What does Cadillac mean to you?

[surreal1272]

 

 

I find Mercedes and Cadillac to be somewhat competitors in select markets and everywhere else completely different from another.

 

I don't particularly see a problem with the Nissan Frontier based pickup, because I don't think it'll be positioned as a luxury midsize in as much as it will just have a higher price tag because of the badge on the nose.

 

Nissan trucks have a decent reputation around the world for off-road prowess. 

 

Also, again....basing vehicles on common platforms these days works just fine for many car makers, as long as you have a decent base to word off of.

 

If the CLA had more sound-deadening, and better ride tuning it would be a much more substantial car, but perhaps less efficient. Maybe giving it active noise cancellation standard. But I think Mercedes is purely profit driven, which I think is serving them alright.

And you are missing the point of the entire conversation. SMK seems to find perfectly acceptable to criticize GM for putting out Cadillacs as nothing more than "fancy Chevys" while his own favorite is going to do the EXACT same damn thing with Nissan. Just look at the ton of excuses he has given for that being okay while GMs is not and you will where the last two pages here have gone horribly and laughably wrong.

 

Oh and after having sat in a CLA a couple of weeks ago, I can fully understand the level of criticism heaved its way by just about every major publication out there. Why have that mess when I could a RWD, and much more composed, C-Class for just a little bit more cash?

 

Daimler and Nissan-Renault are joint developing the 2017 Frontier chassis, so yes it is corporate platform share product, but the Mercedes will get a Mercedes engine and transmission and interior.  This is also developed for Europe, Middle East and South America, if sold in the USA it will be sold by the Vans division and marketed as a commercial vehicle.  For a work truck I am sure the Frontier chassis will be serviceable.    They aren't selling the Mercedes pickup as a luxury or performance product, it is the pick up equivalent of the Metris, a work vehicle.  

 

Cadillac, Lincoln, Acura, and Lexus, build luxury cars/crossovers of front drive platforms that are inferior to rear drive platforms that you can put more power into, longer wheelbases with better ride, better interior room, etc.  That is the difference.  These front drive products hit a performance ceiling that the rear drive product can far exceed.

 

And many people would rather have a C-class, it outsold the CLA 86,000 to 29,000 in the USA last year.  C-class racked up over 443,000 sales last year world wide.

 

Like I said, fancy Nissan. What's funny here is that you think selling it as a "work truck" is acceptably for a LUXURY auto maker while you would completely dog Cadillac if they were to do anything even remotely similar. Sorry, but I'll take a "fancy Chevy" over a fancy Nissan any day of the week.

 

Audi is weaker in the USA, probably because VW is so weak.  Audi has had slow, steady growth though over 50 consecutive months of sales gains.  15 years ago Audi was like Jaguar level volume, but not they are a player, so I think that is why they get less criticism.  Cadillac was on top of the mountain and now a 5th or 6th place brand, thus they get criticized.

 

Audi sold 1,803,250 cars last year world wide.  Hard to say they don't know how to convince people to buy them, the American market is only 10% of their total sales though.  Cadillac needs the American market, it is their #1 market.

I upvoted you on that....because its actually closer to the truth than some of us want to admit...

 

Except that while the American market is important, China will be more important in the future than America as far as Cadillac goes and that is the real truth of the matter.

[Suaviloquent]

Mercedes is larger than just the luxury products it sells.

 

Therefore I think it is still unfair to both Cadillac and Mercedes to compare them to each other head to head for different things. 

 

In terms of small, really small luxury vehicles, a Alpha sub-Ats model would be much better than a CLA. And that has been denounced, even by SMK as Mercedes-Pretendz. But the C-Class is not just a bit more cash. It starts about $9000 more on the CLA. In a lease deal that will be reflected in the down payment at first, and then the payment. It is interesting though how it's kind of a simple case of a strong brand can allow you to sell the "optimized" product for the buyer.

 

I don't see a problem with Mercedes using a Nissan pickup truck as a base. Largely because, well, I don't particularly consider them to be much of anything of a disruptor to anyone. I don't think Mercedes even wants to make a luxo-pickup version of it. It's going to be commercial vehicle only, I think. Also, like a GMC Canyon Denali is coming out, and most people have railed on Denalis for being pure-profiteering on the part of GM, because guess what?! GMC is a strong brand.

 

I think it is only fair to compare both companies on products that match up well for intended mission. And in that case the XT5 matches right up on the GLE 350 without any sacrifices when configured with AWD. 

 

Cadillac has to increase the purchase funnel diameter. And it has to increase brand awareness. Product, they need product, which they are getting. I don't think RWD is as important anymore, as long as the intended mission is not aligned to superior driving dynamics or handling or lap times. 

[smk4565]

 

Except that while the American market is important, China will be more important in the future than America as far as Cadillac goes and that is the real truth of the matter.

 

 

Well then this isn't good news, the 2015 China sales volume.

 

Audi:           509,998

BMW:         287,000

Mercedes:  255,270

Cadillac:       53,086

 

Nothing is more important to Cadillac than the American market.  If they forget that and build cars for China, hoping Americans will buy them, they are in trouble.  

[Suaviloquent]

I would refrain from the kind of thinking that since Mercedes builds very expensive vehicles that their logo should absolutely be not on anything else - taxis, work trucks, vans...

 

If Cadillac or Lincoln started doing that right now though, I would immediately say WTF is GM thinking with their brands?

