: First Cadillac vs BMW, then Cadillac vs Lexus.. How's that going?



Lord Cadillac
01-03-11, 11:06 AM
Most of us traditional Cadillac enthusiasts know when Cadillac really started chasing BMW - the first generation CTS. And we all noticed how our Seville turned into something we weren't too crazy about. Cadillacs were becoming more and more like BMWs and less like Cadillacs. The idea had merit - but Cadillac failed. Not that anyone could have succeeded...

In the case of the CTS-V - Cadillac actually did succeed. It may not have the high build quality of the BMW M5 - but Cadillac accomplished what it had set out to do. The CTS-V outperformed the M5. And to keep the price down, quality had to suffer a bit. Understandable. And this goes to show that Cadillac can compete in about any market it wants to. I have little doubt that Cadillac could have met the build quality of the M5 - but you'd be looking at an $80k car.

So it appears Cadillac has moved on and realized it should probably chase a company closer to it's roots - Lexus.. As you know, we have the XTS coming - which is going to be a Lexus ES competitor - and actually should be better in about every possible way (we hope). But then we have the SRX...

Cadillac recently discontinued the SRX's 2.8 liter turbo V6 (http://cadillacenthusiastmagazine.com/cadillac-magazine/2011/01/01/cadillac-srx-turbo-model-discontinued/) - stating that it wasn't selling very well. I think a large part of the problem was that there were very few turbo SRXs on dealer lots. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it started at about $50k. Am I right? That's quite a bit more than the non-turbo version. So what were you really getting for the much higher price tag other than a little more horsepower and torque?

For most people, the power in the 3.0 liter SRX is good enough. But is that what Cadillac is about? Being "good enough"? Is there any reason Cadillac can't fit the 3.6 DI in the SRX? That would be more than adequate and probably more powerful than the Lexus RX - the SRXs main competitor..

What do you think about all of this?

Lord Cadillac
01-03-11, 12:11 PM
Tony - or anyone with access to GM Global Connect. Is the 3.6 DI coming up as the standard engine for the 2012 model year SRX?

Jesda
01-03-11, 05:56 PM
Way overpriced. Crossover people aren't performance buyers anyway. They're just wagon owners who want to sit up high.

Saab retains the 2.8 Turbo for the 9-4x, which is more appropriate.

Lord Cadillac
01-03-11, 05:59 PM
Well it sounds like the SRX is getting a boost in horsepower due to the new 3.6 SIDI engine as well as the 2013 model getting a 3.0 twin turbo engine (possibly).

Stingroo
01-03-11, 06:23 PM
Way overpriced. Crossover people aren't performance buyers anyway. They're just wagon owners who want to sit up high.

Saab retains the 2.8 Turbo for the 9-4x, which is more appropriate.

Nah - crossover owners are the people that used to buy minivans. Soccer moms/dads, and people with kids.

RippyPartsDept
01-03-11, 06:25 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD9888pUiP8

i would argue the 1998 Seville (promo video above) was 'going after' BMW - although actually they were 'going after' BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus - and they admit to this fact in the video above

the Arts and Science design philosophy was introduced to us by the escalade in 2002 and then the CTS in 2003
i think that A&S was 'going after' BMW as well, but more than that it was marketing to the younger generations - trying to stay relevant

RippyPartsDept
01-03-11, 06:29 PM
oh, and there's no excuse for not having the 3.6L in the SRX - i totally agree

V-Eight
01-03-11, 07:07 PM
Nah - crossover owners are the people that used to buy minivans. Soccer moms/dads, and people with kids.

The problem with crossovers is they have all the drawbacks and none of the benefits. They have the interior size of a car, with the look and bulk of a truck. I don't see why people buy these. Minivans are still the ultimate people haulers.

orconn
01-03-11, 07:42 PM
Crossovers are for soccer moms and dads who don't want to admit what they really are or come to grips with what they really need ..... in essence they are "vanity mini-vans" and their owners pay the price of not owning the real thing ... space, comfort, flexibility!

Stric9
01-03-11, 07:49 PM
I don't see why people buy these.

I believe they call it ..... H-Y-P-E

hueterm
01-03-11, 07:54 PM
This ^^^. (Actually, to Orconn's post.)

