"That's Not a Buick" Ad Campaign a Success?

[cp-the-nerd]

I was just reading a review of the refreshed Lacrosse, and the author made a surprising point that I hadn't considered. Personally, I disliked the Buick commercials with their dorky music and over-sold punchline: "That's too nice and stylish, it can't be a Buick." But I'm an enthusiast, I already know about cars, I'm not the audience they want.

 

What if that message rang loud and clear with their target demo? What if people--who didn't know Buick still existed--suddenly realized the brand had evolved back into slick luxury cars, cars worth cross shopping? Maybe it's such a simple concept that it's genius.

 

Here's an excerpt from the link:

 

"Everywhere I went in the 2015 LaCrosse, there was somebody referencing the ad campaign. “That’s not a Buick!” Immediately, and seemingly the only proper response, I would shout back, “That’s what I told them!”

 

On paper, this seems meaningless. But think about it: there are some brands that would kill for that kind of brand recognition. And with an industry as large as the automotive world, it’s good to stand out. Marketing and advertising is an effort to create awareness for a product, and what better measure of success than real-life reactions?

 

Immediately after that brief exchange of mimicking the same ads many poke fun at, whoever I happened to be with wanted a look at the 2015 LaCrosse. Mind you, some of these people weren’t auto enthusiasts like you and I, so they enthused over the “sharp” exterior styling, the “eerily” quiet cabin and the “awesome” infotainment system. I felt as if the cameras should have been rolling on me.

 

Those silly ads evoked a whole new set of eyes to view Buick in, and it ranged from younger, to middle-aged adults."

 

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2015/07/buicks-marketing-message-prevailed-while-i-drove-a-2015-lacrosse/

[G. David Felt]

Very cool glad it is taking hold and doing what most of us auto enthusiasts already knew. Buick Rocks!!!

[smk4565]

Not a fan of those ads.  Sort of like the "this is not your father's Oldsmobile" ads.   I don't like poking fun of the brand in your own ads, or stirring up memories of decades of mush box cars that they made.  They should form an identity and advertise the brand image and product attributes.

 

Another thing I hate on car ads is mentioning your competitors and "real people, not actors."  Why mention the competition, you don't see Coca-Cola talking about Pepsi in their ads.  Apple doesn't talk about Samsung (although Samsung compares to Apple because they are chasing, not leading).  I think you look weak when you talk about a competitor, promote yourself and don't worry about them.

[Drew Dowdell]

As a Buick driver of the least "traditional" of all the Buicks currently offered, I do actually like the ads. 

 

Last December at one family holiday gathering, my partner and I were talking with his cousin.  She knows that I regularly get cars in from the manufacturers to drive and review. She had pulled in and parked right behind us at the same time we arrived.

 

Later that evening she asked me which car I had this week.  I said, "Oh, that's not a test car.  That's our car." She replied "Oh okay, well what is it?".  I said "It's a Buick Encore".

 

She quickly said "That's not a Buick!..... oh wait... I just did the commercial"

 

She drives an older Volvo XC90 and usually doesn't care about cars. So yeah, I'd say the Buick commercials had an impact.

[smk4565]

So Buick is the brand people don't recognize?  Probably not best for business.

[Drew Dowdell]

So Buick is the brand people don't recognize?  Probably not best for business.

 

Buick is the brand that is surprising people. 

[G. David Felt]

I have more and more coworkers who have changed from Asian name plates to Buick's due to the looks and life style available auto's. More and More are liking what Buick is doing and yes I hear that commercial all the time when people do the same thing of that is not a Buick. So far 5 Encores in my department and one Regal GS.

 

I have to say this ad does work and works well.

[oldshurst442]

Many people give Oldsmobile's "This is aint your father's Oldsmobile"  tag line plenty of grief. I included.

But, last week, I heard this tag line for a movie

 

"Not your mother's romantic comedy"

https://youtu.be/pos0eJiMxo0?t=20s

 

Click on the link to actually see it written in the trailer of the movie Trainwreck. I cant find the audio version of that trailer where the narrator actually says it...but at least in this trailer, its written...

 

And it aint the first time I see this type of tag line where marketing geniuses copied the original Oldsmobile slogan.

Therefore....I have come to the conclusion that that marketing compaign was actually a successful one...not for Oldsmobile...but for everybody else.

