Review: 2017 Cadillac CT6 Platinum 3.0TT

[Drew Dowdell]

1 minute ago, smk4565 said:

Mercedes sold 280,000 cars in 1970, granted that was their global volume, but most of that was Europe.  I know Japan and European counties are mostly closed off, but if Cadillac could have tried it before the Germans and Japanese really got going.  They could have done a lot of things, but the past is the past.

The problem now is Cadillac has half a line up, and they have had this problem since the 90s.  Too many over lapping sedans, no real high end car, not enough body styles, etc.  Not enough crossovers and the crossover fad started 15 years ago.  And GM and Johan don't seem to be in any hurry to fix the problems.

Again. Closed markets with a nationalistic populous. 

The volume of Benz sales that you cite was largely the W114/W115 models. They were "powered" by 2.4 liter 6 cylinder engines that made 146hp. The interiors were barely Pontiac level.

W114

1967 Grand Prix

1967 Riviera

[Drew Dowdell]

13 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

True, and maybe if some of them tried to go global, those brands wouldn't be out of business or close to it in the case of Chrysler.  Citroen, Alfa Romeo, Maserati, Lancia, etc either didn't make an effort to come to the US, or made a really weak one.  They are all also ran brands now.  Mercedes and BMW made the push, Lexus made a big push, and they are on top today.

You apparently have no concept of the difference of the economic power between the US and Europe or Japan after the war. 

There is a huge difference in exporting from war torn Europe or Japan to the US verse the US exporting top tier luxury vehicles to countries that have bread lines and closed markets. Japan's market is still largely closed.

[oldshurst442]

Post-war Europe was left a disaster...

In reality...most RURAL Europeans rode these well into the 1970s...

 

In the cities...it was not all about the donkey, but in the 1950s and early 1960s, most people did not own that W114 Mercedes.

He will big time disappointed to know the reality of post-war Europe.

He does have one clue though, he keeps on mentioning it....

The displacement tax...

He should google what engines those cars came in....and he just might realize that Mercedes Benz wasnt selling that many W114s anyhow....'twas SMALLER Mercedes cars...

PS: a 2.4 liter engine in Greece is STILL humongous displacement, so NO! 

Cars for the regualar Joes in Europe well into the 1990s all have displacement of 1.9 liters or LESS!!!

sold from 1935-1942

then from 1946-1955 

The engine offered will only embarrass him further....

1955-1962

1.8 and 1.9 liter 4 pots in either gas or diesel

 

And these were for the better salaried folk of Europe...NOT MUCH TO TALK ABOUT, HUH?

Citroen 2CVs and Morris Minors and Opel Kadetts were the cars that really sold

Opel Kadett sold from 1962-1965

Kadett 1965-1973

 

I was born in Montreal in 1973, but I visited Greece in 1974(baptized), in 1977 and in 1979.

I remember 1977 as a dream, but I do have vivid memories and in 1979 is crystal clear to me.

If anything, I could equate to 1970s Greece as 1950s or 1960s Europe...because THAT is how it was...

And how was that?

Well...it does not take a genius to figure out how poor Europe was AFTER the war!!!

[oldshurst442]

The REAL BMW of the 1960s

THIS is the car that kept the lights on at BMW

 

THAT was the state of LUXURY in Europe and THAT is why Cadillac did NOT go to Europe!

 

This is what they also sold at this time

 

Elvis bought one!

But it was AMERICAN MONEY that bought that! Not European money!

He also had...plenty of CADILLACS!

Not too bad lookin. Sexy Id say!

But nowhere near the technology that American cars had!

 

ONLY the Gullwing had state of the art tech!

But the top American cars all had access to that tech and was offered as options before the decade was up before 1960...

The Vette itself offered the same tech as the Gullwing the year after with Fuel Injection and the like!!!

Edited June 4, 2017 by oldshurst442

[balthazar]

2 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Right, but they could have built more factories.

They are running at mid-60s numbers, and well below what they sold in the 70s.

You seem to be perpetually under the impression that Cadillac exists to serve YOUR WHIMS.  Would it shock you to learn they do not?
Cadillac CHOSE not to build another factory, in that the growth was steady enough, they enlarged over time to accommodate, and obviously they did that. But their '70s volume was really too high, traditionally.

 

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

Citroen, Alfa Romeo, Maserati, Lancia, etc either didn't make an effort to come to the US, or made a really weak one. 
Mercedes and BMW made the push, Lexus made a big push, and they are on top today.

But what would you rather drive; a lexus or a Maserati??

[Cmicasa the Great]

17 hours ago, smk4565 said:

1) Personal attacks aside, the point was brought up that Mercedes build terrible cars in the 50s, 60s and 70s.  While Cadillac was the gold standard.  So if that were true, why didn't Cadillac go into Europe or Japan to sell cars?  If Cadillac was go great they could have gone into either market.  But I think the German and Japanese cars of the 60s and 70s were better made than most realize, and it is why those 2 countries took over a big chunk of the American market in the 80s, 90s and all the way up until today.  

2) Even now, all these millionaires and billionaires in the USA that want to spend $200,000+ on a car, where are the American car companies to sell them a car?  Mercedes, Ferrari, Aston Martin, Bentley, Rolls-Royce, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Porsche are all eager to do it, Cadillac and Lincoln, and even Tesla are no where to be found.  That isn't the consumer's fault for buying an import when it is their only option.  If you want a luxury car convertible, America doesn't even make one!  How is that possible?  

