Cadillac News: Cadillac's Upcoming Flagship Has A Name: CT6

[William Maley]

For the longest time, we have been calling Cadillac's upcoming flagship the LTS after a rumor tipped this to be name. But we now know that the new flagship, premiering next year, will have a different name. In a press release today, Cadillac announced that their upcoming flagship will wear the CT6 name.

"The Cadillac CT6 continues our brand's elevation and global growth. CT6 will constitute an entirely new approach to the prestige sedan, emphasizing a dynamic driving experience and advanced technology," said Uwe Ellinghaus, Cadillac chief marketing officer.

Now the CT6 name also introduces a big change for Cadillac. According to the release, 'lettering like “CT” would be used for car models, with the number indicating the relative size and position of the cars in the hierarchy of Cadillac models.'

"As we expand the portfolio, we can assist consumers in placing the cars within a structure, as they compare cars both within our showroom and across the market generally," Ellinghaus said. "However, this will be an evolutionary process – we will only change a product's name when the product itself is redesigned or an all-new model is created, as in this instance."

Source: Cadillac

William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at [email protected] or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

Press Release is on Page 2

• Page 1 of 2
• 1
• 2

• →
• Last »

Click here to view the article

[David]

So eventually the ATS and CTS will die as they are replaced like what?

 

ATS = CT3

CTS = CT5

 

What about the SRX & Escalade?

 

What does CT stand for? Cadillac Tempest? So far I am not impressed with the new head of Cadillac. His rebadge of Infinity hurt sales and confused everyone. I wonder about Cadillac with this moron at the head. Seems to be no imagination other than to follow what what done by the Germans.

 

Car and Driver had more info including a note about Cadillac becoming a stand alone division and moving to NY.

 

http://blog.caranddriver.com/you-dont-mess-with-the-johan-cadillac-names-new-flagship-ct6-future-products-to-follow-new-naming-strategy/

 

This statement is concerning "we’re certain “Escalade” will remain in place, even if de Nysschen can’t figure out why people keep buying them."

 

Following the mention of that in the story and it takes you to the following story:

 

http://blog.caranddriver.com/new-york-state-of-mind-cadillac-to-move-hq-to-nyc-become-standalone-business-unit/

 

Seems GM wants Cadillac to become a Global Stand Alone Brand and so will have a seperate HQ in New York City to allow freedom of growth and design.

 

Anyone have any other info on this?

[smk4565]

Lame name, as I said in another thread, they seem to care more about naming schemes than the product itself, as was the case at Infiniti.  Not that Infinitis' names made any sense, over hauling it to Q50, Q60, Q70 doesn't make any sense either.  Cadillac should have gone back to real names, it just seems like they are trying so hard to be like Infiniti or Audi with this CT6, CT5, CT4 plan.  What is CT mean anyway, and what about the Lexus CT200?

 

Cadillac is run by marketing guys so this is the type of stuff they care about.  They will try their thing, 5 years from now de Nysschen and Ellinghaus will move on to new jobs and Cadillac will have new marketing, another new naming scheme and another renaissance coming.  Compared to Mercedes who has Dr. Z, and Thomas Weber who both have PhD's in engineering running the ship, and Tobais Moers head of AMG is an engineer.  All 3 have been with Daimler over 20 years.  Cadillac needs engineers in power, not marking guys and bean counters.

[Cmicasa the Great]

^^^ No maker using the alphanumeric naming schemes is creative. NONE. 

 

CT6??? I would have preferred an ACTUAL name, but if CT is a spring forward and aft.. then all for it. What this suggests to me is that there is a possibility of a CT6.. but also a CT7 (Coupe).. and maybe a CT8 etc. 

 

What I find interesting is that people have issue with this being a "6" while the Benz S has an S400 or S550. Yeah it matters. Someone suggested that a CT6 might be confused with an Audi A6 competitor, but why isn't the S550 confused with an S5 competitor? In fact... the S5 is actually an A4 Coupe. It doesn't even compete with the other "5".. that being the BMW 5series with is a SEDAN not a coupe, and also comes in an ugly WAGONEER called GT.... UUUUUGH confusing. And don't get me started on Jag. I don't kno what the hell their naming scheme means anymore. They had to abandon the numbers

 

Where is the clarity? The CT6 is fine.. not great.. because all luxury cars should have names.. but the truth is global luxury never have names unless they are limited limited limited sales like Rolls and Bentley.

 

Marketing gave it to us, now we have it from top to bottom in 2016 MY:

 

CT6 (CT6 VSport, Platinum, VSeries)

ELR

XTS

CTS

ATS

SRX probably goes to SUV line type naming scheme centering on Escalade "ES4 "

Escalade... ES8?

 

XTS moving to Buick base don Uwe Ellinghaus saying Cadillac is going RWD/AWD only for the most part

 

CTS becomes CT4 in 2018 with CT5 as coupe

ATS becomes CT2 in 2017 with CT3 as coupe

We know the ELR is getting upgraded next year, but if it contines to a second gen.. perhaps a CT-E

[Cmicasa the Great]

Lame name, as I said in another thread, they seem to care more about naming schemes than the product itself, as was the case at Infiniti.  Not that Infinitis' names made any sense, over hauling it to Q50, Q60, Q70 doesn't make any sense either.  Cadillac should have gone back to real names, it just seems like they are trying so hard to be like Infiniti or Audi with this CT6, CT5, CT4 plan.  What is CT mean anyway, and what about the Lexus CT200?

 

Cadillac is run by marketing guys so this is the type of stuff they care about.  They will try their thing, 5 years from now de Nysschen and Ellinghaus will move on to new jobs and Cadillac will have new marketing, another new naming scheme and another renaissance coming.  Compared to Mercedes who has Dr. Z, and Thomas Weber who both have PhD's in engineering running the ship, and Tobais Moers head of AMG is an engineer.  All 3 have been with Daimler over 20 years.  Cadillac needs engineers in power, not marking guys and bean counters.

 

 

And G, M, Q, and J did in the beginning? How about Lexus' numbering lettering insanity?

 

 

Interesting. So U are talking about ENGINEERS in a thread about names? Get with the program.. Talk about them when the car's blueprint and specs debut

Edited September 25, 2014 by Cmicasa the Great

[§carlet §wordfish]

caddy stop

[Drew Dowdell]

 

Where is the clarity? The CT6 is fine.. not great.. because all luxury cars should have names.. but the truth is global luxury never have names unless they are limited limited limited sales like Rolls and Bentley.