 

And yes...I am not very fond of Buick's version either, but as I have showed with Trainwreck...there might be some merit to Buick's version after all.

Edited July 14, 2015 by oldshurst442

[SAmadei]

 

So Buick is the brand people don't recognize?  Probably not best for business.

 

Buick is the brand that is surprising people. 

 

Not surprising me.

 

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

So Buick is the brand people don't recognize?  Probably not best for business.

 

Buick is the brand that is surprising people.

 

Not surprising me.

 

Really? It doesn't suprise you that they are "Not your father's Buick" anymore?

[smk4565]

Wasn't the Malibu "the car you can't ignore?"  And that was forgettable and people ignored it.  I just prefer ads that are brand image focused or product attribute focused.  Lexus back in the 90s had the ad with the wine glasses stacked on the LS400 and that nailed both how smooth the car was, and how Lexus brand was about precision engineering.  I think Dodge does a pretty good job now trying to craft out a brand image of classic American, and performance.

[Drew Dowdell]

The Malibu you couldn't ignore was the 2008 - 2012 model... and no, people didn't ignore it. It sold very well. It was the 2013 that GM f-ed up on.

[SAmadei]

 

 

 

So Buick is the brand people don't recognize?  Probably not best for business.

 

Buick is the brand that is surprising people.

 

Not surprising me.

 

Really? It doesn't suprise you that they are "Not your father's Buick" anymore?

 

My father never bought a Buick... and never would have bought a modern one.  Dad liked RWD and would have had about the same problems getting into and driving a modern Buick as I do.

It doesn't surprise me that they are still the "Anonymous Brand Chasing Lexus". 

As far as the tagline "Not your father's Oldsmobile" goes... that was certainly and unfortunately true 15 years ago since my father installed the engine in the family Cutlass Supreme... and it left stripes on the pavement when you hit the faster pedal. 

 

[Guest scottzilla]

Very cool glad it is taking hold and doing what most of us auto enthusiasts already knew. Buick Rocks!!!

The brilliance of the ads, if you hadn't noticed is its always old people saying "that's not a Buick" and young hip people who own/drive the cars.

The message is, your grandma, who drives a Camry, thinks Buicks are not cool.

[cp-the-nerd]

 

Very cool glad it is taking hold and doing what most of us auto enthusiasts already knew. Buick Rocks!!!

The brilliance of the ads, if you hadn't noticed is its always old people saying "that's not a Buick" and young hip people who own/drive the cars.

The message is, your grandma, who drives a Camry, thinks Buicks are not cool.

 

 

What about the young valet that can't find the Buick because he's looking for a dowdy old person car? Or the young lady who can't see her friend's Encore for the same reason? The message is nobody knows about Buick right now, not strictly old people. Though most of the owners in the commercial are in the 25-40 age range like you mentioned.

[El Kabong]

So Buick is the brand people don't recognize?  Probably not best for business.

 

Buick is the brand that is surprising people.

The ad campaign is a success if your brand doesn't die. Oldsmobile died. Buick won't, if for no other reason than China.

Beyond that, I see the logic behind the ads but I won't lie about being leery about the self-depreciation behind them.

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

So Buick is the brand people don't recognize?  Probably not best for business.

 

Buick is the brand that is surprising people.

The ad campaign is a success if your brand doesn't die. Oldsmobile died. Buick won't, if for no other reason than China.

Beyond that, I see the logic behind the ads but I won't lie about being leery about the self-depreciation behind them.

 

 

Buick's sales have been on a strong upswing for the past few years with strong conquest sales. It's leveled off this year as most of their models are starting to get old.   But they have a new Verano, Lacrosse, Cascada, Envision coming in the next 12 months, a refreshed Enclave and Encore in the next 18 months, and at least one possibly two cars for the top end of the line-up. 

 

I think Buick is in a very safe spot. 

[G. David Felt]

Agree with Drew, Buick is in a solid safe spot.

[smk4565]

Buick needs a Riviera, the brand is boring.  A 2-door a bit bigger than Camaro, turbo 4 and V6 engines, maybe like $35-45k price range, that could be a nice personal luxury coupe, problem is the pricing is pretty close to ATS coupe, but if you keep the focus on luxury, and not performance, you can differentiate and keep the price down.

