The sedan isn’t totally on a death march just yet, but sales continue to disappoint as consumers turn to crossovers, trucks and SUVs. At Cadillac, it’s been a shortcoming since the brand’s current portfolio is heavy on passenger cars.
The brand’s president, Johan de Nysschen, spoke with Motor Trend in an interview published Monday and offered up his explanation on why sedan sales continue to fall. The short story? Younger buyers aren’t interested, and today’s infrastructure isn’t as conducive for a sedan.
On the younger buyers, de Nysschen said it’s hard to flaunt driving dynamics when the buyer group isn’t exactly interested in them. He said handling and dynamics excited buyers yesterday, but not so much today.
“It’s more about the way cars complement and enable their lifestyle now,” he said of younger car buyers.
However, he didn’t stop short of blaming the United States’ infrastructure.
“When roads no longer support high-performance sport sedans and ultra-low-profile rubber, people are going to respond to it,” he said.
Meanwhile, trucks, SUVs and crossovers can offer some relief from pothole-filled roads and dicey roadways. Low-slung sedans? Not so much.
Cadillac will focus on strengthening its core portfolio before it thinks about adding other niche models, which means we’ll see a focus on crossovers and updated sedans first. On deck is the 2019 Cadillac XT4, which will make its debut in a couple weeks at the 2018 New York International Auto Show.
Comments
I fall in the middle. I’m a younger buyer, in my 20s, driving a CTS purely for the driving dynamics. It’s true, not many of my friends care about how it drives. They care about how it looks, and they want the versatility and practicality. Today’s crossovers meet those two requirements. Sedans need to be more versatile, hence why we are seeing so many sport backs coming to market. I hope the CT5 is a sport back. It would do so much better on the market.
On the other side, for me, I totally agree with JDN about infrastructure. When my CTS lease is up, I’m probably going to an SUV. The roads here in New England are terrible for cars like the CTS. Every drive around town has me worrying about repair costs. I’m very excited to see the XT4. It could be a real contender for my next car, unless the CT5 is a baby Escala and then I’ll be very torn 😉
I agree with you. I’m in my 20’s and I had two CTS sedans. I loved the second gen so much I traded it in for the third gen. While I was impressed with the dynamics and fell in love with the car, I couldn’t handle only having a sedan any longer, dealing with the cramped cargo space and low ground clearance. I live in New England and go camping, hiking and drive in the snow regularly. I traded it in for a grand Cherokee and even though I miss the CTS, the SUV just fits my lifestyle better. Seems like JDN knows what we want nowadays and hopefully he starts making some cadillacs to match!
“I’m a younger buyer”
“When my CTS lease is up”
No one taught you the difference between buying and leasing huh?
He is correct on the life style part but there is much more to it.
Sedans are like the Malls. In the past that was where you went to meet people same with cars and cruise ins. Today younger people are more activity focused or they just stay home and chat. many are not driving till they are out of school.
Also the other factor is people in general want unity. It used to be cars were large enough you could carry the drywall on the roof of the sedan to remodel your home. My dads Chevelle’s were all the truck he ever needed.
Today the Malibu and most other cars will not carry a thing today that is more than 2 feet tall. You just can’t get it into the opening. I know as I have a Malibu with a large trunk that you can not fit anything into with out unboxing it.
On the other hand most UV models will carry about anything and most will carry 6 people.
Last weekend we took the SUV and bought furniture that would never have fit any of the sedans we have ever owned. It rides as well as out past SSEI and handles on par as out GTP Comp G.
My wife is an example of the buyers today as she wants the comfort and utility and unlike me while she likes a good handling car is not into seeing how fast she can take a curving off ramp.
The Mini Van planted the seed of utility and the down sizing of most cars has made that utility even more important.
JDN is aware of this and that is why we will get more UV models and it looks like a Hatch on a sedan. Even the hatch has its limits as the low roof comes into play but they are looking for ways to save the car.
Also yes our roads suck but the many SUV models are seeing 20″-22″ wheels with low side walls too. You just have to watch the holes that where I am at are very deep and damaging even to a truck tire.
Scott3, I hope you are right about potentially getting a Cadillac sedan with a hatch (liftback). That’s one way to deal with the poor carrying-capacity of today’s sedans vs. SUVs. For some reason the American auto press has derided liftbacks as unworthy for anything but small cars, for decades on end. And unfortunately the gullible American public has generally gone along with whatever the auto press told them they should want. Tesla has helped bring the liftback back to luxury American sedans, as have some imports like Audi. And we know that the Escala concept was a liftback, with very little derision for that (probably thanks to the success of cars like the Tesla Model S and Audi A7)/
As to low-profile tires, I’ve always thought that those were a silly fad that would eventually fade away. Maybe they improve handling a slight bit (until they get damaged), but for the majority of the public they are about style, not substance. And it won’t be long before we look back at this style, and think “why did the public accept cars with bicycle tires, or o-ring tires?”.
Low-profile tires ruin the ride quality and often get damaged, as well as transmitting further damage to the suspension. Yet every year, someone comes up with even-bigger radius wheels, meaning even lower profile tires. That trend may not even have peaked yet, but it’s got to be close. For it to go much further, the tires would have to be so thin that the car would look like it was riding on the rims. But if Johan is smart he can have Cadillac lead the reverse-trend in tires, going back toward higher profiles. Will he?
It used to be that parents could afford a college fund AND a cheapish car for their kids.
Now? That college fund takes more than TWICE as much, far more than that cheap car cost, so forget the car kid!
Who made college more expensive? All you freakn Republican voters. “Self responsibility” you said, college kids should pay for their own education, because although college-educated populations lift the entire nation and help us all buy cars, and smart kids make better soldiers and leaders, but they should pay for it THEMSELVES even though that pushes all their money to student-loan bankers leaving NOTHING for carmakers.
Why are cars not selling to kids? Because the kids’ money already belongs to bankers who fund Republican and Tammany Hall (Bill ‘n’ Hillary) campaigns
You socialist liberals find a way to inject politics into everything, even a discussion about a car brand. Great job! Let me guess your plan is to…… give all college kids free cars!? Am I right??