A family of 5 (or more) still cannot take a crossover (even a Lambda) on a long trip with a lot of stuff, unless you have a middle row bench and all three kids sit there, or you have a roof carrier. You either have a third row, or you have cargo area. A minivan at least gives a little more room behind the third row.

I pack enough crap for just me and the dog to where I would need a Suburban, but that's my own damage talking...

ryannel2003
01-03-11, 08:18 PM
The '98-'03 Seville STS was a failed attempt to chase BMW and Mercedes because the quality wasn't great and it was wrong wheel drive. If you think about it, Cadillac should have marketed the car as a touring car. If you buy a BMW, you're probably not going to buy anything else. I can bet that less than 1% of BMW owners bought a Seville STS. Instead, Cadillac should have concentrated on marketing the smooth ride of the Seville, excellent power, comfort and features, and marketed it as a full blown luxury sedan that could handle a corner if it had to. In 1998, there really weren't too many cars that were just damn good luxury sedans. There was the LS400, the E-Class, and the Seville SLS/STS. The quality was pretty bad, but it was a damn good luxury car. I never once thought of it as a sporty car and i have never wanted it to be. So when Cadillac tried to market the RWD STS as a sports sedan, it failed again because not only was not that sporty, it didn't look that great either.

Cadillac has learned nothing about marketing. Nobody buys a Cadillac to compete with BMW. Cadillac's are bought by people who love American cars, the rich history associated with the Cadillac nameplate, and people who love the styling. They're also bought by people who like value... and it depends on who you are to think if that is a good or bad thing.

orconn
01-03-11, 11:23 PM
The '98-'03 Seville STS was a failed attempt to chase BMW and Mercedes because the quality wasn't great and it was wrong wheel drive. If you think about it, Cadillac should have marketed the car as a touring car. If you buy a BMW, you're probably not going to buy anything else. I can bet that less than 1% of BMW owners bought a Seville STS. Instead, Cadillac should have concentrated on marketing the smooth ride of the Seville, excellent power, comfort and features, and marketed it as a full blown luxury sedan that could handle a corner if it had to. In 1998, there really weren't too many cars that were just damn good luxury sedans. There was the LS400, the E-Class, and the Seville SLS/STS. The quality was pretty bad, but it was a damn good luxury car. I never once thought of it as a sporty car and i have never wanted it to be. So when Cadillac tried to market the RWD STS as a sports sedan, it failed again because not only was not that sporty, it didn't look that great either.

Cadillac has learned nothing about marketing. Nobody buys a Cadillac to compete with BMW. Cadillac's are bought by people who love American cars, the rich history associated with the Cadillac nameplate, and people who love the styling. They're also bought by people who like value... and it depends on who you are to think if that is a good or bad thing.

Well stated, Ryan, I agree with your conclusions.

77CDV
01-04-11, 02:13 AM
In answer to this thread's title question: not so well.

Lord Cadillac
01-04-11, 10:51 AM
Well if they can get enough power in the SRX, than Cadillac may actually have a better Crossover than the Lexus RX. So let's see what happens with that. The XTS should be a better Lexus ES (even though that's what the Buick LaCrosse was supposed to be). The only thing that worries me about the 3.6 liter V6 is I'm hearing complaints about it eating timing chains.. But maybe this newer version has a fix for that...

Cadillac Tony
01-04-11, 10:57 AM
Tony - or anyone with access to GM Global Connect. Is the 3.6 DI coming up as the standard engine for the 2012 model year SRX?

Can't configure a 2012 in the ordering system yet. The online reference guide hasn't been put up for 2012 yet, either.

RippyPartsDept
01-04-11, 11:33 AM
Yeah, nothing in the parts catalog yet for 2012 either

77CDV
01-06-11, 03:59 PM
The only thing that worries me about the 3.6 liter V6 is I'm hearing complaints about it eating timing chains.. But maybe this newer version has a fix for that...

Oh, goody, the N* redux. :helpless:

orconn
01-06-11, 05:17 PM
Well if they can get enough power in the SRX, than Cadillac may actually have a better Crossover than the Lexus RX. So let's see what happens with that. The XTS should be a better Lexus ES (even though that's what the Buick LaCrosse was supposed to be). The only thing that worries me about the 3.6 liter V6 is I'm hearing complaints about it eating timing chains.. But maybe this newer version has a fix for that...

