit them, they're just not in love with it, their is somehting wrong with it; they are talking about design design design. You may think only your opinion on the exterior look counts, but you are wrong fella. Escalade and CTS proved there was an audience waiting for Cadillac to release some truly worthy cars that made people say, wow that is a nice Caddy. SRX just could not evoke those same feelings.

I STILL love the SRX, and think all its inherent goodness overshadows the percieved design drawbacks, but the first impression people get on a car still is the exterior, not the interior, busta. A great interior is very important, especially when the competition is sooo good, BUT even more important is an exterior design that successfully appeals to its intended market. Just why is all the SRX's ocmpetition so different looking from the SRX? And just why are they all sooo successful, even a Volvo sells more. An Acura sells triple!!! at the same price levels, and with the same equipment levels!! Acura!!! [many will say, where the hell did they come from, this year they are riding on Caddy's cotails in the sales numbers] A BMW with less cargo space and less people space sells almost triple!!!! WHY??? The look. And then comes the rest.

People subconsciouly pick cars based on design. They will not admit it, but part of thier draw is the exterior look.

People are also very general when it comes to design. It either works, or it doesn't. A car like the Civic coupe can be described in one word: weak/girly. To a woman, it would be nice/elegant. To a Honda fan, it would be cool. A car like the CTS is masculine, mean. People, in general, are very simple, and think independently, they either like something or they don't, for very simple reasons.

EDIT: In the initial launch phase of the SRX, interior quality/design and pricing had a lot more to do with its success. The design was polarizing, and this was good, and there wasn't as much good looking competition as there is today [i.e. XC90, Touraeg/Cayenne]. The fact that the design was different was good, as it usually takes people some time to get used to a design and grow to love it. The problem was this never happened with the SRX, even after the pricing issues were changed and cheaper models/trims were made available. [initial availability was heavy on the top end models] Over time, SRX sales should have increased like the Escalades and CTS before it. What happened? The design failed. PEople grew to appreciate and love the look of CTS and Escalade, whereas SRX withered and died. And now it sells even less than when it came out, whereas CTS and Escalade went on to sell better well in thier life cycles.

My bottom line in all this is give the exterior another shot, and the SRX would be a giant competitor. However, in the landscape of cool luxury SUVS, like the Land Rovers, X5, FX, Cayenne, XC90, etc, SRX just fails. I know you know that.

EDIT 2: Remeber that Cadillac's dealer base is greater than Acura's, Volvo's, Porsche's...and my point about the competition is stronger. Those cars succeded first on the shoulders of a good car, second on the merits of the brand.

Edited December 30, 2006 by turbo200

[Croc]

I'll concede that both the pricing and interior were weak points. HOWEVER,!!!!!, Escalade proved it doesn't take a good interior'd Cadillac to win sales and conquests. Same story with the CTS, so both you and evok are wrong if you believe the exterior shape had nothing to do with it.

Again, you ignore price. CTS gets away with it because it started under 30k. It got away with the interior. The (nearly) exact same interior design was then put in the crossover costing 10k more...for BASE. Have you ever priced an SRX? You go from 38k to 55k pretty quickly because the packages are pretty bundled and a little pricey. Even if you stick with the 6cyl.

Here's the essential problem: The SRX is priced like an STS but looked and felt like a CTS.

OK I finally finished reading your (unnecessarily long) post, and all I gotta say is chill. The exterior design was not the problem. YES, an exterior ropes people in. Then they see the window sticker, then they see the interior. Acura and Volvo sold more because the interior fit the price. You talk so much about "intended markets" but do you even know the SRX's (and XC90's, et al) intended customers? Female. Affluent. Upper-20s to early retirees. Kids/grandkids. Shops at Saks. Eats at Panera. That's the target market. The exterior designs are all perfectly inoffensive (for the most part). As you noted the pricing is all very similar. The thing about affluent people, though, is that they don't just spend money recklessly. They want to get quality. That's why they see nothing wrong with a $60 T-shirt, because they feel having the softest, highest-quality cotton is worth it. Were it a Hanes T-shirt going for $60, they wouldn't touch it. The SRX would have sold much better if it simply had the perceived quality to match (or exceed) the level expected for the price point. The XC90 has it. The RX330 has it. The ML-350 has it in spades (though reliability is actually abysmal). This is where the SRX underperformed and what broke the deal. The SRX had a $30k interior yet was being sold for (most popular options) $52k. That's ridiculous, and an incredible gap in perceived design quality that cost sales. A lot of sales.

