Cadillac plans a compact sport sedan to debut in '11

[70eldo]

Originally Posted by megeebee

In defense of the Catera:

While it was indeed based on another car, it wasn't cheaper or uninspiring. The Opel Omega occupied the same relative market position in Europe that the Catera did in the US. It competed with the lower priced versions of the BMW 5 and Mercedes E, and at the time (mid-90's) was a very highly regarded car in Europe.

Unlike Catera's Japanese competitors, the car it was based on was not, and had never been, for sale in the US. At the time, the Infiniti I30 was indeed a tarted up Maxima and looked it. The ES always has been a version of the Camry. But the Catera, in the US, was its own car. The very definintion of exclusive.

I never could fathom why so much poison ink was spilled on the Catera at the time. Its attributes and qualities as a car were almost always over shadowed by the predjudices of the press. When the Omega appeared in Europe the press scorned GM (as it loves to do any time it can) for not selling it here. It arrived with a Cadillac badge on it, and the venom flowed. Terms like "Chromed up Opel" appeared often, ignoring the fact that all of it's competitors sported 3 times the amount of bright work (The only chrome on the Catera was the grille header, a pencil-thin line across the tail lights, and the optional wheels).

The Catera is often sited as a failure, but was not. I read somewhere that 45% of those sold were to people that had never bought a GM vehicle before.

There isn't anyone alive today that can convince me to say anything good about the Cimarron.

I agree on the Catera. I don't understand the negativism on the Catera, as the Omega is a great car. You still see them in the streets over here in all sorts of versions. I seen the Catera back then in the US and twice in Europe. It was the most luxurious version of the Omega even made more luxurious in the Catera version. Some people here even import them back from the US to be able to drive an Über-Omega.
All others do is believe the hype. How can you compare Cimmaron with Catera and BLS? Its all hype by the media and you just follow and believe. I bet you never drove one...

[wescoent]

Originally Posted by megeebee

In defense of the Catera:

While it was indeed based on another car, it wasn't cheaper or uninspiring. The Opel Omega occupied the same relative market position in Europe that the Catera did in the US. It competed with the lower priced versions of the BMW 5 and Mercedes E, and at the time (mid-90's) was a very highly regarded car in Europe.

Unlike Catera's Japanese competitors, the car it was based on was not, and had never been, for sale in the US. At the time, the Infiniti I30 was indeed a tarted up Maxima and looked it. The ES always has been a version of the Camry. But the Catera, in the US, was its own car. The very definintion of exclusive.

I never could fathom why so much poison ink was spilled on the Catera at the time. Its attributes and qualities as a car were almost always over shadowed by the predjudices of the press. When the Omega appeared in Europe the press scorned GM (as it loves to do any time it can) for not selling it here. It arrived with a Cadillac badge on it, and the venom flowed. Terms like "Chromed up Opel" appeared often, ignoring the fact that all of it's competitors sported 3 times the amount of bright work (The only chrome on the Catera was the grille header, a pencil-thin line across the tail lights, and the optional wheels).

The Catera is often sited as a failure, but was not. I read somewhere that 45% of those sold were to people that had never bought a GM vehicle before.

There isn't anyone alive today that can convince me to say anything good about the Cimarron.

The best explanation of why the Catera failed came from an old professor of mine, who was a consultant for GM.

The Catera failed because it did not look like a Cadillac. In a showroom full of giant tail-finned wedges, the Catera looked like a little jellybean. There was no family resemblance, and it certainly didn't feel or drive like a Cadillac. Therefore, prospect customers from the Cadillac brand realized very quickly this was an imposter Cadillac. Conquest sales came, but in very small numbers, due to the attitude "If I want a BMW-like car, why not get a BMW?" coming from most drivers at the time.

So yes, it DID fail because it was a rebadge, just not in the way you were thinking.

Fortunately, they learned their lesson with the second generation Catera Touring Sedan, which was designed ground up as a Cadillac.

[megeebee]

Originally Posted by wescoent

The best explanation of why the Catera failed came from an old professor of mine, who was a consultant for GM.