How about give college kids free college? Get America a better set of leaders, so we never have 2016 Tammany Hall vs Vegas Vagrants ever again.
If college kids get a boost FROM America FOR America, then their parents will have a little money left over to BUY THEM A CAR.
Maybe if these kids had went to school for something useful. I went to a technical college for Electrical, and I have much less debt than some of…..many of my classmates. Not to mention, I already have, and have had since before I even graduated a solid job making over 47k per year.
But ya know, the world still needs those people who majored in Feminist artists.
Henry, I was thinking much the same. Vocational training is far more useful than the vast majority of college majors. I’m tired of the college grads in fluff majors complaining that they can now only work at Starbucks. Meanwhile we don’t have enough electricians and plumbers, despite the relatively high pay that they can get. Yet liberals think the answer to everything is “free college for everyone”. Sure, play for four years (or is it 7?) at taxpayer expense, then whine about not having a good job when you get out. Not a good plan for the USA.
Nope, liberals don’t think “free college for everyone”.
Liberals think “free college for kids who are CAPABLE of graduating”
Literally, a world of difference…
Now here’s our miscommunication:
Unlike you think of me, I believe that Kids who are capable of graduating are NOT better than everybody else. Kids who are capable of graduating college are focused on technical process improvement – not just the technique, not just the process, but also the brand-new improvements that the brilliant predecessors hoped the young kids would ADD. Like Isaac Newton standing on the shoulders of giants.
These kids need administrators, friends, mentors, real-world experiences from non-college people, so they can APPLY their original thinking. Non-college people are just as important, larger in number and more important than college researchers. Bill Mitchell NEEDED Zora Arkus-Duntov to make the Corvette fast! Bill Mitchell also needed Peter Brock and Larry Shinoda to make C2 & C3 look good. Ford needed MacNamara and later Mulalley, Ferrari need Forghieri, and both Mercedes and Auto Union needed Prof. Ferdinand Porsche.
You say Ferd. Porsche, Duntov, and Forghieri should pay loan-bankers for the freakn “right” to learn how to do this stuff. Apollo program astronauts? PAY BANKERS FOR YOUR NAVAL ACADEMY DEGREES HERE NOW!
S’funny…
Socialist and Liberal are actually mutually exclusive concepts. One literally can’t be the other. To help you out a little, a Liberal can be a Capitalist, but a Socialist can’t. However, both Socialists and Liberals hate Rent-Seeking, which Republicans love. Rent-seeking is the third of Adam Smith’s 3 sources of income, the other two are profit and wages. Rent-seeking is like a feudal lord who installs a chain across a river that flows through his land and then hires a collector to charge passing boats a fee (or rent of the section of the river for a few minutes) to lower the chain. There is nothing productive about the chain or the collector. The lord has made no improvements to the river and is not adding value in any way, directly or indirectly, except for himself. All he is doing is finding a way to make money from something that used to be free. The whole concept of student loans, charging kids to teach them, IS rent-seeking.
Adam Smith also hated Rent-Seeking, look it up. Oh, who is Adam Smith? The father of Capitalism! Like Marx was to Socialism, Smith is to Capitalism. And he HATES rent-seeking.
Lots of misinformation there, Old Trombone. First of all, “Liberal” and “Socialist” are words that have had evolving definitions over time, to the point where neither is as strictly defined as you imply. “Liberal” at one point meant someone who favored minimal government power over the individual; the US Founding Fathers where in their day viewed as “liberal”. “Liberal” has also meant, in communist dictatorships and other oppressive governments, those in favor of greater freedom and lower government control. What we used to call “liberal” in those cases is better defined as “libertarian” today.
Today in the US, “liberal” has a different meaning than in our past or in some other countries, as a group that favors extensive government control and redistribution of wealth has usurped the word for itself. Thus today’s liberals are not greatly different from those who call themselves “socialists”, and it’s not wrong to use these terms interchangeably.
“Socialist” once had a purer definition of a situation where government owned all means of production; i.e. no private ownership of business was allowed. That definition was then extended to include government “control” where private business ownership exists in name, but government exerts a heavy hand of regulation – who can produce, how to produce, who will be hired, the wages that shall be paid, etc. Socialism was also viewed by Karl Marx as a stepping stone to full communism, where each produce according to ability and receive according to “need” – as if we are all one very big family. The goal of today’s “socialists” is not efficient production in a free market, but “fair” (as deemed by government) distribution of goods and services. Again in this way this does not vary greatly from today’s self-named American “liberals”.
To say that one cannot be both “liberal” (current US definition) and “socialist” is incorrect. Even to the extent that you could find a difference between these two terms, often an American who calls himself “liberal” would be very happy to lead the US into full socialism. Only if you fall back on a classical definition of “liberal” (e.g. the US Founding Fathers), can you find it to be mutually exclusive with “socialism”.
As far as “rent-seeking”, in what way do you see the Republican party as supportive of this? You’ve given the Robert Shiller example of the chain over the river on private land (by a feudal lord), but how does this apply to modern America? And if you can find any real-world examples, how much of the US economy is affected by “rent-seeking”, and in what way does the Republican party embrace this? Certainly you can have a corrupt politician from either party who may show an unfair use of public money to enrich a crony – such as routing a highway through an area useful to a favored donor – but that can occur with either party.
Also – rent-seeking is sometimes defined as those who seek to profit via government taking wealth from free-market producers and investors and handing it to another group, which is itself favored by government. An example of this would be the recently-discussed case of Obama handing a large chunk of GM and Chrysler to the union workers, taking it away from the bondholders who legally had the first right to those assets (up to the value of the bonds). Obama used TARP and essentially forced bankers to go along with the auto-asset redistribution, yet bondholders who had nothing to do with banking were cheated. Was that a Republican move? Further, one could also say that the government worker unions favored by Democrats are rent-seekers. If anything, the Democrat party is the one which favors rent-seekers. Not that either party is perfect, but you are silly to act like Republicans are the source of all evil.