The target demographic buys luxury crossovers not on emotional design appeal, but on practicality, value, function, and content. It must not be perceived as ugly (none in the segment really are), it must serve a practical need without obvious compromises, the price cannot be inflated for what you get (conversely, cannot be too cheap either or it loses the luster of exclusivity), it must function and perform as intended on a daily basis, and being a luxury vehicle it must be offered with the same level of options as its competitors.

SRX had good materials, but a terribly cheap-looking interior. Great materials cannot save a design disaster.

As for exterior, the only other crossover on the market that can look more elegant than an SRX is the Tourag. The exterior wasn't the problem, but the interior was (at that price point).

It does - especially in black.

Yup. Red or Sandstone hide it best, though. Edited December 30, 2006 by Croc

[enzl]

Again, you ignore price. CTS gets away with it because it started under 30k. It got away with the interior. The (nearly) exact same interior design was then put in the crossover costing 10k more...for BASE. Have you ever priced an SRX? You go from 38k to 55k pretty quickly because the packages are pretty bundled and a little pricey. Even if you stick with the 6cyl.

Here's the essential problem: The SRX is priced like an STS but looked and felt like a CTS.

OK I finally finished reading your (unnecessarily long) post, and all I gotta say is chill. The exterior design was not the problem. YES, an exterior ropes people in. Then they see the window sticker, then they see the interior. Acura and Volvo sold more because the interior fit the price. You talk so much about "intended markets" but do you even know the SRX's (and XC90's, et al) intended customers? Female. Affluent. Upper-20s to early retirees. Kids/grandkids. Shops at Saks. Eats at Panera. That's the target market. The exterior designs are all perfectly inoffensive (for the most part). As you noted the pricing is all very similar. The thing about affluent people, though, is that they don't just spend money recklessly. They want to get quality. That's why they see nothing wrong with a $60 T-shirt, because they feel having the softest, highest-quality cotton is worth it. Were it a Hanes T-shirt going for $60, they wouldn't touch it. The SRX would have sold much better if it simply had the perceived quality to match (or exceed) the level expected for the price point. The XC90 has it. The RX330 has it. The ML-350 has it in spades (though reliability is actually abysmal). This is where the SRX underperformed and what broke the deal. The SRX had a $30k interior yet was being sold for (most popular options) $52k. That's ridiculous, and an incredible gap in perceived design quality that cost sales. A lot of sales.

The target demographic buys luxury crossovers not on emotional design appeal, but on practicality, value, function, and content. It must not be perceived as ugly (none in the segment really are), it must serve a practical need without obvious compromises, the price cannot be inflated for what you get (conversely, cannot be too cheap either or it loses the luster of exclusivity), it must function and perform as intended on a daily basis, and being a luxury vehicle it must be offered with the same level of options as its competitors.

SRX had good materials, but a terribly cheap-looking interior. Great materials cannot save a design disaster.

As for exterior, the only other crossover on the market that can look more elegant than an SRX is the Tourag. The exterior wasn't the problem, but the interior was (at that price point).

Yup. Red or Sandstone hide it best, though.

I'm on the fence....no doubt a combination of polarizing design and bizarre, pricey option structure didn't help (especially since the Escalade it shared a showroom floor with was priced similarly to the V8 SRX...

I think the crossover competition was more conservative in their design approach. Most people were either trading 'up' from a minivan or getting out of truck-based SUVs....that's a conservative, soccer mom crowd that clearly never responded to the design.

I like the SRX as well. 1 or 2 yrs. old under the factory cert program is really the ticket with this vehicle. Gotta figure 30/40 % depreciation in 2 model years, no?

[Flybrian]

The thing about affluent people, though, is that they don't just spend money recklessly. They want to get quality. That's why they see nothing wrong with a $60 T-shirt, because they feel having the softest, highest-quality cotton is worth it. Were it a Hanes T-shirt going for $60, they wouldn't touch it.

