CTS may spawn wagon, coupe

[NOS2006]

I also heard today that there is talk of a coupe/wagon. Coupe goes without saying, but I didn't expect there to be a wagon version.

[Camino LS6]

I don't care for sedans, so a wagon sounds good to me.

Oh, and I do like the SRX - more than any other Caddy save the XLR.

Hate Escalades, I'd much rather have a Suburban.

[turbo200]

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.

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.

all right. i did not know the mix was towards the V8 edition, if you go just off what the consumer research websites say, more interest is on the V6 model, at carsdirect.com for example 84% look at the V6. But, it is what it is. Why I figured it was a loss leader was just an assumption also based on the number of years into the lifecycle and the fact that Cadillac has been heavy on discounting in the past [at the dealership level], and I have seen base SRXs advertised for as low as just under 34k [though I am aware of the bait and switch], plus the Escalades are the profit machines, and to a lesser extent the CTS still must perform decently, though many of those are probably lease specials at this point which equal very little gross profit for the dealer.

ya, I never believed nor asserted that the interior should dramatically increase sales, just that it was an issue that was fixed, and you and croc pointed it out as the major issue along with pricing. well, now that both those issues seems to be fixed [i'll get to pricing in a second], it would make sense that sales would increase, if those were the two issues that stinted sales.

MSRP is used for marketing, so it is a major issue, you are right. It is used to pull people in, and then the smart ones will haggle a little, knowing a dealership has a lot of profit and some room from MSRP. [Getting to that issue is a whole other story for another day.]

The SRX is difficult to categorize. And the comparison to the R-class is a good once. The SRX is a lot more traditional than that, but then again the XC90 is a lot more traditional than SRX. SRX to all but the most ardent GM supporters is an awkward good looking truck. It has angles where the front end is very attractive, and others where it looks almost goofy and not butch enough; the rear is convoluted, and the slab sides have been criticized since day one for emphasizing the station wagon-esque profile. All I am saying is that it is that bizarre styling that has detracted from its overall appeal. From certain angles, it looks so great, and thus the look has pulled in buyers.....but from other angles it really is awkward, and that has pushed buyers away.

My stats comparing it to more traditional SUVs were meant to demonstrate that. SRX really isn't much more expensive than the Volvo XC90. XC starts at 36k, while SRX starts at 37k. V8 AWD XC is 46k; SRX V8 AWD starts at 43k. Both SRXs offer more horsepower, better gas mileage, a more technically advanced RWD platform, and now a nicer interior.

Marketing is a key failure obviously. Even now, the stinge from the first interior lasts, and buyers trading in thier leases who looked at the original SRX probably think nothing has changed. But this is Cadillac we are talking about it. When they put their minds to it, they can sell gangbusters. Thier dealer network is large and reputable, they have a long history of quality [with some abberations], and some very loyal customers. Plus, people want to give new brands a chance, all they are waiting for is the right style, just look at Art & Science and how it revitalized Caddy and actually got them back into the sales game.

All that said, it is a truck I would own in a heartbeat, because of its terrific road manners, and the fact that with the right wheels [that fill the wheel gap and are the proper design] I think it's one of the most attractive little SUVs out there.

[Croc]

The styling of the SRX is in no way "bizarre." It has ONE bad angle, a rear 3/4 view. Bizarre is the X5 (Bangle-bizarre) and the RX350. Look at what vehicles sell...the ones with good/great interiors for the price. Unless a vehicle is Aztek-ugly, Americans do not care if it is attractive, bland, or a bit awkward. Beautiful styling might contribute to first-year sales, but after that the reviews, word-of-mouth, practicality and value play much bigger roles. If styling drove buying decisions as much as you claim, the first-gen Escalade wouldn't have been a hit, the Ford Thunderbird would have been a massive success, and the Phaeton wouldn't be going for 42k on dealer lots as we speak. The SRX is not losing its sales potential from an awkward rear 3/4 view, turbo...that's just ridiculous.

[intrigued]

I know the CTS debutes on the 8th but does the online embargo lift before then?

[turbo200]

The styling of the SRX is in no way "bizarre." It has ONE bad angle, a rear 3/4 view. Bizarre is the X5 (Bangle-bizarre) and the RX350. Look at what vehicles sell...the ones with good/great interiors for the price. Unless a vehicle is Aztek-ugly, Americans do not care if it is attractive, bland, or a bit awkward. Beautiful styling might contribute to first-year sales, but after that the reviews, word-of-mouth, practicality and value play much bigger roles. If styling drove buying decisions as much as you claim, the first-gen Escalade wouldn't have been a hit, the Ford Thunderbird would have been a massive success, and the Phaeton wouldn't be going for 42k on dealer lots as we speak. The SRX is not losing its sales potential from an awkward rear 3/4 view, turbo...that's just ridiculous.

huh?

you have no idea what you're talking about. you're examples suck by the way

[Chris_Doane]

Coupe goes without saying, but I didn't expect there to be a wagon version.

