smk4565
-
Posts
13,776 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
13
Content Type
Forums
Articles
Garage
Gallery
Events
Store
Collections
Everything posted by smk4565
-
Cadillac News: GM Plans On Importing CT6 Plug-In Hybrid from China
smk4565 replied to William Maley's topic in Cadillac
A Cadillac sold in the USA, made in China is sad. I think this is the beginning of the slippery slope. Envision and CT6, then in a few years it could be the Regal and LaCrosse, etc. Once they start producing cars on the cheap in China they'll keep it going if they can get away with selling them. I would not buy a Chinese made car.- 29 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Cadillac
- Chinese Production
- (and 5 more)
-
Cadillac News: Cadillac Is Working On A RWD Sedan To Sit Below ATS
smk4565 replied to William Maley's topic in Cadillac
Rear drive should give Cadillac an advantage in this segment. I'd also venture to guess that if they start this car at $30,000, they can move the ATS up to about $36,000 and drop the 2.5 liter base engine. -
A 4-cylinder diesel Wrangler would be sweet.
-
They are profitable and those margins have gone up every year since bankruptcy. Again, pay attention to the actual facts. That is also not the ONLY way for them to make more profit. Their trucks are proof of that alone. And don't sit there and now try to dismiss Toyotas numbers. You brought it up and were corrected as to why those numbers are misleading. Admit you just pulled that out of your rear and own up to your error for once. Even if you take away the currency manipulation and yen exchange rates, Toyota is still kicking butt. That article mentioned they get like 500 million from the yen exchange, even if it was $1 billion, they still made an $18 billion profit. I don't like Toyota nor their products, but that company bankrolls cash. I know GM makes their money on trucks, that is how the company has been since the 90s, all the profits came from trucks with Hummer, Escalade, the GMT360s, Silverado/Sierra, Aztek/Rendezvous, Colorado/Canyon, etc. They had all those trucks in the early-mid 2000s and still went bankrupt. Their trucks didn't save them then. If you look at the current GM lineup and current auto sales over all. Crossovers, particularly small crossovers are growing, luxury segment is growing. Pick-up trucks and full size SUV is sort of a flat market, plus you have new Tundra, Tacoma, Titan, Ridgeline hitting the pick up segments. I don't think GM can hope to grow global Silverado sales 20%, but I do think they could grow global Cadillac sales by 50%. And Cadillacs should have high profit margins. If GM could sell 500,000 Cadillacs a year at $4,000 profit per vehicle that is $2 Billion in total profit. If they sold 1 million Cadillacs that is $4 billion in profit, that is more than all of GM makes now. That is why Cadillac is the most important brand GM has.
-
I am not a Johan fan either, I'd rather see Cadillac embrace their history rather than run from it. I think Johan wants to make Cadillac like Audi, bring on the CT1 sedan, the XT1 and XT3 crossovers and go after urban buyers currently buying A3s and Q3s. And yes you need small cars and crossovers, but Cadillac should be Cadillac, the company that made the first mass produced V8 engine, the company that made extravagant Eldorado convertibles, etc. Where GM has the big advantage over Ford is Cadillac. Ford doesn't have a luxury brand that could be global (and by that I mean more than USA and China) and post strong volume. Cadillac could mop the floor with Lincoln if GM would get Cadillac the product they need. Imagine an Alpha crossover lined up against the MKC, and an Omega platform 3-row crossover in the $60,000 range, with the XT5 in the middle and Escalade at the top.
-
I'd go with the Patriot name, those 2 models do need to be merged into one, there is a lot of overlap with the lower end Jeeps right now. Renegade, Patriot, Cherokee, Grand Cherokee gives them a nice line up. I love the Wrangler pick up idea. The Wrangler is an icon product, pickups sell well, and a Wrangler pick up would be a really strong competitor to the Tacoma, Colorado/Canyon, and Frontier. Wrangler could use some updated powertrains though, they still have a 5-speed automatic in it, I think they should make a 4-cylinder option also to pair with the V6. The 190 hp 2.4 liter 4-cylinder with the 8-speed auto from the Charger/300 would make a nice entry level Wrangler, and probably get pretty good fuel economy.
-
photos
-
-
From the album: smk's
Summer 2015 -
Downsize is a good idea. Sales will go up, and they have the Traverse/Enclave as bigger, plus the Yukon. Terrain and Equinox are shrinking remember. You can't have a 182 inch long Terrain and a 201 inch long Acadia, especially when you have a 160 inch long Encore and 201 inch long Enclave in the same showroom. You have to have a mid-size, medium is often the best selling size.
-
What other factors? GM needs profit, bankruptcy 7 years ago is not an excuse to not be profitable, especially when they argued that if the government bailed them out they would become a profitable company. Regardless of what Toyota or Honda do, GM is not as profitable as they should be. Ford is a more profitable automaker than GM as far as total dollars of income, and Ford has less revenue. The easiest and best way for GM to improve profit margin is more Cadillacs.
