DRIVEN: 2019 Chevrolet Blazer LT AWD 3.6

[Cmicasa the Great]

50 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

VW has MQB... that underpins everything from a Golf to the Atlas.  The difference there being that there is a huge difference between Golf and Atlas and nearly every car in between.  A Traverse is not drastically difference from an Enclave except in interior appointments. The Acadia and XT6 are on the same wheelbase, just that the XT6 has a few extra inches of length behind the rear wheel. 

VW also has MLB.... that one is used in VW, Audi, Porsche, and Bentley. But those cars are drastically different from each other also.

I don't mind platform sharing. I agree that Omega should have been used at Chevy and Buick as well... VSS (which is a combo of Alpha and Omega) will be.  What I mind is 6+ vehicles all of nearly the same dimensions overlapping each other in price, performance, and appointments. It's part of what got GM into trouble a decade ago.

No its not. In fact GM could still be selling 8 variants of the same vehicles but instead of doing so they failed to pull up all the stumps of perceptions within their deception.  Changing the fronts, barely touching the rears, and leaving the sides exactly the same.

 

Far cry from:

 

[Robert Hall]

Meh...

4 minutes ago, frogger said:

Right up to bankruptcy on some turds like their minivans and CUV's (Torrent) of the time.

 

Yes....so much unrelenting mediocrity.  Have they really improved since then with the volume stuff?  I know the quality and reliability is better, but the product just seems so uninspired..

Edited February 26, 2019 by Robert Hall

[Cmicasa the Great]

12 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

 but they are just as forgettable as past GM generics..just fodder for recycling in 10-15 years, nothing memorable.   Sad that GM doesn't aspire to do better.

That statement can apply to every vehicle on the market today with exception to a few super-cars and a few luxuries. These for instance... if these are ever a CLASSIC, then enthusiasm is done and done for me. Bland boring and cookie cutter looking slop. As exciting to look at as a Corolla

[oldshurst442]

1 hour ago, Robert Hall said:

 C1XX is the J-body or W-body etc of today..  same meat, different toppings. 

And overlapping trims and price points fighting for the same sorry assed customer base...

15 minutes ago, frogger said:

Not as dumb as the 70's/80's/90's where they were so alike you could swap doors on them..

Where, maybe this problem that existed then, today, is less apparent...so yeah Frogger! 

But...

1 minute ago, Robert Hall said:

 Disposable, forgettable cars with no character, just cheap plastics and trivial brand differences.    These CUVs have distinct styling, but they are just as forgettable as past GM generics..just fodder for recycling in 10-15 years, nothing memorable.   Sad that GM doesn't aspire to do better.

THIS what was said is NOT to be ignored...

Because...

1 hour ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

OMEGA SHOULD BE AT CHEVY!!! 

While this makes sense because...

1 hour ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

GM has somehow hit upon a formula that has yielded about $90 Billion in profits since BK

Obviously this is more important...but...

There is a way to do this...

51 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

VW has MQB... that underpins everything from a Golf to the Atlas.  The difference there being that there is a huge difference between Golf and Atlas and nearly every car in between.  A Traverse is not drastically difference from an Enclave except in interior appointments. The Acadia and XT6 are on the same wheelbase, just that the XT6 has a few extra inches of length behind the rear wheel. 

VW also has MLB.... that one is used in VW, Audi, Porsche, and Bentley. But those cars are drastically different from each other also.

As Volkswagen has done succesfully,  as GM once upon a time ago did that succesfully too

2 hours ago, balthazar said:

There was no chassis sharing until I believe the new '68 A-Bodies. Breezy sources will tell you GM used 'A', 'B', etc bodies across the Divisions --and they did to some degree beginning about 1933-- and while non-enthusiasts might think that means they were interchangeable; they were NOT

Because ultimately...the way things are going...NOT with Chevy and the Blazer, but with Cadillac and the XT4, CT4 and if the Chevy models ever get to Oldsmobile levels of confort and luxury across all their models, which Chevy can...(1957 Bel Air, Impala, early1970s Monte Carlo and Kingswood), Cadillac will be questioning their own existence like how Balthy was saying to me earlier,

3 hours ago, balthazar said:

but I believe there was some concern LaSalle was grabbing a bit of the Cadillac spotlight, as it were. In this era, Cadillac was still firmly holding the 'SOTW' banner high.

