Cadillac Renaissance: Miracle or Mirage?

[sciguy_0504]

Some friends of the family were looking into getting a new SUV.  Their current vehicle is a Lexus RX330 but they have a little girl now and were looking to upgrade in size.

They were interested in the Caddy SRX (a rarity in southern california) because they liked its size and looks and the fact that they would get a great deal with GM’s friends and family discount with the help of my father who is employed by the company.

Being one of the few people in my family who knows anything about cars, they came to me for advice about the vehicle (don’t laugh) I warned them before they tested it that the interior would be a significant step down from their Lexus and sure enough, it was.  It seemed terribly cheap for them considering the price of the vehicle.  They are now looking for another, similar vehicle.

Now, they liked the ride and all the features but the interior was so bad that they didn’t want to spend that much money on it when other vehicles in the same class offer so much more.

I did mention that the vehicle was getting a significant upgrade in a year or so but they needed a new vehicle now.

That's pretty sad.

Tell them to wait for the Enclave. They'll ask, "SRX what?"

[The O.C.]

Once more:

The STS interior blows when compared to the other vehicles in its class.

There; that makes three.

[ellives]

Gas mileage? You're kidding. Compared to what?

No, the rental DTS had bucket seats.  The problem may have been that I am 42, am 20 lbs overweight, and am more comfortable with bench seats.  I did enjoy the Northstar V8 and everything else about the car (except the gas mileage).

[The O.C.]

Gas mileage? You're kidding. Compared to what?

I know what he's talking about.

When I had a Deville ('05 model but same powertrain as the new DTS) in Maui last summer, I averaged 15-16mpg for the time I had it....(confirmed via checking it at fuel fills...NOT relying on the trip computer.)

In real world driving, the Northstar drinks gas just like any other V8.

[Croc]

I know what he's talking about.

When I had a Deville ('05 model but same powertrain as the new DTS) in Maui last summer, I averaged 15-16mpg for the time I had it....(confirmed via checking it at fuel fills...NOT relying on the trip computer.)

In real world driving, the Northstar drinks gas just like any other V8.

Yup. My father's 2000 DHS is a gas hog, and his 2006 DTS is even worse, though he says the performance is better so he doesn't mind.

[Flybrian]

18-22mpg in mixed city/hwy driving with heavy a/c use with a 4.0l Northstar-derived V8. Confirmed by actual fillups via a year and a half of ownership, not weekend specials.

[Cadillacfan]

Tell them to wait for the Enclave.  They'll ask, "SRX what?"

It won't be out for a while. They wanted to upgrade pretty soon.

[Croc]

18-22mpg in mixed city/hwy driving with heavy a/c use with a 4.0l Northstar-derived V8. Confirmed by actual fillups via a year and a half of ownership, not weekend specials.

Not the same...my father has been using N*s since 1995 and they have all had about the same economy...mid-teens.

[The O.C.]

Not the same...my father has been using N*s since 1995 and they have all had about the same economy...mid-teens.

4.0L/250hp should be a bit more frugal.

But like Croc says....the 4.6L engines are mid-teens in normal mixed driving.

[ellives]

Um - not. I've owned 3 N*'s so far and they easily run in the low 20's overall. My first one (a '96 SLS would get 26-27 on long trips.)

"Mid-teens..." right.... LMAO

4.0L/250hp should be a bit more frugal.

But like Croc says....the 4.6L engines are mid-teens in normal mixed driving.

[Croc]

Um - not. I've owned 3 N*'s so far and they easily run in the low 20's overall. My first one (a '96 SLS would get 26-27 on long trips.)

"Mid-teens..." right.... LMAO

Seeing how the 2006 DTS is EPA rated at 17/24 or 17/25 (depending on which hp output N* has been installed), I would say it is pretty hard to believe it would ever get 26-27mpg. With optimal city mpg EPA rated at 17, I do not find mid-teens fuel economy to be uncharacteristically low. The 2000 DTS was rated at 17/28 so 26-27mpg is more probable. Mid-teens city mpg is still reasonable. The 1995 Concours was rated at 17/26. Seville SLS were more than 100lbs lighter than base Sedan Devilles, so that might explain why you had an extra mpg or two in your 1996 SLS.

[balthazar]

Everything else being equal; no way in hell will a mere 100-lb difference equate to a 1-2 MPG difference.... unless we're starting with a -say- 1000-lb vehicle.

[pow]

Everything else being equal; no way in hell will a mere 100-lb difference equate to a 1-2 MPG difference.... unless we're starting with a -say- 1000-lb vehicle.

But a slight twitch of the toe will.

