Analysis: How Will Cadillac Price The Upcoming CT5 Sedan?

Comments

1. 

   Hopefully Cadillac produces proper 3 and 5 Series rivals. The CT6 needs to go up in price as well.
   The CT6 in my opinion is a great bridge vehicle for Cadillac until they can afford a proper S Class rival. There’s no vehicle in that price point at all. Cadillac might have made up a niche for themselves. Someone that wants that size but not all the amazing tech that the S Class offers but for a huge price increase.
   Another very important thing that Cadillac needs to do ASAP is drop the 3.6HF V6 in their vehicles. They have the all new 3.0TT V6 so they DO NOT need the 3.6 at all. Stop being cheap for once.
   All they really need is a new revised 2.0T, 3.0TT, and the upcoming 4.2TT
   Reply
   1. 

      I could go along with dropping the 3.6 if the can get 300HP from the 2.0. 300HP-2.0, 400HP-3.0 and 500HP – 4.2. The rest of your comment I pretty much agree with except maybe the CT6 need to grow a bit to keep separation between it and perhaps a slightly larger CT5.
      Reply
      1. 

         VCAT, I agree that the CT6 should be a little bigger overall, especially adding to the back seat. And some people like a naturally aspirated engine, so a V8 without turbo as well as one with turbo would be in order. I’d drop the 2.0TT immediately.

         Also, I think it’s a mistake to have cheap-o versions of the CT6 starting at $53k or whatever. I’d like to see Cadillac make driving features like MRC and 4 wheel steering standard. And soften up the suspension (at least in an adjustable “mode”) to be more traditonal Cadillac (and more S-Class) like. The starting cost would go up a lot, but isn’t that sometimes JDN’s point – that being more exclusive brings cachet to the brand?

         And is it just me, or is the 6 in CT6 too low a number for this “flagship” car? That’s the problem with the numbering system, not only no soul, but doesn’t reflect the product. This should be at least “CT8”, if they really expect to get attention.
         Reply
         1. 

            Sooo… the best-selling car in the full-size prestige luxury sedan class (the MB S-Class) has 34.1 inches of second row legroom. The CT6 has 40.4 inches. The new BMW 7 Series has 44.4.

            Clearly, those who buy the S-Class are just fine with the 34.1 inches of available rear legroom. And they will be fine with having even more in the CT6. The space of the CT6 is not and has never been an issue. So those of you discussing supposed space-related issues on the CT6 clearly have no clue about the actual numbers.

            Second: the issue at hand is that the brand isn’t strong enough to attract buyers on a product that’s priced the same as the competition. This isn’t a problem of product, but rather a problem of brand image — thanks to the damage done to the brand over the past give or take 40 years. In choosing between an $80,000 CT6 and an $80,000 740i with comparable features and equipment, most will pick the BMW. Hence the reason for the lower entry price point for the CT6. This will be the case with the CT3/4 and CT5 as well: lower price points for a higher value proposition.

            And yes, the CT6 should have been called the CT7. They messed it up from the beginning. We wrote about it here:

            http://gmauthority.com/blog/2014/09/the-first-problem-with-the-cadillac-ct6-its-not-greater-than-7-series-or-8-a8-opinion/

            Here’s to hoping the next model will be called (at least) CT7… though it makes so much sense to invest in a name and brand it and market it… only to kill it off or replace it.
            Reply
            1. 

               Alex Luft, good call on the CT6 name back in 2014. Yes it should have been a CT7 or CT8. I was unaware of your take on this, since I had not joined the website as a reader or commenter until last year.

               As to the 34″ rear legroom of the S-class, first of all I was not aware of that. (Edit – I’m actually seeing 43″ of rear legroom in the 2016 4 door S-class according to Edmunds). Second, who cares – this is a Cadillac we are talking about. A Cadillac flagship sedan. Cadillac had their own winning standards well before MB or their S-Class, and it has only been since they lost those standards (including reliability) that they fell out of first place in US luxury cars. The back seat, and all seats, have always been roomy for Cadillacs. That’s a Cadillac core value, just like the comfortable ride (aka “the Cadillac ride”).

               Again you are showing that you think copying the German standards is good enough for Cadillac. I recall that when there was a “shootout” among luxury cars the size of the ATS and the ATS was given low points for the 33.5″ legroom rear seat, you defended that as bogus because the BMW 3 series had the same amount of legroom in their prior generation, back when the ATS was designed. So according to you, it’s ok for Cadillac to eschew its classic core values as long as they meet the German core values of that “class” in the prior generation?

               This is not a “class” with a “test” where the teacher should give out an “A” to anyone who meets the prior standards of last year’s model student. Its about standing out among the crowd, offering something not only good but something the other guys don’t have. It’s about establishing core values that work, which is what Cadillac had done in the 20th Century, but then started ignoring them with the Cimarron, V8-6-4, Catera, etc. It’s not good enough for Cadillac to merely meet the worst aspects of the prior generation of German cars. That’s not leadership, that’s not Cadillac. Of course the current management of Cadillac doesn’t even know what classic Cadillac is about, as they lack deep roots in the USA.
               Reply
               1. 

                  The S-Class metric is directly from Mercedes Benz USA (see the S-Class page there). But then MBZ’s media site states 43.1 of rear-seat legroom.

                  Whatever it may be, 40 inches and above is plenty. I am extremely close with various Cadillac sales people on the ground from multiple parts of the country (and some internationally) – and none of them have ever heard anyone say, “oh no, I can’t buy the CT6 because it has two or three inches less legroom than (insert your favorite German full-size sedan here).” That said, there’s no reason not to expect the next-gen CT6 to be longer… which will solve this supposed “problem”.

                  That said, the smaller dimensions of every Cadillac sedan compared to the competition is indicative of the benchmarking issues GM as a whole faces. They benchmark the current-generation vehicles from a competitor, without taking into account what might happen to the next generation. Most of the time, said competitors’ cars are growing.

                  Again, this is not really a problem when you have 40 inches of it or more… but could be bigger. Ultimately, this is not a huge issue… though it could and should be rectified in the pursuit of continuous improvement on the product side of the equation.

                  Regarding “core values”: these change over time. Mercedes’ core values have changed drastically over the last 30 years. They used to make boats on wheels… which is how the S-Class started, actually. Then the market started shifting (mostly thanks to BMW and Volkswagen) in the direction of a sporty driving experience. Mercedes adapted itself and its products, and is now one of the most valuable automotive companies in the world. It could have not adapted, and it would have been the Lincoln of today. The same for of market adaptability has taken place at Cadillac.

                  So when you say things like this…

                  “So according to you, it’s ok for Cadillac to eschew its classic core values as long as they meet the German core values of that “class” in the prior generation?”

                  … my answer is that the values have intrinsically changed. Remember when Cadillac established these archaic “core values” that you speak of? What year was that? 1950? 1960? Look at the cars that were made and sold back then, and look at the cars that are made and sold today. Huge difference, ain’t it? That’s called progress, and one must adapt to it… or die. Sticking with the same “core values” from the 50s is what got the Cadillac brand and image to where it is today. The brand was becoming irrelevant and nearly died, as did all of GM. Welcome to 2017, my friend. It’s waiting for you!

                  Now, back to the topic of legroom: sure, it’s quite easy to provide palatial rear seat legroom when the smallest car you make is 200 inches long (close to the CT6), which was the case with Cadillac in the 70s and 80s. But when the most popular luxury vehicle class in the world is the C segment, there is only so much you can do in terms of rear seat legroom in a car measuring 183-186 inches in length.

                  Yes, 183-186 inches is the general size of vehicles in the C segment — a segment Cadillac would be foolish not to play in from a sales standpoint. The segment is defined by size, price, performance… in-vehicle technology, safety, fuel economy and warranty (though the latter two are becoming less important nearly every year). The people who buy these cars (like myself) do not care that much about having more rear seat room than in a limousine. Even so, I can and have fit four adults in my ATS sedan car comfortably. The same goes for my Audi A4, Lexus IS, and BMW 335i — all vehicles that I owned prior to the ATS. Yes, it’s not a CT6… but it’s not meant to be one, either. Just like the iPhone 7 is not meant to have a 50-inch screen.

                  Now, as I mentioned above, the CT6 and the next generation of Cadillac sedans will all likely grow in size, so expect the ATS replacement to get an inch or two added in wheelbase, which will show itself mostly in the rear-seat legroom dimension. The same goes for the CTS’ replacement (CT5) and the next-gen CT6 (whatever it ends up being called, hopefully CT7).