Expect it.

[Drew Dowdell]

Expect it.

you need a rainbow version of the AH-Ha wink

[Chris_Doane]

you need a rainbow version of the AH-Ha wink

Hahah....I'll pass, thank you.

[Sixty8panther]

B.V. Since you brought it up, if I HAD to own a Honda with the caliper emblem

I would probably pick a Legend... frameless glass and an Inline-Six are nice

featuresbut I always thought it was downright bizzare that someone would make

a FWD car with an inline 6. That transmission has to be a JOY to work on.

Someday if I drag a '95-ish Legend with a blown trans. out of a junkyard for like

$300 I'll jimmy-rig an old powerglide to the motor and throw a solid rear end

under the ass end for the ultimate JDM-Boy-Racer prank car.

The Legend sedan & coupe even have RWd proportions

Edited January 4, 2007 by Sixty8panther

[Drew Dowdell]

B.V. Since you brought it up, if I HAD to own a Honda with the caliper emblem

I would probably pick a Legend... frameless glass and an Inline-Six are nice

featuresbut I always thought it was downright bizzare that someone would make

a FWD car with an inline 6. That transmission has to be a JOY to work on.

V6... unless you're confusing the Legend with the Suzuki Verona

...

or the Vigor which had a 2.5 litre I5

[Croc]

huh?

you have no idea what you're talking about. you're examples suck by the way

Really... Take a business class or two and maybe you'll have a better idea of how the market works. Perceived quality vs. price almost always trumps styling when it comes to sales. Consumers respond favorably when they think they are getting some kind of deal, and are almost always willing to pay a premium for something perceived as premium.

A good book you should read to understand this better is called Trading Up: The New American Luxury by Michael J. Silverstein. It has since been updated and retitled from when I purchased/read it and is now called Trading Up: Why Consumers Want New Luxury Goods... And How Companies Create Them. Excellent insight into marketing and consumer behavior.

[turbo200]

Really... Take a business class or two and maybe you'll have a better idea of how the market works. Perceived quality vs. price almost always trumps styling when it comes to sales. Consumers respond favorably when they think they are getting some kind of deal, and are almost always willing to pay a premium for something perceived as premium.

A good book you should read to understand this better is called Trading Up: The New American Luxury by Michael J. Silverstein. It has since been updated and retitled from when I purchased/read it and is now called Trading Up: Why Consumers Want New Luxury Goods... And How Companies Create Them. Excellent insight into marketing and consumer behavior.

I'll file your reccomendations.

A good point in your first paragraph. Style can do this as well. Witness the Sky and Solstice that got people believing those cars should cost a pretty penny more than what they cost.

[turbo200]

The styling of the SRX is in no way "bizarre." It has ONE bad angle, a rear 3/4 view. Bizarre is the X5 (Bangle-bizarre) and the RX350. Look at what vehicles sell...the ones with good/great interiors for the price. Unless a vehicle is Aztek-ugly, Americans do not care if it is attractive, bland, or a bit awkward. Beautiful styling might contribute to first-year sales, but after that the reviews, word-of-mouth, practicality and value play much bigger roles. If styling drove buying decisions as much as you claim, the first-gen Escalade wouldn't have been a hit, the Ford Thunderbird would have been a massive success, and the Phaeton wouldn't be going for 42k on dealer lots as we speak. The SRX is not losing its sales potential from an awkward rear 3/4 view, turbo...that's just ridiculous.

Back to your original post. The exact reason for my brevity was my shock at some of the things you have to say. You have some interesting opinions.

Not attractive, bland, awkward...... tell this post to GTO analysts. You need to look closer at what makes Hummer popular. Evaluate the luxury scene.....how far Lexus has come in the last ten years. Apparently they believe a stylized line helps make the profits. So do Nissan, Honda [Civic, upcoming Accord], VW, Audi, MB.......look at all these marques and tell me with a straight face a consistent line of stylized cars has not been realized.

I thought you might be joking.