Because Cadillac as of now, other than the Escalade, is not being seen as a top tier luxury brand.

How could it when us, as enthusiasts in a GM primary website, give flack to Chevy for being in a Cadillac realm of pricing, which is at the lower end of the spectrum, yet we are quite content with Cadillacs being priced to compete with Ford Edge STs..

Because what it REALLY boils down to...FORGET about the Blazer...GIVE ME ONE GOOD REASON WHY I SHOULD BUY THE CADILLAC XT5 OVER THE FORD EDGE ST???!!!

Yes...use ALL the  criteria we are bitching about the Blazer and transfer THAT unto to Cadillac...

BECAUSE THAT is my issue with all this. 

The Blazer is fine where it is. Its  Cadillac the real problem here! 

[regfootball]

9 hours ago, caddycruiser said:

The $29,995 "L" with clear back glass and a 2.5L...?

https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/detail/761059683/overview/

perfect for someone who hates the Equinox and prefers a non turbo to a turbo.  LOL

[Robert Hall]

7 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

 Because what it REALLY boils down to...FORGET about the Blazer...GIVE ME ONE GOOD REASON WHY I SHOULD BUY THE CADILLAC XT5 OVER THE FORD EDGE ST???!!! 

The badge and dealer experience?  

[oldshurst442]

8 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

No its not. In fact GM could still be selling 8 variants of the same vehicles but instead of doing so they failed to pull up all the stumps of perceptions within their deception.  Changing the fronts, barely touching the rears, and leaving the sides exactly the same.

 

Far cry from:

 

Yes...far cry...

But in reality...THAT is the problem...

Why in the world are we even mentioning Pontiac Torrent and Chevy Blazer in the same breath as Cadillac XT5?

For Cadillac to chase those Lexus RX buyers? Who are the same as those Acura RDX buyers? Who also flock to buy the ILX/RDX/EL/Integra?

Which GM sold the Pontiac Sunbird GT and Saturn Ion red line to compete with?

Which was a Cimarron?

THAT is the problem... 

Cadillac does NOT need to have what Chevy/Pontiac/Oldsmobile has or had.

Cadillac and Chevy COULD platform share...but Cadillac needs to really distance itself from that Pontiac/Oldsmobile/Buick price points. Leave that to Chevy, Buick and GMC. 

Cadillac needs to become Cadillac again.

1 minute ago, Robert Hall said:

The badge and dealer experience?  

The badge?  As far as Im concerned, at the lower price points of an ATS versus a Ford Fusion Sport or Platinum. Cadillac no better than Ford here. 

The dealership experience?

When a Chevy Cruze is bought at the same lot as the ATS with the same 2.0T? 

The Ford dealership and the Cadillac dealership experience at the GM superstore selling Chevys and Cadillacs might actually be the same...

[Robert Hall]

I wouldn’t compare the ATS to a Fusion.  A proper RWD sports sedan vs a FWD family sedan. Apples and oranges.  Different niches.  And Cadillac dealers are usually separate from Chevy dealers in the US, don’t know of many that are on the same site.  

Edited February 26, 2019 by Robert Hall

[oldshurst442]

3 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

I wouldn’t compare the ATS to a Fusion.  A proper RWD sports sedan vs a FWD family sedan. Apples and oranges.  Different niches.  And Cadillac dealers are usually separate from Chevy dealers in the US, don’t know of many that are on the same site.  

Not in Canada. Well, at least in the Montreal region, I do not know of one stand alone Cadillac dealership. Does not exist is what Im saying.

As far as RWD and the ATS..

The ATS is a fine precision handling machine, even at the lower end. But that 2.0T does NOT belong in ANY Cadillac...And while the Fusion is AWD and a family hauler and the top trim where the lower trimmed ATS resides...again...THERE is where the problem resides..

Cadillac should have never been reduced to be a European version of BMW or Mercedes Benz to chase volume to where Cadillacs become econoboxes themselves to compete in that price range...

With the risk of sounding like SMK...