                  Regarding your comments about benchmarking: I never defended GM’s benchmarking of the BMW 3er E90 in making the ATS as a good idea when it came to size and rear seat room. For starters, very few people even care about this as an actual use item. I’ve seen the surveys and clinic studies and “rear seat space” is near the bottom of the consideration list. Again, not a big deal – but definitely something that can be improved.

                  However, benchmarking current generation cars or cars of the current generation yet soon-to-be-last has been an issue. I have stated this several times already, including in the first two paragraphs of this very comment. So, no one is defending that, Drew. No one. You don’t need to explain this to me, as I have seen this through the ideation stages on the development side first hand more than once… so don’t fool yourself, I have a very intrinsic understand of the topic in question.

                  But, and this is a big but, to the credit of the ATS team, there are various things that were working against them. The biggest one is that there was nothing outside the E90 to work with at the time. In addition, no one could see that the c-segment vehicles would grow to make room for b-segment sedans (A3, CLA, etc.). So the fact that the ATS is a bit smaller than the rest is not a crime against humanity, as you seem to be painting it. Heck, the Lexus IS is even smaller still — and it was developed in the most perfect conditions possible.

                  The second is that the budget for the car was small, and the timeframe to develop it was short. In fact, initial plans had the ATS riding on the Delta 2 platform that underpins the Cruze. That was scrapped about 18 months into development because it would have been embarrassing to take on the 3 series or C-Class with a FWD platform that doesn’t hold a candle to the others in the segment from a driving experience standpoint, even if they gave it to Opel’s OPC team to tweak. Ultimately, a FWD platform only takes you so far in terms of performance and the driving experience, not to mention design. And so Alpha was born.

                  Again, all of this was taking place during or immediately after bankruptcy with very little development money. So despite the downsides of the ATS and CTS (and to some extent, the CT6), the fact that they exist and are so good at the things they excel in is actually pretty marvelous in its own right. Sure, it’s not ideal as an end product in the marketplace and all that. But just imagine what GM/Cadillac can do now with “real” development funds and investments while taking their time to get it right! Hint: it’s a lot better… and it will be a lot.

                  The bottom line here is that the ATS, CTS, and CT6 have given Cadillac the ability to establish several “bases” from which to build and improve in the most vital sedan segments. The cars in their current form are not perfect, but they are not horrible either — and that’s pretty darn good for a first try… pretty good, indeed.

                  So, the takeaway is that the only way from here is up up — as these cars present a starting point from which to iterate, innovate, and ultimately improve. And that is how you turn yourself into a standard (as BMW, Mercedes and Audi have done over the last 30-50 years, depending on the marque). You don’t just magically make a product that’s worthy of becoming a standard out of thin air, nor do you do so over the course of two years. You start somewhere, then you learn, improve, iterate and get better and better with each generation.

                  So let’s stop the incessant whining about the current lineup, as it is done with and nothing will be done about it (CT6 powertrain and styling adjustments excepted). Instead, let’s wait and see how things look come 2019 calendar year — when the new ATS and CTS are released. Then we’ll talk.
                  Reply
                  1. 

                     Alex Luft, it’s not about the CT6 having a backseat with 3″ less legroom than the S-Class and 7-series, though you now apparently admit that it does. It’s about not being impressive enough to be a Cadillac flagship. You keep talking about how Cadillac matches up against the Germans. Again – I don’t care how it matches up to the Germans! Cadillac needs to match up to it’s own classic values, and it’s not doing it.

                     You say that you’ve never heard of a car salesman tell you that they won’t buy a CT6 because the backseat has 3″ less legroom than the S-Class and 7-series. Ok fine, you never heard it. But that doesn’t mean that the potential buyers are impressed with the 40″ of legroom they get in the CT6.

                     When I first rode in a Cadillac, I was about 16 years old, and it was an incredible experience. I was in the front seat, it was a friend’s parent’s car. It’s not that the Cadillac “matched up well” to other cars – it’s that it blew them away in a way that I did not think ANY car would ever ride. Yes it was like sitting in my living room, in terms of comfort and space, though also with a high tech (for that time) dashboard, electric windows (back when those were very rare), etc. What’s wrong with being comfortable?

                     Most people enjoy sitting in their living rooms, that’s why they are called living rooms – they like living there. Somehow some marketing geniuses told people that a roomy comfortable ride was only for old people, in fact not even today’s old people but old people who are all dead now. Yet I knew what a great ride was at age 16, and humans have not changed since then. And I’ve had my share of sporty cars, none approached the feeling of a real Cadillac.

                     It’s a shame that so many people at Cadillac today seem to be of a common mindset “Let’s imitate the Germans and in 15 years everyone will love us”. That was the mindset 20 years ago, and now it’s still “just give us 15 years” (which would be at least 35, unless you count the Cimarron as the starting point, then it would be 50 years. Fifty years, for what? Cadillac at this rate won’t even be the 5th best selling (in the US) luxury brand. It was number one under the old values of a 1st class ride.

                     I honestly don’t understand why you keep defending something that hasn’t worked, and unless you expect a different outcome by doing the same thing – won’t work. Apparently though, this is a problem throughout Cadillac’s current culture. They need to get rid of at least half of the German-car-wannabe people, and bring in some engineers and marketers who appreciate classic Cadillac values, but can make modern Cadillacs, not BMW-clones and not replicas of past Cadillacs.
                     Reply
                  2. 

                     Amen
                     Reply
            2. 

               Mercedes S Class Sedan: Second Row Leg Room (in): 43
               And lets not forget that the S Class also comes in Limo size as well. Maybach I believe they now call it.
               Reply
            3. 

               Are we going to see Cadillac exclusive engines for their cars? (Which I think is ridiculous)

               If so how much will this add to the cost of the cars and trucks?
               Reply
               1. 

                  Too Much. Cadillac used to have powerful engines, that excelled in economy, it really helped to generate a reputation for the brand. I cannot say for sure, yet it seems these office types, are justifying their jobs without any regard for the product.
                  I have seen this in all sorts of industries. Come out with something new that is less effective than the one it replaced, and only cost 4-5 times more.
                  Reply
   2. 

      Momolos, Cadillac has already tried matching the Germans “class” for “class” and spec for spec. And it hasn’t worked. They are always one generation behind the Germans they try to imitate, and they still lack the German badge that buyers of German cars want.

      It’s time for Cadillac to try something else, instead of being a German wannabe but a generation behind and at a cheaper price (though still more than the comparable used German model). Not everyone wants a German-like car. Not everyone wants a car to the exact specs of a BMW 3 or 5, or MB S. There’s room in the market for something else. Cadillac used to be a proud leader that didn’t imitate anyone else. Time to try that again.
      Reply
      1. 

         Cadillac has “tried” to go class for class with the Germans, but what has failed is being a generation behind due to product planning errors (benchmarking the outgoing generations of products to build the current ATS and CTS) and an uncoordinated, disorganized go-to-market strategy that includes (lack of effective) marketing and local dealer-based efforts. And that’s not to mention that the ATS and CTS were developed with very little money due to bankruptcy… or not the money that should have been involved in the first place.

         Now, the whole notion of Cadillac “copying” the Germans or being a German wanna-be just needs to stop. They’re not copying anyone.

         Cadillac’s products are substantially different inside and out to be regarded as substantially different in the marketplace. The styling alone is enough to put that “copying” notion to rest.

         The fact that the cars are similar based on platform layout and engine configuration is actually an advantage. To play in the segments Cadillac is playing in — the segments that deliver the biggest sales opportunity — Cadillac must have technological parity — and that’s exactly the reason for what they’re doing when it comes to engines, platforms, and driving experience… in some cases, they’re doing it better than the competition… in others, they’re inferior. The new wave of product should address that partially if not completely.

         You put a “normal” person into the seat of a CTS and then a 5er, E-Class, GS, or A6, cover the badges, and ask them how they like both. The last thing they will tell you is that they feel like the CTS is a “copy” of the others. If nothing else, they will recognize the CTS immediately for its substantially different exterior design.

         That’s it for the notion of “copying” the Germans. Complete and total poppycock and bollocks.

         As for this:

         “Not everyone wants a car to the exact specs of a BMW 3 or 5, or MB S. There’s room in the market for something else. Cadillac used to be a proud leader that didn’t imitate anyone else. Time to try that again.”

         That “Not everyone” equates to a tiny percentage of overall car buyers. Cadillac is doing the right thing in competing in the sedan segments it’s competing in, since those present the biggest and most tangible opportunity.

         But Cadillac is new, it has a terrible reputation/image compared to the competition, and it won’t see success overnight. Just like it took Audi 25 years to get to where it is now… it will take time and patience and excellence on every organizational level. That’s what this business is ultimately all about.
         Reply
         1. 

