mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

GM Axes Plan For Ultra-High-End $100,000-Plus Cadillac Halo Sedan

As you read the title to this story, you’re probably ready to explode with frustrating rage on the assumption that General Motors dumped plans for the supposed Omega-based Cadillac LTS — the upcoming flagship that promises to rival the BMW 7 Series and Mercedes-Benz S-Class, among others. That’s not the case. What’s actually being cancelled, is a low-volume halo vehicle that was planned to slot above the LTS.

According to the Automotive News report that broke the story:

“GM executives recently concluded that the rear-wheel-drive car, which would have been a low-volume showstopper priced well north of $100,000, didn’t offer enough brand-building pizzazz to justify the investment, the sources said. Designers recently were taken off the program and reassigned.”

That being the case, this wasn’t as much a failure to see the potential of such a vehicle as much as it was that this high-end vehicle wasn’t as far of an escalation from the LTS as product planners would have liked, according to the report. So that either means that this car was some sort of half-baked effort, or that the Cadillac LTS is going to be quite the show-stopper. In either case, Cadillac is still considering other niche vehicles to help grow the brand’s appeal.

Former staff.

Subscribe to GM Authority

For around-the-clock GM news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest GM news. It's totally free.

Comments

  1. The Cadillac brand isn’t ready for that vehicle yet. This is a smart move.

    Reply
    1. I agree. Most Cadillac fans are simply looking forward to the upcoming flagship model, not necessarily an ultra-luxury sedan for now. But shouldn’t the LTS-V and Platinum models hit the 100K mark? Start with the LTS, get it right, round out the Cadillac brand, then try this.

      Besides I’d rather a true luxury performance coupe/roadster fill the void of a niche vehicle. Perhaps the Cien concept should be revived to be a true Audi R8 fighter…..

      Reply
    2. Once the new Omega model launches, wins a few awards, sells in good numbers, and becomes a respected model, then Cadillac can reach higher. Baby steps.

      Reply
  2. That’s a relief… I thought that the flagship was canceled. They could try this car that slots above the LTS again later. I do understand why they chose to cancel that car though. They probably didn’t want to have the two cars be too close in design, nor do they want to be too ambitious. I’m very glad that the LTS is still in the works.

    Reply
  3. Bring on LTS. Really looking forward to that car. Once the LTS is established and Cadillac’s lineup is well rounded and highly profitable, then it could possibly handle an über-lux halo car.

    Reply
  4. I find it interesting that such a vehicle was being considered in the first place. The market for these is extremely small and only certain brands can pull it off. Cadillac, today, isn’t among them… unless the intent was to use the car to elevate the status of the brand.

    What Caddy needs is the LTS (7er, S-class, A8) first. Everything else should be secondary.

    Reply
    1. Yup, they need the LTS done right, not this car. They need to give it a NAME, the LTS moniker won’t cut it, sounds too much like an “LHS” or “LTD” or a name the PATHETIC Lincoln brand might use.

      Reply
      1. Please no, anything but a “name”.

        Nothing says “old school Cadillac for grandma” more than that.

        That’s why it’s 750i, S550, A8 &S8, LS460.

        Keep it brand consistent and modern. Seems like the only guys who want a “name” are those that are stuck in the past.

        Reply
        1. Right, nobody desires a Bentley, a Quattroporte, an Aventador, a Panamera, or a Corvette- stupid names for cars that old people buy (according to you). But EVERYBODY wants an MKZ, MKS, and an LHS- those names have so much more character and meaning, plus all those cars are such sales successes.

          Reply
          1. Conversely, EVERYBODY wants a 335i, or a C350, or a S550. It goes both ways, and the models you mention are sold in far fewer quantities than the ones I’ve recalled (due to price, of course). But saying that would be the equivalent of missing the forest for the trees.

            The reason “real names” are successful for *some* today isn’t because of them being “real names”. Rather, it’s because they’ve been around forever (resulting in brand burn-in) while being associated with a “good” product in a positive way.

            The Corvette is one example, although some may argue that such products as the C4 damaged the name, or that it is associated with an “old man’s sports car”.

            Nevertheless, it’s the product that defines the name: if it’s an outstanding product, then the name is recognized as being outstanding; if the product is sub-par, then its name will be seen as such, as well.

            That said, roughly 99% of the luxury car market today utilizes an alpha-numeric naming scheme, including BMW, MBZ, Audi, Lexus (the big 4), Infiniti, Volvo, Acura, and Lincoln (the “other” four). And given Cadillac’s current state of rebuilding its brand and image, I’m going to agree with @wbodyfan in saying that a “name” for a flagship sedan risks bringing back memories of the past — which isn’t something that Cadillac needs.