The Catera failed because it did not look like a Cadillac. In a showroom full of giant tail-finned wedges, the Catera looked like a little jellybean. There was no family resemblance, and it certainly didn't feel or drive like a Cadillac. Therefore, prospect customers from the Cadillac brand realized very quickly this was an imposter Cadillac. Conquest sales came, but in very small numbers, due to the attitude "If I want a BMW-like car, why not get a BMW?" coming from most drivers at the time.

So yes, it DID fail because it was a rebadge, just not in the way you were thinking.

Fortunately, they learned their lesson with the second generation Catera Touring Sedan, which was designed ground up as a Cadillac.

So the Lincoln MKZ and MKX would also be failures then? That's the logic of your position.

When I say the Catera was not a failure, I meant as I wrote that it brought many new people to GM. That and it moved about 20K a year +/-. Not a barn burner, but nothing to be ashamed of.

Had your professor actually BEEN to a Cadillac showroom in 1997? "tail finned wedges"? I don't think the Catera looks out of place here at all:






The CTS was certainly more believeable, and more importantly acceptable as a Cadillac. The name and cars have become almost legendary now. I think the Catera did what it was supposed to do. It established a beach-head for Cadillac in a market that has turned out to be the most important one for luxury cars.

How does a CTS "feel or drive" more like a Cadillac? The CTS is NOTHING like Cadillacs that came before it. I owned a Catera when they were new, and believe me when I say it drove more like the popularly held idea of a Cadillac much, much more than the CTS (which I currently drive). Your professor is right when asserting that there is nothing to be gained by fielding copies of a design while attempting to win sales FROM the product you're copying. ( Perhaps he should have called Ford before they green-lighted the MKS?)

[OLDSCHOOLGMFAN]

Another plum waste a time and money!

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by Hitman1970

I think they will be shooting for Acura TSX price range. Upper $28K may be as low as it gets.

I think that's still too low.
I'd expect something around where the base CTS is today. I would then expect CTS to bump up in price by at least $5,000 base MSRP.

[Millefune]

And they couldn't do this for Pontiac? *Rips out hair.*

[wescoent]

Originally Posted by megeebee

So the Lincoln MKZ and MKX would also be failures then? That's the logic of your position.

When I say the Catera was not a failure, I meant as I wrote that it brought many new people to GM. That and it moved about 20K a year +/-. Not a barn burner, but nothing to be ashamed of.

Had your professor actually BEEN to a Cadillac showroom in 1997? "tail finned wedges"? I don't think the Catera looks out of place here at all:

The CTS was certainly more believeable, and more importantly acceptable as a Cadillac. The name and cars have become almost legendary now. I think the Catera did what it was supposed to do. It established a beach-head for Cadillac in a market that has turned out to be the most important one for luxury cars.

How does a CTS "feel or drive" more like a Cadillac? The CTS is NOTHING like Cadillacs that came before it. I owned a Catera when they were new, and believe me when I say it drove more like the popularly held idea of a Cadillac much, much more than the CTS (which I currently drive). Your professor is right when asserting that there is nothing to be gained by fielding copies of a design while attempting to win sales FROM the product you're copying. ( Perhaps he should have called Ford before they green-lighted the MKS?)

MKZ and MKX began rebuilding the brand from the ground up... they could be whatever they wanted, because at the time, few people cared what a Lincoln looked or felt like.

Compared to the Catera, which I still maintain looked very out of place in showrooms at the time. The only thing it shared with the slab-sided wedges for sale was its grill. By tail-fin, I mean those absurd back lights on the Deville of the time.

As a consultant for GM, I certainly would hope he was familiar with the Cadillac lineup. Back in the early 1990's when they were considering importing the Omega (?) as a Cadillac, he was at Opel, and he was among the voices who said it would be better for Cadillac to design a midsized sedan on its own from scratch, rather than put out the half-baked Catera.

In my view, it was the CTS's unique style that attracted new buyers, not so much repeat buyers from the Catera or any other Cadillac. Obviously, you're an exception.

What car does the MKS copy, exactly?