            Alex Luft, the exterior styling alone is not enough to say that Cadillac is not copying the Germans. I have made positive comments about the exterior styling of 21st Century Cadillacs all along, including today’s Cadillacs. I have also noted that the bold angular styling is a classic Cadillac core value, and has been since at least the 1967 Eldorado, but also goes back to the even earlier days of the tailfins – which are still reflected in the taillights of today’s Cadillacs.

            So yes the styling has remained true to Cadillac, although JDN has made statements that he intends to change that and “soften” the angularity to again imitate the Germans. So we can enjoy the unique Cadillac appearance while it lasts, but with Johan in charge we can expect the look to morph into a much more German look over time, perhaps to the point of an inability to tell the cars apart, other than badges. They keep changing the badge though too, so it wouldn’t surprise me to see that transmogrify into a combination of the MB, BMW, Audi, and former Cadillac badges as one.

            However, merely noting a styling difference (while it lasts) does not mean that Cadillac hasn’t been a German wannabe for many years. Cadillac has imitated the Germans in terms of dimensions, in terms of choosing a hard cramped “sports ride” over the classic roomy comfortable Cadillac ride, in terms of needlessly complex gearing, in terms of RWD (specifically a la BMW), even in terms of a letter-number system instead of real names.

            The last holdout is the exterior styling, but in every other sense Cadillac has been copying the Germans in every way, even to the point of shipping Cadillacs to Germany to test on the Nurburgring Nordschleife, so that they can put up track times that match or exceed those of the German cars designed for the no-speed-limit Authobahn. And this is for a US LUXURY car! Not a sport cars like Incredible.

            Everything the Germans do, Cadillac tries to match it (except the exterior styling, thus far), one generation later. It’s laughable. Even more laughable is to claim that noooo, Cadillac is not copying the Germans, and the exterior styling proves it. And I’m not the only one making that observation. Go to anywhere on the internet where Cadillac is discussed, and everyone notes that Cadillac has dropped its leadership role and become a BMW-wannabe or German-wannabe. That’s been going on for years.

            I’m just one voice out of many, and I’m simply observing something I thought was obvious to everyone. I can’t help it if you have a blind spot about this, or if you do see it but feel defensive about GM/Cadillac management. Forget my opinion, just look out on the internet and see what others are saying (including others on this website). Saying “poppycock and bollocks” does not make it untrue that Cadillac has been copying the Germans, and that started at least as far back as 20 years ago with the Catera, but more likely goes back to the Cimarron of 35 years ago.

            Cadillac needs to stop trying to copy the Germans spec-for-spec and feature-for-feature. They need to return to their core values, and make modern real Cadillacs. They need to surprise the market with something no one else is doing. That was what helped Chrysler prosper under Lee Iococca, the company stopped merely imitating others and came up with cars no one else had. They invented the minivan, pushed “cab forward” designs (most famously the “cloud cars” like Cirrus and Stratus), and promoted FWD (horrors) and air-bags for all models and trim levels.

            With the LeBaron in 1982, Chrysler brought back the American convertible (ironically the first since the 1976 Cadillac Eldorado), promoted Jeep as a major SUV brand after acquiring it (with AMC) in the 1980’s. They also created a rather silly category with the PT Cruiser, but it sold well (144k in their best year in the US), to the point that GM/Chevy essentially copied it with the HHR. Point being that you can take a leadership role even when you aren’t in first place, you don’t have to just copy “what works for others” (other than exterior styling).
            Reply
      2. 

         That is why the CT6 in my opinion can be a great niche for Cadillac. None of the Germans compete in that segment at all. They have entries in that price range with the Mercedes CLS and the BMW 6 Series Gran Tourismo. But those are completely different vehicle segments.
         The CT6 will appeal with the traditional luxury buyers that do not want to go up to the price point of the S Class and 7 Series.
         Once Cadillac starts making money from their upcoming CUV’s they then need to make a CT7 happen as well.
         Reply
   3. 

      I think that what we will see are actual “proper” 3 and 5 series rivals, with a lower price point. The CT6 price point will stay where it is for this generation. It is in all elements an S-Class, 7 Series and (Lexus) LS rival, with the exception of price.

      That said, the new 4.2L TT V-8 should expand the envelope of the price points for the car.

      On paper, the 2.0T and 3.6L N/A do offer similar performance, but in the real world the driving experience delivered by both is quite different.
      Reply
2. 

   The 2.0 Turbo is a fine engine. A little weak passing at highway speeds.
   I still talk to lots of customers who after driving it say it is OK, but would rather have the 3.6 or better yet the Northstar V8.
   GM always wants to put the wrong engine in the cars. If we are doing the Turbo due to enhanced economy, why is the economy so average. Heck the old DTS would get over 30 mpg on the highway.
   Turbo’s are fine for new cars, and Cadillac has Turbo Lag to a non existent status, however it still stress the engine too much for any real longevity. How good will it be 5 – 7 years from now with 88,000 miles on the clock?
   Half of a dealership’s business is the pre-owned cars they sell. That pays the bills, especially under Pinnacle.
   Reply
   1. 

      I totally agree about long-term reliability of the turbo’s. I’ll never forget the issues with my 1.8 turbo Sunbird back in ’84. Multiple exhaust manifold replacements and it wouldn’t start when the temp fell below 20 degrees.
      Reply
      1. 

         Good points about the turbos. I love turbos (though I miss the turbo “whine”; I guess modern turbos use noise cancellation to mask it), but the accelerated wear issue can’t be ignored. Turbos are hugely popular today, but it remains to be seen if there will be accelerated wear issues as in the past. Meanwhile those old Northstar V8s are mostly humming along, piling up the miles.
         Reply
         1. 

            Concerns surrounding the longevity of modern turbocharged engines are unfounded.

            The motors were engineered to take the abuse. In fact, some (like the 2.0L LTG) were designed to even higher standards because of this. So no, the points on the turbos are not “good”. Far from reality, actually.

            Meanwhile, the Northstar V8s have had all kinds of issues from oil leaks to weird gasket stuff to timing problems. It was a good engine, but far from perfect. Meanwhile, today’s 2.0L turbo LTG nearly matches its power and torque outputs, while being more than half as small. And that’s not saying anything about efficiency.

            Regarding the 2.0L not having enough juice for “passing power”… what are you passing that it doesn’t have enough power? In every single application that the engine exists, it is plenty powerful for every day use for most drivers… unless you’re trying to make a pass at 120 mph at the top of Pikes Peak with little air (tried it). The goal is to shift it down yourself to get it in the optimal powerband, or to let the tranny shift down for you — which happens automatically when you floor it.
            Reply
            1. 

               And not to forget: for export markets – especially Europe – the 2.0 Turbo is the ideal engine from a fiscal perspective, as taxes on the car are calculated based on the level of CO2 the car emits. A bigger engine will always be a problem in such circumstances. Moving from a 2.0 to a 3.0 or 3.6 more than doubles the taxes in Europe.
               After having my CTS almost 3 years, the engine shows less wear than my previous STS used to have (with Northstar engine). Especially the oil consumption is a big difference: the STS sipped a a liter (about a quarter) oil per 1000 km (600 mi) while the CTS 2.0 sips none.
               However, as much as I like the engine, I’m also convinced that the 2.0 Turbo is somehow handicapped by its 6-speed auto-transmission: it has a tendency of downshifting way too fast, which makes the engine rev higher without any real advantage. I usually manually up-shift again with the paddles and try to make my passes on torque, which seems to better the performance substantially, especially between 100 and 170 km/h (60-110 mph). Above that speed, downshifting seems to be more efficient.
               I’m actually convinced that a better transmission calibration should allow the current CTS 2.0 to substantially outperform the 3.6, instead of being about equal as it is currently the case.
               Reply
               1. 

                  We are in the United States. In case you forgot. I have spent lots of time in Europe. There there are two classes of people. The rich and every one else.
                  When Our gas was $5 in Europe it was $15. PURELY Taxes!
                  The government would like our prices to be $20 or more if they could get away with it.
                  I never vote incumbents back into office. They did enough damage their first time in.
                  That argument about how Europe does it is Pure BS.
                  Reply
                  1. 

                     Agree, Europe is dump…
                     Reply
            2. 

               Northstar’s had problems when people stopped using Mobil 1.
               That was the best engine GM ever stuffed into a vehicle.
               When It first came out it was so quiet and smooth you could not hear it run. Then GM thought they would “Fix” it, and added noise and all sorts of problems.
               I spoke to engineers involved, and they told me they were ordered to take 50 HP out of it to make it competitive with the Corvette tractor engine.
               A reworked Northstar would still be the Best thing GM could ever do.
               Reply
         2. 

