: Should Cadillac continue to try to counterfeit BMWs



orconn
10-05-10, 12:36 AM
Should Cadillac continue in its' current quest to counterfeit BMWs or should it turn to building cars that reflect American needs and tastes in a high quality car for the kind of roads and speed limits we encounter in this country. I would venture a guess that given a level (trade) playing field that a high grade automobile capable of delivering a comfortable ride while sitting in an attractive, well assembled spacious cabin with an excellent HVAC system and and sound system, a car that was rock slid reliable would be very attractive to both Americans and wealthy buyers in developing countries.

Jesda
10-05-10, 01:13 AM
Well, Americans basically all want a BMW now. The ones that don't will buy a Lexus.

Its a pickle for Cadillac.

Playdrv4me
10-05-10, 04:44 AM
Cadillac should continue building counterfeit BMWs because with the possible exception of the E90 platform, BMW doesn't even build "real" BMWs anymore. If Cadillac can focus on the void that BMW is leaving behind, with a sprinkle of American character to boot, they'll sell plenty of cars.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-05-10, 08:38 AM
How does BMW not build real BMW's??

(awaiting a response from Rick....)

I like the older, bigger, softer Cadillacs more than the newer, nimbler, sportier ones, but the market doesn't want the big, soft ones so it would be stupid for Cadillac to build them from a business standpoint.

hueterm
10-05-10, 10:18 AM
That one is called an XTS...which if it had an optional N*, would be pretty sharp.....but I'd take an LSx.

A V6.....um, no thanks.

They need a Deville replacement that isn't to the level of a flagship S/7/LS fighter. However, they need that too. If Hyundai can build an Equus, we should play there too.

The flagship should be in SWB and LWB, and the CTS should also have a stretched version, between it and the XTS.

Night Wolf
10-05-10, 01:58 PM
The e90 has grown on me a bit... IMO the only thing BMW currently makes that would be an evoloution of a "real" BMW would the new 1-series.

The cars just got a whole lot bigger, heavier and loaded with stuff that could be considered gimicky... all while build quality and durability decreased.

Example, my '87 5-series is 181.9" long, the 1-series is 172.2". Less than 10" from a 5-series to a 1-series...a car built even smaller than the 3-series due to that increasing in size.

The 1-series really seems like a spitirual successor to the e30 - the rest of the lineup has gotten bloated. Not saying they are bad cars, and that is pretty much the way the automakers are going with larger cars and mega power...

But there is a reason why on the e28 and e30 forums, many people say they stick around with their old cars simply because there isn't a new car made like them anymore.... usually one would think that with newer technology and updated cars, the driving feel and enjoyment would improve..... but that just isn't the case with these cars.

firstimecaddi
10-05-10, 02:04 PM
Buick Regal??

orconn
10-05-10, 02:47 PM
I must admit the campaign on the part of German manufacturers to convince the American public that the myth of "Superior German Engineering" has been quite successful. Even good old Buick is touting the German origine of the new Regal. I thought the use of the Opel chassis was an expedient, like the use of a previous Opel chassis and drive train in the Catera, to cut design and production cost. It could become a nice adjunct to the Buick line, I only hope that GM supports the aftermarket maintenance needs of the new Regal, instead of "orphaning" it as they did with the Catera. The Catera, by the way, was closer to the base model BMW's performance than "myth" would have you believe. It also was accessorized and featured like a BMW costing in the mid-$40,000. range, with build quality to match the 5 series Bimmer ..... but with an entry level price of $32,000!

Playdrv4me
10-05-10, 06:34 PM
I must admit the campaign on the part of German manufacturers to convince the American public that the myth of "Superior German Engineering" has been quite successful. Even good old Buick is touting the German origine of the new Regal. I thought the use of the Opel chassis was an expedient, like the use of a previous Opel chassis and drive train in the Catera, to cut design and production cost. It could become a nice adjunct to the Buick line, I only hope that GM supports the aftermarket maintenance needs of the new Regal, instead of "orphaning" it as they did with the Catera. The Catera, by the way, was closer to the base model BMW's performance than "myth" would have you believe. It also was accessorized and featured like a BMW costing in the mid-$40,000. range, with build quality to match the 5 series Bimmer ..... but with an entry level price of $32,000!

I'm not sure I would go so far as to call it a "myth". Certainly it is well understood that when you buy a German car, in general, you will be repairing it more frequently than a Japanese or Domestic. However, having owned and driven examples of vehicles from just about every car making continent, I can say without question that German cars have a driving style and build style all their own. There is a reason why every other car maker, with the possible exception of the British, attempts to match German vehicle driving characteristics. And it makes sense when you consider that they have amongst the fastest most precise driving roads on the planet. They *have* to build their vehicles to a higher driving standard than anywhere else, because they have to make the most use of what they've got to DRIVE them on. Conversely, our interstates are designed for leisure and comfort, and our vehicles reflect that. This is why I respect Cadillac's decision to mimic German driving characteristics where POSSIBLE, but without sacrificing the small, uniquely American touches.