Sorry to be a spoil sport, but if GM runs true to form those engines will be eating timing chains until the end of their production run. The one thing I have learned about GM, and Cadillac in particular, is that when a defect is well known, nothing will be done about it. Customer be damned! Witness the headlight buckets on the '70s and '80 Cads, and the armrest cupholders on the last two series Sevilles (all they had to do was change a part from plastic to metal at a cost of less than a cent per unit), or for that matter the cupholders on the Buick Regal. It's that kind of "save a nickel" engineering and corporate policy that drove many of us to buy Foreign cars for over four decades!

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-06-11, 05:46 PM
Yep, the 3.6L V6 eats timing chains. Whenever I go to any of my GM dealers for work, there's always atleast one vehicle with the 3.6 V6, with the motor all pulled apart for the timing chain replacements. The technicians all seem to blame GM for putting those oil life monitors in their cars that tells the customer to do their first oil change between 9000 and 12,000 miles, and then to change it at that frequency as the cars get older.

Lord Cadillac
01-06-11, 08:33 PM
Maybe the new 3.6 SIDI won't eat the timing chains. What do you think? I really don't hear a LOT about this but do you think it'll become known as another unreliable engine like the Northstar? I had good experiences will mine...

drewsdeville
01-06-11, 09:05 PM
All of those whacky techs love to hate on the oil life monitor system. GM's been using it since the 80's on all kinds of different engines including SOHC and DOHC without timing chain, bearing, pcv/sludging, ring/bore, or any other lubrication issues. Besides, extented oil change intervals are very common on new vehicles now. Buy yourself a new plane-jane cheap Toyota that's newer than 2010 and the recommended interval is 10k.


Hard to believe that the system is suddenly causing timing chains to go out. Even more strange that it only happens on the one engine. Sounds like a design flaw more than a maintenance problem. Normally when there's early timing chains problems like that, it's a poor tensioner design, not "old" oil :/

Destroyer
01-06-11, 10:07 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD9888pUiP8

i would argue the 1998 Seville (promo video above) was 'going after' BMW - although actually they were 'going after' BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus - and they admit to this fact in the video above

the Arts and Science design philosophy was introduced to us by the escalade in 2002 and then the CTS in 2003
i think that A&S was 'going after' BMW as well, but more than that it was marketing to the younger generations - trying to stay relevantTalk about "not living up to expectations". This commercial almost has me wanting one even though I know they are junk! Don't believe the hype!!!!! :lildevil:

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-06-11, 10:54 PM
Well, the quality of the oil makes a big difference, as does the quality of the components on the timing chain. If you have low quality aspects in both terms, you're bound to have problems. Because my biggest client is a GMC/Buick dealer, the cars I always see with issues are the Acadia/Enclave and Outlook, with the SIDI 3.6L V6. They don't do a lot of Cadillacs or Chevrolets, so I can't comment on how the 3.6 in the CTS, STS, SRX or Camaro is.

Jesda
01-06-11, 11:27 PM
Talk about "not living up to expectations". This commercial almost has me wanting one even though I know they are junk! Don't believe the hype!!!!! :lildevil:

Everything they said about driving it is true.
Everything they said about the way it was built... lies!

ryannel2003
01-06-11, 11:43 PM
^This. It certainly wasn't a BMW competitor though.

blue07cts
01-06-11, 11:49 PM
I can attest to the 3.6's timing chain eating issue, my car went through 2 sets in only 45k, and I believe that the crappy timing chains are the real reason the engine failed with well under 50k miles witch led to a halfassed buyback on my car, even to this day thinking about that entire ordeal makes my blood boil, GM's typical "Ignore the problem and it will eventually go away" thinking seems to be in tact, I guess bankrupcy didn't really solve all of there problems

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-07-11, 12:18 AM
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Playdrv4me
01-07-11, 04:28 AM
Good to see a new challenger has stepped up to the plate to take over where the N* leaves off. The best part? GM will somehow develop a V8 from the 3.6 and it will be like the circle of life.

gdwriter
01-07-11, 12:43 PM
10,000 to 12,000 miles between oil changes? Yikes. I know today's engines are far different from Betty's 327, but I would never let any engine go that long between oil changes. I have a 200,000-mile engine guarantee from Valvoline on Sabrina, which calls for an oil change every 3,000 miles (but you have up to 4,000 to keep the warranty in place). With Cruella, I'd change it when the oil life monitor got into the 30% range, which was usually ~4,000 miles. Maybe it's an old wives tale, but I was always told that regular oil changes are one of the simplest and cheapest ways to extend the life of an engine.

drewsdeville
01-07-11, 01:12 PM
That's becoming less and less true as oil changes are extended and engine life is increasing.

