No, this 2000 Cadillac DeVille won’t take you beyond our Earth, but it was owned by the first American to orbit our planet. This Cadillac DeVille happens to have been owned by John Glenn, who recently passed away at the age of 95, and the ex-astronaut turned Ohio senator had a serious love for Cadillacs.
Despite 100,000 DeVilles sold in the year 2000, Glenn’s example up for sale obviously carries value with it. Not many Earthlings have the opportunity to professionally fly into orbit around the blue planet. It’s also a very well-equipped example, too.
Glenn ordered the DeVille in DHS trimmings, which included $7,500 worth of options, including night vision and the Bronzemist exterior hue. He sold the car in 2006 to its current owner who promised to take care of the DeVille for as long as Glenn was alive. Now that Glenn has left this world, it’s time to pass it on to the next caretaker.
The Cadillac will be sold off at the Fort Lauderdale Auctions America showing, according to CarScoops, where it is valued to sell between $50,000 and $75,000. It may be the only chance you have to get as close as possible to reaching for the stars.
Comments
These were great cars, my 01 DTS had everything you could get, night vision, nav chrome rims. The only missing thing was a sunroof but I was ok without and it would take the dealer a few months to order one for me with it. I miss this style as it screamed Cadillac but with a more sporty look,,at least the DTS version anyway.
The Deville/DTS was a massive success by today’s Cadillac standards, selling far more units than is the situation today. And it was not only a massive success in sales volume and profit per car, but the people who bought them loved the power (the all came with longitudinally mounted V8 FWD Northstars), the room, the luxury seats, the ride. And the optional night vision was a great idea for older drivers, though probably dropped to make the car seem more “youthful”. A very successful car, even if one needing some updates after 2011. Yet current Cadillac management seems to wish to pretend this era of cars didn’t exist. If it was good enough for John Glenn…
This car and the cars just prior to it are why Cadillac is struggling today. This car did nothing to bring new blood to a company with aging and dying customers.
My mother inlaw had one just like this. It was a mess. It was a warranty nightmare. The quality just was not there and lets face it few under 60 really cared about it. Today those who owned it are mostly not driving anymore and those who hated it refuse to buy Cadillac due to the image this car did not bring to them.
Also you may mistake higher sales with success of this car. Most were sold with high incentives and to fleet sales so in reality the cars really brought little money in unlike today where they sell less cars but make much more per unit sold in most cases.
The greatest thing hurting Cadillac today is a dying sedan market. It is not so much Cadillac but it is the fact sedans are not doing all that great and this is a very loyal customer base segment. Getting people to move from their image couscous cars is often difficult and getting new customer is even tougher when they are buying SUV models.
This is a little more complex than an old discounted Cadillac with quality issues and a N star with ring and head gasket issues.
Yes this was not an era many want to remember unless they are delusional.
Scott3, you are confusing reliability issues with the overall design emphasis. A small sporty car can have reliability issues, just as a comfortable luxury car can have reliability issues.
The DTS-type cars didn’t bring in much in the way of “new blood” because they don’t advertise them and they don’t emphasize the benefits of a nice ride. The assumption is that young and middle aged people only want cramped, hard, sporty rides. Act on that assumption, and that’s what you’ll get. Except the ATS and CTS have never sold nearly as well as the Deville and DTS. And believe me, the ATS and CTS have had heavy incentives and rebates. Or if you don’t believe me, search for “GM’s problem child” and you’ll find lots of links to the ATS, noting all the rebates it takes to move them. Same for the CTS.
The sedan market is not dying, but it doesn’t help when the government CAFE standards are only aimed at passenger cars and not trucks/SUVs. It might be wise to do a liftback sedan, like the Audi A7, the Tesla Model S, or the proposed Escala. That would add some SUV-like functionality to the sedans. Cadillac needs to start thinking ahead and stop listening to people like you who say a certain segment is dead and will never appeal to anyone once the current fans of it die off.
Cadillac did not get into trouble by making the Deville, though reliability issues may have driven customers to Lexus (not to the Germans, who have their own reliability issues). It was Lexus who ruled the luxury segment for 10-11 years after Cadillac, and only in the past 5-6 years have the Germans been on top (probably a short term fad, rather than something to bet the brand on).
