Rate GM's Handling of Cadillac

[jlmartin99]

Originally Posted by tbirderic

With all do respect Mr. Martin, your verbose reply did not answer the main thrust of my argument.

No one, myself included, is saying that the average Corvette buyer will cross-shop with an XLR. However, the fact remains that from a performance perspective, the XLR was deliberately reined in to keep it from usurping the Corvette.

I'm glad that you like the XLR, and as a former Cadillac salesman, I wish there were more buyers like you. But the fact remains that although it was a good effort into a field Cadillac had not played in for over 10 years, it was never a class leading car, and GM never allowed Cadillac's engineers to continue to develop it into a genuine conteder for the benchmark, which was and continues to be the Mercedes SL.

You may be right that if more people evaluated cars to the extent that you do, they may very well have liked the XLR and bought it. But despite numerous posts where you outline your "luxury requirements," you fail to understand that for most people, these cars are emotional purchases, not rational purchases. People buy these cars based upon how they make them feel, and to a larger degree how they will be viewed by others. Has very little to do with actual need.

This automatically puts Cadillac at a disadvantage, for in the markets where they need to succeed, namely the coasts (NY tri-state, Miami, LA, San Fran), Cadillac is not held in very high esteem.

Only way around this is to build great cars, and continue to improve them. Preception always lags behind product.

tbirderic,

I am not trying to dispute anything you have said per say. I simply explained a real luxury buyer's reason as to why Cadillac's XLR was my purchase selection. And I would agree with you that luxury car purchases are emotional buys and I have determined very few luxury buyers perform comparative evaluations of any depth. That is the very nature of car purchases in general and luxury buyers in general are no different.

I also agree Cadillac does not hold the same level of luxury brand value as Mercedes-Benz for example in the luxury sports car category, but I would not agree that translates to a product problem per say. If as a luxury buyer you actually compare the luxury sports cars from the various luxury brands, they are very competitive with each other. I know, I actually performed this comparison twice, once in 2005 and again in 2009 and Cadillac's XLR Platinum was my purchase selection.

In my opinion, which has no more validity than others on GMI, most luxury buyers in this segment never compared Cadillac's XLR with anything, due to they were unaware it existed. Simply said, there were no comparisons at all, Cadillac's XLR was not considered. And I view this as a key sales impact for Cadillac's XLR. No marketing or advertisement after 2005 for Cadillac's XLR. What luxury buyer compares a car when they do not know you exist.

JLM

[tbirderic]

Originally Posted by jlmartin99

tbirderic,

I am not trying to dispute anything you have said per say. I simply explained a real luxury buyer's reason as to why Cadillac's XLR was my purchase selection. And I would agree with you that luxury car purchases are emotional buys and I have determined very few luxury buyers perform comparative evaluations of any depth. That is the very nature of car purchases in general and luxury buyers in general are no different.

I also agree Cadillac does not hold the same level of luxury brand value as Mercedes-Benz's for example in the luxury sports car category, but I would not agree that translates to a product problem per say. If as a luxury buyer you actually compare the luxury sports cars from the various luxury brands, they are very competitive with each other. I know, I actually performed this comparison twice, once in 2005 and again in 2009 and Cadillac's XLR Platinum was my purchase selection.

In my opinion, which has no more validity than others on GMI, most luxury buyers in this segment never compared Cadillac's XLR with anything, due to they were unaware it existed. Simply said, there were no comparisons at all, Cadillac's XLR was not considered. And I view this as a key sales impact for Cadillac's XLR. No marketing or advertisement after 2005 for Cadillac's XLR. What luxury buyer compares a car when they do not know you exist.

JLM

Honestly, I think most buyers in this class were/are aware of the XLR, but you're not going to get them into a Cadillac dealership unless Cadillac's image is fixed. That's going to take years of excellent product. Not an easy fix.

For the time being, any effort Cadillac puts forth in the luxury roadster class going to result in lower sales than the competion, first, because of their tarnished image, and secondly, because Cadillac is hardly a consistent competitor in this field.

That said, the XLR had the sales it deserved, in light of the fact that GM refused to throw development money at it, therefore rendering it more obsolete with each passing year.

Again, the XLR like the original SRX and STS were good 'first efforts,' but not great cars for their class. And like those cars, GM made the call not to improve the XLR.