 

I also think the XTS should die, and become a Park Avenue, at a $40,000 price point (only $5,000 less than XTS, decontent it a bit).  Make the next Verano (which I assume will grow in size as all cars do) $25,000 base, and then you merge Regal and LaCrosse into one car ( I don't care what name they use) at like 193 inches long, $32,000 base.  Then you have a 3 sedan lineup that is about $8,000 more than the Chevy counterparts.  You get the XTS out of Cadillac so they can be upscalde Cadillac, not "traditional" Cadillac.  And you keep Buick's focus on quite luxury, 200-300 hp engines, you aren't building a sports car, you are going after people that bought CamCords, Rav4s and CR-V's in the past that are happy with mediocre performance but want a smooth ride and luxury and some technology that is better than what a Chevy/Ford would have.

[smk4565]

On second thought, I would rename the Verano to Regal, and keep the LaCrosse name for the 193 inch long car.  The Regal name has heritage, and dopes will think they are getting what used to be a $30k Regal for just $25k and will think it is great value.  But in reality, the Regal will just be a fancy Cruze.

[cp-the-nerd]

The XTS is dying, and the 2017 Lacrosse mule is full size once again. It stands to reason we'll see a higher output version similar to the Vsport.

[smk4565]

I still think the full size Buick (ie the Buick Impala) should be a Park Avenue, not a LaCrosse.  I think you would have an easier time with a $38k base price on a Park Avenue, rather than a LaCrosse, because the LaCrosse is like $31k now, they have to get it farther away from the Impala, and when the XTS dies, Buick can sort of fill the void.

[Drew Dowdell]

Lacrosse has a 31k base price but they sell mostly the higher equipment models. The base 4 cylinder has a ridiculously low take rate.

[smk4565]

Easier to make the Buick Malibu the new LaCrosse at $32k, and a Park Avenue at $39k, than to push the LaCrosse up there.  CTS didn't do so great going from 3-series price to 5-series price.  The current Regal/Insignia is probably short lived, I imagine Buick is going to go to a 3 car line up based off Cruze, Malibu, Impala, and a 3 CUV lineup based on Trax, Equinox and Traverse as these platforms all get streamlined.

 

Unless the Buick Malibu is going to be $27k and the Buick Impala $31k again, to keep the Buick price premium over a Chevy at $4,000.  I see larger sedans as a dying breed though, a $33k mid-size (193 inch long) sedan would match up really well against Cadenza, Avalon, MKZ, and ES350.

[Drew Dowdell]

Buick may be going to a 4 crossover lineup soon.

[smk4565]

I hope they get a crossover coupe.  Those are even better than 4-door coupes!

[oldshurst442]

I hope they get a crossover coupe.  Those are even better than 4-door coupes!

I think I detect some sarcasm in that post.

 

A Mercedes  CLS 63 AMG is a 4-door coupe that I absolutely love.

Me thinks a Riviera comeback should be a 4-door coupe that closely resembles that M-B CLS 63.

Just as how personal coupe luxury cars took the scene by storm in the mid to late 1960s, so has the 4-door coupe in the 2000s....and I view millennial 4-door coupes as modern luxury personal coupes...so it would be befitting for a Riviera comeback to be a 4-door coupe.

 

Id rather not talk about crossovers...

[smk4565]

The CLS does look good, in either generation.  But it was also the original, and they have an E-class as a sedan so they can make the CLS dramatic.  What I hate is stuff like the Chrysler 200 every run of the mill family sedan trying to look like a 4-door coupe, but they still want to be a sedan.  And 4-door crossover coupes are the worst, I saw a BMW X4 today, what a ugly vehicle.  Go buy a 3-series sedan if you want a 4-door BMW.

[G. David Felt]

 

I hope they get a crossover coupe.  Those are even better than 4-door coupes!

I think I detect some sarcasm in that post.

 

A Mercedes  CLS 63 AMG is a 4-door coupe that I absolutely love.

Me thinks a Riviera comeback should be a 4-door coupe that closely resembles that M-B CLS 63.

Just as how personal coupe luxury cars took the scene by storm in the mid to late 1960s, so has the 4-door coupe in the 2000s....and I view millennial 4-door coupes as modern luxury personal coupes...so it would be befitting for a Riviera comeback to be a 4-door coupe.