As a sidenote, no. They don't touch a Hanes shirt because it says Hanes. If it said Dolce & Gabbana, 75% wouldn't know the difference.

[Croc]

As a sidenote, no. They don't touch a Hanes shirt because it says Hanes. If it said Dolce & Gabbana, 75% wouldn't know the difference.

Only because Dolce & Gabbana never uses the low-grade cotten Hanes uses. Brands only matter to the extent of the quality/reputation of quality. That's how some brands are cheaper and lower-rent than others. If you are talking about literally the same exact shirt with the same Hanes quality that just happens to have a D&G tag and is sold at a D&G price...well reputation of D&G quality might help it sell some, but I think it would be by and large spurned by shoppers for being a step-down (or three) from the usual D&G look and feel. Call that the Cimarron Effect. There will always be status-seekers...but you need more than just status-seeking sheeple for something to catch on...because chances are status-seekers only want it because it just caught on.

[Croc]

I'm on the fence....no doubt a combination of polarizing design and bizarre, pricey option structure didn't help (especially since the Escalade it shared a showroom floor with was priced similarly to the V8 SRX...

I think the crossover competition was more conservative in their design approach. Most people were either trading 'up' from a minivan or getting out of truck-based SUVs....that's a conservative, soccer mom crowd that clearly never responded to the design.

I like the SRX as well. 1 or 2 yrs. old under the factory cert program is really the ticket with this vehicle. Gotta figure 30/40 % depreciation in 2 model years, no?

Are you including interior and exterior in "design"? Yes, the competition is more conservative, but another key point: this market is dominated by women. How many women would respond to a center stack that looks like a 1995 Compaq Presario and a dash/interior theme lifted from Captain Kirk's command post? The interior was just too off-putting, especially compared to the elegant lines and textures on the Volvo XC90. My mother was choosing between the two a few years ago and went with the Volvo because of the interior (and "it looks like a hearse"). But she also found the front of the Volvo a bit weird, and liked the SRX's LED tails (she's a safety fiend).

[evok]

I'll concede that both the pricing and interior were weak points. HOWEVER,!!!!!, Escalade proved it doesn't take a good interior'd Cadillac to win sales and conquests. Same story with the CTS, so both you and evok are wrong if you believe the exterior shape had nothing to do with it. Ask enough people what they think about the design.

Price killed the SRX at launch. At launch back in 03 - the product mix was so swayed to the V8 awd the vehicle was over $50k. As croc stated even to this day you add a few options and awd the SRX V6 is 45k. Compared to the Lexus and Acura the SRX is more expensive even with the reduced price for the base.

Now factor in the original interior, and a similar priced Escalade with the rebates the SRX could not compete.

And to address your comments about the Escalade interior - What other options were there for consumers in the market for such a vehicle? Now compare that to the SRX competition.

If the SRX was priced along with the CTS there would be less overlap with the Escalade. V6 starting in the low 30s and the V8 in the low 40s we would probably not have this discussion. Remember the CTS tops off where the SRX begins on price.

The styling yes awkward is no more bizzar than an RX and FX - the only other vehicles in that same class.

The MDX, M, BMW are for lack of a better description are SUVs.

Edited December 31, 2006 by evok

[turbo200]

Price killed the SRX at launch. At launch back in 03 - the product mix was so swayed to the V8 awd the vehicle was over $50k. As croc stated even to this day you add a few options and awd the SRX V6 is 45k. Compared to the Lexus and Acura the SRX is more expensive even with the reduced price for the base.

Now factor in the original interior, and a similar priced Escalade with the rebates the SRX could not compete.

And to address your comments about the Escalade interior - What other options were there for consumers in the market for such a vehicle? Now compare that to the SRX competition.

If the SRX was priced along with the CTS there would be less overlap with the Escalade. V6 starting in the low 30s and the V8 in the low 40s we would probably not have this discussion. Remember the CTS tops off where the SRX begins on price.

The styling yes awkward is no more bizzar than an RX and FX - the only other vehicles in that same class.

The MDX, M, BMW are for lack of a better description are SUVs.