3) The US isn't full of blind fools, it is full of people that seek the best product, especially in the luxury market.   As far as national pride goes, Year-to-Date Mercedes has sold 70,311 American made cars in the USA, while Cadillac has sold 59,493.  And this even with the XT5 made in the USA, because the SRX was made in Mexico, which would really drag Cadillac's American car production down.   But I didn't hear Cadillac fans complaining about it, in fact many said it was good for America to make Cadillacs in Mexico so GM would get more profit. 

1) That wasn't a personal attack.. it was a simple request and desire for U to leave the United States of America and go live where U hold so dear. As to the car situation I'll quote myself once more.. "Maybe they just didn't see the need or profitability of large scale production of Cadillacs in a region that was so heavily entrenched in loyal supporting of home brands. Its still evident.. Europe is a closed market that has makers who are only really profitable because of their outside sales and Union+Gov't manipulation." 

Add that to what Drew said about the war being still fresh in people's minds as much of the continent was devastated.. France having been occupied, Germany torn apart, literally, Great Brit blown to shreds.. Who the fuck was going to buy a brand new Cadillac.. imported and taxed to the hilt... Oh.. I think U probably forget that the Allies.. and the Nazis.. blew manufacturing plants up.. so what was left was used to employ Europeans.. who wanted to buy European

As per my recollection.. European cars were shit.. and not made good at all. Especially in the 70s and 80s. Japanese cars were no different. Fact of the matter is that the Japanese, specifically, gained a foothold in the U.S. not because of reliability.. but fuel efficiency. That Fuel efficiency wasn't even because the cars were more techno advanced.. but literally smaller.. and housed smaller engines. 

2) In recovery mode Cadillac's line-up is being built back up to serve individuals with those desires. 

3) What I find ridiculous is that U state sales "Year-to-Date Mercedes has sold 70,311 American made cars in the USA (132,966 actual), while Cadillac has sold 59,493" but continue to neglect to point out that Mercedes has a line-up that is comprised of 5 Sedans/wagons, 6 Coupes, 7 SUV/CUVs, 5 Convertibles/Roadsters, and 4 Hybrids. While Cadillac has 3 SUV/CUVs, 4 Sedans, 1 Coupe, and 1 Hybrid, and has been matching them in ATPs. Personally I find Benz's sales performance here troubling and pathetic. I have to say.. if sales were the only thing that JDN was seeking then adding a barrage of essentially Buick class vehicles, emulating Benz.. would be all he needs. I would say that Cadillac sales would easily be a 80K at this point.. 

[smk4565]

Everyone keeps saying "after the war" I am talking about going into Europe in the 70's, 30 years after the war.  Ford went into Europe and grew and made money, Nissan has a decent European business.   If Cadillac had a global appealing car in the 70s or 80s, they might have also fended off the attack better at home.  But that is all history.

Mercedes sold 70,311 vehicles MADE in the USA, that is only C-class, GLE and GLS.  3 models outselling Cadillac's whole line up, and the GLS is only Mercedes 5th or 6th best selling model.  Acura outsells Cadillac with fewer models.

And some of this goes back to my same point.  Why does Cadillac have such a thin model line up?  Why didn't they push higher up market sooner and why aren't they doing it now?  They are 7th place in the American market right now. Luxury brands drive profit, without that profit it takes money away from GM being able to develop autonomous cars, and new products.  Makes them less competitive over time.  FCA is classic example, no luxury high margin, high volume profits, no money.  Uncompetitive product.  Ford is struggling with this now too, probably one reason Fields got fired, their stock price has been tanking since Mulally left.

[Cmicasa the Great]

4 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Everyone keeps saying "after the war" I am talking about going into Europe in the 70's, 30 years after the war.  Ford went into Europe and grew and made money, Nissan has a decent European business.   If Cadillac had a global appealing car in the 70s or 80s, they might have also fended off the attack better at home.  But that is all history.

Mercedes sold 70,311 vehicles MADE in the USA, that is only C-class, GLE and GLS.  3 models outselling Cadillac's whole line up, and the GLS is only Mercedes 5th or 6th best selling model.  Acura outsells Cadillac with fewer models.

And some of this goes back to my same point.  Why does Cadillac have such a thin model line up?  Why didn't they push higher up market sooner and why aren't they doing it now?  They are 7th place in the American market right now. Luxury brands drive profit, without that profit it takes money away from GM being able to develop autonomous cars, and new products.  Makes them less competitive over time.  FCA is classic example, no luxury high margin, high volume profits, no money.  Uncompetitive product.  Ford is struggling with this now too, probably one reason Fields got fired, their stock price has been tanking since Mulally left.

First.. part of the reason why Hitler rose to power because of German hate of foreign powers meddling in their affairs.. specifically when labor/corporations were concerned, thus his ascension in the National Socialist German Workers, aka NAZI. 

