Cadillac Is Working On A RWD Sedan To Sit Below ATS

And with this news, five dollars says the people who say Cadillac is behind Germany for not having a small RWD car will now say Cadillac just can't compete because it uses Chevy underpinnings.

And with this news, five dollars says the people who say Cadillac is behind Germany for not having a small RWD car will now say Cadillac just can't compete because it uses Chevy underpinnings.

I would wager that your wager is spot on. lol

So Very true, but then if Cadillac has a RWD sub compact luxury car. Does that not mean MB and BMW are failing due to their FWD appliances in that same category? Wonder how one will move his goal posts to justify that MB is still superior to Cadillac?

So Very true, but then if Cadillac has a RWD sub compact luxury car. Does that not mean MB and BMW are failing due to their FWD appliances in that same category? Wonder how one will move his goal posts to justify that MB is still superior to Cadillac?

No, I think that will be the point where the ship is jumped and now FWD is supperior to RWD.. in smaller cars****. But if there is anything  luxury about it it MUST, I repeat, MUST be RWD ONLY. Or at least "60-70%" of the power must go to the rear. 

Rear drive should give Cadillac an advantage in this segment. I'd also venture to guess that if they start this car at $30,000, they can move the ATS up to about $36,000 and drop the 2.5 liter base engine.

And with this news, five dollars says the people who say Cadillac is behind Germany for not having a small RWD car will now say Cadillac just can't compete because it uses Chevy underpinnings.

Eff 'em. The Chevy underpinnings of today are on par with anything the Germans have.. The Alpha based Camaro, the Zeta based SS, the current Epsilons Impala and Malibu.. even the D2XX (Cruze/Volt) is a force to be reckoned with.

Rear drive should give Cadillac an advantage in this segment. I'd also venture to guess that if they start this car at $30,000, they can move the ATS up to about $36,000 and drop the 2.5 liter base engine.

I think that my educated prediction from a few weeks back, base don JDN's words, is that this vehicle.. ready for launch late '17, as an '18 model.. will be of similar size internally to the current ATS, while the ATS(CT3) gets a size bump in line with the ATS-L.. price??? How much U wanna bet maximum on the CT3 will be a +$700 bump from the previous year of teh ATS. This sub-ATS will come in at a relative $29,999

Hmmm, I am under 6' and struggle getting into an ATS....so this must be for elves.

 

Rear drive should give Cadillac an advantage in this segment. I'd also venture to guess that if they start this car at $30,000, they can move the ATS up to about $36,000 and drop the 2.5 liter base engine.

 

 

I think that my educated prediction from a few weeks back, base don JDN's words, is that this vehicle.. ready for launch late '17, as an '18 model.. will be of similar size internally to the current ATS, while the ATS(CT3) gets a size bump in line with the ATS-L.. price??? How much U wanna bet maximum on the CT3 will be a +$700 bump from the previous year of teh ATS. This sub-ATS will come in at a relative $29,999

 

If waz u iz sayin' iz tru...WTF is Cadillac doing offering cars in this price range?

I read your insight about the 500 000 units for Cadillac versus Balthazar's, and I must admit, I agree with your vision rather than his, however...in a situation like this...Im with Balthazar and in no way in hell do I want Cadillac to attain 500 000 units with cars that are mostly sold in this price range...THIS does NOT make Cadillac top tier luxury. THIS makes Cadillac more like BMW...hell, more like Chevy....(yeah...I dont really care that it will have RWD)

I envision Cadillac to become THE world's most prolific and most luxurious brand in the world.

I envision Cadillac to be the Standard of the World again. Full of obnoxious entities that piss of the poor. Because, top 1%ers live a life of luxury that the poor are envious of, but are so over the top that that also pisses them off. And THAT is where I want Cadillac to be. However...

I DONT envision Cadillac selling Cadillacs even below in price to the Buick Envision... (yes...Pun very much intended)

Hell...with the Buick Avista shown,and potentially being built Im having a hard time accepting a Cadillac ATS coupe or sedan even being sold at Cadillac...let alone car smaller and less expensive than an ATS. Id rather have Buick sell the Alpha platformed car...

Edited January 20, 201610 yr by oldshurst442

Hmmm, I am under 6' and struggle getting into an ATS....so this must be for elves.