The ATS does NOT have a V8. 

The ATS does NOT have a convertible version.

Yet, the Chevy version does...and has the SAME base engine. 2.0T

The Chevy  version does not have a sedan version but that somehow makes the ATS appealing?

Why?

So the owners could haul other people in it, like their family?

So...how does THAT differ from the FWD Fusion that could be optioned to be a hot little AWD number?

And IF Ford had decided to do a RS/ST version instead of a subdued Sport version, how does THAT bode for Cadillac and the ATS?

Because Cadillac and RWD?

Like I said...take all that we are bitching about the Blazer, the different sized saucages and platform sharing GM is doing, but apply THAT to Cadillac...

The Acadia, the Transverse, the Blazer, the Enclave...its all fine...for  volume and profit. Boring as phoque SUV appliances. But THAT is what Chevy and GMC is for. Not so sure for Buick, but whatever.

Doesnt Cadillac deserve MORE than that though?   

And back to the XT5.  FWD... I swear I could hear SMK laughing at us over here!!!

The ATS was such a waste and took Cadillac 2 steps back. The car itself was fantastic...image wise I think it sucked. 

The BMW 3 Series grew in size and IT became a tweener to where the former CTS was. How ironic...

But to NOT screw themselves in Europe primarily, BMW made a 2 Series which was closer in size to when the 3 Series WAS the ultimate driving machine...and an econobox at that! 

THIS thread, even though we are bitchin' about Blazer value and high price, I think we should really come to grips that Cadillac may not be going in the right direction going down market chasing Chevrolet volume...

Sure, Cadillac is getting those high sales with their FWD CUVs...you said it yourself...FWD...

We are bitching about the Blazer being yet another FWD appliance fodder...and getting pissed because it steps on Cadillac's FWD appliance fodder, and suggesting that Ford's FWD appliance fodder maybe a better value than the Chevy, yet we arent flinching about how WRONG it is for Cadillac to even BE in this price point and configuration to begin with!!! 

 

 

[Drew Dowdell]

@oldshurst442 The Cruze doesn't have the 2.0T in any form. It has a 1.5T.  Are you thinking of the Verano which had a 2.0T?

[oldshurst442]

Just now, Drew Dowdell said:

@oldshurst442 The Cruze doesn't have the 2.0T in any form. It has a 1.5T.  Are you thinking of the Verano which had a 2.0T?

I dont know anymore....

yeah...The Verano and the Malibu Premier. If I was to stay with the Chevy theme of ranting against Cadillac being in the same showroom floor as Chevrolets...and complaining about Cadillac being in the same price range as top level Chevrolets, and sharing more or less the same 4 cylinder turbo, yeah, the Premier Malibu. Sorry for the mistaken identity and for the long winded rants.   

[regfootball]

DOH!

 

Three-Row Chevy Blazer XL Will Allegedly Arrive In China In 2020

[Drew Dowdell]

 

Just now, regfootball said:

DOH!

 

Three-Row Chevy Blazer XL Will Allegedly Arrive In China In 2020

 

They likely got it wrong.  It's a 3-row Buick based on the Acadia wheelbase. 

[Robert Hall]

The Blazer XL would make sense for the US also, give Chevy something equivalent to the Acadia and XT6, fill the gap between the Blazer and Traverse and target the Explorer. 

[balthazar]

3 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

VW has MQB... that underpins everything from a Golf to the Atlas.  The difference there being that there is a huge difference between Golf and Atlas and nearly every car in between.  A Traverse is not drastically difference from an Enclave except in interior appointments.

But a golf & an atlas are not the same model, relative to my point. Pretty sure, anyway.
And by "appointments", do you mean every single interior & exterior piece / design? 'casue I'm not seeing where a Traverse & the Enclave are NOT 'not drastically different'. I would not be thinking they were the same platform by the interior, that's for sure.

[regfootball]

46 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

@oldshurst442 The Cruze doesn't have the 2.0T in any form. It has a 1.5T.  Are you thinking of the Verano which had a 2.0T?

cruze only a 1.4 i think?

[Drew Dowdell]

6 minutes ago, regfootball said:

cruze only a 1.4 i think?

yeap, you're right.