As to the example of the feudal lord and the river-chain, what about Panama and the canal? The country of Panama charges ships to pass through their canal (given to them by Democrat president Jimmy Carter). But Panama has recently spent (and continues to spend) billions of dollars in construction costs, in order to increase the size of ships capable of making the trip through the canal. They then charge the ships a hefty fee in order to use the canal. Is this economic “rent-seeking”, or free market profit-seeking, or a hybrid of both? Also, the feudal lord of his day was tasked with providing defense to his people, and if he failed in this his realm would be absorbed by another. So even Shiller’s example is somewhat without merit, as the feudal lord could be viewed as a tax-collector for services rendered. Much like the big government favored by today’s US “liberals”.
That’s the right’s version of “liberal”, the one where they get to decide what other people are or aren’t.
Liberals themselves are still quite happy with the original meaning. See that? Originalism, something you Republicans have been calling Supreme Court Justices on repeatedly for decades now. Here’s your words Drew: “Only if you fall back on a classical definition of “liberal” (e.g. the US Founding Fathers), can you find it to be mutually exclusive with “socialism”.“ This is PRECISELY the argument lefties use against SCOTUS righties such as Alito and Roberts and now Gorsuch.
Either words mean what they mean, or you’re making it up.
Oldmman99; Maybe if you US Value hating knuckles draggers cared about politics more often than just when you can use it to victimize yourselves, the economic state of the union would be at a point where younger buyers can actually afford these cars.
The worst part is your pride in such ignorance.
And the potholed roads? “Self Responsibility” again right? If YOU want to drive on those roads, then YOU get out ahead of your car and make the roads right, right! Me? I’m not paying tax for YOUR roads. (But if I see a pothole in my road, of course that needs to be fixed by the council, right?)
Blaming republicans is a nice try. States, whether red or blue, are having to spend more on Medicaid and educational funding to state universities are taking the hit. Other factors such as the great recession, lower property values (lower tax), ridiculous coaching salaries, ease of receiving student loans, etc all have impacts into college tuition.
I upvoted you because you argue way better than me. “Ridiculous coaching salaries” are one of the top-3 problems in colleges today, thank you so much for confirming that.
I’m not seeing lower property prices, my house gained 1/3 in value in the last 20 months, confirmed by actual sales of 3 other houses on my block in that time.
Medicaid budget blowout would be solved instantly with single-payer control of big-pharma.
Old Trombone is totally correct. All the bitter down-voters holding back the economy are the same old troglodytes holding back the Cadillac brand image.
_vorg, please give some examples of how the US economy is being “held back” by “old troglodytes”, and what you would do to “correct” this.
Fix corporate tax loopholes.
Eliminate handouts to megafarmers.
Eliminate tariffs.
Reduce unnecessary defense spending.
Increase education budget.
Cap and Trade to incentivize renewable energy.
The list is long and fairly obvious. Modern US “conservative” policies are destructive and economically ignorant.
That’s the right’s version of “liberal”, the one where they get to decide what other people are or aren’t.
Liberals themselves are still quite happy with the original meaning. See that? Originalism, something you Republicans have been calling Supreme Court Justices on repeatedly for decades now. Here’s your words Drew: “Only if you fall back on a classical definition of “liberal” (e.g. the US Founding Fathers), can you find it to be mutually exclusive with “socialism”.“ This is PRECISELY the argument lefties use against SCOTUS righties such as Alito and Roberts and now Gorsuch.
Either words mean what they mean, or you’re making it up.
OT wrote: “This is PRECISELY the argument lefties use against SCOTUS righties such as Alito and Roberts and now Gorsuch.”
I have no idea what you mean there. You are saying that “lefties” don’t like Alito, Roberts, and Gorsuch because they follow the words of the Constitution accurately, rather than ignoring them in favor of something they’d prefer?
And what does that have to do with the fact that the Founding Fathers were called “liberals” back in their day, but would be called “libertarians” now, while today’s self-named “liberals” are actually big-government redistributionists?
Gorsuch, Alito, and Roberts are not originalists; they are textualists. They don’t care about the founders’ intent at all, they care about their own interpretation of the literal text outside any historical context. At stupid stance to have, especially as a leader in a national judicial based in English Common law.
True – Gorsuch, Alito, and Roberts (as well as Thomas) go by the Constitutional text as written. There’s no way to know that the Constitution framers wrote something but were actually “meaning” something else. If you don’t like the wording of the Constitution, then get it changed.
But a Supreme Court Justice should not be making laws up as they go along, as the liberals would have them do (when it suits their purposes). Remember when Nancy Pelosi just laughed, when asked where the Constitution justified Obamacare? I’d rather have people who respect the actual Constitution, as written.
Drew, Vorg just answered your question, with facts. Let’s remember now, facts are not left wing, instead, they’re true. Ask Daniel Kahneman.
Old Trombone, of course “facts” are not left-wing, who said they were? I don’t understand your “logic”, I never have, including prior discussions. You use some words you learned in college such as “syllogism” and then think you’ve made some sort of logical point. Or you name some famous economist such as Adam Smith or Daniel Kahneman, and then you think you’ve made a convincing point about economics.
John Maynard Keynes. Joseph Schumpeter. Friedrich Hayek. Tautology. Are you awed yet? You shouldn’t be.
Facts are facts, but how do we arrive at those facts? We need to use a scientific method, not just opinions stated often enough in your personal circle, that you start to believe they are facts. Here’s a name for you: Antoine Lavoisier. His area of study was chemistry, but he established rules for separating fact from opinion. Too often today people accept the opinions of their peers as “facts”. If we still did that today, we might still believe the Earth is flat or that it’s the center of the universe.
_vorg, you have some good ideas there. But the good ideas you list are not typically those that are fought by “old troglodyte Republicans” or promoted strongly by Old Trombone “liberals”.
– Everyone is against “corporate loopholes” but both parties enable them. That’s like being against waste and corruption. Good slogan, but it has to be done across the board. Democrats like to favor certain industries as much as Republicans, they are just different industries.
– Republicans have been much more actively against tariffs than Democrats. Trump and Peter Navarro are ex-Democrats. IF Trump uses the threat of tariffs to actually get other countries to reduce tariffs, that’s great.
– Hard to say how much defense spending is “unnecessary”. But of course no one wants to waste money.
