Cadillac XTS sales decreased in the United States and increased in Canada during May 2017.
Cadillac XTS Sales – May 2017 – United States
Cadillac XTS deliveries in the United States totaled 778 units in May 2017, a decrease of 35.7 percent compared to 1,209 units sold in May 2016. In the first five months of 2017, sales of the full-size luxury sedan have decreased 26 percent to 6,370 units.
Sales Numbers - Cadillac XTS - May 2017 - United States
MODEL | MAY 17 / MAY 16 | MAY 17 | MAY 16 | YTD 17 / YTD 16 | YTD 17 | YTD 16 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XTS | -35.65% | 778 | 1,209 | -25.96% | 6,370 | 8,603 |
Cadillac XTS Sales – May 2017 – Canada
In Canada, XTS sales increased a lofty 348 percent to 121 units in May. In the first five months of the year, XTS sales have increased 61.7 percent to 338 units in Canada.
Sales Numbers - Cadillac XTS - May 2017 - Canada
MODEL | MAY 17 / MAY 16 | MAY 17 | MAY 16 | YTD 17 / YTD 16 | YTD 17 | YTD 16 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XTS | +348.15% | 121 | 27 | +61.72% | 338 | 209 |
The GM Authority Take
With four consecutive months of year-over-year sales volume decreases, it can’t be denied that the XTS has become a victim of shifting consumer buying dynamics that favor crossovers and SUVs over sedans.
Another factor that could be playing into the XTS’ sales decline is the fact that the current model has aged quite a bit since its 2013 model year introduction, thereby potentially becoming less competitive when compared with newer rivals such as the Lincoln Continental. The upcoming XTS refresh should address this potential concern. By comparison, the Conti accounted for 1,061 deliveries in May.
Sales Numbers - Full-Size Luxury Sedans - May 2017 - United States
MODEL | MAY 17 / MAY 16 | MAY 17 | MAY 16 | YTD 17 / YTD 16 | YTD 17 | YTD 16 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XTS | -35.65% | 778 | 1,209 | -25.96% | 6,370 | 8,603 |
CONTINENTAL | * | 1,061 | * | * | 5,273 | * |
Related News & Info
- GM news
- Cadillac XTS information
- 2016 Cadillac XTSÂ info
- 2017 Cadillac XTSÂ info
- 2018 Cadillac XTS info
- 2019 Cadillac XTS info
Related Sales Reporting
- Running GM sales results
- Running Cadillac sales results
- Running Cadillac XTS sales results
- Running Chevrolet sales results
- Running Buick sales results
- Running GMC sales results
- Running Cadillac sales results
- May 2017 GM sales results
- U.S. GM May 2017 sales results
- U.S. May 2017 Chevrolet sales results
- U.S. May 2017 Cadillac sales results
- U.S. May 2017 Buick sales results
- U.S. May 2017 GMC sales results
- GM Canada May 2017 sales results
- Canada May 2017 Chevrolet sales results
- Canada May 2017 Cadillac sales results
- Canada May 2017 Buick sales results
- Canada May 2017 GMC sales results
- GM China May 2017 sales results
- Global May 2017 Cadillac sales results
- U.S. GM May 2017 sales results
Reporting by Francisco (Frankie) Cruz. GM Authority Take analysis by Alex Luft.
Comments
What percentage of XTS sales are fleet/rental? I was under the impression the number was 1/3 or 1/2. I don’t see why there should be any retail appeal to a dated $40-60k FWD luxury sedan.
And, you’d be wrong. Up until recently, the XTS dominated at Cadillac, outselling every other sedan offered. Those wanting the big, bad, flashy Cadillac sedan went in and left with an XTS over others, period. Slumps are cyclical, and look to the XTS to continue to dominate once the refresh is out. If anything, Cadillac should of came out with a refresh this year to counter it’s closest competitor, the Continental. If you look at past data, apparently people are very invested in paying ~46-75 thousand dollars for an XTS. You’re not going to find a smoother riding new car for under ~75k anywhere, unless you pay S-Class money, if you do, let me know which it is, as I tested them all. As to fleet sales, I think the Continental has done some damage. Avis is now offering the Conti as a primary luxury rental, I learned this fact two weeks ago.
Very well said Yoshiaki. Also it’s silly the way some people knock FWD in a large sedan. Who drives a large sedan like a “fast n’ furious” sports car? FWD yields more legroom and is better in snow/slippery conditions. How many of these RWD purists are knocking the Audi A8 or Volvo S90 for being FWD?