I *do* agree that Cadillac needs a vehicle to compete in the premium spectrum absolutely. And THAT vehicle can certainly be a softer, plusher style of character. In entry to mid level Cadillacs though, the sharper driving characteristics are welcome, and that is reflected in the number of younger buyers that are moving to Cadillacs now.

To answer Chad's question (and I think Rick did a pretty good job of summing it all up), the BMWs of today are significantly less sharp overall than the cars of just 10 years ago. Drive an E38 or E39 and compare it to the new 7 and 5 and its immediately evident that while gadgets and comforts have increased (and so has complexity in repair as a result), so too the overall sharpness has been dialed out somewhat. They're just heavier floatier cars. Even with the 3 series, I prefer the E46 platform, which is perhaps among the most superior vehicle platforms EVER built by ANY manufacturer to the E90 platform. The E90 however has that absolutely brilliant twin turbo I6 that is just a gift from heaven.

Curiously, one of the least "Teutonic" brands is in-fact Mercedes. I guess its become more of the German Lexus. Kind of amusing when you consider that Lexus had always emulated Merc from the beginning of its existence. In fact, a lot of frustrated mid-2000s Mercedes owners (the "bad" era) are Lexus converts.

mdscad
10-05-10, 06:51 PM
Hell yes! My new CTS more closely gives me the "drivers feel" of my E60 5er than its replacement F10. The F10 has become more "Lexus-like." The fact that the CTS has done such a great job of capturing that "feel" and brings at least a $10,000. savings, has made me a convert.

orconn
10-05-10, 08:38 PM
By the "Myth of German Engineering" I mean that the German practice of designing complexity and expense into a part or system when it is not functionally necessary is somehow superior to accomplishing a design that fulfills and accomplishes the design objective as simply, reliably and econmically as possible. I agree German cars are designed and built to perform in an envelope that far exceeds that available by law to Americans, but there cars do this at a very high price to owner in the form of parts and maintenance costs (at least in the U.S.). The reason that some Americans are willing to pay these exhorbitant cost has to do with the prestige created by the "Myth of German Engineering." When it comes to technical and engineering insight both the French and the Italians have proven themslves equal if not in many cases superior to German engineering. The fact that the American public is ignorant of this fact has more to do with prejudice than with fact.

I agree that the entry level Cadillac models should emulate the BMWs better driving traits, as this is what young people who can afford this class of automobile seem to want. But I also think that it is within GM's and the Cadillac Division's capability to develop and make a car uniquely fulfills the requirements of luxury car buyers throughout the world. I would like to see them concentrate on this design objective and not "just" slavishly try to iterate BMW's bygone performance and image.

Playdrv4me
10-05-10, 09:19 PM
By the "Myth of German Engineering" I mean that the German practice of designing complexity and expense into a part or system when it is not functionally necessary is somehow superior to accomplishing a design that fulfills and accomplishes the design objective as simply, reliably and econmically as possible. I agree German cars are designed and built to perform in an envelope that far exceeds that available by law to Americans, but there cars do this at a very high price to owner in the form of parts and maintenance costs (at least in the U.S.). The reason that some Americans are willing to pay these exhorbitant cost has to do with the prestige created by the "Myth of German Engineering." When it comes to technical and engineering insight both the French and the Italians have proven themslves equal if not in many cases superior to German engineering. The fact that the American public is ignorant of this fact has more to do with prejudice than with fact.

I agree that the entry level Cadillac models should emulate the BMWs better driving traits, as this is what young people who can afford this class of automobile seem to want. But I also think that it is within GM's and the Cadillac Division's capability to develop and make a car uniquely fulfills the requirements of luxury car buyers throughout the world. I would like to see them concentrate on this design objective and not "just" slavishly try to iterate BMW's bygone performance and image.

Ahh, I understand now. Good points all around.

Bro-Ham
10-06-10, 01:05 AM
I think it's fine to make a Cad that handles well and performs, it's the norm these days. The problem is the American uniqueness is gone from today's Cadillacs, they are not special nor prestigious, not opulent nor luxurious.

A new Cadillac is not impressive and exciting, the mystique was lost and seemingly never to be found again on the current path. There are some current Cadillacs that have micro appeal for their high performance yet these cars are hardly the halo that electrifies a market, sets the trend, or gets hearts pounding.