– The US government already spends a huge amount on education. The money should be spent more efficiently. Including removing poorly performing teachers from their protected monopoly, which is a large base of support of the Democrats. In terms of higher education, perhaps more funding toward useful programs such as engineering, agriculture, health, and business. But less spending on wasteful programs such as political science or communications. Efficient use of internet education should be encouraged, not discouraged as under Obama.
– Carbon dioxide is not as “obvious” a cause of climate change, as some people think. While that is a major discussion in itself, if carbon dioxide should be reduced then this is not something that would boost economic growth. In fact it curtailing CO2 emissions would reduce economic growth and standard of living, whether or not it’s scientifically wise.
– I would also add that well-applied infrastructure programs would remove obstacles to US growth. Unfortunately when Obama spend $1 trillion on stimulus, only 6% went to infrastructure. Meanwhile there are traffic jams and underserved areas that do hold back economic growth. But a major problem there are the NIMBYs, who have as much or more strength among the Democrats. Obama had the attitude that “spending is spending” (based on a misguided “multiplier effect” theory), but the right spending is that which yields an ongoing economic benefit.
– If you are truly for economic growth, then you should favor reduced taxes and an end to unnecessary social spending as well. Also you should favor the ongoing reduction of over-regulation which does not lead to a safer workplace or cleaner environment. If government gets out of the way, other than necessary OSHA and EPA regulations, the economy will grow much faster. But most “liberals” today want government to tell everyone who they can hire, how much they can pay them, etc. That may satisfy some innate social desire they have, but it does not lead to greater economic growth.
Calling another group “troglodytes” or “economically ignorant” does not advance any discussion, nor does it lead to wisdom. It’s a bullying tactic as well as a level of ignorance all its own.
You must separate the voters and the politicians. Of course no common voter is in favor of corporate tax loopholes, for instance, but only the conservative voter routinely seeks to elect the politicians that are.
Tax cuts are certainly not a panacea to economic growth, although the Right Wing would love that you make such an equivalence. Take the national highway system; a product of taxes, that has resulted in unparalleled economic prosperity for this country for decades.
I’m with you on the CO2 boogeyman aspect, but that doesn’t reduce the fact that cap and trade is a great government catalyst for innovation. Plus the elimination of CO2 emissions results in the elimination (at a higher rate) of heavier greenhouse gases.
“Republicans have been much more actively against tariffs than Democrats.”
Hell yeah they were. I’m not in a party but I leaned Republican for a long time. Too bad post-Bush and the rise of the Tea Party has gutted the party and a modern republican has no concrete economic stances. Take for instance the recent (very unConservative) notion of artificially subsidizing the coal industry. That isn’t traditionally republican.
“Calling another group “troglodytes” or “economically ignorant” does not advance any discussion, nor does it lead to wisdom. It’s a bullying tactic as well as a level of ignorance all its own.”
I almost agree with that. Except it isn’t ignorance; I gave those nicknames because I am well aware of the kind of person I referenced and will even let you in on a secret; Troglodyte is a euphemism for these people. These same people (neo-confederates, accurately) are the ones that called for the prior 3 years to “end Political Correctness”. Now they shall reap what they sow. I do it mainly because they’ve been the loud minority and it is time to make it clear that their hate-filled politics of willful ignorance have no place reducing the greatest nation in the world.
Hey Vorg, let up on the truth-lashing, Drew might bleed out. Too much reality and reason will make him virtue-trigger more psychology name lines.
_Vorg, as I said, limiting CO2 emissions might be good policy for the Earth or it might be pointless. But it is not good economic policy on its own. Business does not need government force or subsidies in order to pursue economic benefits for itself. Cap and trade will be a burden to consumers and producers alike. There’s no more economic benefit to “creating an industry” that wouldn’t otherwise exist in the free market, than paying one group of people to dig holes and paying another to fill them up. Again, maybe there’s a climate justification for cap-and-trade, but there isn’t an economic one.
ROI. Corporations and rich people deserve more tax breaks. studies have shown that the middle class and poor people do not buy as many politicians as corporations and rich people. that’s why corporations and rich people get a good RETURN ON INVESTMENT.
Drew, answering your questions is like shooting fish in a barrel!
You want an example of Republicans rent-seeking and troglodyting our economy?
Look no further than Chris Christie’s “Bridgegate”!
Literally EXACTLY like Shiller’s chain-across-the-river scenario. Christie’s flying monkeys (narcissistic enablers) closed the road into New York to punish a Dem mayor for not endorsing him, thus creating a traffic hurricane that shut businesses in NY and NJ down for the day. EMS personnel and Ambulances couldn’t reach hundreds of emergency cases that day, and people DIED.
Old Trombone, Chris Christie’s Bridgegate is NOT an example of Republican policy. It’s an example of government corruption, and as I pointed out that hits both parties, but it’s the stated policy of neither. At what point did Republicans say that it’s ok to shut down a bridge if not given political favors? Where is that in the Republican platform?
You wrote that Socialists and Liberals hate rent-seeking, and Republicans love rent-seeking. All you’ve done is give an example of corruption, not policy. I happen to be from a state (Illinois) where 4 of the prior 7 elected governors (not including the current one, or non-elected replacements), have been sentenced to prison for corruption. Three were Democrats, one was Republican. That’s out of 4 elected Republican governors and 3 elected Democrat governors. Yes, all 3 of the past elected Democrat governors in Illinois have been sent to prison for corruption. Yet I wouldn’t claim that this means Democrats are the party of corruption and that Republicans are pure. That’s just silly to think that one party or the other has a monopoly on virtue or the other happily promotes corruption. Only the most partisan fool would think that.
So tell us truly how Republicans embrace “rent-seeking” as policy. You earlier gave the example of college student loans, which was not only wrong, it’s not even an exclusively Republican policy. And it doesn’t remotely fit the definition of “rent-seeking”. The idea of rent-seeking is that it doesn’t cost you anything, you make no improvements, yet you benefit at the expense of others. A college loan certainly does cost the taxpayers, in real dollars, that they could otherwise spend or invest for themselves.