Drew,
Audi A8 uses a longitudinally-mounted engine with FWD as GM once did on their finest cars. Mounting the engine front-to-back as would be the case with RWD results in the same profile as would be found if the powered wheels were in back. This configuration yields the same elegance of design with the traction advantages of FWD. The design problems arise from the more economy car oriented transverse-mount engines in conjunction with FWD.
GM very successfully used longitudinal engines and front-wheel drive on some of their most strikingly designed cars in the late 60s, 70s, and early 80s. During that era, the pioneering Toronado, the Eldorado, and later iterations of Riviera and Seville all used the configuration Audi still uses today on its A8. Those GM designs were well received in their day, sold well, and are still well regarded today.
One of the many blunders that GM made leading to their downfall was, in fact, transitioning the four nameplates above to a transverse FWD configuration. The Eldorado, Riviera, Toronado, and Seville were GMs cash cows; they made significant money for the company. In 1986, when the cars were converted to an economy car type configuration and economy car proportions sales plunged by 50 plus percent and they never recovered. All four of them lost one of the primary elements of their success which was proportional elegance and presence on the road and with that they lost their buyers. The well-healed folks who once piloted one of GMs most pricey models moved to the German models and the Lexus LS400; all of which retained a traditional luxury car configuration and those buyers have largely never come back.
Today the CT6 has that quality of proportional elegance and presence while XTS does not and no amount of facelifting is going to fix that. XTS may be a great car but it will never have the stance of its Cadillac forebears or of the German luxury sedans which I why I say it needs to go.
XTS was a compromise car based on the Epsilon II platform and developed at a time when resources were tight. It uses the corporate 3.6 V6 and remains a thinly disguised Impala/LaCrosse. It has successfully served as a bridge to a new era but it’s time to let it go.
Ci2eye, Your comments make great reading and I have to agree totally. Cadillac’s perhaps last outstanding design came the form of the following:
1980-85 Cadillac Seville
1979-85 Cadillac Eldorado
The ‘bussell back’ 1980-85 Seville was a design that you either liked or disliked. I like it as in my opinion it had real elegance.
The 1979-85 Eldorado, particularly in Biarritz trim had it all in one package. Elegance with its short rear deck, formal ‘C’ pillars but dimensions that made it some what easier to park than the Eldorados prior to 1979.
Not surprisingly, the collector car market is increasingly turning its attention to surviving examples of the 1979 – 85 ‘E’ body Eldorados. Nothing better than a black 1979-85 Eldorado Biarritz with a red leather interior and every possible factory option.
Of course it’s now close enough to 40 years since the above outstanding Cadillac designs graced Cadillac dealership showroom floors and the Cadillacs that followed these designs took on more conservative European designs which failed to promote the Cadillac brand in the right way.
The worlds obsession with 4-wheel drive and SUV vehicles has only further taken Cadillac and other brands away from producing cars with classic timeless styling.
I am hanging on to my as new black Eldorado Biarritz!
Carl,
You and I are very much in agreement and in a sense, I think Drew would agree as well. Those last Bill Mitchell designed E-bodies and the K-body Seville mark the end of an era in my mind. They were beautifully proportioned, elegant, and still had a flamboyance that was synonymous with Cadillac. No car in 1980 was more flamboyant than a Seville Elegante’. Love it or hate it (and many hated it) the car commanded attention. The stunning 79-85 Eldorado was equally attention-getting but decidedly less controversial. Neither of them were trying to be a 320i. They were unabashedly Cadillacs.
In 1986, when E and K were converted to transverse engines and dramatically reduced in size under the design tutelage of Irv Rybicki, they lost their essence. Ironically my argument about the same suit over different bodies (tall and athletic vs. short and ruebenesque) could also be applied to ’85 and ’86 Eldorados. They kept the same design but it was the poor proportion that killed the look after 1985 and began Cadillac’s long downfall. Later GM tried to copy the Germans with what I call Eurobland designs like the last Deville (2001) and the subsequent STS and the sales slide continued.
They’ve yet to reassert themselves as design risk takers and as a company that truly dares. In 1980, Mitchell dared with his swan-song product (1980 Seville) as he always had. Cadillac doesn’t dare anymore. If they did, Elmiraj, Escala, and Ciel or something even more radical would be in showrooms today.