When real Cadillacs are made we'll know; we won't be able to stop talking about them. :)

Night Wolf
10-06-10, 02:36 AM
I suppose for the new car buyer, there is valid reason to cross shop Cadillac and BMW now. But for people like me, that don't buy new cars, and instead thrive on fixing up ~20 year old gems.... There just wasn't a choice, and it'll be a long time until the "new" cars become old enough....

codewize
10-07-10, 10:53 AM
I think it's a sad day when Americans are so blind that American auto makers have to tell us that our cars are engineered in a foreign country before we'll buy them.

The Tony Show
10-07-10, 11:13 AM
I would say that Cadillac is "responding to what the market wants", not "counterfeiting" other cars. Any focus group of affluent NEW luxury car buyers (keyword: new) will tell you that they want handling, performance, technology and styling. People who buy new luxury cars are who manufacturers design products for, not the folks who are going to buy them used 5 to 10 years down the road.

While there is a large group of dedicated fans of the older style Cadillacs, the simple reality is that those type of cars don't appeal to the majority of new car buyers. MB and BMW make all their money and the bulk of their sales volume on smaller performance luxury cars like the 3 series and C class, so Cadillac would be fools to not counter with a CTS and ATS. At the end of the day it's about building what people will buy, not what the OEM wants to build.

If you ever want to see Cadillac build a flagship V8 S-Class competitor, you need to cheer on the ATS, CTS and SRX. Only when they have the proper market share, finances and customer perception will it happen.

CIWS
10-07-10, 11:55 AM
Give the customer what they want in relation to your mass sell vehicles. Leave the specialty cars to your design team's imagination.

Bro-Ham
10-07-10, 12:42 PM
In light of Cadillac's current offerings and those of the competition, the luxury car game is winnable if Cadillac would create a luxury car that is uniquely American that captures the hearts of buyers worldwide, gets those hearts pounding with excitement - even non car people, and resets the parameters by which buyers judge luxury cars.

There isn't much of any semblance of style or prestige in any of the luxury car offerings on the market today. There is no "must have" car. Cadillac has created these kinds of cars before and can do it again, although it's not going to happen with what they're making now. Cadillac chasing BMW and Mercedes is just that, and it's embarrassing to me as an American. :)

RippyPartsDept
10-07-10, 05:23 PM
it only appears that cadillac is chasing the germans because they have the mindshare right now - perspective drives perception

SDCaddyLacky
10-08-10, 05:48 AM
This has been on going problem for Cadillac (following zee Germans) for 20 years. Since the 90's Cadillac tried to counter BMW and Mercedes with the STS, but still gave it's customers the option for pure extreme comfort...with the Fleetwood and Deville.

Well this isn't the case anymore, Cadillac doesn't build pure extreme plush luxury cars now days. You sit inside any current Cadillac, and they all have hard seats, that's a sign of comfort, if the seats are hard as a rock, then the car will probably ride the same way.

I truly believe if Cadillac built a limited number of a specially designed Fleetwoods, they could make a ton a of money. A platform must be made exclusively for Cadillac, and not to be shared with other GM cars.

Because as of now the Town Car is the biggest car on the road that old people in their retirement age look at, Buick and Lexus are next on that list. If Cadillac were able to design a new full size Fleetwood, the style would have to attract old and young buyers that want a car that gives them a certain swagger like the 300 does.

But cha, Cadillac is engineering great cars right now, and honestly Cadillac has made many great cars over the years especially in it's drivetrain like the Northstar even with it's problems, is technically advanced and was ahead of it's time back in 94. They don't have a problem in that area, but they do have a problem on what kind of people they are trying to attract. It's obvious the older folks are long forgotten in the Cadillac division, they can care less about them. The reality is, these are the people that have the money to spend on a new luxury car, and if they are going to alienate them by only making high performance, hard riding luxury cars influenced by zee Germans, it's going to be a tough sell for old school Cadillac lovers to ever go back to what Cadillac is making today, period.

It's a sad sight to see.

RippyPartsDept
10-08-10, 12:32 PM
how do you make a ton of money on a limited number of cars?

Bro-Ham
10-08-10, 12:38 PM
charge a lot of money for them.

RippyPartsDept
10-08-10, 05:26 PM
Doesn't work like that

Playdrv4me
10-08-10, 05:32 PM
I don't think a Fleetwood style vehicle needs to even be "limited". Cadillac should study the attributes that make the Lexus LS at a palatable and desirable car for the older set, and mimic those qualities without being overtly boring. In other words, bring the LS's technology and power together with the Town Car's opulence and cache. It would give them an entry where they sorely need one.

Jesda
10-08-10, 06:05 PM
In other words, bring the LS's technology and power together with the Town Car's opulence and cache. It would give them an entry where they sorely need one.