            Lending credence to this is the fact that the most popular luxury car in the world is the 3-Series, individually called the 320i, 328i, 335i, M3, etc. A name like the LTS wouldn’t stand in the way of the car becoming highly successful, and could even help it attain a more modern and high-tech image. On the other hand, an “old school” (if I may) name (I’m thinking Fleetwood, Brougham, etc.) wouldn’t help it at all among today’s high-end luxury car buyer (who buys S550s, 750s, LS460s, and S8s). What it would do is bring disharmony to Cadillac’s naming scheme, creating brand discontinuity and negating its ability to ride on the positive PR and image coat-tails of the ATS and new CTS.

            In other words, there is a significant amount of reasons to *not* use a “real” name, and a plethora of reasons to stick with the brand’s current naming structure and call it LTS.

            Reply
            1. I respectfully disagree. I think Cadillac “punted” when they went COPYING the Germans due to an extreme lack of management talent at the time. You will never be a LEADER copying OTHERS. As “recently” as 1984 GM had 50% market share, naming all their products (and by that I mean “Branding” products). Tide laundry detergent would NEVER not name a new product. That’s why P&G still kicks ass all over the WORLD. Alpha-numeric numbers, generally are not “brands.” With some awesome exceptions like the “300” which has a 50 yr history and brand-equity in the American mind. Again, I can talk to a 14 year old girl, or a 70 year old man and they will tell you what a Miata is. NEITHER knows the difference between and LHS or an ATS. When the NO TALENTS at THE FAILED Lincoln brand punted going alpha names did that work out? (crickets chirping). Who here wants to defend that one based on sales numbers & UNAIDED brand equity awareness?
              Copying others has failed, as it does for all other brands that don’t know how to lead. AMERICAN companies that LEAD, still do well in the market: think Apple and P&G. Those that copy, SHALL NEVER lead. You can look at Cadillac sales numbers in relation to the leaders in the US luxury market, the Germans, to understand that. Why is the Escalade not a EFCKTK yet? Because the name helps to sell it. (only to old people according to Wbody).

              Reply
              1. Automobile manufacturers have always copied each other….. Remember the fins, two tone paint jobs, rap-around wind shields, quad headlights, the first automatic gearboxes, and the first overhead valve V8s that brought on the horse power race from the 1950’s? All copied from each other because all of those things were in fashion at the time. So, for Cadillac to copy BMW does not surprise me one bit. In fact, I expect it. It isn’t a bad thing because Cadillac is doing a damn good job at it, and now more Europeans will choose a Cadillac over a BMW, Audi, or a Mercedes. If one automobile manufacturer comes up with a cool feature, all of the other manufacturers will covet that feature, then develop their own. Sure, I miss real names for my cars, but I’m not too worried about it with cool names like “CTS-V, ATS-V, M5, E63 AMG, and RS5.” Automobile manufacturers have always copied each other, and they always will copy each other.

                Reply
                1. Not exactly, copying features/technology is fine, messing with your BRAND is a big problem, that’s what they are doing here. The biggest problem Cadillac has is the name “Cadillac” which is associated with old people vs. BMW & Lexus’s image. Nobody under 65 thinks about a Cadillac in CA. They should create a “sub-brand” with their cars to augment/lift up the Cadillac name. Think of when the Aurora was not badged as an Oldsmobile. The Aurora helped remove the stodgy Olds image, Cadillac can use a dose of this too. What if they called the Aurora a OAU? Would you have remembered it? Doubtful.
                  Not “branding” products is a missed opportunity. I haven’t seen anyone defend this when Lincoln tried it, and FAILED. I don’t want to see Cadillac fail, but the average BUYER will not remember these part-number names.

                  Reply
                  1. “They should create a “sub-brand” with their cars to augment/lift up the Cadillac name.”

                    It’s called ‘Buick’; they even have cars with real names! Something that should be right up your alley!

                    “The Aurora helped remove the stodgy Olds image, Cadillac can use a dose of this too. What if they called the Aurora a OAU? Would you have remembered it? Doubtful.”

                    As I said before, the CTS is a name that has held up strong for both Cadillac and GM for over 11 years now. The CTS has “helped remove stodgy” image of Cadillac that harmed the brand for over 40 years.

