Cadillac XT5's Platform To Underpin New Seven-Seat Crossover, Turbo 2.0L May Come to U.S.

I wonder if a 4-cylinder is suddenly acceptable to SMK in this class now that the GLC has one.

Interesting, this will for sure drive some debates and I bet SMK will side step the GLC with a 4 banger and still push his crazy everything must have a V8 or V12 engine.

Be interesting to see how they perform with a turbo 4 banger in such a large auto.

Tax's on displacement is stupid. just stupid.

Interesting, this will for sure drive some debates and I bet SMK will side step the GLC with a 4 banger and still push his crazy everything must have a V8 or V12 engine.

 

Be interesting to see how they perform with a turbo 4 banger in such a large auto.

 

Tax's on displacement is stupid. just stupid.

Keep in mind China is trying to reduce emissions and pollution. The displacement tax is only one part of it to make buyers consider going with a more fuel efficent vehicle.

A 4 cylinder in the XT5 makes total sense.  Lincoln has a turbo 4, Lexus probably will soon in the RX.  If the CT6 and CTS which are both more expensive than XT5 and more geared to performance than XT5, then I don't see why the XT5 wouldn't have the same engine.   Plus the 2.0T has a better torque curve than the 3.6 V6, and most of these crossover buyers don't care about the engine, they might prefer a 4-cylinder to get better gas mileage.

The GLC 4-cylinder makes sense since the GLC is a small vehicle.  The GLC is the size of an ATS, the turbo 4 is adequate for the size vehicle and type of buyer.  There is an AMG GLC43 with a 362 hp V6 and 0-60 time of 4.8 seconds.  That probably beats any small crossover other than the Macan Turbo which is like $80,000.

There have also been spy photos of them testing a GLC63 with a 500 hp V8.  Not sure why you'd want a 500 hp V8 in a compact crossover, but they'll build it, and they'll destroy the X3, Q5 and Porsche Macan.

As far as XT7 goes, (which reminds me of Suzuki XL7) I guess this means no alpha or omega platform crossover.  Cadillac just gets a fancier version of the Buick Enclave, to go with their fancy Acadia, and no doubt the new Equinox will shrink in size to D2xx and spawn a Cadillac XT3.  

And as DeNysschen says "we can do it really quickly, rather than starting from scratch."  PR spin for badge jobs are quicker and cheaper to put out than building a Cadillac crossover on a Cadillac platform.

How does Cadillac go against BMW, Mercedes-AMG, Jaguar, SVR Land Rovers, Porsche and Maserati SUVs with FWD V6 product? Any credibility gained by the ATS-V and CTS-V sort of goes out the window then the crossover side of the stable lacks performance.

As far as XT7 goes, (which reminds me of Suzuki XL7) I guess this means no alpha or omega platform crossover.  Cadillac just gets a fancier version of the Buick Enclave, to go with their fancy Acadia, and no doubt the new Equinox will shrink in size to D2xx and spawn a Cadillac XT3.  

 

And as DeNysschen says "we can do it really quickly, rather than starting from scratch."  PR spin for badge jobs are quicker and cheaper to put out than building a Cadillac crossover on a Cadillac platform.

 

How does Cadillac go against BMW, Mercedes-AMG, Jaguar, SVR Land Rovers, Porsche and Maserati SUVs with FWD V6 product? Any credibility gained by the ATS-V and CTS-V sort of goes out the window then the crossover side of the stable lacks performance.

You say lacks performance and yet no one knows their road map for the XT and what the V badge might bring to the XT series. 

I see no reason for not having a Sport edition and a V edition of the XT or Escalade models.

Will there be an LT4 V8 in the XT5 to compete with the GLE63 and X5 M?   I'd guess no V8 fits in he C1xx platform, maybe they can get the XTS V-sport engine in there, that is as good as it gets, and you still have FWD handling and FWD weight bias.

You have a Grand Cherokee SRT with 475 hp, Levante with 424 hp, Range Rover SVR with 550 hp, GLE63 with 577 hp, X5 M with 560 hp, Cayenne Turbo S with 570 hp, Jaguar F-pace only has 380 hp, but you know they'll drop a V8 in there eventually.  There is a wave of performance crossovers out there, probably more coming.  Cadillac isn't in this arena, they are basically a Lexus-Lincoln fighter in the $40-50k range.

These super high performance crossovers sell in such tiny numbers, they are really irrelevant.

Will there be an LT4 V8 in the XT5 to compete with the GLE63 and X5 M?   I'd guess no V8 fits in he C1xx platform, maybe they can get the XTS V-sport engine in there, that is as good as it gets, and you still have FWD handling and FWD weight bias.

 

You have a Grand Cherokee SRT with 475 hp, Levante with 424 hp, Range Rover SVR with 550 hp, GLE63 with 577 hp, X5 M with 560 hp, Cayenne Turbo S with 570 hp, Jaguar F-pace only has 380 hp, but you know they'll drop a V8 in there eventually.  There is a wave of performance crossovers out there, probably more coming.  Cadillac isn't in this arena, they are basically a Lexus-Lincoln fighter in the $40-50k range.

