surreal1272

it's like stopping people in the mall, showing them a picture of a new car, and saying, would you like to have a new car?

 

SURE!

 

or its like getting 40,000 likes in Facebook.  it's a stretch to call them real buyers who will pick that exact model.

Which is the exact same thing that I have seen of every company yet some here think that Lincoln is the exception because some people (and yes 40,000 in this context is "some people") said that they "might" be interested. It's easy to market and push these meaningless surveys but I have seen very few bear any actual real fruit. Saying that one car will be successful, as a result of these surveys, makes zero sense to me when you understand the nature of these surveys. 

Well, it's a softer sedan, and softer sedans are doing much better than their hard-edged versions in the market.

 

I think it'll do as they expect, and any sales here will be a bonus. 

 

I would make the 2.7 the standard engine however. The 3.7 is really long in the tooth.

Umm...what? Based off of what information? All we know is that Lincoln has struggled in the sedan market just as much as everyone else (and more so in most cases) yet you think more of the same will make it better? Sorry but changing the name from MKS to Continental does not a barometer of success make so I don't know how can make that assessment Suave (knowing all that).

I'm not going to link to someone else's website. But if you go looking you'll find that GM's rental volume is down 43,000 units YOY. So, doing that math (and assuming that Ford snatched up, say, half that volume), you're looking at a nearly 70,000 unit sales swing just through fleet shifts.

As a GM guy I'll admit that I'd prefer to see them be the biggest automaker in the world, never mind NA. But I've been around long enough to know that being #1 without great product is a greasy pole indeed. And since nobody has been able to get those two traits to align yet, I'll root for GM to stay the course.

Some people don't understand the difference between fleet sales and rental sales and that's okay. They also can't seem to acknowledge the fact that rental sales have increased for Ford while it has decreased for GM. The GM rental sales argument was pointed out (by many Ford fans and GM haters) for years as a weakness for GM but now that the roles have reversed, they are oddly silent on that SAME fact occurring for Ford. The rest of us understand perfectly though.

Huh. Ultimately, the big question is- How many sales will this 'interest' result in?

Exactly. There was a lot interest in the last CTS too but that has not translated to great sales.

Let me also state, for the record, that I know Cadillac is not totally ignoring an increase in volume sales. That is evidenced by the new lineup of CUVs coming soon. However, to act like that should be their singular focus in order to increase sales/profits, instead of making sure each product they have is top notch and more capable of pulling higher profit margins per individual sale, is simply short sighted and bordering on ignorance. 

Wouldn't GM be better off if they were selling 300,000 Cadillac CTS per year (globally) at a $5,000 per car margin? If you told any exec at GM would you rather sell 300,000 Cadillacs or 300,000 Malibus, 100% of them would take 300,000 Cadillacs and zero Malibus.

This "Cadillac needs to limit volume to be exclusive" mentality is an excuse for poor sales. Should they limit the Escalade to 15,000 units per year to keep it exclusive, and turn away another 15,000 people willing to spend $85,000 on their product?

Wow Suave. Just wow.

Cadillac wants volume sales. Plain and simple.

 

That's why they're supposedly bringing to market 12 all-new models within the next 5 years to fill all the niches.

Really because that is not what they have been saying. They are more focused on profit per unit than per sales volume and that is well known Suave. 

 

Wouldn't GM be better off if they were selling 300,000 Cadillac CTS per year (globally) at a $5,000 per car margin?   If you told any exec at GM would you rather sell 300,000 Cadillacs or 300,000 Malibus, 100% of them would take 300,000 Cadillacs and zero Malibus.  

Well, you're wrong again. 300K CTSs is not what Cadillac as a brand is going for. As a whole, Cadillac would sit very nicely at 200-250K units annually. 300K of one series is NOT what they're looking for.

 

I am not saying make the CTS cheeper, I am saying sell 300,000 CTS per year and raise the base price $3,000 as well.

Cadillac just recently adjusted the CTS pricing/equipment level, and you think raising the price $3K and running the factory 24/7 is the answer. Wow.

 

The CT6 is the answer to a question no one asked, and the 2.0T model exists the same way that a 320i exists for the BMW 3 Series. 

320i is wretched. CT6 2.0T is not.

 

And that customer buying the base model CT6 is better served by a higher trim, loaded XTS that is far more profitable.

Not the same car and choice appeals to luxury buyers. I have no issue with the XTS getting phased out & the CT6 occupying that (general) spot in the catalog. It's a great move forward on many fronts.