-
I know Cadillac makes profit and Opel does not. This is why I would sell Opel, even if you sell it to FCA or Ford or VW for $1 be rid of it. Holden/Opel/Buick isn't like the One Ford plan, it is still 4 brands if you count Vauxhall and they don't have the same product line up. Also we know Cadillac makes a profit, why even make a Regal in the first place? Why redo the Malibu ever 4 years when it won't sell anyway? Pump money into Cadillac. If GM made hybrid SUVs and pickups to boost their CAFE numbers they wouldn't need to sell Sparks and Sonics at a loss to offset the Silverado's gas mileage. Cadillac should have 4 sedans (compact, small, medium, large), 3 coupes (small, medium, large) , 2 convertibles (small, medium), 1 sports car above Corvette, 4 crossovers (compact, small, medium, large), plus the Escalade, and everyone of those products should have a V-series, and everyone of those products should offer a plug-in or diesel engine option. That should all be in show rooms by 2020. Currently only the CT6 and XT5 fit that line up, and the Escalade could soldier on until 2020, and they can re-do it in 2021. So they need 12 more models in 4 years, they need 3 brand new products per year. They need a lot of product, that is where GM needs to put focus. Why would you not put the most models in your most profitable brand?
-
Toyota still out-earned GM several years ago when the Dollar to yen ratio was not as strong. The Germans are more profitable than GM too, they aren't benefiting from the Yen. My main point is GM could be a more profitable company if it had more Cadillac sales. A profitable Cadillac division could carry the whole company, and offset the money losing European operation. Which as a side bar, they should either sell the European operation totally, or go the One Ford route, and rename Opel and Vauxhall to Chevrolet, and make a global Spark, Sonic, Cruze, Malibu/Insignia, Camaro, Trax, Equinox line up that is the same in Europe, as it is in Asia, as it is in the USA.
-
Well VW will pay for it dearly now. But you could pick a number of brands that turn a better profit than GM. You need profit from the luxury brand, there needs to be greater focus on more Cadillac product and more Cadillac advertising.
-
not getting help from the Japanese Government... not to mention improving their line-up in a way that produces superior vehicles.. Toyota on the other hand.. not so much. Even their flagship Prius Hybrid is falling behind the competition in terms of.. wait for it.. wait.. TECHNOLOGY VW made $11.9 billion in profit in 2014. $9 billion more than GM on roughly the same number of sales. Audi alone generates more dollars in profit than all of GM. GM needs to put a bigger focus on Cadillac, they should have a bigger line up and get more new product than Buick and GMC combined.
-
I think Cadillac has mediocre management, awful product planners, and the worst marketing/advertising department of any luxury brand. The ATS coupe sits in the price point of the old CTS coupe, so they still have 1 coupe too sell. But no convertible in the line up and 1 crossover is a joke. I wonder how much of this is Cadillac's own ineptitude vs GM's top brass handcuffing the brand. Cadillac could be turning 10 times the profit of Buick or GMC, yet the top brass wants to keep investing in GMC and Buick, while not giving Cadillac enough product. A company the size of GM should have at least $10 billion a year in profit, not $3-4 billion as they have been producing. Toyota for their fiscal year that ended March 2015 had $18.1 billion in profit, and are on pace to beat that this year. $20 billion in profit at Toyota, $4 billion a GM, what the hell is GM doing?
-
Very true on the RLX interior. It is what you'd expect in a Maxima or Azera level car for low to mid 30s. It is not a very good looking car on the outside either.
-
Rear drive is preferred, and as I said in the Cadillac thread, when the sub-ATS car arrives I did say it should have better ride, handling and performance than a CLA. Barring Cadillac putting like a 1.4 liter turbo and 6-speed auto or something stupid in it. The CLA's current competition is the A3, Acura ILX, Volvo S40, maybe Golf GTI and the GLA competes with Q3 and X1. So those are all front drivers. I don't like the CLA, but it has the drivetrain common to the segment. The Continental wants to compete with rear drive Lexus, Cadillacs, Mercedes, Infiniti, Genesis, Kia K900, etc. They are all rear drive. The Acura RLX is the front drive entrant and has miserable sales volume.
-
In 2014 GM sold 9.9 million cars and made a profit of $2.8 billion. That works out to $282 per car in profit. This was a bad year though due to recall costs, in 2013, they made $3.8 billion net profit and it looks like 2015 will finish up closer to $4 billion in profit. So let's say they sell 10 million cars and make $4 billion profit, that is $400 per car. If Cadillac could make an 8% margin per car, that would be $4,000 per car. Wouldn't GM rather sell more $4,000 per car profit vehicles than the money losing Opels, or the $400 profit per car Chevrolets? I couldn't find Mercedes car division (no vans or Daimler trucks) net income, but I found their EBIT for 2014, which was $6.39 billion on sales of 1,722,600 cars. GM the same year had EBIT of $6.49 billion on sales of 9.9 million cars. Nearly the same amount of annual profit but an 8 million unit gap in sales. And Audi works on a better profit margin than Mercedes does and has even higher sales volume. This is the importance of luxury sales. Cadillac could produce more dollars of profit than Buick, GMC and Chevy combined, if they could get the volume up.