WOW, You truly make an ASSumption of the FWD means FWD weight bias. I have not seen anything that would say you are right or wrong, but with all the FWD Appliances MB makes, then you have to admit that they are all FWD weight Bias and no better than Lexus/ Lincoln appliance fighters.

2.0 i think would be an ok engine choice in certain trims.  3.0tt should be in here eventually if they want cred

As far as XT7 goes, (which reminds me of Suzuki XL7) I guess this means no alpha or omega platform crossover.  Cadillac just gets a fancier version of the Buick Enclave, to go with their fancy Acadia, and no doubt the new Equinox will shrink in size to D2xx and spawn a Cadillac XT3.  

 

And as DeNysschen says "we can do it really quickly, rather than starting from scratch."  PR spin for badge jobs are quicker and cheaper to put out than building a Cadillac crossover on a Cadillac platform.

 

How does Cadillac go against BMW, Mercedes-AMG, Jaguar, SVR Land Rovers, Porsche and Maserati SUVs with FWD V6 product? Any credibility gained by the ATS-V and CTS-V sort of goes out the window then the crossover side of the stable lacks performance.

Are we really going to start arguing about how front-wheel drive is the greatest evil in luxury cars again?

Will there be an LT4 V8 in the XT5 to compete with the GLE63 and X5 M?   I'd guess no V8 fits in he C1xx platform, maybe they can get the XTS V-sport engine in there, that is as good as it gets, and you still have FWD handling and FWD weight bias.

 

You have a Grand Cherokee SRT with 475 hp, Levante with 424 hp, Range Rover SVR with 550 hp, GLE63 with 577 hp, X5 M with 560 hp, Cayenne Turbo S with 570 hp, Jaguar F-pace only has 380 hp, but you know they'll drop a V8 in there eventually.  There is a wave of performance crossovers out there, probably more coming.  Cadillac isn't in this arena, they are basically a Lexus-Lincoln fighter in the $40-50k range.

Who the hell needs to compete with niche vehicles like the C63 and X5 M? Seriously? Why worry about the 0.5% volume? I love how you have to continually try to compare anything Cadillac does to the most expensive examples from the German competition, when that is just a fallacy argument.

 

Will there be an LT4 V8 in the XT5 to compete with the GLE63 and X5 M?   I'd guess no V8 fits in he C1xx platform, maybe they can get the XTS V-sport engine in there, that is as good as it gets, and you still have FWD handling and FWD weight bias.

 

You have a Grand Cherokee SRT with 475 hp, Levante with 424 hp, Range Rover SVR with 550 hp, GLE63 with 577 hp, X5 M with 560 hp, Cayenne Turbo S with 570 hp, Jaguar F-pace only has 380 hp, but you know they'll drop a V8 in there eventually.  There is a wave of performance crossovers out there, probably more coming.  Cadillac isn't in this arena, they are basically a Lexus-Lincoln fighter in the $40-50k range.

Who the hell needs to compete with niche vehicles like the C63 and X5 M? Seriously? Why worry about the 0.5% volume? I love how you have to continually try to compare anything Cadillac does to the most expensive examples from the German competition, when that is just a fallacy argument.

 

So why is there an ATS-V or CTS-V, those are .5% volume cars.  Seeing as crossovers have over taken sedans in sales, there is not more volume in the crossover market than there is in the sedan market.   Since BMW built their image on the M3 and M5, while Cadillac sold front wheel drive boats, one brand soared and the other sank.  Same thing will happen with crossovers.  The luxury crossovers with the prestige will draw appeal, people will buy the better performing vehicle as well.  

>>...people will buy the better performing vehicle…<<

So you're predicting the CT6 will outsell the e-class? Interesting.

 

 

Will there be an LT4 V8 in the XT5 to compete with the GLE63 and X5 M?   I'd guess no V8 fits in he C1xx platform, maybe they can get the XTS V-sport engine in there, that is as good as it gets, and you still have FWD handling and FWD weight bias.

 

You have a Grand Cherokee SRT with 475 hp, Levante with 424 hp, Range Rover SVR with 550 hp, GLE63 with 577 hp, X5 M with 560 hp, Cayenne Turbo S with 570 hp, Jaguar F-pace only has 380 hp, but you know they'll drop a V8 in there eventually.  There is a wave of performance crossovers out there, probably more coming.  Cadillac isn't in this arena, they are basically a Lexus-Lincoln fighter in the $40-50k range.

Who the hell needs to compete with niche vehicles like the C63 and X5 M? Seriously? Why worry about the 0.5% volume? I love how you have to continually try to compare anything Cadillac does to the most expensive examples from the German competition, when that is just a fallacy argument.

 

So why is there an ATS-V or CTS-V, those are .5% volume cars.  Seeing as crossovers have over taken sedans in sales, there is not more volume in the crossover market than there is in the sedan market.   Since BMW built their image on the M3 and M5, while Cadillac sold front wheel drive boats, one brand soared and the other sank.  Same thing will happen with crossovers.  The luxury crossovers with the prestige will draw appeal, people will buy the better performing vehicle as well.  