Cadillac got into trouble by trying to imitate the Germans. That’s what gave us the Cimarron, the Catera, the V8-6-4 engine. Cadillac stopped being Cadillac. I agree that reliability should have been emphasized, but that’s easier said than done. All the car companies would like to be reliable, but they are challenged to accomplish this. Again though, don’t confuse the reliability of a 2000 Deville with the aims of the design; the 2000 Catera (the CTS of its day) was not more reliable by any means.
Scott, I am far from a senior citizen at 39 and was much much further from it when I leased not one, but 3 DTS’s from this “era”. I am also far from delusional to the fact that I drove 3 of the best cars I ever owned. They gave me little to no trouble, were beautiful cars that got loads of attention from all ages and most of all had originality of being a CADILLAC! The only Cadillac now that even remotely strikes my interest is the CT6. Its the most Cadillac looking car in the lineup. The mindset of the horrific marketing team at Cadillac is that only 70 to 90 years old’s want big huge Cadillacs of yesteryear. That is a grave mistake on thier part and no matter how many CUVs or new cars they add to the lineup, it will do little to help sales in the furure in my opinion unless they change thier approach and quit acting so embarrassed by Cadilacs past buyers.
You are one of few and even less today.
It is great you like this kind of car but it is no longer the way forward and was really part of the path down.
The STS is were they made progress.
I find it fitting that this car is the car that took many of its best customers on their last ride. Noting many of the sales were service cars.
Cadillac has to rebuild a new image to erase this past yo move forward and now it is even more difficult with the slumping sedan market. The SUV segment just may save them once they arrive to where they will get owners that are young enough to buy several cars before retirement.
You were the odd customer in the past age wise but you were what they needed, just s shame there few others your age.
Not going to be easy with just introducing SUVs and CUVs. Just heard yesterday BMW will be introducing 40 + vehicles over next couple of years! Mix of all types of vehicles!
Scott3, your saying that Cadillac continuing to make roomy comfortable-riding sedans is not “the way forward” – is simply your opinion, not reality. Cadillac’s resident geniuses have been saying that the way forward is to make cramped, hard-riding, gas-efficient cars for 35 years, and that has not only NOT been the way forward, but it’s damaged the brand. The Cimarron, the Catera, the V8-6-4, all part of that “path forward”. It didn’t work then, it’s still not working, the ATS does not sell!
It’s funny how you make statements that have no support, such as “this is the future”. You sound like one of Cadillac’s marketing people, Uwe in particular. Cadillac is an established brand and established product, and remaking it into a German-style car was not only not necessary, but it hasn’t worked. It hasn’t worked for 35 years, why should GM give it another 10 years?
What they need to do is bring back the classic Cadillac luxury (ride, room, styling, power, leather, stereo, etc.) to all their vehicles, focus on reliability, and forget trying to beat the Germans on the Nurburgring. The “sporty” fad will fade, in fact it appears to already be fading, as BMW is moving toward a more comfortable ride now (still not very comfortable, but that’s their direction – something that Cadillac once owned).
On top of all, Cadillac needs to SELL the merits of Cadillac, instead of acting embarrassed by it. There would be plenty more 39 year olds owning Cadillacs with the classic ride and features, if Cadillac would actually advertise it. That’s the Cadillac advantage. Everyone else shows their cars zipping through winding mountain roads, as if that’s typical daily driving. Cadillac could feature their “magic carpet” ride and all the other classic Cadillac features, including the hint of tail-fins. The strategy comes down to two words: Be Cadillac. But with one additional word – reliability. Classic Cadillac values plus reliability is something that hasn’t been tried in many years.
I realize that you personally want Cadillac to be just another German-wannabe, because you say “that’s where the market is”. I say Cadillac should be where the market isn’t, and then SELL IT. That’s how you make the big profits. That’s what Cadillac used to do.
There’s absolutely no reason that American cars should ride like German cars. The roads are not the same, the distances are not the same, the speed limits are not the same, the driving culture is not the same. Be Cadillac, be American, and you might even sell outside America too. Not everyone loves German cars, not even all Germans. Just add reliability to Cadillac, otherwise be Cadillac. And of course SELL IT once you have those virtues. Sales just may take off, like John Glenn on the launch pad. That’s not happening under the current strategy that you love so much.
In don’t know why you keep going on thinking that German cars are hard riding or cramped (or why you’d think that have a fuel-efficient engine was a detriment to a luxury car).