 

 

Land Rover Range Rover, Evoque, Discovery, Defender

Maserati - Ghibli, Quattroporte GranTurisimo

Porsche - Boxter, Panamera, Cayman, Cayenne,

Nissan Skyline - our Infiniti G37 Q50,  Skyline Crossover - Our EX37 QX50

Volkswagen Pheaton

Hyundai Genesis, Eqqus

Toyota Crown

[smk4565]

Lamborghini Hurcan, Gallardo, Diablo, Aventador, Countach, etc.

 

Here is the thing.  The S-class has been around nearly 50 years, whether it was 280SE or 560SEL, or S500, they have always advertised it as the S-class, likewise with the 3-series.  That has always been their naming scheme.  Acura dumped names like Legend, and Integra for RSX or RLX, just to be like Infiniti or Cadillac, Lincoln later followed.   I don't get why you throw away a 30-50 year name plate like Continental or Fleetwood in favor of alpha numeric.  That is like BMW changing the name of the 3-series to the BMW Cunningham just for sake of giving it a word name that means nothing.

 

So if the sales of the CT6 are bad, in 10 years they will rename it something else because "CT6" is a "damaged" name plate and the marketing people will think give it a new name and it will sell.  I am surprised Chevy hasn't renamed the Malibu the CM-4di Turbo since it is clearly the name and not the product that leads to the low sales.

[Cmicasa the Great]

Of course Smk.. The Euro Hippocryte... Range Rover is a Damn SUV maker. Which is a segment that was scoffed at when considered luxury til maybe 10 years ago. Lambo? Porsche? Mazerati? Sports cars that happen to now chase the luxury crowd.

Yes. Hate a car for it's name follows the same nonsense as Benz, Lexus, BMW, and Audi. Not to mention Infinity and Acura.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Cmicasa the Great

[balthazar]

'CT6' is awful, IMO, just awful. I can actually get behind (not that it's my first choice of a tactic) 'CTS', but combining letters & numbers together into a 'name' is the farthest leap to attempt when they mean nothing.

 

And if that wasn't bad enough in my opinion, setting up a brand to have a 'cookie cutter' naming scheme is the absolute barrel bottom. 'A1, A2, A3' is a pre-school mentality when were talking about an average 50-yr old, 2nd largest purchase in one's life product. All it says is --NOT that it's promoting 'brand awareness; God; I am so sick of that false premise-- but our customers are complete morons who can't figure anything out about what they've decided to purchase.

 

There is still time to change final details, GM has happily done this on some recent occasions. We're far enough out on a reveal that this very early name release could just be a 'water tester'. I vehemently hope a heritage name from Cadillac's history is used instead; we're being led to believe this is an extremely important vehicle, it needs a stand-along nameplate to go along with the presentation. 'Fleetwood' would be outstanding.

Edited September 25, 2014 by balthazar

[Drew Dowdell]

Balth, please see my post in Editors

[Cmicasa the Great]

I agree partially with Balthazar... hopefully it was a tester. I wish they would rename the whole line up with names. If not make the CT6 "more than" Sclass and market it hard and it will..the name... be as irrelevant as whatever S550 or 740 means

[ZL-1]

CT6 is just a name. IIRC Cadillac also trademarked CT5 (CTS coupe? NG CTS? Omena coupe to sit between CTS sedan and CT6?)

 

I tink logic would say ATS becomes CT2 and CTS becomes CT4, coupes can then be named CT3 and CT5... I think crossovers will get a different nomenclature, and Escalade will remain Escalade. If they do a car above the CT6 it should have a name; in fact, I think the next Escalade shoule already be in the planning stage and Cadillac should make it a (for comparison purposes) BOF-SUV-SClass-Pullman kind of vehicle...

[ocnblu]

Stinks.  No history.  Cadillac needs to remind the world of a rich, luxury history behind the brand.  Of course, before Coupe deVille, there was "Series 62" and whatnot.

[Cory Wolfe]

So, this is pretty much the worst name in the world. The existing nomenclature was acceptable, if not slightly disjointed. Beyond the XTS, each name had a unique and mostly organized disposition in the hierarchy. I'm sure that by switching up the alphanumerics to include a more obvious positioning of each model in that heirarchy, it will undoubtedly make sense after everything is officially renamed. Yet, I can't stand behind how they've chosen to set it up. I mean, really, CT6 is supposed to be a flagship model? As others have pointed out, it's very close to the middle-child CTS and the number 6, to me, feels equally mid-hierarchy. Beyond that, it doesn't roll off the tongue the same way that Audi's alphanumerics do, nor does it have the panache of Mercedes' letter-classes or BMW's number-series. It's every bit as cold and lifeless as *cough* Infiniti's new-found nomenclature. Apparently, this new fellow has all the imagination of an accountant. In fact, this probably works really well in excel where he likely penned it. 

 

I really had such high hopes for this flagship. While a name is just a name, this sours what may otherwise be a fantastic car. I can only hope it grows on me and its' likely buyers. 

[ZL-1]

Stinks.  No history.  Cadillac needs to remind the world of a rich, luxury history behind the brand.  Of course, before Coupe deVille, there was "Series 62" and whatnot.

Problem is those old names mean nothing to people outside of the car enthusiast crowd. Like it or not, it's the way it is. Cadillac needs naming consistency and a logical progression of model names.

[Z-06]

Is de Nysschen on de crack?

 

I think GM's executives who hired him should be fired.

 

For Infiniti naming, Ghosn was the culprit in chief than de Nysschen. I had heard rumors of Cadillac moving to NY before de Nysschen joined. But this reeks de Nysschen. At least he did not name it QT6, since Q is his favorite letter.

[Cmicasa the Great]

Some  of U are ridiculous. CT6 and CT5 were trademarked in JULY 21, 2014 http://gmauthority.com/blog/2014/08/general-motors-files-trademarks-for-cadillac-ct5-and-cadillac-ct6/.

 

That date precedes the hire of de Nysschen or at least his ability to create the naming scheme. If anything it was Ellinghaus.

 

The name is the name. I'm playing with cards dealt. I don't think a name is gonna cause this car issues. They could literally name is P1G and it would sell if it looks as good as the Elmiraj and is marketed properly.. including a price that starts around $73K and ends at $200K with a proper engines and amenities.

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

Stinks.  No history.  Cadillac needs to remind the world of a rich, luxury history behind the brand.  Of course, before Coupe deVille, there was "Series 62" and whatnot.

Problem is those old names mean nothing to people outside of the car enthusiast crowd. Like it or not, it's the way it is. Cadillac needs naming consistency and a logical progression of model names.