Cache:
http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/09/09/intel_ssd_3.jpg

Stingroo
10-08-10, 06:17 PM
Cache:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Geocache.jpg

RippyPartsDept
10-08-10, 06:28 PM
http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&q=define%3ACach%E9

Playdrv4me
10-08-10, 10:59 PM
http://www.tropicalpermaculture.com/image-files/cashew-apples-cpvalente.jpg

Stingroo
10-08-10, 11:10 PM
What the hell are those monstrosities?

Playdrv4me
10-08-10, 11:54 PM
What the hell are those monstrosities?

"Cash"-ews.

Stingroo
10-08-10, 11:56 PM
Lulz. They were had.

EChas3
10-09-10, 12:03 AM
The boss's old 533 didn't ride as good and was noisier inside than my STS. He hasn't taken me for a ride in his new 5-series.

jedhead
10-09-10, 12:58 AM
Frankly I never considered buying a Cadillac until a couple years ago when I got a loaded 2008 STS for a rental. My previous experience with a Cadillac were 1958, 1962, 1973 and 1975 Eldorado and DeVilles and I did not like driving those cars. I never felt like I had control over the cars nor could I tell what the cars were doing when driving down the road. The STS was very impressive. The car handled very well and still have a fairly creamy controlled ride. The V6 with the 6 speed auto performed well. I later had a CTS for a rental and I was impressed by that car too. I have driven many 3 and 5 series BMW's and C, E and S series MB. They are all nice cars and handle well, but are high maintenance cars. I bought my STS-V because I liked the combination of high performance and luxury. I didn't have to give up as much ride comfort as in the M5 and AMG to keep the high performance. The interior design and appointments were equal or exceeded the M and AMG. I gave up a little bit of performance and handling to the Germans on a track, but not enough to be noticed on the street. I have had the DTS as a loaner when the STS-V was in the shop and although the DTS didn't wallow as bad as the old Cadillacs I drove in the past, I like the STS and CTS much better to drive.

Bob

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-09-10, 10:08 AM
I don't like the fact that all the full size traditional Cadillacs are gone, but the firmer, smaller, more "euro-tuned" stuff is what's in-demand nowadays and Cadillac would be dumb not to make cars of that sort. And I'll admit, they're arguably the best in class (especially the CTS), but not my cup of tea. I'd like to see a return of the Fleetwood, to take back that segment from the LS460 and Eqqus Hyundai, and show the world we can still pull it off with all of our American gusto and bravado we've always had.

In my opinion, Cadillac had it's best model range from about 1991-93. You could get a blisteringly fast and very sporty STS or ETC, the very high class, exclusive and desirable Allante, which also was blisteringly fast with the '93 introduction of the Northstar, the traditional and extremely handsome Sedan OR Coupe deVille and lastly the big classy Brougham, which was truly unlike anything else, and a holdover and a throwback to the old days.

RippyPartsDept
10-09-10, 10:49 AM
Good points... 'blisteringly fast' means something different these days - but we've got that covered still

Bro-Ham
10-09-10, 11:34 AM
The 91-93 Cadillacs may have had some semblance of performance yet they were not attractive in any way.

I don't think Cadillac needs to build the fastest luxury car, but the cars should be leaders in performance. The current Cads haven't made hearts pulse in admiration and desire, with the partial exception of the small CTS V niche. As I stated before, I think we'll know when Cadillac thinks outside of the box and makes the luxury cars that once again conquer the luxury market. We'll all either own one or be working hard and striving to buy one.

:)

Stingroo
10-09-10, 11:52 AM
I still say you're crazy for not finding the 93-96 FWB's attractive, Dave.

To each their own though. :thumbsup:

drewsdeville
10-09-10, 11:58 AM
I still say you're crazy for not finding the 93-96 FWB's attractive, Dave.

To each their own though. :thumbsup:

I'm in that category as well, but I recall us all discussing something similar at one point.

:hide:

:shhh:

orconn
10-09-10, 01:10 PM
Truth be told, most of my life I have really proferred and bought European style sport sedans. After the first generation Seville of the mid seventies, I didn't own another Cadillac till we leased the Catera as a business car for my wife. I had always admired the the Seville STS after it came out, but was more than happy with my Alfa 164 so never bought one new. It was only as an experiment, after my wife and had retired, that I bought the 1993 Seville STS for her. First she loved it and then I fell in love with it (I had a new Mercedes CLK at the time) so I looked around for another low mileage "sun belt" STS, bought it in Florida and have been very happy with the car and the cost of ownership.

AS far as the DTS and other models in the current Cadillac line. The DTS is too big for my taste and the CTS, even after the the face lift from the original design, is just to "agricultural" for me. I am not a fan of the "Art and Science" plowshare theme of the current Cadillacs. And for me, if I am happy with my current car I no longer neeed or want to get a new one every three years as I did when needing business cars. It's almost a luxury to be able to hold onto a car I really like!

