Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
NINETY EIGHT REGENCY

Once and For All? Lutz text message reportedly confirms Cadillac Converj is dead

50 posts in this topic

Once and For All? Lutz text message reportedly confirms Cadillac Converj is dead

Although previously the subject of some early obituaries, it appears that the future of the Cadillac Converj showcar is indeed at a dead-end. According to Automotive News, a production future for the rakish extended-range coupe has been scuttled due to "priorities and the conviction that the Volt and Ampera will use all available capacity for years to come" – that's according to a text message from General Motors vice chairman Bob Lutz.

Lutz, who is himself retiring on May 1, openly championed the Converj, including telling members of the Society of Automotive Analysts that the car would be built after 2012. Prevailing logic also had the well-received 2009 Detroit Auto Show concept getting the green light, if only because affixing a higher-margin Cadillac badge to its flanks would presumably help GM recover some of its massive investment in the E-Rev technology it shared with the Chevrolet Volt and Opel Ampera. However, in a Bloomberg report from earlier this month, some company managers apparently successfully argued that the business case for the Converj could not be made.

link:

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/17/once-and-for-all-lutz-text-message-reportedly-confirms-cadillac/

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

saw the converj at the auto show last week. gorgeous! even with the converj dead i hope a future cadillac has its styling.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good thing for Cadillac. Although I hope Cadillac gets funding for other new models and that this just doesn't mean they are cutting back on what Cadillac gets to save a buck. The Converge would never have been worthy of the wreath and crest anyway, much like the SRX and XTS are not. Cadillac doesn't need lame front wheel drive product, they need technology, performance and fit and finish.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the SRX for a week when that snow storm hit. In sport mode, I was able to kick the rear end of the SRX out by blipping the gas.

Stop harping on the SRX's AWD cause you're wrong about it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the SRX for a week when that snow storm hit. In sport mode, I was able to kick the rear end of the SRX out by blipping the gas.

Stop harping on the SRX's AWD cause you're wrong about it.

Is it better than the old SRX that was on Sigma?

Would the CTS be better on if it was Epsilon based with a Haldex AWD system?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it better than the old SRX that was on Sigma?

It's a different vehicle with a different purpose being marketed to a different market. The only thing the same about it is the name.

and it's selling about 550% better than the Sigma SRX. In fact, it's selling better than everything in the class except the RX.

February 2010 numbers:

SRX - 3542

Infiniti EX - 575

Infiniti FX - 885

Audi Q5 - 1060

Audi Q7 - 366

Mercedes M-Class - 1655

Mercedes GLK - 2126

Lexus RX - 5694

BMW X3 - 351 (LOL!!) - worst selling in the class but still a 31.5% increase over February 2009. Even the pathetic sales of the overpriced Audi Q7 had slightly better numbers.

BMW X5 - 2959 - 4th place yet a 75.5% increase over February 2009.

Acura MDX - 3226

Acura RDX - 850

Looking at these numbers, why would Cadillac go the route you propose.... so they can sell less? The GLK is just as new as the SRX and priced about the same.... and it's an import too! Why aren't the import humpers lining up to buy one in the numbers they're going for the new SRX?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a different vehicle with a different purpose being marketed to a different market. The only thing the same about it is the name.

and it's selling about 550% better than the Sigma SRX. In fact, it's selling better than everything in the class except the RX.

February 2010 numbers:

SRX - 3542

Infiniti EX - 575

Infiniti FX - 885

Audi Q5 - 1060

Audi Q7 - 366

Mercedes M-Class - 1655

Mercedes GLK - 2126

Lexus RX - 5694

BMW X3 - 351 (LOL!!) - worst selling in the class but still a 31.5% increase over February 2009. Even the pathetic sales of the overpriced Audi Q7 had slightly better numbers.

BMW X5 - 2959 - 4th place yet a 75.5% increase over February 2009.

Acura MDX - 3226

Acura RDX - 850

Looking at these numbers, why would Cadillac go the route you propose.... so they can sell less? The GLK is just as new as the SRX and priced about the same.... and it's an import too! Why aren't the import humpers lining up to buy one in the numbers they're going for the new SRX?

Is it better than the old SRX that was on Sigma?

Would the CTS be better on if it was Epsilon based with a Haldex AWD system?

scary, i agree with something SMK said here, we know that sales of the CTS would be higher if it were an Elipson platform, but is sales the main aspect of Cadillac, i don't think so. Cadillac should be about making the best vehicles they can instead of being dependent on what is going to sell or not the old SRX needed a redesign, but this new SRX is more of a buick

Edited by CanadianBacon94
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Volume doesn't mean much for luxury vehicles, isn't there something to be said for exclusivity? Volume is important for the bread-and-butter Chevys, but at the luxury end, is it that important?

Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GM needs to be profitable first before they can do things like that. We're not talking about Rolls Royces here, we're talking about a small premium crossover with a $34k base price. You know how many vehicles fall in the $35k - $45k price range?

Making the SRX based on the Sigma would not have made it sell any better, it wouldn't have sold at a higher price, and it would have cost more for Cadillac to build. Lose/lose/lose.

If you're that concerned about carrying cargo AND handling, Cadillac built the CTS wagon for you.... and even made a V variant.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just that I detest FWD/transverse based platforms...they are low and common, I'd like to see Cadillac be above that (where BMW, Mercedes and Infiniti are at w/ their SUVs), rather than stooping to the lowest common denominator approach of Lexus. But where Lexus is is clearly where the mass market is, so I understand the need to chase the dollar.

This makes no sense to me.

Longitudinal engines were the norm until 1986/'87. Was a 1978 Deville less exclusive because a Chevette shared an engine orientation? Is a Dodge Intrepid somehow a better car than an Aurora just because the engines are 90 degrees from each other?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I full understand wanting RWD for handling reasons, but we're talking about a vehicle targeted to real estate agents and McMansion housewives... two markets that actually prefer FWD.

As the sales numbers above show, a majority of buyers either don't care about the drive wheels or actually prefer the layout for one reason or another.

Again, for the markets that prefer RWD, there is the CTS wagon. Unless Lexus brings the IS wagon back, Cadillac is the only marque that caters to both..... not a bad position to be in.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the CTS went to front wheel drive and they cut the price $10k down to $27,000 base, I am sure they could sell them in big volumes. Even with the SRX's sales success, Cadillac still has a volume problem. Even worse, is they have a price and perception problem. The only way Cadillac can get sales right now is by going down market into where Olds/Pontiac/Saab/Buick used to be or currently are. Cadillac makes 1 vehicle line that has a base price of $48,000 or more, Mercedes-Benz has 10 of them. So if CTS sales keep struggling, how long before Cadillac just gives up on Sigma and takes the cheap way out and puts that on Epsilon also?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Volume doesn't mean much for luxury vehicles, isn't there something to be said for exclusivity? Volume is important for the bread-and-butter Chevys, but at the luxury end, is it that important?

Unfortunately in modern age of automobiles, where the margins are cut throat, development prices are ever increasing volume is everything. It does not matter luxury or bread and butter. Ever guess why BMW is turning to FWD or MB did 10 years ago? Volume.

As much as I dislike the concept of a FWD Caddy, GM needs SRX to fill its coffers. Again people buying this class of vehicles - mostly to be rich single Suzy McMansions or soccer mom Sandy Suburbanson - will be more gravitated to a FWD biased car than a RWD handling queen. Top 3 big sellers in this segment, as Olds pointed out are FWD biased vehicles. Jump of FWD SRX from bottom of the pack to the top three is impeccable, considering a better dynamic older SRX could not achieve that goal.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the CTS went to front wheel drive and they cut the price $10k down to $27,000 base, I am sure they could sell them in big volumes. Even with the SRX's sales success, Cadillac still has a volume problem. Even worse, is they have a price and perception problem. The only way Cadillac can get sales right now is by going down market into where Olds/Pontiac/Saab/Buick used to be or currently are. Cadillac makes 1 vehicle line that has a base price of $48,000 or more, Mercedes-Benz has 10 of them. So if CTS sales keep struggling, how long before Cadillac just gives up on Sigma and takes the cheap way out and puts that on Epsilon also?

There is something in the business world called "fit for purpose". Basically, an epsilon CTS wouldn't be "fit for purpose" since it doesn't have the handling characteristics demanded in the segment.

The SRX has a different purpose. As the leaders in the segment clearly demonstrate, the handling characteristics required to be a sucessful model are different than those of the CTS. The SRX, by coming out of nowhere to be second in sales after less than 10 months on the market is clearly a lot more "fit for purpose" than the previous ones or any of the RWD model.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately in modern age of automobiles, where the margins are cut throat, development prices are ever increasing volume is everything. It does not matter luxury or bread and butter. Ever guess why BMW is turning to FWD or MB did 10 years ago? Volume.

To reinforce Z-06's point, I want to point out again that we're not talking about Rolls Royces, Bentleys, or even 7-series and S-classes here. We're talking about a vehicle with a $34k base price.

There's only so much "exclusivity" to be had in that price range.

Being RWD doesn't make you any more exclusive. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a 3-series here in Pittsburgh.... I can't imagine what it's like in the import happy coasts.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is something in the business world called "fit for purpose". Basically, an epsilon CTS wouldn't be "fit for purpose" since it doesn't have the handling characteristics demanded in the segment.

