Cadillac XTS to use modified Buick LaCrosse underpinnings

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by 377Z

The suggestion that any of those doodads require new vehicle architecture is rediculous.

edit: Plus, I can't wait to see which of those features are left out of the XTS anyway.

I thought the official reason the current Chevy Malibu does not offer Navigation is that the Epsilon 1 platform needed serious modifications to add it. Same for the Hyundai Azera/Kia Amanti, which have been out since 2005 (or earlier, I don't remember) and can reach a price north of $30,000 but don't offer Navigation - the version of the vehicle platform they have doesn't offer it.

If adding navigation was very simple for Zeta, wouldn't the family-sedan-sized G8 already offer it? How come the G8 is a shockingly barebones sedan in terms of luxury options? If it was easy to offer fancy options packages with things the 2010 LaCrosse offers, why didn't they do it?

I seriously believe GM management must have some technical or financial reason beyond rank stupidity to put the XTS on a wider version of Epsilon 2 instead of Zeta. This is the only one that fits.

[cdp326]

Originally Posted by Michael_S

I thought the official reason the current Chevy Malibu does not offer Navigation is that the Epsilon 1 platform needed serious modifications to add it. Same for the Hyundai Azera/Kia Amanti, which have been out since 2005 (or earlier, I don't remember) and can reach a price north of $30,000 but don't offer Navigation - the version of the vehicle platform they have doesn't offer it.

I think the Amanti came out for 2004, the Azera 2006. The Azera added navigation for 2008, along with some other Hyundai/Kia products, though I don't think the Amanti offers it.

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by cdp326

I think the Amanti came out for 2004, the Azera 2006. The Azera added navigation for 2008, along with some other Hyundai/Kia products, though I don't think the Amanti offers it.

Thanks for the information.

Also, I think the current Zeta platform does not support AWD. Most of the entry level and mid level luxury sedans offer that as an option, and I think it would severely damage sales for Cadillac not to offer it. I could be wrong, though - the Hyundai Genesis is doing surprisingly well, and it's RWD-only.

[377Z]

Originally Posted by Michael_S

I thought the official reason the current Chevy Malibu does not offer Navigation is that the Epsilon 1 platform needed serious modifications to add it. Same for the Hyundai Azera/Kia Amanti, which have been out since 2005 (or earlier, I don't remember) and can reach a price north of $30,000 but don't offer Navigation - the version of the vehicle platform they have doesn't offer it.

If adding navigation was very simple for Zeta, wouldn't the family-sedan-sized G8 already offer it? How come the G8 is a shockingly barebones sedan in terms of luxury options? If it was easy to offer fancy options packages with things the 2010 LaCrosse offers, why didn't they do it?

I seriously believe GM management must have some technical or financial reason beyond rank stupidity to put the XTS on a wider version of Epsilon 2 instead of Zeta. This is the only one that fits.

Bottom line is software & electronic hardware issues are independent from the mechanical platform hardware (or they should be, & if they are not on GM cars then the reason is simply rank stupidity).

I'm sure onstar profits are tied into why GM refuses to offer navi on many cars. Trouble is, not offering navi is one of the things contributing to the 'behind the times' image GM has, and proper consideration of such intangibles has never been GM's strong suit (at least in my lifetime). Beancounters understand spreadsheets, and intangibles are not quantifiable vs. this quarter's onstar revenue.

I believe navigation is available on the AU zeta's. I'm pretty sure Zeta was designed with AWD in mind for both RHD & LHD as well, though development of that module was not completed IIRC.

Why don't they do certain things? I'm tired of beating my head against that wall as once you approach GM with that mindset you are bound to lose your mind from overload. Not a surprising result considering the things that slip out about GM culture (design by commitee, no accountability, stuck in the past arrogance, dissent not tolerated, etc).

The G8 is bare bones because the Pontiac brand was too diluted to properly market/sell/support what the loaded car would have cost. Hard to instantly go from heavily discounted W-body GP's to a full zoot zeta, and if we know one thing about GM, its that if it doesn't happen instantly, its not worth doing.