[riviera74]

I have a Q for Oldshurst: Is Cadillac supposed to be Bentley or Rolls-Royce?  If that B/RR is "Standard of the World", then who fills in the massive gap between a top-line Camaro and a base-level Escalade?

[balthazar]

I'm gonna stick my answer to r74 in here.
There's no reason to strenuously avoid 'price gaps'. That's because when you analyze a given full-line brand (say BMW for example), the sales volumes as you move up in price tiers fall off amazingly quickly. All along we're told people 'trade up' from a 3-series to a 5 to a 7, but the numbers don't lie and the buyers don't do that. Brand loyalty / repeat ownership numbers back this up solidly.

So price gaps are not an issue, if they ever were. The GM companion marques all faltered and the slack was taken up by the core Divisions. Yet we still don't have empirical evidence that even that 'take up' was necessary.

Edited February 27, 2019 by balthazar

[Suaviloquent]

I actually like the Blazers style now. It has totally grown on me - in RS trim. 

I think the base four cylinder isn't that much of an issue even considering Toyota and Hyundai offer similar setups in lower trims of their midsize 2/3 rows.

I think the next full redesign XT5 will try to be lower, slightly more wagon look with Escala cues. Here's a case where Chevy certainly looks the part, just as an ugly RX might. Now the interior trappings are to your taste but there are more conservative offerings that deliver more space, value or other criteria being met.

GM wants Chevy to be the stylish option with a premium for it. Our next quarters sales might give a clue how it's doing. 

 

 

 

[Robert Hall]

It’s funny, with all the talk about CUV pricing and market position etc in this thread, I’m seeing ads for CUV lease deals in my FB timeline.  XT5 about the same/month as a CR-V, but CX-5 about $15/mo more...LR Disco Sport $100/mo more....Subie Forester and Ascent are only $9/month apart.  

Edited February 27, 2019 by Robert Hall

[oldshurst442]

11 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

I have a Q for Oldshurst: Is Cadillac supposed to be Bentley or Rolls-Royce?  If that B/RR is "Standard of the World", then who fills in the massive gap between a top-line Camaro and a base-level Escalade?

What Balthy said...

But what Im gonnna say for myself...

Top line Camaro...as in ZL-1?

If yes, not a volume trim. Top line Camaro is a halo car for the brand and for the model that is Chevrolet and Camaro respectively to showcase what Chevrolet can do and what the Camaro brand is all about to get butts in the showroom to buy other Chevrolet cars. 

Base level Escalade...may possibly be a volume model, for the brand and for Escalade to sell. But...volume for a vehicle of that magnitude is not the same amount of volume sales like an Equinox. Obviously volume in this regard is relative to the respective brand we are talking about. 

Cadillac is supposed to be CADILLAC.  Not BMW. Not Mercedes. Not Rolls Royce nor Bentley. 

Cadillac need not be chasing sales and filling out price gaps that may be in order to chase down niches that dont necessarily belong to Cadillac's image. 

And WHAT is this Cadillac image we are talking about?

Well...you tell me...

What do we want Cadillac to be?  What do Cadillac and GM CEOs want Cadillac to be?

And most importantly, the potential Cadillac owner/driver, what does HE/SHE want his/her Cadillac to be?

If its just a badge that signified past glory or a badge that means a higher sticker price than mainstream cars such as Ford or Chevrolet or Hyundai, then OK...all is well in Cadillac land.  Ditto for BMW and Mercedes Benz selling us golden dreams and we buy by the boatload these pseudo luxury pods that makes us feel better about ourselves because a Cadillac XYZ123 and a BMW 123XYZ Series costs slightly more to acquire than a Ford Skywalker and a Chevrolet Sunnylane. 

But if we are to create vehicle with a real brand image based on real performance and/or luxury to sell to those people that could actually afford a house in Malibu and a condo in Paris while vacationing in Monte Carlo and we were to actually produce a vehicle that only the very few could afford and the little people could only dream of owning one day, then...THAT is a whole different ball game, dont you think?