And back to your point.. Acura does not sell vehicle in the same price range as Cadillac, with ATPS usually being about $10K different, not to mention their vehicles are primarily positioned against Buick and Lincoln. Also in reality Acura and Cadillac currently are selling 6 name plates each. Furthermore GM has 3 luxury brands.. all profit makers. Cadillac, Buick and GMC with the Denali brand

[balthazar]

19 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Why does Cadillac have such a thin model line up?  Why didn't they push higher up market sooner and why aren't they doing it now?  They are 7th place in the American market right now. Luxury brands drive profit, without that profit it takes money away from GM being able to develop autonomous cars, and new products.  Makes them less competitive over time.  FCA is classic example, no luxury high margin, high volume profits, no money.  Uncompetitive product.  Ford is struggling with this now too, probably one reason Fields got fired, their stock price has been tanking since Mulally left.

• Why do some other luxury brands have "thin" line-ups? Do you believe every brand wishes/wants to have 65 models??
• "without that profit" - who in an official capacity has even hinted there is no profit?? Cadillac is likely the spearhead of profit at General Motors- who made $9.6B last year. Aren't you going to admit Cadillac is (apparently) hugely profitable?
• "autonomous cars" - please!
• "FCA" - tho they only made a piddling $100M profit in 2015, 2016 profit was $1.8B- that's a huge jump back from the brink. No doubt Jeep & Ram are a huge shot in the arm. They also have Maserati as a high margin luxury brand, tho I never see it pushed marketing-wise (I do see their cars regularly on the road tho). You've also blathered on about Alfa offering the 505HP SUV, assumedly you feel that's a major piece. The problem @ FCA catalog-wise is Fiat/Alfa, who have poor global perceptions, and Chrysler, which is being vastly under-utlized. Then there's Sergio....

[Cmicasa the Great]

^^^ Exactly. Back in 2016 it was published "Last year, Cadillac sold almost 278,000 vehicles worldwide. Because the average transaction price for a Cadillac in the U.S. market reportedly is $53,000, that means the brand generated about $15 billion in revenue for GM."

[oldshurst442]

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

Everyone keeps saying "after the war" I am talking about going into Europe in the 70's, 30 years after the war.

Now...seeing your failed attempt to make it seem that Mercedes-Benz was a luxury car maker in the 1950s and 1960s...(at least you have moved on from that!!!)...you are trying to make it seem that Mercedes-Benz has high almighty in the 1970s...(yes Mercedes was starting to role but as a MAINSTREAM car maker with a couple of high rollin' models!)

I tolod you...I visited Greece thrice in the 1970s...the one time I was 1 years old...but the other two times I remember quite well...

The mechanicals of the W123 was sturdy like a tank...the interior left much to be desired...both in taxis and in civilian hands...why?

Europeans were POOR!

WE Americans were LAVISH!

WE were the ones to bask in the luxury!

Hence why ours cars were the way they were in the 1950s, 1960s and the 1970s...

And hence why European cars were SPARTAN...

Maybe you should start adding things up in your head and come to the proper conclusion!

 

 

THAT is what you literally saw...plus many in civilian hands too!

I rode in both taxis and civilian models both in 1977, 1979 AND in 1985 and 1987...because I went to Greece in 1985 and 1987...and trust me...the W123 was nowhere near being luxurious!

My dad's 1979 Chevrolet Impala was VERY comparable...interior quality...actually...WORSE than my dad's 1979 Impala!!!

 

In the good 'ole USA...we got the luxury side of Mercedes Benz...but even in the 1980s...Mercedes Benz was BEHIND in luxury and in sales to Cadillac!

Perception was changing...but 'twas the JAPANESE that headed THAT attack! Not Mercedes Benz!!!

I don't know how you got this idea that Mercedes Benz was high and  mighty in the lux department after the war....but we are 4 guys trying to school you...please listen!

Drew mentioned that Europe was war torn.

Casa said that both Allied and Axis forces bombed the shyte out of ALL European factories.

Balthy said that Europeans were too poor to buy Luxury cars and that Europeans are too nationalistic to buy fporeign makes...Drew and Casa also said that.

I POSTED pics...I gave you anecdotes of MY personal experiences...

The truth is there for you to acknowledge!

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2017 by oldshurst442

[oldshurst442]

The 1990s is where Mercedes got its real wind!'

That is the car that started it...

Before that...

Beverley Hills trophy wives drove these around...

Yeah...they were lusted after...but really, this model was sold in the 1970s all the way to 1989...

in the 1970s...THIS was TRAILING IN EVERY ASPECT ANY CADILLAC CAR in terms of tech, luxury AND desire!

 

[smk4565]

1 hour ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

^^^ Exactly. Back in 2016 it was published "Last year, Cadillac sold almost 278,000 vehicles worldwide. Because the average transaction price for a Cadillac in the U.S. market reportedly is $53,000, that means the brand generated about $15 billion in revenue for GM."

Audi did 50 billion euro in revenue in 2016.  That is about $55 billion.  And they are the #3 luxury car maker.  Porsche made $4.1 billion in profit just by itself last year.  

[balthazar]

Audi did $3B in 'operating profit' in 2016 on 1.9 million vehicles. That's only $1578 profit per vehicle by the math. Hard to believe on numerous levels, but 720K of their volume was the entry level A3 & A4s, and the A8 is down to 200 units/month (in the U.S.).

We don't know what the operating profit portion of GM's $9B profit is attributable to Cadillac on 277K vehicles.