            Humming along and leaking oil or humming along after a $4k reseal job?
            Reply
      2. 

         Too many issues with turbos to waste this much money and time on them.
         Years ago I made my own Electric motor driven Supercharger that I put on my car, and haditcome on under acceleration only. Worked great, weighed nothing, plumbing was simple.
         I have always subscribed to the philosophy Anyone can make things complicated, it takes Engineering to make it simple.
         Reply
3. 

   Quality in the build process , which Cadillac seems to have a handle on and Pricing is critical .
   It really depends on if they want to sell fewer cars with a high TAP or make these cars affordable to their target audience , the millenials . The over-pricing of the CTS is what really hurt the car enough so GM even cut the price at one time .
   Aren’t these cars tweeners , the CT5 will be smaller than the XTS but bigger than the CTS and the CT4 will come in between the old CTS and ATS . Helping to define their own segment . I have often heard the CT6 called a tweener .
   One thing Cadillac needs to stop doing is going to the parts bin for all of their vehicles .
   One example ( although small ) is the switch gear for the power windows . I have the same buttons in my XT5 that were in my old SRX . Some times it’s the small things like that need to change especially in luxury cars . If I am going to pay upwards of $65,000 dollars for a new car I don’t want to see old parts or the same parts in aa cheaper Cadillac .
   I know the bean counters think people won’t notice but they do .
   Reply
   1. 

      Over-pricing the 3rd gen. CTS was not the only problem. It was over-pricing a POS with RTFs that really affected sales. The CTS had a major sales drop-off in the 2nd year of the 3rd gen, and I think it is mainly because of the pure “Germanization” of the car along with poor reliability. If the sales drop-off was caused by size, or price, we would’ve seen ATS and XTS sales increase (ATS smaller, cheaper car, XTS larger, cheaper car).
      Reply
      1. 

         The big problem with the RFT used, are they are Cheap Crap. Hit a pot hole and they blow the sidewall out.
         Happens to customers all the time. Then the price of a replacement is 2.5% more than a conventional tire.
         Guess who gets the blame? It isn’t GM.
         Tread life is another.
         I do have customers who have switched to Regular tires, bought the fix a flat kit, and never had another problem.
         Purchasing is totally at fault for this one.
         Reply
   2. 

      Regarding shared GM/Cadillac parts, I don’t mind as long as the net result is smooth operation and reliability. Specifically the power windows are one area where every GM car I’ve had has been very reliable (very very rare for them to break down, although it has happened). I can’t say that for an 80’s era Chrysler that I must have replaced at least one of the 4 power windows every year. Oddly enough I had much better luck with 90’s era Jeep windows, maybe those use better parts than other Chryslers (or maybe Chrysler upgraded their window lift parts overall).

      If Cadillac went to all Cadillac-only parts, I think they would not be profitable enough for GM. Plus replacement parts would cost more for the customers (yes I know, cost should be no object for a luxury car buyer, but no one wants to get unnecessarily ripped off). If the parts are worthy of a Cadillac, I say use them even if Chevy does too. Of course I can see why some people want Cadillacs to have unique engines, even that doesn’t particularly matter to me, but that’s probably one area they should be exclusively Cadillac – for marketing purposes if nothing else.
      Reply
   3. 

      How do you like the XT5 compared to the SRX?
      I think the SRX is a better looking vehicle but never owned either one so just curious what an owner thinks.
      Reply
      1. 

         The XT5 corrected several errors in the last SRX. Lengthening the Wheel Base made a wonderful difference in the ride.
         It feels much smoother, and is certainly quieter.
         It should have the rear camera Mirror as Standard,
         That shifter needs a bit of work. The concept is fine, perhaps putting the button under the front instead of the side would work better. So far that Shifter is the only complaint I get.
         Reply
4. 

   The CTS V might be sold out, but i didn’t buy one because it was too expensive, they need to reduce the price to $70000-$75000, thats where the sweet spot is
   Reply
   1. 

      Agreed — volume of the 3rd gen CTS-V is MUCH lower than the 2nd gen which included coupe and wagon variants. “Sold out” means they lowered production and crafted a fine narrative…
      Reply
   2. 

      “they need to reduce the price to $70000-$75000, thats where the sweet spot is”

      The sweet spot for you perhpas, but not the sweet spot for Cadillac….or BMW, or Mercedes, or Lexus.

      High-po cars in this segment are priced accordingly. At this price point, $15K less doesn’t mean that the car is a better value. Being off by $15K means that there is $15K less of a car to be had; undercutting for the sake of some other quality.
      Reply
      1. 

         Exactly what Grawdaddy said. Totally the opposite of Sean and N400.

         1. The fact that one can not afford a third-gen CTS-V doesn’t mean that a supposed “sweet spot” in pricing is lower than what it is.

         2. Cadillac finally started playing in the proper segments with the ATS and gen-3 CTS. The sizes changed. The cars changed. The performance and refinement and everything that has to do with the cars moved from the second-gen CTS, a car that was trying to fill the roles of both a compact entry luxury sedan and a midsize luxury sedan.

         3. You either pay to play… or you don’t play at all. Maybe next we should ask BMW to please, please, please lower the price on the new M5 because it doesn’t fit my budget… and that the “sweet spot” for me is in the $75,000 range. Or maybe I can kindly ask Lamborghini to lower the prices on some of their stuff. C’mon guys.

         4. The sales volume of the third-gen CTS is much lower than the first- and second-gen. This is true. But have you considered why?

         Because the third ten became a car that competed in a TOTALLY DIFFERENT SEGMENT than either of the two CTS generations before it. They might as well have called it a different name entirely, since it was now a midsize sedan that took on the 5 series, E-Class, GS, A6/S6, etc. It wasn’t straddling the segments like the second-gen CTS, which was trying to take on the compact and midsize segments by itself, yet not really doing any any one of those things well enough.

         5. They made a figurative $hit-ton of money on the third-gen CTS-V program. And now, there was not “lowering” of production… instead, they planned to sell what they sold, they produced the cars they planned to sell, and they sold them. No PR spin – but reality.

         Don’t believe me? Go ahead and check out the days to turn on the cross-sale reports since the release of the 2015+ CTS-V (if you have access to them and even know what they are). They’re extremely low and the cars were already sold before they even hit the lot, suggesting that customers were eager to pay six figures for them.
         Reply
         1. 

            OK, so your article states “We can only surmise that the third-generation CTS wasn’t anywhere near the commercial success it could have been (for a multitude of reasons), so we would not be too surprised to see the CT5 priced slightly below its predecessor in an effort to increase value and lure new customers to the brand, something that the model range has failed to do thus far in calendar year 2017.”

            But here you go ballistic on folks asking to lower the V price “You either pay to play… or you don’t play at all. Maybe next we should ask BMW to please, please, please lower the price on the new M5 because it doesn’t fit my budget… and that the “sweet spot” for me is in the $75,000 range. Or maybe I can kindly ask Lamborghini to lower the prices on some of their stuff. C’mon guys.”

            So you’re saying the CTS wasn’t a success, but the CTS-V was a raging success (in spite of lower volume than its predecessor because inventory was managed better), and there’s just no demand for a performance sedan in the $70K range (stated in a way to disparage folks in that price range).
            Reply
            1. 

               @N400

               Allow me to clarify: the third-gen CTS (non-V) was not as great of a success as it could have been. Again, the CTS and not the CTS-V. We’ll get to that in a moment.

               Had the CTS been marketed correctly at the corporate (national) and regional levels (Tier 2 and Tier 3), it would have sold like water in a desert. The car was not marketed… or put another way, marketing for it was almost zero.

               Not only did the car not receive any (yup, a grand total of zero) national air time (image, exposure, awareness), but Cadillac did not enable nor encourage dealers to do the good-ol’ sales techniques of targeting existing owners of directly-competing vehicles on the boots-on-the-ground level locally. Looking further into the go-to-market issues, there were zero national-level incentives for sales people (spiffs or bonuses)… which sealed the deal of no one paying attention to it.

               All this was mostly the result of a revolving door of Cadillac chiefs and marketing VPs during the time of the launch of the third-gen until the time JdN came along, which was already too late to make anything substantial of the car line. The brand had a grand total of four bosses (1 interim) during the 2013/2014-2015 time frame, with every new boss changing the marketing direction of the old one. Heck, it’s a wonder they even sold as many as they did in the first place.

               So, the gen 3 CTS product and pricing were fine. The myth about Cadillac having “overpriced” the car (especially after the trim re-arrangement in 2016 MY) is just that – a myth from those who don’t understand what really took place. And what took place was marketing at every level from Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 was non existent.