I agree with those that feel the full sized GM cars of the late seventies were great cars, in fact I used to borrow my mother's 1978 Buick LeSabre coupe when we went on family vacations because it was roomier than my Seville or the Jags and was comfortable and pleasant on the long straight highways of the West. But as a DD they were just too big and cumbersome, and by the end of the seventies the prestige of the Cadillac had dwindled to the point of not being a prestige car in my business circles. Not liking the ride or feel of Mercedes I drove Jaguar XJ6sfor business all through the 80's until I bought the Alfa Romeo 164S.

codewize
10-09-10, 01:12 PM
Double post

codewize
10-09-10, 01:13 PM
I agree, they're not the best with fit and finish and the materials were not super hi luxury, but, the longevity, integrity and ride are the epitome of Cadillac.
I still say you're crazy for not finding the 93-96 FWB's attractive, Dave.

To each their own though. :thumbsup:

Bro-Ham
10-09-10, 01:30 PM
I still say you're crazy for not finding the 93-96 FWB's attractive, Dave.

To each their own though. :thumbsup:

I say you're crazy for saying I'm crazy. :) To my eye the cartoonish lines of the 93-96 cars look like they were drawn by laid off Chrysler designers. :)

OffThaHorseCEO
10-09-10, 01:37 PM
I think Cadillac should focus again on being "the best". The best used to be the cushiest biggest most extravagant most innovative cars. The definition of "the best" has changed. (or at least the perception of what defines the best has)

If what BMW builds is whats considered the best then Cadillac should do what they do, and one-up them.

I'm one of those that appreciates the styling and magnitude of the big Cadillacs, and i love the 96 FWB but i much prefer the driving characteristics of the newer cadillacs.

Even in the FWB i sometimes felt like i was being swallowed by the seats, it was cumbersome and didnt inspire confidence. I know these cars werent meant to be driven fast or hard though.


EDIT: The 93 Roadmaster I had, which was based on an almost identical platform, felt like more of a drivers car, the seats swallowed you less, the body rolled less when you turned or hit the gas or anything which required moving that big body around. The irony is, the Roadmaster looked like more of an old people car than the fleetwood.

Playdrv4me
10-09-10, 04:04 PM
The 91-93 Cadillacs may have had some semblance of performance yet they were not attractive in any way.

"Not attractive in any way" as opposed to what? I GUESS if you MUST have tall fins and a car as long as a football field (all good Cadillac traits, but not something they could keep doing forever) then the 1992 Seville may not have been attractive to you, but it was a game-changer for Cadillac, and one of the most well proportioned vehicle designs ever to be penned to paper. This is the car that brought ME to Cadillac when I was just 19 or 20 years old (more specifically, the 1998 redesign). Just a beautiful car all around with plenty of "Cadillac-ness" thrown in!

http://www2.cadillac.cz/zajimavosti/historie_modelu/images/1993STS.jpg

Not attractive is quite a stretch!

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-09-10, 04:12 PM
1992 was one of the few years when the entire Cadillac lineup was good looking. Too bad they didn't get the Northstar until '93.

Bro-Ham
10-09-10, 04:12 PM
It's not attractive to me, I find the 98 redesign to be even less attractive.

Bro-Ham
10-09-10, 04:25 PM
I must be of a different generation than you guys - Cadillacs from the mid 1980's and newer don't do much for me. After growing up with Cadillacs in the 1970's as the ultimate car and then watching the prestige of the brand wither away with mediocre and unimaginative cars.

The 92 Eldo and Seville were a good try, almost anything could have looked better than the 86-91 predecessors. I wouldn't own one personally, and I sure wouldn't turn my head to look at one on the road, it looks like just another car to me. Of course, you may think I'm crazy for liking what I like. That's the fun of enthusing about cars. :)

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-09-10, 04:31 PM
Yeah, must be a generational thing Dave.

1975 was another year when everything Cadillac made looked good. The full sizes in '76 were still great, but I'll never like that Seville. 1981 was another year when their entire lineup looked great, right before that godawful Cimarron was introduced in '82. 1996 was OK too, but I'll never like the 94-96 deVille as much as the 1991-93, and the 93-96 Fleetwood doesn't look as appealing to me as the 1992's and older. I'd say 2001 was a great year as well too. You still had the classic looking first generation Escalade, but the beautiful final generation Eldorado, gorgeous 5th generation Seville and the nice looking 00-05 Deville.

Playdrv4me
10-09-10, 04:43 PM
Yeah, must be a generational thing Dave.