How much do you weigh? It's relevant... As the volume of the car is not just vertical. I'm 6'3..220 lbs... Handsome as EFF.. And I sat in an ATSV and drive it like it was made for me from the start. Was the rear less than my Impala.. Eff yeah.. But if U have to ride in the rear of anything I drive.. Sit back and ride.. Complain? Get the Eff out

The utter lunacy of this reported move is that the CLA & ATS are already the same identical size AND there is no 'size gap' between the ATS & CTS…. so for the billion dollar program to (AGAIN) replace the entry level Cadillac sedan with yet another, then elbow all other models above it up in size AGAIN….. I have no words other than stupidstupidstupidstupidstupid.

 

 

Rear drive should give Cadillac an advantage in this segment. I'd also venture to guess that if they start this car at $30,000, they can move the ATS up to about $36,000 and drop the 2.5 liter base engine.

 

 

I think that my educated prediction from a few weeks back, base don JDN's words, is that this vehicle.. ready for launch late '17, as an '18 model.. will be of similar size internally to the current ATS, while the ATS(CT3) gets a size bump in line with the ATS-L.. price??? How much U wanna bet maximum on the CT3 will be a +$700 bump from the previous year of teh ATS. This sub-ATS will come in at a relative $29,999

 

If waz u iz sayin' iz tru...WTF is Cadillac doing offering cars in this price range?

 

I read your insight about the 500 000 units for Cadillac versus Balthazar's, and I must admit, I agree with your vision rather than his, however...in a situation like this...Im with Balthazar and in no way in hell do I want Cadillac to attain 500 000 units with cars that are mostly sold in this price range...THIS does NOT make Cadillac top tier luxury. THIS makes Cadillac more like BMW...hell, more like Chevy....(yeah...I dont really care that it will have RWD)

 

I envision Cadillac to become THE world's most prolific and most luxurious brand in the world.

I envision Cadillac to be the Standard of the World again. Full of obnoxious entities that piss of the poor. Because, top 1%ers live a life of luxury that the poor are envious of, but are so over the top that that also pisses them off. And THAT is where I want Cadillac to be. However...

 

I DONT envision Cadillac selling Cadillacs even below in price to the Buick Envision... (yes...Pun very much intended)

 

Hell...with the Buick Avista shown,and potentially being built Im having a hard time accepting a Cadillac ATS coupe or sedan even being sold at Cadillac...let alone car smaller and less expensive than an ATS. Id rather have Buick sell the Alpha platformed car...

 

I agree. Cadillac should be offering cars no less than $30K.. but then again.. neither should Benz.. or BMW.. but more so Audi . I hate to admit it.. but in terms of pricing Lexus is the one to watch.. the one to emulate. The ES. comes in at $38K   The Lacrosse from Buick comes in at $31K. No way a Cadillac or Benz should be stickering under that.. but the Luxury leader, Mercedes, does just that with the CLA... OH.. edit.. the CLA is now coming in at $32K. I would like to change my original post.. the sub-ATS will come in at $30,999. 

But here's the thing... price could be higher by 2018.. as I said.. "A RELATIVE $29,999"  meaning its equivalent 2 years from now. Again.. I don't they need a sub ATS unless its a niche sports car. I personally always though the Saturn Sky should have been a Cadillac instead. It looked the Art and Science part IMO. Benz needs a sub-C_Class due to CAFE and Euro standards.. Cadillac being a part of the corporate umbrella has Buick-Opel-Vaux/Chevy-Holden/GMC to pull that weight. 

CADILLAC is LUXURY ON PAR WITH BMW, BENZ, AND AUDI, just selling with a Jaguar limited line-up and no marketing. No one I kno, wealthy or not, has yet to tell me that they didn't consider Cadillac luxury. Many have told me that Cadillac simply did not have all of the types of vehicles they were looking to buy when they went onto the showroom floor. With every year we see Cadillac pushing forward with new product that will hopefully fix this issue. 

The utter lunacy of this reported move is that the CLA & ATS are already the same identical size AND there is no 'size gap' between the ATS & CTS…. so for the billion dollar program to (AGAIN) replace the entry level Cadillac sedan with yet another, then elbow all other models above it up in size AGAIN….. I have no words other than stupidstupidstupidstupidstupid.