10 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

It’s funny, with all the talk about CUV pricing and market position etc in this thread, I’m seeing ads for CUV lease deals in my FB timeline.  XT5 about the same/month as a CR-V, but CX-5 about $15/mo more...LR Disco Sport $100/mo more...

And THIS is EXACTLY what Im talking about...

Cadillac need not be chasing the same broken cigar customer base that everybody else is chasing. Those people that think they are rich by leasing 'luxury' badged vehicles over then mainstream ones...and in reality, Whether Cadillac or BMW or Honda, is still chasing that poor over-spending moron that has 3-4 maxed out credit cards but has the latest smart phone and the most recent year leased vehicle and begging the sales person of whatever dealership to cut him another 5-10-15-20 dollars off his monthly lease payment... 

 

 

[G. David Felt]

16 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I don't mind platform sharing. I agree that Omega should have been used at Chevy and Buick as well... VSS (which is a combo of Alpha and Omega) will be.  What I mind is 6+ vehicles all of nearly the same dimensions overlapping each other in price, performance, and appointments. It's part of what got GM into trouble a decade ago.

I agree, they should each only have 1 model but with a wider variety of packages. As myself and a few others have stated, Hummer should have been an off-road package for GMC. An example of this is I can clearly see an Acadia and Acadia Plus with base to AT4 and Denali packages plus if you really want a brute then get the Hummer Package kind of thinking. A single model that offers a wide variety of packages to meet a diverse buying publics desires. 

[G. David Felt]

11 hours ago, Suaviloquent said:

I actually like the Blazers style now. It has totally grown on me - in RS trim. 

I think the base four cylinder isn't that much of an issue even considering Toyota and Hyundai offer similar setups in lower trims of their midsize 2/3 rows.

I think the next full redesign XT5 will try to be lower, slightly more wagon look with Escala cues. Here's a case where Chevy certainly looks the part, just as an ugly RX might. Now the interior trappings are to your taste but there are more conservative offerings that deliver more space, value or other criteria being met.

GM wants Chevy to be the stylish option with a premium for it. Our next quarters sales might give a clue how it's doing. 

But would you pay $52K for a Blazer RS package?

[riviera74]

OK Oldshurst, I get that you want Cadillac to be extremely aspirational to almost everyone.  You do not like the fact that Cadillac is more first-class than it is Lear/Gulfstream.  There is just one problem.  Even before 1930, Cadillac was never really so exclusive that nobody could ever afford it.  Bentley and Rolls-Royce were never cheap enough to be leased by anyone who wanted to look rich. 

If your aspiration is that Buick take Cadillac's (current) place in the current automotive landscape and as a result Cadillac take on B/RR, then who inside GM will do that?  What is the plan?  Remember that Mercedes-Benz wanted Maybach to take on B/RR and it failed because of lack of sales, among other factors.  B/RR NEVER went downmarket; Cadillac did go downmarket in the middle of the 20th Century to maximize sales.  Cadillac becoming a full-line automaker did not help matters either because it led to more sales at the expense of exclusivity (especially after the 1976 Seville).

I also doubt that Mary Barra will do this because she will see large amounts of cash being left on the table, so no dice.

[Suaviloquent]

39 minutes ago, dfelt said:

But would you pay $52K for a Blazer RS package?

I don't think that's an entry price for the vehicle RS trim?

 

I would not get the Blazer because it really only looks decent with the big wheel and tire packages. At that point I might as well consider paying a $1000/yr road tax as I'm sure I'll lose my shirt, pants and the pocket change inside when it comes time to replace tires and replace damaged wheels.

[ccap41]

12 hours ago, Suaviloquent said:

I think the base four cylinder isn't that much of an issue even considering Toyota and Hyundai offer similar setups in lower trims of their midsize 2/3 rows.

Holy sh!t.. I didn't realize the 2.7 was in the Highlander and it starts at 31k. That's nuts. 

26 minutes ago, Suaviloquent said:

I don't think that's an entry price for the vehicle RS trim?

45k for an AWD RS 

42k for a FWD RS 

42k for an ST Edge(standard AWD), FWIW. 

[G. David Felt]

29 minutes ago, Suaviloquent said:

I don't think that's an entry price for the vehicle RS trim?