[pow]

Um - not. I've owned 3 N*'s so far and they easily run in the low 20's overall. My first one (a '96 SLS would get 26-27 on long trips.)

"Mid-teens..." right.... LMAO

This whole argument is pointless, as over a short journey, an extra stop sign or two can kill economy by 2-3 MPG.

[turbo200]

It won't be out for a while.  They wanted to upgrade pretty soon.

direct em to the Pilot. It's everything they want....unless they don't like the style. It's not GM though...

[VenSeattle]

The current STS makes absolutly no sense.  The STS is priced right on top of the DTS and the there really is not reason to move up from a CTS to an STS.  The vehicles are too close to the same size.  The V8 option in the STS is not a high draw in sales or good reason for buyers to spend the premium on the current STS over the CTS.  For the Chinese market, there will be an STS-L with a longer wheelbase.

Now, if Cadillac consolodates the DTS and STS on sigma, with 2 different wheelbases, they can cover the same market with one car in one plant.  The current STS needs to grow to better differentiate the vehicle from the CTS and the fwd DTS needs to go away.  These vehicles can be offered with the current STS powertrain offerenings.  Call the car the DTS and DTS-L because of the loyal following of the current Deville/DTS buyer.  Starting length is 198in with a 5 inch stretch in the rear for the L.

I know I'm really late to the game in this topic, but how is an STS-L in China possible? I thought Sigma was stretched to its limit with the current STS?

[Drew Dowdell]

Seeing how the 2006 DTS is EPA rated at 17/24 or 17/25 (depending on which hp output N* has been installed), I would say it is pretty hard to believe it would ever get 26-27mpg.  With optimal city mpg EPA rated at 17, I do not find mid-teens fuel economy to be uncharacteristically low.  The 2000 DTS was rated at 17/28 so 26-27mpg is more probable.  Mid-teens city mpg is still reasonable.  The 1995 Concours was rated at 17/26.  Seville SLS were more than 100lbs lighter than base Sedan Devilles, so that might explain why you had an extra mpg or two in your 1996 SLS.

Chas gets about 18mpg city in his V6 Passat mostly because he drives it like he stole it. When I drive it, I get 23 city.

[-Camaro-]

Well, I did have a chance to sit in the new DTS and STS interiors and while the DTS has higher quality materials, I found the STS to be more attractive in presentation mostly because it does not look like any other GM interior.  I can do without the giant black center HVAC controls but all the gadgets that come in the vehicle make up for its shortcomings.

The CTS has an interior that is just shameful to look at but I love the vehicle overall.

-------

Some friends of the family were looking into getting a new SUV.  Their current vehicle is a Lexus RX330 but they have a little girl now and were looking to upgrade in size.

They were interested in the Caddy SRX (a rarity in southern california) because they liked its size and looks and the fact that they would get a great deal with GM’s friends and family discount with the help of my father who is employed by the company.

Being one of the few people in my family who knows anything about cars, they came to me for advice about the vehicle (don’t laugh) I warned them before they tested it that the interior would be a significant step down from their Lexus and sure enough, it was.  It seemed terribly cheap for them considering the price of the vehicle.  They are now looking for another, similar vehicle.

Now, they liked the ride and all the features but the interior was so bad that they didn’t want to spend that much money on it when other vehicles in the same class offer so much more.

I did mention that the vehicle was getting a significant upgrade in a year or so but they needed a new vehicle now.

That's pretty sad.

Sadly if you had said nothing, I doubt they would have thought that. When you say that, people automatically look for flaws/stuff worse than the other vehicle and miss the important stuff.

[Shantanu]

The CTS is still holding its own in sales, although it has understandably fallen off a bit from its peak.

The STS and SRX are two vehicles that never lived up to expectations.

The new DTS is just bizarre looking. I can't wait for a replacement.

[Shantanu]

The DTS face lift *had* to cost less then an entirely redesigned platform. GM just didn't have the money to do an entirely new car yet.

While 1/3rd of DTSes are sold to fleets, what about the other 2/3rds of the sales. Isn't the DTS one of the best selling <even after accounting for fleet sales> full sized luxury cars out there?

While fleets aren't as profitable as retail sales, they do contribute to the economies of scale of a model line.

BMW and Benz fleet their cars too, they just don't do it in the U.S. In france I saw a number of Benz C-classes and 3-series diesels as taxi cabs.

It's not Cadillac's business to copycat the Germans and put up cars 1-1 against them (that's Lexus's, job ). The Cadillac Deville sells quite well and probably makes good money for GM. There's a big market for that sort of soft-riding, big FWD car. Not that I would ever buy one, but a lot of people do. If GM replaced it with something that went head to head against the 7-series, that would likely alienate about 20-30% of current Cadillac buyers. Not a good idea.