 

Ultimately we cannot compare the two (Mercedes and Cadillac) against each other like that. Also, those same panel vans and buses (for transit), heavy trucks, and such aren't considered passenger vehicles (cars).

 

I don't know nor do I really care that Mercedes happens to do those things. Perhaps it's their history, but the Mercedes name comprises a larger conglomerate transportation/mobility sector company. 

 

It should not be such a passionate hot, derisive topic for some that the Mercedes work truck is based off of a Nissan, because well, I think they are well differentiated; I consider the GMC business model just as suspect for juicing profits off a common architecture, and we have prior knowledge that Mercedes is a name not just reserved for a a badge or hood ornament adorned on a car.

 

And what is wrong with partnership on a vehicle? Why does it matter if it's based on a Nissan? No one can say that Mercedes shouldn't be doing that cause it devalues their brand/lack of focus (those arguments have not ended Mercedes) What if it turns out that Nissan can provide a credible donor architecture? 

 

What I see, is that Mercedes has been able to pursue many worthwhile opportunities, they have made many good decisions regarding the separation of different business units... and honestly, if the same autonomous tech that is developed for an S-Class has business applications for the commercial haulage industry, that would be serious innovation that the firm is pursuing...

[surreal1272]

Mercedes is larger than just the luxury products it sells.

Therefore I think it is still unfair to both Cadillac and Mercedes to compare them to each other head to head for different things.

In terms of small, really small luxury vehicles, a Alpha sub-Ats model would be much better than a CLA. And that has been denounced, even by SMK as Mercedes-Pretendz. But the C-Class is not just a bit more cash. It starts about $9000 more on the CLA. In a lease deal that will be reflected in the down payment at first, and then the payment. It is interesting though how it's kind of a simple case of a strong brand can allow you to sell the "optimized" product for the buyer.

I don't see a problem with Mercedes using a Nissan pickup truck as a base. Largely because, well, I don't particularly consider them to be much of anything of a disruptor to anyone. I don't think Mercedes even wants to make a luxo-pickup version of it. It's going to be commercial vehicle only, I think. Also, like a GMC Canyon Denali is coming out, and most people have railed on Denalis for being pure-profiteering on the part of GM, because guess what?! GMC is a strong brand.

I think it is only fair to compare both companies on products that match up well for intended mission. And in that case the XT5 matches right up on the GLE 350 without any sacrifices when configured with AWD.

Cadillac has to increase the purchase funnel diameter. And it has to increase brand awareness. Product, they need product, which they are getting. I don't think RWD is as important anymore, as long as the intended mission is not aligned to superior driving dynamics or handling or lap times.

Oh I agree about the unfair comparisons from both sides but it sure doesn't stop certain trolls from harping on and on about the same thing, even after they have been shot down each and every time with the truth.

And I will agree to disagree with the RWD vs FWD and it not being a big deal. On certain types of cars it isn't but the luxury market is not one of them for the most part.

Regarding the Nissan statement I made, I do not know how you can continue to misread what was being said here.

If you would have actually read what I said and not what you think I said, you would know that I personally don't care about their partnership with Nissan but when homer starts in with his trolling and referring to Cadillacs as "fancy Chevys" then I will return the criticism in kind.

.

Edited April 25, 2016 by surreal1272

[Suaviloquent]

I've read everything here, and from what I can summarize, no one will agree to anything.

 

Okay, maybe one thing - Mercedes does have the branding upper hand. And remember, the German brands do a great job of renewing leases like clockwork.

 

That is what Cadillac is largely up against. They gotta cut that umbilical, but to get there, they gotta understand those folks well...well enough to understand in our world at this time.... those people DO NOT know or even would want to believe that Cadillac - if given the right resources can deliver a superior product to Mercedes. They all want value. They all want luxury, value, comfort, reliability, dealership service, you name it. Many of them perhaps defected at some point or another from a different brand, maybe American. There's that fascination with import vehicles too. And Mercedes is a proven brand. They're proven to be Mercedes. Which means whatever it means to anyone. To me it means classy luxury that is no longer quiet European motoring.

 

Just does Cadillac have "it"? That will? The one to say that we can do what we want, and we'll cast everything else out as noise? I think they have it for the V Series. The concepts are breath taking. But the details - the details, they gotta sweat the details. 

 

And it's not a hapless, yuppies buying those Mercedes. It is incompetent management of a brand that has led to the failure relatively weak position of American luxury in America compared to decades ago. 

 

Here's a random rabble version 1.0 -  

 

(disregard, but read for an interesting thought) - GM can support, along with its dealers a position to ensure Tesla will never sell in Michigan with their business model. Now why can't they put that effort to use against Mercedes, BMW, Audi? Surely those guys are the true thorns in their sides? I mean there is a reason why Cadillac and Lincoln especially took a nosedive not to long ago. The problem is that kind of gap is not evident anymore. If it;s not possible to do so, it reaffirms that point of being too late. In Japan, their entire culture of patriotism has shut out foreign car makers, especially American. In Germany, somewhat less so than before, but still - the German brands have great market share.

 

Random rabble version 2.0 -

 

When you have cars like Cruze being called smooth as a babie's bottom, an a Focus being (contextually) called a luxury car...it is easy to take common platform cars and add the luxury glutton onto them, and charge higher prices. But where does the customer ever get to see the car underneath. And why would it matter if some parts are shared, if the customer doesn't actually step into the donor platform providing vehicle?

[balthazar]

it will be sold by the Vans division...

There is no other, so-called "Vans Division".