 

 

 

^^^ This. Sorry to say that the fact that Cadillac is poised to, within the next two years sell more abroad( like Buick) than it does in its home country. The names are alphanumeric because the Global market for luxury, outside of niche, traditionally has gone with it. In the U.S. we like names, but what maker here uses names on their luxo unit? None

 

S550, A8, LS460, XJ, and 740I don't make me wanna melt either, but the cars do the talking. Let this one. Ironically the other day in another thread someone suggested "CTS-D" which would have went off well I'm sure.

 

I think.. and hope they started with 6 because it gives them some room to grow. CT will be the cars.. because the CTS was the launch point for their return in that regard. I would imagine that all CUV/SUVs will go with a ES since the Escalade was the start. I was told a few years ago that the "CT6" was the flagship, but there would still be cars coming in above it at a time appropriate.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Cmicasa the Great

[balthazar]

Cadillac needs naming consistency and a logical progression of model names.

No offense, but bull$h!. This is commonly touted as "necessary", yet it has never been show to be factual in automotive history. Oh sure, some will point to well-off brands and say 'it works for them', but that's not in anyway 'proof' of anything.

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

Cadillac needs naming consistency and a logical progression of model names.

No offense, but bull$h!. This is commonly touted as "necessary", yet it has never been show to be factual in automotive history. Oh sure, some will point to well-off brands and say 'it works for them', but that's not in anyway 'proof' of anything.

 

 

 

 

Bottom line is if we are gonna hate on Cadillac for doing it we must hate on all the other brands who do it too. Consistency is the absence of hypocrisy and when it comes to GM in relation to other companies... the later rules in conversation. Mercedes BMW and Audi have no real consistency at all.. In fact Mercedes is actually changing names on their products as we speak

[balthazar]

Here I agree with you also, none of the other 'systems' is either 'logical' or enticing. Still, one can split hairs within the alpha-numeric world, and 'CT6' is so disappointing.

 

I know, and I've said it before; product is the Prime Directive and the name is of fleeting consequence, if any, but so many eyes are going to be on this car with such high expectations, you want even the opening shot to be a direct hit.

[Drew Dowdell]

A logical progression of model names?

Calais, Seville, Eldorado, Deville, Fleetwood, Fleetwood Brougham. Escalade,

 

You know what I could have gotten on board with?  A return to the Series names.

Cadillac ATS Coupe = Cadillac Series 32

Cadillac ATS Convertible = Cadillac Series 33

Cadillac ATS Sedan = Cadillac Series 34

Cadillac ATS Wagon = Cadillac Series 35

 

At once classic and also in line with the expectations of the import crowd...

[Cmicasa the Great]

Here I agree with you also, none of the other 'systems' is either 'logical' or enticing. Still, one can split hairs within the alpha-numeric world, and 'CT6' is so disappointing.

 

I know, and I've said it before; product is the Prime Directive and the name is of fleeting consequence, if any, but so many eyes are going to be on this car with such high expectations, you want even the opening shot to be a direct hit.

 

 

Well. I stand by the idea that I neither love nor hate the decision made.. and see a business case for it and the use of classical names. But it just shows the passion.. love or hate for the Cadillac brand in that so many are speaking out or against a SIMPLE NAME. I for one always felt the names used since I was born (42 years ago) were indicative of decadence.. and appealed more to the older generation. A clean break is what is going on, and the idea of serious change must be embraced.

 

The car is what should do the talking and define what the name is.. not the other way around. CTS meant Cadillac Touring Sedan, but was also attached to the Coupe. SRX meant Sevile Road-going Crossover, as STS meant Seville Touring Sedan. XLR? Xtreme Luxury Roadster. BLS? B-Class Luxury Sedan. After that it got as muddled as the Germans

 

The Brits started this BS.. 

 

For instance the S_Class technically shouldn't even be an "S." it should be an "F." Not one of the current large luxo brigade uses the F to denote full-size luxo

 

The E-Class is properly named.. The CTS, 5series, A6, XJ, and GS don't denote that they are part of the EXECUTIVE class by name.

 

The Entry Class.. represented by the 3Series, C-Class, ATS, IS, upcoming XE should all be called "Ds. The supposed C-Class in other words really should be a "D-Class."

 

The CLA is kind of a real C-Class.. but technically because its based off a subcompact.. should really be the B-Class or BLA

 

Point is that there is no consistency thru out the segment.. no logic, and nothing to (female dog) about.

 

 

to Drew. Yeah I could have totally understood the use of the Series names because they would not only fit, but reference back to heritage. Of course we would have some of the ignorant and uninformed saying that using "Series" was stealing from BMW.. and not the other way around

[David]

A logical progression of model names?

Calais, Seville, Eldorado, Deville, Fleetwood, Fleetwood Brougham. Escalade,

 

You know what I could have gotten on board with?  A return to the Series names.

Cadillac ATS Coupe = Cadillac Series 32

Cadillac ATS Convertible = Cadillac Series 33

Cadillac ATS Sedan = Cadillac Series 34

Cadillac ATS Wagon = Cadillac Series 35

 

At once classic and also in line with the expectations of the import crowd...

Using Series makes far more sense to me a 46 year old Cadillac lover than the CT crap that I feel cheapens the line.

 

Taking nothing away from Corvette, but  you have a C6 corvette and now you want a CT6 100K lux sedan? This cheapens the branding to me, does not help it.

[smk4565]

S-class stands for Sonder-klasse in German. But they have stuck with that name for 40-50 years. Cadillac and GM in general changes names a lot. I think Cadillac should use word names like they always did. They should embrace herritage and not just be an import copy. Import buyers will buy the import anyway.

[Z-06]

Trademarking name does not mean actual usage of name. GM trademarked 8 back in 2008, where is the actual product?

 

In someways the name is going to cause an issue. Cadillac dealer, "I have a ATS, CTS, and a CT6 in the showroom. And they are all sedans!" Buyer, "So is CT6 a higher variant of CTS?" Dealer, "It is a much bigger car, with luxury second to none. And 6 is better than S." The V version will be called CT6-V.

 

No matter how you cook it, CT6 cannot be justified in the current name of things or new nomenclature for the brand going forward. If CTS goes to CT5, 4, 4.5 or whatever, all the three generations of brand image the car has generated will just gone to the toilet. Look at Infinity, people have no clue the G is now a Q50.

 

So at least P1G will give it a clear identity than muddling nomenclature for the sake of being looked at as the brand trying to throw baggage. And Cadillac should be proud of the baggage it had in the 50s and 60s.