I agree. This car better be anything, but a normal sedan miniaturized. The only way I would give it a pass is if they plan on doing what I posted above.. make the ATS the CT2, the ATS-L the CT4.. That would shut some mouths up about rear legroom. I already believe the current CTS is going on Omega and staying exterior size-wise, the same, while taking on more generous interior space. 

Side-Bar: I have to give BMW props for the 3Series and 4Series combo. Wonder why 3Series sales are down?? I bet it has to do with the 4Series GC being on sale looking so much better.. so much beefier, so much more modern.. and all they seemingly did was use a throw-away sketch that was going to their shredder and said.. "Let's make this one too..."

So a CT0?   If the ATS sedan becomes the CT2, ATS coupe becomes CT3, and the CTS becomes the CT4... 

Edited January 20, 201610 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

So a CT0?   If the ATS sedan becomes the CT2, ATS coupe becomes CT3, and the CTS becomes the CT4... 

I think that BMW thru convention of the door. Having the Grand Coupes in the mix pretty much makes the 4 Series and 6 Series Sedans. I wouldn;t be surprised if the Sedan version of both of those cars are out selling the original Coupe versions. The 4Series outselling the 3Series isn't far off.. and it is proof positive about what I've been saying about Variants.. as the 4 Series beat the 3series in December... I bet because it comes as a Sedan, Coupe, and Convertible... not to mention is better looking.

YUP: I was correct: The 6Series GC is Outselling the Coupe 2:1 also another Link : 

 

 

 According to BMW, further ammunition for this cars business case lies in the fact that their 6 Series Gran Coupe outsells its coupe and convertible siblings by quite a margin

I expect the CT0 is an attempt by some as being funny. Its not gonna happen. The Line-Up will most likely be:

CT2= This Sub-ATS

CT3= ATS

CT4= ATS Coupe with a possible "GC" 

CT5=CTS

CT6

CT7= El Miraj Coupe (Think S-Class Coupe)

CT8= a Possible Sedan Version (Think S-Class)

CT9= a possible Pullman competitor

I applaud Cadillac for this, and I'm thrilled with the prospect of another small RWD sedan. But I'm having difficulty seeing how this will work. It seems like using the Alpha platform for this wouldn't allow for a car to be appreciably smaller than the ATS. And still be usable, anyway. It may not be a point of contention for many, but the BMW 3 Series is much roomier in the back than the ATS. It truly leaves room for a car to slot below it. With the ATS already being so tight, and starting so low in price, I wonder about the merit of this decision. Perhaps it'll use a new, smaller platform, instead? That would be awesome.

As for the rest in the segment, the CLA is far removed from anything resembling a compact sport sedan, and it remains to be seen whether BMW's foray into this segment will be FWD or RWD. There are conflicting reports at this time, so it's hard to call. If it's a FWD UKL chassis-based car, Cadillac will certainly have an upper-hand here. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Using the latest thin seat design, they should be able to pull off a new Sub Compact ATS with rear seat room, then the ATS becomes the BTS

Personally, I would rather they ignore the subcompact car and just have ATS on up. I am more than happy with a CT3 to CT9 product line.

Buick should be covering the Sub-Compact space. Wake up Johan, your f'ing up again.

Well...if a CT2 vehicle is in play and "smaller" than an ATS (CT3), then my dream Cadillac is as follows.

CT1 = A Saturn Sky type roadster to do battle with the upcoming new BMW Z5. Obviously on the Alpha platform and obviously heavily engineered from the Camaro...but  the CT1 being a real 2 seater as the Camaro technically has seats in the back.

CT2 = This sub ATS..I want it to be as close to as possible in all specs to the BMW 2 Series and M2. Length, wheelbase and performance.

CT3 = ATS, slightly larger than what it is now, but slightly smaller than a current BMW 3 Series.

CT4 = ATS coupe. Slightly larger than what it is now, but slightly smaller than what a BMW 4 Series is. Nix the Buick Avista, let this Buick Avista morph into an ATS coupe with a definite "GC" model.

CT5 = CTS

CT6 =  In the very near future, let this CT6 evolve into a BMW 6 Series GC and a  M-B CLS 63 competitor.