My opinion on the reason GM wants to put the XTS on EPII instead of Zeta is that they are not prepared to go the distance and put forth the effort requird to position Cadillac as a no compromises luxury brand. EPII is undoubtedly MUCH easier and more familiar to GM, based on their decades long history of almost exclusively producing FWD diarrhea. Its short term thinking has won out, they can't see past simply treading water.

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by 377Z

My opinion on the reason GM wants to put the XTS on EPII instead of Zeta is that they are not prepared to go the distance and put forth the effort requird to position Cadillac as a no compromises luxury brand. EPII is undoubtedly MUCH easier and more familiar to GM, based on their decades long history of almost exclusively producing FWD diarrhea. Its short term thinking has won out, they can't see past simply treading water.

While neither the 2008 Malibu nor the 2010 LaCrosse are the segment busters that GM needs to retake the sales lead in their respective segments, "FWD diarrhea" is totally undeserved. Compared to the GM product lineup from just a few years previous, they are a colossal improvement.

And I still think a well-done Epsilon 2 Cadillac will be fine. The Lincoln MKS is selling well, and that's more or less exactly where the XTS will end up.

[emh]

Originally Posted by Michael_S

While neither the 2008 Malibu nor the 2010 LaCrosse are the segment busters that GM needs to retake the sales lead in their respective segments, "FWD diarrhea" is totally undeserved. Compared to the GM product lineup from just a few years previous, they are a colossal improvement.

Being better than GM's previous is not much of an achievement, and certainly not enough to get noticed in the current market. That really is setting the bar low given how bad GM cars were a few years ago. The only measuring stick that matters is how they stack up against current and future competition.

And I still think a well-done Epsilon 2 Cadillac will be fine. The Lincoln MKS is selling well, and that's more or less exactly where the XTS will end up.

Lincoln's image is still a step below Cadillac's. Vehicles like the XTS will simply make sure Cadillac falls to Lincoln's level and probably further given that Lincoln is at least is keeping up with the best in terms of features and Cadillac is not.

And selling well should never be the only measure (if a measure at all) of success for a luxury product.

[Dr. Show-Me]

GM decision-making has been constrained by economic reality, followed by bk.
This is a new day for GM, one in which they must make money on all their products, excepting the Volt, which they expect to be profitable later. Cadillac figures the DTS has been their money-maker for a long time, and a version needs to be continued in some form. That form is currently called the XTS.
The most profitable luxury segments are the C and E Class sizes, with the BMW 3 series being the leader. Cadillac looks to move into those segments with a new small car and the CTS getting a little larger.
Since the segment with the fewest sales, the S Class and 7 Series, is also the biggest stretch for Cadillac, they need to be profitable with other cars and trucks first, before they can bring their true S Class competitor.
An updated awd ZetaIII that is widened and lengthened with all the lux amenities is needed for this segment, but it would be a tough sell with Cadillac's current tarnished image. Restore the profitability, restore the image, then bring out their Bentley fighter (instead of shooting for DB and BMW.)

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by emh

Being better than GM's previous is not much of an achievement, and certainly not enough to get noticed in the current market. That really is setting the bar low given how bad GM cars were a few years ago. The only measuring stick that matters is how they stack up against current and future competition.

I think by most metrics, the previous LaCrosse and Malibu were well below average in their respective vehicle segments and the new ones are at least average. They're a tremendous improvement over their predecessors, enough that they now do rank with the competition. That's not the height we want, but it's acceptable.

Lincoln's image is still a step below Cadillac's. Vehicles like the XTS will simply make sure Cadillac falls to Lincoln's level and probably further given that Lincoln is at least is keeping up with the best in terms of features and Cadillac is not.

The features for the XTS are not determined yet. So you can't assert that Lincoln is keeping up with the best and the XTS is not. Besides the turbocharged variant, what does the MKS have that the LaCrosse does not?