               As for the third-ge3 CTS-V: it was a commercial success through and through. The price point for the ATS-V was more or less where the second-gen CTS-V was, and well-configured was right there in the same price point. If you want to be a stickler about delineating success between the CTS and CTS-V, it can be put this way: the CTS had the longest days to turn of any Cadillac model; the CTS-V had the shortest. Plus, the CTS-V units were sold at or above sticker. It met Cadillac’s internal expectations from the get-go. The non-V CTS did not.

               As for my supposed “going ballistic on folks”… not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.
               Reply
               1. 

                  Then what you’re saying is the Gen3 CTS was a completely squandered opportunity due to poor marketing…not really good, any way you slice it, so I’ll leave that alone…

                  However, your explanation of the Gen 3 CTS-V success amounts to nothing more than managing supply and demand. You’re absolutely right that I never see a V3 in the lot when I bring in my V2 for service — supply is nearly non-existent, improving demand, margins, etc. Genius? Not really.

                  Having spent half of my career in large companies, I’ve seen many profitable low-volume products get canned on a regular basis. Solid margins make for great boardroom high-fives, but only large profits keep the lights on. Shrinking YoY revenues means more belt-tightening and less money to spend on future R&D and, suddenly, you can no longer even build this “diamond in the rough” anymore. That’s the beginning of the downward spiral.

                  The V3 current positioning is problematic even today. For a little more money, I can get an E63 that delivers 110% of the V’s performance. For less money I get an E43 that delivers 90% of the performance, but is a huge step up in interior appointments and driver experience in street driving (with a more recognizable luxury badge) — both with AWD to boot. And don’t even bring up the V-Sport, because even 60K is too much for something that looks exactly like your run-of-the-mill base CTS. My thought is something else will have to change if you think the V price us “just right.”

                  I’m sure there’s a market for buy-American sedan track-aholics, but it’s pretty darn small and a small victory to figure out how to address that market. Good luck if that remains the next V’s mission.

                  As for me, I’ve already voted with my wallet and parked an AMG43 as my DD next to my 2nd gen CTS-V. Incidentally, my V2 is a keeper because I’ll never find a big sport sedan with a manual transmission ever again…it wasn’t MB’s marketing that dragged me over to AMG and I didn’t have to spend $100K or beg for BMW or Lamborghini to lower their prices as you say.

                  IMO, Cadillac has lost ground since the V2 and calling the V3 a success is missing the mark. Only time will tell…
                  Reply
         2. 

            @AlexLuft you need to calm down.

            N400 is not suggesting they drop the price of the car he is saying had Cadillac kept Gen 3 pricing similar to Gen 2 pricing AND built the same number of cars then there would have been parity. As it is now, there is an apples to oranges comparison. Gen 2 included coupes, wagons and 4-door sedans whereas the Gen 3 CTS V was built in smaller numbers and in one body style only.

            Basically, the new Cadillac execs brought out the Gen 3 and hiked the prices through the roof compared to the previous models. I think there was more product to be had which was justification for the price hike BUT for the average customer wanting to trade up to a Gen 3 it wasn’t worth it to them.

            And no one wanted to trade down to an ATS.

            I wonder if the Gen 3 CTS had been priced slightly lower would that have moved the needle more for the brand? I would say yes.
            Reply
            1. 

               @ACCad

               Do not misinterpret my hard line answers as coming from a space that’s anything but calm. I’m as serene as a butterfly frolicking around in Alice in Wonderland.

               Replying to rest of your comment: the Gen 1 and Gen 2 CTS were tweeners that conditioned Cadillac sedan buyers to expect more for less from the brand. Then the ATS and Gen 3 CTS come along as properly-positioned vehicles in terms of price, size and features.

               The average gen 2 CTS buyer didn’t want to pony up the cash (or in many cases simply didn’t have the cash) to get the gen 3, despite it being a much nicer vehicle… and didn’t want to “downgrade” to an ATS either.

               So, it’s all a matter of Cadillac having shoehorned itself into a corner by having a high value proposition with tweener cars like the CTS gen 1 and 2, and to a certain extent the STS as well… and then righting itself into making two cars that are actually positioned properly. So the existing customer base drops off, while the new customer base is coming in, but slower than the former is dropping off.

               The same applies to the V series variants of the ATS and gen 3 CTS.

               The apples vs. oranges comparison is correct, though the sales volume of gen 2 CTS coupes and wagons was quite low… it was overwhelmingly sedan.

               Going forward, Cadillac would be smart to continue offering vehicles in proper segments C, D and F (ATS, CTS, CT6), while providing more for less. In dollars, that means a decrease in the base price of “regular” models, somewhere in the vicinity of $2,000-$4,000… while the V variants should remain at their current price points… perhaps a tad lower for the c-segment offering. With time, a B-segment offering can also be introduced to take the A3/S3, 1 series, and A-Class head-on.
               Reply
               1. 

                  Good points.
                  Thanks.
                  Reply
               2. 

                  The main problem with the ATS and CTS was not pricing of the CTS but the lack of size of the ATS compared to it’s segment. The ATS might as well go toe to toe with the CLA and the A3. ATS was too small from the word go. I said it the minute it was shown to the public and will continue to say it. Back seat is cramped as hell and to make it even worse, hard to get in and out of it. The rear doors are tiny. The trunk is a complete joke. The interior materials are not up to par even with the CTS and XTS. ATS was basically an amazing driving car and that’s it. It’s even boring looking. They completely blew it with the ATS. It’s unfortunate.
                  If I had a second Gen CTS I’d get a 3 Series or A4. Way bigger inside than the ATS and both of those sedans do not have a joke of a trunk.
                  Reply
                  1. 

                     Guys, The price is too high. 100 K for a CTS V. The previous generation was at 75k fully loaded. It had a wagon, a coupe and a sedan. You guys beat the Germans inside out. You made them cry. Now you are playing their ball game. M3, M5 etc. Stop the madness!! Jesus Christ. Please price the new CT5-V lower and let all of us buy them. If you still made the previous generation I would have had them. I hope the Cadillac product folks are reading this. Don’t box the car into an M3 or M5. Let the coupe and sedan be compared to both, the M3 and M5, just one car to show for it. I cant believe I have to work so hard on your board to get you guys to get it right. How many users are on your Cadillac forums modifying the car previously. Of course I would buy the Cadillac over the German offerings. But you want a 100 k? Sell more cars and bring it to 75k for the CT5 V. Arent you reading your own articles Alex, by how much the Cadillac sales are dropping. Go back to the art and science car. Sorry for the feedback, but I just want a car that I can buy American made.
                     Reply
                     1. 

                        Why apologize? This is great feedback.

                        A lot of us hope Cadillac can get their heads out of the sand.
                        Reply
                  2. 

                     Once again, the “size” argument as it relates to the ATS doesn’t actually hold up in real-world purchase considerations.

                     The rear-seat space is prioritized between #15 and #20 during true purchase consideration studies or clinics. Those who buy a car in the c segment do not even get into the rear seat to check it out. It’s one of the last things that people care about.

                     To put it all in perspective, the F30 3er has 35.1 inches of rear-seat legroom, while the first-gen ATS has 33.5. It’s an inch and a half! If it were a real issue, then the Lexus IS (which has even less space than the ATS) would be posting terrible sales figures… which it’s not:

                     http://gmauthority.com/blog/2017/08/cadillac-ats-sales-numbers-figures-results-july-2017/

                     Having owned the A4 and a current 3er and now leasing the ATS, I can tell you that the space considerations do exist, but are not a huge deal. In other words, they do not serve as a major deterrent for a potential customer from buying the car. I play hockey and ride my bike and consistently lug around my hockey gear, sticks, or my bike plus a few other things in the trunk. Not a problem. In fact, the ATS is the only car in its segment that still has a rear-seat passthrough for longer items like sticks and skis. So that serves as an advantage.

                     As for the interior: the materials are on par with those in the 3 Series… it just depends on where you look. The door treatment on the BMW is better, but the center console and overhead console is better on the Cadillac. The overall tactile quality of many touchpoints are better in the Caddy as well — like the door pull handles (interior), the stop/start button, the steering wheel, the key fob… these are all things that a customer interacts every time they drive the car, and the Cadillac does not disappoint there. And let’s not even talk about the center armrest and that joke of a storage area in the center console in the BMW, with the horrible “phone integration” — it’s a complete joke that not only doesn’t work from a tech standpoint, but is also plastic-fantastic. In the ATS, the pop-up screen presents a “cool” factor — despite it being relatively useless in daily usage. That always impresses would-be buyers.