True, but when you add what other OEMs have as standard at a lower price, I ended up with a $52K RS AWD that I had to question why would I pay that for a Chevy.

[balthazar]

47 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

Even before 1930, Cadillac was never really so exclusive that nobody could ever afford it.  Bentley and Rolls-Royce were never cheap enough to be leased by anyone who wanted to look rich. 

If your aspiration is that Buick take Cadillac's (current) place in the current automotive landscape and as a result Cadillac take on B/RR, then who inside GM will do that?  What is the plan?  Remember that Mercedes-Benz wanted Maybach to take on B/RR and it failed because of lack of sales, among other factors.  B/RR NEVER went downmarket; Cadillac did go downmarket in the middle of the 20th Century to maximize sales.  Cadillac becoming a full-line automaker did not help matters either because it led to more sales at the expense of exclusivity (especially after the 1976 Seville).

I'd disagree with some of your historical claims, and wonder where you encountered your information. 

 

[oldshurst442]

1 hour ago, riviera74 said:

OK Oldshurst, I get that you want Cadillac to be extremely aspirational to almost everyone.  You do not like the fact that Cadillac is more first-class than it is Lear/Gulfstream.  There is just one problem.  Even before 1930, Cadillac was never really so exclusive that nobody could ever afford it.  Bentley and Rolls-Royce were never cheap enough to be leased by anyone who wanted to look rich. 

If your aspiration is that Buick take Cadillac's (current) place in the current automotive landscape and as a result Cadillac take on B/RR, then who inside GM will do that?  What is the plan?  Remember that Mercedes-Benz wanted Maybach to take on B/RR and it failed because of lack of sales, among other factors.  B/RR NEVER went downmarket; Cadillac did go downmarket in the middle of the 20th Century to maximize sales.  Cadillac becoming a full-line automaker did not help matters either because it led to more sales at the expense of exclusivity (especially after the 1976 Seville).

I also doubt that Mary Barra will do this because she will see large amounts of cash being left on the table, so no dice.

Yes on the aspirational part. Besides the Escalade, what other Cadillac vehicles aspire people to own them?  The V Series stuff?

On a performance level, sure. But on a marketing level...nada. 

And there are many factors for that. Which I feel may not be necessary to start mentioning them in this thread.  

I am not going to start mentioning past aspirational projects that came to fruition but failed miserably in execution, but I will mention stuff like the Ciel, El Miraj where Cadillac should have built for production, and built to a Standard of the World standard, unlike the Evoq to XLR...and that would have almost been enough to get Cadillac back on top. 

Escala? This nice modern concept is nowhere to been seen...and by the time it gets here, if it gets here,  it may be too late to capture our hearts...

Its an SUV world...where are the jaw dropping Cadillac brashness SUVs? In the pipeline?

These should not be in the pipeline, these should be in the showroom floor NOW!  No XT4 and no XT5. 

REAL Cadillacs. 

Although the XT6 is par for the course for SUVs in this price range from ALL manufactures...boring as phoque SUVs, the XT6 should have felt more like a baby 'Slade in presence, stance and interior quality. Ive heard that the next generation 'Slade will have a worthy interior that blows away even the Navigator...well, THAT should have started with the XT6. Cadillac should have at least shown us aspiration with this new XT6. Instead, its par for the course. I defended the XT6, but maybe now, in hindsight to what Im ranting now with my diatribe, maybe I should be blasting it instead...

As far as position in the market place goes...

Yeah...I do not want Cadillac to go tooooo far down in affordability and mediocrity.  I do not want Cadillac to be a full line brand. But if it must it must. Ill break it down what I expect from Cadillac. Ill be using Porsche as my reference. 

Porsche was a boutique sports car maker. They tried to be affordable in the 1970s and 1980s using VW parts cars and they failed miserably.  Cadillac paralleled that in every way that I mentioned.

Porsche today though, is kinda like a full line brand and they did that somewhat successfully now.   But we do not know at what cost further down in the future as the Macan is a VW underneath...and is sold in mainstream numbers. Will that have detriment to the 911? Marketing comes in handy in these situations. Cadillac lacks desperately here...

Anyway...I want Cadillac to be where Porsche resides in the pricing of vehicles and in the prestige and aspiration in the minds of people. 