 

The nameplate you are searching for is "mercedes-benz".

[surreal1272]

it will be sold by the Vans division...

There is no other, so-called "Vans Division".

 

The nameplate you are searching for is "mercedes-benz".

That will be on the exact same dealership lots.

"Van division". LMAO!

[smk4565]

Mercedes has 4 divisions of vehicles. Mercedes-Benz cars, Mercedes-Benz Vans, Daimler buses and Daimler Trucks. All have the 3 point star on the front, all one brand, but diffent business units within it.

Not every dealer has the Vans license to sell Sprinter.

[David]

According to this story in AutoWeek Sept 1 2009 MB does have the newly created Daimler Van division based in the same building as MB USA autos. They took back the 350 dealers via Dodge and agreed to have 120 certified MB dealers sell and service the Sprinter line of vans.

 

Quoting the story: "The average dealer would have to invest $30,000 to $50,000 in the Sprinter franchise and put up a sign, dedicate service and sales personnel and purchase some special tools and equipment, said Lieb."

So this validates that MB treats the vans as a separate unit but still as a Luxury division that has built up a reputation, the low end auto's and the van lines dilute and take away the Luxury impression of MB dealerships.

 

Back to the ORIGINAL THREAD, What does CADILLAC mean to you?

 

CADILLAC is a LUXURY dealership, with World Class Service for World Class Quality Auto's that DOES NOT compete in the Commercial van market, DOES NOT compete at a Ford, Chevy, Honda, Mini, Toyota level. 

 

Cadillac only COMPETES in the Luxury market, which is a step above the Acura, Buick, Lincoln, Infinity, Lexus mid level of Luxury. This is the same level that BMW and Mercedes-Benz has competed in until recently with their diluted product lines.

 

At this focus point, Cadillac will in time surpass BMW and MB due to them becoming the Toyota / Chevrolet of Europe.

[smk4565]

Yes, Cadillac will probably surpass BMW and Mercedes any day now.  They have only been trying to accomplish that goal since 1985 with no avail.

[ccap41]

Cadillac just needs more vans to keep up with Mercedes. Vans and box trucks.

 

C'mon Cadillac!!!! GET ON THAT!!!

[balthazar]

Yes, Cadillac will probably surpass BMW and Mercedes any day now.  They have only been trying to accomplish that goal since 1985 with no avail.

Of course, you meant "sales volume", like ANYONE (outside of respective accounting departments) remotely cares.

 

As far as product, there has been very real 'avail' from Cadillac.

[smk4565]

Cadillac doesn't make a sports car, doesn't have a convertible, doesn't have a performance crossover, only has 1 crossover in the line.  There are product holes all over the place.  Cadillac has lagged behind others on diesels or electrics, until they put the ELR out which was a total bust.  Cadillac for the past 10 years has put everything on the CTS-V and the Escalade.  They should have 8 products at that level.

[balthazar]

Cadillac is not a full-line manufacturer, never was.

It's more expansive now than ever, however, and a slew of new models is in the pipeline.

 

You will, accordingly, be thrilled.

[balthazar]

According to this story in AutoWeek Sept 1 2009 MB does have the newly created Daimler Van division based in the same building as MB USA autos.

Regardless of internal, legalese declarations, the consumer at large knows ZERO about this.

The point here is that there is no separate branding for all the vans. There are 3 brands; Smart, MB and Freightliner.

 

All the vans are "mercedes benz" vans, not Freightliner.

Any so-called 'van division' is irrelevant WRT the market. 

[Suaviloquent]

But the point it is Mercedes has a history with building commercial vehicles for fleet customers. Yes, they are that kind of antithetical automaker.

 

Yes, Cadillac should not do it. Is it unfair? NO.

 

Do those vehicles juice MB? I hardly think so. I see no reason why someone would get out of a C-Class to buy a Metris.

 

MB Storefronts are not so pathethic to have an E-Class or GLS SUV right across a Sprinter van.

 

I would say Cadillac completely wants sales volumes. They are pricing themselves like they want to grab market share for the products they want to build up. 

[smk4565]

Cadillac for sure wants volume, they just don't know where to find it.

[balthazar]

But the point it is Mercedes has a history with building commercial vehicles for fleet customers.

That's NOT the point. 

In THIS market (the U.S.- 2nd in importance to Daimler after China), there has been a very specific image of 'luxury vehicle' for the MB badge.

Cadillac is frequently addressed as 'lacking focus' when it is mercedes benz that has products shooting in all sorts of different directions, more and more recently which don't come close to the 'the best or nothing' tagline.

 

MB Storefronts are not so pathethic to have an E-Class or GLS SUV right across a Sprinter van.

Oh they absolutely do. Right up the road from me the MB dealer loves to have anywhere from 6-14 Sprinters on the front row- looks like a Hertz lot.

[Suaviloquent]

It's impossible to compare them like that. Mercedes is managing its brand. Cadillac still can't figure out that having more of better leather and details in an interior is all they are away from an outright win the the large luxury sedan segment.

 

You can't be objective about this statement. "mercedes benz that has products shooting in all sorts of different directions, more and more recently which don't come close to the 'the best or nothing' tagline."

 

The G-Class is a unicorn, it is the best at being what it is. Sprinter vans apparently have the steering feel of a sports sedans according to caranadriver.

 

I'm precisely trying to say do not compare the two brands as two equals.

 

And GM is going for 90% coverage of luxury segment. They're utterly chasing for sales volumes.