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

A logical progression of model names?

Calais, Seville, Eldorado, Deville, Fleetwood, Fleetwood Brougham. Escalade,

 

You know what I could have gotten on board with?  A return to the Series names.

Cadillac ATS Coupe = Cadillac Series 32

Cadillac ATS Convertible = Cadillac Series 33

Cadillac ATS Sedan = Cadillac Series 34

Cadillac ATS Wagon = Cadillac Series 35

 

At once classic and also in line with the expectations of the import crowd...

Using Series makes far more sense to me a 46 year old Cadillac lover than the CT crap that I feel cheapens the line.

 

Taking nothing away from Corvette, but  you have a C6 corvette and now you want a CT6 100K lux sedan? This cheapens the branding to me, does not help it.

 

 

 

uuum pertaining to the Corvette the "C6" stuff really wasn't (and still isn't) a mainstream thing until the C5 hit. The C4 designation was an internal talking point from I remember.. When the C5 broke cover people in the magazines started referring to it as a C5. Most people still do not know what the hell U are talking about if when U say I have a C7.

[Z-06]

 

A logical progression of model names?

Calais, Seville, Eldorado, Deville, Fleetwood, Fleetwood Brougham. Escalade,

 

You know what I could have gotten on board with?  A return to the Series names.

Cadillac ATS Coupe = Cadillac Series 32

Cadillac ATS Convertible = Cadillac Series 33

Cadillac ATS Sedan = Cadillac Series 34

Cadillac ATS Wagon = Cadillac Series 35

 

At once classic and also in line with the expectations of the import crowd...

Using Series makes far more sense to me a 46 year old Cadillac lover than the CT crap that I feel cheapens the line.

 

Taking nothing away from Corvette, but  you have a C6 corvette and now you want a CT6 100K lux sedan? This cheapens the branding to me, does not help it.

 

 

C6 or C7 is more of a generation number, not a car name. GM does not sell the car as a C6 or C7, but a Corvette or Corvette Stingray. Unlike CT6, which if it materializes, will be a name of a vehicle.

[Cmicasa the Great]

S-class stands for Sonder-klasse in German. But they have stuck with that name for 40-50 years. Cadillac and GM in general changes names a lot. I think Cadillac should use word names like they always did. They should embrace herritage and not just be an import copy. Import buyers will buy the import anyway.

 

 Sonder means "Special" in German. The S-Class isn't actually that special. I truly believe that if Cadillac simply follows the lead of the CTS Premium in a larger, more powerful and appropriately stocked CT6 they will have a better car than the S550. U continue to talk it up, but it really isn't that "special" in terms of anything. The powertrains are humdrum for the segment. Audi outdoes it in performance. The looks inside and out are not only rudimentary , but in some ways horrible. Cadillac will easily triumph in that department. Back to powertrains I will be very surprised if the based model has anything less than performance times that beat the A8 3.0L and Vsport times that run down the S63AMG. That's a fact. I won't even get into what I'm thinking the VSeries would tout.  Luxury??? Come on. the ATS Premium, CTS, ELR, and Escalade are just 50% of what I think the CT6 is gonna represent in this regard. 

 

 

 

Also.. since conquest buyers coming into GM were mostly foreign buyers.. that statement is false. 

[smk4565]

I think the S-class has plenty special, it can steer itself for one, Audi, BMW and Cadillac are planning on introducing that technology in 2017, Mercedes had it last year.  The S-class (and SL) have lasar cut windshield washer blades that dispense the washer fluid, better drag coeffcient than a Prius or a Volt, it can raise and lower the ride height, it is the only car in the world that can scan the road and adjust the suspension before it hits a bump.  It has been the technological trailblazer for the past 30+ years.

 

 

I can see lots of people saying asking if the CT6 is a CTS with a V6 engine.  And if a CT4 comes one day, is that a 4-cylinder CTS or a CTS 4-wheel drive, because they make a CTS-4 (with the subscript 4)  And why is it a CT6 if it has 4 doors and I would assume a V8 engine.  And why is there an "Escalade" if word names are bad, why not call it ET6 and throw away some more model recognition.  The quicker Cadillac gets back to Fleetwood, Seville, LaSalle, Eldorado, etc the better.  Heck use Vizon or Ciel if they want to.

[balthazar]

Whatever MB claims the 'S' stands for is irrelevant / not understood outside of Germany, as we're frequently preached to regarding using -for example- 'Fleetwood' outside of predominately English-speaking countries. It has never been marketed with it's letter 'defined' outside of Germany, furthering the case that most people associate no meaning to it whatsoever.

[Paolino]

The name is ridiculous.  It has no relation to current models.  Their current naming scheme is fine since they went to alphanumeric.  I got their intentions with sizes... and what are they going to do with an AWD CT6... CT6-4?  I don't understand how these things get approved.

[ZL-1]

 

Cadillac needs naming consistency and a logical progression of model names.

No offense, but bull$h!. This is commonly touted as "necessary", yet it has never been show to be factual in automotive history. Oh sure, some will point to well-off brands and say 'it works for them', but that's not in anyway 'proof' of anything.

 

No offense taken.

 

Problem is Seville, for example, started out as smaller than the others alternative to imports, then 20 years later it was renamed SLS/STS, then CTS is supposed to be the entry-level model with the STS on top of the line, then all of a sudden an ATS comes by and the CTS takes the place of the old STS... It's been a mess... If GM had stuck with a logical progression of its old car names (Seville, DeVille, Fleetwood, for example), it wouldn't have any branding issues.

 

Bottom line is that it's pretty irrelevant if they use alphanumeric designations or full names, as long as they're consistent and people understand which names belong in which segments. Funny thing is that, as you know, GM actually kind of did all of this logical steps branding before with their old LaSalle, Series 60, and Series 70 Cadillacs...

[Cmicasa the Great]

The name is ridiculous.  It has no relation to current models.  Their current naming scheme is fine since they went to alphanumeric.  I got their intentions with sizes... and what are they going to do with an AWD CT6... CT6-4?  I don't understand how these things get approved.

 

 

It has EVERYTHING to do with current models. Hence the CT part being associated with the CTS as the centerpiece of the line-up. In fact before the BK.. the car was supposed to have been called DT7 on Zeta. The DTS was the inspiration and at the time was the centerpiece to Cadillac's line-up of CARS.

[balthazar]

 

 

Cadillac needs naming consistency and a logical progression of model names.