 

The presence of the V series is not the point. The point is that you ALWAYS try to compare whatever Cadillac offers to some low volume, sells 500 a year, Mercedes Benz when the argument does not apply. What exactly are you not getting? This "appeal" nonsense you keep bringing up is all fluff. Let me show you why. Here is a list of the best selling luxury cars in 2014 and 2015. Notice the CUVs on there? Notice number one on that list? They have not ONE halo CUV or SUV (do not try to count the LX because you know that is a joke) that you claim is the big draw for customers. The top three out of six are all CUVs from companies without this big draw you speak of. So, we can only deduce two things out of this. Either it is a fluke as far as these numbers goes, or that you don't know what you are talking about here. It's that simple so stop making baseless and unrelated comparison to fluff up your favorite brand. It's just old man.

 

 

Will there be an LT4 V8 in the XT5 to compete with the GLE63 and X5 M?   I'd guess no V8 fits in he C1xx platform, maybe they can get the XTS V-sport engine in there, that is as good as it gets, and you still have FWD handling and FWD weight bias.

 

You have a Grand Cherokee SRT with 475 hp, Levante with 424 hp, Range Rover SVR with 550 hp, GLE63 with 577 hp, X5 M with 560 hp, Cayenne Turbo S with 570 hp, Jaguar F-pace only has 380 hp, but you know they'll drop a V8 in there eventually.  There is a wave of performance crossovers out there, probably more coming.  Cadillac isn't in this arena, they are basically a Lexus-Lincoln fighter in the $40-50k range.

Who the hell needs to compete with niche vehicles like the C63 and X5 M? Seriously? Why worry about the 0.5% volume? I love how you have to continually try to compare anything Cadillac does to the most expensive examples from the German competition, when that is just a fallacy argument.

 

So why is there an ATS-V or CTS-V, those are .5% volume cars.  Seeing as crossovers have over taken sedans in sales, there is not more volume in the crossover market than there is in the sedan market.   Since BMW built their image on the M3 and M5, while Cadillac sold front wheel drive boats, one brand soared and the other sank.  Same thing will happen with crossovers.  The luxury crossovers with the prestige will draw appeal, people will buy the better performing vehicle as well.  

 

You have a serious issue confusing correlation and causation.   People will buy the better performing vehicle when there is no cost differential, but any luxury CUV that can get to 60 in under 8 seconds will be fine. 8 seconds is about the time it takes a 1996 Roadmaster Sedan to get to 60 and that is beyond plenty for the typical buyer.  Faster than that and most buyers become unwilling to pay more to go faster.  Yes there is a subset like you who will, but get inside of that 8 second range and people start to become more concerned with MPG than with acceleration. 

Cadillac's problems in the 80's had virtually nothing to do with how sporty or not their cars were and everything to do with engine reliability issues. They were selling that 4100 boat anchor that ate intake gaskets, the 350 diesels, and the 8-6-4, but their sales volume was huge so they pissed off a lot more people who went and tried those expensive yet cheap feeling BMWs for the first time.  Had GM not made those powertrain flubs, BMW might still be an obscure Euro brand like Volvo these days. Even for as bad as those Cadillac engines were, and the general slowness of the other GM cars, I still see far more of them from that era rolling around today than Germans of the same age.

Those old BMWs, Benzes, and Audis were terrible terrible back then.  They'd handle well (at least the BMW did), but their build quality was extremely sub-par.  There is absolutely nothing "luxury" about a BMW 635 aside from its original price tag.  Take away the handling and the badge and it might as well be an Accord coupe on the inside.  

Even the lowly Toronado had a better built dash with nicer materials  and more advancements than the 6-series.... 

Digital dash, automatic temperature control, automatic head lamps, leather wrapped steering wheel with aluminum spokes, no exposed screw heads on the dash, no matte black plastic anywhere....

 

 

 

Will there be an LT4 V8 in the XT5 to compete with the GLE63 and X5 M?   I'd guess no V8 fits in he C1xx platform, maybe they can get the XTS V-sport engine in there, that is as good as it gets, and you still have FWD handling and FWD weight bias.

 

You have a Grand Cherokee SRT with 475 hp, Levante with 424 hp, Range Rover SVR with 550 hp, GLE63 with 577 hp, X5 M with 560 hp, Cayenne Turbo S with 570 hp, Jaguar F-pace only has 380 hp, but you know they'll drop a V8 in there eventually.  There is a wave of performance crossovers out there, probably more coming.  Cadillac isn't in this arena, they are basically a Lexus-Lincoln fighter in the $40-50k range.

Who the hell needs to compete with niche vehicles like the C63 and X5 M? Seriously? Why worry about the 0.5% volume? I love how you have to continually try to compare anything Cadillac does to the most expensive examples from the German competition, when that is just a fallacy argument.

 

So why is there an ATS-V or CTS-V, those are .5% volume cars.  Seeing as crossovers have over taken sedans in sales, there is not more volume in the crossover market than there is in the sedan market.   Since BMW built their image on the M3 and M5, while Cadillac sold front wheel drive boats, one brand soared and the other sank.  Same thing will happen with crossovers.  The luxury crossovers with the prestige will draw appeal, people will buy the better performing vehicle as well.  