[Shantanu]

The current STS makes absolutly no sense.  The STS is priced right on top of the DTS and the there really is not reason to move up from a CTS to an STS.  The vehicles are too close to the same size.  The V8 option in the STS is not a high draw in sales or good reason for buyers to spend the premium on the current STS over the CTS.  For the Chinese market, there will be an STS-L with a longer wheelbase.

Now, if Cadillac consolodates the DTS and STS on sigma, with 2 different wheelbases, they can cover the same market with one car in one plant.  The current STS needs to grow to better differentiate the vehicle from the CTS and the fwd DTS needs to go away.  These vehicles can be offered with the current STS powertrain offerenings.  Call the car the DTS and DTS-L because of the loyal following of the current Deville/DTS buyer.  Starting length is 198in with a 5 inch stretch in the rear for the L.

A good idea, and it could work for the next generation.

CTS: 185"-190"

STS: 195"-200"

By then, a lot of the old time Cadillac Deville buyers will be dead, so GM could replace the Deville with a more sporty, RWD based vehicle without losing too many sales.

[evok]

It's not Cadillac's business to copycat the Germans and put up cars 1-1 against them (that's Lexus's, job  ).  The Cadillac Deville sells quite well and probably makes good money for GM.  There's a big market for that sort of soft-riding, big FWD car.  Not that I would ever buy one, but a lot of people do.  If GM replaced it with something that went head to head against the 7-series, that would likely alienate about 20-30% of current Cadillac buyers.  Not a good idea.

repost:

The current STS makes absolutly no sense. The STS is priced right on top of the DTS and the there really is not reason to move up from a CTS to an STS. The vehicles are too close to the same size. The V8 option in the STS is not a high draw in sales or good reason for buyers to spend the premium on the current STS over the CTS. For the Chinese market, there will be an STS-L with a longer wheelbase.

Now, if Cadillac consolodates the DTS and STS on sigma, with 2 different wheelbases, they can cover the same market with one car in one plant. The current STS needs to grow to better differentiate the vehicle from the CTS and the fwd DTS needs to go away. These vehicles can be offered with the current STS powertrain offerenings. Call the car the DTS and DTS-L because of the loyal following of the current Deville/DTS buyer. Starting length is 198in with a 5 inch stretch in the rear for the L.

[evok]

ha ha ha - we were thinking the same thing. There is more fact than fiction in my post.

Edited June 11, 2006 by evok

[Shantanu]

Instead of the STS, Cadillac might be better served with some kind of coupe.

[evok]

Instead of the STS, Cadillac might be better served with some kind of coupe.

See my posts in the Caddilac coupe thread. Cadillac will be stuffed with product by 2010. The dealers should be happy.

[thegriffon]

Coupes don't really generate a lot of sales. The CLK and G35 post modest numbers, but then the CLK is probably mostly cabrios, as is the 3-series. Everything else is normally only a few hundred a month. In contrast the CLS is priced like the 6-series and XK and sells at least twice as much.

There are "sweet spots" in the market, some of which are obvious and most companies compete in, others have yet to be discovered. GM (at least in North America) has failed to hit almost all of them with its cars and car-based trucks, for a very long time. You can build a very good vehicle indeed, but if it's not in the sweet spot it won't succeed. To hit the sweet spost you need to have the right kind of vehicle, at the right size (inside and out), and with the right powertrain mix, in the right price range.

The DTS and CTS have found two sweet spots, but they are not ones which will give Cadillac the same kind of brand-equity as BMW or Mercedes. They are more expensive than a Toyota or Honda could manage but not expensive enough to match the Germans. They demonstrate there is room for a midlevel brand between Dodge and Mercedes (unfortunately for DCX, Chrysler probably isn't it). The CTS, possibly, if a little bigger and with the right powertrain and pricing, could move up to really challenge the 5-Series, but then there would be even less reason for anyone to buy an STS.

[Shantanu]

Coupes don't really generate a lot of sales. The CLK and G35 post modest numbers, but then the CLK is probably mostly cabrios, as is the 3-series. Everything else is normally only a few hundred a month. In contrast the CLS is priced like the 6-series and XK and sells at least twice as much.

There are "sweet spots" in the market, some of which are obvious and most companies compete in, others have yet to be discovered. GM (at least in North America) has failed to hit almost all of them with its cars and car-based trucks, for a very long time. You can build a very good vehicle indeed, but if it's not in the sweet spot it won't succeed. To hit the sweet spost you need to have the right kind of vehicle, at the right size (inside and out), and with the right powertrain mix, in the right price range.