Word of mouth, practicality, value play big roles. It all depends on the consumers. To your college frat buddies, on a shoestring budget, who consider Ramen to be top notch, yeah, style won't mean as much as the other virtues. But give them some time to get a high paying job and refine thier tastes, and their priorities may change. We all grow, we all spend time improving. We want our cars to reflect this. Style reflects this. Whether it's an elegant but inoffensive everyman style like the Accord, or whether it's a high tech sportsmen executive style the Range Rover Sport has.

One more time, your examples suck. Cue my examples above. One more: the 4th gen Camaro SS was the performance bargain value of a century, in its time, outperforming cars costing more than 100k, Ferraris, Porsches, you name it, they were territory. Exactly what happened to that car, crocy?

The first gen Escalade was a hit, and last time I checled it was a damn good looking truck. The Ford Thunderbird is your version of stylish. The Phaeton had a laundry list of problems totally unassociated with style, and last time I checked the design was innocuous, like the Accord. Your examples sucked, I just disproved them.

Style drives sales, it's just that everyone has thier own version of what style is. That is why most people can tell you they like a car, but not exactly why they like it. That is why even Accord buyers like its style and rate styling as an improtant factor in thier decision, because they like it.

[Croc]

Not attractive, bland, awkward...... tell this post to GTO analysts. You need to look closer at what makes Hummer popular. Evaluate the luxury scene.....how far Lexus has come in the last ten years. Apparently they believe a stylized line helps make the profits. So do Nissan, Honda [Civic, upcoming Accord], VW, Audi, MB.......look at all these marques and tell me with a straight face a consistent line of stylized cars has not been realized.

And it has been fairly well-established that the biggest problem with the GTO was the expectation that came with the name. We have seen on multiple boards comments like "I won't buy it because it isn't a true GTO." The name was what was wrong...had it been called a Grand Prix or Tempest it prolly would've sold much better. As it was, though, it proved to be quite popular in California.

Lexus isn't stylized. Lexus shares the same styling themes with the Toyota brand. The SC and Solara. Camry and ES. Avalon and GS. The styling vocabulary is the same...fairly bland, but strange proportions/details. Yet they sell well because the interiors are very plush and more than what consumers expect for the price. Honda makes another bunch of bland, sedately-styled cars with nice interiors. The new Civic is the only real design breakout from that company, but I wouldn't classify it as beautiful at all. VW/AUDI have the same styling vocabulary. Very minimalist. Elegant. But also very bland. Very few styling adventures in this company. MB does indeed take styling risks and has a cohesive lineup. This is a good example of a company that sells well and has some style. Of course, I would argue that these vehicles sell mostly on the mystic aura that comes with the tristar logo. The reliability has been in the trash for several years now, and even long-time M-B fans have started looking elsewhere.

I thought you might be joking.

Well, looks like you thought wrong. Also, you don't need to be so snide.

Word of mouth, practicality, value play big roles. It all depends on the consumers. To your college frat buddies, on a shoestring budget, who consider Ramen to be top notch, yeah, style won't mean as much as the other virtues. But give them some time to get a high paying job and refine thier tastes, and their priorities may change. We all grow, we all spend time improving. We want our cars to reflect this. Style reflects this. Whether it's an elegant but inoffensive everyman style like the Accord, or whether it's a high tech sportsmen executive style the Range Rover Sport has.

You make a lot of assumptions here, and frankly, most of them are pretty wrong. First of all, you assume they are all paying for their own cars. Not happening. Most of them get them from their parents, just like most of the kids at USC. This is Southern California we are talking about, you should know that--you live there! Does Torrey Pines mean anything to you? We also don't really eat Ramen, nor do we find it top notch. It isn't healthy. We tend to eat a lot of organic fruits and vegetables as well as sushi. SoCal is a pretty health-concious place...again you should know that since you live there. Why do you think style doesn't mean much?? HELLO! We are all men between the ages of 18 and 23...of COURSE we want the coolest-looking vehicle on The Row! Get a high paying job of their own? Yes...that is something most of us don't have (but not all). Needing to refine tastes? USC tends to be fairly wealthy since it is a private university. These people have plenty of good taste as they grew up around it. The last part of your paragraph I cannot disagree with, except that you use "we." Sorry, but I've ridden in your early 90s Nissan with the cracked windshield and dents. You drive a beater, and there's nothing wrong with that. I do object to the condescending attitude toward me and my brothers (whom you have never met) when you don't have anything nicer than a beater. It's a bit pretentious, to say the least.

One more: the 4th gen Camaro SS was the performance bargain value of a century, in its time, outperforming cars costing more than 100k, Ferraris, Porsches, you name it, they were territory. Exactly what happened to that car, crocy?