But the front drive CTS could sell for $27,000, thus replacing the need for the LaCrosse and Regal, and a Cadillac for $27,000-37,000 should sell like crazy, and at that price point, FWD fits the purpose. The CTS could co against the TSX, Maxima, Taurus, Camry XLE V6, base model MKZ, etc.

The SRX being FWD isn't what truly bothers me, because I'd never consider an SUV, to me they all have poor handling anyway. What really bothers me is Cadillac built it off a tweaked Equinox platform, used the same engine as the Equinox, and cut the price $10,000 to move down market. And it looks like that is a trend Cadillac plans to continue with the XTS. It starts wit the SRX, but soon they'll be 3-4 fwd Cadillacs that need big rebates to sell because they can't match the rear drive imports, and suddenly it is 1999 all over again.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To reinforce Z-06's point, I want to point out again that we're not talking about Rolls Royces, Bentleys, or even 7-series and S-classes here. We're talking about a vehicle with a $34k base price.

There's only so much "exclusivity" to be had in that price range.

Being RWD doesn't make you any more exclusive. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a 3-series here in Pittsburgh.... I can't imagine what it's like in the import happy coasts.

Yes, but at least the 3 series has a superior platform, and is not some common FWD generic trimmed up to be 'premium' like the ES or SRX or RX or countless others...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the front drive CTS could sell for $27,000, thus replacing the need for the LaCrosse and Regal, and a Cadillac for $27,000-37,000 should sell like crazy, and at that price point, FWD fits the purpose. The CTS could co against the TSX, Maxima, Taurus, Camry XLE V6, base model MKZ, etc.

The SRX being FWD isn't what truly bothers me, because I'd never consider an SUV, to me they all have poor handling anyway. What really bothers me is Cadillac built it off a tweaked Equinox platform, used the same engine as the Equinox, and cut the price $10,000 to move down market. And it looks like that is a trend Cadillac plans to continue with the XTS. It starts wit the SRX, but soon they'll be 3-4 fwd Cadillacs that need big rebates to sell because they can't match the rear drive imports, and suddenly it is 1999 all over again.

The SRX is already proving you wrong.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but at least the 3 series has a superior platform, and is not some common FWD generic trimmed up to be 'premium' like the ES or SRX or RX or countless others...

.... or Towncar....

the 3-series is common...

The SRX doesn't deserve to be counted with the ES or RX. Audis are FWD based platforms and they run with the BMWs in "premiumness". Every review you read of the SRX compliments it's handling and calls it one of the best in the segment.

This is just like the pushrod v. DOHC debate where Cadillac meets or beats the competition in actual performance but because you know a little more about the dirty bits than Mary Jane McMansion does, you're going to poop all over her shiny new Cadillac that she just paid close to sticker for. Yet Cadillac actually makes a vehicle for the dirty bits lovers in the CTS wagon.

Instead of pooping on the SRX, why don't you applaud Cadillac for offering vehicles to BOTH sides of an important segment!?!

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SRX is already proving you wrong.

Would you also support the Escalade moving to Lambda fwd, and dropping base price by $10-15,000? Escalade drivers don't tow or go off roading, so they don't need RWD any more than original SRX drivers did. And a cheaper price would mean more sales.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in favor of a lambda Cadillac in AWD form if it's done with the level of execution the SRX and CTS have been done with. Replacing the Escalade? No. Because I do see Escalade drivers towing and EXT drivers hauling with their vehicles.

Is that your biggest beef with the car? The name? If Cadillac had kept the Sigma SRX but introduced the current SRX as a "BRX" below it, you would have been ok with it?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in favor of a lambda Cadillac in AWD form if it's done with the level of execution the SRX and CTS have been done with. Replacing the Escalade? No. Because I do see Escalade drivers towing and EXT drivers hauling with their vehicles.

Is that your biggest beef with the car? The name? If Cadillac had kept the Sigma SRX but introduced the current SRX as a "BRX" below it, you would have been ok with it?

A BRX I wouldn't have had as much of a problem with, but it looks like Cadillac is chasing Lincoln, not the Germans. And following Lincoln is a bad place to be (SRX follows MKX, XTS follows MKS). My other problem is they traded the Northstar for the engine out of a Saab 9-3, possibly the worst entry level luxury car on the market. The Northstar was dated and in need of an update, but it's still better than what the new SRX has. The SRX is just another stop-gap GM product designed on a shoe string budget, it seems that that is all Cadillac gets anymore.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Utter BS.

The 2.8 turbo has all the power of the northstar with a LOT less weight.

edit: Ya know, if you weren't so predisposed to hating EVERYTHING that GM produces, I'd actually invite you to evaluate these cars with me when I get them.... but since I already know what the outcome will be, why bother?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0