[balthazar]

It's impossible to compare them like that. Mercedes is managing its brand. Cadillac still can't figure out that having more of better leather and details in an interior is all they are away from an outright win the the large luxury sedan segment.

 

You can't be objective about this statement. "mercedes benz that has products shooting in all sorts of different directions, more and more recently which don't come close to the 'the best or nothing' tagline."

 

The G-Class is a unicorn, it is the best at being what it is. Sprinter vans apparently have the steering feel of a sports sedans according to caranadriver.

 

I'm precisely trying to say do not compare the two brands as two equals.

 

And GM is going for 90% coverage of luxury segment. They're utterly chasing for sales volumes.

Daimler's 'managing of it's (MB) brand' is to poke into every segment out there, in nothing other than a high speed pursuit of volume.

 

Cadillac is NOT chasing volume. 'GM' of course is chasing volume, but 'Cadillac' is not 'GM'.

Frankly, some of the upcoming Cadillac expansion I am NOT welcoming warmly, as it represents exactly my criticism of mercedes.

 

RE 'brands as equals', they are not on numerous levels, but both are primarily associated with luxury products (well, a number of mercedes' are not), and therefore comparisons can , have and will be made. But I can still leave Cadillac out of it other than to set a context of subjective commentary.

[surreal1272]

 

It's impossible to compare them like that. Mercedes is managing its brand. Cadillac still can't figure out that having more of better leather and details in an interior is all they are away from an outright win the the large luxury sedan segment.

 

You can't be objective about this statement. "mercedes benz that has products shooting in all sorts of different directions, more and more recently which don't come close to the 'the best or nothing' tagline."

 

The G-Class is a unicorn, it is the best at being what it is. Sprinter vans apparently have the steering feel of a sports sedans according to caranadriver.

 

I'm precisely trying to say do not compare the two brands as two equals.

 

And GM is going for 90% coverage of luxury segment. They're utterly chasing for sales volumes.

Daimler's 'managing of it's (MB) brand' is to poke into every segment out there, in nothing other than a high speed pursuit of volume.

 

Cadillac is NOT chasing volume. 'GM' of course is chasing volume, but 'Cadillac' is not 'GM'.

Frankly, some of the upcoming Cadillac expansion I am NOT welcoming warmly, as it represents exactly my criticism of mercedes.

 

RE 'brands as equals', they are not on numerous levels, but both are primarily associated with luxury products (well, a number of mercedes' are not), and therefore comparisons can , have and will be made. But I can still leave Cadillac out of it other than to set a context of subjective commentary.

 

This and I might add that the main person constantly trying to compare everything Cadillac with everything Mercedes Benz is a Mercedes fanboy. Perhaps Suave should direct it at him since he does this at every turn and on every thread by interjecting Mercedes into every damn topic.

[surreal1272]

 

But the point it is Mercedes has a history with building commercial vehicles for fleet customers.

That's NOT the point. 

In THIS market (the U.S.- 2nd in importance to Daimler after China), there has been a very specific image of 'luxury vehicle' for the MB badge.

Cadillac is frequently addressed as 'lacking focus' when it is mercedes benz that has products shooting in all sorts of different directions, more and more recently which don't come close to the 'the best or nothing' tagline.

 

MB Storefronts are not so pathethic to have an E-Class or GLS SUV right across a Sprinter van.

Oh they absolutely do. Right up the road from me the MB dealer loves to have anywhere from 6-14 Sprinters on the front row- looks like a Hertz lot.

 

I will baldy take a picture of the local MB dealership near me in Phoenix that proudly displays their vans out in the form of their lots at times right next to their C and E Class companions. 

 

They are that "pathetic" Suave. 

 

Notice the Vans on the left side of the lot (can't miss them).

 

 

Occasionally they put a silver van at the prominent corner in front of the dealership. 

 

Yes pathetic indeed.

Edited April 26, 2016 by surreal1272

[David]

Sprinter vans apparently have the steering feel of a sports sedans according to car and driver.

I can speak from experience, that Sprinter vans have nothing of the sort of feel you state. Car and Driver needs to get some real drivers as the Sprinters have the same numb feel in handling as any other van out there.

[ccap41]

I would still rather walk around 1 style of work van(Sprinter) than Sparks, Sonics, Cruzes, Trax, City Express, and Express, or any Chevy when shopping for my 60-100k car.

 

Yes, some MB dealers sell work vehicles on their luxury lot but I don't see that as much of an issue as Cadillac selling on the same lot as a whole Chevrolet brand with the bowtie equally large and bold on the building as the Cadillac shield. 

 

While all of us here know damn well that a CTS and ATS are built on a completely different platform(and are very, VERY good vehicles) I bet just being on the same lot gives a lot of ignorant people the idea that a CTS is a dressed up Impala and a dressed up either Cruze or Malibu. Even though the proportions aren't the same AT ALL. There are just A LOT of people who aren't car people that have no clue about any of the stuff we talk about here. I even have "car guys" that I talk to that don't really know that much about the brand new tech that GM/Ford have like the 9 and 10 spd transmissions, for example. or the small turbo engines that both the Fusion and Malibu have. Or that the engine in my Escape is essentially the same engine in the Focus ST slightly detuned(252hp to 240hp - both 270tq)

[ccap41]

 

Sprinter vans apparently have the steering feel of a sports sedans according to car and driver.

I can speak from experience, that Sprinter vans have nothing of the sort of feel you state. Car and Driver needs to get some real drivers as the Sprinters have the same numb feel in handling as any other van out there.