Duh, it was left to whither on the vine without any real improvement or refresh. Yea, it was a performance value, and it even commanded pretty good curbside real estate. But the perceived quality was missing, and Ford updated the Mustang. At similar pricing as the competition (coupled with a shrinking pony car market), the Camaro and Firebird were seen as second rate, and sales fell accordingly until the plug was pulled.

The first gen Escalade was a hit, and last time I checled it was a damn good looking truck. The Ford Thunderbird is your version of stylish. The Phaeton had a laundry list of problems totally unassociated with style, and last time I checked the design was innocuous, like the Accord. Your examples sucked, I just disproved them.

The 1st-gen Escalade was a Yukon Denali with a Cadillac badge on it and some Zebrano thrown in for good measure. It sold because it was a Cadillac, not for any other reason. A consumer could get the exact same vehicle (save the badge) as a GMC Yukon Denali...why pay thousands more for the Escalade? Styling was the same...it had to be an emotional connection with the brand. The Thunderbird was generally considered by the buying public and automotive analysts as beautiful and an excellent design, hence why the concept was greenlighted for production fairly quickly. What killed it was its $50k price, about 10-15k over what most were willing to pay. The Phaeton is a gorgeous piece of machinery with an incredible interior. Unfortunately, the public's perception of the VW brand does not include luxury vehicles so it loses on the prestige factor. Coupled with the pricing it had (a little on the high side, but not too bad), no one bought it. Mostly, though, it was brand equity (or lack therof) that killed it.

Style drives sales, it's just that everyone has thier own version of what style is. That is why most people can tell you they like a car, but not exactly why they like it. That is why even Accord buyers like its style and rate styling as an improtant factor in thier decision, because they like it.

Most people I know can give a lot of reasons for liking something. Even more people can tell you why they DON'T like a car. You seem to be referencing a statistic in that last sentence...where's the source because you need some proof to convince me that Accord buyers rate style as an important factor in the decision. Quality? I can see that. Reputation? Most definitely. But styling? Unless they mean interior design, then I'm not really seeing it. The Accord is bland, but well-made.

[turbo200]

And it has been fairly well-established that the biggest problem with the GTO was the expectation that came with the name. We have seen on multiple boards comments like "I won't buy it because it isn't a true GTO." The name was what was wrong...had it been called a Grand Prix or Tempest it prolly would've sold much better. As it was, though, it proved to be quite popular in California.

Lexus isn't stylized. Lexus shares the same styling themes with the Toyota brand. The SC and Solara. Camry and ES. Avalon and GS. The styling vocabulary is the same...fairly bland, but strange proportions/details. Yet they sell well because the interiors are very plush and more than what consumers expect for the price. Honda makes another bunch of bland, sedately-styled cars with nice interiors. The new Civic is the only real design breakout from that company, but I wouldn't classify it as beautiful at all. VW/AUDI have the same styling vocabulary. Very minimalist. Elegant. But also very bland. Very few styling adventures in this company. MB does indeed take styling risks and has a cohesive lineup. This is a good example of a company that sells well and has some style. Of course, I would argue that these vehicles sell mostly on the mystic aura that comes with the tristar logo. The reliability has been in the trash for several years now, and even long-time M-B fans have started looking elsewhere.

Well, looks like you thought wrong. Also, you don't need to be so snide.

You make a lot of assumptions here, and frankly, most of them are pretty wrong. First of all, you assume they are all paying for their own cars. Not happening. Most of them get them from their parents, just like most of the kids at USC. This is Southern California we are talking about, you should know that--you live there! Does Torrey Pines mean anything to you? We also don't really eat Ramen, nor do we find it top notch. It isn't healthy. We tend to eat a lot of organic fruits and vegetables as well as sushi. SoCal is a pretty health-concious place...again you should know that since you live there. Why do you think style doesn't mean much?? HELLO! We are all men between the ages of 18 and 23...of COURSE we want the coolest-looking vehicle on The Row! Get a high paying job of their own? Yes...that is something most of us don't have (but not all). Needing to refine tastes? USC tends to be fairly wealthy since it is a private university. These people have plenty of good taste as they grew up around it. The last part of your paragraph I cannot disagree with, except that you use "we." Sorry, but I've ridden in your early 90s Nissan with the cracked windshield and dents. You drive a beater, and there's nothing wrong with that. I do object to the condescending attitude toward me and my brothers (whom you have never met) when you don't have anything nicer than a beater. It's a bit pretentious, to say the least.