It’s not that Germans have made these hard-riding cars, they’ve also made soft-riding comfortable cars. What’s more, the Japanese and Koreans have too, so once again we’ve cut up your nationalist understanding of luxury cars. None of it fit into your little compartmentalized understanding the world when I can point to a comfort settings on 3-series or in an ES and prove you wrong.
It was never an issue of where the car came from. It was the car that could satisfy the buyer best and most often. Whoever can do that wins the consumers trust…and you want that consumer young, not old, because a young satisfied luxury car owner is a repeat customer. An old consumer isn’t a repeat buyer.
Also, for Cadillac to go where the market isn’t and sell is a contradiction in terms.
Grawdaddy wrote:
“Also, for Cadillac to go where the market isn’t and sell is a contradiction in terms.”
I’d have loved seeing you try to tell that to Steve Jobs. Do you think he just looked at what was selling at the moment, and said “Let’s copy that”? No, he gave people something they weren’t already buying, and told them why they SHOULD want it.
“… you want that consumer young, not old, because a young satisfied luxury car owner is a repeat customer. An old consumer isn’t a repeat buyer.”
It’s only you and Scott3 who keep saying that only “old” consumers appreciate the traditional Cadillac luxury values of roominess, power, style, technology, and a comfortable ride. Or saying that these are people on their last car ever, one foot in the grave, and that once they are gone there will be no market for such cars, ever.
First of all, “original Dan” is 39 and points out that he’s had 3 Deville/DTS already. Yoshiaki (on other topics) has stated that he’s quite young, but loves the classic Cadillacs and appreciates the XTS of today. I’ve had a DTS since I was under 55, and further I enjoyed the classic Cadillac ride (of a friend’s car) when I was a teenager. And I know there are many more here who appreciate the classic Cadillacs. Yes there are also some who enjoy the “sporty” Cadillacs. But to say that only people very near death appreciate the classic Cadillac virtues is dead wrong.
While it’s true that older people who tend to have back and neck pain or other accumulated injuries do not want a cramped, hard ride, the reverse is not true – I.e. that young people only want a “sporty” ride. I’d love to see Cadillac get creative and show someone like Clay Matthews III driving a classic-type Cadillac after a hard-fought football game. He’s only 30, but I bet he doesn’t need a “sporty” car to bounce him around after a game. As I said, SELL the benefit of a nice ride, don’t run away from it.
Back to the age thing, the reality is that young people tend to have a lot less disposable income than older people. If you want to sell a costly luxury car, the odds are you aren’t going to have a lot of buyers under 50. The group that Melody Lee wants to sell to – the very rich young car-driving hipsters – basically doesn’t exist in meaningful numbers.
And your concept of “repeat buyers” is a bit silly too. For one thing, there are plenty of people starting over 50 who would own 6-7-8 Cadillacs by the time they reach 90 or so and stop driving altogether. That is, if they were offered Cadillacs that were classic and not “sporty”. A lot of them sell their car after 4-5 years; they don’t want to deal with maintenance issues in their later years, and they have the money to take the hit on depreciation.
On the other hand, who drives the same brand of car they did when they were in their 20’s and 30’s? Some people might stick with GM for life, but they are likely to start with Chevrolet before moving on to Buick and Cadillac. Or they might start with something like Ford or Honda, but later move to Cadillac. And that is just as likely to be about disposable income as age.
No doubt there are people in their 80’s driving Fords and Chevys, and that’s fine too. Probably not so much out of brand loyalty, however. Brand loyalty might make some sense if you are talking about toothpaste; it makes a lot less sense when you are talking about cars. But I suppose that Rolls Royce should start selling tricycles, otherwise they’ll be locked into other brands and never consider RR, even when they have the money later in life.
Speaking of tricycles, why not take the point of view that when the current crop of tricycle riders outgrows them, no one else will ever ride a tricycle? Because that’s similar to your point of view that once the current group of people who enjoy a nice comfortable ride dies off, no one will want that type of car again. Believe it or not, tastes do change as people age.
So let’s see:
1) Older people don’t just buy one car and then die off. In fact they buy more new cars when older and richer.
2) People don’t always buy the same brand of car throughout their lives.
3) It isn’t just “old” people who appreciate a car with a roomy and comfortable ride.
4) Once the current generation of “old people” dies off, it will be replaced by more “old people”.
5) Tastes do change as people age.
6) You do have to SELL the benefits of something, or else they won’t know you have it.