CT7 = El Miraj....and call it the El Miraj if Eldorado is deemed to old phogeyish!

CT8 = S Class competitor. And call it whatever...but not effin CT8. 

CT9 = Roll Royce competitor,  M-B Pullman/Maybach... And call it whatever you want, just dont call it CT8. Rolls Royce and Bentley both have actual names in tjis category,...Cadillac should do the same thing here...Call it the Sixteen.  

CT10 = A convertible...like the Ciel...and call it the Ciel. Either a 2 door, but Id rather a 4 door convertible exactly like the Ciel, based on the CT7/CT8/CT9.

An electric/hybrid supercar along the lines of a Mercedes SLS/Gullwing, without the actual Gullwings and call that car the Evoq. Or Provoq.

Escalade remains...in the very essence of what an Escalade is all about with the name intact!

^ Like your List and agree with it! 

Well...if a CT2 vehicle is in play and "smaller" than an ATS (CT3), then my dream Cadillac is as follows.

 

CT1 = A Saturn Sky type roadster to do battle with the upcoming new BMW Z5. Obviously on the Alpha platform and obviously heavily engineered from the Camaro...but  the CT1 being a real 2 seater as the Camaro technically has seats in the back.

 

CT2 = This sub ATS..I want it to be as close to as possible in all specs to the BMW 2 Series and M2. Length, wheelbase and performance.

 

CT3 = ATS, slightly larger than what it is now, but slightly smaller than a current BMW 3 Series.

 

CT4 = ATS coupe. Slightly larger than what it is now, but slightly smaller than what a BMW 4 Series is. Nix the Buick Avista, let this Buick Avista morph into an ATS coupe with a definite "GC" model.

 

CT5 = CTS

 

CT6 =  In the very near future, let this CT6 evolve into a BMW 6 Series GC and a  M-B CLS 63 competitor.

 

CT7 = El Miraj....and call it the El Miraj if Eldorado is deemed to old phogeyish!

 

CT8 = S Class competitor. And call it whatever...but not effin CT8. 

 

CT9 = Roll Royce competitor,  M-B Pullman/Maybach... And call it whatever you want, just dont call it CT8. Rolls Royce and Bentley both have actual names in tjis category,...Cadillac should do the same thing here...Call it the Sixteen.  

  

CT10 = A convertible...like the Ciel...and call it the Ciel. Either a 2 door, but Id rather a 4 door convertible exactly like the Ciel, based on the CT7/CT8/CT9.

 

An electric/hybrid supercar along the lines of a Mercedes SLS/Gullwing, without the actual Gullwings and call that car the Evoq. Or Provoq.

 

Escalade remains...in the very essence of what an Escalade is all about with the name intact!

I like where you're going with this, but I think there would be too much overlap at the top end. There needs to be a proper S Class competitor, and something above it, but Idk about both of those, an El Miraj, and Ciel. I think one of the latter would have to serve as one of the former.

And while we're at it, let's see a Cien-esque supercar.

^ Love the idea of a Cien-eque Supercar!

True HALO auto!

Well, the El Miraj is a coupe, the Ciel would be a convertible version of the coupe.

Or the Ciel would be a 4 door convertible of the CT8 or CT9 sedans.

But OK...a Cien-esque super car sounds like a product the world has never seen before. Im all for it!

And, looking back at my list and Casa's list, this is why I still think this naming scheme has Cadillac backed into a corner.

CT2...sub ATS car

Where does a coupe version go?  CT1?

OK...I guess Cadillac wont do any kind of roadster, then...what about convertibles? I guess a new letter will be added, like XT for SUVs...

CT3 is ATS

CT4 is ATS coupe

CT5 is CTS sedan...

I guess no CT5 coupe?   cool,  but they do need a BMW 6 Series coupe and  6 SeriesGC competitor...remember, the CT6 is a mid-sized sedan...slightly larger than the current CTS...

A new letter shall be added?

OK...CT4 and CT7 disagrees with that...

CT7 as far as we know WILL be an El Miraj type coupe...

CT8 is a sedan as so is a CT9....quite possibly...

This new naming scheme SUCKS!