 

Id rather not talk about crossovers...

 

I believe two things should happen, Buick should bring back a Riviera with the sexy v shaped real window.

 Modern take

 

1971 Sex on Wheels!

 

GMC Needs to bring back a Proper Modern Typhoon and Syclone

 

This would do wonders for both lines I believe.

[smk4565]

CAFE says NO! to a GMC Cyclone or Typhoon.

 

I would like to see a Riviera, but won't it have to have a base 2.5 liter 4-cylinder as not to upstage the ATS?  Unless they finally drop that engine from the ATS, then the Riviera can have a 2.0T.  I think the 3.6 V6 would be good for the Riviera, I see that as appealing to an older buyer that wants a smooth cruiser, and is probably not interested in a 4-cylinder.

[G. David Felt]

CAFE says NO! to a GMC Cyclone or Typhoon.

 

I would like to see a Riviera, but won't it have to have a base 2.5 liter 4-cylinder as not to upstage the ATS?  Unless they finally drop that engine from the ATS, then the Riviera can have a 2.0T.  I think the 3.6 V6 would be good for the Riviera, I see that as appealing to an older buyer that wants a smooth cruiser, and is probably not interested in a 4-cylinder.

If CAFE says NO to the GMC Syclone and Typhoon, then they also say NO to the AMG crap.

[cp-the-nerd]

Oh my god, can you imagine a GMC Canyon-based Cyclone? 3.6T, 4WD, 8-speed auto. Could probably even avoid the guzzler tax.

[smk4565]

It is possible of course, I was being a bit sarcastic about CAFE, but that is often a reason as to why they don't do things.  GM sells 500,000 pickups that get poor mileage, yet they can't put a V8 in a Cadillac (other than CTS-V) because of CAFE.  But then what about a Buick GNX, a Cadillac XT5 V-series, an Escalade V-series, an Impala SS, etc.  You can't really build a business case for all these variants, and you probably can't even put 400 hp into a Terrain or similar FWD crossover.  They could put a Corvette engine into a Colorado, but then what would that cost, like $50,000+ ?  Does anyone want a $50,000 Colorado?  And doesn't that steal thunder from the Silverado, their real cash cow?

[cp-the-nerd]

It is possible of course, I was being a bit sarcastic about CAFE, but that is often a reason as to why they don't do things.  GM sells 500,000 pickups that get poor mileage, yet they can't put a V8 in a Cadillac (other than CTS-V) because of CAFE.  But then what about a Buick GNX, a Cadillac XT5 V-series, an Escalade V-series, an Impala SS, etc.  You can't really build a business case for all these variants, and you probably can't even put 400 hp into a Terrain or similar FWD crossover.  They could put a Corvette engine into a Colorado, but then what would that cost, like $50,000+ ?  Does anyone want a $50,000 Colorado?  And doesn't that steal thunder from the Silverado, their real cash cow?

 

CAFE has nothing to do with Cadillac not using Chevy V8s. It has everything to do with exclusive powertrains and GM's push to elevate their luxury brand. Cadillac has a new V8 in the pipeline that will slot above the 3.6T and new 3.0T, and wont be shared with Chevrolet, with the possible exception of the Corvette.

[Drew Dowdell]

CAFE says NO! to a GMC Cyclone or Typhoon.

 

I would like to see a Riviera, but won't it have to have a base 2.5 liter 4-cylinder as not to upstage the ATS?  Unless they finally drop that engine from the ATS, then the Riviera can have a 2.0T.  I think the 3.6 V6 would be good for the Riviera, I see that as appealing to an older buyer that wants a smooth cruiser, and is probably not interested in a 4-cylinder.

 

CAFE says no such thing. 

[smk4565]

Then why do we have to have a 2.0T in a Cadillac CT6?  Why not make a 3.0tt V6 the base model, and a 4.0tt V8 optional?  Why a 2.5 liter 4-cylinder in the ATS?  That 2.4 liter eAssist engine in the Lacrosse, when the Avalon, Cadenza Maxima and Azera have a standard V6?  Every GM sedan is basically designed with one eye on CAFE so they can sell more Silverados and Tahoes because that is where the profit is made.

