smk4565

Should have copied the 3-series 20 years ago. Copying the 3-series is a good idea, but at the same time, the copy is never as good as the original. So Cadillac has to come up with something unique and better than what BMW has. While keeping in mind that the ATS won't be against the current 3-series, but the next generation, although even after 5 or 6 years on the market, the E90 3-series is still the best car in the class.

If a brand can't stand on it's own (own dealer network) then it is too weak to survive. I mean Lincoln and Acura dealers survive on their own. Buick and Cadillac could become one dealership, but really, if they can't make it alone, then they are too weak. Either get stronger or die.

Ford and Mercury co-existed for decades, and Chrysler and Plymouth co-existed for decades as well. Olds and Pontiac co-existed with Chevy and Buick for decades. Yet none of those worked out. I never thought GMC needed to stay past bankruptcy, but if they stick around (which I think they will) at least make every GMC a Denali, so they are more exclusive or different from Chevy.

This is true. Chevy becomes stronger if/when GMC dies. Chevy didn't pick up all the former Saturn/Olds/Pontaic owners because Chevy's lineup is different than what those brands had. But Chevy's lineup is not different than GMC's, they are basically the same.

I know ride and handling are different, but both increase with RWD. Put any suspension you want on any front driver, it ain't gonna ride like an S-class or a Rolls-Royce Phantom. Plus most front drivers carry 60% of their weight (or more) over the front axle. Lambda is perfectly suitable for Chevy or Buick, but not Cadillac. Cadillac should have RWD. And I would be in favor of a crossover Escalade because they could get weight down which puts V6 engines (gas and diesel) in play and gets gas mileage up.

How many units did GMC sell outside of the USA? There is more to the car market than the USA. GMC builds Chevrolet clones, the same as Mercury made Ford clones with a fancy grille and chrome strip on the trunk. GMC is overlap. GMC should be all Denali models only, or all work trucks only, or just go away. General Motors would be more profitable without GMC because all those sales could go to Chevy and the GMC marketing and operations goes away, and people putting the Chevy and GMC dealers against each other to get the lowest price goes away. Chevy's biggest competitor, is GMC, why make a competitor for you most important brand. The Silverado and Sierra for example both have a base MSRP of $21,235. Priced to the exact dollar.

RWD car rides and handles better. Regardless of engine power, a RWD car will have smoother ride and handling. That is why Acura and Lincoln are what they are, and Mercedes and BMW are what they are. If you do a Lambda Escalade, why is someone paying $65,000 for that, when mechanically it is the same as a $30,000 Traverse? Is there really going to be $35,000 put into the interior? The interior better be Jaguar XJ level in that vehicle if that is what they do. And don't forget CAFE. GM has a ways to go to get their average up. Hyundai already is ahead of the 2015 requirement, but they don't build a full size truck. Where as the GMT900 is GM's top selling platform.

Sounds good to me. And the vinyl interior work trucks that GMC sells can be Chevy also. If Buick and Cadillac are building luxury crossovers, GMC in redundant. I support keeping GMC if they become a commercial truck brand for business and fleet sale. Building work truck pick ups, commercial cab chassis, a Transit-like Van, full size van or Sprinter-type vehicle, etc. But right now GMC is Mercury.

Well they tried that for one generation of the SRX, and then gave up and built a cheap FWD SUV to get volume. Had the SRX been redone the right way, on Sigma with the new 3.6 DI V6, cancelled Ultra V8, non-existent 8-speed transmission, and non-existent diesel V6, Cadillac could have played in that crowd. This tends to be a problem a lot with Cadillac, they want to gun for that high end crowd, then do a half hearted attempt (which a Lambda Escalade would be) then when it flops they pull back and retreat way down the price scale. Allante, XLR, STS-V and original SRX being recent examples. Personally, I'd make the Escalade a rear drive crossover that is large, but not quite as large as the current model. But Cadillac also has much bigger priorities, so if they can con people into paying $65k for a Tahoe a few more years, they might as well milk it while it lasts. But I wouldn't bet my brand on it, because Hummer looked really strong at one point and was a cash cow, now it is gone. In 2020 the Escalade could be dead too.

Nah... Escalades do not have to have great fuel economy or smaller size. For that Caddy already has the Theta based SRX. Escalades should remain a big SUV with a BIG engine, there is still a demand for that kind of thing. Let's see how long that demand lasts at $4.25 a gallon. Especially if other automakers make 3 row big crossovers with diesels or hybrids. And what if gas hits $5 a gallon in a couple years. Better to be ahead of the curve, rather than stuck with a big truck with a thirsty engine when the market goes somewhere else.

Maybe Encore will be small sized. The Equinox and SRX are basically mid-sized vehicles, nearly 1 foot longer than a Ford Escape. Perhaps they want an SUV in the 180-182 inch long range, and that isn't a bad idea. I think small and less expensive is good given the economy we are in. Plus, more and more people get married later (or not at all) and have less kids than they used to, so not everyone needs a big SUV, or even a midsize SUV.

