General Motors Trademarks “CIL”
45
Just yesterday, we brought you news that General Motors trademarked the Cadillac LTS name — which we immediately assumed to be the name of the upcoming full-size flagship Caddy. Today, we come to find out that on June 6, The General filed for a trademark for the letters CIL.
One difference noteworthy of your attention is the fact that the LTS trademark is two-fold: one is for Cadillac LTS and yet another is simply for LTS. Meanwhile, the trademark for CIL does not have the word “Cadillac” in front of it, making us wonder if CIL is for Cadillac to begin with. But if it is, it could be the name of the upcoming full-size Caddy crossover based on the updated Lambda architecture.
CIL joins Electra in this week’s trademark discoveries made by GM Authority.
Google+
Cadillac had better be careful with the nomenclature…they will start to confuse people the same way that Lincoln confuses people. There should be an alphabetic relationship between vehicle size. ATS and CTS fit that bill. I don’t see anything wrong with calling the XTS a DTS and the upcoming larger rear drive an ETS. What’s wrong with these people when they start making some headway? They ALWAYS mess things up with some stupid move.
Richard……….yes, how about a true name for a car and not all these acronyms…Alpha for ATS possibly? It is CONFUSING and tiring also to me…BUICK names the cars…Verano is a name.
maybe this is a Omega sedan?? and LTS is a Lambda?
Let’s brainstorm. Since in CTS, etc., S stands for sedan. In SRX, X stands for crossover. In XLR, R stands for roadster. So what does L stand for?
In CTS, etc., T stands for touring. What does I stand for?
Don’t let C throw you off, in ATS and XTS, the first letter seems to mean nothing.
According to the Future Product Guide: Cadillac Vehicles For 2013, 2014, 2015 And Beyond, there will be 2 crossovers, a flagship (let’s throw that out for now because of LTS), a roadster, and a “Mystery Vehicle…”. There will also be a new Escalade, and I think there is a small possibility that they rename it to fit the name system.
Maybe I’m wrong with the acronym and they are screwing up the system, but have any ideas?
I agree with the Lincoln thing I still have trouble remembering their model names.
because I thought of L but i thought it might be for Lambda in the LTS. But CIL sounds just right for the Omega sedan because it just sounds like the concept “CIEL”
LTS is right in line with the other sedan offerings (ATS, CTS) — with the TS nomenclature likely standing for Touring Sedan.
LTS would therefore be Luxury Touring Sedan. Likewise, a crossover would have an “X” in it — like the SRX, so this has likely nothing to do with any crossovers.
Perhaps CIL is the Alpha-based roadster we’ve reported on:
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2012/01/sources-cadillac-to-receive-no-less-than-4-alpha-based-vehicles/
I think the roadster should be called ALR for ATS size and if they make a bigger one then CLR.
Good call!
i’d like to see the name KLR used for the smaller roadster and XLR brought back as a roadster based on the c7 ‘vette, just like it was, then ELR would be the electric one.
But then the Lambda?
Will more than likely have an “X” at the end of its name. LRX, maybe?
But then if they use LRX wouldn’t that be copying the Land Rover?
What’s a Land Rover?
The Land Rovers are LR2 and LR4. I am guessing the LR mean Land Rover lol
I was talking to a coworker about the Land Rover vs the Jeep Grand Cherokee this morning. I told him I would take the Jeep over the Land Rover because it’s American! he said I was nuts! lol anyway back to GM!
I would take the Cherokee not because its American but because it looks better, is more efficient, is a better on/off roader, more reliable(yes a chrysler can be reliable), is more luxurious, and compared to the LR, does alot of stuff that the LR does at a much lower price point.
You should specify exactly which Land Rover you mean, but I think the Cherokee is superior too all of them .
Maybe you’re both right.
Truthfully I don’t know which one he was talking about. The Jeep was the Grand Cherokee SRT8. I guess he just could not come to grips with the fact that it was $61,000. He has a Wrangler Unlimited. I do agree with all of your points
Thanks
I’d still take any current Land Rover over the Jeep, not that the latter is not a great and capable vehicle.
It’s to bad Cadillac does not have anything like the Evoque. It looks very nice, I see one on my way home every morning.
Why?
cause right now the evoque is among the best crossovers in the world if not being the best.
As far as appearance I would say it’s a very attractive crossover. I don’t know if I can say it’s the best in the world. I still have a very bad image of Land Rover in my mind. It would be nice if we had a Cadillac spin on it
but that’s just me.
@Babersher: That’s like asking why I would buy a TAG watch over a Timex. Both keep time very well, yet both do it very differently and one is in an entirely different stratosphere than the other. So the question is, why not?
First clarify which Land rover are we talking about, I was thinking of the LR2 which I think is in the same class as the Cherokee.
Really?, In what way?
Can you not tell the difference between a mainstream vehicle and a luxury line of SUVs/crossovers?
In the case of an LR2 vs. a Grand Cherokee, you get an entry-level compact luxury CUV in the LR2 with excellent materials, warranty, and overall look/feel/quality — all of which are superior to the GC. Again, it’s a luxury vehicle vs. a mainstream offering with appropriate investment and cost limitations for both; TAG vs. Timex. And that’s not to mention intangible image/class characteristics here.
On top of that, the LR2 has been around in its current form since 2005; if we want an apples-to-apples comparison, we should be talking about the new Evoque vs. the new Grand Cherokee.
oh boy what did I start lol
I don’t think you can put Evoque and GC in the same class at all…..