No offense, but bull$h!. This is commonly touted as "necessary", yet it has never been show to be factual in automotive history. Oh sure, some will point to well-off brands and say 'it works for them', but that's not in anyway 'proof' of anything.

 

No offense taken.

 

Problem is Seville, for example, started out as smaller than the others alternative to imports, then 20 years later it was renamed SLS/STS, then CTS is supposed to be the entry-level model with the STS on top of the line, then all of a sudden an ATS comes by and the CTS takes the place of the old STS... It's been a mess... 

OK, but you ARE talking about a nearly a 40 year span of a model name there; I love the consistency of long-running model names but I don't feel such must also remain static to both the rest of the portfolio and it's competition. I can't agree in calling that 40-yr name history "a mess".

 

If GM had stuck with a logical progression of its old car names… it wouldn't have any branding issues.

Agreed.

 

Funny thing is that, as you know, GM actually kind of did all of this logical steps branding before with their old LaSalle, Series 60, and Series 70 Cadillacs…

Well they did to a degree, having at various times; Series 61, Series 62, Series 63 (deVille), Series 64 (Eldorado)…. but LaSalle was a separate division and the top line (Series 75 aside) was the Series 60 Special…. yet SOMEHOW!!! people didn't assume it meant a sort of 'entry level' line; imagine that.

 

Logical, yet not completely. THAT'S EXACTLY where I would like to see Cadillac go: ATS, CTS, Escalade, Fleetwood… a mixture of both systems, because Cadillac shouldn't have to stoop to the 'our customers are morons' level of a naming 'system' when there are positives to BOTH systems as exampled above.

Edited September 27, 2014 by balthazar

[2QuickZ's]

I think if Cadillac's goal was to draw in new customers while simultaneously alienating their existing customers, they may just have a success on their hands here!  At what point does GM's renaming insanity stop?  They have to get out of the mindset that they make garbage product and therefore have to rename each model when the new generation comes out so the new car isn't tied to the negative brand equity.  That "old GM" thinking should have been left with "old GM."  I hate to say it but while the execution plan may be better than Infiniti, I still predict this will turn out poorly for the brand.

[smk4565]

I think if Cadillac's goal was to draw in new customers while simultaneously alienating their existing customers, they may just have a success on their hands here!  At what point does GM's renaming insanity stop?  They have to get out of the mindset that they make garbage product and therefore have to rename each model when the new generation comes out so the new car isn't tied to the negative brand equity.  That "old GM" thinking should have been left with "old GM."  I hate to say it but while the execution plan may be better than Infiniti, I still predict this will turn out poorly for the brand.

Agreed, and I think part of the problem is having marketing people run the show.  We've seen the renaming with Cavalier, Cobalt, Cruze, Deville, DTS, XTS, look at the whole Buick line, in 2005 you had LeSabre, Park Ave, Century, Rendezvous, Rainer, then a few years later all those name plates were dead, Lucerne came and went.  They figure they can build a mediocre car, put some flashy ads out and gets sales for a couple years before people realize the car sucks, then they start all over with a new product and repeat the process.

 

Infiniti looks a mess right now, why is the G37 still on sale if the Q50 was supposed to replace it?  And there is no brand equity in Q70 or Q80 or whatever used to be the M37, I have never heard of a car changing names mid-cycle.  I can only imagine the base G37 is being pushed to fleets or low end buyers until they can get a FWD entry car based on the Mercedes CLA platform in place.

[bobo]

The G37 sedan is being renamed the Q40 for 2015, which will be its final model year.  There was no 2014 G37 (the sedans on the lots were a late build of 2013 G37s, though the G37 coupe was renamed the Q60 for 2014.

 

GM has changed model names within a product cycle, but they tend to transition to the new name.  The 1982 Pontiac J2000 -> 1983 Pontiac 2000 -> 1984 Pontiac 2000 Sunbird -> 1985 Pontiac Sunbird.  1985 Buick Somerset Regal (coupe) -> 1986/87 Buick Somerset (coupe) and 1986/87 Buick Skylark (sedan) -> 1988 Buick Skylark (coupe/sedan).

 

Cadillac's new naming convention is horrible and lacks imagination.  Cadillac should not be a "me-too" of anybody else.  GM should have learned the lesson of throwing away model names with equity.  If alphanumerics are so great, they should get rid of Escalade.  Cadillac's biggest problem right now is probably CUE turning away customers.

 

Infiniti probably has the worst model names right now, with Lincoln close behind.  Acura screwed up when they changed Legend and Integra to RL and RSX.

[Cmicasa the Great]

I think if Cadillac's goal was to draw in new customers while simultaneously alienating their existing customers, they may just have a success on their hands here!  At what point does GM's renaming insanity stop?  They have to get out of the mindset that they make garbage product and therefore have to rename each model when the new generation comes out so the new car isn't tied to the negative brand equity.  That "old GM" thinking should have been left with "old GM."  I hate to say it but while the execution plan may be better than Infiniti, I still predict this will turn out poorly for the brand.

 

 

Quick question. Where was the "garbage product at Cadillac?" 

 

Second.. the CT6 is not a renaming of any existing car. Its a name for a new product completely. The whole line-up at some point will have new naming "scheme" granted, but the reasons for sticking with the "CT" part was to keep in relation with the oldest and best known CAR product still in the line-up. The issue at hand is whether or not the name CT6.. the "6" portion being worthy of being the flagship. Furthermore the true focus of the Cadillac brand should be is focusing on the BRAND CADILLAC. This is what the original reason they went with alphanumeric in the first place. NO ONE.. and I mean NO ONE.. ever tells me they drive a 3series,, 5series,,, 7series... EClass.. XTS. They always say "oh that's my BMW.. my Benz.. my Cadillac." Well. unless its the Escalade.. which is essentially a brand in and of itself similar to the Corvette. 

 

I stay on course with the idea that the S-Class name is not iconic.. the idea of the "big Benz" is iconic... for reasons I still don't agree.  

 

Lastly people who automatically write this off as an exercise in futility simply do not want this great American brand to rise back to its rightful place. As simply as that. 

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

I think if Cadillac's goal was to draw in new customers while simultaneously alienating their existing customers, they may just have a success on their hands here!  At what point does GM's renaming insanity stop?  They have to get out of the mindset that they make garbage product and therefore have to rename each model when the new generation comes out so the new car isn't tied to the negative brand equity.  That "old GM" thinking should have been left with "old GM."  I hate to say it but while the execution plan may be better than Infiniti, I still predict this will turn out poorly for the brand.