                     Now, the rear seat room, the trunk space, the interior… all can be improved and will be improved with the next iteration of the car. But to consider these items as being responsible for the actual commercial success or lack thereof of the car is just not aligned with reality.

                     Finally, as it relates to the ATS going “toe to toe” with the A3 or CLA (or other b-segment models). The ATS is longer than both of those and wider. It has the drive setup and feature set of cars in the c segment… not those of the b segment. Sure, it’s a bit shorter than the other c-segment cars… and that’s about it. To put it down a class because of that just doesn’t jive with reality.
                     Reply
                     1. 

                        The problem is that Cadillac looked at that data for C-segment customers and assumed they would even consider a Cadillac. Very few did, as Cadillac didn’t have the brand or execution to conquest enough BMW/MB/ to replace the 2nd gen CTS customers, who were sized out of the ATS and priced out of the 3rd gen CTS. Considering the US and China are the only markets that matter for them, they made a big mistake adopting the German size/price paradigm, and are going back to something similar to the 2nd gen CTS model, as we have seen with the CT6.
                        Reply
                  3. 

                     What everyone misses, is that you cannot get a set of Adult size Men’s golf clubs in the trunk crosswise. I don’t know about them but most of my customers play golf even into their 80’s.
                     I have people bring their clubs in and try to put them into the trunk, No fit, No car.
                     Golf must be too expensive for the engineers in Detroit.
                     Reply
               3. 

                  Alex Luft wrote: “…the Gen 1 and Gen 2 CTS were tweeners that conditioned Cadillac sedan buyers to expect more for less from the brand. Then the ATS and Gen 3 CTS come along as properly-positioned vehicles in terms of price, size and features.”

                  Alex, numerous times on this topic you’ve referred to Cadillac having “proper” or “properly positioned” cars that match up with the specs of the Germans, especially BMW. What is “proper” about copying someone else’s specs, features, and ride? (Yes Cadillac styling is different, but in all other ways these are direct copies of the Germans). The only “proper” way to make cars is to make cars that the public wants to buy, and which make a profit for the producer.

                  So here’s Cadillac with the 1st and 2nd generation CTS, selling very well. But it’s not a “proper” car because it’s dimensionally in between a BMW 3 series and 5 series. Oh noooo, we can’t have that! So then Cadillac makes the CTS bigger, raises the price substantially, and creates the ATS. Now Cadillac has “proper” BMW specs! Hooray! But the cars don’t sell well. According to you, that’s ok, because it’s better to be “proper” (i.e. ATS and gen 3 CTS) than to have high sales (i.e. gen 1 & 2 CTS).

                  You clearly represent the type of backward thinking that has taken hold at Cadillac and is killing the brand. That mindset has clearly been at Cadillac for at least 20 years (ever since the Catera) and possibly 35 years (ever since the Cimarron). “If only we could have proper cars that match up spec for spec against BMW!”, “if only all our cars would be RWD”, “if only all of our cars were sports cars”, “if only we could get great track times on the Nurburgring Nordschleife” – then eventually, in say 15 years, the public will come around and love us!

                  Well it hasn’t happened in 20 years, in fact US sales are worse now than ever, despite an increase in US population and per capita wealth. Remember the Catera? That car was not only made to match German specs and the hard German ride, it was actually engineered and made in Germany! And ironically, the failure of the Catera helped to trash Cadillac’s image. Yet instead of learning from that lesson (i.e. Cadillac is not a German company, American drivers do not all want German cars), Cadillac has been doubling down on the “let’s ditch our core values and imitate the Germans” ever since. And it has NEVER WORKED for Cadillac. If people want a German-like car, they’ll buy a German one – why is it so hard for you and for Cadillac management to understand this?

                  One core principle of business is that when you have a product that sells well, you don’t stop making it in order to produce something that you aren’t selling well. For example, Wrigley made laundry soap and baking soda, then added chewing gum as a sideline to promote the soap and soda. When it turned out that people loved the chewing gum but didn’t particularly care for the soap and soda, did Wrigley then drop the chewing gum in order to make “proper” soap and soda? NO – they dropped what didn’t have great sales, and focused on what did – the chewing gum. In the case of Cadillac, the “tweener” (gen 1&2) Cadillac sold well, why did they end it? And you cheer that move on as “proper”!

                  Lee Iacocca saved Chrysler and made it extremely profitable. How did he do it? By having Chrysler make “proper” copies of other people’s cars? By having a “proper” copy of a Cavalier, and a “proper” copy of a Camry? NO – he did it be offering what others were not offering, and selling the new products instead of acting embarrassed that they weren’t what everyone else had.

                  So Chrysler pushed FWD and air-bags for all cars, when other companies were slow to embrace them. Chrysler invented the minivan. Chrysler embraced “cab forward” (i.e. the Cirrus and Stratus). Chrysler bought AMC/Jeep and went all-in on Jeep SUV production. In 1982 Chrysler brought back the first American convertible (the LeBaron) since – ironically – the 1976 Eldorado convertible. All of these were big hits, none were “proper” copies of other people’s cars, or anything close. Chrysler even created a goofy new type of car with the PT Cruiser. Goofy, but sales were very strong (144k in one year). So strong that GM eventually did a “proper copy” of it with the Chevy HHR, though it was too late by then, the market had moved on.

                  I believe that the German sports sedan fad will soon fade. Until 2011, Lexus was number one in US luxury sales, and they didn’t get there by copying the German Autobahn/Nurburgring Nordschliefe approach to their luxury sedans. By attempting to copy the Germans and always be a generation behind, Cadillac is doing the opposite of what Wayne Gretzky said to do. Cadillac is skating toward where the puck used to be, again and again.

                  Cadillac’s 1st Class values are not outdated, as a 1st Class ride will never be outdated. The auto writers and German car marketers have done a nice job of convincing a few Americans that a cramped hard ride is better than a roomy comfortable one, but eventually the public wakes up. Even now they seem to be waking up, as luxury sedan sales tank, due to their being too Germanized. SUVs sell well, even though there’s nothing “sporty” about them. Time for Cadillac to take the Lee Iacocca approach to build – and promote – what the other guys don’t have. Not double and triple down on the failed strategy to build “proper” German imitators.
                  Reply
                  1. 

                     Then what is a proper Cadillac? Was the second gen CTS the template? Back to FWD?
                     Reply
                     1. 

                        TD, Cadillac should not be limited to copying spec-for-spec whatever BMW makes. I’m not the one calling for “proper” clones of series 3, series 5, etc. Is your imagination so limited that you think it’s wrong for Cadillac to make anything that BMW does not make?

                        I have already stated what I feel the classic Cadillac values were that made them number 1 (in US luxury sales, for several decades through 1998), and which I feel they should return to. Those values being: roomy, comfortable riding, refined, reliable, luxury interiors, bold angular exterior styling, modern electronics, strongly powered engines – all without cheapened base versions (i.e. vinyl seats, outdated halogen headlights, etc.). But other than those values, Cadillac should not be limited to “proper” copies of other car-maker’s specs.

                        As to FWD, that’s one way that Cadillac can help give their driver and passengers the legroom of a true Cadillac, it can also give better traction in snow/slippery pavement, and lighter weight overall (especially vs. AWD). There’s nothing wrong with FWD, but if Cadillac wants to make RWD cars that adhere to their classic values then that can be done also. By the way, the top selling Cadillac by far right now, the XT5 – is FWD. Also the top selling Cadillac sedan of August, the XTS – is FWD. Only 15% of the public actually prefers RWD, and the vast majority of drivers can’t even tell if they are driving a FWD or RWD car, when on dry pavement. On slippery pavement they can tell – and that’s not in the favor of RWD.
                        Reply
                        1. 

                           That’s the Lincoln model, and they’ve fallen harder than any luxury brand out there. Nobody has identified a third path. Cadillac’s execution and tactics have been flawed, but they have the right strategy and finally, the right management. Nobody in Detroit has the slightest idea about the luxury market, and Barra was smart enough to recognize that
                           and bring in JdN.
                           Reply
                           1. 

                              TD, no the Lincoln model was to copy Cadillac for many years, then they decided to rebadge Fords as Lincolns with very little change. GM may have problems but I have never owned a Ford that I liked.

                              What I have outlined is the former Cadillac model and essentially the current Lexus model. Lexus is only 0.2% in market share (16% vs. 16.2%) of the US luxury market behind MB, and it held the US luxury market lead from 2000-2011. Lexus does not try to turn all of their cars into “sports” cars, and they are focused more on reliability and comfort than on fast track times. Which is what luxury actually means. Sure there is a recent fad of German sports sedans, but that will soon end – and where will Cadillac be at that point?