                    As for the age problem, again, one day at a time. The average age of Cadillac buyers will drop while new and better products keep coming. You’re not going to court younger buyers with older nameplates or with inferior products.

                    Also, when you worry about “messing with your BRAND”, I’d argue “what’s the harm”? What harm is there in messing with a brand that has been damaged and was struggling since the 70’s? What harm can come from doing the opposite of what has impaired Cadillac’s ability to compete with other luxury automakers? Harming the brand by offering something that luxury buyers want to own/lease?!? Shocking!

                    That’s the mistake that Cadillac made for 40 years before they finally smartened up, hired some creative industrial designers, developed A&S, had GM drop billions on them for R&D, and then launched the CTS.

                    The rest is history, and everything before then was inferior, non-luxury trash done only to fatten up a sales sheet.

                    Reply
                    1. Right, Cadillac’s problems are far deeper than their names/lack there of. The brand’s demise started with fake wood in a ’76 Talisman- fake wood in such an expensive car to add a few cents more profit. Then came the self-inflicted disasters one after another: V8-6-4, Cimarron, the FWD POS in 85, the failed motors (4.1, 4.5, Northstar). It will take 20 years to dig out of this. I like your “what’s the harm argument!” When you hit bottom, the only way is up.

                      Reply
                2. Good point! Copying design/styling alone is a great example. In the late 50s, when GM designers copped a sneak peek at Chrysler’s “Forward Look” through a fence, the 1959 GM designs were scrapped and the tailfin race soared on, peaking, of course, with Cadillac’s ultimate tailfin pinnacle!

                  Reply
              2. I think most of Lincoln’s failures have been from poor product not names of product.

                Reply
              3. “With some awesome exceptions like the “300″ which has a 50 yr history and brand-equity in the American mind. ”

                Not when the name was absent from the public mind for over 20 years only to reappear in the mid-2000’s.

                The CTS is doing just fine after 11 years of service; the SRX with 9 years. The ATS will show its strength in due time.

                It think your problem is that you simply can’t let go of the past. The real problem is that if Cadillac continued doing as they did, the products they offered (the K-bodies and E-bodys) would be uncompetitive, no matter what they named it.

                As for the Escalade, it’s a legacy nameplate, and it too had names that would have dovetailed with the present Cadillac nomenclature. We had the EXT and the ESV variants, so it wouldn’t hurt GM to rename the Escalade the ESC. That way, the nomenclature is retained and the legacy nameplate of the Escalade is negated.

                Reply
      2. LTS is a name. Get over yourself, or stay in the past. Don’t tell GM how to sell a car today when your point of reference is the 1980’s.

        Reply
    2. Alex, you are spot on! Mercedes couldn’t pull it off and Maybach died a few years ago. Over at GMI News, you would think it was the end of the world! 381 replies in two days! It’s like many are ready to lynch Dan Akerson & co.! Many are saying that Cadillac will forever be a Tier II luxury automaker. Guess what, then so will MB & BMW. Tier I would probably consist of Bentley & Rolls Royce, correct?

      Reply
  5. I hope that wasn’t the LTS-V they just canned….

    Reply
    1. Nope, it was a separate model that would have slotted above the LTS… think such highly-successful models as those from Maybach, Bentley, and Maserati.

      Reply
  6. if such vehicle is built, what would that be up against? Bentley Flying spurr?

    Reply
    1. Primarily, it would be the Maserati Quattroporte, although the Rolls Royce Ghost and Bentley (Continental) Flying Spur would be among the list of competitors (on the high end).

      Reply
      1. i wouldn’t think it made sense if the Quattroporte is the competitor though

        Reply
  7. Didn’t Mercedes and Rolls Royce try this with very limited to no success? If that be the case it didn’t bode well for Cadillac to try to be there at this time either.

    Reply
    1. Rolls does it to this day, their entire market is in this ultra high end. Mercedes did it as well but not for a long time, not since the Grosser. Though you could consider Maybach MBZs entry into such a market, which has proven to be futile to say the least. In any case, Cadillac doesn’t have the image to do so, a car like this would be like the ill fated Allante, a luxury flop.

      Reply
      1. Maybach was the one I was referring to.

        Reply
  8. I consider the LTS the flag ship. Cadillac needs to learn to walk before they run.

    Reply
    1. Precisely!

      Reply
  9. So was this going to be a sedan (bentley competitor) or a sports car (Audi R8, Mercedes SLS competitor)?

    Reply
    1. It was reportedly going to be an ultra high-end sedan, presumably along the lines of a Maserati Quattroporte or, even more luxurious, like the Continental/Flying Spur.