[jlmartin99]

Originally Posted by

1832543

Honestly, I think most buyers in this class were/are aware of the XLR, but you're not going to get them into a Cadillac dealership unless Cadillac's image is fixed. That's going to take years of excellent product. Not an easy fix.

For the time being, any effort Cadillac puts forth in the luxury roadster class going to result in lower sales than the competion, first, because of their tarnished image, and secondly, because Cadillac is hardly a consistent competitor in this field.

That said, the XLR had the sales it deserved, in light of the fact that GM refused to throw development money at it, therefore rendering it more obsolete with each passing year.

Again, the XLR like the original SRX and STS were good 'first efforts,' but not great cars for their class. And like those cars, GM made the call not to improve the XLR.

tbirderic,

As a luxury buyer, I simply disagree in your opinions in regards to Cadillac's XLR as a product or product awareness in this segment by other luxury buyers.


Cadillac's sales are obviously deserved in my view and as a luxury buyer it is interesting but not pertinent in lending to a purchase decision. However, these statistics are of value to a auto critic, enthusiast or reviewer. Sales numbers had no real impact in a luxury sports car buying decision and why would it. A luxury buyer simply wants a car purchase to meet their requirements and when that happens, you purchase as I did with Cadillac's XLR Platinum.

There certainly are various opinions that speculate as to why sales results are what they are and I can believe some of your assumptions have merit, but after my detail comparative evaluation it is not the product in my view. I come to a different opinion because I did perform my evaluation for the expressed purpose to select the worlds best luxury performance roadster for purchase. And twice, in 2005 and 2009 Cadillac's XLR was determined to be the superior purchase choice.

I have said this before and it is worth repeating. In both of my detail evaluations, I found all the luxury brand models to be world class and competitive with each other. Based on my requirements, Cadillac's XLR rated #1, but I can clearly see another luxury buyer come to a different decision based on their requirements.

JLM

[2002 Caddy]

Originally Posted by jlmartin99

2002 Caddy

I agree the sales results are what they are, however I do not agree with your assumptions as to the reasons why.

I would love to know your reasons why...

Originally Posted by jlmartin99

You are correct in hp ratings in 2009, but your in error in regard to relative performance in 2005. In fact in 2005, when I evaluated Cadillac's XLR the hp rating was more than Jaguar's XK, 320 vs 300 respectively with a virtual same weight with Cadillac's XLR and Cadillac's XLR being the lightest by a few pounds. Also, in 2005 Cadillac's XLR was best in class in this regard and that was true when compared to Mercedes-Benz's SL500 302 hp, in fact the SL500 weight disadvantage was 400-600 pounds when compared to Cadillac's XLR and Jaguar's XK.

And that post proves my point... In the years when this car had a competitive Horse Power rating it actually sold sorta OK. But unlike the competitors that you note it did NOT keep up, by 2009 it had fallen 100+ HP behind... and sales collapsed. And as you say... "sales are what they are". Of course sales results are THE measure to a cars success.

Originally Posted by jlmartin99

There is a clear difference between our views, mine as a luxury sport car buyer and others as reviewers, critics or enthusiast reviewing sales results and believed perceptions. Both are valid in my view to a point, but only one buys a luxury car product with valid reasons as to why, all others repeat sales results and provide opinions without impact. As a luxury sports car buyer, my opinion results in spending actual dollars and taking ownership of my preferred sports car. Reviewers, critics and enthusiasts omit valid and real comparative information due to bias and lack of consequence when compared to buyers. Nothing new here, but worth repeating in that opinions of anyone other than buyers is academic and speculative at best.

I'm not sure what that meant... You nicely seem to ignore the fact that I own and drive Cadillacs and I have owned and drove a luxury Cadillac roadster almost 15 years before you. I have seen where Cadillac has been and I can see where it is going... and as A CADILLAC OWNER... I'm not at all happy.

I was the first to Go Hallelujah when GM reincarnated the Allante as the XLR and this time GM had the smarts to give the car the proper platform and a power top... Finally I though, GM would offer a car that would BEST the SL... But as you note within months of its release it was already behind and within 5 years it was DEAD.

For Cadillac to suceed in this market there can't be any "ya buts" with the car... The Allante had the "Ya but" its FWD and "Ya but" It has a manual top. The XLR has the "Ya but" it is under powered and the "Ya but" that the interior needs a little work....