 

Glad you responded before I did. This is getting just silly to the point of "why bother" when he just wants to make up new excuses to suit whatever ridiculous argument he is trying to make here.

 

 

By that logic, a Chevy Spark is a better car to buy than an Escalade.  And Escalade will lose $54,000 in depreciation in 5 years.  The Escalade has a 5 year cost to own of $87,000 according to NADA guides.  Yet it is Cadillac's number 2 seller and GM's #1 profitable car.   Why are people buying Escalades?    If depreciation is so bad and driving customers away, they should just stop making the Escalade by that logic.  

 

Which of course makes no sense, they will keep building Escalades as long as there are people willing to pay for them.  And GM will take their money and laugh all the way to the bank.

That is nowhere even close to comparable to what Balthazaar is talking about and you know it. And your Escalade logic can be easily applied to the fools who continue to buy the fifty year old G-Wagon. I'm sure MB gets a good chuckle on their way to the bank each day, as a result. 

 

His original point is how AMG cars depreciate fast, and cost $50,000 or more in depreciation.  

 

So let's compare 2 cars using NADA projections.   An S550 with a $97,400 MSRP depreciates $64,299, but an E63 with $101,700 depreciates $56,364.  So the AMG brand car holds higher % of value and loses less total dollars.  That debunks his theory that AMG badges hurt resale value, they help it.

 

An Escalade Platinum 4WD with $91,950 MSRP loses $56,333 in 5 years of depreciation.   Loses 61.2% of value over 5 years.

 

Let's compare to the G550, $115,400 MSRP, depreciation of $62,981.   Loses 54.6% of value over 5 years.  So yes it loses more total dollars, but it costs $24,000 more when new.  

 

Throw in a 3rd vehicle, a 2016 GL550 with MSRP of $91,300, virtually the same as the Escalade Platinum.  The GL550 loses $49,843 over 5 years, over $6,000 less than an Escalade will lose.  Balthazar wanted to say how horrible of a purchase a Mercedes is because it looses a big dollar amount in money, the Escalade is even worse, why not criticize it?

 

That is my counter to the argument,  personally I don't think the people spending $100,000 on a vehicle could care at all how it depreciates.  These are people that have money to burn, they'll spend 1 million on a house, $50,000 a year on property taxes and not really care.   Personally, I also like to buy a used car, after that first 3 years of depreciation has hit.

 

I don't care about when and how your "argument" started. You said,

"The Escalade has a 5 year cost to own of $87,000 according to NADA guides.  Yet it is Cadillac's number 2 seller and GM's #1 profitable car.   Why are people buying Escalades?    If depreciation is so bad and driving customers away, they should just stop making the Escalade by that logic.  

Which of course makes no sense, they will keep building Escalades as long as there are people willing to pay for them.  And GM will take their money and laugh all the way to the bank."

Which, again, can be applied to the G-Wagon yet you are oddly silent on that and still want to cherry depreciation values while ignoring the fact that the AMG risks further deprecation values because of dilution of the brand. Here's what you need to look at. What was the average depreciation of the AMG brands when there were far fewer choices compared to many choices that exist today and in the future. Look at that if you want to truly understand what is being talked about here. If you don't understand that simple concept, then maybe you just stop trying to argue that particular point.

Now, let's see what you pick out next.

By that logic, a Chevy Spark is a better car to buy than an Escalade.  And Escalade will lose $54,000 in depreciation in 5 years.  The Escalade has a 5 year cost to own of $87,000 according to NADA guides.  Yet it is Cadillac's number 2 seller and GM's #1 profitable car.   Why are people buying Escalades?    If depreciation is so bad and driving customers away, they should just stop making the Escalade by that logic.  

 

Which of course makes no sense, they will keep building Escalades as long as there are people willing to pay for them.  And GM will take their money and laugh all the way to the bank.

That is nowhere even close to comparable to what Balthazaar is talking about and you know it. And your Escalade logic can be easily applied to the fools who continue to buy the fifty year old G-Wagon. I'm sure MB gets a good chuckle on their way to the bank each day, as a result. 

^ Those are fine… IF mass market global sales numbers is your mission statement.

 

But that's not Cadillac's.

Not to mention he is constantly trying to compare MBs overall sales numbers with ONE GM company that has a mere fraction of models that MB has on top of the fact that the ONE company is not looking for volume sales (which he has been told at least million times up to this point). More cherry picking by SMK does not change that fact (go ahead and down vote that children).