 

They're work vans. Who expects them to spend r&d dollars on "feel". Is it a variable rack where it is easy in a parking lot or driveway and then slow on the interstate? That's about all that needs to be a concern about their steering "feel". ..if you ask me.. 

[David]

 

 

Sprinter vans apparently have the steering feel of a sports sedans according to car and driver.

I can speak from experience, that Sprinter vans have nothing of the sort of feel you state. Car and Driver needs to get some real drivers as the Sprinters have the same numb feel in handling as any other van out there.

 

They're work vans. Who expects them to spend r&d dollars on "feel". Is it a variable rack where it is easy in a parking lot or driveway and then slow on the interstate? That's about all that needs to be a concern about their steering "feel". ..if you ask me.. 

 

Sprinters are just numb to the point of frustration. You be in a lot and the turning radius is terrible, you cannot feel if the auto is at the extreme ends till you hear the power steering pump squeal. Feeling of going down the road is just as numb. The system is tight and does its job, just the feedback sucks as you cannot really tell what it is doing. I expect a more positive response. They isolate you way too much. Like I said Numb.

[surreal1272]

 

Sprinter vans apparently have the steering feel of a sports sedans according to car and driver.

I can speak from experience, that Sprinter vans have nothing of the sort of feel you state. Car and Driver needs to get some real drivers as the Sprinters have the same numb feel in handling as any other van out there.

 

I'll second that. Having driven both a Sprinter van and a Ford Transit van, I can honestly say that I would take the Ford all day, every day. Car and Driver is smoking crack regarding that "steering feel" btw.

[surreal1272]

I would still rather walk around 1 style of work van(Sprinter) than Sparks, Sonics, Cruzes, Trax, City Express, and Express, or any Chevy when shopping for my 60-100k car.

 

Yes, some MB dealers sell work vehicles on their luxury lot but I don't see that as much of an issue as Cadillac selling on the same lot as a whole Chevrolet brand with the bowtie equally large and bold on the building as the Cadillac shield. 

 

While all of us here know damn well that a CTS and ATS are built on a completely different platform(and are very, VERY good vehicles) I bet just being on the same lot gives a lot of ignorant people the idea that a CTS is a dressed up Impala and a dressed up either Cruze or Malibu. Even though the proportions aren't the same AT ALL. There are just A LOT of people who aren't car people that have no clue about any of the stuff we talk about here. I even have "car guys" that I talk to that don't really know that much about the brand new tech that GM/Ford have like the 9 and 10 spd transmissions, for example. or the small turbo engines that both the Fusion and Malibu have. Or that the engine in my Escape is essentially the same engine in the Focus ST slightly detuned(252hp to 240hp - both 270tq)

It is far more common these days for MB to sell this vans like that (alongside the S Class) than it is for GM to share those two lots (Caddy and Chevy), of which they have reduced over the years btw. Not one Cadillac dealership in the Phoenix valley area shares any space with any other GM make.

[David]

 

I would still rather walk around 1 style of work van(Sprinter) than Sparks, Sonics, Cruzes, Trax, City Express, and Express, or any Chevy when shopping for my 60-100k car.

 

Yes, some MB dealers sell work vehicles on their luxury lot but I don't see that as much of an issue as Cadillac selling on the same lot as a whole Chevrolet brand with the bowtie equally large and bold on the building as the Cadillac shield. 

 

While all of us here know damn well that a CTS and ATS are built on a completely different platform(and are very, VERY good vehicles) I bet just being on the same lot gives a lot of ignorant people the idea that a CTS is a dressed up Impala and a dressed up either Cruze or Malibu. Even though the proportions aren't the same AT ALL. There are just A LOT of people who aren't car people that have no clue about any of the stuff we talk about here. I even have "car guys" that I talk to that don't really know that much about the brand new tech that GM/Ford have like the 9 and 10 spd transmissions, for example. or the small turbo engines that both the Fusion and Malibu have. Or that the engine in my Escape is essentially the same engine in the Focus ST slightly detuned(252hp to 240hp - both 270tq)

It is far more common these days for MB to sell this vans like that (alongside the S Class) than it is for GM to share those two lots (Caddy and Chevy), of which they have reduced over the years btw. Not one Cadillac dealership in the Phoenix valley area shares any space with any other GM make.

 

Washington state is down to a single dealer up north that carries all GM product lines in one massive building, but they did post a sing for a new stand alone lot for Cadillac. I suspect that is part of the continued Cadillac is apart from GM strategy. I believe in the next few years all Cadillac dealers will be stand alone.

[ccap41]

^ I hope so. I think that will help the brand more than having the best handling/chassis cars. Image is everything to luxury car buyers. 

[smk4565]

I think the dealership doesn't have a lot to do with someone's decision on what car to buy.  You are going to be in the dealership once, be in the car every day.  On the service end I think the dealership matters more, as you might go there a few times a year, if you get poor service you will look toward independent mechanics, Midas, Jiffy Lube, etc.  

 

You can have the nicest dealership in the world with champagne flowing from the water fountains, but if you don't have the product to sell, it doesn't matter.

[hyperv6]

Here most of our Cadillac dealers are stand alone or joined with Buick. 

Our Benz dealers are with Toyota and BMW is with MIni and VW, 

[surreal1272]

I think the dealership doesn't have a lot to do with someone's decision on what car to buy.  You are going to be in the dealership once, be in the car every day.  On the service end I think the dealership matters more, as you might go there a few times a year, if you get poor service you will look toward independent mechanics, Midas, Jiffy Lube, etc.  