Think about how much money oil changes ever 3000 would cost over 200,000 miles. That's a lot of oil changes. At say $25 per oil change, that's about $1,700.


Oil changes at 12,000 will cost you a hair over $400 at the same price. That's $1300 difference. For most cars, you could easily buy a good engine for that.

Personally, I won't change at 3,000 anymore. I let the oil monitors run out on my own and my girlfriends car, and recommend to those who ask to do the same. It's painful and money down the toilet to watch perfectly clean honey-colored oil get drained and replaced with new stuff when it wasn't even done doing it's job :/

To be frank, keeping a long lasting engine isn't the hassle nor is it the limit of the cars life that it used to be. 200,000 on the engine is a breeze now, regardless of oil changes. The problem is keeping the rest of the car up to snuff. Even if you get the engine to 200,000, doesn't mean the body/interior/chassis isn't falling apart by then. The car might be a heap of crap by then anyway.

RippyPartsDept
01-07-11, 01:53 PM
oil changes every 10,000 miles are still regular oil changes... and personally i also go by the OLM and I'm thinking about letting it get to zero (i usually change at 20% or so) for the first time this next time since I put Dexos1 in there last time and the OLM system's algorithm in my car is based off of dino oil

Jesda
01-07-11, 02:05 PM
OLM makes fair calculations but it can't see the entire operating environment such as the quality of oil, the effectiveness of the filter, or the design and manufacturing defects of some of GM's engines. My OLM might tell me to change oil every 8-10k, but I'm topping off 2 quarts every 1000-2000 miles. At that point, the OLM's assumptions for ZDDP depletion are completely wrong.

drewsdeville
01-07-11, 02:09 PM
My OLM might tell me to change oil every 8-10k, but I'm topping off 2 quarts every 1000-2000 miles.

WTF!

My '66 Dodge doesn't leak/burn near that much oil, and it's not healthy by any means.

I know the N* has a tendency to use some oil, but damn, that's just wrong for A $40-50K car to be drinking oil like that..

My '88 3800 burned oil like that and I just stopped changing it as it was always somewhat "fresh"

Jesda
01-07-11, 02:18 PM
WTF!

My '66 Dodge doesn't leak/burn near that much oil, and it's not healthy by any means.

I know the N* has a tendency to use some oil, but damn, that's just wrong for A $40-50K car to be drinking oil like that..

Indeed, and GM (and Nissan, who have this issue on the VK V8 in the M45 and Q45) still consider 1 qt/1000mi to be "normal". It may meet their standards for normal, but I call it annoying.

Meanwhile, other Northstars consume more oil than that or none at all! Talk about inconsistent.

On the plus side, the more I regularly romp on it, the less oil it consumes. Its idle cruising that seems to exacerbate the problem since WOT supposedly improves ring seating.

*sigh*

drewsdeville
01-07-11, 02:32 PM
Yeah, and calling it normal magically justifies it...

These are supposed to be high end cars for the well-to-do. I've never heard nor seen a executive dressed up in suit and tie checking/adding oil to his car at the gas station. If I ever did, I don't think he'd be happy.

It's irritating to me and I don't even own one. I know these were supposed to be high performance engines for their day, but if they couldn't achieve it without consuming oil like that, it should have been revised even if it meant a reduction in performance. 1-2000 miles per quart is high consumption regardless of what GM calls it, and that oil consumption stigma goes back vehicles like the 1980's Toyota Tercel.

Inexcusable.