Duh, it was left to whither on the vine without any real improvement or refresh. Yea, it was a performance value, and it even commanded pretty good curbside real estate. But the perceived quality was missing, and Ford updated the Mustang. At similar pricing as the competition (coupled with a shrinking pony car market), the Camaro and Firebird were seen as second rate, and sales fell accordingly until the plug was pulled.

The 1st-gen Escalade was a Yukon Denali with a Cadillac badge on it and some Zebrano thrown in for good measure. It sold because it was a Cadillac, not for any other reason. A consumer could get the exact same vehicle (save the badge) as a GMC Yukon Denali...why pay thousands more for the Escalade? Styling was the same...it had to be an emotional connection with the brand. The Thunderbird was generally considered by the buying public and automotive analysts as beautiful and an excellent design, hence why the concept was greenlighted for production fairly quickly. What killed it was its $50k price, about 10-15k over what most were willing to pay. The Phaeton is a gorgeous piece of machinery with an incredible interior. Unfortunately, the public's perception of the VW brand does not include luxury vehicles so it loses on the prestige factor. Coupled with the pricing it had (a little on the high side, but not too bad), no one bought it. Mostly, though, it was brand equity (or lack therof) that killed it.

Most people I know can give a lot of reasons for liking something. Even more people can tell you why they DON'T like a car. You seem to be referencing a statistic in that last sentence...where's the source because you need some proof to convince me that Accord buyers rate style as an important factor in the decision. Quality? I can see that. Reputation? Most definitely. But styling? Unless they mean interior design, then I'm not really seeing it. The Accord is bland, but well-made.

you've shown your maturity here. I really don't want to bother to reply to most of your post, since so much of it's based on conjecture, and not even solid reasoning. your reasoning for the GTO's failure really has no substance, and definitely no solid evidence besides a pool of people from websites not even representing 1% of the total buyers of the GTO. Did you see any research from buyers of the car, or people who were interested? Clearly you didn't, cause you would know the only reason this car didn't do well was because the exterior had all the flair and presence of a car from the 1990's. The GTO name brought back nostalgia for fans of the car, but to the general market that was irrelevant. It was a great car, and had it been well styled like the Sosltice, it would have done gangbusters.

What is your problem, you louse. I don't go around talking revealing things I know about you. Not that I care, as you've used to try and damage my reputation amongst people I don't even know. You've used it in such a dispicable manner. I now drive a 2006 Acura RSX Type S, fun car, thanks for again revealing your maturity. Thanks for mentioning the winshield crack, evidence of a decent hard-working survival story, not a spoonfed kid.

This is what Lexus does now

This is what they used to do

This is the old Civic

This is the new Civic

your whole little USC thing where you attempt to prove how well off you and your friends are, how magical life is since you are so blessed, and everything is jolly wizz...it just shows weakness. i really couldn't care for it, I wasn't trying to imply you are anything bad, but everybody's taste is constantly improving. THAT was my point. My point was to demonstrate how circumstance, maturity, situations influence who we are and what choices we make. I assure you, when you graduate, and become a doctor [or whatever career path you have chosen], you will care about the car you drive, that it reflects your style precisely. And your taste will improve. As you will be a made man, and your car will help show that to the world.

Camaro was not seen as second rate when it came to performance, neither in dollars. Your point was value was the major factor, along with interiors [what are you on crack, where do you get this, please tell me the foundation of your research that revealed this pearl that people buy for the interior, people love good interiors, but a great interior is only the icing on the proverbial cake, it's a right of entry into certain price classes, but people don't exclusively buy a car just because of the inteiror, it only helps the cause], and my point was to prove that exterior style is a MAJOR consideration, at least as important as value.

Edited January 5, 2007 by turbo200

[Northstar]

Now, now kids, let's play nice.

In all seriousness, let's get back to talking about the CTS.

[Croc]

you've shown your maturity here. I really don't want to bother to reply to most of your post, since so much of it's based on conjecture, and not even solid reasoning. your reasoning for the GTO's failure really has no substance, and definitely no solid evidence besides a pool of people from websites not even representing 1% of the total buyers of the GTO. Did you see any research from buyers of the car, or people who were interested? Clearly you didn't, cause you would know the only reason this car didn't do well was because the exterior had all the flair and presence of a car from the 1990's. The GTO name brought back nostalgia for fans of the car, but to the general market that was irrelevant. It was a great car, and had it been well styled like the Sosltice, it would have done gangbusters.