Fact. Ford has more models than Chevrolet. They should be outselling them for the same reason that GM beats Ford MoCo. overall. More models.

Okay. So they're selling more fully loaded trucks.

 

And GM Silverado sales have levelled off. What's the point about fleet sales again? What point is anyone trying to make? I've said it before that automakers sell to fleet all the time.

 

I mean GM has practically surrendered the commercial segment. What's there not to benefit from?

 

I have never been the person to go after fleet sales. 

Then you haven't been paying attention over the last few years. For years, on two different forum sites, I have read countless posts form Ford fans who dogged on GMs fleet habit and rental sales. All we heard about was "retail profit margins vs. rental and fleet margins" and now that the shoe is on the other foot, they are nowhere to be found (well, one of them with good reason lol). Where were you during all of that (seeing as you were also at both sites)?

Seems someone else (not you Suave) glossed over the fact that Ford's rental sales have increased over last year (V6 Mustang anyone?) but that's none of my business.

Okay. So they're selling more fully loaded trucks.

 

And GM Silverado sales have levelled off. What's the point about fleet sales again? What point is anyone trying to make? I've said it before that automakers sell to fleet all the time.

 

I mean GM has practically surrendered the commercial segment. What's there not to benefit from?

 

I have never been the person to go after fleet sales. 

Where is this proof that GM is "practically" surrendering the Fleet market?

I like their commitment to power and performance. I still think I favor E450 vs E43, but it is the same car, and in a way giving it the AMG treatment for styling and suspension and steering set up makes more sense.  This also lets them batle BMW and S4, S6, S7 Audis, because Audi has RS cars too.

 

48 models sounds like a lot until you think C43, C63, C63 S and apply that to sedan, coupe, convertible.  That is 9 "models" but all a C-class.

It is a lot no matter how you try to sugarcoat it and it just dilutes the AMG branding.

I fail to see what the fuss is all about re. GM. They said they were going to cut back on fleet sales and they did. Meanwhile I have read in another place that nearly 2 of every 5 Ford sales are now fleet. If that's how you want to grow your brand then by all means do so. But don't be so naive as to think it's because of some groundswell by the car buying public. By the same token there were a lot less happy folks that month last year when FCA beat Ford in retail sales. This is just both sides of the same coin.

 

Then why is their growth in ATPs double the industry average?

 

Seems like to me they are getting favourable volume in their mix.

 

They're doing record commercial deliveries.

 

Conceivably they could be selling more higher trim F150s to businesses. Who knows. A mystery though how their transactions prices are increasing.

 

Also, a lot of Ford models are older now. The Focus and Fiesta are old, so getting more volume outta them makes sense. 

 

But then again, why do we continue to compare Ford's financial performance to GM?

 

It's because for the longest time even as a smaller firm Ford outperformed GM. The General finally getting its act together - I would expect, I WOULD DEMAND GM as a shareholder to beat Ford in retail sales. No $h!.

That it is, but the E-class has only grown about 4 inches in length in the past 25 years.  The late 80s E-class was 187-188 inches long, a 1996 E-class has length of 189.4 and a 2016 model is 192.1.  Height is up an inch and width up 2 over 20 years.  Small growth

 

The 1991 S-class was 205.2 inches long, the 2016 is 206.5 inches long.  So it also grew slightly over time, it actually downsized in 2000, then went back up in 2007.

 

But look at a 1990 Civicor 3-series and compare it to today, it isn't even close.

What about everything else? 

 

C Class?

CLK? S? SL? ML? GL? GLK? CLS? And all of the wagon and coupe variations that go with all of those.. have those all only grown 4 inches in 25 years? I would wager good money that isn't the case.. 

 

ML/GLE(whatever you want to refer to it as):

1997: 180.6 inches long

2016: 189.1 inches long

 

GLK/GLC

2009(first year it was made): 178.2 inches long

2016: 183.3 inches long

GM is not going to any of the things SMK has brought up and with good reason. Because they know better than him.

This is just making my head hurt. Is cherry picking the "in" thing these days?

 

 

Called this a while ago so I'm just gonna be lazy and paste this here

 

Like the 5series which shares a platform with the BMW 7 Series and is essentially a downsized 7 Series, the CTS will most likely be getting Omega as its bones, and be the same as the 5series in terms of sharing a larger platform. Basically the (current CTS)CT5 or 4 will be a "SWB CT6" still with the same body length as the current CTS, just larger inside via a wider and more space efficient platform called Omega. Count the need for Buick to chime in and get a flagship larger than the LAX for China and U.S (possibly). The "Avista" goes to Buick because they are continuing the trend down the age demographic.. and a sporty coupe could be the fix and seriously help Alpha along with the Camaro. 