RippyPartsDept
01-07-11, 02:40 PM
i bet the oil consumption issues (in almost all engines... N*, 3.6L, etc) are due to improper engine break-in

orconn
01-07-11, 02:57 PM
Down through the years I have owned many cars with "high perform ace engines" (Jaguars, Lamborghini, etc.) they have all burned oil to some degree. All were dual overhead cam engines capable of turning high rpms. I have always heard the oil consumption has gone hand in hand with high performance engines. Recently with these engines use of a quart of oil every 2000 miles has not been considered excessive. The only high performance engine that hasn't used oil in regular use was my Alfa Romeo 164 with a DOHC V-6 derived from a Ferrari engine. interesting since Ferrari engines are notorious for using oil!

gdwriter
01-07-11, 04:22 PM
Think about how much money oil changes ever 3000 would cost over 200,000 miles. That's a lot of oil changes. At say $25 per oil change, that's about $1,700.

Oil changes at 12,000 will cost you a hair over $400 at the same price. That's $1300 difference. For most cars, you could easily buy a good engine for that.I know you're a self-admitted cheapskate, but it sounds penny wise and pound foolish to me.

I'm still helping out my niece and sister by paying for routine maintenance on the DeVille. Over 5 1/2 years and ~64,000 miles, I've spent ~$450.00 on 14 oil changes, which averages out to ~4,500 miles between oil and filter changes. For an engine with 200,000+ miles on it, I'd say that's a reasonable interval and cost. In the example of your '88 3800, how often did you change the filter?

I've had the Seville for almost two years now, and in 30,000 miles, I've spent ~$300.00 on seven oil and filter changes, and average of ~4,300 miles (I didn't start on the Valvoline program until the second or third oil change).

Between the two cars, that comes to ~$750 over 94,000 miles and 5 1/2 years. That's a trade-off I'm willing to make.

drewsdeville
01-07-11, 04:29 PM
In the example of your '88 3800, how often did you change the filter?


In the end, I didn't change the filter.

In it's old age, just like any other car, it really started to nickel & dime me. I ran it the last year or so just adding oil as it consumed it w/ no filter change. When I didn't have new oil, I usedf my drain oil drum top top it off. I knew the end was near with hardly anything left of the body/underbody (rust!) as it neared 170k or so. But the interior was near MINT!

That last year it was almost like a game: how much farther can I go without sticking another dime in this thing!

When the gas tank started leaking, I had enough. Some fool actually bought that car for $450. It was replaced with my first project Cadillac: a blue 1992 Deville with leaking headgaskets.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-07-11, 07:27 PM
Drew, if you change your oil at 10-12,000 mile intervals, that VW TDI you're buying will change your opinion on that after a few months.

gary88
01-07-11, 08:02 PM
Oil change intervals on the 335i are about 12,000-15,000 miles according to the CBS computer, so he's not completely off base. It's possible with synthetic oils, but I wouldn't want to go that long. I still change mine every 7000 miles in between the interval.

V-Eight
01-07-11, 08:14 PM
Down through the years I have owned many cars with "high perform ace engines" (Jaguars, Lamborghini, etc.) they have all burned oil to some degree. All were dual overhead cam engines capable of turning high rpms. I have always heard the oil consumption has gone hand in hand with high performance engines. Recently with these engines use of a quart of oil every 2000 miles has not been considered excessive. The only high performance engine that hasn't used oil in regular use was my Alfa Romeo 164 with a DOHC V-6 derived from a Ferrari engine. interesting since Ferrari engines are notorious for using oil!

Hmm, it seems oil consumption is more common in DOHC or is that just coincidental?

drewsdeville
01-07-11, 09:05 PM
Drew, if you change your oil at 10-12,000 mile intervals, that VW TDI you're buying will change your opinion on that after a few months.

Well, yeah, it's a diesel. FAR more combustion byproducts make it into the oil as diesel doesn't burn nearly as clean as gasoline, just as gasoline doesn't burn near as clean as CNG. Ever change the oil on a diesel? After you fill it with new clean oil and start it up for a minute and check the dipstick, it's already black :ill:

Even diesels are benefiting from today's oil quality though. Their recommended intervals are on the rise as well. They'll just never be as high as gasoline.

However, this isn't to say I'll intentionally avoid VW's recommended interval. I'll likely follow whatever they recommend. They know better than me, they've done the homework. Their R&D is exactly what I'm paying for.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-07-11, 09:12 PM
Well yes, but VW was notorious for over extending their oil life intervals on their 1.8T's and causing massive sludge issues internally.

drewsdeville
01-07-11, 09:14 PM
That may be, I've never heard of it. Surprises me the engine made it onto Wards 10 best multiple times and is generally well accepted by the public if that's actually true.