 

You can have the nicest dealership in the world with champagne flowing from the water fountains, but if you don't have the product to sell, it doesn't matter.

Did it hurt when you had to backpedal like that?

 

It absolutely does have everything to do with people's decisions. How many times have we heard here how wrong it was for Cadillac to be sharing floor space with any other GM make? I know you sure took part in that dog pile but now that you have been shown proof of Mercedes showering their luxury filled lots with Sprinter vans, you say it doesn't matter? Seriously LMAO at that one SMK!

 

It does matter.

[Suaviloquent]

 

It's impossible to compare them like that. Mercedes is managing its brand. Cadillac still can't figure out that having more of better leather and details in an interior is all they are away from an outright win the the large luxury sedan segment.

 

You can't be objective about this statement. "mercedes benz that has products shooting in all sorts of different directions, more and more recently which don't come close to the 'the best or nothing' tagline."

 

The G-Class is a unicorn, it is the best at being what it is. Sprinter vans apparently have the steering feel of a sports sedans according to caranadriver.

 

I'm precisely trying to say do not compare the two brands as two equals.

 

And GM is going for 90% coverage of luxury segment. They're utterly chasing for sales volumes.

Daimler's 'managing of it's (MB) brand' is to poke into every segment out there, in nothing other than a high speed pursuit of volume.

 

Cadillac is NOT chasing volume. 'GM' of course is chasing volume, but 'Cadillac' is not 'GM'.

Frankly, some of the upcoming Cadillac expansion I am NOT welcoming warmly, as it represents exactly my criticism of mercedes.

 

RE 'brands as equals', they are not on numerous levels, but both are primarily associated with luxury products (well, a number of mercedes' are not), and therefore comparisons can , have and will be made. But I can still leave Cadillac out of it other than to set a context of subjective commentary.

 

 

So why is that an undesirable strategy? Different strategies work differently for different companies. To poke holes and pursue volume.. Especially when it seems not affect the brand equity, hell, I'd bet it's up for Mercedes.

 

Mercedes has these other products because honestly it needs some kind of dependable meat and potatoes revenues away from luxury segments. They don't make cars, they make transportation equipment. You can't be all luxury. Even the all luxury brands like Bentley and Rolls-Royce are owned by commodity brands, basically.

 

It's perplexing to me as well. I don't know how they can do it. 

 

Cadillac is chasing for volume in luxury car segments. They are. Profitable volume of course. I think they'll do a great job of it too.

 

But I can't help but think, WTF is Cadillac doing otherwise, because you can't have a flagship car so handily under-priced, especially if it's the most advanced body structure. That's something you up-sell, never under sell. Because that forced their hand of cuts where they really hurt - the interiors.

 

Cadillac dealers were breathing FIRE when then Alphas came out and sales nosedived. Honestly it was a great moment. JD did the right thing. ATPs were skyrocketed because pocket prices were much higher. Then they cut the MSRP's, repackaged trims for more standard equipment because they wanted to pursue volume goals once again!

 

And this is another ramble - I'm honestly super surprised how a Cadillac XT5 is even being mentioned as a somewhat better value than a recent Buick for certain items you get standard. Just incredible. 

[Suaviloquent]

 

I think the dealership doesn't have a lot to do with someone's decision on what car to buy.  You are going to be in the dealership once, be in the car every day.  On the service end I think the dealership matters more, as you might go there a few times a year, if you get poor service you will look toward independent mechanics, Midas, Jiffy Lube, etc.  

 

You can have the nicest dealership in the world with champagne flowing from the water fountains, but if you don't have the product to sell, it doesn't matter.

Did it hurt when you had to backpedal like that?

 

It absolutely does have everything to do with people's decisions. How many times have we heard here how wrong it was for Cadillac to be sharing floor space with any other GM make? I know you sure took part in that dog pile but now that you have been shown proof of Mercedes showering their luxury filled lots with Sprinter vans, you say it doesn't matter? Seriously LMAO at that one SMK!

 

It does matter.

 

 

+1 for catching the fish in the bag.

 

I think the only way SMK's logic would work if MB's brand identity accounts for the Sprinter Vans, and customers are not dissuaded by their presence.

 

I think we have to get away from thinking that Mercedes as just a luxury car brand. They have a history with it now. Perhaps Cadillac is only known as a luxury car brand...and golfing...TIME100....

[surreal1272]

^ I hope so. I think that will help the brand more than having the best handling/chassis cars. Image is everything to luxury car buyers. 

Why would anyone possibly down vote that?

 

Sorry, I know that's off the subject. Carry on.

[smk4565]

 

I think the dealership doesn't have a lot to do with someone's decision on what car to buy.  You are going to be in the dealership once, be in the car every day.  On the service end I think the dealership matters more, as you might go there a few times a year, if you get poor service you will look toward independent mechanics, Midas, Jiffy Lube, etc.  

 

You can have the nicest dealership in the world with champagne flowing from the water fountains, but if you don't have the product to sell, it doesn't matter.

Did it hurt when you had to backpedal like that?

 

It absolutely does have everything to do with people's decisions. How many times have we heard here how wrong it was for Cadillac to be sharing floor space with any other GM make? I know you sure took part in that dog pile but now that you have been shown proof of Mercedes showering their luxury filled lots with Sprinter vans, you say it doesn't matter? Seriously LMAO at that one SMK!

 

It does matter.