The Macan starts at 50 000 dollars. (next gen Macan and Porsche says it will be a 100% EV) 

The Boxtster starts at 60 000 dollars.

The Cayenne starts at 66 000 dollars.

The Panamera starts at 86 000 dollars.

The Taycan will probably be above 86 000 dollars

The 911 starts at 91 000 and goes up very quickly to 150 000/160 000

And the Porsche 918 is astronomical in price...

I do not think Porsche goes below 50 000.  I said that about Cadillac in that I do not want Cadillacs below that price. I believe I said that if Cadillac is going to do an ATS, I want the ATS to start at the ATS V level of performance with a starting price of 55 000 or 60 000. I want the CTS to start where the CTS V sport is in price and performance. But more on the CTS later...

If Cadillac is to do an XT4 or XT5...I want those to be BMW X4M and X6M competitors from the get go with a starting price tag of 55 000 for the XT4 and 60-65 000 dollar range and above. No XT4 and no XT5 to be sold to anybody to be Lexus and Acura RDX and Chevy Blazer competitors.  From the get go, aim high with those small CUVs. The Macan and the Cayenne aims high.  Yeah...XT4 and XT5 to be in competition to the Macan, Cayenne, BMW X4M and X5M/X6M...no less than that is acceptable for Cadillac. 

The CT6 could stay as is. 

The XT6 and CT5 (I could have a change of heart for the former CTS here)...those could be bread and butter models. Sure. 50 000 dollars. OK...but they better be engineered and produced and manufactured like  Standard of the World vehicles. No compromises. 

But as you see, the way Im thinking, the ATS, XT4, XT5 are no longer for the broken ass, over spending moron that goes from dealership to dealership,  trying to get an extra 20 dollars off a month of his lease payment and if he scores at BMW with the X3 or Mercedes with the CLA or at Lincoln or Genesis...then he is a happy camper showing off his entry level luxury bullshyte vehicle to other badge snob morons... 

Cadillac starts at a higher aspirational level...

And then we get to the nitty gritty things of where Cadillac was THE Standard of the World. Where it should reside it. Where it always resided in.

The 80 000 dollar threshold of luxury... Where the Escalade happily kicks the shyte out of any fullsized SUV selling company...

And then we go from there offering all kinds of aspirational sedans, coupes, convertibles,  SUVs.  You know, El Mirajs, Ciels, SUVs higher than the Escalade. Escalas that could reach price tags of 150 000 dollars. 

Isnt THAT what Cadillac was once upon a time ago? 

Porsche did it, non?  Cadillac is struggling to do it...after 20 years of trying. In the same time frame, Porsche is doing it...

Then once we do that, we can go for the occasional astronomical priced vehicle to compete with Rolls and Bentley.

The Ciens, the Evoqs, the Eldorado Broughams and anything else...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by oldshurst442

[Potluck]

who cares what how much the blazer costs... it is ugly at any price. gm can't make up their mind. blazer is ugly, acadia is dull. nothing in the whole pack that is actually good looking

[riviera74]

When it comes to pre-WWII Cadillac, I was wrong.

My larger point about what Cadillac should be versus what it currently is, I think, is still valid.  While it would be great to see Cadillac START with base-level Escalade (or better still, $100K+), I do not see GM actually doing just that.  If GM would push Cadillac to being truly aspirational, that would allow GMC and especially Buick to enter the luxury space without cannibalizing Cadillac.  Too bad that GM will not do just that.

[Robert Hall]

So far I've only been judging the Blazer from photos...hopefully there is one at the Cleveland Auto Show, going Saturday..will be interesting to see one in person and see how ugly it is in the plastic.

[Drew Dowdell]

30 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

So far I've only been judging the Blazer from photos...hopefully there is one at the Cleveland Auto Show, going Saturday..will be interesting to see one in person and see how ugly it is in the plastic.

it'll be there. They had them at the Pittsburgh show. 

 

20 hours ago, Potluck said:

who cares what how much the blazer costs... it is ugly at any price. gm can't make up their mind. blazer is ugly, acadia is dull. nothing in the whole pack that is actually good looking

Traverse and Enclave are pretty good.  I think the Traverse looks like a baby suburban.