Student loans are intended as an investment by which the student borrows and buys an education, in order to earn more than they would have done even after that education borrowing has been paid back. You might believe that all education should be “free” (i.e. paid by hardworking taxpayers, many of whom have never attended or completed college themselves), but that’s a social view, it does not mean that a college loan is “rent-seeking”. Any more than a loan to buy a car is “rent-seeking”. You have serious logical flaws! And yet unless you are trolling us (a distinct possibility), you don’t even realize how flawed your “logic” is. Next time you want to shoot fish in a barrel, bring an AR-15!
“Chris Christie’s Bridgegate is NOT an example of Republican policy.”
Technically correct. Bridgegate is an example of the result of ignorant REPUBLICAN voters falling for GOP wedge issues to elect a REPUBLICAN politician to make their lives measurably worse.
Your student loan comments alone demonstrate the blind eyes from which you view the world. You ignore malicious marketing to children, the special exemptions from risk that loaners get, and the stagnant wages recent grads receive. Why should the student receive ALL the risk while paying 3-10% interest? That isn’t how interest is supposed to work; but lobbying (primarily to conservative politicians) has turned student loans into the biggest valuation scam since Trump Steaks.
And YOU willingly vote for it because you are too ignorant to see the longterm affects of financially screwing over a 30 year demographic block while simultaneously de-educating the nation.
_Vorg, the point is that Bridgegate is not Republican policy any more than it’s Democrat policy to take bribes in the form of phony “Cattle Futures Trading” (HRC). You are essentially claiming that Republican politicians are crooked while Democrat politicians are clean, yet history shows corruption hits both parties.
As far as college loans, would you prefer that no loans should be made to college students? No one forced them to take out the loans. And if they are so stupid and gullible, then why were they accepted into college in the first place? Maybe your disagreement is with college admittance standards more than college loans.
The college students aren’t the only one taking a risk – the taxpayers are taking the risk that the loans will never be paid back. I didn’t vote for the college loan program, and I wouldn’t mind at all if they ended it. If you think college de-educates people, then the focus of college should change to feature useful majors only, especially for those going to college at taxpayer expense.
Your shot at “Trump steaks” doesn’t bother me, but why not use a better and even more egregious example – “Trump University”? That was the true out-and-out scam. I didn’t vote for Trump (I voted for Johnson/Weld, and no they weren’t perfect either, and no I wouldn’t really want “pure” libertarianism for the USA, but I wouldn’t mind it moving more in that direction).
Don’t tell me the “kids” are too stupid to understand college loans, or that a college degree in “anything” is particularly useful. Whatever collage loans are, they are not an example of rent-seeking. The loan is a risk for both parties; the taxpayers are better off when the student succeeds and pays off the loan, rather than failing. But a better way may be to not offer loans at all unless the student pursues a truly useful degree (with milestones along the way which shows the necessary courses have been completed each semester); this would better protect taxpayers on their loans.
Drew question: “_vorg, please give some examples of how the US economy is being “held back” by “old troglodytes”,
Ancient Sackbut answer: “Christie’s Bridgegate, hundreds of small-business owners lost money and Ambulances couldn’t save lives”
Drew retort: “Christie isn’t Republican, he’s Christie”
Stephen Colbert applied to stand for Reps in SC. He was FLAT refused. When Christie was endorsed as a Republican, his actions became Republican policy. Bridgegate was enacted by the most senior Republicans of NJ. Read Dick Cheney’s daughter’s MA thesis explaining how George Bush II’s decisions were automatically law “just because he was President” for support for this idea. Also, look at George III of England in 1776 for another example of your thinking…
If hardworking taxpayers want to work less hard for their own salary and their share of tax, then they’re going to need college grads to figure out how to do that, just like Thomas Edison, Henry Leland, and Steve Jobs did. If taxpayers pay for the best to attend college instead of the indolent children of the richest, then we’ll get more profit and tax for less physical effort and more self-responsibility-time.
So why not pay college grads to smarten-up and make ALL our lives better, instead of dumb-down and pay the banker-loan-sharks?
This guy is extremely overrated. Blaming infrastructure on Cadillacs not selling, come on. Maybe its the lack of brand recognition, lack of design? Maybe it was the race to the bottom with the ATS? Oh and dont forget to rename the Escalade, remember it still has an actual name. Better put an alphanumeric code name on that to help people remember its name…NOT. Stupid, this guy ruined Cadillac.
Upped yourself, I see. (Voted I mean, although….)
Of course i did, im right
Pepe does what he feels like, when he feels like it. He doesn’t vote for his own triggered anti-tromboning. That’s what Hillaristas do.
Maybe it’s that God awful CUE system.
I don’t recall our roads ever really supporting high performance sedans and ultra low profile rubber…
I can’t remember a time in history where many roads weren’t in need of repair. No doubt some repair is long past due but it’s not as if in some distant past there was a vast network of perfect pavement suited for high horsepower and low profile rubber. I’ll add to it, both of those things as we have today are relatively new to street performance. The muscle cars of the 60’s can’t hold a candle horsepower wise to a new Camaro, Mustang or Challenger Or Cadillac for that matter. And it’s not like any of those cars including Cadillac were corner carvers with low profile rubber. Cadillac’s have always been soft and plush with Style and a Smooth Cadillac ride as the selling point.
And again, while I get the Suv/Cuv craze, manufacturers (especially GM with Chevrolet) haven’t exactly gone out of their way to make great cars. Everything is a sedan. What about coupes? Where’s a Malibu or Cruze coupe with RWD and or AWD and higher performance? How about higher end interiors with more options? How about gorgeous designs? Chevy doesn’t even try anymore with their cars… Sure there was always a Chevelle/Malibu sedan to haul around families but there was just as many Chevelle/Malibu coupes that were for those who didn’t want 4 doors. And when someone does do a nice coupe like Cadillac did with the ATS, it needs more style and much nicer interiors if you’re going to sell it as a Cadillac. That was always part of the Cadillac formula. Style and Substance.
While I get the need for more cuv’s and such, these guys can’t blame everything on road infrastructure and the buying public. They need to look in the mirror from time to time.
Matt the reality is Sedans are struggling to survive and coupe are DOA. They are not making them because they do not sell like they used to.