      Reply
  10. I really think that this is a smart move. Though it would be great for Cadillac to compete with Rolls Royce and Bentley, and I believe the could make an equivalent vehicle. Those companies have had decades to build their ultra luxury reputation and market.

    I don’t think Cadillac has been in the Rolls and Bentley market segment since the 1930s.

    Plus it would be a major uphill climb today, and smartly the GM product planners just don’t feel it’s worth the capital investment and potential risk.

    Reply
  11. We can give it a name….”Expensive”…..I guess that would not work very well……….but, Cadillac should come up with names that are appropriate for the cars instead of the letter names…I call my ATS Alpha…no one knows what it is when In tell them 🙁

    Reply
    1. I prefer the numbers and letters of new luxury instead actually, they have more of an image and statement. Also to elaborate on statement, Lexus would be a prime example of thinking of statement first when coming up with a name for their marque. Toyota originally wanted to name the company Alexis, but instead went with Lexus because of the connections one could make with a name like Alexis. When a luxury car is named, you have to keep in mind a statement of uniqueness, difference. In other words a name that has no connection to anything but itself, forgetting the pedigree and nostalgia of its predecessors, something especially important with the new Cadillac.

      Reply
      1. “Toyota originally wanted to name the company Alexis, but instead went with Lexus because of the connections one could make with a name like Alexis”

        I knew of the “Alexis/Lexus” name story. I thought the Alexis name was dropped because of the language barrier; that the Toyota execs heard the name Alexis pronounced as Lexus.

        “We propose the name Alexis.”
        “A Lexis?”
        “Alexis, sir.”
        “Then I declare the name to be Lexis!”
        “What?”

        Reply
        1. OMG that is funny!

          Reply
    2. “Cadillac should come up with names that are appropriate for the cars instead of the letter names”

      You’re stuck in the past and it’s time to break out.

      The current names are very appropriate. What makes you think they’re not?

      “no one knows what it is when In tell them”

      That’s because the ATS and its name are both ONE YEARS OLD. Everyone knows a benz s600 or a BMW 745i or an A4. Let’s revisit this in 5 to 10 years – the amount of time it takes to build a brand and get people to recognize its products. These things don’t happen overnight.

      Reply
      1. I’ll add to that. People know what a CTS is after 10 years time. That car certainly hasn’t harmed Cadillac, and nobody buying that car is getting bent out of shape by it’s name.

        Reply
  12. Many top end brands Porsche and Maserati to name a couple are bringing out cheaper models and filling the gap of Audi & BMW as they go back to mainstream. This mainstream to high end is where the sales & money is, I doubt now or in the future there is enough buyers to justify Rolls Royce, Bentley rival

    Reply
  13. Higher end LTS models could be priced northwards & encroach on lower Bentley, Rolls Royce models anyway so another model above that wouldn’t make sense.

    Reply
  14. This is bull crap.

    Reply
  15. There will be a time that GM can build a car to compete with the likes off the next level Maserati and Bentley GT. These cars are not as high end as they once were as the others have been catching up to them. They have become the choice of those who do not want to fall into the German BMW, Benz mode.

    I see Bentley GTs and Maserati’s often here in Ohio and even in the winter in the snow. I do not see many new Rolls but that may be due to price and the fact they are butt ugly. The only new one I see is Lebron James Rolls but more often he is in a Ferrari.

    Cadillac can do this but first they need to earn the respect and image to pull it off. This is not a major profit segment but they can make money there if they earn the respect and image. Until they prove they can not just match or meet the segment leaders with the ATS, CTS and LTS they are not ready to move up. Once they own these other segments then make the move. If they move before the respect is earned you will have another Cadillac Allante or XLR on your hands.

    If and when they make this move I would love to see a Bentley GT challenger. The Bentleys here are amazing cars and selling very well. It would make a great image car and niche car along with a convertible.

    They also will have to figure a way to leverage the Omega platform over more products to pay for its development.

    There is a lot of work to do and the LTS will work as a proper Halo Image car for now and until it is best in it’s segment.

    Reply
    1. Absolutely. The “base” needs to be established first, including ATS, CTS, LTS, and coupe/convertible and crossover variants of each, where appropriate. Releasing this car without establishing winners in the basic segments would be the equivalent of a body builder who hasn’t lifted for ten years setting out for a competition and then going to work on his tan before hitting the gym.