“I’d have loved seeing you try to tell that to Steve Jobs. Do you think he just looked at what was selling at the moment, and said “Let’s copy that”? No, he gave people something they weren’t already buying, and told them why they SHOULD want it.”
I’d tell him, and he would agree with me.
He didn’t invent the touch screen phone. He copied a Samsung phone release earlier.
He didn’t mobile computing.
He didn’t invent online music purchasing.
He didn’t invent the MP3 player.
He wasn’t inventing anything new. He was, however, playing the game as laid out by others and not simply running off into the weeds like he did with their line of printers and scanners.
No, Jobs copied what others did, did some things better than others, and marketed the hell out of it.
I don’t know where you think your were going with that Jobs reference.
Also, the Sloane ladder is dead and buried. Nobody young is starting with a Chevrolet and retiring with a Cadillac….nobody blue-collar anyway. I think you’ll find that any luxury, be it a car or even a scotch, is still about comforting exclusive reward for oneself. Why wait until you’re almost dead for a Cadillac if you can have it now?
Also, if demographics are anything to go by, gen Y and Z won’t buy their first car until they’re into their 30’s, and then why would they want to cheapen out and get a stripped out Chevrolet when you could have a full-fat Cadillac? It may be their first and only time they may own a car, and there’s no reason to worsen the experience with a sub-standard car.
I notice how you conveniently avoided the non-starter ‘hard-riding German car’ nonsense. Nobody, be they German, American, or Japanese want a car that rides like a sports car. The hard-riding problem isn’t a problem when every luxury car offer a comfort setting. Your ignorance of that alone leads me to believe that you haven’t been inside of or driven a German or Japanese luxury car even once with such settings active….or even aware of them.
Grawdaddy, no – my comments regarding Steve Jobs are valid, and you are apparently misunderstanding what I wrote. What I wrote was:
Do you think he just looked at what was selling at the moment, and said “Let’s copy that”? No, he gave people something they weren’t already buying, and told them why they SHOULD want it.”
You became fixated on the word “copy” and point out that Jobs/Apple did not “invent” everything they sold. What I was saying is that Jobs did not look at what was selling, i.e. what was the top selling product in the marketplace, and then just copy it. What he did was to take existing concepts and pioneer new markets with them.
An example was the Graphical User Interface, the point-and-click mouse system. Did he copy that from Xerox (i.e. PARC, and the Alto)? To some extent, yes. But Xerox was not truly offering GUI to the masses at that time. It was nowhere on the radar of actual sales. The big seller then was MS-DOS, and there were plenty (such as Compaq) that simply copied it. Apple did not look for the top seller and then copy it, they went in a different direction.
Same for the Ipad. At that time the top personal music device was the Sony Walkman, a cassette player. Some hobbyists may have cobbled together some disc drive based music players and websites, but those were by no means big sellers until Apple made them so. Same thing with the smartphone/iphone. That simply wasn’t on the radar of consumers until Apple put it there. Even the first PCs were hobbyist machines until Apple made them easily useful to the masses. In each case Apple was not the “inventor”, but they were the pioneers of new markets, rather than waiting for others to create the market and then copying the best-sellers.
What you want Cadillac to do is to see what is selling best overall, then copy that because “that’s where the market is”. If Apple had done that, they’d have only sold IBM/MS-DOS compatible PCs instead of MacIntosh with the GUI, they’d have only sold cassette players instead of Ipods, they’d have only sold flip-phones instead of smart-phones.
As to car rides, unless you have a very advanced, very expensive active suspension system such as the Mercedes S-Class, there is always a trade-off between “sport ride” and “comfortable ride”. You can’t flip a switch and go from one to the other, sure you can get a slight change but that’s hardly worth noting. You can’t make an ATS or CTS ride comfortably, period. The CT6 has been criticized in numerous reviews for having no “comfort” mode, despite being a large Cadillac.
I recently saw a television show in which a 1957 Cadillac was restored (jade green exterior). It looked incredible. The new owners were taken out in it, and they remarked on what an unbelievably comfortable ride it had. The host said words to the effect of “yes modern cars ride much differently than these cars did”. Grawdaddy, I don’t know where you’ve been, but your ignorance of that alone leads me to believe you’ve never driven anything except a modern “sporty” car. You seem to be unaware of actual comfortable riding cars, you just think you are aware of them.