Casa, you could make fun of CT0, but this is where its going...and CT10 and CT11 and CT12 just sounds stupid! Actually...so does CT6 and CT4...

Ive posted something similar before, I aint going down that road again....but I wish Johan would clear up this mess his predecessors created.

I have faith in him products wise, and Drew has cleared up the confusion that it wasnt Johan to start the alphanumeric CT stuff, I hope he realizes that CT2, CT3, CT4 and so on does not exactly leave much room for logical expansions.

Edited January 20, 201610 yr by oldshurst442

Maybe the sub ATS will be offered in a hatchback.  I don't think anyone has a rear drive hot hatch, so it would be unique.  The CLA is 183 inches long, but it also has fwd overhang also, a rwd chassis would have less.  If you look back to the 2002-2007 C-class or the early 2000s 3-series they were about 178 inches long.  Cadillac could make a 179 inch long car, plus if it is 4-cylinder only you don't have as much weight or hood space to worry about.  The ATS could be 184 inches long and there is still a size gap (and power gap) between it and the new car.

 

How much do you weigh? It's relevant... As the volume of the car is not just vertical. I'm 6'3..220 lbs... Handsome as EFF.. And I sat in an ATSV and drive it like it was made for me from the start. Was the rear less than my Impala.. Eff yeah.. But if U have to ride in the rear of anything I drive.. Sit back and ride.. Complain? Get the Eff out

 

While the backseat is snug in the ATS, that is true of all models in its class and there is more than enough room in the front. I am 5'10", 215 lbs. and I had room to spare up front. The back will always depend on who you are sitting behind but again, this is true of models in the ATS's class.

GM did something like this in a very different vein but with a striking level of execution of core deliverables - the kind that could make this plan work.

Look at how the new Camaro SS became almost as good in many areas as the old gen Camaro Z28.

So what Cadillac has to do is just take the ATS RWD winning formula, and shrink the outside while keeping the interior space exactly the same, and just transplant the interior. The ATS interior quality is superior to the CLA, so they don't need to kill themselves over it.

So...what the car really would be is the class leading compact sport sedan if BMW hadn't thrown its curveball of larger size and improved interior quality with the F30 generation. The C Class Benz built on that even more. And it appears that the A4 also has an interior that could have just as easily been in a current A6.

And then if the car performs 100% as good as the ATS 2.5 in its base model, then it's all done and good, and its the right product. 

What I think Cadillac could do to make some room for this model is to use either the 1.5T or 1.6T (from the Cascada).

They should make the VSport version of the car get a 2.0T. 

I read this line of conversation here and on other boards, and I truly believe that simply because Cadillac is moving to a kindergarten-esque naming sequence of "1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8," --you know; like 5 year old learning to count without their fingers--  I truly believe that people suggesting full 'numeric' Cadillac lineups are merely doing so because THEY LIKE TO COUNT and THEY FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE IF SAID COUNTING DOESN"T START AT 1.

There is no size gap between the ATS & CTS, and there is no size gap below the ATS that 'needs' filling. Cadillac is not a full-line brand and should not be trying to move in that direction by any means. Cadillac can NOT put their 2-drs on even numbers and their 4-doors on odds (or whathaveyou) because that is a blatant copy of BMW's dumbass system!

People :: stop counting from 1, stop counting with your fingers, stop ignore that fact that Cadillac is not positioning themselves to match everything BMW & MB do as full-line manufacturers. Stop wishing for cheap Cadillac hatchbacks or cargo vans or 68 models reaching up to $289,995. 

I fully agree with Balthazar.

That is all.

Cadillac, I feel is copying the Germans even though JDN said they wouldn't. Why are they?!!! Look at their sales. They sell very few sedans or crossovers below $40,000.

Trying to dilute themselves to have a product for every niche is nonsensical for a brand that doesn't need to serve those stupidly stupid entry level segments.

I see this line of making every single product they can as a failure even before it gets here. I'd rather Cadillac NOT build an even smaller sedan and instead GM sell enough Regals so they're built in America again. 

I read this line of conversation here and on other boards, and I truly believe that simply because Cadillac is moving to a kindergarten-esque naming sequence of "1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8," --you know; like 5 year old learning to count without their fingers--  I truly believe that people suggesting full 'numeric' Cadillac lineups are merely doing so because THEY LIKE TO COUNT and THEY FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE IF SAID COUNTING DOESN"T START AT 1.