Interesting comments Ci2 and Carl. Personally I did not like the Seville bustle back look, but as you say Cadillac was daring and a leader back then. But it’s a good point that some people liked that look, some didn’t. And some people bought it whether they liked that look or not, because it was a Cadillac.
Ci2, I still think you are a bit too fixated on a certain “look” without realizing it. Rather than comparing the look of men, I would prefer to compare it to the look of various women. If someone gets fixated on the idea that a woman has to be tall and slender to be beautiful, then they may have trouble appreciating others who may also be beautiful but are more short/petite or more curvy or both, or somewhere in between. I am not talking about the difference between outright fat (like on the “Biggest Loser”) and model thin. But if some guy had certain exact proportions for the ideal woman in his mind, he might miss a lot of others who also had great beauty.
Cars can be like that too, attractive in various shapes or proportions, if you don’t decide ahead of time what is “right” or “wrong”. Now it could be that you personally just don’t like the XTS shape, that’s fine (same as I didn’t love the shape of the old Seville bustle backs). But when you say there’s nothing they can do to make the XTS attractive, because the platform makes the proportions wrong, that is just closed-minded IMO. Obviously some people do like the XTS shape, or at least they can tolerate it due to liking the other features. I think you should give the upcoming XTS a chance and see it in person, rather than in a picture. Try hard to have an open mind, rather than thinking “if it doesn’t look like ….. then it must not look good”. You may find that you still dislike the new XTS look (or not), but I don’t think other car buyers currently see the CT6 shape as “right” and the XTS shape as “wrong”, as you seem to do now.
I think they should give the XTS the same perportins as a RWD car and give it the same layouts as the Audi A8 and bring back Cadillacs glory without being RWD….Cadillac has been in the ditch since the day I was born and it’s time for Cadillac to get serious again…it looks like thay can make the XTS way better.
Sadly, it appears that my tastes are out of step with the rest of the world in 2017, because I simply love the shape of the XTS Cadillac, particularly in side profile.
Viewed from the side the XTS Cadillac reminds me of the classic ‘6 window’ 4 door pillarless 1964 Cadillac Sedan DeVille. It’s a very attractive formal sedan, in world where totally boring ‘truck like’ SUVs and 4 – wheel drive vehicles (big shoe boxes on wheels) dominate.
These SUVs and 4-wheel drive vehicles may be practical and I agree that they are perhaps best suited to older people who may need an upright vehicle that’s easier to enter and exit. But the down side of practical is that no SUV or 4-wheel drive can be described as good looking. Their high standing bodies remind me of some less than memorial 1930’s designs.
Nevertheless, I guess older buyers dominate today and these people look for a practical utility vehicles over a classic design. How the world has changed…….
I agree. It’s one of the most classy and distintive current model luxury cars on the road, bar none. I see a few in executive car service in the SoCal area, usually in parade along with an Escalade. Basically a few XTS’ and an Escalade hauling people around in the movie industry. Every-time it’s a head turner. And when I see a new XTS in private ownership, you can tell they adore the car, and it’s usually someone who is upper middle to upper class with taste. The XTS still turns heads, and I think it’s still the main man in the Cadillac sedan show.
XTS is just horribly proportioned. I’ve said that before but since I couldn’t post a picture, the point is lost on many here. Thankfully, a perfect photograph is posted with this report for reference this time.
The wheelbase is too short, the hood is too high and too short, and the rear overhang is too long. All of these design errors were obviously forced upon GM’s designers by XTS’ low-rent FWD platform. Anybody that disagrees need only look at the photo above. The proportions are ungainly and horrible for a luxury brand with such a storied history of design excellence. Cadillac should be embarrassed to put their name on this car.
But it’s one of those cars that looks better in person than in pictures. Perhaps the side profile would not be good for a small car, but when you see the XTS in the actual size then you “get it”. Or not. The updated look coming out this fall may be more to your liking.
The updated look this fall does nothing to change the awkward proportions so it will not be more to my liking.
The difference between XTS and CT6 is striking yet the both use the same design language and surfacing. I liken the difference to putting a fine suit on a short, fat guy vs. a tall athletic man. The suit can be exactly the same in terms of quality, workmanship, and materials but the end look is radically different because of what lies beneath it. On the athletic man, the suit is striking. Likewise, the CT6 with its excellent RWD proportions and proper stance looks stunning while the same design looks positively frumpy over the out-of-proportion bones of the XTS.
