Jump to content

  •  

Replying to Ideal Cadillac Lineup


Post Options

  or Cancel


Topic Summary

Posted 19 July 2011 - 10:33 AM

Step one: Bring back names, no more _TS or _RX
Step two: Bring back multiple body styles, coupes and convertibles are luxuries for most families and thus should be in the luxury brand
Step three: stop trying to follow the germans feature for feature, attribute by attribute, but beat the attributes that matter (weight/power/fuel economy/handleing)

Posted 19 July 2011 - 10:26 AM

I would end truck-based Cadillacs.


...and Cadillac profitability.

Posted 10 July 2011 - 09:01 AM

Cadillac needs to worry more about the ATS and next CTS. For now the SUV's are fine and making money. They can address them once they get the cars in order.

The SRX today like it or not is what the public wants. The RWD as good as it may have been was not what they wanted. Sales proved it. I have driven them and there is nothing wrong with either. It just proves GM needs to give the public what they want. GM has for year really misjudged the market on many models and today they seem to be doing better with changes Lutz brought to their way of thinking.

Posted 10 July 2011 - 07:48 AM

However, gm has always made plans for a lambda Cadillac that is a cross between the escalade and the SRX.


Just because they made plans does not mean they will execute them: e.g. Chi, Ultra V8 etc. I could make the case that the SRX ought to be a Buick, but that is what the Encore is for since there is a massive hole in Buick's lineup. No such hole for Cadillac. Cadillac's hole is a RWD large sedan (i.e. a flagship). Escalade will not sell outside of North America, and since international sales do matter for GM, an XJ/7/S-class fighter is mandatory.

Posted 09 July 2011 - 02:55 PM


I would end truck-based Cadillacs.


Uh, no. Here is why the Escalade should NOT be on Lambda: Buick Enclave. And a better reason: Escalades are more profitable because they are on GMT900, not Lambda.


However, gm has always made plans for a lambda cadillac that is across between the escalade and the SRX.

Posted 27 June 2011 - 08:13 AM



I would base the SRX renamed ERX again on the CTS platform. It would obviously be Alpha based for the next version using the listed ATS or CTS power train options. The Escalade renamed URX would be ether again based on the future Truck platform or a crossover version of the listed STS platform. It would use the DI turbo 5.0L V8 tuned for high levels of torque.


Basing the ERX (nee SRX) on the XTS platform will bring back only lost sales :hissyfit:. I know it was unique, but the first-generation SRX did not sell :cussing:. The current one sells very well because that is what the market wants. As for your URX, I would leave it on GM's next truck platform since that is the most profitable.

It was not the RWD that kept the first SRX from selling it was the strange styling. The RWD was superior dynamically and made for a far better crossover then todays nose heavy "should have been a Buick" mess. With a great styling upgrade inside and out using the latest CTS power they would have had a superior product to what they have today!

Posted 26 June 2011 - 11:06 PM

It's also quite a guzzler compared to most its competitors. An RX450h-killing SRX Plug-In using an amped up version of the VUE Plug-In's powertrain would be great. A fifth of RX sales are for the 450h model.


Well, the 3.0 was a mistake... It was mismatched to the heavy SRX and was painfully slow while offering NO fuel economy advantage whatsoever over the 3.6. The 3.0 was 18/25 for the FWD. The 3.6 is also 18/25 for the FWD version. The car should have gotten the 3.6 to begin with. Good thing it is for 2012.

To be fair, it wasn't really a guzzler. The RX350 posts identical MPG numbers (18/25), it is just not as slow because it is lighter. That GM was able to hold the MPG numbers despite a 400 lbs weight deficit is actually... quite remarkable.

Posted 26 June 2011 - 06:50 PM


Basing the ERX (nee SRX) on the XTS platform will bring back only lost sales :hissyfit:. I know it was unique, but the first-generation SRX did not sell :cussing:. The current one sells very well because that is what the market wants. As for your URX, I would leave it on GM's next truck platform since that is the most profitable.


The SRX isn't quite the RX350. At least not in terms of sales, at least not yet. But it is making a lot of inroads. The biggest problem with the SRX isn't that its FWD. Its that it is about 300~400 lbs heavier than it ought to be. This lead to acceleration that is sufficiently lethargic that even the soccer moms felt it. Ditching the 3.0 for the 3.6 helped. This car really needs the LF3 (3.0 Bi-turbo) more than any other right now.

It's also quite a guzzler compared to most its competitors. An RX450h-killing SRX Plug-In using an amped up version of the VUE Plug-In's powertrain would be great. A fifth of RX sales are for the 450h model.

Posted 26 June 2011 - 05:21 PM


Basing the ERX (nee SRX) on the XTS platform will bring back only lost sales :hissyfit:. I know it was unique, but the first-generation SRX did not sell :cussing:. The current one sells very well because that is what the market wants. As for your URX, I would leave it on GM's next truck platform since that is the most profitable.


The SRX isn't quite the RX350. At least not in terms of sales, at least not yet. But it is making a lot of inroads. The biggest problem with the SRX isn't that its FWD. Its that it is about 300~400 lbs heavier than it ought to be. This lead to acceleration that is sufficiently lethargic that even the soccer moms felt it. Ditching the 3.0 for the 3.6 helped. This car really needs the LF3 (3.0 Bi-turbo) more than any other right now.


I agree about the weight issue. Most cars could stand to lose 500 lbs. easily. The TT3L V6 should be the upgraded optional engine.

Posted 26 June 2011 - 04:55 PM

Basing the ERX (nee SRX) on the XTS platform will bring back only lost sales :hissyfit:. I know it was unique, but the first-generation SRX did not sell :cussing:. The current one sells very well because that is what the market wants. As for your URX, I would leave it on GM's next truck platform since that is the most profitable.


The SRX isn't quite the RX350. At least not in terms of sales, at least not yet. But it is making a lot of inroads. The biggest problem with the SRX isn't that its FWD. Its that it is about 300~400 lbs heavier than it ought to be. This lead to acceleration that is sufficiently lethargic that even the soccer moms felt it. Ditching the 3.0 for the 3.6 helped. This car really needs the LF3 (3.0 Bi-turbo) more than any other right now.

Review the complete topic (launches new window)