I guess I'll deal with that if/when the time comes.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-07-11, 09:25 PM
Well, all of the VW dealers and import independent mechanics that I deal with on a day to day basis with my work say that the 1.8T is notorious for sludging issues, especially if you run a conventional oil and over extend the oil changes in the 5,000 + range. It's so bad infact that VW came to BG and asked us to design them a chemical to run through the engine crankcase to clear the sludging issues and help the engines run better. As a matter of fact, I sold four of these chemical kits to an independent import repair shop today because he tried one out on a badly sludged 1.8T Passat and had good results.

drewsdeville
01-07-11, 09:33 PM
Ah, good call, you know your stuff.

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1164002

But, since the newest affected engine is 7 years old now, I'd say I'm in the clear. The TDIs have been getting great marks in recent years, so I'm not terribly worried about it. Browsing the used market, it's pretty clear the TDIs are having no problem racking up some impressive miles. Apparently, they've taken care of the problem. :thumbsup:

Good for VW for actually responding to a problem. Like Ranger stated in the "Here's your chance" thread, this is something GM needs to pick up on.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-07-11, 09:46 PM
Yeah, the newer 1.9TDi and 2.0T's are a lot better in terms of sludging and reliability.

Jesda
01-07-11, 10:40 PM
That may be, I've never heard of it. Surprises me the engine made it onto Wards 10 best

So did the Northstar. :) Wards examines engineering prowess but not longevity.

VW has a history of burdening its customers with defective products and taking its sweet time to remedy issues, just like GM. Hopefully that's changing with Stefan Jacoby's departure.

Ranger
01-07-11, 10:58 PM
OLM makes fair calculations but it can't see the entire operating environment such as the quality of oil, the effectiveness of the filter, or the design and manufacturing defects of some of GM's engines. My OLM might tell me to change oil every 8-10k, but I'm topping off 2 quarts every 1000-2000 miles. At that point, the OLM's assumptions for ZDDP depletion are completely wrong.

Wrong. The guru had told us that there is a 100% safety factor built into the OLM so when it is at 0% and says CHANGE OIL, the ZDDP depletion is really only at 50%. In your case it's even greater than that.

Jesda
01-08-11, 12:46 AM
Wrong. The guru had told us that there is a 100% safety factor built into the OLM so when it is at 0% and says CHANGE OIL, the ZDDP depletion is really only at 50%. In your case it's even greater than that.

Awesome! :thumbsup:

Now if he would be willing to personally apologize for everyone's head gaskets I'd like him and trust GM a bit more. :dammit: And now on that note I have a hard time believing anything he says about any built-in safety mechanisms. I guess adding oil every month is a great way of guaranteeing fresh additives. Maybe that's what he meant by "safety factor" :histeric:


I do love driving this car, especially for $3800. But if I bought it new and owned it since 2001, I'd probably never buy a GM product ever again.

Aron9000
01-08-11, 04:22 AM
WOW!!!! I didn't know Seville depreciation was that brutal. Pretty sure I could sell my old Caddy for about that to the nearest drug dealer on the corner in about 10 minutes.

drewsdeville
01-08-11, 05:13 AM
VW has a history of burdening its customers with defective products and taking its sweet time to remedy issues, just like GM. Hopefully that's changing with Stefan Jacoby's departure.


And that's just it, it would seem (with this and examples from 2 2008+ VW's in the extended family) like that's history. The point is that it has been remedied and in this case, customers are even being reimbursed. Nothing wrong with that. Clearly VW is trying/making the attempt. There's still not much evidence of this from GM, who doesn't take it's time, it just doesn't do it.

Jesda
01-08-11, 05:23 AM
At the moment, I wouldn't buy anything VW unless it was brand new or CPO, to ensure full warranty coverage and to avoid the period of "ick" and mismanagement. The CC is pretty darn nice, and it'll make a great used car one day.

EChas3
01-08-11, 11:57 AM
Most of us traditional Cadillac enthusiasts know when Cadillac really started chasing BMW - the first generation CTS. And we all noticed how our Seville turned into something we weren't too crazy about. Cadillacs were becoming more and more like BMWs and less like Cadillacs. The idea had merit - but Cadillac failed. Not that anyone could have succeeded...