The DTS and CTS have found two sweet spots, but they are not ones which will give Cadillac the same kind of brand-equity as BMW or Mercedes. They are more expensive than a Toyota or Honda could manage but not expensive enough to match the Germans. They demonstrate there is room for a midlevel brand between Dodge and Mercedes (unfortunately for DCX, Chrysler probably isn't it). The CTS, possibly, if a little bigger and with the right powertrain and pricing, could move up to really challenge the 5-Series, but then there would be even less reason for anyone to buy an STS.

I'm not sure I see it exactly the same way you do.

In economics, when there are a lot of people making the same product, you have to compete on price (or something nebulous like brand power). The first Lexus IS300 was an almost complete flop because Toyota made a car that matched the BMW 3 series to every single dimension within an inch, but it was obvious that it was just a second-rate knockoff. And despite being cheaper, they were still asking too much (according to the market) and the car couldn't compete.

GM - pretty wisely - saw that if they made something exactly like a BMW 3 series it a) probably wouldn't be as good as the real thing, b) would be up against a lot of competition (Audi A4, Lexus IS300, Mercedes C-Class all about the same size), and c) would either be a failure or not command much money.

So they realized - once again, pretty wisely - that many people buying these entry luxury sedans were buying them in spite of their compact size, not because of it. They knew that some of these people would be happier buying a slightly bigger car that still contained many of the tight, RWD handling characteristics for about the same amount of money. Sure the CTS didn't do as well in comparos, but for many Americans it was a much more practical choice. The CTS did well because it carved out its own niche, where it wasn't into as much intense competition against the German sedans as the poor Lexus IS300 was.

The smart choice is not to make the same product as the other guy, especially if he's very successful at it. Unless you can crush him on price (like Lexus did with their first sedan that went up against the big Mercedes). The smart choice is to make a slightly differentiated product, so that effectively you face a different demand curve.

That said, it might not be a bad idea for the next CTS to shrink a few inches. That will still differentiate it from the German cars which have grown to about 180 inches now.

Edited June 11, 2006 by Shantanu

[ellives]

repost:

The current STS makes absolutly no sense. The STS is priced right on top of the DTS and the there really is not reason to move up from a CTS to an STS. The vehicles are too close to the same size. The V8 option in the STS is not a high draw in sales or good reason for buyers to spend the premium on the current STS over the CTS. For the Chinese market, there will be an STS-L with a longer wheelbase.

Now, if Cadillac consolodates the DTS and STS on sigma, with 2 different wheelbases, they can cover the same market with one car in one plant. The current STS needs to grow to better differentiate the vehicle from the CTS and the fwd DTS needs to go away. These vehicles can be offered with the current STS powertrain offerenings. Call the car the DTS and DTS-L because of the loyal following of the current Deville/DTS buyer. Starting length is 198in with a 5 inch stretch in the rear for the L.

I do not see the wisdom of replacing an existing nameplate (STS) with a suffix-based designation (DTS-L.) Hell the STS has more brand recognition than the DTS which has existing in it's current form for only a few years. I'm not talking DeVille - but DTS. I've never understood this approach even in the Yukon / Yukon XL approach. We all know the big one is just a Suburban.

Personally I think Cadillac as the right idea with the three models. The DTS should be the full-blown maxed out (S/7-Series/S- product. The problem is they don't have the product. It needs to be RWD/AWD and it needs to be a deep car. No bench seats. No column shifter and none of this base product crap for the guy that wants to make the jump from the top-of-the-line Buick to the base Cadillac product. If he wants the Caddy, he should get the Caddy. It's a Cadillac for a reason. I never understood this at any time in the history of GM. It blurs the product lines unnecessarily.

[ehaase]

I do not see the wisdom of replacing an existing nameplate (STS) with a suffix-based designation (DTS-L.)

I'd rather call the vehicle STS and STS-L than DTS and DTS-L, but Cadillac needs this vehicle to be a success before it's ready for a S class/7 series competitor. The reviews of the current STS have all been disappointing.

[evok]

I'd rather call the vehicle STS and STS-L than DTS and DTS-L, but Cadillac needs this vehicle to be a success before it's ready for a S class/7 series competitor.  The reviews of the current STS have all been disappointing.

What they call it is not the issue. Like you I prefer calling it the DTS. But the mission is retaining current Deville buyers.

[ZL-1]

The CTS, possibly, if a little bigger and with the right powertrain and pricing, could move up to really challenge the 5-Series, but then there would be even less reason for anyone to buy an STS.