Ci2, I don’t agree that the XTS is the “short fat man” to the “tall athletic man” of the CT6. Not that I am into the looks of men. But it seems to me that you are fixated on one body type as the standard of beauty, and everything else is ugly or at least not worth looking at and appreciating.
There are many different car body types to appreciate, even if you might have your personal preference. Consider though that the Dodge Intrepid (2nd generation especially) was considered stunningly attractive and modern in its time. That was a FWD car that utilized “cab forward” architecture to maximize interior room and road stability. To you it would probably look “improper” compared with your personal ideal, but it was a different version of beauty that became very popular at that time.
Drew,
The cab-forward Dodge Intrepid, along with the Chrysler Concorde, 300M, and LHS and Eagle Vision were striking cars in their day and some of Tom Gale’s best work but even they have hoods. The cab may be moved forward but they didn’t have the stubby too-short hooded awkwardness that we see in the XTS of today.
As for the insinuation that I said only one body type can possess beauty, I didn’t say that. I suppose short and fat could be beautiful. My point, however, was that I find the design elements of XTS and CT6 to be essentially the same yet one looks terrific and the other decidedly frumpy. The difference is what lies beneath. One has good bones and proportion and the other doesn’t. Bill Mitchell famously quipped that it was ‘hard to tailor a dwarf’ and make them look good. That’s XTS’ problem; the suit of clothes it wears is just as fine as it’s big brother CT6 but it is challenged in the same way by a structure underneath that’s hard to tailor and ever make look really good.
“But it’s one of those cars that looks better in person than in pictures”
Drew, I made a similar comment to a SA as we were walking back to the service department last week. There was a Red Passion XTS with the sun dancing on the deep shine in our path. I remarked that it’s a nice looking car. XTS looks much better in the real than a pic. He didn’t comment.
When he drove my car to check out a few concerns he talked to me about CT6. Said it has the softer ride that I like. The RFT on my CTS make it rough and bumpy. I’m not in the market for a car now unless something catastrophic happened to mine. My impression is that CT6 is being promoted to customers when there is any opportunity real or imagined. The CT6 body style is nice but some of the issues I would not like to own. Not at all ready for a car with an aluminum frame and only 25 GM certified shops to do collision repair. Many Cad dealers are not certified for this work.
The SA is nice and helping a lot with my car. I left the selling dealer and service now is considerably better. SA is helpful in many ways. The new service department got a lot of the crazy out of my car. Looking better now but I’m not sold on Caddy as I once was.
Susan, I think the main reason the XTS looks better in person (than in a photograph) is the large size of the car. Photographs don’t clearly render the size of a car, and it’s easy to imagine that it’s kind of a stubby small car when viewing the XTS pictures. In person, the actual size of the XTS changes that perception.
The dealer who was telling you that a CT6 might give you a soft ride, is at odds with the write-up from JD Power (PowerSteering). In their review of the 2016 CTS, they wrote:
“Normal, Sport, and Snow/Ice driving modes adjust the car’s response, but even in Normal mode the CT6 feels too taut and stiff. Choose Sport mode and the steering is excessively heavy while the suspension delivers an almost brittle ride quality. Cadillac would do well to calibrate a Comfort driving mode, one supplying gentle throttle tip-in, light and effortless steering, and the wafting ride that affluent passengers may prefer.”
So unless that’s changed for 2017 (which I doubt), the CT6 is the large “sport sedan” of Cadillac’s line-up, while the XTS is the more traditional “American” style luxury large sedan for the brand. The aluminum in the CT6 is of course for weight reduction, to make the car “feel” like a smaller car, as well as to approach the ever-rising CAFE standards (along with stop-start as part of the CT6). You raise a good point though regarding repairs, with currently so few dealers trained for that. Eventually though I think the dealers will be able to work with aluminum, as it’s likely to become more widespread over time.
Drew,
The SA who mentioned the CT6 is probably just doing his job. He’s been extremely helpful with the issues on my CTS. CT6 is not on my shopping list. I don’t need another car bumping me around. I still swoon when I see a real Cadillac on the road. Drive your DTS until the wheels fall off. I miss all my old Caddys.
if the XTS continues to outsell the CT6 in the near future and Cadillac wants to keep FWD as the soft riding, comfortable status…..Cadillac should consider making a more advanced and more expensive FWD platform that has better perportins….like the Audi A8 and Blently flying spur.