-
CTS has a sales problem. I am not sure how you fix that though. It is the biggest car in the segment, maybe it needs to shrink, get a more interesting looking rear end, better interior, I don't know. The people aren't buying it though, and even more scary is a new E-class is on sale in summer, and a new 5-series is coming shortly after that. Sales problem has been outlined a thousand times and U and some still seem to not get it. No coupe, no advertising, same priced XTS on the lot.. get it thru your head. Interior is award winning. Performance is class leading. Look is subjective but I think its the best looking of the segment Why isn't there a CTS coupe then? Does GM not have the money to spend on Cadillac product development, can they not afford advertising either? The 5-series doesn't have a coupe, it has that GT thing that doesn't sell, but it mostly gets by on 1 body style. And if the CTS is such a good product, why doesn't it outsell the exactly same priced XTS? It has better ride, handling, breaking, overall performance than an XTS, award winning interior but can't outsell the XTS. The CTS was down 32% last year, something is wrong with either the product or their sales approach.
-
Wouldn't a sub-ATS with RWD make it better than a MB CLA by your logic? Can't have that now can we? A sub ATS rear driver should have better ride and handling than a CLA, all other things being equal. Assuming they don't put an awful engine or transmission into the CT1 or CT2 whatever it will be called, they should have better mechanics than the CLA. Then it comes down to styling and interior.
-
They used to have ZERO FWD models and it's real easy to pad your "18" count when you want to include every variant of each main model. 12 to 3 if not counting model variants or the vans. They used to have zero but the world changed, and one of their fwd cars is a compliance car to meet electric car regs. And the front drive is at the very bottom of the brand. It isn't on their flagship. The FWD GLA is not electric. In fact only one out of the three FWD MBs are electric so that little excuse does not fly. There are other reasons for them doing so but I understand that you have to come up with whatever excuse you can to justify your favorite make having what you would normally detest from anyone else. BTW, a world a difference between a $50K Lincoln Continental and $100K+ (in most trims) S-Class that it DOES NOT COMPETE WITH. Don't why everything from everyone else has to measure to an S-Class, even when said car does not compete with it. Did you read my post? I said "one of their fwd cars is a compliance car to electric requirements." The B-class is only sold in like 10 states even. The CLA gets 38 mpg, they need it for CAFE, and it is a 208 hp sub-compact car, to which you don't really need rwd for that sort of car. And the Acura, Volvo, Golf GTI crowd they are competing with probably prefer fwd. I personally don't like the CLA or GLA, but them sitting on the lot doesn't offend me. I don't think people dislike a Corvette because Chevy also makes the Spark. If you like the Corvette, you aren't going to care what other cars are sold on the same lot. I know the Continental doesn't compete with the 2016 S-class. I am saying the Continental is behind where the S-class was 13 years ago.
-
Don't be daft... different types of cars. Why should a buyer be asked to pay $60k or whatever the Continental will cost for a chassis and drivetrain inferior to a $30k Mustang? This is why Volvo S80, Lincoln sedans, Acura RLX, don't sell, why DeVille/DTS sales tanked into cancellation of the product. People don't want to spend big bucks for a car with garden variety front drive, 6-speed, transverse engine, etc. If I were going to pay $60k or more for a car, I'd want performance, handling and luxury. Or imagine if Honda was going to make a full size pick up to compete with the F150 and Silverado, and the Honda full size pick up was front wheel drive, with all wheel drive optional, 3.5 V6 and a turbo V6 option. Would the truck buyers used to V8s and rear drive body on frame want a unibody fwd honda full size truck? No, it would get laughed out of the segment.
-
A sub ATS model could mean the 2.5 ATS dies, and the ATS (or CT3) starts with the 2.0T at $37,000. And I think I said Johan before who has hinted at a sub-ATS. Dave Leone confirmed to Road and Track that they are currently working on a car below ATS, and that it would be rear drive. The car is already in development.
-
They used to have ZERO FWD models and it's real easy to pad your "18" count when you want to include every variant of each main model. 12 to 3 if not counting model variants or the vans. They used to have zero but the world changed, and one of their fwd cars is a compliance car to meet electric car regs. And the front drive is at the very bottom of the brand. It isn't on their flagship.
-
Maybe they should make the Corvette, Camaro and Mustang FWD as well, since it is so good. And since V8s aren't needed anymore, make the 3.0TT V6 as the top engine in the Mustang. I wonder what would happen to Mustang sales if it was FWD/AWD with no V8 option? Hmmmmm
- 185 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- 2016 Detroit Auto Show
- 2017
- (and 5 more)
