5 Caddy's now and losing my business potentially

[ben72227]

the new STS looks "sigma-ish" which is not a compliment.

I have to agree with you here. Not only does it look like a Jumbo CTS, but i think GM really just over did the whole sigma-thing in the design of their cars. Instead of looking really cool and futuristic (which im guessing is what they were aiming for) it looks boxy. It just looks big and bulky and blocky almost. With curves of course. Not that its completely bad; its good that GM decided to change the look of Cadillac, but if they want to compete in the global market, they DO need to take some design cues from the European car makers.

[jerseyvette]

Originally Posted by 99Zee28

What are you talking about? 2002-2004 Vettes have less headroom than previous years? Are you on crack? Have you not noticed the C5 Vettes have been around since 97 with NO changes, including eliminating some head room! And if you're talking about a ZO6's flat rear window, that was done to reduce weight! You know that Huge rear window weighs a lot! By eliminating it they eliminated a lot of weight which in turn makes the car faster and handle better. Also, the headroom for a ZO6 and a Coupe are the same. I checked on Edmunds.com!

Some people, I just don't get!

Later,
Dave

Dave, You are incorrect. I looked at a 2001 Vette as well as 2003 and 2004 (coupes, convertibles and Z06 models) at a dealership recently. There is a mechanism right in the center top around the rear window connection that comes out literally about 1/2 to 1" more than a 2001. This design flaw causes the 2002 and 2003 Z06 and Coupe to be too amall for me to fit. You must remember that GM does change a lot of small structural things each year that are not advertised and directly visible. I try to find out the names of the designers of the Chrysler 300C and send them over to Cadillac HR for recruitment. Sucks that Germans can design beter cars..even in 2004...
Regretfully,
Jerseyvette

[tenmark]

I'm 6' tall and have no problems with headroom in the Z06. A friend of mine has owned two of them, a 2000 and more recently a 2004. Headroom wasn't an issue.

It also hasn't been an issue in my DTS either. I just never noticed. Now, as for headroom concerns, try driving a Jaguar XK8 or Vaden Plas. If you're looking for headroom issues, pick it with those cars. I guess european drivers are much much smaller.

Of course, if it bothers you too much, you could always get a Volkswagen Bug, plenty of headroom, top hat or not!!

Mark

[jerseyvette]

Originally Posted by tenmark

I'm 6' tall and have no problems with headroom in the Z06. A friend of mine has owned two of them, a 2000 and more recently a 2004. Headroom wasn't an issue.

It also hasn't been an issue in my DTS either. I just never noticed. Now, as for headroom concerns, try driving a Jaguar XK8 or Vaden Plas. If you're looking for headroom issues, pick it with those cars. I guess european drivers are much much smaller.

Of course, if it bothers you too much, you could always get a Volkswagen Bug, plenty of headroom, top hat or not!!

Mark

EXACTLY MARK!! A VW bug DOES HAVE MORE FRONT CABIN ROOM THAN A 2000-2004 Deville and a 1998-2004 Seville. I have a lot of American pride and patriotism and it really MAKES ME MAD when some mechanical engieer in Detroit decides to make a car ideally suited for him (and he most likely stands 5'8" to 5'10'). Germans bust have bigger bodies and bigger brains because I fit in their cabins MUCH BETTER.

[juiceE]

im 6'4" and in my fleetwood, i have about 2'-1' of head room to spare, no matter how i sit

[jerseyvette]

Originally Posted by juiceE

im 6'4" and in my fleetwood, i have about 2'-1' of head room to spare, no matter how i sit

Let's get it straight:
1993=1996 Fleetwood: No Headroom problem but the legroom and cabin room is crammed. so so design
1992-1997 Seville: Great Design. Excellent Leg and Headroom all around.
1993 Deville: Great Design and great room all around.

1998 Seville; Mechanically excellent and material build quality is GREAT. HOWEVER this was the point when cadillac started to ignore roominess. Front seats lack legroom and headroom and teh rear seats are just for show, absolutely no room. This was a design flaw.

2000 and Newer Deville: Overall the outside looks great. From the dimensions of the car (now think about this) the car looks to have been designed in this manner: Body then cram a cockpit inside of it. Outside is awesome but inside is also crammed. Lacks rear headroom, rear legroom and front legroom (especially right below the steering wheel- a verysmall area for such a large car.

2003-2004 CTS: A Small car. Still kicks teh tail off any BMW 3 series but still a small euro oriented car. NICE amounts of front knee room (big improvement) but back seats lack any legroom (which is OK to a degree).

SRX: Decent looking and outside of the box but again overall way to small in leg and backseat room.