We are pretty much saying the same things now. I've said the interior and pricing were weak points, but I'll emphasize now that the three things I believe that killed the SRX were interior styling/quality, pricing/early availability, and exterior shape. My bottom line point is this: a front fascia redesign would cause a spark in sales, but renewing the whole car using the existing formula but a different formula for exterior design would bring the SRX to the lead of the pack. That's at least 4k-6k sales we're talking about.

As for the launch of the vehicle, when FX and RX were released, well RX wasn't as bizarre since it had the first gen lead in that set the mold for crossovers so to speak, and then FX was a total departure. FX and SRX were total departures you could say, but FX took it the right way, imo.

Here are the facts

Porsche sold 1598 Cayennes for November

Infiniti sold 1979 FX for November 06 compared to 2040 for 05

BMW's X5 last month of sales for the current gen sold 1449 compared to 3648 for November 05

Land Rover sold 1216 Land Rovers and 1827 Range Rover Sports

Volvo sold 2776 XC90s

Cadillac sold 1492 SRXs in the first or second month of the MCE

Lexus sold 8052 RX in its second to last year on the market

Acura sold 6086 MDX in its first month of sales of the new gen

Audi sold 2019 Q7s [!!!]

MB ML class sold 3183 sales

Granted, not all of these cars are direct competition for the SRX, according to statistics and dimmensions. But this is the luxury class of SUVs, and comparison shopping occurs with many of these. X5, MDX, XC90, ML may all be traditional SUVs, but they are definitely cross shopped with the SRX, at least to some extent. What's most alarming to me here is that SRX is just as old as most of these, and Cadillac's dealer base is larger than most of these brands, yet it is still outsold by pretty much all of them.

From my experience selling cars, I know that it takes two things to get a person to walk into a dealership: brand reputation and the vehicle itself. Regular people don't have an idea of what the interior looks like, much less feels like, until they get to the dealership. The interior experience is also one that augments the feelings for the car. If the car has a great interior with sumptuous leather and nice materials, say like the Cayenne, then that is a big bonus in that car's favor. However, the customer who was looking at the car, went there because they thought the car was interesting, and that was based on thier image of the brand and the car itself, seeing it rolling down the street or parked somewhere or at their local auto show.

We can talk semantics all day long about why people didn't choose SRX over the competition, going down to details like dealership experience and that would takes us nowhere. Bottom line, it is the car itself that pulls people into the dealerhip. SRX has failed to do it, yet the competition has shown steady sales or great improvements over thier life spans.

At this point, the SRX is a loss leader, Escalade is Cadillac's bread and butter, at the dealership level especially. So, the average salesman is going to try his damndest to wheel and deal SRX intenders with hardline negotiating. So, at this point at least, price can be thrown out the window. MSRPs, according to your statements, still seems to be an issue, though. Also, the interior has now been dramatically improved, and that clearly hasn't helped sales, at least for the last two months.

To address your comments-- overlap with the Escalade I cannot deny was a big issue. Escalade was a powerful presence in the showroom, but that was augmented by the SRX's weaker presence. The Lexus and Acura do much bigger numbers, but are also cheaper to begin with--the rest however are not any cheaper and still do bigger numbers. I beleive SRX begins around 36k now and CTS can be had for up to 44k now. For options to the Escalade- you had the bigger but less bold Navigator and the Land Rovers starting in 2003- all had much better interiors, but yes, SRX had stronger competitors in the form of FX [whose quality really wasn't any better than SRX], RX [better design/quality], MDX [worse design/quality], X5. Escalade and Land Rovers really are prime competition, since they are all about personal transport, these vehicles really aren't used in the way thier bodies and frames would have you believe.

[Cory Wolfe]

The enclave is sexy as hell but I'm pretty sure I'll buy a Horse & Buggy

before I ever go back to a transverse mounted motor. God I hate how

everyone has sold out to transverse monuted motors... it's disgusting.

I might at some point own a FWD car again if a great deal comes along

on a Bustleback or a Razorback Cadillac (or maybe an L29) but I'm

very much against transverse mounted motors.

Dislike for transverse mounted engines? How about an Acura Legend? It doesnt have a transverse mounted engine.