1975 was another year when everything Cadillac made looked good. The full sizes in '76 were still great, but I'll never like that Seville. 1981 was another year when their entire lineup looked great, right before that godawful Cimarron was introduced in '82. 1996 was OK too, but I'll never like the 94-96 deVille as much as the 1991-93, and the 93-96 Fleetwood doesn't look as appealing to me as the 1992's and older. I'd say 2001 was a great year as well too. You still had the classic looking first generation Escalade, but the beautiful final generation Eldorado, gorgeous 5th generation Seville and the nice looking 00-05 Deville.

2001 really was a fantastic automotive year. Not just for Cadillac, but for several brands that I can remember. That was BMW's final year for the E38 7 Series and the first year for the E46 3.0L "330" models which blew the doors off the 2.8L ones and continued until the end of the E46 run. Also the first year for the E46 M3. As for Cadillac, 2001 was also the first year of the 5 gen Seville's first major makeover with larger wheels, xenon headlights and other improvements. I do however prefer the 2002 Escalade to the first gen, as the first gen is an identical twin to the GMC Denali and didn't have enough exterior differentiation from the rest of the GMT400 line.

Bro-Ham
10-09-10, 04:44 PM
Chad, 1981 was the last year I actually thought Cadillacs were cool. I remember starting to pay attention to the new Mercedes S-class, the new RR Silver Spirit and Silver Spur, and the very cool Maserati Quattroporte.

Only little snippets of Cadillacs interested me after: Eldo convert 84-85, real wood in the 86 Cads, fender skirts 89 Fleetwood. I was amazed beyond belief when I first heard of the 93 Fleetwood, and disappointed when I first saw it, then didn't care for it at all after I drove it from behind the 3 mile dashboard. I was driving a new Acura Legend back then, there was no way I'd switch to that Cad, which at the time seemed so out of date and it was brand new. :)

Nothing has tickled me from Cadillac since, they just don't seem special anymore. I'm sure the essence will be recaptured and the magic will be contageous - we're not there yet but I have faith it will happen again. I don't think any of us could know what this car would be like but there has to be a breakthrough. The opportunity is so ripe! :)

Playdrv4me
10-09-10, 04:51 PM
I was driving a new Acura Legend back then, there was no way I'd switch to that Cad, which at the time seemed so out of date and it was brand new. :)


Now I'm genuinely confused. You were happy with that generation of Acura Legend but you can't stand the 1992-2004 Seville? There are so many inherently shared automotive design cues between those two cars its almost silly (unless of course you had the even more gorgeous coupe!). I know because the Legend was one of my early '90s personal favorites. Long slender headlight slits, a long hood and a long trunk, long wrap-around tail lights and very similar interior accoutrements and features. The Seville isn't quite as lengthy as the Legend (or maybe it just seems that way, the Seville is really a HUGE car), but its got a lot of that same Legend goodness. Was the Legend a car you bought out of necessity or because you genuinely liked it?

Bro-Ham
10-09-10, 06:29 PM
Legend was a sexy car of its time, bought mine new in 92, I was a young lad of 23 or 24, about the same age as many of the talkers on this website. The luxury car market had changed so much and Cadillac wasn't in vogue with the younger generation of the time. The Seville of 92 was too little too late for Cad, the rest of the model line wasn't anything I would seriously consider at the time either. :)

Lord Cadillac
10-09-10, 06:56 PM
I think Cadillac stopped chasing BMW these last few years. And as mentioned, even BMW stopped chasing BMW.. The new 7-Series and 5-Series are very, very luxurious and comfortable cars. To me, I think this makes sense. They still drive well and handle well - but will please more people. I think Lexus basically came in and took all of Cadillac's customers with soft, plush, quiet, feature-filled luxury cars in the 90s - all while Cadillac was looking to become more European. I'd like to see Cadillac go back to making cars that are mostly comfortable with powerful engines that are good handling. Leave the excellent handling vehicles to the V-Series lineup.

Fleet
10-10-10, 10:46 PM
Frankly I never considered buying a Cadillac until a couple years ago when I got a loaded 2008 STS for a rental. My previous experience with a Cadillac were 1958, 1962, 1973 and 1975 Eldorado and DeVilles and I did not like driving those cars. I never felt like I had control over the cars nor could I tell what the cars were doing when driving down the road.
Really? I've owned or do own 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1976 Cadillacs (a DeVille, Fleetwood Broughams and a Limousine) and love those years of Cadillacs and love driving them.

I felt I had complete control over the cars and could tell what they were doing when driving down the road. They, of course, don't have the "road feel" that some people like, but I don't want that in a Cadillac!

If I had a 20-car garage and had the funds to fill them with Cadillacs, it would be filled with pre-1977 Cadillacs.

jedhead
10-10-10, 11:48 PM
Really? I've owned or do own 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1976 Cadillacs (a DeVille, Fleetwood Broughams and a Limousine) and love those years of Cadillacs and love driving them.