Lambda is wrong wheel drive for Cadillac. Although I would be in favor of taking the Escalade off GMT900 because it is overly huge and gets about 14 mpg. Making the Escalade a more gas friendly crossover is a good idea, but not on Lambda, we already have 3 of those.

An Eldorado Brougham they built for two years, and how many did they actually sell. That was the XLR or Alante of its day. They built an overpriced extravagant car, redesigned it in 59 and it was gone by 1961. So as I said, they never built anything that belonged in that segment. Every generation, Cadillac takes a stab at the Jaguar, high end Mercedes, Maserati strata, and they come up short and give up for 15 years. Let's see Cadillac build a top end car that sells and actually sticks around.

The largest car cruise in the area I think. They get over 2,000 cars most nights. http://www.starlitecarcruise.com/ There was a guy with a McLaren Mercedes SLR last year, pretty sick car to see in person.

Yes. Looks pretty good, wasn't the Batmobile from the Adam West TV show a Bonneville conversion?

When Cadillac tried with the STS-V, XLR and XLR-V to go into the $77-100k price range, they fell flat on their face. This is why the DTS and STS both cost $46k, Cadillac fears that high price class. The Alante tried to go up there years ago, and failed also. The other problem, is GM wants to parts bin everything, and their parts bin doesn't have what a Range Rover (or S-class) type of buyer wants. Cadillac doesn't have the platforms, engines, transmissions, technology or brand cache to attack the ultra luxury classes. GMC also does not have what is needed to go after a Range Rover type vehicle. That's what I said--GM doesn't MAKE anything of that class. They can price whatever they want, but if what they manufacture doesn't actually belong in that class, it doesn't matter. Agreed with that. GM never made anything that belonged up there even though they had a few lame attempts.

Agreed. Cadillac could move up market, and should, they are the luxury brand, the top brand and smallest volume brand. Plus they could bring image to GM by being an elite brand. But I don't know why they want to push Buick and GMC up to overlap Cadillac. And GM should look at how the economy is and will be. Unemployment is high, wages are flat, education and healthcare costs rise. Most people can't afford a $35k car, and many in Gen Y are about urban living, walking, and saving the environment. I think the future is more at the low end of the market, the bulk of GM's focus should be there.

When Cadillac tried with the STS-V, XLR and XLR-V to go into the $77-100k price range, they fell flat on their face. This is why the DTS and STS both cost $46k, Cadillac fears that high price class. The Alante tried to go up there years ago, and failed also. The other problem, is GM wants to parts bin everything, and their parts bin doesn't have what a Range Rover (or S-class) type of buyer wants. Cadillac doesn't have the platforms, engines, transmissions, technology or brand cache to attack the ultra luxury classes. GMC also does not have what is needed to go after a Range Rover type vehicle.

Drew, you should take it to the Starlite car cruise in Wexford. July 8th is Buick/Oldsmobile/Cadillac night. I hope the Aurora becomes a future classic so I can take it to a car cruise one day.

Cadillac can't even play there, GMC sure won't be able to. The average income for a Range Rover buyer is around $300,000. Far more than the $129kk income seen for Cadillac buyers, and even significantly more than the Mercedes average income of $174,000. Range Rover is way up there.

They aren't? What is better off road than a Range Rover?

We've heard this before, multiple times. Yet GMC has always directly overlapped Chevy in price, and GMC offers work trucks with zero equipment at all, at sometimes prices below the Chevy trucks. The Denali line is the only thing about GMC that is more upscale than Chevy. But to me the Denalis are just body cladding, chrome wheels and wood trim tacked on top of the base model's plastic. It isn't like the GMC Denali's have a really high level of luxury or fit and finish. It is like trying to make a luxury car out of the Impala, no matter how much chrome and wood you add on to the existing Impala, it isn't going to be nicer than a CTS. You have to design it with luxury in mind, not dress up a base model.

I never knew it went away. But I like that they detail the inside and outside of the car and have a low interest rate. But most of these certified programs are fairly similar it seems.

Yes the Leaf is single purpose, but it still fits the needs of many drivers. And electricity is more readily available than gasoline, so I don't get the fear of not being able to recharge it. And really Ruess should be concerned with an Aveo and Impala that are pathetic, a Corvette that doesn't sell, and full size SUVs with sales dropping at a 20% rate.

I think to be a flop, the car has to be a one and done model cycle. So cars like the Sebring though terrible, had multiple generations, and the 200 replaced it, but is basically the same. Much like the Ion was around a long time and replaced the SL/SC cars. I think to be a real flop that has to be no second generation or close copy. So I'd look to cars like the Aztec, Cadillac XLR, Thunderbird, Blackwood, etc. These were cars that were on market for 2-5 years, sold in limited numbers, then cancelled with no replacement. Ridgeline and Subaru Tribeca saw redesigns or second generations, I think the Smart will stick around. Mercury Maruarder was really a trim level of the Grand Marquis which sold well. Chrysler Crossfire is a good one and done car. Cars like the Catera, Astra and GTO fell short of sales expectations. I think the grand champion is the Lincoln Blackwood though, they sold like 700 in a whole year.