Edited June 4, 2017 by balthazar

[smk4565]

2 hours ago, balthazar said:

Audi did $3B in 'operating profit' in 2016 on 1.9 million vehicles. That's only $1578 profit per vehicle by the math. Hard to believe on numerous levels, but 720K of their volume was the entry level A3 & A4s, and the A8 is down to 200 units/month (in the U.S.).

We don't know what the operating profit portion of GM's $9B profit is attributable to Cadillac on 277K vehicles.

Because GM would never break it out, so that they protect the divisions.  Even back in the day, they didn't want to admit that certain brands, like Saturn, were total money losers.  GM doesn't want Cadillac's numbers or GMC's numbers out there because then shareholders could raise questions about the strategy with certain brands.  

[balthazar]

Possibly, but they were never released EVER, even when GM was pulling down 50% plus of the market and EVERY Division was making money hand over fist. So your implied theory that GM today is "protecting" Cadillac because they "make no money" doesn't hold water, does it?

[Drew Dowdell]

9 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Everyone keeps saying "after the war" I am talking about going into Europe in the 70's, 30 years after the war.  Ford went into Europe and grew and made money, Nissan has a decent European business.   If Cadillac had a global appealing car in the 70s or 80s, they might have also fended off the attack better at home.  But that is all history.

Mercedes sold 70,311 vehicles MADE in the USA, that is only C-class, GLE and GLS.  3 models outselling Cadillac's whole line up, and the GLS is only Mercedes 5th or 6th best selling model.  Acura outsells Cadillac with fewer models.

And some of this goes back to my same point.  Why does Cadillac have such a thin model line up?  Why didn't they push higher up market sooner and why aren't they doing it now?  They are 7th place in the American market right now. Luxury brands drive profit, without that profit it takes money away from GM being able to develop autonomous cars, and new products.  Makes them less competitive over time.  FCA is classic example, no luxury high margin, high volume profits, no money.  Uncompetitive product.  Ford is struggling with this now too, probably one reason Fields got fired, their stock price has been tanking since Mulally left.

Ford largely didn't import any products to Europe. They had a known brand there and largely operated as a separate entity well into even the 1990s and 2000s.  Ford was also producing for Europe what we would charitably call "sh!tboxes" in the US. You'll note that they didn't bother producing Lincolns or an equivalent there either... and that was with their status as a well accepted "import".  

SMK, you simply have to understand that until very very recently, European automotive tastes were vastly different.  That is still largely true today except that the size differential is closing slightly.  In the US, cars the size of the Fiesta and Sonic Hatch are not very popular.  In the EU, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a car of that size class.  A standard size family car is a Focus. Cars the size of the Fusion/Mondeo are considered full size. Contrast that with the US where the XT5 is considered a smaller mid-size crossover and the glut of the market is larger than that. 

There simply wasn't a market for Cadillacs in Europe based on what Cadillac has been building for the past 90 years. There was no point to a factory on the continent for that small volume of cars while shipping and import taxes were too steep to make the process worthwhile.  Again, a situation that is largely unchanged. 

[Drew Dowdell]

2 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Because GM would never break it out, so that they protect the divisions.  Even back in the day, they didn't want to admit that certain brands, like Saturn, were total money losers.  GM doesn't want Cadillac's numbers or GMC's numbers out there because then shareholders could raise questions about the strategy with certain brands.  

GMC prints money for GM.  

Cadillac is more profitable than you give them credit for and is a larger chunk of GM's profits than their volume suggests. This is even more true lately with Cadillac distancing themselves from the loss leader $299 a month lease specials that Benz is chasing after and sticking to their guns as much as possible on incentives (there is a certain level of incentives expected in every segment... people expect a $3,000 rebate on a car even if the price is artificially $3k higher)

GM builds the Cruze because they have to. They build the ATS because they make money doing it. 

[smk4565]

Cadillac could have made a smaller car that would have worked in Europe.  After the Cimarron disaster, they went until 2013 or so with the ATS before they made a small car.  How many million 3-series sold in that time.   No small crossover, missed opportunity, no 3 row crossover, missed opportunity.  It just goes to the theme of always being behind the curve.  

[balthazar]

^ See the post 2 above yours. Cadillac was not building even mid-sized cars ("full-size" in today's parlance) in the '60s & '70s until the '76 Seville (204"). Hell, look up GM's small cars in the '70s and find something you think would have made good bones even against the dregs the Euros were building. That's not 'behind the curve', it's just the way the brand was.

Look at Mercedes- it took them 35 years to get a competitive large car going in this country. "Behind the curve" there?

Edited June 5, 2017 by balthazar

[Drew Dowdell]

51 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Cadillac could have made a smaller car that would have worked in Europe.  After the Cimarron disaster, they went until 2013 or so with the ATS before they made a small car.  How many million 3-series sold in that time.   No small crossover, missed opportunity, no 3 row crossover, missed opportunity.  It just goes to the theme of always being behind the curve.  

The 3-series succeeded here on the pretense that "Euro" = "Better"... a subset of the pretense that "Import" = "better". 80's 3-series are absolutely NOT luxury cars... not by today's standards and not by the standards of 1983. A 1983 3-series was a decent handling VW Jetta. Aside from their Jetta level interior, they would also return to their Eisenoxid roots at an alarming pace.   But they were expensive and handled decent... so whatever the '80s equivalent of a rich hipster is bought them. 

They were significantly, not luxury, just pretense.   If you want a modern example... the CLA should fit the bill. 