Actually, there is quite a bit to back up what I have said. If you search back through the forums, you will know I have always said the GTO was too jellybean and dated-looking...but that doesn't change the fact that the people this vehicle was aimed at, nostalgic baby boomers with $35k to blow on a Pontiac coupe, weren't that nostalgic when the new car paid zero homage to the old. Retro cars are supposed to be nostalgic. VW did a New Beetle that was a thoroughly modern vehicle, yet it still captured the nostalgia because they didn't slap "New Beetle" on a car looking like a Passat. GM took one of its most valuable names with a lot of strong history and nostalgia and put it on a car that looked like a RWD Grand Prix coupe. That was the mistake.

What is your problem, you louse. I don't go around talking revealing things I know about you. Not that I care, as you've used to try and damage my reputation amongst people I don't even know. You've used it in such a dispicable manner. I now drive a 2006 Acura RSX Type S, fun car, thanks for again revealing your maturity. Thanks for mentioning the winshield crack, evidence of a decent hard-working survival story, not a spoonfed kid.

The problem was that you were stereotyping me and my friends, while putting on some kind of false air. You rubbed me the wrong way buddy when you claimed without knowing anyone I associate with that we are too stupid to know there's better stuff than Ramen. Not cool. Anyway, how is the truth "damaging" your reputation? A lot of people on this forum (the vast majority, actually) do not drive nice cars. There's nothing wrong with driving a vehicle that isn't brand new. I even said that in the last post. It sounds to me like you are the insecure one here, especially with the spoon-fed line. I have NOT been given everything I have ever wanted, I have worked in some very "unglamorous" (but fun) jobs, and growing up if I ever wanted something that was expensive, my parents made me do odd jobs and raise up a high percentage of the cost of the item because they wanted me to appreciate everything I got. And I do. You don't know me, so please don't act like it.

your whole little USC thing where you attempt to prove how well off you and your friends are, how magical life is since you are so blessed, and everything is jolly wizz...it just shows weakness. i really couldn't care for it, I wasn't trying to imply you are anything bad, but everybody's taste is constantly improving. THAT was my point. My point was to demonstrate how circumstance, maturity, situations influence who we are and what choices we make. I assure you, when you graduate, and become a doctor [or whatever career path you have chosen], you will care about the car you drive, that it reflects your style precisely. And your taste will improve. As you will be a made man, and your car will help show that to the world.

My friends' parents are mostly well-off. My friends are actually pretty deep into student loans. Honestly, I don't get where you are coming from at all on this. Whatever cars I may buy in the future will be bought for ME, not to prove anything to anyone else, or show people I have "arrived."

Camaro was not seen as second rate when it came to performance, neither in dollars. Your point was value was the major factor, along with interiors [what are you on crack, where do you get this, please tell me the foundation of your research that revealed this pearl that people buy for the interior, people love good interiors, but a great interior is only the icing on the proverbial cake, it's a right of entry into certain price classes, but people don't exclusively buy a car just because of the inteiror, it only helps the cause], and my point was to prove that exterior style is a MAJOR consideration, at least as important as value.

No, Camaro was never second when it came to performance. It suffered from a lack of refinement and perceived quality. Turbo, interiors are not the end all be all, and I've never asserted that. Interiors do go a long way in conveying an image of quality, though. That has been my point all along: quality vs. price. The Camaro's plastic interior with unusable back seat and mouse fur carpeting did not give it the image of quality. The F-bodies were pure muscle cars for better and worse, and by that I mean they had all the performance possible, but refinement and quality of materials took a back seat in a major way. When Ford built a more refined and practical muscle car with their newer Mustangs and GM did nothing to update the F-bodies, the F-body popularity waned and the Mustang's soared.

[Croc]

Woops, Northie, I was replying before you posted yours.

Agreed...back to the CTS: It rocks!

ETA: As far as the wagon goes, am I the only one having a hard time picturing what it will look like? I hope it is sportier than the BMW and M-B wagons (which IMO are rather staid-looking) but I also don't want something too ridiculous-looking like the Magnum. Cadillac has a somewhat aggressive design vocabulary, yet the wagon needs to convey elegance. If Caddy designers can pull this off, I will be very impressed.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Croc

[Sixty8panther]

Yes... I did confuse it with the Vigor, I don;t pay much attention

to those cars btu I've seen several in the junkyard with that

super LONG valvacover and the fact that the motor is mounted

the "correct" way despite its FWD gearbox is still a step in the

right direction. I guess I never counted the cylinder banks

however... damn thing is a five-banger? That's waht you get

the British team up with Honda.

Honda DESERVES Lucas electronics... I wish they had used them

for their ECUs and MAF sensors. That would make for a fun car.