Get into the back seat of a 05 GTO or G6 and see why.
Even HP versions of these models with the proper engine and driveline would get them to a price point you will not sell a ton of them either.
GM takes that money drops it on a Equinox that sells 250K units a year vs. much less as a sedan and that is where the money will go. It is about return on investment. It is not about just making money but it is about the highest return on investment.
The road depend where you are but for the most it is well documented most areas are worse now than ever. I just saw a G8 in the parking lot with a broken wheel today.
The bottom line is people are buying and paying more for trucks and UV models and that is where the money and sales are. That is where the automakers are going.
If you want to blame anyone you need to blame the public as automakers are just giving them what they are buying.
As for Chevelle Coupes times have changed. Why did they stop making the Malibu coupe. Because the sales tanked. Why did they kill the GP coupe? sales tanked. If people would buy them in greater numbers they would make them.
The reality is it is not 1969 anymore and the market is not buying coupes and V8 engines anymore. If they are buying a V8 it is a truck anyways or a high end performance car or luxury car that has the volume that can deal with the EPA rules.
I see a lot of sedans on the road in this area. They are not GM products but definitely sedans.
Even if these road’s were good sedan’s sale’s would be flat for ever body. He is not blaming infrastructure for slow sale’s of sedan’s, sedan’s are not these utility vehicles they once were and yes are road’s are crappy and has been like this for many year’s now.
Johan must be thinking of Germany’s roads (especially the Autobahn) if he thinks that roads ever supported sport-performance luxury sedans with low-profile tires. American roads never did support them, and the whole German-performance-luxury sedan thing in the USA has been a fad that eventually faded, now reflected in poor sedan sales.
Cadillac was a brand that built its name and success on plush-riding roomy sedans that would glide over road imperfections. It was never about “sportiness” or “great handling”, until some idiots decided it was time to copy the harsh and cramped German ride (being pushed by the performance-loving professional auto press), and that’s when Cadillac sales started to decline sharply. But typical Cadillac customers didn’t see their cars as toys to be used as if part of a NASCAR race in their daily driving; they saw them as vehicles to get from here to there in comfort, power, refinement, reliability, luxury and style. The Germans did the sports/luxury hybrid, maybe that was the right thing for Germany, but those cars were not designed for American roads or lifestyle.
Good for Johan to identify part of the problem, but unfortunately his stated intention has been to make Cadillac an even sportier-riding brand, with every vehicle in the future (once the platforms allow it) to be extremely sporty (aka “driver’s cars”). He intends to remove the XTS from the line-up, the last vestige of anything resembling the classic plush “Cadillac ride”. Even the Cadillac SUVs/CUVs in the future will likely have more of a “sport ride” under Johan. Unless this statement from Johan shows that he’s suddenly seen the light, and now intends to take the brand back to being the best-riding mainstream luxury brand, going back to higher-profile tires, etc.
How do you know what the SUV /CUVs will ride like?, I’ve yet to hear of the Escalade, XT5 riding rough
Guestt, I’m basing that on the interview of September 2017 of Johan de Nysschen by the New York Times. In it Johan said that in the future, all of Cadillac’s vehicles “will be driver’s cars”. Usually that means that ride comfort will be sacrificed in favor of “sharp/sport handling” and feel-the-road vibration through the steering wheel. It could also mean a move to only manual transmission, but probably means automatic with optional driver shifting.
We won’t know exactly what Johan meant until he has full control over Cadillac’s production. The XT4 for example won’t be exactly what he intends for the brand, as it won’t have the type of platform he favors for “driver’s cars”. And true that the current Escalade and XT5 are not “performance” rides. Then again, Johan would not have wanted the XT5 to be FWD if he’d had greater and earlier control over the project (and yes I know that FWD/RWD does not directly affect ride quality, but people who favor sport rides over plush rides tend to also favor RWD over FWD). However, if JdN is still in charge 10 years from now, the brand should be fully Johan-ized. But maybe he’s having second thoughts about it, per this recent interview regarding “road quality”.
JDN did nail the part about the roads. I drive performance cars and the roads do kill what could be some enjoyable driving.
This article is spot on for me… A missed box for the wheel and tire insurance on the lease agreement on my CT6 and living in the Detroit area has my current out of pocket costs for wheels and tires at over $2,000.00 on a car I don’t own!! ( 2 wheels and 3 tires in the last 18 months ) I have the 20″ wheels with the Magnetic Ride Control and as much as I really love the car, the wheel / tire combo should not be sold in any state where they get freezing temps and the subsequent potholes that come with that. If anyone from GM corporate is paying attention… I’d like some sort of compensation. I drive my wife’s Acadia Denali almost all the time now while my $70,000.00+ Cadillac hides in the garage. Grrrrrrrrrrr
I’m not sure I’m buying his infrastructure argument.
But – having lived-in and driven-in Europe – they do seem to have better roads … some countries levy a road-use tax on cars, buses and trucks (based on engine size, or vehicle weight) and off-ramp tolls are fairly common. Some of that money is earmarked for road upkeep.
And some of the countries don’t have the extreme freeze/thaw/freeze/thaw/heat that the US does.
But it’s hard to imagine road conditions are the primary reason sedans aren’t selling.
Look up at my post…add that problem to the general shift in consumer preferences and it has me thinking about an SUV/Crossover for the first time ever.
JdN will always find a homework eating dog to explain away his failures.
Susan, that’s why JdN gets the big bucks. You don’t get to where he is without understanding how to “spin” your results. Such as when sales went down last year, but he said that he was just making sure that Cadillac was in the “right driveways”. That being said, I don’t think he’s wrong about US road quality being less supportive of “luxury sports sedans” than the German autobahns. He didn’t actually say the German roads were better, but one could imply that. Maybe JdN will actually make Cadillacs for American roads and American luxury driving styles, again.
I think JDN has his head in the Sand. The Europeans are selling performance sedans and SUVs right here in the USA !!!
All their Ads are performance oriented. Consumers are drawn in by a cars capabilities, Even if they buy a lesser model they are drawn to the dealership because of the performance demonstrated in TV spots and print Ads. ITS ADVERTISING 101.
And its why the Dare greatly campaign such was a huge failure.