 

 

You have a serious issue confusing correlation and causation.   People will buy the better performing vehicle when there is no cost differential, but any luxury CUV that can get to 60 in under 8 seconds will be fine. 8 seconds is about the time it takes a 1996 Roadmaster Sedan to get to 60 and that is beyond plenty for the typical buyer.  Faster than that and most buyers become unwilling to pay more to go faster.  Yes there is a subset like you who will, but get inside of that 8 second range and people start to become more concerned with MPG than with acceleration. 

 

Cadillac's problems in the 80's had virtually nothing to do with how sporty or not their cars were and everything to do with engine reliability issues. They were selling that 4100 boat anchor that ate intake gaskets, the 350 diesels, and the 8-6-4, but their sales volume was huge so they pissed off a lot more people who went and tried those expensive yet cheap feeling BMWs for the first time.  Had GM not made those powertrain flubs, BMW might still be an obscure Euro brand like Volvo these days. Even for as bad as those Cadillac engines were, and the general slowness of the other GM cars, I still see far more of them from that era rolling around today than Germans of the same age.

 

Those old BMWs, Benzes, and Audis were terrible terrible back then.  They'd handle well (at least the BMW did), but their build quality was extremely sub-par.  There is absolutely nothing "luxury" about a BMW 635 aside from its original price tag.  Take away the handling and the badge and it might as well be an Accord coupe on the inside.  

 

 

 

Even the lowly Toronado had a better built dash with nicer materials  and more advancements than the 6-series.... 

 

Digital dash, automatic temperature control, automatic head lamps, leather wrapped steering wheel with aluminum spokes, no exposed screw heads on the dash, no matte black plastic anywhere....

 

Well said. How quickly some forget how absolutely crappy most German cars were back then when they try to bring up things like appeal and heritage.

>>...people will buy the better performing vehicle…<<

 

So you're predicting the CT6 will outsell the e-class? Interesting.

E43 will smoke that CT6 3.0TT all day long and twice on Sunday.   Has more luxury and more autonomous drive features too.

 

Will there be an LT4 V8 in the XT5 to compete with the GLE63 and X5 M?   I'd guess no V8 fits in he C1xx platform, maybe they can get the XTS V-sport engine in there, that is as good as it gets, and you still have FWD handling and FWD weight bias.

 

You have a Grand Cherokee SRT with 475 hp, Levante with 424 hp, Range Rover SVR with 550 hp, GLE63 with 577 hp, X5 M with 560 hp, Cayenne Turbo S with 570 hp, Jaguar F-pace only has 380 hp, but you know they'll drop a V8 in there eventually.  There is a wave of performance crossovers out there, probably more coming.  Cadillac isn't in this arena, they are basically a Lexus-Lincoln fighter in the $40-50k range.

Who the hell needs to compete with niche vehicles like the C63 and X5 M? Seriously? Why worry about the 0.5% volume? I love how you have to continually try to compare anything Cadillac does to the most expensive examples from the German competition, when that is just a fallacy argument.

 

I think it is more for a prestige thing than actually needing those vehicles. They are for MB to say they compete with anything and EVERYTHING from any automaker out there and they will build the fastest of them all(and they pretty much do). Only BMW or Audi can even compete with their lineup. Then they throw AMGs out in pretty much everything except their work vans! Actually, now that they have a GLC63 on its way I think that is an AMG motor in everything. 

Funny that GM makes a Corvette Z06, a Camaro ZL1, a CTS-V, Ford makes a GT350, Dodge a Hellcat Charger, and SRT Grand Cherokee, etc.   There must be some reason they do that.  

Assume the CTS-V has a 10% take rate, that is 2,000 CTS-V's a year.  That isn't very high volume, yet they build it because they want it for marketing purposes, they want all the magazines to write about it, etc.  I bet if there was an XT5-V they could sell more than 2,000 a year.

Mark my words, the performance crossover market will grow, because the high dollar spenders will want the most powerful or fastest thing, just like the high dollar spenders do with sedans and sports cars. 

Last gen CTS-V take rate was 27% of production.

Maybe on the coupe it was 27%, but no way nearly 1 out of 3 of 2nd Gen CTS on the road are V-series

But if it was 27%, then look at all the market Cadillac is missing by not having performance crossovers.  27% of SRX sales would be about 25,000 cars a year.  

 

 

Will there be an LT4 V8 in the XT5 to compete with the GLE63 and X5 M?   I'd guess no V8 fits in he C1xx platform, maybe they can get the XTS V-sport engine in there, that is as good as it gets, and you still have FWD handling and FWD weight bias.

 

You have a Grand Cherokee SRT with 475 hp, Levante with 424 hp, Range Rover SVR with 550 hp, GLE63 with 577 hp, X5 M with 560 hp, Cayenne Turbo S with 570 hp, Jaguar F-pace only has 380 hp, but you know they'll drop a V8 in there eventually.  There is a wave of performance crossovers out there, probably more coming.  Cadillac isn't in this arena, they are basically a Lexus-Lincoln fighter in the $40-50k range.

Who the hell needs to compete with niche vehicles like the C63 and X5 M? Seriously? Why worry about the 0.5% volume? I love how you have to continually try to compare anything Cadillac does to the most expensive examples from the German competition, when that is just a fallacy argument.