Agreed, and I think part of the problem is having marketing people run the show.  We've seen the renaming with Cavalier, Cobalt, Cruze, Deville, DTS, XTS, look at the whole Buick line, in 2005 you had LeSabre, Park Ave, Century, Rendezvous, Rainer, then a few years later all those name plates were dead, Lucerne came and went.  They figure they can build a mediocre car, put some flashy ads out and gets sales for a couple years before people realize the car sucks, then they start all over with a new product and repeat the process.

 

 

 

Again.. I'll ask. What about the Lucerne was negative or mediocre for the brand target it was focused. I think marketing decided that when the goal was to refocus and rejuvenate the brand in the U.S. due to its overwhelming success in Asia.. the name was killed, especially with the impeding switch from the G Platform to a more modular Epsilon II one.. it made sense to use the now larger Lacrosse as the "flagship" along with the Enclave. Of course in your soliloquy U did not include the Lacrosse in your line up. 

 

Quite frankly the only place where GM has disappointed me in regards to names is the loss of the 22 year old Cavalier name. Although associated with a cheaply made compact, it was still considered one of the best selling in history. The name could have been retained no different than the Corolla, which to this day.. remains one of the $h!tiest vehicles on the road. I'm sure U will find some redeeming quality in that one.. since it is Foreign.. of course

[smk4565]

Lucerne had a negative image, just like Lesabre had a negative image.  Why isn't the Verano called the Skylark?  Again negative image of the Skylark name because they were junk, so the marketing folk have to come up with an all new name with no baggage tied to it.  GM often dumps model names so the marketing people have something "all new" to sell since "all new" is perceived as better.  I just think they should do a better effort keeping products more competitive so they don't have to dump name plates.

 

I also have a hard time believing that anything called "CT6" will restore Cadillac to greatness.  I think Cadillac has marketing guys running the show and the car will have a limited engineering budget.  Which has led to failed GM products of the past because they oversell and under deliver.  "CT6" just isn't catchy or memorable, at least Fleetwood or Eldorado have some weight to them.   It is also interesting that Cadillac is trying to bury their past as if they are ashamed of it.

Edited September 29, 2014 by smk4565

[Cmicasa the Great]

Lucerne had a negative image, just like Lesabre had a negative image.  Why isn't the Verano called the Skylark?  Again negative image of the Skylark name because they were junk, so the marketing folk have to come up with an all new name with no baggage tied to it.  GM often dumps model names so the marketing people have something "all new" to sell since "all new" is perceived as better.  I just think they should do a better effort keeping products more competitive so they don't have to dump name plates.

 

I also have a hard time believing that anything called "CT6" will restore Cadillac to greatness.  I think Cadillac has marketing guys running the show and the car will have a limited engineering budget.  Which has led to failed GM products of the past because they oversell and under deliver.  "CT6" just isn't catchy or memorable, at least Fleetwood or Eldorado have some weight to them.   It is also interesting that Cadillac is trying to bury their past as if they are ashamed of it.

 

 

Sorry buddy. I don't see how the negative image of the aforementioned cars being considered "old people cars" the same thing as "JUNK."  Your analysis is silly, misconceived, and full of your usual brand bias. Get real Francis. None of those cars were junk.. they were perceived as cars for old people.  The name change came from an absolute and realistic need to turn Buick into a viable North American brand after the demise of Pontiac and Saturn. One that would appeal to younger people. That would be impossible with names, so easily tied to the old days like Skylark and Lesabre, especially considering many a Gen X or Y could say that their Baby Boomer parents or Greatest Gen grand parents drove one. 

 

If U are in marketing.. as a profession.. I'f fire U on the spot if suggested that Fleetwood or anything with a "ville" at the end were a smart namesake for a resurgent brand in the 21st century. 

 

Using your favorite Mercedes S-Class I'd say there musta been a huge upheaval at your house the day they decided to go from being 500SE to  S500. All those years being a "500" instead of a 800 or 1000.  Get the *** outta here,. 

[smk4565]

The Cavalier was junk, the Cobalt was junk, the Lumina was junk, the Lucerne of the 2006-2010 era was riding on a 90s G-body platform with a 217 hp pushrod V6 and a 4-speed auto.  GM in general trashes nameplates, they did it to a lot of Oldsmobiles and Pontiacs through the 90s and 2000s which in part led to the demise of those brands.  Even GMC dumped the Jimmy (which was a dumb name) then Envoy was a one and done product, Acadia replaced it.  Which Envoy would be a good name for a mid-sized Buick SUV actually.

 

BMW sold 3-series to baby boomers in the 80s, and they are selling them to baby boomers kids now.  The Honda Accord and Toyota Camry have pulled off the same feat, for 30 years they have been near the top of the sales chart, they have gotten multiple generations to buy them.  Mustang and Corvette have lasted 50 years I don't see them being replaced with an alphanumeric to woo in younger buyers.

 

Cadillac needs a flagship in a bad way, I have been saying for years they should have a top end sedan and they need a halo sports car too, I have also thought for years the fastest car at GM should not be a Corvette, it should be a Cadillac.  Corvette is the every man's super car, value is part of its appeal.  There should be a 200 mph Cadillac supercar that is the real performance champ of GM, but the Corvette people won't allow an internal product to top the Vette, this the weak and overpriced XLR.

 

CT6 just sounds like a weak name to me, and if this flagship is lackluster it will probably be a one and done product also.  Balthazaar is always going on about Cadillac heritage and how the Eldorado Barritz was one of the most expensive cars sold in the 1950s.  Cadillac was the first to have an electric starter, first to mass produce a V8, first to make a V16, they were once a proud brand.  Poor management just killed it in the 80s and 90s (maybe some of the 70s), but that doesn't mean what Cadillac did from 1902-1975 needs to be buried so we can have  big marketing campaign for the "all new" CT6, CT4 and CT2, only to have those products dumped for DT3, DT5, DT7 10 years later.

[Cmicasa the Great]

The Cavalier was junk, the Cobalt was junk, the Lumina was junk, the Lucerne of the 2006-2010 era was riding on a 90s G-body platform with a 217 hp pushrod V6 and a 4-speed auto.  GM in general trashes nameplates, they did it to a lot of Oldsmobiles and Pontiacs through the 90s and 2000s which in part led to the demise of those brands.  Even GMC dumped the Jimmy (which was a dumb name) then Envoy was a one and done product, Acadia replaced it.  Which Envoy would be a good name for a mid-sized Buick SUV actually.