 

Which is why CAFE is stupid to begin with, and you can make cars larger and get around CAFE, which makes no sense.  If you want better gas mileage, put a $1,000 gas guzzler tax on any vehicle under 30 mpg combined, $2,000 gas guzzler tax on any vehicle under 25 mpg combined, $3,000 on anything under 20 mpg combined, $4,000 on anything under 15 mpg combined.   Then you place a $1,000 tax credit on any car above 40 mpg combined, and $2,000 on any car above 50 mpg combined.   And watch fuel economy soar, and sale of fuel efficient vehicles soar.

[daves87rs]

 

So Buick is the brand people don't recognize?  Probably not best for business.

 

Buick is the brand that is surprising people. 

 

 

 

Find myself looking for regal t types in the parking lots......

 

 

I hope they get a crossover coupe.  Those are even better than 4-door coupes!

I think I detect some sarcasm in that post.

 

A Mercedes  CLS 63 AMG is a 4-door coupe that I absolutely love.

Me thinks a Riviera comeback should be a 4-door coupe that closely resembles that M-B CLS 63.

Just as how personal coupe luxury cars took the scene by storm in the mid to late 1960s, so has the 4-door coupe in the 2000s....and I view millennial 4-door coupes as modern luxury personal coupes...so it would be befitting for a Riviera comeback to be a 4-door coupe.

 

Id rather not talk about crossovers...

 

I believe two things should happen, Buick should bring back a Riviera with the sexy v shaped real window.

 Modern take

buickrivierazetalarge.jpg

 

1971 Sex on Wheels!

cars-buick-1971.jpg

 

GMC Needs to bring back a Proper Modern Typhoon and Syclone

gmc_typhoon_1.jpeg

gmc_syclone_1.jpg

 

This would do wonders for both lines I believe.

 

 

 

Agreed!

[Drew Dowdell]

Then why do we have to have a 2.0T in a Cadillac CT6?  Why not make a 3.0tt V6 the base model, and a 4.0tt V8 optional?  Why a 2.5 liter 4-cylinder in the ATS?  That 2.4 liter eAssist engine in the Lacrosse, when the Avalon, Cadenza Maxima and Azera have a standard V6?  Every GM sedan is basically designed with one eye on CAFE so they can sell more Silverados and Tahoes because that is where the profit is made.

 

Which is why CAFE is stupid to begin with, and you can make cars larger and get around CAFE, which makes no sense.  If you want better gas mileage, put a $1,000 gas guzzler tax on any vehicle under 30 mpg combined, $2,000 gas guzzler tax on any vehicle under 25 mpg combined, $3,000 on anything under 20 mpg combined, $4,000 on anything under 15 mpg combined.   Then you place a $1,000 tax credit on any car above 40 mpg combined, and $2,000 on any car above 50 mpg combined.   And watch fuel economy soar, and sale of fuel efficient vehicles soar.

 

Because 260 horsepower is sufficient for most people.... in fact, 180hp is sufficient for most people or else the Camry, Accord, and Altima wouldn't sell with a 75%+ take rate on the 4-cylinder models.

 

The 2.0T is fine as a base engine in the CT6 because it weighs less than a 335xi in spite of being substantially larger.

 

The eAssist Lacrosse is actually there for the traditional buyers who liked the frugality of the 3800 and don't care about 0-60 times. 

 

The 2.5 in the ATS is about the same horsepower rating as its competition and it gets the ATS in at a lower base price.

 

But you already know all of this because you've been told it many times.

 

 

You have to get over yourself. Not everyone has the same need for speed that you do. 

[cp-the-nerd]

Then why do we have to have a 2.0T in a Cadillac CT6?  Why not make a 3.0tt V6 the base model, and a 4.0tt V8 optional?  Why a 2.5 liter 4-cylinder in the ATS?  That 2.4 liter eAssist engine in the Lacrosse, when the Avalon, Cadenza Maxima and Azera have a standard V6?  Every GM sedan is basically designed with one eye on CAFE so they can sell more Silverados and Tahoes because that is where the profit is made.