Can you put any LR and any Jeep in the same class?
well I guess if you put it in Luxury wise then yes….
You seem to be an ardent supporter of Land Rover. But a few things dont add up.
I havnt experienced new Land Rovers, just used/old ones, but from a 2000 cherokee vs LR, I could say with quite certainty that the LR doesnt have superior materials to those used in the Cherokee, I wouldnt even consider the quality to be equal to the cherokee, never mind superior. And I dont think theres a single luxury feature the LR offers that the Cherokee doesnt. There might be a percieved difference in image, but the reality is that the LR2 is in not superior in any main point to the cherokee, such as technology or powertrain.
The problem is that a customer doesnt know or care if one car is from 2005 and the other is new, both will carry a 2012 badge. Thats just making excuses for a company thats being lazy. When the new LR2
Srry comment posted before I finished typing it, as I was saying
When the new LR2 comes then you can say it is, if it is, superior to the cherokee, but for now its inferior.
And the Evoque and Cherokee would hardly be an apples to apples comparision, there completely different cars for hardly different purposes.
not hardly, completely
I’m not so much an LR supporter as I am a devotee to quality products. In that regard, one simply can not compare a luxury brand and its products to those of a mainstream firm.
Furthermore, the fact that the LR2 is noticeably smaller than a Cherokee makes the comparison between it and the GC even more silly (same for the Evoque, but I mentioned it due to it being the newest product from LR, as the GC is from Jeep). The two vehicles are in completely different classes from a size perspective, offer totally different levels of performance, and have vastly dissimilar priorities (markets).
The LR2 is an aging product that will soon be replaced; it’s not a matter of LR being “lazy”, but rather a simple reality of a product cycle. But even so, it has excellent materials and is truly an example of an excellent driving experience. The car just “feels” right in every way, even though it’s nigh 6 years old as of this writing. Even still, I’d take it (and pay for) it over the GC.
Now, I’m in no way disparaging the GC; however, comparing the two is as silly as weighing a TAG watch against one from Timex. The Timex has more features than a TAG can/will ever have; but sometimes, it’s not the features that matter, but rather than entire package. It’s when the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This is the case with many a luxury item, including LR vehicles.
Here’s a prime example: the Camaro SS has more power than a more expensive BMW 5 series of any trim level; in fact, the SS has twice the power of a 528i at almost half the price. But it’s the whole package that counts — much like when comparing the GC to any LR. Does that make sense?
In ANYWHO, I was referring the name. Land Rover has a concept called the LRX (right now is the production ready Evoque) and if Cadillac use the name “LRX” wouldn’t that conflict with Land Rover??
LR would only take issue with Caddy using LRX for a production model if it has a trademark on it and/or if it plans in using the name in an actual production vehicle. But even then, negotiations are always a possible alternative.
I think Caddy is smart enough of not just copying names.
@Alex
You seem to wholly believe that LR is superior in quality and features, an assertion I would strongly disagree with, and you have provided no examples other than the TAG/TIMEX comparison which a child would understand and does not really apply in the GC/LR4 case, but as I do not have the inclination nor proof to back up my claims(which you do not seem to have either), I will leave this at that.
Though I will say that the only thing I see superior in the LR is the price.
And contrary to your belief, many people do cross shop the LR2/4 with the GC.
Again, it’s not necessarily about the amount of features, but the quality of their application, integration, and utilization. The only examples I can provide you of the superior quality is to check out any new Land Rover and see for yourself; I was impressed 4 years ago by a RR Sport, and was equally impressed by the LR2 last month and the Evoque about a year ago upon its debut at NYAIS. It’s not tangible proof, if proof at all, of course.
I would also make the following comparison that’s better-suited than my previous Camaro vs. 5er analogy: take the Mustang or even a Taurus vs. a 5er. All vehicles have great interior materials, all have a ton of features, and all are attractive (as in not uncompetitive). In fact, the interior of the Taurus — taken bit-by-bit — would rival that of the BMW; but where the Bimmer shines is in the entire package, which simply feels “just right” all around. It’s a product that was honed to perfection. The Taurus is still a great vehicle, but isn’t perfected to the degree that the BMW is; thus, the higher price of the 5, and thus luxury product.
I think it really comes down to personal preference and style and at the end of the day am very thankful that we as consumers have such a wide array of vehicles to choose from based on our priorities, taste, etc.
Lastly, I’m dubious that many people really do cross-shop the GC, which I’m guessing has an ATP of $35,000, with an LR4 that starts at over $50,000. Those are entirely different classes, if only in price. Maybe the GC and the LR2, but I’m dubious there as well. Healthy talk
Comparing a FWD vs a RWD is not a very accurate comparison, but I get your very accurate point. Maybe Im just basing my image of LR on one bad experience with an old LR against a good one with a GC.
And yes it does come down to preference and taste, and it is awesome that we have such a wide variety of choices.
hey guys I read this in a chevy ad in C&D today “the engines in chevrolet vehicles are at the sharp end of the sweet science of powertrain technology. as for whats next – well, thats coming in the next installment (read near to far future) when we tell you about our intrest in electric, hybrid, hydrogen, cng, and diesel propulsion – PLUS A COUPLE OF SUPRISES.” brackets and empasis added’. could CIL be an acronym for a new type of proplsion ‘carbonized inverted lithium’? (not a real word just tryed to make a smart sounding fuel with the acronym)
That might be stretching it a bit.
I like how this went from talking about Land Rover to Evoque vs. GC then to Jeep products LOL.