 

I think it is more for a prestige thing than actually needing those vehicles. They are for MB to say they compete with anything and EVERYTHING from any automaker out there and they will build the fastest of them all(and they pretty much do). Only BMW or Audi can even compete with their lineup. Then they throw AMGs out in pretty much everything except their work vans! Actually, now that they have a GLC63 on its way I think that is an AMG motor in everything. 

 

You're missing my bigger point to him. He is trying to overemphasize these niche low volume brands to convince people that it leads to more sales on lower end cars and CUVs. I provided a link showing the top luxury sellers and half of those have none of the halo type vehicles that he thinks is so important to one's success. Lexus has been succeeding for decades without one. Acura as well (although they have their halo NSX back). It's a fallacy argument when you see that one fact alone. That has been my one and only point here.

Funny that GM makes a Corvette Z06, a Camaro ZL1, a CTS-V, Ford makes a GT350, Dodge a Hellcat Charger, and SRT Grand Cherokee, etc.   There must be some reason they do that.  

 

Assume the CTS-V has a 10% take rate, that is 2,000 CTS-V's a year.  That isn't very high volume, yet they build it because they want it for marketing purposes, they want all the magazines to write about it, etc.  I bet if there was an XT5-V they could sell more than 2,000 a year.

 

Mark my words, the performance crossover market will grow, because the high dollar spenders will want the most powerful or fastest thing, just like the high dollar spenders do with sedans and sports cars. 

So just ignore the facts that don't support your argument? Got it. 

Maybe on the coupe it was 27%, but no way nearly 1 out of 3 of 2nd Gen CTS on the road are V-series

 

But if it was 27%, then look at all the market Cadillac is missing by not having performance crossovers.  27% of SRX sales would be about 25,000 cars a year.  

Again. Look at the link I posted. Several those cars at the top are from companies with little to no representation in the halo car world. Point being, companies like Lexus have succeeded despite your assumption that luxury makes need these super expensive and low volume cars (their brief experiment with the LF-A aside). There is not one right formula and that is what you cannot seem to get through your head.

Maybe on the coupe it was 27%, but no way nearly 1 out of 3 of 2nd Gen CTS on the road are V-series

 

But if it was 27%, then look at all the market Cadillac is missing by not having performance crossovers.  27% of SRX sales would be about 25,000 cars a year.  

You are correct & I was not : it was 27% of 2011 CTS sales were coupes.

Saw Cadillac forum-sourced numbers that said 2010 & 2011 CTS-V wagon combined production was 8.6% of those 2 year's wagons.

 

 

 

Will there be an LT4 V8 in the XT5 to compete with the GLE63 and X5 M?   I'd guess no V8 fits in he C1xx platform, maybe they can get the XTS V-sport engine in there, that is as good as it gets, and you still have FWD handling and FWD weight bias.

 

You have a Grand Cherokee SRT with 475 hp, Levante with 424 hp, Range Rover SVR with 550 hp, GLE63 with 577 hp, X5 M with 560 hp, Cayenne Turbo S with 570 hp, Jaguar F-pace only has 380 hp, but you know they'll drop a V8 in there eventually.  There is a wave of performance crossovers out there, probably more coming.  Cadillac isn't in this arena, they are basically a Lexus-Lincoln fighter in the $40-50k range.

Who the hell needs to compete with niche vehicles like the C63 and X5 M? Seriously? Why worry about the 0.5% volume? I love how you have to continually try to compare anything Cadillac does to the most expensive examples from the German competition, when that is just a fallacy argument.

 

I think it is more for a prestige thing than actually needing those vehicles. They are for MB to say they compete with anything and EVERYTHING from any automaker out there and they will build the fastest of them all(and they pretty much do). Only BMW or Audi can even compete with their lineup. Then they throw AMGs out in pretty much everything except their work vans! Actually, now that they have a GLC63 on its way I think that is an AMG motor in everything. 

 

You're missing my bigger point to him. He is trying to overemphasize these niche low volume brands to convince people that it leads to more sales on lower end cars and CUVs. I provided a link showing the top luxury sellers and half of those have none of the halo type vehicles that he thinks is so important to one's success. Lexus has been succeeding for decades without one. Acura as well (although they have their halo NSX back). It's a fallacy argument when you see that one fact alone. That has been my one and only point here.

 

 

 

 

I think it is more for a prestige thing than actually needing those vehicles. They are for MB to say they compete with anything and EVERYTHING from any automaker out there and they will build the fastest of them all(and they pretty much do). Only BMW or Audi can even compete with their lineup. Then they throw AMGs out in pretty much everything except their work vans! Actually, now that they have a GLC63 on its way I think that is an AMG motor in everything. 

 

Who the hell needs to compete with niche vehicles like the C63 and X5 M? Seriously? Why worry about the 0.5% volume? I love how you have to continually try to compare anything Cadillac does to the most expensive examples from the German competition, when that is just a fallacy argument.

 

 

 

 

You're missing my bigger point to him. He is trying to overemphasize these niche low volume brands to convince people that it leads to more sales on lower end cars and CUVs. I provided a link showing the top luxury sellers and half of those have none of the halo type vehicles that he thinks is so important to one's success. Lexus has been succeeding for decades without one. Acura as well (although they have their halo NSX back). It's a fallacy argument when you see that one fact alone. That has been my one and only point here.