 

Should start at 0....I always start at 0.... 0,1,2,3...  (since that is how indexes work in most programming languages..

 

 

Cadillac, I feel is copying the Germans even though JDN said they wouldn't. Why are they?!!! Look at their sales. They sell very few sedans or crossovers below $40,000.

 

 

Maybe they should focus on $40k and up, since GM has Buick and GMC as the filler brands between Chevy and Cadillac, at least in the US.

Edited January 21, 201610 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

 

I read this line of conversation here and on other boards, and I truly believe that simply because Cadillac is moving to a kindergarten-esque naming sequence of "1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8," --you know; like 5 year old learning to count without their fingers--  I truly believe that people suggesting full 'numeric' Cadillac lineups are merely doing so because THEY LIKE TO COUNT and THEY FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE IF SAID COUNTING DOESN"T START AT 1.

 

Should start at 0....I always start at 0.... 0,1,2,3...  (since that is how indexes work in most programming languages..

 

 

Cadillac, I feel is copying the Germans even though JDN said they wouldn't. Why are they?!!! Look at their sales. They sell very few sedans or crossovers below $40,000.

 

 

Maybe they should focus on $40k and up, since GM has Buick and GMC as the filler brands between Chevy and Cadillac, at least in the US.

 

"brain fart"

yes, I was going to add that they should continue to focus on their higher priced entries. Buick and GM would surely love to sell people who want superior entry level luxury $30,000 Veranos and $35 to $40K Regals more than in essence what is just an improved version of a $35,000 Cadillac ATS of today.

I could not be in more agreement with Balthazar over the stupid alphanumeric bullshyte!

And the full line of models bullshyte spanning all the price levels...

And Mr. Cubical, I personally think that 40 000 is still too low of a market for Cadillac.

But if there is a  need for a Cadillac model that low in price for profitability purposes, so be it.

Ill still stick to my original dream Cadillac list...but the CT1 roadster STARTS at $50 000. OK...$40 000...

Cadillac also needs to revisit XLR...but better executed...with a HIGH PRICE TAG as well as a Ciel convertible.

The Ciel could be an El Miraj coupe convertible or a CT8/CT9 4 door convertible just like how the show car was/is.

 Stop wishing for cheap Cadillac hatchbacks or cargo vans or 68 models reaching up to $289,995. 

Mmmm...Cadillac cargo van...a Euro style van to compete with the M-B Sprinter would be cool.

Please don't joke about that, Moltie. It's an abomination of an idea.

Please don't joke about that, Moltie. It's an abomination of an idea.

The thing that is funny, I bet they would sell...esp. for trades and delivery in upscale areas like Paradise Valley or Scottsdale..I see Merc badged Sprinters in use way more than Freightliner badged vans or GM vans around here..

What's really confuzzling is that the Mercedes Sprinter actually has the steering that an excellent sports sedan should have, according to the folks at CarandDriver.

That's certainly no reason to do it. MB is unable to develop a 2nd brand (or they squander existing ones, aka: Freightliner), therefore they have to plug everything under a single emblem. Not Cadillac's game plan.

That's certainly no reason to do it. MB is unable to develop a 2nd brand (or they squander existing ones, aka: Freightliner), therefore they have to plug everything under a single emblem. Not Cadillac's game plan.

Since MB has a long history commercial vehicles incl. vans, buses, heavy trucks, they don't need other brands..they've kept the Freightliner brand, but have acquired others in the past in Europe and absorbed them..

There is nothing that says the coupe have to be CT anything. The could be ST6 for a coupe version of the CT6 for example. STx has just as much, if not more heritage than CTx. Not that heritage names mean anything at Cadillac anymore.

Cadillac ST6.

Caad-deee-lakc Ss-tee-sicks

Cadillac Stix

Cadillac Sticks.

True Drew, about ST...

I LOVED the name STS...but I loved the name Seville Touring Sedan even better. 

Cut short to Seville is still best in my opinion.

Its grateful that the powers that may be cut short the STS moniker, or else we would have STDs running around today for other model names....