You want Cadillac to keep copying the Germans, with the idea that “they sell”. Yet they DON’T SELL, not when they are Cadillacs. Cadillac once pioneered markets, like Apple/Jobs. It’s sad to see them throw that away as a me-too wannabe. But I can see there’s nothing I can do to open your eyes and have you think outside of your engineer’s box. If all we ever did was to copy whatever is the top seller, there would be no advance, no change.
You have talked about how you went to college (unlike your father), learned to do what you were told as an engineer, now you make a big salary and like to show that off with your status symbols of success, so that your neighbors will know you make the big bucks. But you never learned to think with originality, I guess that’s something they can’t teach.
Do not put words in my post that I did not say.
This is the reality not my opinion. Now read it and get it straight.
There will always be cars and a place for cars. They will be low volume and have to be spot on in quality and image. They have to connect with people who feel they not only have a good car but a car that reflects on them and makes them look either more important, successful are what other image effect they desire.
The car you point out here says I play BIngo, shop at Wal Mart and sold the most Mary Kay.
And drop your German BS. The class of cars here are not all AMG or M Killers. Even the Germans make normal rides but they seldom are featured in a Magazine as most of the buyers are older and are not part of the readership. You have this stereotype in your head that you need to let rest. The normal Cadillac’s are not German killers but again they are no longer the car that you saw the wheel a half a turn to make it move 4 inches in the lane.
They are competent sedans not Green Hell lap holders.
As for the SUV and CUV Cadillac will do well. There is no preconceived notion it is a Grandmothers car with these models and they are selling to younger buyers.
This also is the fast growing segment and they will do well. GM builds some of the best SUV and CUV models out there so they will be the one that many will bench mark.
BMW while their SUB models sell they are still not held to the lever their cars are in image as for as much as their SUV models are they are not all that great.
As for this my point is a view based on what is going on and not my own personal one. Yours is a personal view which is fine but it is one that is not relevant to the segment anymore. The segment moved on and you were left behind. It is not a German segment is just how a Luxury car is defined anymore.
As for this Cadillac it was not the sterling example of what Cadillac was or even should be. They put this behind them and hope many still do not remember them.
Keep in mind this car is dead and gone just as Mr Glen God rest his soul. God speed.
Scott3, I didn’t put words in your mouth. Here is what you wrote: “… no longer the way forward and was really part of the path down”. The assumption was that continuing to make roomy, strongly powered, smooth riding Cadillacs was not the way forward (in favor of imitating the Germans), but if you meant something else, let’s hear it.
How would you know what is “the way forward”? Are you in charge of Cadillac and the future of luxury autos? As to being part of the “path down”, as I’ve stated, the path down was when Cadillac stopped being Cadillac and embraced the values of German cars instead of their own.
“… It is not a German segment is just how a Luxury car is defined anymore.”
No, it is the German segment. And the German segment has only ruled luxury sedans (USA sales) since 2012. Before that, Lexus was champ, and from 1998 and prior (in the USA), it was Cadillac. Lexus became number one (in the USA) by making cars with Cadillac ride values, but increased reliability.
The German ride being popular in the USA is a FAD, and it’s FADING. In 10 years it’s very unlikely that the American luxury sedan market will be “defined” by the German “sports luxury” fad of today. Same for low-profile “performance” tires, those are a FAD just like skinny ties or wide ties, ore whitewall tires. Low-profile tires ruin the ride, for a minor performance boost that most drivers will never experience.
You must be very young if you think that everything that is popular today will be popular forever. It just doesn’t work that way.
Germans do not make “normal riding” cars, at least not at “normal” prices for “normal” people. If you don’t know the difference between the traditional American ride and the traditional German ride, I can’t help you (though you can help yourself by doing some research). French cars traditionally had very soft, smooth rides, befitting their roads vs. the Autobahn. British “sports luxury” cars traditionally have softer rides than German cars as well.
That’s not a knock on the German people, just an observation. Do some reasonable and fair-minded research and you’ll find I’m right. Yes there are rare exceptions, such as the US Corvette Stingray, or the Mercedes S Class (for those with over $110k to blow). But don’t pretend that there is no traditional German ride or American ride. Don’t pretend that “the Cadillac ride” is found in today’s ATS or CTS, or even the CT6.
Again, just stating your opinion does not make it so. Germans have always had their cramped, hard-riding “sports luxury” cars, and they likely always will. They just happen to have been the flavor of the decade recently, but that will surely change. The question for Cadillac is whether they want to skate to where the puck is now, or where the puck will be.