GM EXECUTIVES: Please answer me on this. Who is the ideal passenger in size you are designing cars for? I would bet the ranch your average customer size (by design) is about 5'10". Take a lead from your German counterparts. Design cars from the PASSENGER out. Make the dash boards recessed and pushed up in under the windshield (like inside the Mercedes E 300). After the ideal cabin is designed then sculpt a low profile and wide car with all the great GM innovations standard (Stabili-track , magnetic ride etc). As I mentioned in previous posts take cars like Audi A8, Mercedes S Class and Bentley GT and model them in dimensions (exterior and interior). You could fita 7' baslketball player in a Bentley Continental GT 2 Door. Why does VW have the knowledge and market understanding that GM lacks? Is management at GM so far removed from the streets that they just don't care about cabin space? You should all read an older business book called "Bureaucrats to Barbarians" that disusses the downfall of Chrysler in thd 80s. The company almost went under because the management took an aristrocratic attitude and lost empathy for customers and workers. Either build cars that we fit in (6'4" people) or get out of the business

[CaddyFan2004]

Originally Posted by jerseyvette

I am almost 6'4" and have longer legs. Cadillac's are designed for men around 5'10" tall which is really sad. What makes it tough is that Mercedes with Chrysler are able to design a virtually perfect car with the new 300C. Headroom, power, legroom ,rear seat space, exterior looks etc are all excellent. I just always had a hope that GM and Cadillac would one day lead the world in making products people want. It's just sad that in 2004 a little country like Germany shows them up again, again and again. Now I'm stuck looking at cars in foreign car show rooms because GM turned their back on people like me. If any Daimler Chrysler execs are reading this I want tom say a sincere "Thank You" and congratulations on the cars you are introducing. I wish GM had your management team and design staff.

6'4" makes you 99.4 percentile for male height. While not everyone is 5'8 as you point out, everyone isn't 6'4" either.

The median height for a US male is 5' 8.5". If cars were designed around 99.4% 6'4" males, half the male population, and probably 3/4 of the female population would feel like they were driving around in cargo vans.

Bigger cars cost more money to build and sell, and get poorer fuel economy, which in turn probably turns off more people than designing them to fit less than .6% of the population.

Think about it.

[jerseyvette]

Originally Posted by CaddyFan2004

6'4" makes you 99.4 percentile for male height. While not everyone is 5'8 as you point out, everyone isn't 6'4" either.

The median height for a US male is 5' 8.5". If cars were designed around 99.4% 6'4" males, half the male population, and probably 3/4 of the female population would feel like they were driving around in cargo vans.

Bigger cars cost more money to build and sell, and get poorer fuel economy, which in turn probably turns off more people than designing them to fit less than .6% of the population.

Think about it.

Here is where you are WAY off:
1) Take a car like a Ford Expedition, Cadillac Escalade or a Lincoln Navigator: Soccer Mom;s LOVE these cars because they are positioned properly in the market. they look classy and have a lot of utilitarian features. It comes down to POSITIONING not PRICE.
2) Many Cars are VERY small but have excellent interior room. I just read an article a few months aro about a Kia having more leg room than a Cadillac, I think it was in Motor Trend or Road and Track magazine. Anyway it is a fact that small cars WITH THE PROPER ENGINEERING can be made roomy and functional.
3) In my opinion Cars like the 2000 and newer Deville were really designed from the outside in. The cabin is extremely crammed for a car of it's size and the dash (just as in the older Fleetwoods) is protruding into space that should be open and free for passengers to move around in. Why is this??? I just have no clue why a car would be designed so crammed. Could the engineers not design the electronics small enough? Are airbags too large to fit in a properley sized dash? Who knows?! Was the idea to make the front seat room small overall to give the illusion that the back seats have more legroom and the car is more spacious than it is? If you put a proper track(in front and rear adjustments) inside a Deville for example (like the ones in a S500 Mercedes) the front seat would literally be touching the front of the rear seat when all the way back. GM figured that this would not fly at a car show so they moved the tracks up and cut out some front leg room. In the "design the outside- then the inside" philosophy the rear room of the car also suffered, again everything was crammed down in size.

We'll unless things turn around people like me will not buy GM cars anymore. I really hope Management takes ques from their competitors..... It makes me sad to say this.

[jerseyvette]

GM builds smaller cars than Diamler look what happens:
GM, Ford Post Weak Sales. Obviously I am not alone in my feelings. Go Chrysler and keep making roomy cars!!

DaimlerChrysler Sales Gain
A WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE NEWS ROUNDUP
July 1, 2004 3:46 p.m.

General Motors Corp. reported a 15% drop in June sales amid weaker-than-expected sales of its cars and trucks. DaimlerChrysler AG's U.S. vehicle sales rose 4.9% from a year ago, while Ford Motor Co.'s sales fell 7.7%, hurt by sluggish sales of its passenger cars.

GM, of Detroit, said truck sales were 218,558, down 15%, and car sales were 161,709, also down 15%. Total sales through June were 2,295,621, up 1%. Truck sales through the first six months were 1,350,083, up 3% compared to year-ago levels, and car sales were 945,538, off 3%.

[Devil_concours]

i don't know what your issue is with gm but
1. Not everyone wants an oversized cars.
2. Devilles have plenty of room for me 6'2"
3. Size of the car didn't single handedly determine the sales result of the car manufacturer.