 

Which is why CAFE is stupid to begin with, and you can make cars larger and get around CAFE, which makes no sense.  If you want better gas mileage, put a $1,000 gas guzzler tax on any vehicle under 30 mpg combined, $2,000 gas guzzler tax on any vehicle under 25 mpg combined, $3,000 on anything under 20 mpg combined, $4,000 on anything under 15 mpg combined.   Then you place a $1,000 tax credit on any car above 40 mpg combined, and $2,000 on any car above 50 mpg combined.   And watch fuel economy soar, and sale of fuel efficient vehicles soar.

 

The 2.0T has not been confirmed as a base engine in the CT6, what HAS been confirmed is a 2.0T-based HYBRID system that makes power like we've come to expect from German 3.0T engines.

 

The 2.4L eAssist powertrain is now what, 4 or 5 years old? It was novel when it came out. 180+ hp and class leading fuel economy. The Lacrosse offers the V6 as a no-cost option. It's outdated now, but so is everything when you look at the end of a product cycle compared to brand new cars. New Lacrosse is only a year away.

 

The 2.5L ATS is the entry level Cadillac. BMW sells a detuned, decontented 3-series as well. They're not glamorous vehicles, but people that want the badge can get it. Cadillac is currently in the design process of a completely exclusive set of powertrains, it doesn't happen overnight.

 

All of this is information readily available if you weren't looking to jump to conclusions.

Edited July 24, 2015 by cp-the-nerd

[smk4565]

I agree that a 4-cyldiner is enough for most people.  The Camry V6 has like a 6% take rate, and the hybrid is about 10%, so over 80% of those are base 4 banger.  175-200 hp is enough for a small to mid crossover or family sedan, most people don't drive in any sporting nature.

 

A Cadillac CT6 is not for "most people" it is for a higher end buyer.  The Corvette weighs less than a 335i, I don't see them putting a 2.0T in the Corvette because it would be enough for the typical Camry/Accord buyer.  V6 should be a minimum on  a CT6.  The ATS has less standard hp and torque than a CLA, and they want the ATS to compete with the C-class which is 241 hp base.  The A4 is going to have 252 hp base, Lexus IS will have the 245 hp 2.0T.   I still think the ATS should have the 2.0T standard, and they could beat them all on base hp, rather than being 40 below them all.

 

And if even Cadillac buyers are content with a 260 hp, I am sure a 306 hp GMC Canyon is plenty of power, thus no need for a Cyclone.

[Drew Dowdell]

I agree that a 4-cyldiner is enough for most people.  The Camry V6 has like a 6% take rate, and the hybrid is about 10%, so over 80% of those are base 4 banger.  175-200 hp is enough for a small to mid crossover or family sedan, most people don't drive in any sporting nature.

 

A Cadillac CT6 is not for "most people" it is for a higher end buyer.  The Corvette weighs less than a 335i, I don't see them putting a 2.0T in the Corvette because it would be enough for the typical Camry/Accord buyer.  V6 should be a minimum on  a CT6.  The ATS has less standard hp and torque than a CLA, and they want the ATS to compete with the C-class which is 241 hp base.  The A4 is going to have 252 hp base, Lexus IS will have the 245 hp 2.0T.   I still think the ATS should have the 2.0T standard, and they could beat them all on base hp, rather than being 40 below them all.

 

And if even Cadillac buyers are content with a 260 hp, I am sure a 306 hp GMC Canyon is plenty of power, thus no need for a Cyclone.

 

 

Engines aren't mutually exclusive.  More choices for consumers is a good thing.  Who cares if the 2.0T is the base engine as long as the 2.0TH, 3.6, 3.0TT and 4.0TT are options?   I'm not going to tell Cadillac they shouldn't offer a certain engine just because it isn't the engine I would chose.   What an absurd idea.

[cp-the-nerd]

Again, where are either of you seeing the 2.0T will be the base engine on the CT6? I have not seen that anywhere, only that the 2.0T would be available as a performance hybrid.

 

I'm still not understanding scolding GM for their base engines in cars released years ago when they were competitive, hindsight is not a relevant ground to judge. The ATS 2.5L served its purpose against other luxury base models (as did the eAssist), it's entirely likely GM will drop it soon, since the 2.0T/8-speed auto will match its fuel economy and costs are being recouped on the Alpha platform.

 

The Lexus IS doesn't even HAVE 240 hp yet. The 250 hp A4 is NEXT years model. How is it relevant to say "The ATS shouldn't have been released in 2012 with a 202hp 4-cylinder because in 2015 or 2016, competition will have much better engines."