                              JDN was brought into Cadillac after doing nothing good for Infiniti. He moved the Infiniti HQ from Tokyo to Hong Kong, what good was that? He confusingly renamed all of the Infiniti models so that they would start with a Q. He put a lot of money and effort to make a super-duper-sporty sedan he called the “Eau Rouge” project, which was immediately dropped after he left. Then he derided the Japanese management who replaced him, with the implication that he understood the Japanese market better than the Japanese themselves.

                              Sure Johan managed to be at the helm of Audi when German luxury cars became popular, but he hasn’t proven that he can do the same at any non German brand. Or that Audi wouldn’t have become popular with someone else at the helm. But he can sure move HQs from one city to another, and he can change the naming conventions of cars, so surely he’s on the right track and deserves the big bucks.

                              JDN is even in favor of changing the one thing that is still classic Cadillac, the angular styling. He’s said to favor the bloated round styling of MB (“softening the lines” he calls it). Most likely JDN will continue the ongoing disaster at Cadillac that started when they dropped their history and decided to copy the Germans (one generation behind), but after he fails you Kool-Aid drinkers will claim that he actually did a great job – and that no one could have saved Cadillac.
                              Reply
                           2. 

                              Drew,

                              Bud, I’ve been reading your drivel for a while now and can’t help but to reply since you’re really trying my patience with this nonsense.

                              You really have it all backwards.

                              Opinions are opinions and it’s great that you have one. So does everyone else. The only issue is that your opinion regarding Cadillac’s direction is just straight up incorrect. It’s the wrong strategy and the wrong way of thinking about it.

                              Segments exist for a reason. The fact that you don’t seem to grasp that when everyone else including Alex, who has been so patient with you, is trying to explain to your amateur self what’s what is astounding.

                              You seem like you know very little about the market and the industry and appear to have no understanding of consumer desires outside of your own. Then you go on to insult or put down others who actually know what you’re taking about. Calling Alex a follower? Dude, you really have your screws loose.

                              Some words of advice for a newb such as yourself with no experience and no understanding of the subject at hand:

                              Listen first. Speak later.

                              Cheers!

                              A General Manager of a Cadillac dealership.

                              Maybe next you’ll come in and tell me how to run my business too with zero understanding and zero experience.

                              Just out of curiosity: have you even driven a modem Cadillac? How about the competition?
                              Reply
                           3. 

                              Bobby, you sound like a good company man who’s been drinking the Kool-Aid that Cadillac has been doling out for at least the past 20 years (i.e. the made-in-Germany Catera). And frankly that’s a big problem for Cadillac, when so many people in authority are on the same page, thinking that a losing strategy is suddenly going to become a winner, just give it another 15 years or so.

                              My proof is in Cadillac’s declining US sales and US market share. What’s your proof that I am wrong? That the Johans and Uwes and Melodys tell you that they are on the right track (just give them another 15 years), thus I must be wrong? Are you one of those people who assume that upper management is infallible, because if they weren’t the right people at the right time, they wouldn’t have those jobs in the first place?

                              Honestly Bobby, where is your actual support that I am “wrong”? Unless you have some serious evidence as to how I’m wrong, or can articulate some reasons as to why I’m wrong and Johan is right, then I don’t see your post adding to the discussion.

                              As for my “insulting” anyone here, I don’t see that having a different opinion than current GM/Cadillac management is “insulting”. I have stated my respect for Alex Luft many times regarding his creation and operation of this website. I have not called him a “follower”, the worst I suppose I have implied about him is that he’s a cheerleader for Cadillac management, but he has shown he can disagree with them once in a while, e.g. the name CT6 being too unambitious numerically.

                              Meanwhile Alex has called my opinions “poppy***k and bol***ks” at times, which sounds pretty insulting if I took such things personally, which I don’t. I’m a big boy and I can handle contrary opinions and insults, my well-reasoned and well-supported views continue to stand on their own.

                              Bottom line Bobby, I appreciate that Alex Luft has kept this forum open to opens even when they differ from his own. In my opinion it’s generally harmful and inhibits progress if you shut out all opinions that don’t match up with your own. I feel that Cadillac has too many people who are on the same page now, following a strategy that has already been proven to be a loser, and which is exhibiting further decline of 21% per month in US sales.

                              So I give Alex credit for accepting opinions different from his own, and giving lengthy rebuttals rather than just saying “you’re wrong”, when he disagrees. In your case however, if you don’t like reading my opinions, please feel free to move to your safe zone and not read them. But don’t be surprised when Cadillac continues to falter under the “Just copy the Germans, one generation behind” plan. Which soon will include copying their rounded body styles, goodbye “Art & Science” and Cadillac’s angular styling that goes back to the 1960’s, when they ruled US luxury cars, and actually stood out from the crowd rather than “blanding in”.

                              By the way, how are sales going at your Cadillac franchise? Apparently bad enough that you can type out a post on a Saturday, that should be your busiest day. There was a time when Cadillac dealers were quite busy on Saturdays. Sometimes being a “yes man” gets you promoted beyond your ability to think critically, right Bobby?
                              Reply
                           4. 

                              Bobby,

                              Drew isn’t concerned about the realities of the market, the reasons why the best selling models sell well or the reasons real life customers choose not to buy cadillacs (and guess what drew its rarely back seat space or stiff ride). He chooses to blame cadillacs image things that happened 40 years ago no one relivant remembers instead of on the real issues like DTS, weak product portfolio and lack or standards for their dealer network. He thinks a large fwd econoboat with a soft ride will sell like hot cakes (granted it would have little competition) but the facts are the facts. Look at the sales….. 3 series, c class, a4 and Is are among the best selling Lux cars in the country and Cadillac needs to compete with them. Building a roomy fwd car will not win those customers and like it or not compact Lux is one of the biggest and most profitable segments. Going where the market dictates isn’t copying the Germans it’s common sense.
                              Reply
5. 

   DREW you make some very good points. Wish you were in charge of Cadillac. The part used in a Chevy as long as they are worthy for use in a Cadillac should not matter. ( Cadillac used to be a proud leader that didn’t imitate anyone else. Time to try that again.) Like that idea too.

   Read more: http://gmauthority.com/blog/2017/09/analysis-how-will-cadillac-price-the-upcoming-ct5-sedan/#ixzz4s2oMMi55
   Reply
   1. 

      Again, Cadillac is not “imitating” anyone. They are returning to the leadership stage. That doesn’t take a day or two or even a year. It takes a good decade (at best) and a couple of decades (at normal speed). Yet naysayers (like your prized buddy Drew) are not helping in the slightest: being an armchair quarterback is easy when you have little understanding of the luxury car market, consumers buying trends, operations, the involved financial elements, etc.

      In regards to the notion that Cadillac is “copying” its rivals, I present what I said earlier in this very thread:

      Cadillac’s products are substantially different inside and out to be regarded as substantially different in the marketplace. The styling alone is enough to put that “copying” notion to rest.

      The fact that the cars are similar based on platform layout and engine configuration is actually an advantage. To play in the segments Cadillac is playing in — the segments that deliver the biggest sales opportunity — Cadillac must have technological parity — and that’s exactly the reason for what they’re doing when it comes to engines, platforms, and driving experience… in some cases, they’re doing it better than the competition… in others, they’re inferior. The new wave of product should address that partially if not completely.

      You put a “normal” person into the seat of a CTS and then a 5er, E-Class, GS, or A6, cover the badges, and ask them how they like both. The last thing they will tell you is that they feel like the CTS is a “copy” of the others. If nothing else, they will recognize the CTS immediately for its substantially different exterior design.

      That’s it for the notion of “copying” the Germans. Complete and total poppycock and bollocks.
      Reply
6. 

   If I’m following this pricing structure correctly, it appears Cadillac may be targeting the Genesis, Infiniti, Lincoln, and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Lexus brands with its sedan range. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, for the sake of gaining more sales. I’ve always been a strong proponent of the “tweener” marketing/pricing approach Cadillac took with the first and second gen CTS.

   As their products prove to be more reliable and appealing over time, they should then ease into higher pricing. The current CTS is not selling well due to mostly sticker shock, as most cannot afford the current CTS, and refuse to pay the last gen CTS prices for the smaller ATS! Not to mention the competition is simply more appealing thanks to their badges and reputation!

   This is Cadillac’s chance to once again present a product that captures the essence of what made the original CTS desirable. I just hope they put a greater emphasis on luxury and refinement!
   Reply
   1. 

      It’s pretty much the approach taken by Lexus in the early 2000s. They had the proper vehicles in the proper segments, but undercut the competition by several thousand in each segment. This is what I believe Cadillac will do this time around.