      On that note, I’m not even sure it’s necessary for Cadillac to compete in the Bentley/Rolls Royce range. That entire segment isn’t highly profitable due to 1) extremely low sales volume, and 2) major R&D costs (Bentley might be the exception, as its vehicles today are derived from Audis).

      Separately, Maserati is about half way to Bentley and Rolls Royce. It’s not in the same class.

      Reply
      1. And on the topic of a Bentley GT fighter… an LTS coupe would serve that role quite nicely. Perhaps not at the same price… but the LTS should have itself a coupe as well, given the raging success and exorbitant profit margins of the S-Class Coupe/CL.

        Reply
        1. Does a 7 series have a coupe?

          Reply
          1. No, but Mercedes-Benz has an S-Class Coupe with the CL-Class.

            Reply
  16. i agree with most that cadillac isnt ready for the upper eschelon of luxury, while i love the ambition and the idea of multiple flagships/halo models cadillac needs to focus on the profitable, image building segments. what cadillac needs is a line up similar to this:
    1) LTS omega flagship/V-Sport variant (more image building but still retaining profits) with a LTS-V to follow later after LTS has established ground.
    2) ATS coupe/covertible (profits & image builders).
    3) ATS V (along with coupe/convertible variants to establish the ATS as a legitimate contender in the compact lux segment throughout its range mostly profit for cadillac).
    4) an (overdue) SRX replacement (possibly an omega variant to help developement costs and position as an X5 fighter unlike the current SRX which is a Lexus RX fighter volume seller).
    5) a compact crossover ( alpha variant volume and profit).
    6) position next gen escalade as halo SUV (image builder but major profits thanks to platform mates).
    7) next gen XTS to become a rwd 4 door coupe (establishing cadillac who is non existent in the segment).
    8) large coupe to compliment LTS (omega based possibly called LTC to recoup developement costs).
    9) a new XLR (halo model for coupes).
    10) CTS/CTS-V V sport coupe (possibly)
    these are in no particular order but all must be done and be profitable before cadillac can even address bentley and RR!

    Reply
    1. I Hope they will build the ultra luxury sedan from cadillac one day.

      Reply
  17. “brand-building pizzazz”? As a GM employee with almsot 30 years of service I’d like to comment on the above statement. Do you really think the public beleive,”pizzazz”?
    The public I know,”run away” when GM writes like that. They want cars built like a mid size Audi or MB or Lexus…. not with pizzazz. Engineered reliability is what people want.
    Engine Plant
    St. Catharines

    Reply
    1. Mr. Phillips,

      Marketing and brand perception exemplify a vehicle’s and a brand’s engineering prowess, and one (great engineering) can’t live without the other (good marketing). While it’s more than that, marketing encompasses “pizzazz”, and vice-versa.

      Currently, one of Cadillac’s biggest problems is that its brand perception isn’t what it needs to be to effectively compete with the likes of BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Audi. Caddy still has an image (stigma?) of making floaty vehicles that aren’t cool, sporty, or otherwise exciting… at least not to most buyers of the German 3, and of Lexus. Cadillac needs these buyers.

      And while those who follow GM, follow Cadillac, and follow the automotive industry at large understand and know that the “new” Cadillac is anything but old, floaty, or stodgy, the consumer still believes this to be the case — and it impacts Cadillac sales in a negative way.

      In that regard, I can most definitely understand the logic behind an über-luxury vehicle that would serve as Cadillac’s halo. Such a car might not sell a lot of units, but it would have most definitely had world-class engineering, design, and craftsmanship, thereby steering the brand image of Cadillac in the direction that it needs go.

      So in regards to your question of whether consumers believes in “pizzazz”… the answer is a resounding “yes”. Marketing and brand perception (“pizzazz”) goes hand-in-hand with sales volume and sales success.

      However, it’s my personal opinion that Cadillac needs to get the basics right first. They already have great compact and midsize sedan offerings with the ATS and CTS. The brand needs to continue expanding its lineup with the same level of performance-oriented luxury vehicles, including filling out the:
      1. Compact crossover (ATS-based)
      2. Midsize crossover (CTS-based, SRX replacement)
      3. Full-size luxury (where the BMW 7er, MBZ S-Class, Audi A8, and Lexus LS reign)
      4. Compact coupe (ATS-based)

      Only after filling out these vital segments (which will also result in a positive change of brand perception and increased sales) should Cadillac consider delivering the final blow with an über-luxury vehicle. It will be the final message that says: we’re not the Cadillac your grandpa used to drive… here’s proof — look at our lineup, and look at this super-high-end sedan.

      Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel