Price High Styling Laacking 2005 STS/ E 500

[Devil_concours]

Originally Posted by Caddy Man

i still dont see what you did did u widen the center console and dash just a little bit?

look at the right side of the nav screen above the wooden trim with sts.

[STS 310]

When that 2005 is about 5 years old, only one word comes to mind that kills the whole thing............DEPRECIATION.

[majax]

hey, i see what you did now and I like it!

[gothicaleigh]

Originally Posted by STS 310

When that 2005 is about 5 years old, only one word comes to mind that kills the whole thing............DEPRECIATION.

The Art&Science Caddys haven't been depreciating as fast as Cadillacs used to. Give it a few years at this pace and we may see the values hold as well as the Germans... (whose cars in recent years have begun to depreciate faster than they used to).

[megeebee]

Originally Posted by gothicaleigh

The Art&Science Caddys haven't been depreciating as fast as Cadillacs used to. Give it a few years at this pace and we may see the values hold as well as the Germans... (whose cars in recent years have begun to depreciate faster than they used to).

Thank you, Gothicaleigh. I can personally atest to this. My dealer has informed me that residuals on the Art & Science Cadillacs are well above that of the older models. In fact, they're offering a "pull ahead" on my lease. That is to say, they'll forgive the balance of my current lease ( '03 CTS) if I get a new one. They want my car to sell used. (They don't want me to buy it at the end of the lease. The pre-arranged end of lease price is very low, and they could get $4-5K more for it on their lot!
Also, this situation is due in part to GM's unwillingness to OVER PRODUCE. It is very tempting for an auto maker to "strike while the iron is hot", and build gobs of a hot model. They resisted this impulse and therefore demand can remain relatively high, incentives can stay low or non-existent, and residual value stays high. Cadillac is now behaving like a luxury auto producer! This will hold the brand in good stead for the future.

[M STaR 013]

yay!

[megeebee]

Originally Posted by jerseyvette

Anyone else agree? Fancied up economy sized car:

......no.

[RERM]

Originally Posted by megeebee

......no.

I think you'r nuts....first, most mass producers (BMW, AUDI, MB, VW, PORSCHE, JAGUAR, FORD, etc...) share platforms.

Second, most car buyers could care less, (Lexus ES = Toyota, Acura = Honda) I don't see people complaining about those brands.

I admit the initial pictures of the new STS were not that good, now having seen better pics and color schemes on Road & Track and Car and Driver I must say it looks pretty good.

Performance wise, Car and Driver said it all...as previously quoted...

I will grant you one point, pricewise, GM would have been smart to keep the price below the competition Cadillac is coming from behind, not out of nowhere, there Lexus and Infiniti had an edge...

On page 53 of the August issue of Road & Track there are pictures of the XLR V, STS V and a CTS V Plus (the best looking car I've ever seen out of GM), this really points to fulfillment of a comeback at Cadillac. Cars I would genuinely lust after....

FACT, Cadillac did better on the J.D. Power survey than any of the above mentioned brands save Lexus.

This from someone who grew up driving and enjoying BMW's...

I still think you'r nuts!!!!

[Devil_concours]

Originally Posted by RERM

I think you'r nuts....first, most mass producers (BMW, AUDI, MB, VW, PORSCHE, JAGUAR, FORD, etc...) share platforms.

Sigma platform has been only shared between 3 cars
CTS, SRX, STS

[jerseyvette]

Originally Posted by RERM

I think you'r nuts....first, most mass producers (BMW, AUDI, MB, VW, PORSCHE, JAGUAR, FORD, etc...) share platforms.

Second, most car buyers could care less, (Lexus ES = Toyota, Acura = Honda) I don't see people complaining about those brands.

I admit the initial pictures of the new STS were not that good, now having seen better pics and color schemes on Road & Track and Car and Driver I must say it looks pretty good.

Performance wise, Car and Driver said it all...as previously quoted...

I will grant you one point, pricewise, GM would have been smart to keep the price below the competition Cadillac is coming from behind, not out of nowhere, there Lexus and Infiniti had an edge...

On page 53 of the August issue of Road & Track there are pictures of the XLR V, STS V and a CTS V Plus (the best looking car I've ever seen out of GM), this really points to fulfillment of a comeback at Cadillac. Cars I would genuinely lust after....

FACT, Cadillac did better on the J.D. Power survey than any of the above mentioned brands save Lexus.

This from someone who grew up driving and enjoying BMW's...

I still think you'r nuts!!!!

I drove the CTS-V and it is a great car for what it is designed to be. The car is compact (big plus in handling) and has INCREDIBLE power and acceleration. Hats Off to GM for makinga world class beauty.

I've been thinking a lot about the 2005 STS and in soem ways it meets several segment needs (no extra overhangs, aerodynamic, has a similarly shaped door lines as the XLR etc). The gripes I had were in size and overall prestige (in appearance, insuide room etc). I think the answer to my dilemma is that Cadillac does not want to compete in the full size touring segment anymore (cars the size of a 760LI, A8, MB S 500, Bentley, RR etc). The roominess of the aforementioned cars is my main attraction to them (since I have a need for rear seat head/leg room for clients, friends etc).

I'd like to ask an expert this question: Why would Cadillac continue to shrink the cockpit of the STS from the 1992 design to the 1998 design and now to the 2005 version? You would think that a company with a $4B R&D budget would figure that interiors are where people want improvements in space, comfort and overall experience (the new VW Phaeton really focuses on this). An example of this (although a higher end car) is the Mercedes Maybach, the rear seats are more and more first class airline style and they recline with tons of legroom. I realise that this is a chauffer driven type of car but in theory you would think GM would keep these thoughts in mind for people in the rear seats. I ask again why would GM continue to shrink the cockpit on a car witha broad base of customers to target?

I think ideal cars (which is why I really like the Chrysler 300C in design philosophy) are very aero and sleek on the outside but with maxium inhabitable cabin space on the interior. Should every car be a Maybach sized car? absolutely not. Should cars like Deville and Seville have livable rear seat areas (with ample leg and head room for several passengers) Yes. I just don't see GMs rationale in crampy interiors.

(please don't come back with the "I am 6'6" and I fit great in my Deville story" either please).

[Caddy Man]

Originally Posted by jerseyvette

I drove the CTS-V and it is a great car for what it is designed to be. The car is compact (big plus in handling) and has INCREDIBLE power and acceleration. Hats Off to GM for makinga world class beauty.

I've been thinking a lot about the 2005 STS and in soem ways it meets several segment needs (no extra overhangs, aerodynamic, has a similarly shaped door lines as the XLR etc). The gripes I had were in size and overall prestige (in appearance, insuide room etc). I think the answer to my dilemma is that Cadillac does not want to compete in the full size touring segment anymore (cars the size of a 760LI, A8, MB S 500, Bentley, RR etc). The roominess of the aforementioned cars is my main attraction to them (since I have a need for rear seat head/leg room for clients, friends etc).

I'd like to ask an expert this question: Why would Cadillac continue to shrink the cockpit of the STS from the 1992 design to the 1998 design and now to the 2005 version? You would think that a company with a $4B R&D budget would figure that interiors are where people want improvements in space, comfort and overall experience (the new VW Phaeton really focuses on this). An example of this (although a higher end car) is the Mercedes Maybach, the rear seats are more and more first class airline style and they recline with tons of legroom. I realise that this is a chauffer driven type of car but in theory you would think GM would keep these thoughts in mind for people in the rear seats. I ask again why would GM continue to shrink the cockpit on a car witha broad base of customers to target?

I think ideal cars (which is why I really like the Chrysler 300C in design philosophy) are very aero and sleek on the outside but with maxium inhabitable cabin space on the interior. Should every car be a Maybach sized car? absolutely not. Should cars like Deville and Seville have livable rear seat areas (with ample leg and head room for several passengers) Yes. I just don't see GMs rationale in crampy interiors.

(please don't come back with the "I am 6'6" and I fit great in my Deville story" either please).

the STS was made to be smaller in size, more of a performance sedan, it will not be as big as a 7 series or s class is, thats were teh DTS comes in. lets wait till cadillac redesigns that to critique what matches with what. The DTS is already about 7 inches longer than the STS is. Just like a 5 series will have less room than a 7. The DTS is trully cadillacs big car, and that i think will match up much better. And as far as price goes (i think soemone else made a comment) if cadillac puts the price down, it will ''cheapify'' the image, and every single person will have one. Look at teh 300c, its a great looking car, but many people dont consider it luxury since it tops at 35k, and now everyone and there mom will get one since they are so cheap, i think it was good they kept the price high, but its still compeative with bmw 5 series or mercedes E class pricing. I kno if i was able to afford a car like that, i wouldnt want every joe schmo driving on around either. (no offence to anyone) If bentley lowered thier price to 60,000, everyone will be riding in it, there is no exlucisivity left, thats one of the things that makes a Bentley and RR so great, besides for power and comfort, NO ONE HAS ONE. I kno I am giving an extreme example, but thats how i see it. I just htink the price the STS is at is competative in its category, what you people should be mad at is the price of the previous STS, fully loaded was 60k. Same with DTS, my freind even told me, that my DTS was a great car, but he would NEVER spend that much on a cadilalc, but mind you that was the previous models, before the big redesign of the company, differnt image, before better reliablity and overall this STS has many advanced features the old one didnt, its much more competative. just my 2 cents.

[miscreant]

Originally Posted by STS 310

When that 2005 is about 5 years old, only one word comes to mind that kills the whole thing............DEPRECIATION.

Up until about 2-3 years ago, the Cadillacs DID NOT depreciate like they are now. You had an aged design with rumors of new models - that spells depreciation. You now have completely new models...

[miscreant]

Originally Posted by jerseyvette

1) NO SIGMA car is worth 60K anywhere in the world(now or in 10 years).

What about the sigma platform begs it to be limited to a certain price??? BMW has been using MACPHERSON STRUTS for years and STILL DOES! It makes no sense. The platform does not define the price. The Sigma platform has been heralded as one of the best platforms in the world.

2) The New STS (Which I have inspected closely in person here in NJ) is super-small looking and the interior is essentially a changed version of what you see in the CTS. Why 60K!!???!!! I just do not see where the rationale is for charging so much for the car.

I can't believe that you have even seen the car if you say it looks like a CTS inside. It looks NOTHING like a CTS. I'm surprised since it's supposed to be an S" class model like the SRX, but the SRX looks like the CTS inside, the STS does NOT.

[jerseyvette]

Originally Posted by Caddy Man

the STS was made to be smaller in size, more of a performance sedan, it will not be as big as a 7 series or s class is, thats were teh DTS comes in......

All great points and I would agree with you if the DTS actually had a competitively spacious interior with cars such as the S500. Look at these two phots from a 2003 DTS rear seat and a 2001 rear S500 seat area. Notice how crammed the DTS is compared to how the S500s rear area is set back towards the trunk with more attention and consideration for occupants (I guess in Germany it is insuoltive to make rear quarters crammed for wealthy people). Here those rules/ideals must not apply:

[jerseyvette]

Now here is the STS interior. imagine being stuck back here for a 4 hour car ride if you were above 6' tall..life would stink!