 

 

 

Again... and based on what JDN said a few months ago about the next "CTS" and next "ATS" we should be seeing a simple change of size formula for the sake of these issues that critics have brought up about the legroom etc. I'm thinking for the most part the Alpha based ATS replacement will essentially get the Chinese ATS-L Wheelbase of 112.6 inch vs what it has right now of 109.3. This would dwarf the current 3series' 110.6 in WB by a few inches. I think that the ATS replacement will be, along with the Sub-ATS, the only Cadillacs on the Alpha platform, with the Camaro, and this Avista helping out with the numbers a bit more. 

 

The CTS replacement will probably go to Omega. I could see it staying at 196 inchs.. and getting a bump in Wheelbase (currently at 114.6 inches) too coming in at around 117 in N.Amer, like the 5Series. It has been said that the CT6 handles as well as the current CTS.. so certainly I would think that an OMega based... smaller than CT6... CTS would handle as well or better, not losing any of its agility, and losing a few hundred lbs in the change over. This would be beneficial in amortizing the Omega platform even quicker.. (altho I would still push it out to an Impala at Chevy and a Park Ave or Avenir at Buick) along with the CT7 and CT8

 

But how big do these cars get?  Does a CTS or CT5 become the size of a Chrysler 300?  Does the ATS become the size of Infiniti Q50 or Acura TLX?   BMW is just as guilty, they have had some bad size creep on the 3 and 5-series as of late.    I don't get the notion of forcing low end cars up market such as was done with  CTS.   Making the car bigger could hurt sales, not help.

 

Even Chevy and Ford are doing it.  The Cruze is way bigger than a Cobalt was, the Malibu has grown, pretty soon the Impala will be pushed out.  Ford is making the Focus larger, the Fusion longer, killing the Taurus.  These brands are killing the nameplates of their larger, more profitable vehicles to push low end models up.

 

In Chevy's example, they shoudl drop the Spark name plate, make the subcompact the Sonic, what is currently the Sonic becomes the Cruze, the Cruze becomes Malibu and the current Malibu/Impala merge into one car that is an Accord/Camry fighter.  This lets Chevy sella $17,000 Malibu which seems like incredible value, but really it is the same car a $16,000 Cruze would be, yet GM pockets $1,000.

 

It's like you didn't actually read what he actually wrote and are still asking the same questions as before (that have been answered ten fold). 

And I am so glad SMK is not charge of marketing for any of there companies he mentioned. 

Called this a while ago so I'm just gonna be lazy and paste this here

 

Like the 5series which shares a platform with the BMW 7 Series and is essentially a downsized 7 Series, the CTS will most likely be getting Omega as its bones, and be the same as the 5series in terms of sharing a larger platform. Basically the (current CTS)CT5 or 4 will be a "SWB CT6" still with the same body length as the current CTS, just larger inside via a wider and more space efficient platform called Omega. Count the need for Buick to chime in and get a flagship larger than the LAX for China and U.S (possibly). The "Avista" goes to Buick because they are continuing the trend down the age demographic.. and a sporty coupe could be the fix and seriously help Alpha along with the Camaro. 

 

 

 

Again... and based on what JDN said a few months ago about the next "CTS" and next "ATS" we should be seeing a simple change of size formula for the sake of these issues that critics have brought up about the legroom etc. I'm thinking for the most part the Alpha based ATS replacement will essentially get the Chinese ATS-L Wheelbase of 112.6 inch vs what it has right now of 109.3. This would dwarf the current 3series' 110.6 in WB by a few inches. I think that the ATS replacement will be, along with the Sub-ATS, the only Cadillacs on the Alpha platform, with the Camaro, and this Avista helping out with the numbers a bit more. 

 

The CTS replacement will probably go to Omega. I could see it staying at 196 inchs.. and getting a bump in Wheelbase (currently at 114.6 inches) too coming in at around 117 in N.Amer, like the 5Series. It has been said that the CT6 handles as well as the current CTS.. so certainly I would think that an OMega based... smaller than CT6... CTS would handle as well or better, not losing any of its agility, and losing a few hundred lbs in the change over. This would be beneficial in amortizing the Omega platform even quicker.. (altho I would still push it out to an Impala at Chevy and a Park Ave or Avenir at Buick) along with the CT7 and CT8

But how big do these cars get?  Does a CTS or CT5 become the size of a Chrysler 300?  Does the ATS become the size of Infiniti Q50 or Acura TLX?   BMW is just as guilty, they have had some bad size creep on the 3 and 5-series as of late.    I don't get the notion of forcing low end cars up market such as was done with  CTS.   Making the car bigger could hurt sales, not help.