In the case of the CTS-V - Cadillac actually did succeed. It may not have the high build quality of the BMW M5 - but Cadillac accomplished what it had set out to do. The CTS-V outperformed the M5. And to keep the price down, quality had to suffer a bit. Understandable. And this goes to show that Cadillac can compete in about any market it wants to. I have little doubt that Cadillac could have met the build quality of the M5 - but you'd be looking at an $80k car.

So it appears Cadillac has moved on and realized it should probably chase a company closer to it's roots - Lexus.. As you know, we have the XTS coming - which is going to be a Lexus ES competitor - and actually should be better in about every possible way (we hope). But then we have the SRX...

Cadillac recently discontinued the SRX's 2.8 liter turbo V6 (http://cadillacenthusiastmagazine.com/cadillac-magazine/2011/01/01/cadillac-srx-turbo-model-discontinued/) - stating that it wasn't selling very well. I think a large part of the problem was that there were very few turbo SRXs on dealer lots. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it started at about $50k. Am I right? That's quite a bit more than the non-turbo version. So what were you really getting for the much higher price tag other than a little more horsepower and torque?

For most people, the power in the 3.0 liter SRX is good enough. But is that what Cadillac is about? Being "good enough"? Is there any reason Cadillac can't fit the 3.6 DI in the SRX? That would be more than adequate and probably more powerful than the Lexus RX - the SRXs main competitor..

What do you think about all of this?

Dealers around here have lots full of the 3.0l-turbos. I askedmy dealers Sales Manager and he said buyers don't want to buy premium gas. I think that's short-sighted because in the Milwaukee market the price differential is $0.16-0.20 per gallon. Even if a tank holds 20 gallons, the current cost per tank difference is just $3-4 out of $60 ~ 6 or 7%?

If gas prices double and the differential remains the same (like it did in 2008) the per tank difference drops to about 3%.

EChas3
01-08-11, 12:00 PM
Well stated, Ryan, I agree with your conclusions.

Seconded!

Jesda
01-08-11, 08:06 PM
---Clean up on thread 218794!---

Carry on. :)

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-08-11, 09:12 PM
I was just watching a documentary on Jeffrey Dahmer last night, and it turns out he's also from Milwaukee!

hueterm
01-08-11, 09:28 PM
Hahahaha

thebigjimsho
01-09-11, 05:21 PM
Cadillac has learned nothing about marketing. Nobody buys a Cadillac to compete with BMW. Cadillac's are bought by people who love American cars, the rich history associated with the Cadillac nameplate, and people who love the styling. They're also bought by people who like value... and it depends on who you are to think if that is a good or bad thing.Not so for the V series. Since I was about 12, I've desired an M5, or almost any M. The CTS-V has been 100% the performance of the M5 at 70% the price. I'll buy the best car I can, regardless of country of origin...

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-09-11, 05:23 PM
If I were to put the V1 against the E39 M5, I'd go with the E39. But going V2 against the E60 M5, V2 all the way!

thebigjimsho
01-09-11, 05:38 PM
If I were to put the V1 against the E39 M5, I'd go with the E39. But going V2 against the E60 M5, V2 all the way!
The V2 is amazing. But I have to disagree on E39 over V1, even when taking value out of the equation. An E39 and SHO owner switched with me when I brought my V out to Oakland, CA in '04. We really didn't wring out our cars, but I liked the way the V drove a little bit better. And the V was a little faster in a 40-110 jaunt across the Bay Bridge. He actually is a member here, too. His name is JEM...

thebigjimsho
01-09-11, 05:50 PM
As for oil changes, times have changed and oils and engine efficiency/tolerances have improved. I still do regular intervals over a computer's suggestion, however.

My Town Cars get Motorcraft synthetic blend every 5000-7500 miles. The 4.6 is close to bulletproof and I don't go much past 200,000 miles before upgrading. My '04's computer would recommend between 10-11000 miles. My '07 recommends 4500 miles no matter what I do. I stay on my schedule.

My V gets full synthetic every time. But I care about it and it gets a little overkill care at every 5,000 miles. I know I could go 10,000 miles without worrying. But I do these changes myself, so...

gary88
01-09-11, 07:04 PM
If I were to put the V1 against the E39 M5, I'd go with the E39. But going V2 against the E60 M5, V2 all the way!