And selling well should never be the only measure (if a measure at all) of success for a luxury product.

Selling well is essential to fund future product development. A well-regarded Cadillac that sells poorly is far worse for the long term success of the brand than a poorly received Cadillac that sells well. The latter provides the resources to make the next generation far better.

[jry]

The article mentioned widening the LaCrosse platform for this. Will Cadillac also lengthen the wheelbase? I cannot imagine their flagship sitting on a 112 inch wheelbase.
Seems like they could have still used the STS underpinnings and just reworked it. The car drives great. It just lacked a little bit of space.

[377Z]

Originally Posted by Michael_S

While neither the 2008 Malibu nor the 2010 LaCrosse are the segment busters that GM needs to retake the sales lead in their respective segments, "FWD diarrhea" is totally undeserved. Compared to the GM product lineup from just a few years previous, they are a colossal improvement.

And I still think a well-done Epsilon 2 Cadillac will be fine. The Lincoln MKS is selling well, and that's more or less exactly where the XTS will end up.

The first point I can agree with because I was referring to most of the FWD cars in the past. The 2008 Malibu & 2010 LaCrosse are most certainly exceptions.

The second point depends on how one defines 'fine.' I think a fullsize EPII FWD Cadillac for entry level money will confuse Cadillac's muddled image/purpose even more, will compete more directly with Buick models than anything else, and leaves Cadillac's potential to be pushed upmarket & be a true luxury brand on the table. Since Buick lives for now I also forsee the familiar GM conundrum of holding back certain brands so that they don't embarass certain other brands. And the image issue is a HUGE problem because that's basically the essence of the luxury market.

But, I bet the EPII XTS will sell a little better than DTS at first and all the folks here who have been defending it will point to it as a success, overlooking the fact that outselling such an outdated car with a new one is hardly an accomplishment. The XTS will undoubtedly be better overall than the DTS, but won't be any competition with the tier 1 fullsizes, and the longer they wait to try to compete, the harder it will be because time marches on. Unless of course GM is determined to have Cadillac and Buick mud wrestle for the Acura market.

I'm imagining standing in the Cadillac showroom, looking at an edgy 5 series sized sporty BMW chasing RWD that costs 3 series money, next to an ornate 7 series sized V6 FWD luxocruiser, that also costs 3 series money, and apparently chases the midsize ES350, next to a FWD SRX that chases RX350, next to an Escapade that chases rappers & sports stars. I can't wait to see what the salesmen will say when I ask what the brand is all about.

[377Z]

Originally Posted by emh

And selling well should never be the only measure (if a measure at all) of success for a luxury product.

I agree. The luxury market is image driven, thats the measure of success. That, as well as how to achieve that image, is what has and continues to elude GM.

[DBeaSSt]

Originally Posted by 377Z

......
But, I bet the EPII XTS will sell a little better than DTS at first and all the folks here who have been defending it will point to it as a success, overlooking the fact that outselling such an outdated car with a new one is hardly an accomplishment. The XTS will undoubtedly be better overall than the DTS, but won't be any competition with the tier 1 fullsizes, and the longer they wait to try to compete, the harder it will be because time marches on. Unless of course GM is determined to have Cadillac and Buick mud wrestle for the Acura market.
......

I agree here. And therein lies the problem. The DTS is a nice car, no doubt. But it's also very dated and WAY overdue for an overhaul. I'm sure the new 'full size' Caddy will be quite an improvement. BUT, the XTS will be replacing TWO models, the DTS and STS.

For my money, I will NOT replace my STS with a front drive car. I chose the STS over the DTS for several reasons, drive wheels being number one. I also have no need for an AWD car.

GM had better get it's act together and decide who Caddy is competing with. Kudos for them getting a proper small Caddy but they need a proper large Caddy, AKA Chinese SLS.

[megeebee]

Originally Posted by DBeaSSt

I agree here. And therein lies the problem. The DTS is a nice car, no doubt. But it's also very dated and WAY overdue for an overhaul. I'm sure the new 'full size' Caddy will be quite an improvement. BUT, the XTS will be replacing TWO models, the DTS and STS.