So yeah, I dont like the ST# either. But...I guess where their is a will, there is a way.

Edited January 21, 201610 yr by oldshurst442

Or they could do something like CS* for the coupes...CS4, CS6, etc...  and then have something like a XS5 for a sport utility coupe...(X4 or X6 competitor).

Excellent commercial idea (I think)

They should do the entire commercial for a Cadillac ST(6).

And the right at the end they should say.... wait for it.... build up drama, the hype, its all good we need more... drum roll...wait for it....

"Introducing, the all-new from Green Hell Cadillac ST6."

"The name just sticks"

Excellent commercial idea, don't you say, if I do say so myself?

Who is all this BMW shadowing supposed to appeal to, that's going to sign for a Cadillac? These folks want a misshapen & bloated 4-dr hatchback, they can march over to BMW for their fat dozen sedans and kindergarten naming schemes.

 

 

 

Again: Cadillac does not "Need" to answer all 43 models at BMW.

 

I would up-vote this a million times if I could.

Ultimately, Cadillac trying to go all out would leave the rest of GM disheveling and left out to dry.

Every new Cadillac model must have amazing ROI, or otherwise it just won't work.

 

Or they could do something like CS* for the coupes...CS4, CS6, etc...  and then have something like a XS5 for a sport utility coupe...(X4 or X6 competitor).

Who is all this BMW shadowing supposed to appeal to, that's going to sign for a Cadillac? These folks want a misshapen & bloated 4-dr hatchback, they can march over to BMW for their fat dozen sedans and kindergarten naming schemes.

 

Again: Cadillac does not "Need" to answer all 43 models at BMW.

 

Well, they are trying to compete w/ the big 3 (Audi, BMW, MB) so it's natural they are going to try and match them at some level...maybe not in lock step, but be competitive in the major niches...

By the way my commercial idea is an inside joke that I made earlier way back at MT. Some may not actually even remember it, but the going is that if you absolutely atrociously hate my commercial idea, then what Cadillac is doing now with its naming scheme will be very stupid looking to people who are salient to the brand.

People who are not though, they could on paper care not more that the CT6 is named what it is instead of Fleetwood or some other heritage name.

Personally, I'd rather see the heritage names but I know those won't fly since they are trying to be international..

 

 

Or they could do something like CS* for the coupes...CS4, CS6, etc...  and then have something like a XS5 for a sport utility coupe...(X4 or X6 competitor).

Who is all this BMW shadowing supposed to appeal to, that's going to sign for a Cadillac? These folks want a misshapen & bloated 4-dr hatchback, they can march over to BMW for their fat dozen sedans and kindergarten naming schemes.

 

Again: Cadillac does not "Need" to answer all 43 models at BMW.

 

Well, they are trying to compete w/ the big 3 (Audi, BMW, MB) so it's natural they are going to try and match them at some level...maybe not in lock step, but be competitive in the major niches...

 

They ARE competing, but Cadillac's 'upper hand' is that they DON'T have to offer 43 models; they can pick & chose.

Far too often, people think "competing" means matching every tiny, worthless, niche model that others do. That's not 'competing', it's shadowing.

I'm arguing elsewhere, right now, with a guy who thinks the 3-series is "much larger" than the ATS, when they are virtually identical in size. These sort of folk will never be happy with even what they suggest Cadillac should do, because first & foremost they will NEVER be Cadillac customers (the badge is wrong). It's a colossal waste of time & money to pursue these people, with these fringe, niche models even the other brands' customers don't buy (IE: the 1-series, or the R8, for example).

There HAS to be a strong, long-term vision for the core models, above ALL else.

Personally, I'd rather see the heritage names but I know those won't fly since they are trying to be international..

Any automotive CEO that says that is a liar, a cheat and an imbecile...

Eldorado is a made up name. Spanish in nature, but made up. Sounds good.

Oh..people also recognize it all over the world.

Phaeton, a former Cadillac name....its also well recognized all over the world.

VW even uses  WORLD WIDE...

Rolls Royce uses plain old English...

Phantom, Wraith, Ghost...WORLD WIDE.

Bentley uses English and French,

Continental, Mulsanne.

Bugatti...Veyron.