 

BMW sold 3-series to baby boomers in the 80s, and they are selling them to baby boomers kids now.  The Honda Accord and Toyota Camry have pulled off the same feat, for 30 years they have been near the top of the sales chart, they have gotten multiple generations to buy them.  Mustang and Corvette have lasted 50 years I don't see them being replaced with an alphanumeric to woo in younger buyers.

 

Cadillac needs a flagship in a bad way, I have been saying for years they should have a top end sedan and they need a halo sports car too, I have also thought for years the fastest car at GM should not be a Corvette, it should be a Cadillac.  Corvette is the every man's super car, value is part of its appeal.  There should be a 200 mph Cadillac supercar that is the real performance champ of GM, but the Corvette people won't allow an internal product to top the Vette, this the weak and overpriced XLR.

 

CT6 just sounds like a weak name to me, and if this flagship is lackluster it will probably be a one and done product also.  Balthazaar is always going on about Cadillac heritage and how the Eldorado Barritz was one of the most expensive cars sold in the 1950s.  Cadillac was the first to have an electric starter, first to mass produce a V8, first to make a V16, they were once a proud brand.  Poor management just killed it in the 80s and 90s (maybe some of the 70s), but that doesn't mean what Cadillac did from 1902-1975 needs to be buried so we can have  big marketing campaign for the "all new" CT6, CT4 and CT2, only to have those products dumped for DT3, DT5, DT7 10 years later.

 

 

Nope.. the Cavalier was not nor was the Cobalt. Matters not because I agree on this being the one instance that GM should have stuck with a name and still have called the Cruze.. Cavalier.

 

But I digress.. U specifically brought up Buicks and I addressed that specifically. Your example of the 3series is another ignorant and idiotic rant. With all the power of GOOGLE, since U obviously lack the enthusiastic AMERICAN car loving... The Lesabre and Skylark, two vehicles U specifically named were names that pre-dated the 3series by 22 and 16 years respectively. I'm talking about cars that were introduced when couples on TV had to sleep in separate beds. Again, get a clue.  Honda Accord and 3series both introed in 75-76 are babies. Don't come at me with the name longevity BS when we still have strong names like Impala, Corvette, Camaro, and Malibu that predate almost other names on the market. Buick's name changes weren't because of bad cars it was because of extreme an association to the elderly. 

 

The names arguments U have are silly, and misinformed. 

 

The ideas for Cadillac having a flagship and a supercar are no brainers. Obvious reasons held the though back from production 

Edited September 29, 2014 by Cmicasa the Great

[Z-06]

 

I think if Cadillac's goal was to draw in new customers while simultaneously alienating their existing customers, they may just have a success on their hands here!  At what point does GM's renaming insanity stop?  They have to get out of the mindset that they make garbage product and therefore have to rename each model when the new generation comes out so the new car isn't tied to the negative brand equity.  That "old GM" thinking should have been left with "old GM."  I hate to say it but while the execution plan may be better than Infiniti, I still predict this will turn out poorly for the brand.

 

 

Second.. the CT6 is not a renaming of any existing car. Its a name for a new product completely. The whole line-up at some point will have new naming "scheme" granted, but the reasons for sticking with the "CT" part was to keep in relation with the oldest and best known CAR product still in the line-up. The issue at hand is whether or not the name CT6.. the "6" portion being worthy of being the flagship. Furthermore the true focus of the Cadillac brand should be is focusing on the BRAND CADILLAC. This is what the original reason they went with alphanumeric in the first place. NO ONE.. and I mean NO ONE.. ever tells me they drive a 3series,, 5series,,, 7series... EClass.. XTS. They always say "oh that's my BMW.. my Benz.. my Cadillac." Well. unless its the Escalade.. which is essentially a brand in and of itself similar to the Corvette. 

 

What does CT6 signify? If it was building up from CTS then why a 6? Why not an CTL - for Luxury, CTZ for being top of the line, or even an CTR. Why a CT6? It has no history, no continuation, no logic, or no panache; it is like a Kia 9000, just an existence. If Cadillac wanted to change naming, even ATS would have been converted to CTA or something like that.

 

If it was path going forward for the brand, then again why a CT6? Heck a CT8 or CT7 or a CT12 sound more convincing for a luxury car. If it was CT12, SMK may have thought it to be a V12, even if it did not have one.

 

If GM wants to rename entire Cadillac lineup, by God by all means do it. If all vehicles are going to be called with CT and a number, where do ATS, CTS, the RWD smaller car, coupe will fall? They should be certainly below the CT6 since it is the flag-bearer. Are we going to have CT-1, CT-2 if Cadilliac decides to expand the lineup? But then consumers will confuse the negative sign for GM changing the name and adding a dash. How about naming the crossovers?

 

Also, all that brand equity of three generations of CTS will be going down the toilet with a name change. Incoherence is one word to explain the madness of naming. As lame as LTS sounded for some rather than having a real name, at least it had some logic.

 

If chaos is what sells in luxury market, then Cadillac may have a winning formula. Probably that is why Hyundai is struggling because it gave the luxury car a real name.

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

Cadillac needs naming consistency and a logical progression of model names.

No offense, but bull$h!. This is commonly touted as "necessary", yet it has never been show to be factual in automotive history. Oh sure, some will point to well-off brands and say 'it works for them', but that's not in anyway 'proof' of anything.

 

No offense taken.

 

Problem is Seville, for example, started out as smaller than the others alternative to imports, then 20 years later it was renamed SLS/STS, then CTS is supposed to be the entry-level model with the STS on top of the line, then all of a sudden an ATS comes by and the CTS takes the place of the old STS... It's been a mess... If GM had stuck with a logical progression of its old car names (Seville, DeVille, Fleetwood, for example), it wouldn't have any branding issues.

 

Bottom line is that it's pretty irrelevant if they use alphanumeric designations or full names, as long as they're consistent and people understand which names belong in which segments. Funny thing is that, as you know, GM actually kind of did all of this logical steps branding before with their old LaSalle, Series 60, and Series 70 Cadillacs...

 

 

The Jetta came out as a smaller alternative to the domestics. Years later, it has now grown to be the size of a last gen Ford Fusion.

Today's Civic is bigger and heavier than an Accord from 20 years ago, while today's Accord positively dwarfs the original Acura Legend.

 

Car names regularly change size segments, it's a natural progression over time.  The CTS has moved in size right along with the 5-series and E-class they've been chasing. That the CTS is now the size of the old STS is a function of the entire segment moving in that direction rather than anything Cadillac did specifically.   The CTS was originally a 5-series sized car at at 3-series price... today it is a 5-series size car at a 5-series price.  That's a good thing for Cadillac.