[Potluck]

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Traverse and Enclave are pretty good.  I think the Traverse looks like a baby suburban.

best of the boring

[ccap41]

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

it'll be there. They had them at the Pittsburgh show. 

Isn't this on dealer lots already? He might be able to go to his local dealership. 

[Robert Hall]

2 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Isn't this on dealer lots already? He might be able to go to his local dealership. 

Maybe..no interest in going to the local Chevy dealer, though.  I enjoy going to the annual car show and strolling around a few hours...

[ccap41]

4 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

Maybe..no interest in going to the local Chevy dealer, though.  I enjoy going to the annual car show and strolling around a few hours...

Oh definitely. I would have liked to have gone to mine but I had to leave for Iowa for the weekend.. STL's is usually pretty weak anyway but it's still nice to see MOST of the new stuff. 

[Drew Dowdell]

10 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Isn't this on dealer lots already? He might be able to go to his local dealership. 

 

7 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

Maybe..no interest in going to the local Chevy dealer, though.  I enjoy going to the annual car show and strolling around a few hours...

Yes a few dealers have them. The shows outside of the big 4 in the US only really pull from dealer stock. It is unusual for them to get stuff like a concept or prototype.

[Robert Hall]

47 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

 

Yes a few dealers have them. The shows outside of the big 4 in the US only really pull from dealer stock. It is unusual for them to get stuff like a concept or prototype.

Unfortunately, yes.  Maybe with it moving to May (June?) I can go to the Detroit auto show in 2020.  I wouldn't drive over there in January, but I wouldn't mind the summer...going to the Detroit area at least twice this summer anyway...

[regfootball]

3 hours ago, riviera74 said:

When it comes to pre-WWII Cadillac, I was wrong.

My larger point about what Cadillac should be versus what it currently is, I think, is still valid.  While it would be great to see Cadillac START with base-level Escalade (or better still, $100K+), I do not see GM actually doing just that.  If GM would push Cadillac to being truly aspirational, that would allow GMC and especially Buick to enter the luxury space without cannibalizing Cadillac.  Too bad that GM will not do just that.

Many Cadillac dealers that require probably more sales volume just to keep the doors open. 

[balthazar]

^ Don't know that 'keeping the doors open' is all that pressing. Note that the Cadillac dealer count was reduced by about 33% in the last 10 years.

[G. David Felt]

3 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Traverse and Enclave are pretty good.  I think the Traverse looks like a baby suburban.

WOW, your right does look a bit like the Suburban and in RS trim with V6, AWD and a very nice package, it comes in over $2,000 dollars less than the Blazer.

I am liking this way better than the Blazer.

[Drew Dowdell]

That's sharp!  Make mine in black though.

[G. David Felt]

3 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

That's sharp!  Make mine in black though.

Your wish is my command!

[Drew Dowdell]

Now see.. it's totally a dad car, but I could drive that.

[G. David Felt]

2 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Now see.. it's totally a dad car, but I could drive that.

Wish it had the TTV6 option for the RS package of Performance.

[Drew Dowdell]

12 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Wish it had the TTV6 option for the RS package of Performance.

And there's the rub. As nice as that one is, for the same amount of money, I would go for a V8 Jeep Cherokee instead. I don't need a 3rd row.  If I get a Durango instead of the GC some day, the rear seats will be semi-permanently lowered. 

[G. David Felt]

11 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

And there's the rub. As nice as that one is, for the same amount of money, I would go for a V8 Jeep Cherokee instead. I don't need a 3rd row.  If I get a Durango instead of the GC some day, the rear seats will be semi-permanently lowered. 

Agree, I would take the GC with the V8 over a TTV6 in a Traverse. I also do not need the 3rd seat, but if I was to stick with GM, the TTV6 would make the RS a true performance CUV.

[riviera74]

7 hours ago, dfelt said:

Agree, I would take the GC with the V8 over a TTV6 in a Traverse. I also do not need the 3rd seat, but if I was to stick with GM, the TTV6 would make the RS a true performance CUV.

Like GM would ever make such a good decision post BK.