[A Horse With No Name]

4 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The 3-series succeeded here on the pretense that "Euro" = "Better"... a subset of the pretense that "Import" = "better". 80's 3-series are absolutely NOT luxury cars... not by today's standards and not by the standards of 1983. A 1983 3-series was a decent handling VW Jetta. Aside from their Jetta level interior, they would also return to their Eisenoxid roots at an alarming pace.   But they were expensive and handled decent... so whatever the '80s equivalent of a rich hipster is bought them. 

They were significantly, not luxury, just pretense.   If you want a modern example... the CLA should fit the bill. 

The CLA is uncomfortably close to the Cruze. If anything, BMW has devolved.  The 1980s BMW cars were a hoot to drive and decently built. Modern BMW cars have lost their way in almost every way.

[Drew Dowdell]

1983 BMW 320i

1982 Cadillac Cimerron

Cadillac wasn't even behind the curve here on Luxury. Even the Cimarron had a better interior than the 320. Handling was another matter, but in terms of being an actual luxury car, the Cimarron was there with the Germans. 

[A Horse With No Name]

I belong to car clubs where few if any members own domestic cars.  I am again baffled by the need of some people to trash talk domestic car makers.

Just now, Drew Dowdell said:

1983 BMW 320i

1982 Cadillac Cimerron

Cadillac wasn't even behind the curve here on Luxury. Even the Cimarron had a better interior than the 320. Handling was another matter, but in terms of being an actual luxury car, the Cimarron was there with the Germans. 

And once again GM has moved forward while BMW has lost that which makes it unique. ATS now has much better chassis tuning than most BMW product.

Let's also remember that GM had a much broader product range than any of it's competition for decades.

[A Horse With No Name]

Not just cars but diesel locomotives and refrigerators also...

Going back to my thought on car clubs...none of my import loving friends trash talks domestic cars.  Why does SMK?  It almost seems like he has some sort of self hatred for himself as an American.

[Cmicasa the Great]

I have to interject and say that Cadillac did sell for a time a Saab based BLS before the ATS arrived. 

[A Horse With No Name]

1 minute ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

I have to interject and say that Cadillac did sell for a time a Saab based BLS before the ATS arrived. 

True but a relatively obscure car.

[smk4565]

I am not trash talking American cars I am being realistic and pointing out the current problems Cadillac has.  I thought in the mid 2000s that the CTS needed to shink to 3-series size and the STS needed to be smaller and more nimble to match the Germans.  I have said since the Sixteen concept in 2003 that they need a flagship sedan.  I have wanted a Cadillac sports car above Corvette for a decade, I want an Eldorado grand torturing coupe/convertible that would be a perfect competitor to the Lexus LC500.

My complaint is Cadillac won't challenge the world's best.   They are complacent now just as they were in the 80s, they are limited by the GM parts bin and the GM bean counters.  Sigma was supposed to be the start of the renaissance and they are further behind the leaders now than they were in 2005.

[smk4565]

1 hour ago, A Horse With No Name said:

The CLA is uncomfortably close to the Cruze. If anything, BMW has devolved.  The 1980s BMW cars were a hoot to drive and decently built. Modern BMW cars have lost their way in almost every way.

BMW has lost their way, their cars for too big and heavy and they lost that E39 magic.  I think they could find that again, they still have a good image and loyal fan base, they might just be in a slump that could turn around with the 8-series and X7.

The CLA is like $15,000 more than a Cruze and in top trim the CLA does 0-60 in 4.1 seconds those two cars aren't even close.

[balthazar]

An 8-series will just be a more expensive/poorer value 6-series, which was just axed because "no one bought one". It's a predestined flop. BMW has watched it's cars volume fall for the better part of 2 years now, they couldn't find whatever "magic" their fan base thinks they had with GPS.

[A Horse With No Name]

8 hours ago, balthazar said:

An 8-series will just be a more expensive/poorer value 6-series, which was just axed because "no one bought one". It's a predestined flop. BMW has watched it's cars volume fall for the better part of 2 years now, they couldn't find whatever "magic" their fan base thinks they had with GPS.

BMW currently couldn't find their ass with both hands if their ass was on fire. And since MINI is owned by BMW, you are hearing this from a current BMW product owner...

8 hours ago, smk4565 said:

I am not trash talking American cars I am being realistic

But you never see anything good in them or say anything nice about them.  there are American, European and Asian cars I love, American, European, and Asian cars I hate...my criteria is not always rational, but I am not automatically throwing the cars built on one continent under the bus just because they are built on above mentioned continent.

8 hours ago, smk4565 said:

The CLA is like $15,000 more than a Cruze and in top trim the CLA does 0-60 in 4.1 seconds those two cars aren't even close.

The CLA feels incredibly cheap and under built...it's far too close to the Cruze for comfort.

[David]

23 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Everyone keeps saying "after the war" I am talking about going into Europe in the 70's, 30 years after the war.  Ford went into Europe and grew and made money, Nissan has a decent European business.   If Cadillac had a global appealing car in the 70s or 80s, they might have also fended off the attack better at home.  But that is all history.

Mercedes sold 70,311 vehicles MADE in the USA, that is only C-class, GLE and GLS.  3 models outselling Cadillac's whole line up, and the GLS is only Mercedes 5th or 6th best selling model.  Acura outsells Cadillac with fewer models.