Does Cadillac want to be known as a German imitator, right down to the same “class” dimensions, or do they want to offer something uniquely American, that isn’t found in German cars at under $110K? Does Cadillac want to keep failing at “remaking” the company, or do they want to be Cadillac and succeed? Given that GM has only put “born yesterday” foreigners in charge of the brand, there is not a lot of hope at this point. But after another 10 years of failure as a German-wannabe, perhaps Cadillac will return to being Cadillac.
Drew you are seeing it too much as one way or another…the Cadillac’s have Magnetic RIde Control. It makes a big difference in the feel of the suspension.
The car doesn’t need to be strictly a softer ride like the Caddy’s of old….pluc Cadillac has the XTS, even though it is a full size sedan.
I have Magnetic Ride Control and it is pretty nice.
Gino, thanks for the comment. Magnetic Ride Control is an interesting tool, but it’s expensive both in initial cost and replacement. For example, the MRC shocks typically cost 3x as much as non-MRC shocks to replace. And then there’s the cost of the actual system itself. So it’s only offered in top-trim Cadillacs (and other top-trim GM cars such as Corvette or Camaro).
My problem with MRC – besides being costly, and an otherwise unnecessary item that can break down – is the way it’s used. What GM tends to do is to stiffen up the ride for their “performance” models vs. the base models, and then offer MRC (on the “performance” only), to bring the ride back to whatever quality may have been the case on the base model. So what you are really getting when you go for the performance + MRC is improved handling, not a better ride vs. the base model.
Now GM could go the other way if they wanted, making say a “super luxury” model that yielded the same handling as the base model, but a more comfortable ride, thanks to MRC – but that’s not what they do. GM’s usage of MRC tends to make an even harder suspension more bearable, rather than making their “normal” suspension softer. But again, that is a matter of choice by GM; as a tool MRC is fine, but expensive and yet another thing to possibly be in need of repair.
Cadillac’s usage of MRC gets back to their imitation of German cars, to the point of actually taking Cadillacs to the German “ring” (Nurburging) for performance testing. So MRC is used to give the car even more “performance” (while maintaining an already too-stiff level of “comfort”). That approach does make sense in the Corvette ZR1, which stiffens the suspension without the MRC option, but makes the ZR1 ride about as comfortably as the base Corvette when the MRC is added. The Corvette however is intended to be a sporty car, not a luxury car. It makes little sense to me to further stiffen up a Cadillac when the base has already been much stiffer than a traditional Cadillac, only to relax it a bit (when not turning) via MRC.
One GM vehicle that does apparently use MRC to actually increase comfort is the GMC Sierra Denali. Although I have no personal experience with this (I have ridden in a few trucks, and by all accounts the phrase “rides like a truck” is quite accurate), it’s reported that the MRC as used there does in fact yield a softer ride than the base model. Yet it’s also stiff when needed, to allow the truck to carry heavy loads as intended. So again it’s a tool that can be used one way or the other, but I haven’t seen any evidence that Cadillacs with MRC have more comfortable rides than lower trim models without MRC. Cadillac merely is using it as a way to yield even more “handling” while attempting to keep the level of comfort roughly the same as in the base model.
All that being said, I haven’t seen Cadillac attempt to sell “the Cadillac ride” in decades. And in fact, it’s generally not available now. Why? Because the Germans aren’t doing it, at least not under $100k/vehicle. And a brand run by guys named Johan and Uwe – who worked at Audi and BMW previously – is unlikely to stop imitating the Germans any time soon, and start being Cadillac again. (No offense intended to Germans BTW, I am an American of some German ancestry myself, even my surname is a German one).
If you can not afford to buy or repair the best then you are. a Buick customer.
Drew there was a time the Cadillac dealer would not have even let you in the door unless you were making a delivery on parts for a V16.
Because of the image you treasure for Cadillac they no longer hold much status image with the public.
Study how Denali has transformed GMC into a money factory. People treasure the image and willingly pay the money.
If GMC were a independent company in the Fortune 500 they would rank 150 in in come. Cadillac is working to follow this path to restore the pubic image and value of the name as a status synbole.
