evok

Taken out of context... you are full of it and mislead. Read some more recent research.

{ragged sigh}Windshields are laminated, side glass is tempered...FOR THE MOST PART. A niche-volume manufacturer offers laminated side glass and everything I posted is flat wrong, eh? Tho there are pros & cons for each type, but I would not want laminated glass splintering into jagged spikes right next to my face! You can pick up a handful of broken tempered glass & roll it in your hand without injury. Both types have been judged legally liable in accidents, BTW. 217028[/snapback] Let me refresh your memory and what you said. "Can't: windshields are laminated to keep them relatively visually clear upon impact (so the driver can still see where he's going)- side & rear glass is tempered: heat-treated to break into those little cubes- safer than laminated but obviously you would not be able to see thru a crazed tempered windshield if something hit you when still moving. " Reasons you site are untrue. Please go on and tell me all the pros and cons. Enlighten all of us since you seem to know what you are talking about.

Yea - Every month I get an email from OnStar telling me my mileage and other vital interests about my vehicle. My portable GPS devise when I was playing with it while driving tells me how fast I am moving and it is the same at least in whole numbers to what is on my IP. The trip computer on my GPS devise is with fractions of what my cars records after a long trip. a + b = c

HUH - Do you have a clue about what you just said?

http://autodeadline.com/detail?source=Cadi...756896&mime=JPG

Most certainly. I have had first hand experience in most of the Caddys in the 80s and spend much time in the S Class, 7 Series and the new E-Class during that period in question when new. From what I remember and it has been 25 years but this is what stands out. All the Cadillac 4.1 powertrains were some of the worst ever made for the type of vehicles they were in. IIRC the 3800 V6 in the Buick and Olds put out more power. Try driving in the mountains with 125 hp pulling a 4000lb vehicle in a 3+OD slush box. The ride was nothing special but the two redeeming qualities for the 79-85 E/K cars was how quiet they were and they had a greating view of the road. The body on frame vehicles did not handle well in their day and the rwd vehicles were just sloppy. I refer to taking off ramps and not rag mag road courses. They squeaked and rattled over bumps and in general just did not feel well put together after a few miles. Fuel economy was really good. The interior was nothing special but I did like the IP layout in the E/K cars. The fake wood even looked good. The seat were unsupportive and flat. The S, E and 7. Now coming out of the above vehicles, these Germans with rock solid build quality, a well damped ride, steering that was responsive, supportive seats, real wood IP inserts, powerful smooth motors, good leg room in the real of the large cars etc. The S Class was everything I though the Fleetwood Brougham should have been. There was something about cruising the expressway at 70 mph, with no unsetteling vehicle motions and knowing there is plenty of power on tap, in peace and quiet. At the time I walked away from each of these German vehicles and said wow, that is a luxury ride. Remember during this period, these vehicles were still somewhat of a novelty in the US and Cadillac was still king of the hill.

Are your sure it is not because they do not offer Corinthian leather with velour inserts with wire wheel covers and a faux convertible roof. LOL - You know I agree. Cadillac needs their version of the 1990 Lexus LS400. Even if they loose money on the program like Lexus did on the LS and have to fire the Chief Engineer. It might pay off in eventuall. hint: The Relentless Pursuit of Perfection The best, most refined vehicle I have ever driven in its day. A no holds bar attempt to show the market what GM and Cadillac can do when they try.

Well - the ultimate conviction is the rest of the market and the subsequent rise of BMW, MB and Lexus since the 1980s. These three brands have become the Cadillac of luxury cars to the greater market in the US. That is not my problem but GMs. They are to ones that have to figure out what Cadillac is to be and be able to grow a global customer base. As far as global sales go and consumer perception of the brand they have a long way to go and a lot of ill will to overcome. The brightspot is the Escalade and CTS do show the brand can be relevant.

The market wants style, quality, comfort, convenience and most important of all prestige in this class of vehicle. That has never changed. What has changed is that starting with the Germans - the level of execution was raised and Lexus with the original LS400 raised the level of refinement. Or more accurately the markets level of acceptance has increase and the domestics are still catching up. Cadillac move to fwd had nothing to do with the market demanding all weather traction. It had all to do with GM corporate policy. The move to RWD today has all to do with the refinement of that powertrain configuration in a modern unibody architecture. Subjectively it feels better and can be perceived to the buyer. The rest of your examples are just marketing gimicks and enthusiast talk. The average buyer does not give the rag mags the time of day.

Say what you will, but BMW is arguably the most respected brand in this business if not in the world of all consumer brands. If GM only did the same with Cadillac and Buick and Olds and Pontiac and cultivate the brands many of these discussions would be moot. But they did not. LOL - whatever

The market evolved - GM and Cadillac did not. The luxury/prestige buyer still wants the same thing. GM did not cultivate Cadillac like the other marks did their respective brands. Instead for years Cadillac got hand me down or ill conceived product from the Cimarron to compete with the 3, the 85/86 C/E/K cars, Allante', Catera, Original Escalade, etc. It could take 20 years of consistent product to change that perception. As I said earlier - get into an 80s S Class and compare it to any Cadillac of that vintage. Hell get into a current S-Class and compare it to a top of the line DTS. The difference is still there. Sounds like something GM would say. No way, no mercy from me, at least GM made an attempt to revive Cadillac, what Ford did to Lincoln is about like CASTRATING a Triple Crown Winner. Instead of building on the early success of the LS, the market will get rebadged Edges, Fusions, F150s, Five Hundreds and of course the Fairlane.