And some of this goes back to my same point.  Why does Cadillac have such a thin model line up?  Why didn't they push higher up market sooner and why aren't they doing it now?  They are 7th place in the American market right now. Luxury brands drive profit, without that profit it takes money away from GM being able to develop autonomous cars, and new products.  Makes them less competitive over time.  FCA is classic example, no luxury high margin, high volume profits, no money.  Uncompetitive product.  Ford is struggling with this now too, probably one reason Fields got fired, their stock price has been tanking since Mulally left.

Your MADE IN AMERICA MB auto's are not that Made in America as you think.

https://kogodnow.com/autoindex/

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/04/21/the-truth-about-american-made-vehicles.aspx

Plenty more stories that cover American Made and the differences between Assembled in America and Made in America.

Remember, Profits go home to Germany, engineering is pretty much all done in Germany for the MB product line up. End result is when you look at the bigger picture. MB does little for this country in comparison to companies headquartered here, Engineering here and building here.

[David]

10 hours ago, smk4565 said:

My complaint is Cadillac won't challenge the world's best.   They are complacent now just as they were in the 80s, they are limited by the GM parts bin and the GM bean counters.  Sigma was supposed to be the start of the renaissance and they are further behind the leaders now than they were in 2005.

Complacent could be said about Benze. 

Looking from the street level of my local MB dealership.

https://www.bing.com/maps?&ty=18&q=Mercedes-Benz of Lynnwood Lynnwood WA&ss=ypid.YN925x15766918&ppois=47.8377494812012_-122.301597595215_Mercedes-Benz of Lynnwood_YN925x15766918~&cp=47.837749~-122.301598&v=2&sV=1

I see a ton of Commercial vans, a bunch of used auto's and very few actual new MB auto's. One could say they are just as complacent.

My local Cadillac dealership.

https://www.bing.com/maps?q=doug's+northwest+cadillac&mkt=en&FORM=HDRSC4

I see more Cadillacs than MB auto's on Display and nothing commercial unlike MB.

[A Horse With No Name]

42 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Your MADE IN AMERICA MB auto's are not that Made in America as you think.

https://kogodnow.com/autoindex/

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/04/21/the-truth-about-american-made-vehicles.aspx

Plenty more stories that cover American Made and the differences between Assembled in America and Made in America.

Remember, Profits go home to Germany, engineering is pretty much all done in Germany for the MB product line up. End result is when you look at the bigger picture. MB does little for this country in comparison to companies headquartered here, Engineering here and building here.

Agreed, Honda is much more "American" than M-B...

33 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Complacent could be said about Benze. 

Looking from the street level of my local MB dealership.

https://www.bing.com/maps?&ty=18&q=Mercedes-Benz of Lynnwood Lynnwood WA&ss=ypid.YN925x15766918&ppois=47.8377494812012_-122.301597595215_Mercedes-Benz of Lynnwood_YN925x15766918~&cp=47.837749~-122.301598&v=2&sV=1

I see a ton of Commercial vans, a bunch of used auto's and very few actual new MB auto's. One could say they are just as complacent.

My local Cadillac dealership.

https://www.bing.com/maps?q=doug's+northwest+cadillac&mkt=en&FORM=HDRSC4

I see more Cadillacs than MB auto's on Display and nothing commercial unlike MB.

I do like my local Cadillac dealers more than my local M-B dealers.

[Cmicasa the Great]

Can we all just agree that Mercedes is no longer the direction of where a luxury car maker should be going.. and over the last few years it really has watered down its line-up to the point that it is now competing with Chevy as much as Buick and Cadillac? The consumer isn't completely in-the-kno on that yet.. but its is slowly changing. The more CLA and GLAs.. base E-Classes put out.. the more watered down the brand becomes and people are getting wind. 

come on.. this is Chevy 1LT at best

If Cadillac has learned anything from 2013-2017 it should be that even if U build a world class core duo of cars, they aren't going to sell like they would if they were core duo (or trio) of CUVs. I would elect to keep the CT3, CT5, CT6, and still simply add a Coupe version of each to cover the EVEN numbering, with at least a convertible on the CT3. Those models would be obviously more expensive and I see a CT8 as a fleshed out V8 and EV.. 4 inches longer L version of the redesigned CT6 Platinum to push it past the S-Class in length. CUVs (XT4, XT5, and XT7[Omega]) along with the Escalade Duo (which are essentially your XT8 and 9) would round out the line-up and put Cadillac in the sales numbers it was looking towards by 2020 (500K). For the sake of Profitability GM would be wise to do this along with expanding on its Denali line in terms of niche buyers looking for better alternatives to Jeep.

[Drew Dowdell]

12 hours ago, smk4565 said:

BMW has lost their way, their cars for too big and heavy and they lost that E39 magic.  I think they could find that again, they still have a good image and loyal fan base, they might just be in a slump that could turn around with the 8-series and X7.

The CLA is like $15,000 more than a Cruze and in top trim the CLA does 0-60 in 4.1 seconds those two cars aren't even close.

Putting a big engine into a small package isn't all that big a deal... GM started the practice 50+ years ago depending on which vehicle you want to count.  The vast majority of CLAs sold do 0-60 in 6.4~ seconds. A Saturn Ion Red-line could do better than that 13 years ago with a base price of $20k.  

