balthazar

^ looks like a backyard cut-n-weld project from the 'back woods'. Would never sell.

My God does that look like a real hacked together POcheapS. Nissan rebadge, FTL! I guarantee it'll come to the U.S.- Daimler CANNOT HELP themselves if they see a dollar lying on the ground. BTW: 165 HP- my wife's '09 Malibu has a 167 HP 4-cyl & a 6-spd. Could goose the tuning a bit, give it 200? It's just so freaking sad, so much for 'The Best or Nothing'. Nothing would have been better.

'GeneralMotorized', perhaps?

Bitchin', probably circa 1960 AMC sketch (glossing over the oversized disembodied head shown) ~

Was simply using riviera74's term in responding to him. 'Homogenized' is correct here. It wasn't ignorance- the engine origins were not specified. GM swapped in other Division engines with no public announcement. While a bit of this did start with the A-bodies in the '60s (Buick 215 optional in the Tempest, for example) there didn't seem to be any fallout there. But by the '70s, I believe it became widespread. I also believe it was a bit different- in '70, for example, when you wanted a I-6 Firebird, there was only 1 offering, the 250 (built by Chevrolet). In the '70s, if you wanted a small block V8 Ventura, sometimes you got a Pontiac 350 (355), sometimes it was a Buick 350, etc. The cost thing comes into context when you realize that the first 70 years of GM, these were independent brands under a parent corporation. You might be amazed at the tiny fraction of parts exchangability at GM in 1960- I would estimate Division-to-Division it was 5%. It's under today's auto industry practices where more is the same & less if different (not to mention the cost factor of the Fed) that it doesn't make fiscal sense. GM was printing money into the 1970s doing it the way they did.

Do not forget the lawsuits in the '70s over homologated GM engines. IIRC, GM lost/paid on that charge, and that set the stage for homolgated cars, because GM 'went with' massive cross-sharing. Most enthusiasts 'draw the line' at corporate engines / 1982 as the 'beginning of the long slide' @ GM.

IMO, the 'bare swatches' below the headlights are the horizontal bumpers to either side of the full-height grille. And those elements, plus the smaller headlights, give the car visual width, whereas their absense/ larger lights would make it appear narrower. Cadillacs should be wide. The ONLY thing I see I'm indifferent on is those 2 small angled-outward lines to either side of the bottom air intake- I would like to see what they'd look like following the angles of the grille sides. Otherwise, the CTS is the freshest lux mid-size (without getting mad weird like over at toyota-lexus or hardcore dated like the 5-series.

Personally, I don't think there is a better / meaner front end in this class.

Strong Dodge overtones in the front fascia... tho on the Charger it doesn't look like some trim pieces are missing.

Not targeting you, Friskito, but your sentiment caught my eye. Specifically WRT Cadillac- how some folk dismiss a Cadillac model because it's NOT sold in (many) other countries... which has always spurred me to think 'But you folks live in the U.S.!'. Your sentiment says the flip- this car 'doesn't matter' because it won't be sold HERE. Dichotomy.

Bah- all these dozens of 'super coupes' all have the same silhouette- it's a cookie cutter segment. It's also a dead segment.

'70, '68, '67, '66 ~

You make these ridiculous, repetitive statements like 1. they have any bearing on the real world, and 2. you have an atomic particle-sized intention of ever buying a Cadillac. It's lunacy.

Uhhh... because they don't currently WANT to drop those sedans? Why doesn't audi drop the A8 with 300 sales/mnth? Cadillac IS in the crossover business.

You don't really favor that sort of unilateral conformity, do you? Personally, I loathe it. I have no interest in Jaguars but I'll tip my cap to any resistance to homogenization.

Why would a mid-size luxury sedan lose to the same brand compact sedan? Cadillac may be 7th in sales but aren't they #2 in the mid-size CUV segment? It's all the same old tired numbers game- Cadillac will not be in every segment, that's not their mission statement.

A8 doesn't ATP $30K more than the CT6, tho. It's about half that, so by your theory, the CT6 should be only double the A8 sales, instead of 3.5 times. It's just imminently questionable how much 'halo' effect a flagship gives the rest of the line when "no one" buys them. I think that's where the cheaper A7 came in... tho "no one" is buying it either. This is why all the luxury brands are moving so hard downmarket- that's where the money is going. The uber/ car share/ youth disinterest/ 'cars are just taxis' is working hand-in-hand with the "seat me higher off the road" mentality to undermine the big overpriced lux market- people aren't as enamored with them as in decades past.

Oh yeah- everything basically is down. S-class has posted like a 24% sales drop M-t-M. CT6 is nearly past it in volume, that's the only car climbing I've checked. But while the S-class is down to 1100/mnth, the A8 is at 300. If things follow this trajectory, the A8 may flirt with 100/mnth Now; Audi may not care about U.S. model sales- they have a bunch of vehicles in the low 100s/mnth... but you would think selling 2 car per STATE per month would be the cause of some frantic boardroom meetings.

Fascinating in reading a few of the Audi reviews, zero mention troubling sales. U.S. A8 sales are terrible- they were terrible a year ago, also- so it isn't "A8 fans waiting for the refresh". 300 units/mnth is a dead car rolling. U.S. advertising/ certification/ repair training must cost more than the profit on the model.

I don't think that's an issue in the last 30 years- remember the era bumper-lift trucks were in use- towing '72 Impalas & the like; cars with overhang. dfelt- I think you are talking about wheel-lift trucks- lot of rollbacks also have wheel lifts. Rollbacks are best - less chance of damage when the whole car is up off the road & on a level secure surface. In looking at '66 Toronados with my buddy- even some of the steel-bumper cars were damaged down low on the bumeprs by bumper-lift trucks- depends on the contour & the operator. Back to rollback = the best.

Dear God- why. Stand-ups belong with vinyl tops & wire wheels- in the 1970-80s.

Agreed- and for the very reason I stated above; you can't lift plastic-bumpered cars that way, and we've been saddled with plastic-ended cars for 30 years now. My buddy owns a 'square body' Chevy bumper lift truck, tho it hasn't been on the road in at least 10 years.

Only a vintage car- modern plastic-dipped junk wouldn't survive a bumper-lift tow.

Trucks had exterior antennas well past the bulk of cars. My generation Silverado still had one. But jimminy smk- the s-class still has a stand up hood ORNAMENT, that everyone outside of Daimler got rid of in 1985!