 

I have never been one on the campaign for super luxury stand alone dealers.  I always thought it was better if Cadillac had their own dealerships so they aren't thought of as just another GM brand and thought of as more special.  But overall you go to the dealer once to buy the car, then you might never go back.

 

I actually think car companies could sell cars online and skip the dealership system altogether.  Amazon could sell cars with better deals and greater efficiency than any dealership could.  

 

From the dealership standpoint, I think knowledge sales people matter more than what the building looks like, and if you are out on a test drive you aren't in the building anyway.  Dealerships aren't Cadillac's problem.

[smk4565]

And to clarify I do think Cadillac should have stand alone dealers, because Lexus, Infiniti, Acura, BMW, Mercedes, Audi for the most part do, and Jaguar/Land Rover often share a dealership.  All the other luxury brands do a stand alone dealer, except maybe Lincoln that combines with Ford a lot, and look where they are.  It is just the cost of doing business in the luxury market, they all have stand alone dealers.

 

That being said, I don't think the dealership is winning buyers.  There is an Acura dealer next to the Mercedes dealership I get my car serviced at.  They could pave the Acura parking lot in gold in give away free lunches, that isn't going to make me want to buy an Acura, because I don't like Acuras.  

 

The stand alone dealer is just an expectation, like if you go to a restaurant you expect the place to be clean, silverware to be clean, the waiter to bring ice water, take the order in a promo manner, etc.  Those are just basic expectations.  But if you like Italian food and don't like seafood you aren't going to Red Lobster because the wall paper is nicer than what Olive Garden has.  

 

The product matters far more than the building.  Cadillac still has a product problem, but their number 1 problem is marketing.  

[Suaviloquent]

I think the real problem is that Cadillac needs organic growth, not buyers looking to get a screaming luxury deal. 

 

I think Cadillac should increase prices across the board every product generation by a fair amount and have the discipline to stay the course.

 

But I think Cadillac can do very well with the new segments they are entering.  However, the CT6 situation perplexes me. Here is a car that I like, that is more advanced than anything out there. Corners were cut though in the interior, which cause it to lose grace and stature as a true flagship. Why not just project crash to fix the interior, make it BETTER than an S-Class and then price it right at the S-Class in TTV6 trim with the same options configured. The most advanced body of any car needs to be dressed as the most advanced car of them all, and priced as it rightfully is a greater car.

 

We are beginning to see the turnaround - and the product is absolutely there overall.

 

But some fronts could be more refined, so to speak. 

[surreal1272]

 

 

I think the dealership doesn't have a lot to do with someone's decision on what car to buy.  You are going to be in the dealership once, be in the car every day.  On the service end I think the dealership matters more, as you might go there a few times a year, if you get poor service you will look toward independent mechanics, Midas, Jiffy Lube, etc.  

 

You can have the nicest dealership in the world with champagne flowing from the water fountains, but if you don't have the product to sell, it doesn't matter.

Did it hurt when you had to backpedal like that?

 

It absolutely does have everything to do with people's decisions. How many times have we heard here how wrong it was for Cadillac to be sharing floor space with any other GM make? I know you sure took part in that dog pile but now that you have been shown proof of Mercedes showering their luxury filled lots with Sprinter vans, you say it doesn't matter? Seriously LMAO at that one SMK!

 

It does matter.

 

I have never been one on the campaign for super luxury stand alone dealers.  I always thought it was better if Cadillac had their own dealerships so they aren't thought of as just another GM brand and thought of as more special.  But overall you go to the dealer once to buy the car, then you might never go back.

 

I actually think car companies could sell cars online and skip the dealership system altogether.  Amazon could sell cars with better deals and greater efficiency than any dealership could.  

 

From the dealership standpoint, I think knowledge sales people matter more than what the building looks like, and if you are out on a test drive you aren't in the building anyway.  Dealerships aren't Cadillac's problem.

 

Even in your reply you contradict yourself. You say no campaign on stand alone dealerships but for some reason single out Cadillac and you continued to do so until your own favorite was called out for intermixing their brands at the same dealerships as well. Hell, It literally photographic proof to show you that for a fact. Then you immediately back track with your previous post. 

 

You cannot continue to make arguments about brand perceptions and then just try to change your stance entirely after being busted on your hypocrisy. Not trying to be a dick here, but that is the simple fact of the matter and I think everyone here just saw it.

 

One last thing. The dealership most certainly does matter. One only needs to study the history of Lexus to see proof of that. Their cars were always sold on the dealership and service experience. To pretend that the dealership doesn't matter is simply ignorant. Sorry but it is and again I think you are only saying this now because you got busted and called out on it.

Edited April 27, 2016 by surreal1272

[surreal1272]

And to clarify I do think Cadillac should have stand alone dealers, because Lexus, Infiniti, Acura, BMW, Mercedes, Audi for the most part do, and Jaguar/Land Rover often share a dealership.  All the other luxury brands do a stand alone dealer, except maybe Lincoln that combines with Ford a lot, and look where they are.  It is just the cost of doing business in the luxury market, they all have stand alone dealers.

 

That being said, I don't think the dealership is winning buyers.  There is an Acura dealer next to the Mercedes dealership I get my car serviced at.  They could pave the Acura parking lot in gold in give away free lunches, that isn't going to make me want to buy an Acura, because I don't like Acuras.  

 

The stand alone dealer is just an expectation, like if you go to a restaurant you expect the place to be clean, silverware to be clean, the waiter to bring ice water, take the order in a promo manner, etc.  Those are just basic expectations.  But if you like Italian food and don't like seafood you aren't going to Red Lobster because the wall paper is nicer than what Olive Garden has.  

 

The product matters far more than the building.  Cadillac still has a product problem, but their number 1 problem is marketing.  

Biggest fallacy and weakest argument ever. The fact that you are using your personal bias (in this case, you don't like Acuras) to prove your point officially kills said point. Your personal preference has not one thing to do with the millions of people who clearly feel differently from you about car preferences. That's like me saying that I would never go to a Fiat dealership because I hate Fiats (and I do). That doesn't mean jack squat and it doesn't mean that their dealerships are not important to potential buyers. 

 

Oh and if a dealership can only get you to come there once (as you put it in your other post), then the dealership and said car are obvious failures. Think about it.

[Suaviloquent]

"We don't want people at our dealerships."

 

"What do you we want, oh overlord sales manager"

 

"We want cars to move off the lot, with people paying us to do it"

[balthazar]

I think the real problem is that Cadillac needs organic growth, not buyers looking to get a screaming luxury deal. 

They why is Cadillac commonly pointed out as having "uncompetitive" (read; not as screamingly cheap) lease rates?

[ccap41]

I think the dealership doesn't have a lot to do with someone's decision on what car to buy.  You are going to be in the dealership once, be in the car every day.  On the service end I think the dealership matters more, as you might go there a few times a year, if you get poor service you will look toward independent mechanics, Midas, Jiffy Lube, etc.  

 

You can have the nicest dealership in the world with champagne flowing from the water fountains, but if you don't have the product to sell, it doesn't matter.

We're talking about luxury cars not Honda, Toyota, Chevy, Ford, or Dodge. 

 

Surreal has already said it but first dealerships are important and "Look how big and nice my Benz dealer is and how well they serve my vehicle and me" and now it's "You buy a car once and are at the dealer once. Dealer experience doesn't mean anything"

 

This is the thing you get hell for. Double standards and being a tool. 

 

And Cadillac definitely DOES have the competing product to match the Germans. Better? Best? Debatable.   But competitive? 100%. 

[smk4565]

Honda and Toyota have stand alone dealers too. (Now that Scion is dead . Most car brands have their own building. It is industry common place. Which is why Cadillac should have stand alone dealers, and most Cadillac dealers are stand alone.

I have always said dealership amenities and customer service are important for the service department because people have a lot of alternatives to take their vehicle to for service.

I don't think the dealership plays a big role in the sales decision. If ABC Lexus has the nicest building in the world and XYZ Lexus 40 minutes away is mediocre but has that RX350 in the color you want for $2,000 less than ABC dealership has it, guess what, the customer is driving for the better deal, and the building didn't matter.

An awful dealership can hurt sales, but I think for the most part dealerships are all about the same and aren't winning sales.

[smk4565]

Cadillac doesn't have the competing product. They don't make a small crossover which is the #1 growth segment in the auto industry, I think at 17% growth last year.

Cadillac doesn't make a convertible, if you want a convertible you can't even consider the brand, lost sales on a high margin vehicle.

The product line has holes and has had holes for 10-15 years. ATS is also getting clobbered, Lexus IS and the German 3 outsell it, Acura TLX and Lincoln MKZ outsell it but they are bigger cars, not a direct competitor.

Edited April 27, 2016 by smk4565

[surreal1272]

Honda and Toyota have stand alone dealers too. (Now that Scion is dead . Most car brands have their own building. It is industry common place. Which is why Cadillac should have stand alone dealers, and most Cadillac dealers are stand alone.

I have always said dealership amenities and customer service are important for the service department because people have a lot of alternatives to take their vehicle to for service.

I don't think the dealership plays a big role in the sales decision. If ABC Lexus has the nicest building in the world and XYZ Lexus 40 minutes away is mediocre but has that RX350 in the color you want for $2,000 less than ABC dealership has it, guess what, the customer is driving for the better deal, and the building didn't matter.

An awful dealership can hurt sales, but I think for the most part dealerships are all about the same and aren't winning sales.

But it doesn't work like that because everyone already knows that the Lexus dealership experience was and still is a big key to their success. To dismiss that is just reaffirming your ignorance on the matter for reasons already discussed.

Simply baffling your failure here although honestly not surprising given how blindly you defended Benz while attacking Cadillac until you got called out on it.

[surreal1272]

Nevermind.

Edited April 27, 2016 by surreal1272

[ccap41]

Honda and Toyota have stand alone dealers too. (Now that Scion is dead . Most car brands have their own building. It is industry common place. Which is why Cadillac should have stand alone dealers, and most Cadillac dealers are stand alone.

I have always said dealership amenities and customer service are important for the service department because people have a lot of alternatives to take their vehicle to for service.

I don't think the dealership plays a big role in the sales decision. If ABC Lexus has the nicest building in the world and XYZ Lexus 40 minutes away is mediocre but has that RX350 in the color you want for $2,000 less than ABC dealership has it, guess what, the customer is driving for the better deal, and the building didn't matter.

An awful dealership can hurt sales, but I think for the most part dealerships are all about the same and aren't winning sales.

You can't compare one dealership throwing a sale on X vehicle to another that isn't. That's ridiculous that you'd think that's a fair comparison.

 

If all things being equal(in this example we're saying both products are the same) the customer will every single time go towards the dealer with the best service, nicest people, and cleanest building. Duh. I'm actually not even sure how one can argue that.