 

Even Chevy and Ford are doing it.  The Cruze is way bigger than a Cobalt was, the Malibu has grown, pretty soon the Impala will be pushed out.  Ford is making the Focus larger, the Fusion longer, killing the Taurus.  These brands are killing the nameplates of their larger, more profitable vehicles to push low end models up.

 

In Chevy's example, they shoudl drop the Spark name plate, make the subcompact the Sonic, what is currently the Sonic becomes the Cruze, the Cruze becomes Malibu and the current Malibu/Impala merge into one car that is an Accord/Camry fighter.  This lets Chevy sella $17,000 Malibu which seems like incredible value, but really it is the same car a $16,000 Cruze would be, yet GM pockets $1,000.

Mercedes does the exact same thing. They pushed up the C Class to be able put out the sub $30k CLA for example. As a matter of fact, all companies do this.

^ Doesn't seem to for mercdees; 1 out of every 2 S-classes are sold in china and it's as soft as baby's bottom, yet they still sell here OK.

The S Class does very well in China well also being made there.

The S-class does well everywhere, and it has to be made there to sell there because of the import tax laws in China.  

 

If you buy an S-class or E-class in the USA it is made in Sindelfigen, Germany.

. That's not what I'm talking about but thanks for playing. We already know that if you had to live in China that you would not buy one that was made there. We've talked about this.

If I had to live in China, I would still buy a Mercedes, which in most cases would be made in China.  Just like people that live in the USA and buy a GLC or C-class or GLE are buying a Mercedes made in the USA.   They are often built in the region of the world where the car is sold.  Certain cars with lower volume are only tooled up at one factory though, such as the SL.  High volume like a C-class is built in 3 or 4 different factories.  Every car maker does this.

Funny because that's not what you said a few weeks ago. Back then you said you'd never drive a Chinese made Mercedes (on the CT6 made in China thread). Interesting.

And you are proving Balthazaars point.

I'll openly admit I down vote people who say super douchy $h! and there's just no debating with some people so they get a little click of "you're a douche" and I go on with my day. For the most part that's how I use it. I don't "down vote" I say "you're being a douche". When I disagree with somebody I usually just type something up on why I think one thing or another and they do the same, agreeing or disagreeing.

Not referring to you. There are some who don't even post here anymore that just pop in to see what they can down vote and then they are gone. No comments, no posts, no contributions to this site whatsoever other than to troll posts of people they don't like. They use that one down vote for the day and POOF, they are gone again. That is what I am talking about.

Seriously..? See that would grab one of my "you're a douche" votes. lol

I don't understand how you could have that much anger/hatred towards somebody via the internet ALONE. Never met, Never heard each other's voices, don't even know what they look like, yet there is that much hatred. Blows my mind.

Good lord man. Stop overdramatizing what I am talking about. It's a simple observation of what the trolls around here were doing. You and I both know that is what has been going on in some of these cases. I am not being a douche at all and if you think that is "you're being a douche" vote then the problem is with you and your perceptions. In this case, your perception about me is wrong here. Again, there is no anger, no hatred. It is an observation that can actually be backed up with facts (this has been discussed before). I'm just tired of the children. If you confusing that with hatred or anger, then I don't know what else to tell you. Don't vote all you want if you continue to feel something about me that isn't there. That's all I'm going to say about it because it's taking away from the topic.

Hey man, I sent you a pm. I really didn't clarify what I meant by that. Sorry about that.

It's all good in the hood.

^ Doesn't seem to for mercdees; 1 out of every 2 S-classes are sold in china and it's as soft as baby's bottom, yet they still sell here OK.

The S Class does very well in China well also being made there.

The S-class does well everywhere, and it has to be made there to sell there because of the import tax laws in China.  

 

If you buy an S-class or E-class in the USA it is made in Sindelfigen, Germany.

^ Doesn't seem to for mercdees; 1 out of every 2 S-classes are sold in china and it's as soft as baby's bottom, yet they still sell here OK.

The S Class does very well in China well also being made there.