Lamborghini...Countach, El Diablo,  Reventon, Gallardo, Huracan, Veneno, Aventador...

Funny, everybody on the damned planet knows that these are all Lamborghinis!!!

Hell, even Ferrari has joined the real name party somewhat...

Enzo, LaFerrari.

I get the notion...for the last time, I understand that alphanumerics places the brand ahead of the model...

I still call bullshyte on that logic as those real names I mentioned dont take ANYTHING away from the brands they represent...

Like I said, if someone says they drive a Countach, even in 2016, people know its a Lamborghini!

Ditton for Egoista...and people know EXACTLY what EXPENSIVE model it is!!!

Their is NO confusing a M3 as a 2 door, because that is what it was before, no confusion on the 2 Series being the former 3 Series which is now the 4 Series...and what displacement is it???!!!

No confusion on ATS is the new CTS. No CT6 will be the former CTS, the CT5 is the new DTS...what about the STS? Oh...that would be the new CTS...

When someone says that Elvis loved his Eldorados, they immediately think get off 1 for the money, 2 for the show and stay off of my  Blue Suede Shoes while I drive my Pink Cadillac...Eldorado...

(OK...maybe Eldorado is from a bygone era, I get THAT...so..El Miraj then!!!)

Continental...from Lincoln...funny that people did not confuse this with the Bentley of the same name...but tied it to LINCOLN!!!

And...somehow...the last Continental car from the early 2000s did not even cross people's minds...the classic 1960s and 1970s style was front and center in their minds...

THAT should be proof enough for ANYBODY to STOP defending and using alphanumerics on their cars!!! Thinking of YOU, JOHAN!!!

Edited January 21, 201610 yr by oldshurst442

That's certainly no reason to do it. MB is unable to develop a 2nd brand (or they squander existing ones, aka: Freightliner), therefore they have to plug everything under a single emblem. Not Cadillac's game plan.

Freightliner has over 40% market share for class 6 and 7 trucks in the USA.  If you add Western Star, Daimler is nearing 50% market share on semi-trucks.  Easily the #1 truck maker in the USA.

As far as names go, what I don't like about CT1, CT2, CT3, etc is people want to fill all 9 slots.  If you had Eldorado, Seville, Lasalle, Fleetwood, etc then you would just build the cars you want to build that have a proper place in the market.

I will say a slight problem with Cadillac's line up is the XT5 is probably going to be around $40k and is mid-size, XTS is $45k and full size, mid-size CTS CTS at $45k starting even a CT6 starts at $56k.  So you have all these mid to full size products in the 40s and 50s.  They need small and compact, they have to go down in price to the low 30s because they have no where else to go.  

 

Or they could do something like CS* for the coupes...CS4, CS6, etc...  and then have something like a XS5 for a sport utility coupe...(X4 or X6 competitor).

Who is all this BMW shadowing supposed to appeal to, that's going to sign for a Cadillac? These folks want a misshapen & bloated 4-dr hatchback, they can march over to BMW for their fat dozen sedans and kindergarten naming schemes.

 

Again: Cadillac does not "Need" to answer all 43 models at BMW.

 

I agree.  BMW's history is the 3-series, I actually thought the coupes and convertibles should have stayed 3-series.  That is their bread and butter product, variants of it are a good thing, but I don't like the 4-series split, and a 4-door 4-series is just stupid.

I also don't get why Cadillac wants to be so much like BMW.  It is like they sat around the product development table at Cadillac and said Joe says "we need a BMW X5 competitor."  Then Sally says "oh I have a great idea, lets make an SUV the same size and call it XT5!  Then buyers will know it matches up to a BMW X5, and by putting a "T" in there we can't get sued for trademark infringement."  Then Joe says "great idea Sally, and we can make an XT1 and an XT3 as well to compete with the X1 and X3!!!"

It's pathetic.  Even in their own brand "Escalade" is there most recognizable and successful product.  Yet they don't want to follow use of word names, or pay homage to the Eldorados and Fleetwoods of the past (which were mostly good cars until the mid 80s).  This copy BMW will get them no where.  Cadillac should be Cadillac.

I don't think they need 43 models, but they need 3 crossovers plus Escalade on the SUV side, 4 car lines and some sort of sports car.