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

 

I think if Cadillac's goal was to draw in new customers while simultaneously alienating their existing customers, they may just have a success on their hands here!  At what point does GM's renaming insanity stop?  They have to get out of the mindset that they make garbage product and therefore have to rename each model when the new generation comes out so the new car isn't tied to the negative brand equity.  That "old GM" thinking should have been left with "old GM."  I hate to say it but while the execution plan may be better than Infiniti, I still predict this will turn out poorly for the brand.

 

 

Second.. the CT6 is not a renaming of any existing car. Its a name for a new product completely. The whole line-up at some point will have new naming "scheme" granted, but the reasons for sticking with the "CT" part was to keep in relation with the oldest and best known CAR product still in the line-up. The issue at hand is whether or not the name CT6.. the "6" portion being worthy of being the flagship. Furthermore the true focus of the Cadillac brand should be is focusing on the BRAND CADILLAC. This is what the original reason they went with alphanumeric in the first place. NO ONE.. and I mean NO ONE.. ever tells me they drive a 3series,, 5series,,, 7series... EClass.. XTS. They always say "oh that's my BMW.. my Benz.. my Cadillac." Well. unless its the Escalade.. which is essentially a brand in and of itself similar to the Corvette. 

 

What does CT6 signify? If it was building up from CTS then why a 6? Why not an CTL - for Luxury, CTZ for being top of the line, or even an CTR. Why a CT6? It has no history, no continuation, no logic, or no panache; it is like a Kia 9000, just an existence. If Cadillac wanted to change naming, even ATS would have been converted to CTA or something like that.

 

If it was path going forward for the brand, then again why a CT6? Heck a CT8 or CT7 or a CT12 sound more convincing for a luxury car. If it was CT12, SMK may have thought it to be a V12, even if it did not have one.

 

If GM wants to rename entire Cadillac lineup, by God by all means do it. If all vehicles are going to be called with CT and a number, where do ATS, CTS, the RWD smaller car, coupe will fall? They should be certainly below the CT6 since it is the flag-bearer. Are we going to have CT-1, CT-2 if Cadilliac decides to expand the lineup? But then consumers will confuse the negative sign for GM changing the name and adding a dash. How about naming the crossovers?

 

Also, all that brand equity of three generations of CTS will be going down the toilet with a name change. Incoherence is one word to explain the madness of naming. As lame as LTS sounded for some rather than having a real name, at least it had some logic.

 

If chaos is what sells in luxury market, then Cadillac may have a winning formula. Probably that is why Hyundai is struggling because it gave the luxury car a real name.

 

 

 

 

First and foremost the K900 is no Cadillac. It is at most a strong Chevy SS contender, which is high praise considering that the SS is a damn nice Zeta.. which is the platform for larger and more luxurious Holden offerings of past.  In reality Kia could have kept the name Quoris, but instead then traded that name in here for what brings quick to me visions of a German Sheppard.. as in K9..

 

As far as Caddy is concerned I agree that a higher number may have shut some people up, but I think the idea is that CT6 gives them other avenues to cross. Its funny though. Since the 7series is a 7 do people see it as less than the A8, because its an 8? I haven't seen that. Ever. The naming scheme at Cadillac seems to being going in the opposite way of BMW. Sedans get Even and Coupes get Odd. The possibility of a CT7 seems plausible. It being the same car as the CT6 it will get the Halo/Flagship rep the same. This is similar to how the S-Class Sedan and the Coupe, once CL, did it. The CL was always more expensive too

[Drew Dowdell]

I wouldn't call the K900 an SS competitor... not at all.  It's a soft tuned suspension and the entire car is designed for comfort.  If anything, the K900 would be an excellent Buick Park Avenue if it had an exterior restyle. I also think the SS is a lot more of a solid vehicle than the K900.  I like the K900, but I would only ever lease one, not buy.  The SS would be a solid car for years.

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

 

 

Cadillac needs naming consistency and a logical progression of model names.

No offense, but bull$h!. This is commonly touted as "necessary", yet it has never been show to be factual in automotive history. Oh sure, some will point to well-off brands and say 'it works for them', but that's not in anyway 'proof' of anything.

 

No offense taken.

 

Problem is Seville, for example, started out as smaller than the others alternative to imports, then 20 years later it was renamed SLS/STS, then CTS is supposed to be the entry-level model with the STS on top of the line, then all of a sudden an ATS comes by and the CTS takes the place of the old STS... It's been a mess... If GM had stuck with a logical progression of its old car names (Seville, DeVille, Fleetwood, for example), it wouldn't have any branding issues.

 

Bottom line is that it's pretty irrelevant if they use alphanumeric designations or full names, as long as they're consistent and people understand which names belong in which segments. Funny thing is that, as you know, GM actually kind of did all of this logical steps branding before with their old LaSalle, Series 60, and Series 70 Cadillacs...

 

 

The Jetta came out as a smaller alternative to the domestics. Years later, it has now grown to be the size of a last gen Ford Fusion.

Today's Civic is bigger and heavier than an Accord from 20 years ago, while today's Accord positively dwarfs the original Acura Legend.

 

Car names regularly change size segments, it's a natural progression over time.  The CTS has moved in size right along with the 5-series and E-class they've been chasing. That the CTS is now the size of the old STS is a function of the entire segment moving in that direction rather than anything Cadillac did specifically.   The CTS was originally a 5-series sized car at at 3-series price... today it is a 5-series size car at a 5-series price.  That's a good thing for Cadillac.

 

 

 

I agree with this. Many will argue that CTS sales are down for various negative, but false reasons, one being the uptick in price. While that may have some validation due to the fact that Cadillac isn't targeting the tweener buyer anymore.. one still has to remember that not only does THIS CTS not have a coupe or a wagon to add to sales (the coupe accounted for almost 33%) it also has same price competition from the XTS, which is a vehicle that I see as ad hoc waiting for the CT6.. and then probably towards Black car sales, as nice as it is.

 

Interesting note that the press never brings into light is that while CAdillac sales YTD are

Cadillac sold

2011  152,389

2012 149,782   (loss of DTS and STS (15K) sales from previous year as they had been winding down since 2010)

2013 182,543

 

2014 YTD 114K with Sept, Oct, Nov, and Dec to go.  Meaning Cadillac, at it's current rate of sales will pull in around 176K.

 

This is significant because of the higher prices, limited run of CTS coupes from previous generation, draw down of Escalade with new model not really launching til July, and a significantly mature SRX.