I felt I had complete control over the cars and could tell what they were doing when driving down the road. They, of course, don't have the "road feel" that some people like, but I don't want that in a Cadillac!

If I had a 20-car garage and had the funds to fill them with Cadillacs, it would be filled with pre-1977 Cadillacs.

I really disliked the way the cars bounded up and down on a undulating road. I also felt that if I ever had to crank the wheel to avoid a crash I would not be able to do so at highway speeds. We just have different tastes in how we like our cars.

Bob

Fleet
10-11-10, 02:17 AM
I really disliked the way the cars bounded up and down on a undulating road. I also felt that if I ever had to crank the wheel to avoid a crash I would not be able to do so at highway speeds. We just have different tastes in how we like our cars.

Bob
Well, if the shocks are not worn, they should not bounce up and down. My '69 Fleetwood and '76 Limo don't.

I had to make an emergency maneuver with my '69 Fleetwood on the freeway once. I was merging from one freeway to another (a curve to the right) when someone on the shoulder pulls into my lane ahead of me. I immediately swerved to the right until I was in the next lane so I could avoid the other car. No problem at all controlling the car. The tires squealed a little and that was it. I was easily able to make an emergency lane change. I was going about 55 mph at the time.

Different taste in cars? Most likely the 1960s Cadillacs are the most popular decade with members on this board. And for a good reason... well-built, big, great styling and a smooth ride with nice, soft seats. The way a Cadillac should be.

OffThaHorseCEO
10-11-10, 11:40 AM
Different taste in cars? Most likely the 1960s Cadillacs are the most popular decade with members on this board. And for a good reason... well-built, big, great styling and a smooth ride with nice, soft seats. The way a Cadillac should be.

I think by "we" he meant you and him have different tastes in cars, not you vs the forum

jedhead
10-11-10, 02:18 PM
By "we "I meant between myself and Fleet. The shock were not worn out and in one case, the 1975 Eldorado convertible, the car was only a week old. I like driving on winding roads like GMR, Anglest Crest, CA58 from Buttonwillow to the coast and Santiago Canyon.

Bob

Fleet
10-11-10, 06:00 PM
By "we "I meant between myself and Fleet. The shock were not worn out and in one case, the 1975 Eldorado convertible, the car was only a week old. I like driving on winding roads like GMR, Anglest Crest, CA58 from Buttonwillow to the coast and Santiago Canyon.

Bob
A '70s (and '60s) Cadillac in proper condition should not be bounding over an undulating road (bounding meaning continuous up-and-down motion through many cycles). There will be some motion, of course, due to the soft suspension... that's one thing that makes a Cadillac a Cadillac!

I also like at times like driving on winding roads. I have driven many times on Big Tujunga Canyon Road in the San Gabriel Mountains (Angeles Crest Highway). When driving my '76 Limousine and '69 Fleetwood Brougham, I have yet had to pull over to let another car pass me. Both cars handle the curves very well, not even a tire squeal unless I take a curve at 60 mph! I have also noticed those cars can take curves posted at "25 mph" at 35 mph.

I have also been in that area in (Cadillac) friends cars...'63 Eldorado Biarritz Convertible, '66 Fleetwood Brougham, '67 9-passenger sedan, '71 and '75 Eldorado Convertible, '76 Fleetwood Brougham d'Elegance). We all enjoy the ride up there and to date no one has felt they didn't have control of the car.

It doesn't really have anything to do with different taste in cars, since the '60s and '70s Cadillacs do drive a certain way. (And 100% satisfactory for me!).

Here is a video I made showing how well damped my two Cadillacs are (the '69 FB more so than the Limo, of course)...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs8x2LPjRSw

Lupin
10-14-10, 10:07 AM
This is something which I have put much thought into, and Dullahan and I have discussed this extensively, but the same question popped into my head, a question of is Cadillac sacrificing what a Cadillac is with the new models? However, I think the opposite is true, I think the CTS was the first of what is a true modern Cadillac.

It's a matter of opinion, and I'm not sure if you all will agree with me, but times have changed since the days of the long, beautiful tail fins, running boards, or the other things which made a Cadillac what it was in years past. The fact is that a Cadillac is built for a certain kind of person, and I think as the generations pass, as does the desire of that type of person. However, there are things Cadillac has always represented, luxury and excess.

The old Cadillacs were luxurious in their softness, their extreme comfort, and their size, all to great excess of what other cars were doing, simply because it could. A Cadillac, with its home-like comfort and softness, and size, screamed "Because I am a Cadillac."