[smk4565]

I heard Dave Leone himself say the CT6 would have a 265 hp 2.0 liter turbo 4.  Now maybe they will only sell it in China, but they are building it for sure.  This is Cadillac's big gun, it should bring something better than that.  Consumer choice is good, so offer turbo V6 and V8, a diesel and a hybrid.

 

I was against the 2.5 liter ATS since launch, if Cadillac wanted to topple the 3-series, they should have come out guns blazing, and not used the 2.5 liter engine found in the base Malibu (and now the base Colorado).  It's a Cadillac, step it up.

 

I'll agree on the eAssist, at the time gas was expensive, so they were trying to push fuel economy and I think that car got like 36 mpg highway when it first came out, so at the time that was good.  And I imagine they will move to a 2.0T and 8 or 9 speed, as that is where the market is going.

 

I'd still be an advocate for the V6 continuing in mid-size to large Buicks like LaCrosse and Enclave, or a Riveria or Avenir if they happen.  I'd like to see a V6 option on the Buick version on the Malibu to make it different.  Sort of how Fusion is turbo 4 only, but MKZ has a V6 option.

[Drew Dowdell]

Again, where are either of you seeing the 2.0T will be the base engine on the CT6? I have not seen that anywhere, only that the 2.0T would be available as a performance hybrid.

 

From the Cadillac press release on the CT6

[smk4565]

I think that CT6 is going to get eaten alive, I am curious as to how they'll price it.  I think they'll aim too high, which is why I see it getting eaten alive.

[cp-the-nerd]

 

Again, where are either of you seeing the 2.0T will be the base engine on the CT6? I have not seen that anywhere, only that the 2.0T would be available as a performance hybrid.

 

From the Cadillac press release on the CT6

 

 

I read multiple press releases, they had varied details and were vague about the actual 2.0T application. I'll admit this one is more definitive than the others, but I'm still curious to see for sure when GM actually reveals the trim levels and engines.

 

I think that CT6 is going to get eaten alive, I am curious as to how they'll price it.  I think they'll aim too high, which is why I see it getting eaten alive.

 

Why am I not surprised you're glass half empty about a Cadillac, you haven't liked the CT6 since the day it was unveiled.

[TaurusSHO]

 

 

Again, where are either of you seeing the 2.0T will be the base engine on the CT6? I have not seen that anywhere, only that the 2.0T would be available as a performance hybrid.

 

From the Cadillac press release on the CT6

 

 

I read multiple press releases, they had varied details and were vague about the actual 2.0T application. I'll admit this one is more definitive than the others, but I'm still curious to see for sure when GM actually reveals the trim levels and engines.

 

I think that CT6 is going to get eaten alive, I am curious as to how they'll price it.  I think they'll aim too high, which is why I see it getting eaten alive.

 

Why am I not surprised you're glass half empty about a Cadillac, you haven't liked the CT6 since the day it was unveiled.

 

I also thought the 2.0T would be paired with a hybrid and the non hybrid 2.0T will be China only.  But maybe not...

[smk4565]

What I don't like about the CT6 is it isn't big enough or luxurious enough to really match the big Germans.  And it is too big to go against a 5-series, plus the CTS does that, and it is still too big and not sporty looking to go against a CLS or A7.   Plus you can get a CLS or A7 with a twin turbo V6 for under $70k, so that makes me think the CT6 twin turbo V6 needs to be under $70k, which puts the 2.0T model at like $52-55k for it to have a chance to sell, and I don't think Cadillac will price it that low.  This is a car giving you the same powertrain as a $44k CTS, and at the top end, the 3.0TT is worse than the CTS V-sport.  So the customer is only getting space and a slightly different dashboard and some amenities like the 34 speaker Bose stereo.  What is that worth?  I'd think $10,000 premium over a CTS at most so it has to base price around $53k and max at $70k.  That is a lot of overlap to the current CTS and XTS in price, unless they make 2016 the last year of the XTS, but I don't think it is dying until like 2019.

Edited July 24, 2015 by smk4565

[Drew Dowdell]

I could see the XTS going livery only soon.

[TaurusSHO]

Isn't it going away after 2017?