Scott3, obviously you and Grawdaddy have a different view of life than I have, so we are never going to agree regarding exclusivity. I want a nice standard of living for myself and my family, by my definition of what is nice, and I do have high standards there. Yet if other people are able to have the same nice things that I have, then I’m happy for them. I get no additional thrill in life in thinking that the nice things I have are exclusively mine, or that I belong to some elite club that somehow benefits via keeping membership to a tiny fraction of the overall population.
Also realize that GM is a business, not an artistic statement. Nor does it intend to cater to your whims of exclusivity, if more profit can be made going a different direction. The hand-built Cadillac V-16 barely sold 4 thousand units (total) over an 11 year period. You apparently wish Cadillac to return to that sort of “golden age” of exclusivity. And of course you (and Grawdaddy) want to be in that club, lording it over everyone else who can’t join.
But post WWII Cadillac has not been so exclusive or even “the best at any price”. That’s Rolls-Royce territory, not Cadillac. Exclusivity alone does not appeal to me. When I was a young boy, color tvs were extremely rare, even in the affluent area in which I lived. Today nearly everyone can afford not only a color tv, but a much bigger one, much better definition, much richer colors than even the richest of the 1960’s owners. To my thinking, that’s good, not bad.
I get the feeling that you and Grawdaddy would be happier if suddenly the standard of living for everyone else was cut in half, so that yours would stand out more. That’s simply not my way of thinking. I also am guessing that both of you would love to own Rolex watches, or perhaps you already do. Personally I chuckle at people who think owning a Rolex is important, or who think they are impressing me by wearing one.
Yes a good car is going to cost more than a poor one, but personally it’s the utility that the good car gives me that matters to me, rather than the exclusivity.
You point to the Denali trim level for GMC. Yes I agree that’s a good move for GM’s profitability, and by the way the Denali trim levels emphasize classic Cadillac-like virtues rather than handling “performance”. I have argued that Cadillac should not sell undersized, underpowered, de-contended (vinyl seats, poor stereos, halogen headlights) cars in any version. There should definitely be minimum standards for the Cadillac name, just as there should be for the Denali trim level. So the current Cadillac is already doing this improperly, by selling very poor base models of many of their cars. Or by offering the Cimarron/ATS at all.
But that’s about minimum standards of Cadillac quality, not exclusivity. The reality is that Americans are much wealthier today than in the 1930’s. If they can afford Cadillacs that are truly Cadillacs, then that’s great for everyone, including GM. You and Grawdaddy will of course have to find different ways to make yourselves stand out, such as wearing gold-plated suits, or walking around with copies of your tax returns, so that you can show everyone how much you make.
To Drew’s point, the one Cadillac that seems to sell without massive incentives and actually gets purchased by affluent people is the one Cadillac not adhering to Uwe and JdN’s German clone formula. It’s the Escalade.
While I view the Escalade as little more than a trim package on a Tahoe, it is large, comfortable, flamboyant, and possesses all the classic Cadillac virtues.
I am probably not as convinced as Drew that Cadillac needs to go back entirely to their former formula but i do think it is undeniable that the most Germanic Cadillacs offered don’t sell while the most American ones do and there’s a message in that data.
Plenty of American garages have a 911, S-Class, and a Range Rover and that’s not because any one of those products tries to be like the other but rather because they all have long histories of mastering their specific niche in the market. For their owners, there is a time when the sun is out, the road beckons and only the 911 will do. But there are also adventures in less ideal climes when only an English SUV fits the bill.
The problem for Cadillac is they abandoned their niche and what they once stood for in pursuit of someone else’s identity and that strategy has not worked. During the 35 years that they’ve been engaged in this failed pursuit of BMW, they’ve only saw their market share continue to dwindle. I would suggest it is time to re-access their goals and consider what sells and why.
I have looked at Cadillac’s much touted product offensive that is slated to begin next summer and launch a new model every six months for a few years and it is more of the same. There are more small sedans coming, more FWD UTEs in various sizes but nothing encouraging; nothing that signals a retreat from the ‘copy Germany’ mindset. In fact, the future at Cadillac looks very much like the present at an Audi store. I don’t think they win that way.
They win by putting a product like Elmiraj in those garages alongside the 911, the S-Class, and the Range Rover. They have taken to saying of late that they don’t build cars, they build Cadillac’s. I would suggest they actually live up to that line and build a true Cadillac again. Dare Greatly and see what happens. Copying Greatly clearly isn’t working.
Blown head gaskets soon as you crank it