The AMG CLA 45 base price is $50k. I can think of lots of better ways to spend $50k than a sub-compact sedan that goes to 60 in 4.2 seconds yet doesn't even come with Leather, AndroidAuto/CarPlay, NAV, XM Radio, Auto Dimming Mirror, or Heated Seats. (Minimum total MSRP to add all those options = $57,825 )

 

[Drew Dowdell]

14 hours ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

I have to interject and say that Cadillac did sell for a time a Saab based BLS before the ATS arrived. 

Cadillac also sold the Catera in the US.  Again, reliability issues owing to the US getting the worst engine option in the GM lineup at the time (See what happens when you insist on DOHC instead of what actually performs well @smk4565?), it was actually a very good vehicle.  The Australians had the right idea and put the 3800 and 3800 S/C in them instead and they were fine.  It had the same wheelbase as the 3-series, but had a larger trunk and front overhang allowing for a slightly larger interior.  It did compete in the same price class as the 3-series.

The Omega which the Catera is based on is still a well regarded cult car in Germany.

[A Horse With No Name]

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Putting a big engine into a small package isn't all that big a deal... GM started the practice 50+ years ago depending on which vehicle you want to count.  The vast majority of CLAs sold do 0-60 in 6.4~ seconds. A Saturn Ion Red-line could do better than that 13 years ago with a base price of $20k.  

The AMG CLA 45 base price is $50k. I can think of lots of better ways to spend $50k than a sub-compact sedan that goes to 60 in 4.2 seconds yet doesn't even come with Leather, AndroidAuto/CarPlay, NAV, XM Radio, Auto Dimming Mirror, or Heated Seats. (Minimum total MSRP to add all those options = $57,825 )

 

For 57 K one could get a decent Continental.....

58 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Cadillac also sold the Catera in the US.  Again, reliability issues owing to the US getting the worst engine option in the GM lineup at the time (See what happens when you insist on DOHC instead of what actually performs well @smk4565?), it was actually a very good vehicle.  The Australians had the right idea and put the 3800 and 3800 S/C in them instead and they were fine.  It had the same wheelbase as the 3-series, but had a larger trunk and front overhang allowing for a slightly larger interior.  It did compete in the same price class as the 3-series.

The Omega which the Catera is based on is still a well regarded cult car in Germany.

Foreign markets often get all of the good stuff on cars...sadly....same with the E36 M3 and the Nissan 240 in the 90's.

[Drew Dowdell]

Just now, A Horse With No Name said:

For 57 K one could get a decent Continental.....

But you couldn't get to the next stoplight in 4.2 seconds dontchaknow....

[Cmicasa the Great]

57 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Cadillac also sold the Catera in the US.  Again, reliability issues owing to the US getting the worst engine option in the GM lineup at the time (See what happens when you insist on DOHC instead of what actually performs well @smk4565?), it was actually a very good vehicle.  The Australians had the right idea and put the 3800 and 3800 S/C in them instead and they were fine.  It had the same wheelbase as the 3-series, but had a larger trunk and front overhang allowing for a slightly larger interior.  It did compete in the same price class as the 3-series.

The Omega which the Catera is based on is still a well regarded cult car in Germany.

Granted.. and it was a damn nice handler from what I remember, but the HP was weak.. I really wish that they would have put 3800S/C  in there from the Bonneville SSEi.

[A Horse With No Name]

Just now, Drew Dowdell said:

But you couldn't get to the next stoplight in 4.2 seconds dontchaknow....

Given the choice between riding around in a Conti and a CLA....i would take the Conti or comparable Cadillac in a New York minute.

Just now, Cmicasa the Great said:

Granted.. and it was a damn nice handler from what I remember, but the HP was weak.. I really wish that they would have put 3800S/C  in there from the Bonneville SSEi.

That 3800 was a gem of a motor!

[Cmicasa the Great]

1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

But you couldn't get to the next stoplight in 4.2 seconds dontchaknow....

The weird thing I keep thinking is WHY THE HELL won't GM match the 2.0L Mercedes is kicking out ? The HP rating of the 2.0L Turbo in the 2008 Cobalt SS was easily massaged to higher gains.. 10 years ago.

GMPP upgrade for the LNF Turbo Ecotec,( the 2.0L DI Turbo I4 that sees duty in the Chevrolet Cobalt and HHR SS, Pontiac Solstice GXP, and Saturn Sky Redline) which bumps power from 260bhp and 260lb-ft to 290bhp and 340lb-ft (352nM to 460nM) for $650... with a warranty https://www.carthrottle.com/post/gm-to-disband-high-performance-vehicles-operation/

[Drew Dowdell]

Just now, Cmicasa the Great said:

Granted.. and it was a damn nice handler from what I remember, but the HP was weak.. I really wish that they would have put 3800S/C  in there from the Bonneville SSEi.

Yes... the handling was well regarded and on par with the Germans (because it was German).  The 3.0 was indeed weak, but DOHC humpers like @smk4565 had to have DOHC.  The main reason the 3800 wasn't used was that there was no 3800 production in Europe and these were built in Germany for US consumption. Before we ever got the Catera, Opel made a crazy for 1991 horsepower levels 372 HP / 411 lb-ft of torque 3.6 liter V6 Omega tuned by Lotus. 

[Cmicasa the Great]

Interesting enough.. Cadillac should have sold the Catera and a Catera Coupe during those days using what would become the GTO. I remember being in my 2000 Vette back around 2004.. when the GTO started showing up.. and almost had my ass handed to me. That was with the 5.7L.. then they upgraded that bitch to a 6.0L with LS2

[Drew Dowdell]

3 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

The weird thing I keep thinking is WHY THE HELL won't GM match the 2.0L Mercedes is kicking out ? The HP rating of the 2.0L Turbo in the 2008 Cobalt SS was easily massaged to higher gains.. 10 years ago.

GMPP upgrade for the LNF Turbo Ecotec,( the 2.0L DI Turbo I4 that sees duty in the Chevrolet Cobalt and HHR SS, Pontiac Solstice GXP, and Saturn Sky Redline) which bumps power from 260bhp and 260lb-ft to 290bhp and 340lb-ft (352nM to 460nM) for $650... with a warranty https://www.carthrottle.com/post/gm-to-disband-high-performance-vehicles-operation/

Because what's the point?  You'd only want that in performance cars because of the octane requirement. No way they'd put that into the new Traverse when a relatively tame 3.6 liter can do the job on 87.   So what's left? Camaro, ATS, Regal GS, Malibu 2.0.  Aftermarket will take care of those who really want it.

[smk4565]

There is a lot Cadillac should have done.  In the future they need to do more.  I don't know why they don't have the CTS-V engine in an SUV.  Lack of convertible is a problem.  And I can't believe GMC doesn't have a hardcore off roader to compete with the Wrangler that they can use the chassis to make a Cadillac off roader to compete with the G-wagon.

For years people said the CLA would be Mercedes downfall, it never happened, they are still #1 having record setting years.  And this is exactly where Lexus, Cadillac, Acura and the others are going.  Lexus has a GLA competitor on the way,  Cadillac plans a crossover below XT4 and the XT5 starts under $40k.  So they are all in that same space.

[Cmicasa the Great]

1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Because what's the point?  You'd only want that in performance cars because of the octane requirement. No way they'd put that into the new Traverse when a relatively tame 3.6 liter can do the job on 87.   So what's left? Camaro, ATS, Regal GS, Malibu 2.0.  Aftermarket will take care of those who really want it.

No.. I have consistently said that Cadillac really should move to Turbo engines only except in the Vs. They actually have the materials already. Yes there is no real need for the 2.0L Turbo on that level.. IF they would just get rid of the 3.6L and offer a detuned 3.0L instead. I'm talking because of torque. I don't kno what they are capable of regarding that detune allowing for 87 instead of 91-94 tho. The 3.6L is a decent engine.. but size matters in certain markets. Cadillac wants to be global.. they need to drop that engine and make the 3.0L their main while the supposed upcoming V8 mainstream should still not go over 5.0

[smk4565]

6 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Because what's the point?  You'd only want that in performance cars because of the octane requirement. No way they'd put that into the new Traverse when a relatively tame 3.6 liter can do the job on 87.   So what's left? Camaro, ATS, Regal GS, Malibu 2.0.  Aftermarket will take care of those who really want it.

Correct for an engine like the CLA45, but I could see more use for a 2.5 liter turbo for larger vehicles, maybe with an eAssist also.  CAFE is going up every year

[Cmicasa the Great]

6 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

There is a lot Cadillac should have done.  In the future they need to do more.  I don't know why they don't have the CTS-V engine in an SUV.  Lack of convertible is a problem.  And I can't believe GMC doesn't have a hardcore off roader to compete with the Wrangler that they can use the chassis to make a Cadillac off roader to compete with the G-wagon.

For years people said the CLA would be Mercedes downfall, it never happened, they are still #1 having record setting years.  And this is exactly where Lexus, Cadillac, Acura and the others are going.  Lexus has a GLA competitor on the way,  Cadillac plans a crossover below XT4 and the XT5 starts under $40k.  So they are all in that same space.

Even if U have a GLA competitor.. it doesn't have to be as cheap looking.. as BITCH ASS looking as a the GLA. Seriously mo.. I see the GLA and I started feeling like a need to go hold a teddy bear. Its a bitch car.. and I mean like "frumpy wearing tennis shoes with a flowered dress bitch car."

That being said.. I could see U chiming in and saying U just bought one for yourself   

[Drew Dowdell]

4 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

No.. I have consistently said that Cadillac really should move to Turbo engines only except in the Vs. They actually have the materials already. Yes there is no real need for the 2.0L Turbo on that level.. IF they would just get rid of the 3.6L and offer a detuned 3.0L instead. I'm talking because of torque. I don't kno what they are capable of regarding that detune allowing for 87 instead of 91-94 tho. The 3.6L is a decent engine.. but size matters in certain markets. Cadillac wants to be global.. they need to drop that engine and make the 3.0L their main while the supposed upcoming V8 mainstream should still not go over 5.0

Yeah, I could see a 3.0TT in place of the 3.6 in most cases.  I'd leave the 3.6NA in place for the XT5 as a base engine and the 3.0TT as a buy up engine. Make the 3.0TT the XTS's base engine with a buy up to the 3.6TT.  The 3.0TT would be detuned in both of these cases when it made the transition to transverse layout.  Buick could then have the 3.0TT as a buy up engine in the Lacrosse with the 3.6 as base.