Now, with the introduction of the CTS, it is truly a Cadillac that is designed and built expressly for the driver, everyone else comes second. Even the V6 CTS has plenty of power to spare, and can easily zip by your "standard fare" automobile. Everything inside the vehicle is oriented to the driver, even the centre console being tilted towards the driver, and even on the most basic package, the driver's seat has fully motorized control.

I believe the driver-orientation, excess power and performance, and still retaining excellent, comfortable leather interiors, is what screams in this day, "Because I am a Cadillac."

ryannel2003
10-14-10, 10:16 AM
What Cadillac has done is basically shot themselves in the foot. You have GM telling us that Buick is going after Lexus and Cadillac is going after BMW/Mercedes... but the new SRX is a Lexus RX chaser and we have a FWD XTS coming in the near future? I'm confused. Cadillac should have stuck to what they did best in the past, but build on that with higher quality cars and recover from the perception the cars had in the late 80's. Personally, I wouldn't have chased after BMW because nobody can emulate BMW. Mercedes would have been a better company to chase after because the cars offer a more luxurious feel and offer up what people think is "the best". Chasing after BMW has really cost Cadillac some customers... the 2005 STS was supposed to be the 5-series killer. Instead, the sales never came close to what the 4th and 5th generation Seville achieved. DTS sales are down from a high of 100k in 2000 when the redesigned Deville came out. XLR was never updated, and subsequently killed. 1st Gen SRX a failure, but nonetheless a great vehicle.

Cadillac still has no idea in which direction they are going. They have a odd mixture of FWD and RWD vehicles. Make up your mind GM... is Cadillac the Lexus fighter or the BMW fighter?

Lord Cadillac
10-14-10, 12:43 PM
I agree entirely...


What Cadillac has done is basically shot themselves in the foot. You have GM telling us that Buick is going after Lexus and Cadillac is going after BMW/Mercedes... but the new SRX is a Lexus RX chaser and we have a FWD XTS coming in the near future? I'm confused. Cadillac should have stuck to what they did best in the past, but build on that with higher quality cars and recover from the perception the cars had in the late 80's. Personally, I wouldn't have chased after BMW because nobody can emulate BMW. Mercedes would have been a better company to chase after because the cars offer a more luxurious feel and offer up what people think is "the best". Chasing after BMW has really cost Cadillac some customers... the 2005 STS was supposed to be the 5-series killer. Instead, the sales never came close to what the 4th and 5th generation Seville achieved. DTS sales are down from a high of 100k in 2000 when the redesigned Deville came out. XLR was never updated, and subsequently killed. 1st Gen SRX a failure, but nonetheless a great vehicle.

Cadillac still has no idea in which direction they are going. They have a odd mixture of FWD and RWD vehicles. Make up your mind GM... is Cadillac the Lexus fighter or the BMW fighter?

Excess power and performance compared to what?


I believe the driver-orientation, excess power and performance, and still retaining excellent, comfortable leather interiors, is what screams in this day, "Because I am a Cadillac."

Lord Cadillac
10-16-10, 05:39 PM
GM is indeed making things confusing in regards to what roles Cadillac and Buick play. In my opinion, the new SRX should have been a Buick. The old SRX was a Cadillac - just the design wasn't the greatest. They should have stuck with the same formula and updated the interior and exterior - that's all. Not change it to an underpowered FWD soccer mom Crossover.

And I agree that Cadillac should have emulated Mercedes over BMW. Not that chasing BMW was a bad idea - Cadillac just didn't get it exactly right. Then again, for how long did they try? I wouldn't expect Cadillac to become BMW in one generation. Still, I think Mercedes would be an easier transition being the more luxurious automobile maker.


What Cadillac has done is basically shot themselves in the foot. You have GM telling us that Buick is going after Lexus and Cadillac is going after BMW/Mercedes... but the new SRX is a Lexus RX chaser and we have a FWD XTS coming in the near future? I'm confused. Cadillac should have stuck to what they did best in the past, but build on that with higher quality cars and recover from the perception the cars had in the late 80's. Personally, I wouldn't have chased after BMW because nobody can emulate BMW. Mercedes would have been a better company to chase after because the cars offer a more luxurious feel and offer up what people think is "the best". Chasing after BMW has really cost Cadillac some customers... the 2005 STS was supposed to be the 5-series killer. Instead, the sales never came close to what the 4th and 5th generation Seville achieved. DTS sales are down from a high of 100k in 2000 when the redesigned Deville came out. XLR was never updated, and subsequently killed. 1st Gen SRX a failure, but nonetheless a great vehicle.

Cadillac still has no idea in which direction they are going. They have a odd mixture of FWD and RWD vehicles. Make up your mind GM... is Cadillac the Lexus fighter or the BMW fighter?