For my money, I will NOT replace my STS with a front drive car. I chose the STS over the DTS for several reasons, drive wheels being number one. I also have no need for an AWD car.

GM had better get it's act together and decide who Caddy is competing with. Kudos for them getting a proper small Caddy but they need a proper large Caddy, AKA Chinese SLS.

I wish GM had never said that this new sedan was replacing both DTS and STS. The DTS, as you say, is ancient and way overdue for replacement. In fact by the time this new Cadillac finds its way out of the factory, the DTS will have been with us through the 2011 model year at least. It debuted in the fall of 1999 (then facelifted and renamed for 2006).

The STS has been a flop, we all know this. But I wish GM had simply stated that it was being "discontinued" and left it at that. This bawling about replacing a RWD car with a FWD one is only more fodder for detractors and ultimately not really true. The new car is not going to be priced nearly as high as the STS. We've been told it will be priced largely alongside the CTS. So it really isn't a "replacement" for the STS.

The announcement was first made 2 years ago in the fall of 2007. Then, the RWD Zeta based car we called the DT7 was well under way. At that time, the debate within Cadillac was not about replacing the STS (the DT7 would certainly do that), but wether it was necessary to replace the DTS. There was no new large FWD platform then planned. It was decided the DTS could go and the DT7 would cover it all. Well, history has had its way with that plan. Zeta is all but dead and GM had no alternative but to plan a car on the best FWD platform it could. I believe the STS is as big as a Sigma platform sedan can get.

The car that has sealed the doom of the STS is the CTS. The new CTS is only 2 or 3 inches smaller than the STS and can be had with the same powertrain. The CTS is certainly more modern in appearance.

.

[emh]

Originally Posted by Michael_S

I think by most metrics, the previous LaCrosse and Malibu were well below average in their respective vehicle segments and the new ones are at least average. They're a tremendous improvement over their predecessors, enough that they now do rank with the competition. That's not the height we want, but it's acceptable.

Average is not acceptable. Given GM's baggage, it's products need to be class-leading or close to that in order to succeed. Some are getting there (Equinox looks very promising), and I truly do hope the LaCrosse becomes a hit.

The features for the XTS are not determined yet. So you can't assert that Lincoln is keeping up with the best and the XTS is not. Besides the turbocharged variant, what does the MKS have that the LaCrosse does not?

My claim that Lincoln is keeping up with the best in terms of features and Cadillac is not is based on vehicles currently on sale from the two brands.

Some important features available on the MKS but not the LaX:
- A decent high-level engine (not necessarily turbocharged)
- Sync (or a similar system)
- Adaptive cruise
- Collision warning
- Park-assist
- Heated rear seats
- Auto-dimming headlights

Yes, I know the LaX has some features the MKS doesn't (e.g. heads-up display), but the MKS' feature list is much more in line with what you see from top-tier luxury brands.

Selling well is essential to fund future product development. A well-regarded Cadillac that sells poorly is far worse for the long term success of the brand than a poorly received Cadillac that sells well. The latter provides the resources to make the next generation far better.

Why do you assume well-regarded products and sufficient sales are mutually exclusive? Every successful luxury brand manages to do both. Besides, Cadillac was, at one point, the best selling luxury brand by a wide margin. Those sales didn't fund better products -- they just fostered the sense of complacency that ultimately doomed the brand.

[Dr. Show-Me]

When I looked at the CTS and STS in the Cadillac store, they appeared to be nearly the same vehicle, nearly the same size inside, but with different exterior design. When I looked at the price differential, I figured either the CTS was underpriced or the STS was over-priced. Was the STS nicer? Yes, but not much. I think other potential buyers came to a similar conclusion, and they bought the CTS, leaving the more expensive STS sitting on the sidelines. The CTS cannibalized sales of the STS, its near twin.
The STS should have been significantly larger than the CTS at the price differential there was.