That may change when the F10 M5 is unveiled later this year :devil:

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/8299/bmwm52.jpg

Jesda
01-09-11, 07:53 PM
My Town Cars get Motorcraft synthetic blend every 5000-7500 miles. The 4.6 is close to bulletproof and I don't go much past 200,000 miles before upgrading. My '04's computer would recommend between 10-11000 miles. My '07 recommends 4500 miles no matter what I do. I stay on my schedule.


Motorcraft has become my oil of choice in the Seville. I know, its blasphemy. :D

$14 for 5 quarts at Wally World. Can't beat that for a regular price on a high quality synth blend.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-09-11, 08:29 PM
That may change when the F10 M5 is unveiled later this year :devil:

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/8299/bmwm52.jpg

Nah, probably not. The new 5 Series is better looking than the outgoing one, but the V2 still looks best.

thebigjimsho
01-09-11, 08:58 PM
Nah, probably not. The new 5 Series is better looking than the outgoing one, but the V2 still looks best.
The M5 and CTS-V have life cycles that are as out of sync as you can get. Which is great as it makes for excessive oneuppance...

thebigjimsho
01-09-11, 09:01 PM
Motorcraft has become my oil of choice in the Seville. I know, its blasphemy. :D

$14 for 5 quarts at Wally World. Can't beat that for a regular price on a high quality synth blend.
Yeah, I go in to Wally World every 8 months or so and buy 10 jugs of 5W-20 and 8 Motorcraft filters for the TC...

Playdrv4me
01-09-11, 09:57 PM
Definitely E39 over V1... but for me there are several reasons over just the driving experience. The E39 was the last classic BMW design. Actually, I like automatics so I'd probably choose the 2003 E55 AMG over the V1 as well. I remember those things were commanding 10k above sticker for the longest time, and MB sold every single one.

Comparing the V2 to almost anything else though, the V2 usually wins, and hands down.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-09-11, 10:02 PM
Between the RS6, E55, V1 and E39 M5, I'll take the RS6, then the M5, then the E55, then the V1.

Jesda
01-09-11, 10:13 PM
If you want a V1, you want a V1. Its not something you typically cross shop with other sedans.

thebigjimsho
01-09-11, 11:23 PM
If you want a V1, you want a V1. Its not something you typically cross shop with other sedans.
If you were thrifty, you would...

thebigjimsho
01-09-11, 11:29 PM
Between the RS6, E55, V1 and E39 M5, I'll take the RS6, then the M5, then the E55, then the V1.
Seriously, I always have been a fan of the uber-performance sedans. I am still a BMW fan and always appreciated the RS6 and E55.

The RS6 and M5 would be a tough choice against the V. The RS6 had crazy thrust and that would be a reason to overlook the auto only tranny. The M5 was a classic design and came in a manual so that's always a win. The E55 may be the best looking of the bunch but the auto only and lazy handling is a turnoff. The V has striking looks, a manual tranny, the best handling and the best brakes.

To me, it's:

1A: V1
1B: RS6
1C: M5
2: E55

Aron9000
01-10-11, 01:29 AM
For me, I simply wouldn't buy a V1 for various reasons. The E39 is a superior machine in every respect, except maybe in aftermarket parts availability. I must say that the E39 is my all time favorite BMW, the M5 being the hairy chested jock of the group.

Jesda
01-10-11, 04:05 AM
http://www.q45.org/uploads/automobilemag-signature-small.jpg (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/AUTOMOBILE+MAGAZINE+Announces+Its+2004+Readers'+Ch oice+All-Star...-a0114976964)

/just sayin'

blue07cts
01-10-11, 11:51 AM
yeah i'm also GaGa over the E39, I always liked them then i drove an 02 540 sport and to this day, including my 08 cts that was the best driving most grin inducing car i've ever driven and felt WAY more powerful than it's 282hp rating suggests.

thebigjimsho
01-10-11, 02:36 PM
For me, I simply wouldn't buy a V1 for various reasons. The E39 is a superior machine in every respect, except maybe in aftermarket parts availability. I must say that the E39 is my all time favorite BMW, the M5 being the hairy chested jock of the group.
Remember, I love the E39 as well, but there is little in the E39 that is superior to the V1. And as for anything mechanical, the V1 is superior in most of those categories. Engine, brakes, suspension...