 

 

Not really.. That's why people have flagship vehicles(and high profit margins ). The best of the best hit the advertising campaign while the cheaper and smaller get the majority of the sales. You can be successful without the top tier vehicles but I can't see how it would hamper sales in any way having MORE vehicles to choose from and of the best if not THE best in their respective categories. I have NO CLUE actual profit numbers for BMW and MB but I have to believe they are leading the way over any other luxury automaker(we can throw Audi in there as well even though it's to a lesser extent) so their philosophy must be right some how. 

 

Also, I never saw a link.. maybe I'm blind lol

 

 

 

Come on man. You are killing me here. Read what I am saying. He is saying that the only way to succeed as a luxury make is to put out low volume niche cars to draw customers in. I am saying that is not the only way. See how Lexus has done it without a big halo car (not counting the two years of the LF-A because Lexus was succeeding before that) and enjoy brisk sales year after year. From the get go, he has been trying to say that Cadillac needs to slap a V8 in every damn thing (including a FWD XT5) they make while his own favorite brand doesn't even do that. Just trird of his cherry picking and I called him out on it.

The best selling luxury crossover is a tall Camry wagon with NO performance halo version. 

The best selling luxury crossover is a tall Camry wagon with NO performance halo version. 

EXACTLY my point Drew.

 

 

 

I think it is more for a prestige thing than actually needing those vehicles. They are for MB to say they compete with anything and EVERYTHING from any automaker out there and they will build the fastest of them all(and they pretty much do). Only BMW or Audi can even compete with their lineup. Then they throw AMGs out in pretty much everything except their work vans! Actually, now that they have a GLC63 on its way I think that is an AMG motor in everything. 

 

Who the hell needs to compete with niche vehicles like the C63 and X5 M? Seriously? Why worry about the 0.5% volume? I love how you have to continually try to compare anything Cadillac does to the most expensive examples from the German competition, when that is just a fallacy argument.

 

 

 

 

You're missing my bigger point to him. He is trying to overemphasize these niche low volume brands to convince people that it leads to more sales on lower end cars and CUVs. I provided a link showing the top luxury sellers and half of those have none of the halo type vehicles that he thinks is so important to one's success. Lexus has been succeeding for decades without one. Acura as well (although they have their halo NSX back). It's a fallacy argument when you see that one fact alone. That has been my one and only point here.

 

 

Not really.. That's why people have flagship vehicles(and high profit margins ). The best of the best hit the advertising campaign while the cheaper and smaller get the majority of the sales. You can be successful without the top tier vehicles but I can't see how it would hamper sales in any way having MORE vehicles to choose from and of the best if not THE best in their respective categories. I have NO CLUE actual profit numbers for BMW and MB but I have to believe they are leading the way over any other luxury automaker(we can throw Audi in there as well even though it's to a lesser extent) so their philosophy must be right some how. 

 

Also, I never saw a link.. maybe I'm blind lol

 

 

 

Come on man. You are killing me here. Read what I am saying. He is saying that the only way to succeed as a luxury make is to put out low volume niche cars to draw customers in. I am saying that is not the only way. See how Lexus has done it without a big halo car (not counting the two years of the LF-A because Lexus was succeeding before that) and enjoy brisk sales year after year. From the get go, he has been trying to say that Cadillac needs to slap a V8 in every damn thing (including a FWD XT5) they make while his own favorite brand doesn't even do that. Just trird of his cherry picking and I called him out on it.

 

I guess I just didn't think he was saying the ONLY way to succeed was to make the V/AMG/M variants but just a more complete lineup overall. But I will agree that they will HELP draw in and cause either internet traffic or foot traffic and that's always a plus. The more people look the more people will buy.. 

I definitely agree it is not THE only way but I think it is a good way as they are also high markup vehicles therefor the ones that do sell, even in very small overall numbers, will help out the company. 

Lexus is kind of the only example of a really successful luxury brand that isn't badge jobs(Lincon/Acura) and still makes sporty offerings. I don't know sales at all other than the super inaccurate "eye test" but MB and BMW out sell Lexus handily. That's super inaccurate though so take that with a grain of salt. 

I definitely see what you're talking about though but I also see the point of those vehicles as well...

Luckily, there is a website that tracks auto manufacturer sales numbers each month.   

The best selling Benzes are the small front drive cars and the E-Class.   The GLK/GLC has never been a big seller with the SRX beating it in sales regularly.  The front drivers make up the bulk of MB sales growth with nearly everything except the C-Class being in the red for 2015. 

The best selling Lexuses are, in fact, the badge jobs.  The ES was a luxury Camry, now it is a luxury Avalon.  The RX started off as a JDM Toyota Harrier which itself is just a tall Camry wagon.  The LX is a Toyota Land Cruiser.  The GS, up until this most recent version sold so few copies each month that even the old STS handily beat it in sales, but it wasn't a badge job.