The STS would need a good upmarket kick in that scenario.

Edited June 12, 2006 by ZL-1

[Shantanu]

The challenges facing Cadillac today are pretty small considering the challenges Cadillac had about 5 years ago.

Cadillac was seen as an old man's brand. It's top seller, the Deville, had a dying demographic. The STS was never a credible competitor to imports. The Catera was an embarrasment. The US Dollar was strong, and the imports were able to charge less and make more.

Then the Escalade came out, and for the first time since the days of Elvis, Cadillac had a hit product amongst the young and the trendy.

The biggest gamble came with the CTS. No one thought that GM could make a car that was even in the same league as the German RWD sedans. But not only did GM deliver, but they had a solid hit on their hands. The CTS even won a comparo or two. And all this despite the G35 unfortunately coming out at the same time and stealing much of its thunder. Most importantly, the CTS did well amongst young, professional car enthusiast types that GM had long been trying to win over.

The V-Series broke new ground for Cadillac. No one thought that would succeed, but it did, and its now grown to a lineup of 3 cars. Before the XLR came out, many people thought that "no one would pay $80,000 for a Cadillac". But GM proved them wrong, and the XLR held its own.

Going into the future, GM has a solid foundation to build on. First of all, the U.S. dollar is at an all time low against the Euro (and quite low against the Yen), so they don't have to worry as much about competing with the imports on price while still making money. Cadillac technology has gone from being far behind the competition, to on par with them or ahead of them in most areas. They've got a new plant, one of the best in North America. They've proved that Cadillacs can be trendy, that young people can and do buy Cadillacs. The Cadillac dealers have made lots of money the past 5 years, and many of them have opened up brand new showrooms that are as fine as BMW's best.

With the next generation of Cadillacs, GM can hopefully go from being merely satisfied with products that are mentioned in the same sentence as BMW, to products that handily trump BMW.

Edited June 12, 2006 by Shantanu

[ZL-1]

@ Shantanu: The follow up products like the '08 CTS will be the indcators of whether they're aiming for mid-pack of state-of-the-art status. I hope Cadillac takes the risk and delivers.

[97regalGS]

I'm not sure I see it exactly the same way you do.

In economics, when there are a lot of people making the same product, you have to compete on price (or something nebulous like brand power).  The first Lexus IS300 was an almost complete flop because Toyota made a car that matched the BMW 3 series to every single dimension within an inch, but it was obvious that it was just a second-rate knockoff.  And despite being cheaper, they were still asking too much (according to the market) and the car couldn't compete.

GM - pretty wisely - saw that if they made something exactly like a BMW 3 series it a) probably wouldn't be as good as the real thing, b) would be up against a lot of competition (Audi A4, Lexus IS300, Mercedes C-Class all about the same size), and c) would either be a failure or not command much money.

So they realized - once again, pretty wisely - that many people buying these entry luxury sedans were buying them in spite of their compact size, not because of it.  They knew that some of these people would be happier buying a slightly bigger car that still contained many of the tight, RWD handling characteristics for about the same amount of money.  Sure the CTS didn't do as well in comparos, but for many Americans it was a much more practical choice.  The CTS did well because it carved out its own niche, where it wasn't into as much intense competition against the German sedans as the poor Lexus IS300 was.

The smart choice is not to make the same product as the other guy, especially if he's very successful at it.  Unless you can crush him on price (like Lexus did with their first sedan that went up against the big Mercedes).  The smart choice is to make a slightly differentiated product, so that effectively you face a different demand curve.

That said, it might not be a bad idea for the next CTS to shrink a few inches.  That will still differentiate it from the German cars which have grown to about 180 inches now.

i think you are giving GM WAY TOO MUCH CREDIT. i don't thing GM gave half that stuff any thought.

[Shantanu]

If you want to see how far Cadillac has come, compare it to Lincoln. The two brands were about the same 5 years ago, or arguably Lincoln was ahead due to the LS and the full size luxury SUV Navigator, which it pioneered.

Look where Lincoln is now. That's where Cadillac would be if GM hadn't put any thought into the brand, and just let it drift on auto pilot.

[97regalGS]

If you want to see how far Cadillac has come, compare it to Lincoln.  The two brands were about the same 5 years ago, or arguably Lincoln was ahead due to the LS and the full size luxury SUV Navigator, which it pioneered.

Look where Lincoln is now.  That's where Cadillac would be if GM hadn't put any thought into the brand, and just let it drift on auto pilot.

i'm not saying cadillac has not come along way, but i'm not certain that i believe that gm considered all the specific points as outlined in that previous post. they might have, but it would surprise me.