      So it’s not so much about “targeting” other brands or about having “tweeters”, but rather a way for Cadillac to establish a loyal customer base from which to gain a “base” of sales volume. From there and with time, it will be able to grow the pricing of its products with each subsequent generation.

      Slow, steady, real and profitable progress.
      Reply
7. 

   ACCad , I owned my SRX AWD for 4 years and it only went into the dealership for recalls , I never had any trouble with it at all . It was a comfortable car to drive with this 6’5″ frame and got me through Michigans winters with ease .
   Also the Crystal Red Tintcoat ( an option ) was awesome . Got lots of compliments on it .
   My XT5 approx. 2 months worth of driving has been trouble free , once you get the seat to conform to your body is very comfortable . At first it was kind of stiff ( the leather ) but it’s kind of like a baseball glove once you get it some what broken in fits great .
   GM has come ALONG way in their paint jobs , which used to be a very common complaint from everyone , this Dk. Granite Metallic is dang near flawless . No orange peel or paint runs anywhere . Plus it works well with the lower black cladding .
   CUE is faster and seems to work well so far , but I never had a problem with the older version , and I have read that quit a few people and auto writers hated it . Maybe they got a car built on a Friday . LOL
   As far as the sharing of parts with other divisions I still think Cadillac should not be pulling from the same bin as Chevy , even if they work just fine . Cadillac is the best you can buy from GM and should be a bit more exclusive in parts that the customer can see . If they want to use the same window regulators or wiring harnesses or anything the customer can’t see thats fine . Engines for Cadillac should be a Cadillac engine not a corporate engine .
   I know that drives up costs but if I go out and spend $100,000 for an Escalade I don’t want to see the same interior parts shared with an ATS or any other brand .
   Cadillac needs to convince the buying public that it’s cool to own one , come up with an advertising message that says’s as much . Get their image redefined as not your parents Cadillac . It’s a new day .
   Reply
   1. 

      Interior designs for the next gen caddys won’t copy each others. Like ze germans do. the suv’es and the sedans will have different styling inside and out, connected by some common details, but overall will be quite different. The next gen Escalade will get an interior, which is very close to the Caddy’s last concept. Now imagine what they are preparing for the cars like (xt7, xt8, ct7, ct8). And be sure that they will produce all of them.
      Great times ahead. And finally they will leave the dated/boring and angular art and science design language. The next gen caddys will be low, wide. Not a brick looking bs like the current ats/cts/ct6
      Reply
      1. 

         Rye, yes the upcoming XT4 is said to be the first Cadillac to depart from the brash angular “art & science” design language (that you hate). I happen to love the current design language, as the last vestige of Cadillac’s link to a proud American past, rather throwing in the towel as a total German-wannabe.

         But we knew that a South African named Johan would eventually copy the Germans in every way, including the bloated/rounded styling of MB. The death of Cadillac is nearly complete now. Sad but true. It didn’t have to be this way.
         Reply
         1. 

            I know what you mean. But ,personally, I don’t think that the current a&s is the only way to express Cadillac’s heritage. There are many-many ways to do that. I’ve seen some sketches of the upcoming expensive models. Let me tell you this, they still look like Cadillacs. But much better than the current boring and dated bricks.
            And they don’t copy the german brands. We can say that golden era is coming back. Changing Bose to Harman international and many other smart moves. Cadillac goes to a new level.
            Reply
8. 

   This article doesn’t make sense given what Cadillac President Johan de Nysschen has already said about sales volume, de Nysschen has said of not wanting Cadillac vehicles to be as popular as the Chevrolet Cruze (12,278 vs 786 for the CTS in July 2017) and seen on every street as de Nysschen believes exclusivity and luxury go hand in hand which means de Nysschen will want the CT5 to be priced high.
   Reply
   1. 

      Omegatalon, Cadillac is in no danger of the CTS selling as well as the Cruze. But let’s get real – JDN is just blowing smoke when he says he doesn’t want sales or only wants sales in the “right driveways”. GM is in business to make money for shareholders, not to make an artistic statement about exclusivity. If Cadillac US sales keep falling 21% each month (year over year) under JDN, then he’ll be out of Cadillac almost as fast as he was out of Infiniti. JDN hasn’t proven he can do anything other than sell German luxury cars at a time when German luxury cars are the latest fad.
      Reply
9. 

   The picture of what is supposed to be the 2019 Chevrolet C8 Corvette Zora still seems to borrow styling cues from Cadillac with a rear tail light looking if it came off a Cadillac ELR and even the front headlights looks of Cadillac design language.
   Reply
10. 

    Let’s be real here! If Cadillac is smart, they’ll price it accordingly: Cadillac HAS to play the value card if they hope to gain sales and better establish a strong buyer base! To me, Genesis is producing the cars Cadillac should be bringing to the table! They’re successfully implementing a good combination of luxury and performance, with the emphasis on LUXURY! Big, comfortable, yet powerful, with decent handling without feeling sloppy or floaty! I got the chance to experience the Genesis G80 and was quite impressed with what it has to offer! Offering darn near 95+ percent of what a comparable 5-Series or E-Class offers for half the price! The Continental is very good as well! Large, handsome, spacious, and relatively affordable! Gobs of features for a fraction of the price of other large sedans! So what if it’s built on the Fusion platform/chassis, the pricing is justifiable! At least Lincoln isn’t making their products insanely expensive to “better compete”! Nothing wrong with building affordable luxury products!
    Reply
    1. 

       Exactly.
       The Fusion Frame may be a wonderful idea, until you get in an accident, and the car needs to be written off because of the cost of suspension components. That is unless they have some magic to reduce the parts cost.
       The customer does not care a lot about all that wonderful technology, they want a smooth ride.
       Like the old Lawn Service adage. People do not care about lawn chemicals, they want green lawns.
       Reply
11. 

    Oh no, it’s the attack of the fwd clones!. As many mention here let Cadillac finish out the plans for 19′ . With adjusted prices, bigger interior room and new looks will ring in buyers. All fwd lovers have Carmax or the CUVs
    Reply
12. 

    Talking about price, I see no need for cadillac to a just pricing on any of it sedans. They have all hone up in ATP and its not all Escalade, the CT5 should stay in line with where the cts is, so that Cadillac can continue to boast about Higher ATPs rather than increased sales number.
    Reply
    1. 

       Keep the pricing increase the fit and finish, Quality of material and content. Make the ride and handling second to none. Do everything necessary to make it best in class. Then and only then can Cadillac become a major player in the luxury field.
       Reply
13. 

    CT5 should be compared with other “luxury” vehicles only, not “sport luxury” which is what the AMG line of MB is.

    Logically, Caddie’s “sport luxury” range is only the V models; ATS-V, CTS-V

    I still think of Cadillac as a luxury brand and find the V models to be a bit of a distraction from the brand’s core values – luxury, luxury, luxury.
    Reply
    1. 

       The Cadillac CTS v coupe is a leader in its segment. The Germans have cars copying it 5 years later. The amg c63 s, the m4 etc. They all are CTS v coupe knockoffs. They all come up short of the mark with their 400-500 HP engines. Cadillac had bullseye with its 560 HP engine. This was supercharged and a market leader in the whole segment. The Germans spent time catching cadillac. Their cars are on the road now, but they don’t have the juice cadillac offered. Now what happened is a new Cadillac CTS v was released. It had 640 hp which is truly awesome. But for 100 horses more the price jumped from 75k to 90k. It’s true that it’s a new generation. But I think it’s priced way higher than the m3, m4 is. The thing with the Cadillac CTS v coupe back in the day was pay like your buying an m3 and get an m5 instead. I hope cadillac nails it in 2019 and my efforts to get the ct5 v fits my pocket. All the cars on the road now have 450 horses, and 600 horses. Nobody played in the 550’s like cadillac did. My lease with my little Cessna slc amg 43 expires right when cadillac releases a new car, the ct5-v hopefully. It needs to be driving like a Heavy Lamborghini with muscle from Hennessy. Please get it right this time guys. I’m waiting 5 years for this car. If you would like to hire me 🙂 or join my forum, please visit http://www.carspear.com
       Thank you GM,
       Sean
       Reply
14. 

    Back to the article I suspect that the proposed pricing won’t be far off from what we really see. I expect a similar sized car at a slightly lower price (compared to current cts). I doubt they make ct5 bigger then cts on the outside, maybe make some adjustment to interior room. I also think the value proposition will include more standard features rather then just a lower price. Also fingered crossed for a 3.0tt with awd in the low to mid 50s… I’ll be all over that
    Reply