balthazar

^ There's one now. ?

Going to state this again, because I believe the narrative should be set straight. People LOVE to postulate that GM is losing money on everything. This 'under $80K = loss' theory is conjecture based on the fact that GM originally targeted the price of the C8 to be $80K. Who in their right mind would think GM would intentionally set a price to make no profit on a Corvette? Think about it. Now, while it's possible that GM loses money at $60K, we don't know that for sure and we have no idea, if so, the dollar amount per car.

Altho the center of gravity is somewhat lower than a 911 with an aluminum 6 (not a hard spec that's on anyone's radar), the Taycan is like 5150 lbs- ungodly heavy. Obviously it's quick on the straights but that incredible weight is the antithesis of high performance handling... and if porsche is getting good handling out of it too, it has to be under tremendous component stress. Just goes against what a sports car is supposed to be.

Shock towers are pretty far inboard, relatively speaking.

They don’t build ‘good electrics’ because no one buys them. A half dozen hybrids/ ‘low EVs’ have shown conclusively they don’t care to put any real effort into them, and they lose money on every (pitifully few) sale. Consumers know it. Why buy a copy when they can get the original EV vehicle, right? Not to mention that the skateboard concept was invented by General Motors, so they have that cache in-house toward future Cadillac EVs. Daimler doesn’t.

Exact same thing is true for mercedes, tho- they just put off their eqs (or whatever alphanumeric it is) because they can’t afford to take the ROI loss. Tesla will kill any mercedes EV. That says much less about brand status than it does about EV status. GM made $11 billion profit in ‘18 (more than MB); no doubt a healthy slice was from Cadillac.

My 2500HD turned 195,000 miles yesterday. ?

That's not the problem. At audi, for example, the e-tron loses 239 miles of range but charges $30K more over an A4 wagon. It's just not an appealing comparison. Mercedes is in a huge spending contraction, and they know how poor the ROI is on EVs. They can't afford the loss on an EV now- I think the delay is going to be even longer than a year.

No change in size. Same configuration: crew cab / 6.5’ bed. I’m fine with going with a 1500. I’ll look at all 3 of the Big Dogs, tho Dodge is a distant 3rd. A Silverado 1500 w/ the 3.0TD would be my first wish. No ‘safety package’, which so far is an extra-cost option (TY, GM).

1. Define ‘climb over 10 brands’ and also define the 5 of those brands that ‘have to climb over the other 5’... OR explain how they are just fine in whatever hierarchy they’re in. 2. There’s no threat to Cadillac ‘staying in business’ as long as they are stay as highly profitable as they are.

Wrong on both points.

Frankly, neither I nor Cadillac, should give a crap about 'haters'; it's a waste of time/resources to try and convert them. A billion dollars of focused marketing & product development would still never get me owning a toyoter. Agreed; the product has to be top shelf. If GM is highly profitable (it is), at least at Cadillac; Caddy should just put their concept vehicles into production as is. Escala, Ciel, even that electric SUV they teased. Build 'em & jack the equivalent prices by 50%.

Floppage :

Imagine this car comes out, and it's named 'Fleetwood'.

Any car name short of an acknowledged 'flop' is game for a high-quality dynamic rebirth. An Escala named "Fleetwood" would be just fine. Haters will still try and claim they can only envision white belt/early bird special owners from the 1980s, but it won't wash. It's like trying to associate a modern S-class with the VW-interior, crank-windowed, anemic-powered, no-A/C cars from the '70s. Products can evolve and raise their status. Look at Lincoln.

^ This is why I dislike live recordings/shows. Generally awful in comparison.

Sentra is well preserved for a 1995 model— oh wait, that's a brand new car??

The white car is 1 of 704 Eldorado Broughams:

If CA has it's way, you won't be able to even if you wanted to.

>>"Cadillac could continue to sell internal combustion models alongside electric vehicles, depending on consumer demand."<< Wow- one auto exec who seems to get it. We've been talking about the EV movement here for years, but it's only been this year I've been reading a scant few industry folk allowing as to how most of the journalistic / op-ed, Sound-of-Music-twirl predictions of '50% of the market by 2025' just isn't reflected in ANY numbers. Wow- no foolin? I believe we'll have IC vehicles at least 50 years from now.

But it’s not a ‘big part’ of the markets GM & FoMoCo is in. Read a piece the other day how Honda is seeing severe profit constraint because they are in too many markets building too many market-specific trims/equipment, and are planning on engineering consolidation. Frankly, I never understood how ‘being global’ is always something to strive for. Some industries/products are just better suited to certain demographics. And I never saw any benefit to me OR the Corp if a truck I bought here was also sold across the globe.

I would agree, but I assume that as vehicles get smaller overall, the ‘EPA’ will continue to redefine interior cubic volume definitions to still be able to -one day- call an altima a ‘full-size car’, just to say there still are ‘full-size cars’ and avoid the charge they’ve basically banned such via a host of mandates.