[turbo200]

Actually, there is quite a bit to back up what I have said. If you search back through the forums, you will know I have always said the GTO was too jellybean and dated-looking...but that doesn't change the fact that the people this vehicle was aimed at, nostalgic baby boomers with $35k to blow on a Pontiac coupe, weren't that nostalgic when the new car paid zero homage to the old. Retro cars are supposed to be nostalgic. VW did a New Beetle that was a thoroughly modern vehicle, yet it still captured the nostalgia because they didn't slap "New Beetle" on a car looking like a Passat. GM took one of its most valuable names with a lot of strong history and nostalgia and put it on a car that looked like a RWD Grand Prix coupe. That was the mistake.

The problem was that you were stereotyping me and my friends, while putting on some kind of false air. You rubbed me the wrong way buddy when you claimed without knowing anyone I associate with that we are too stupid to know there's better stuff than Ramen. Not cool. Anyway, how is the truth "damaging" your reputation? A lot of people on this forum (the vast majority, actually) do not drive nice cars. There's nothing wrong with driving a vehicle that isn't brand new. I even said that in the last post. It sounds to me like you are the insecure one here, especially with the spoon-fed line. I have NOT been given everything I have ever wanted, I have worked in some very "unglamorous" (but fun) jobs, and growing up if I ever wanted something that was expensive, my parents made me do odd jobs and raise up a high percentage of the cost of the item because they wanted me to appreciate everything I got. And I do. You don't know me, so please don't act like it.

My friends' parents are mostly well-off. My friends are actually pretty deep into student loans. Honestly, I don't get where you are coming from at all on this. Whatever cars I may buy in the future will be bought for ME, not to prove anything to anyone else, or show people I have "arrived."

No, Camaro was never second when it came to performance. It suffered from a lack of refinement and perceived quality. Turbo, interiors are not the end all be all, and I've never asserted that. Interiors do go a long way in conveying an image of quality, though. That has been my point all along: quality vs. price. The Camaro's plastic interior with unusable back seat and mouse fur carpeting did not give it the image of quality. The F-bodies were pure muscle cars for better and worse, and by that I mean they had all the performance possible, but refinement and quality of materials took a back seat in a major way. When Ford built a more refined and practical muscle car with their newer Mustangs and GM did nothing to update the F-bodies, the F-body popularity waned and the Mustang's soared.

a couple of things and then we can get back to CTS. the truth about the car I own is not what was an attempt to damage my reputation, however the context was. you used my words and my real life situation to try and paint a picture about me, and that was the despicable thing I talked about. owning a "beater", or any decent car, is as regular as going to the movies. Who cares, it's all about what you want.

In one of the posts above, I talked about college kids eating Ramen. I guess I am the only one who saw this as an example, I don't pretend to know all college kids eat only Ramen or are on a shoestring budget like I put it, that would be stupid and a huge ass assumption that would make no sense, I know there are plenty of wealthy parents who would never have it that way. So, maybe you're the one being sensitive and taking it that way. I was only using an example of a certain kind of condition of life to prove that conditions affect our way of thinking. The whole spoonfed line, was NOT in direct reference to you, I don't know what led you to believe that or why you felt the need to prove that, as you've never really given off too much to agree with that. I also don't think you're too "stupid" to know there's better stuff out there, and again the whole Ramen thing could be substituted with any budget-oriented food products. I always meant circumstaneces influence our buying decisions, and when there is no obstacle limiting your purchasing power, meaning when you have all the money you need, and can buy whatever your heart desires, the true test of what you love will come out. Our vision of what we love is what imporves, and constantly changes. It should stay true to our principles, but our taste will always improve, that is one thing that you can feel free to disagree with, at your detriment.

Simply to dumb down what I'm saying to the simple stupid word of "arrived" [i am not saying your stupid for using it]is conveying that you have no idea what I'm talking about. It's the sense of pride of owning something that is completely yours, and reflects you, and is your tool, since the car is one of our most important tools in daily society. Something that you worked for and gained on your on merits.

You know I believe in high quality interiors, and I believe at this point it's a matter of phrasing that seperates us. But, to me, you still aren't placing enough emphasis on the style of car. The Camaro had no less refinement than Mustang. Both had craptastic plastic interiors, both were ugly, and the Mustang drove like a truck but the engine helps I guess. I've never driven a Camaro, but I've heard it drives pretty well, a lot more like a car. Practicality I'll give you, because the Camaro was super low to the ground and had the low roof that limited headroom, but definitely defintely not refinement.