 

 

 

You're missing my bigger point to him. He is trying to overemphasize these niche low volume brands to convince people that it leads to more sales on lower end cars and CUVs. I provided a link showing the top luxury sellers and half of those have none of the halo type vehicles that he thinks is so important to one's success. Lexus has been succeeding for decades without one. Acura as well (although they have their halo NSX back). It's a fallacy argument when you see that one fact alone. That has been my one and only point here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not really.. That's why people have flagship vehicles(and high profit margins ). The best of the best hit the advertising campaign while the cheaper and smaller get the majority of the sales. You can be successful without the top tier vehicles but I can't see how it would hamper sales in any way having MORE vehicles to choose from and of the best if not THE best in their respective categories. I have NO CLUE actual profit numbers for BMW and MB but I have to believe they are leading the way over any other luxury automaker(we can throw Audi in there as well even though it's to a lesser extent) so their philosophy must be right some how. 

 

Also, I never saw a link.. maybe I'm blind lol

 

 

 

Come on man. You are killing me here. Read what I am saying. He is saying that the only way to succeed as a luxury make is to put out low volume niche cars to draw customers in. I am saying that is not the only way. See how Lexus has done it without a big halo car (not counting the two years of the LF-A because Lexus was succeeding before that) and enjoy brisk sales year after year. From the get go, he has been trying to say that Cadillac needs to slap a V8 in every damn thing (including a FWD XT5) they make while his own favorite brand doesn't even do that. Just trird of his cherry picking and I called him out on it.

 

I guess I just didn't think he was saying the ONLY way to succeed was to make the V/AMG/M variants but just a more complete lineup overall. But I will agree that they will HELP draw in and cause either internet traffic or foot traffic and that's always a plus. The more people look the more people will buy.. 

 

I definitely agree it is not THE only way but I think it is a good way as they are also high markup vehicles therefor the ones that do sell, even in very small overall numbers, will help out the company. 

 

Lexus is kind of the only example of a really successful luxury brand that isn't badge jobs(Lincon/Acura) and still makes sporty offerings. I don't know sales at all other than the super inaccurate "eye test" but MB and BMW out sell Lexus handily. That's super inaccurate though so take that with a grain of salt. 

 

I definitely see what you're talking about though but I also see the point of those vehicles as well...

 

I never, not once, said that having these types of cars was a bad thing but the need for them was very much overstated by SMK as way to dilute what Cadillac is or is not doing. I merely presented a counter argument (with proof) to that assumption.

Without the front drive cars, Mercedes sales for 2015 would have been down nearly 12%

Mercedes 2014 total without CLA/GLA and B-class (and without Sprinter) was 295,363.   2015 total without Smart/Sprinter and GLA/CLA and B-class is 285,946.   That is more of a 3.3% drop for the rear drive passenger car line.  Sprinter sales were up 16% in 2015.

The S-class outsold the CLA last month, so that debunks the theory of Mercedes relying on fwd cars to get sales.  And The E-class is the #1 selling Mercedes in history and we get a new one this year, that is going to turn the sales chart around.  Plus you have C-class coupe, hybrid and convertible hitting, GLS and SLC, and SL refreshes, so most of the new product is rear drive, where as most of 2015 calendar year had a GLA that added 26,000 units vs 6,000 the prior year.

But imagine if Cadillac said the next-gem CTS was going to the Malibu platform and would have a 250 hp turbo 4 standard, and a 350 hp turbo V6 as the range topper, and V-series was cancelled.  How would that taste?  Because essentially that is what the Cadillac crossover line is becoming.

Mercedes 2014 total without CLA/GLA and B-class (and without Sprinter) was 295,363.   2015 total without Smart/Sprinter and GLA/CLA and B-class is 285,946.   That is more of a 3.3% drop for the rear drive passenger car line.  Sprinter sales were up 16% in 2015.

 

The S-class outsold the CLA last month, so that debunks the theory of Mercedes relying on fwd cars to get sales.  And The E-class is the #1 selling Mercedes in history and we get a new one this year, that is going to turn the sales chart around.  Plus you have C-class coupe, hybrid and convertible hitting, GLS and SLC, and SL refreshes, so most of the new product is rear drive, where as most of 2015 calendar year had a GLA that added 26,000 units vs 6,000 the prior year.

 

 

But imagine if Cadillac said the next-gem CTS was going to the Malibu platform and would have a 250 hp turbo 4 standard, and a 350 hp turbo V6 as the range topper, and V-series was cancelled.  How would that taste?  Because essentially that is what the Cadillac crossover line is becoming.

One month? That's all you got when every year prior shows the exact opposite? The CLA has outsold the S Class for the two years it's been out. Good lord man. That kind of cherry picking is extreme, even for you. 

And you keep on talking about what the crossover line is becoming but you are assuming that it was something else before, which it is not. They have not had a hi-po CUV or SUV to date so your comment makes zero sense. Again, good lord man.

Mercedes Benz's growth is in selling Mercedes Pretendz....  

I'm very much a member of the "buy the real benz" club when someone asks me if they should get a CLA..... 

CLA is Germany for Buick!

I would tell people to spend extra on the C-class or GLC over the CLA/GLA all the time.  But That CLA is there to compete with the Mini, VW, Volvo and former Saab style buyers that want a small Euro car without spending crazy money.  These are non-traditional Mercedes buyers.  The C and E classes and GLE are still leading the sales charge.  The anti-Mercedes fans keep saying the CLA will be the downfall, yet they keep getting stronger.  

Degradation of image takes years.

Packard took over a decade.