We are pretty much saying the same things now. I've said the interior and pricing were weak points, but I'll emphasize now that the three things I believe that killed the SRX were interior styling/quality, pricing/early availability, and exterior shape. My bottom line point is this: a front fascia redesign would cause a spark in sales, but renewing the whole car using the existing formula but a different formula for exterior design would bring the SRX to the lead of the pack. That's at least 4k-6k sales we're talking about.

As for the launch of the vehicle, when FX and RX were released, well RX wasn't as bizarre since it had the first gen lead in that set the mold for crossovers so to speak, and then FX was a total departure. FX and SRX were total departures you could say, but FX took it the right way, imo.

I agree. For me, I have no idea how the FX compares to the SRX pricing wise. I do know what it looks like, inside and out. It's sexy. For a crossover, it blew me away. Nothing looks like it. It doesnt look like a G35 wagon or whatnot. The SRX looks too much like a tall wagon. If it had looked more like the Vizon, I think it would have had a better chance, despite the high price and unacceptable interior. The Vizon looked sporty and sexy. It shared the same A&S theme without looking like another Cadillac. Personally, this is the reason I would've have bought an SRX if I was in the market.

[emh]

My bottom line in all this is give the exterior another shot, and the SRX would be a giant competitor. However, in the landscape of cool luxury SUVS, like the Land Rovers, X5, FX, Cayenne, XC90, etc, SRX just fails. I know you know that.

I agree... with an exterioir redesign, the SRX could be a VERY competitive product. The current design looks odd from some angles, especially in light colors (and this is from someone who liked it enough to buy one).

One thing I don't get is GM's inability and/or unwillingness to learn from mistakes and try again. Why give up on a segment (the BRX may address this, although my understanding was that it was intended to slot below the SRX againt the likes of X3 and RDX -- a much smaller market) and a name that has several years of marketing invested in it (I don't think there's any negative perception associated with the SRX name -- just an exterior design that's not widely loved). If the sales numbers of Honda's first generation Odyssey (which was also a different-than-the-rest design) was compared to it's then current competition, I'm sure it looked far worse than the competitive landscape for SRX that turbo200 posted. But the obvious answer was not to give up on the segment, but to go back and design a competitive product with more main-stream appeal. Same with full-size trucks from Toyota. I have no doubt that Honda will improve the Ridgeline next time around instead of giving up on it. IMO, GM's stable of recent good ideas killed after a bad first-round exterior design include the Aztek and the XUV as well.

Edited December 31, 2006 by emh

[evok]

At this point, the SRX is a loss leader, Escalade is Cadillac's bread and butter, at the dealership level especially. So, the average salesman is going to try his damndest to wheel and deal SRX intenders with hardline negotiating. So, at this point at least, price can be thrown out the window. MSRPs, according to your statements, still seems to be an issue, though. Also, the interior has now been dramatically improved, and that clearly hasn't helped sales, at least for the last two months.

I would check some facts prior to make such bold statement.

First off: 50% of SRX sales are the V8 model and the demand for the vehicle is swayed to the awd model. That means the average transaction price for the vehicle is well over $45k. Though the base price for the vehicle has dropped to app. $37k, Cadillac has controlled demand and the product mix and is commanding premium pricing for the vehicle such that it is not a loss leader. It appears that intentionally they are sacrificing entry level sales volume and making money on the product at the high end.

Secondly: The new interior would never substancially increase sales dramatically at this point in the life cycle of the product without an external refresh. What it most likely did was raise the average transaction price of the vehicle because of the improved quality.

And Third: The MSRP is a problem for mass market sales. As I will state once more, this vehicle is a vehicle that can not be categorized much like the MB R and Infinit RX which have not sold in high numbers either. Those vehicles have suffered because of price and confused styling. But as I have stated above, Cadillac is not attempting to go after mass sales at this point in time with the vehicle and is going after the quality of the sale.

To address your comments-- overlap with the Escalade I cannot deny was a big issue. Escalade was a powerful presence in the showroom, but that was augmented by the SRX's weaker presence.

Jim Taylor recently said as much about the Escalade hurting SRX sales. I happen to agree which goes back to price. People perceived the SRX as a CTS based product priced along side the Escalade.

And you miss a typical GM marketing blunder at launch. Cadillac still does not know how to market it. Just go to their website and see SRX (Crossover) whatever that means. The market was aweful.