Johan de Nysschen is actually from South Africa — graduate from the University of Pretoria. So the references to German Autobahns or anything else European are a little out of context…
Yes but JdN was part of Audi management for 20 years (with posts in South Africa, Japan, and the USA), and was with BMW in South Africa before that. He’s also served on the board of directors of Volkswagen (owner of Audi since the mid-1960’s). So it’s safe to say he’s made many trips to Germany, has experienced the Autobahn, and understands the way that German cars are designed for German roads.
The only complaint these inbreds have is that the guy is an immigrant. Since they hate everything the United States stands for, they automatically hate him as a result.
Young people DO want fun, attractive, fast cars. I’m in my mid 20’s and am saving up for a pre-owned ATS-V. These cars are expensive. JDN has to keep that in mind.
I can think of at least 10 of my peers that own/lease Charger or Challenger Scat Packs, because FCA is pretty much giving them away. They’re cheap to get your hands on. I get it, the LX platform is old as hell and so is the 6.4 – which is why FCA can do it.
Young people want these cars, just affording them is an issue. Also, don’t be afraid to try COLORS, GM. You see all these colorful Mopars running around?!
Part of what Johan said is true , but he can’t place all the blame on the slow selling sedans on the younger buyers . His sedans aren’t selling because they are old atleast the small CTS and ATS . The larger cars are suffering because of the market place and aren’t targeted to the younger customer .
When I was in college I wasn’t driving a new car and neither was anyone else . The truth is that what they are buying is something with stature , older German cars with the emblem that they can show off and afford .
In the great state of Michigan we have the worst roads in the country . But I always find it amusing that 1) anytime the state has an election and put on the ballot to raise some tax to fix the roads it gets voted down , 2) in the spring and summer months people &itch about the orange barrels on the roads that the county is out to fix , 3) and when our gas tax is raised to fix our roads that money seems to go towards something else .
The fact is automakers continually build vehicles with bigger wheels , the bigger the SUV the bigger the wheel and the ride characteristics end up being stiff / rough and to help counter that you see suspension controls applied to soften the ride .
The current customer wants a vehicle so they can haul their stuff in it , or family . Some have referred to the sale of luxury trucks to the big cars some of our parents drove back in the day , and the same could be true to the old station wagons of our youth which in recent articles on Jalopnik say are a hot item on sites like AutoTrader or Cars.com .
I don’t like paying higher taxes anymore than anyone else , but to fix our roads and bridges where is that money going to come from when the Government just gave a huge tax break to corporations at the cost of billions of dollars that they didn’t need and could have been used to rebuild our faultering infrastructure .
We are 22+ Trillion $$$$ in debt but our do nothing Congress just kicks it down the road until the interest alone on that debt will over take our GDP .
This guy “guy has got to go” Quality sucks in EVERY SURVEY. Interiors are bad. And he thinks ‘POTHOLES” are the problem. He might be right, except the pothole is between his ears
It’s easy build the vehicles that people want.
The higher the trim level, the lower the profile on the tires. Makes sense if one is only driving around on the gold plated roads in their gated community.
I committed a hi-society blunder and put 18’s on my Platinum XTS to accommodate real world roads.
There are ways to get an education without going deep into hock and when did daddy start paying for your cars unless you’re a girl. Guess I’m out of the loop.
There are also ways to get that big box from the store to your place without owning an SUV.
Joe B, great comment. It’s crazy that many auto companies lower the tire profile for each increase in trim level. The “base trim” gets you 17″ wheels, the “mid trim” gets you 18″, the “top trim” gets you 20″, and so on. Each with corresponding lower profiles tires as the wheels get bigger. So the more “luxury” you go, the harsher the ride and the more maintenance problems you’ll have. Who wants to pay more to have a worse ride and road problems?
The problem with too many “kids” today is that they want more free stuff than any previous generation. Not all of them, but too many of them. This is the best and easiest time to be a young person in the USA, ever, and yet the ones who received worthless college majors now want the actual workers to bail out their loans, buy them a car, give them healthcare, give them a house, and pay for their wife and kids. As if all the earlier generations had those same benefits. I can’t really blame these “kids” though, I blame their parents and “guidance counselors” for letting them think they were owed a free ride by the world.
Drew,
Cool it with the political rants. This is a Cadillac forum.
Susan, I don’t disagree with your point on no political rants here, a Cadillac forum. However, please note that the political comments here were started by “Old Trombone”, in what is currently the 6th post from the top, dated March 13 at 7:54 am.
Why not tell “Old Trombone” not to make the forum political? All the political talk here was initiated by him, repsonses to it. Many of his diatribes deserved an alternative-view response, though his recent posts have been so nonsensical that no response was necessary.
The discussion regarding how bad it supposedly is for “post college kids” today was already well underway before I added my view. And there is remotely a connection to Cadillac, since JdN sees newly minted college graduates as a major market for his version of Cadillac.
Drew,
It’s not my place to determine what is appropriate subject matter to be posted here. I’m not a mod. My apologies for commenting on that. As a matter of course I have down voted any posts with political undertones since participating here. I’ll go back to that while leaving threads that become political.
Thanks for the reminder.
Can we move the discussion back to cars? ???
Johan de Nysschen just doesn’t get it.. while sales for Cadillac’s lineup of sedans are flat, it doesn’t mean no one has been able to sell sedans as Mercedes and BMW haven’t experienced any difficulties and in the low end.. Toyota managed to sell over 90,000 of their Camry; Johan de Nysschen needs to get to work before GM’s Board of Directors decide to have him replaced.