Wonder what will happen to Cadillac's image with 3 front wheel drive crossovers and a sub-ATS, and a front drive XTS.   If 2 front drive Mercedes is doom and gloom, oh my.

Wonder what will happen to Cadillac's image with 3 front wheel drive crossovers and a sub-ATS, and a front drive XTS.   If 2 front drive Mercedes is doom and gloom, oh my.

You literally have not paid attention to one single thing anyone has ACTUALLY said.

Oh, and the XTS is on the way out.

And it's a great move by Mercedes by going after the bargain basement crowd with the CLA.

CLA is worse than Buick and even less than Ford Focus in some very important respects - Solidity.

 It's so terrible that even CR used its membership data to find that most members HATE the car, and want to replace it.

What Mercedes has probably done is lose a lot of middle sales. What I mean is that before CLA and CLA, people would lease closer to base C and GLK models.

Now, they lease optioned up CLAs and GLCs. Whatever these Germans makes have done is that they have diluted their brand image, and it's not their competitive strength nor what their brand identity is about. That's why a CLA is Mercedes-Pretendz and BMW 1 Series and X1 are first losers.

The XTS is awesome. And for the same reason the Lincoln is going to be awesome too. For people who want space, pace and grace.

Besides, those two cars are pariahs of style. And they have old-world style luxury. Spiffy interior, luxury looks and private jet space.

Degradation of image takes years.

Packard took over a decade.

Took Cadillac from the early 60's to the 80's. The down sized FWD Cadillac's were just the last nail in the coffin not the first. 

What many forget it can take a while to earn that image back too. One model and a couple years just will not do it. 

Cadillac saw no measurable image degradation in the 1960s.

Obviously the Eldorado lost 2 of 3 styles, but the brand continued to expand in innovation, features, trims/colors, engineering, etc. '67 Eldo was a tour de force. In fact, I would only offer a downward tick circa '75, just because the core models had lost some of their leading edge-ness; by '76 they were overdue for the downsize of '77 by about 2 years IMO. The Seville balanced out the full-size cars tho, so IMO; it was a wash.

Cadillac's slip was a specific short span of years that made major impacts: the '78 diesels, the '81 V8-6-4, the '82 HT4100 and the '85 downsizing. Once your engineering comes into question, the rest gets rickety.  

Well while the drop at Cadillac may not have appeared large the cars started their decline in the 60's with a more mass market volume approach. 

To see it you need to step back and compare where they were in the 30's to what you got in the 60's. They were no were near the kind of car they once were. 

Now in 75 the decline accelerated with more parts sharing and the lack of refinement. In the Era of the gas crunch GM did little to invest in the brand as they once did. 

In the 30's to 50's it really meant something to own a Cadillac but 60's and later it meant less and less to own one. 

Hell in the late 70'd we were drove a 77 model to school regularly. 

The only car with much image was the FWD Eldo of the late 60's and it never progressed as it should have. 

Cadillac did not fail in 1 year or just 10 years it was like GM a slow decline over decades and it accelerated in the 80's. 

I know the history of Cadillac very well. I can see that, but Cadillac of the '40s were not on the level they were in the '30s either, same for the '50s… but no one is going to say they 'started to decline in the '40s. Simply different eras/markets. But from the standpoint of image & perception, Cadillac did not see a measurable degredation in the '60s and it absolutely still 'meant something' to own a Cadillac then. Volume was inching upward, but didn't explode until the '70s. They offered the same position entry-level model in the '50s (Series 61) as in the '60s (Calais), and neither sold well at all vs the deVilles.

These are amorphous things to even try and quantify, but I am 100% positive I am accurate on this point. Arguemens can be made RE the '70s, but they are without substance when you dial back to the '60s.

I would tell people to spend extra on the C-class or GLC over the CLA/GLA all the time.  But That CLA is there to compete with the Mini, VW, Volvo and former Saab style buyers that want a small Euro car without spending crazy money.  These are non-traditional Mercedes buyers.  The C and E classes and GLE are still leading the sales charge.  The anti-Mercedes fans keep saying the CLA will be the downfall, yet they keep getting stronger.  

Mercedes just figured out they can sell fake Gucci bags factory direct.  I'm not anti-mercedes at all... I'm anti-fake-mercedes.

Wonder what will happen to Cadillac's image with 3 front wheel drive crossovers and a sub-ATS, and a front drive XTS.   If 2 front drive Mercedes is doom and gloom, oh my.

It's not just the drive train layout.  The interior of the CLA/GLA is sub-par too unless you really load it up into C-Class territory.   

Cadillac pioneered FWD in luxury cars, so at least they have some history with it. 

 

Wonder what will happen to Cadillac's image with 3 front wheel drive crossovers and a sub-ATS, and a front drive XTS.   If 2 front drive Mercedes is doom and gloom, oh my.

 

It's not just the drive train layout.  The interior of the CLA/GLA is sub-par too unless you really load it up into C-Class territory.   

 

Cadillac pioneered FWD in luxury cars, so at least they have some history with it. 

 

 

Exactly. The CLA has been widely panned as being "cheap" by just about every publication out there. The fact that it is FWD is the least of its concern. Being FWD doesn't makes it a bad car. Being cheap does.