Okay [one more retort from Croc] now back to CTS!

[Intrepidation]

These are my thoughts:

The DTS should be dropped but only after the STS is redesigned and grows to be a larger size (7-series). The CTS is too big to compete with the 3-series so Cadillac needs a new model under the CTS to compete with it, and have the CTS compete more with the 5-series. I don't know the exact dimensions of the cars but if the current CTS is already bigger than the 3-series and the new one grows it'll be more of a 5-series competitor anyway. The SRX is a fine CUV and I see no need to fix anything now that the interior is fixed. The Escalade is fine too because even if it doesn't get huge respect among traditional luxury buyers, all the rappers and wanna-bes will buy it...it has huge equity. The XLR needs to be redesigned to be more refined and competitive in it's market.

Now here are some important points I believe Cadillac needs to follow.

There should not be a FWD sedan or other vehicle in the lineup. They may loose some sales when they drop the DTS but they can make up for them if they readjust their lineup as I mentioned, and rely on a 3-series competitor to be a volume leader (like the 3-series itself is for BMW) rather than some old man's car.

Pricing should not have to undercut the competitors, it merely has to be in line with them. Instead of trying to be a bargain, they should price them with teh competitors so they can use that extra money to design interiors people in this category expect. Cadillacs have long been criticized for sub-par interiors.

And just to make sure...there should NEVER be any BOF cars in Cadillac's lineup.

[Camino LS6]

One word: Zeta

[Intrepidation]

Also, about the coupe and convertible CTS (the whole point of this thread) Cool idea...I just hope the wagon comes out looking good..although it makes the SRX seem a bit redundant.

On a couple side notes...

They should have just called the GTO the Monaro. Also it shows how stupid the buying public can be. The guys at Top Gear love that car. They weren't crazy for the jellybean looks but were blown away by it's performance. Over here most people are too stupid to like the GTO cuz it doesn't "look like a GTO". I must admit, after seeing what that car can do...I wouldn't mind owning one

Don't dis ramen! (although I don't even eat it that much)

Edited January 5, 2007 by Dodgefan

[Croc]

Turbo: I have said my piece, and Northie redirected the thread. If you want to continue, PM me...but I think at this point it should be dropped.

Dodgefan: A CTS wagon IMO doesn't render the SRX redundant as the SRX is closer now to the current STS in pricing and target demographics...as well as offering a higher driving position. My mother loved wagons until she got her XC90...now if it isn't high up she isn't interested!

[Flybrian]

They should have just called the GTO the Murano.

Hey. You mean Monaro. Don't insult it; its a two-door muscle car, not an ill-proportioned...thing.

[Intrepidation]

Hey. You mean Monaro. Don't insult it; its a two-door muscle car, not an ill-proportioned...thing.

Lol my bad Fly. Fixed

[ZL-1]

Pricing should not have to undercut the competitors, it merely has to be in line with them. Instead of trying to be a bargain, they should price them with teh competitors so they can use that extra money to design interiors people in this category expect. Cadillacs have long been criticized for sub-par interiors.

Cadillac wouldn't be able to meet sales targets at the prices MB and BMW charge for their cars. Cadillacs still lack in reputation and it will take quite a few years of consistently delivering world-class products before they can risk setting prices similar to MB and BMW.

[pow]

You know what... if they want to keep the DTS, make it an ES350 competitor. Lexus has a good-selling, soft-riding FWD boat, too, priced between their compact and midsize performance sedans.

Replace the 275-hp Northstar/4-speed with a 275-hp HFV6/6-speed, add features, improve the interior, lower the price to $38,990 (maybe have an artificial base price of $33,990 like Lexus), and market the hell out of it.

Edited January 7, 2007 by empowah

[Northstar]

You know what... if they want to keep the DTS, make it an ES350 competitor. Lexus has a good-selling, soft-riding FWD boat, too, priced between their compact and midsize performance sedans.

Replace the 275-hp Northstar/4-speed with a 275-hp HFV6/6-speed, add features, improve the interior, lower the price to $38,990 (maybe have an artificial base price of $33,990 like Lexus), and market the hell out of it.

I say let the next LaCrosse take care of that.

[ZL-1]

You know what... if they want to keep the DTS, make it an ES350 competitor. Lexus has a good-selling, soft-riding FWD boat, too, priced between their compact and midsize performance sedans.

Replace the 275-hp Northstar/4-speed with a 275-hp HFV6/6-speed, add features, improve the interior, lower the price to $38,990 (maybe have an artificial base price of $33,990 like Lexus), and market the hell out of it.

Buick