It’s not that millennials aren’t interested in sedans, it’s that they aren’t interested in sedans that are attainable to them. I go to the auto show every year, and there’s never a shortage of young guys fawning over BMW M and Mercedes-AMG sedans. They like them and want them, but can’t afford them. You don’t see this when you go to the mainstream sedans they may be able to afford. Your Malibus, Cruzes, cars like that. They just aren’t exciting in any way, shape or form. GM used to have a Cobalt SS sedan and coupe, HHR SS, Malibu SS, Impala SS, Silverado SS, Trailblazer SS…the list goes on. Now what do we get? Nothing, really. GM’s performance options are largely unobtainable to millennials. Perhaps they could get a Camaro 2.0T or 3.6L. You can get the 2.0T in the Malibu, but that’s about where the differences end with the regular Malibu. You don’t get a flashier, more aggressive SS-specific design, you don’t get a proper performance-tuned suspension, you just get the engine hiding under what could easily be mistaken for a base Malibu with larger rims, and what, a turbo badge? I can’t even remember because it’s that forgettable. I forgot they even offered that engine until I was composing this post. You can’t complain millennials aren’t interested in your sedans when you won’t bother to even try and make them interesting to millennials.
And speaking of auto shows, Cadillac can’t complain that millennials don’t want their sedans when the brand won’t even bother to show up to these shows. It’s the Portland International Auto Show, to those curious, and Cadillac has been absent 3 of the last 4 years. Shameful. Every other automaker was there. I still haven’t sat in a CT6 or XT5. When they DID bother to show up last time, probably in 2015, their selection included an ATS-V coupe and sedan, and a CTS-V. Young guys were indeed present around all three, and they were the most popular cars Cadillac had.
Johan is, however, correct with regards to roads. They’re awful, especially here in Oregon. Though crossovers don’t offer THAT much greater comfort over a sedan, and they don’t have THAT much greater ground clearance. With those ridiculous low-hanging air dams on most of them, they’re awfully close to sedans in nose clearance. You have to get a Subaru Outback or Crosstrek, Jeep Trailhawk model, etc. just to avoid them.
I think one reason why millennials buy crossovers is because automakers have been shoving them down their throats, and offer so many at this point the unloved sedans, which receive minimal updates over the years, get lost. Sedans that do get updated, and the ones that don’t, receive so little marketing you forget they exist. If you want young buyers to consider your sedans, you need to A.) actually update them; B.) actually market them; C.) actually make them remotely interesting to look at; and D.) actually make them remotely interesting to drive. Oh, and E.) price them where people can actually buy them.
Locked Cadillacs and no reps at the Cleveland auto show too.
johan johan johan…….
“it’s not our unreliable plastic fantastic products that’s the problem, it’s you the customer that’s the problem.
If you can’t build a competitve product, blame the customer.
Sure.
The Germans still sell a lot of sedans, funny how potholes and youth are not a problem for them.
And what about Europe?
Good roads there, still 0 cadillac sales.
Oh kids don’t want sedans?
No johan. kids don’t want cadillac sedans!
The CT6 has a horrible transmission, rough engine, sounds looks and feels cheap and plastic on the inside, those are your problems.
And since you are in charge, you are the problem.
I didn’t read all the comments. Seemed like they were mostly political with little reference to what de Nysschen said but I do think that where ever I go on the internet and the subject is Cadillac, there seems to be a consensus on a few things.
1. Cadillacs are still warmed over Chevrolets and nobody wants to spend Mercedes money on a car with so many Chevy parts.
2. Cadillac is trying so hard to be BMW that they’ve lost their own identity and buyers actually would prefer a true Cadillac over an imitation BMW.
3. There is an emerging appreciation or re-appreciation for the historic and lost Cadillac virtues of smooth, silent, motoring. The pendulum has swung back to an American formula for luxury; only Cadillac no longer occupies that space.
4. People really don’t like the XT2 V 2.0L T AWD nomenclatures.
Given those key points, I think Johan DeNysschen isn’t the right leader for the brand. Everything he is pushing for appears to go against what buyers around the internet are saying they want to see from Cadillac. I’ve always thought it telling that Escalade sells so well and enjoys high esteem in the marketplace. Escalade is JdN’s least favorite Cadillac and the one he’d likely cancel if it weren’t such a cash cow. Let’s ponder the Escalade.
I don’t like Cadillac’s big BOF ‘ute because I consider it merely “a Tahoe in a tux”; a leatherized, chromed over Chevrolet and not a proper Cadillac at all. However, it is also the following:
-Flamboyant
-Attention getting
-Huge
-Smooth
-RWD
-Quiet
-V-8 powered
-Comfortable
Escalade is the singular vehicle in the Cadillac lineup that possesses all the traditional Cadillac traits. In so many ways, it is the most “Cadillac” vehicle in the fleet. Can it carve a canyon? No. Was it autobahn tested? No. Does it come in a blacked-out V version with Corvette power. Not exactly. In no way does the Escalade pretend it’s a BMW. Rather it is unabashedly Cadillac with a real name instead of some initials. And, it sells…for big money… generating a lot of cash.
Despite all the world’s automakers chasing BMW’s namesake brand, the parent company, BMW AG, also has another brand that is its polar opposite. Both brands succeed in the marketplace proving there is room for different luxury formulas. I would argue that BMW’s other brand, Rolls Royce, is more aligned with the type products that made Cadillac famous.
I believe the market wants pure-bred Cadillacs, not warmed over Chevrolets, that are imbued with classic Cadillac virtues. A modern Cadillac should be more akin to a Rolls than a Bimmer. They should be looking towards Goodwood instead of Munich for inspiration. A modern Cadillac should be attention-getting, large, silent, elegant, and supremely confident and comfortable.
The thing that is so baffling to me and so many on the internet is Cadillac has proven time and again that they know how to reinterpret the classic Cadillac formula for a modern age. The Sixteen concept, Ciel, Elmiraj, and Escala all are, to varying degrees, unmistakably Cadillac and yet modern and compelling. In short, they are what Cadillac should be moving towards. Alas, I think JdN believes if they can just be a little more Euro and build a few more V models, the tide will turn in their favor. I disagree. They should Dare Greatly to build a genuine Cadillac again and see what happens. I suspect the market is waiting on them. Escalade sales and transaction prices should be giving them all the reassurance they need.
Ci2Eye, what an excellent post. This is one of the best comments I’ve ever seen on this website, ever. I only wish Mary Barra had similar thinking with regard to the Cadillac brand.
Cadillac Presiden Johan de Nysschen says sales of sedans continue to flounder and this is why Cadillac will be introducing the Escala sedan.. it’s almost if de Nysschen is speaking out of both sides of his mouth or is on drugs.