Seville/Eldo same interior. Compare it to an MB SEC.

The point is very simple - You are comparing a entry 3 Series to a top of the line Eldo. Compare apples to apples. American tastes have not changed but they have certainly evolved. The midsized and fullsized Euro cars were just better made and engineered vehicles compared to the Cadillac offerings in the 1980s. A big S Class or 7, drove and road better than a comparable Fleetwood, Brougham or Seville during that period. They did not ride harsh but just better. Those two vehicles were everything a Cadillac should have been. And BMW and Benz after years of consistently putting out that type of product swayed the market in their favor. And then came Lexus and the rest is history. IMO the current sigma Cadillacs do not drive and ride harsh but are very much a modern interpretation of a Cadillac. I find them to be a nice balance of ride isolation and handling prowess. Unlike Lincoln, the CTS and Escalade saved Cadillac from the fate of Lincoln. And in many ways Cadillac has to thank the Lincoln Navigator. But the facts are, Cadillac in many ways as the product stands on the showroom floor right now, has a very long way to go to be a serious player in the prestige segment. The Germans and lesser degree Lexus still outsell Cadillac on price in every segment besides the Fullsized SUV. I know I would never pay a 5 Series/X5 price for a CTS or SRX. But the CTS and SRX are a better deal to me than an 3/X3.

And CTS present 20 years later.

No that was BMW than: And this was Benz:

Your dates keep changing, 1985, 1980. Lets compare apples to apples:

Luxury was not defined as you state, only that Cadillac and Lincoln still defined that segment as the luxury car market was on a decline and the prestige market was increasing in significance. By 1986, Cadillac was selling midsized and compact luxury vehicles. This market has been in a transition since the early 70's as the German brands became a viable alternative to the status quo. Hence the original 1976 Seville and 1981 Cimmarron. I meant when these vehicles were new! Hell by the time my 1985 Eldo was a few years old the trans was slipping, the drivers door would not open because a clip for the latch broke. I would hate to see what that car looks like 20 years later! As for the new for 1986 MB E Class. That vehicle put MB on the map and set the stage for the growth in that class. A class Cadillac has yet to take MB head on yet in terms of price and product. The car when new was first class and there was not a US brand that could touch it in that segment. I have no idea where this was pulled from. How about competent, sophisticated, stylish transportation with brand cache in more vehicle segments that 1985.

Good post - I wish more people used common sense in analyzing the situation instead of misguided notions from the past or their own selective interpretation of what they want to believe.

Have you ever driven in an 80s era Cadillac if it be the 85 or 86 era E/K cars and then get into a 7 Series or S-Class of that same vintage. There is no comparison in perceived quality or driving feel. The Cadillacs of that time period were crap. That is not to say the 79 - 85 Eldo in particular are not classically styled but their build quality and powertrain were aweful. The 4100 engine, 4 speed trans were under powered by at least 40hp for that era. I believe the 4100 had 125 - 135hp. Compared to the Germans these vehicles were a joke and only got worse with the 86 DeHam cars. And dare I bring up the 85 C cars and the blown heads. The Allante! The Allante got it right in 1993 only then to be axed but still out classed by the new SL.

The original pre-lutz intent for the GMX-295 program was to be a direct competitor in price and size against the BMW 5 Series. The vehicle was only to be 2-3 inches longer than the CTS. So you have to ask yourself, what was the point? Obviously Lutz ask the same question. I am not sure what the whole story was but from when I saw the vehicle until I saw the first post Lutz prototypes, a lot changed from what I remembered. The pre-Lutz 295 was awkward but it moved Art and Science forward. It was certainly not the status quo vehicle that eventually came out. One of the big problems I had with the vehicle was it was too upright. The tumble home issue Lutz had with the vehicle also. Problem was it appears he changed the whole styling direction of the C-Pillar on back to get the tumble home the way he wanted it. For clarity, the grainy photo mentioned above was not the 295 program Lutz changed from what I remember. The original 295 program on size did not make sense given the CTS, what ultimately became the STS made only a little more sense. As for your question on Lutz, well what can I say from what I hear. He is an over paid spokesman for GM. It is my understanding that John Smith's product planning group holds the power. This is not to say Lutz did not bring design back to the fore front at GM, but it was coming in spite of him anyway. The whole globalization of GM was in the process before he arrived. In the last 5 years, there just has been more corporate discipline. As I have been saying for years, the team Wagoner has in place is really first class and have a direction for the company that should be successful given the limited resources. Lutz as I understand it is just another part of a larger puzzle. I think the best thing that happened since his arrival was Zarrella decided to leave.

Let me put this issue to rest once and for all. Sigma can be stretched to a little over 200 inches according to the original specs for the architecture.

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

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

The way I look at the situation is this vehicle is one of the last reminders of the problems at GM. It is not a knock on the vehicle but a dig on a poor strategy that has dogged GM for 40 years.

A few years ago I drove an early Vue back to back against a CRV and subsequently spent lots of time in a RAV4. At the time I though the Vue drove like a cumbersome truck compared to the more car like and responsive CRV and RAV. Fast forward a few years to the MCE 2006 Vue. WOW it was night and day compared to the original. At the time I was in the market for such a vehicle and it was on the top of the list. It felt more like the competition and car like.