The "Ya buts" Killed the Allante and they killed the XLR.

[Ghrankenstein]

A fun thread to read.

I have my own worries about the SRX, which center around the car's mass, power, and fuel economy, which make it an easy target. AWD should be an all-weather option for RWD vehicles, not a performance option for FWD vehicles, and I'd take a RWD 2009 SRX over a FWD 2010 SRX and enjoy the crazier look. It'll still sell better than the last generation SRX.

I went with a B, since they are currently marketing toward their strength, in the CTS series. I think the wagon is a knockout, and while "fashion antistatements" like this aren't usually successful in the big world, I love 'em. I also dig the coupe, and I can't wait to see one in person.

JLMartin: A. I don't think anybody on GMI posts with a greater combination of knowledge and respect. Always a pleasure to read.

Just my thoughts,

Ghrankenstein

[jlmartin99]

Originally Posted by 2002 Caddy

I would love to know your reasons why...



And that post proves my point... In the years when this car had a competitive Horse Power rating it actually sold sorta OK. But unlike the competitors that you note it did NOT keep up, by 2009 it had fallen 100+ HP behind... and sales collapsed. And as you say... "sales are what they are". Of course sales results are THE measure to a cars success.



I'm not sure what that meant... You nicely seem to ignore the fact that I own and drive Cadillacs and I have owned and drove a luxury Cadillac roadster almost 15 years before you. I have seen where Cadillac has been and I can see where it is going... and as A CADILLAC OWNER... I'm not at all happy.

I was the first to Go Hallelujah when GM reincarnated the Allante as the XLR and this time GM had the smarts to give the car the proper platform and a power top... Finally I though, GM would offer a car that would BEST the SL... But as you note within months of its release it was already behind and within 5 years it was DEAD.

For Cadillac to suceed in this market there can't be any "ya buts" with the car... The Allante had the "Ya but" its FWD and "Ya but" It has a manual top. The XLR has the "Ya but" it is under powered and the "Ya but" that the interior needs a little work....

The "Ya buts" Killed the Allante and they killed the XLR.

2002 Caddy,

I see your point of view and we disagree here to the product comparison in 2009. I would simply suggest to you to drive the Cadillac XLR Platinum and Mercedes-Benz's SL550 and Cadillac's XLR V Series as I did. Here is what my test drives concluded. The Cadillac XLR Platinum feels powerful and the Mercedes-Benz's SL550 feels slightly more powerful and Cadillac's XLR V Series feels slightly more powerful than the Mercedes-Benz's SL550.


Now, when I placed my purchase price range for 2009 it was $80,000.00 to $145,000.00. From a buyer perspective, Mercedes-Benz's SL550 optioned comparatively listed for $106,000.00 compared to Cadillac's XLR V Series $104,000.00 for slightly better performance. So, there was no performance advantage as a luxury buyer in the Mercedes-Benz's SL550. It simply has no impact if you are seriously considering a purchase. And the Cadillac XLR Platinum listed for $88,000.00 and was my final purchase selection.

In my view XLR sales are related to lack of marketing and advertising after 2005.

I really have no experience with Cadillac prior to 2005 and will take your word at face value based on your experience. My experience with Cadillac has been excellent to date as evidence of my purchase selections over any other luxury brand, bar none.


JLM

[Olds88]

I'd give them a C.

What they're doing right
CTS
What isn't awesome about this car (besides the lack of an LS3)? The new wagon just adds to the awesome.

Escalade
The idea of a large RWD truck using a unibody platform is hilarious. If you want the Escalade to be a CUV then by all means make it on Zeta, but if you want it to continue to be the premier luxury truck, keep it BOF. Its a uniquely American luxury vehicle like it or not is one of Cadilac's defining models. Next time make the sheet metal a bit more unique from the Yukon's. If a w-body Impala, LaCrosse, and Grand Prix could all get completely unique sheet metal why can't Escalade, Tahoe and Yukon?

What they're doing well, but not perfect

SRX
As someone who has actually driven the new SRX its better than a C without question. Yes its more mass market friendly than the previous one and that a GOOD thing. Mas market friendly = sales. The top selling luxury CUV isn't some corner-carving Eurotrash, its a bumbling Lexus RX. The SRX is an RX with a nicer interior (probably the most important feature of a vehicle in this segment) and MUCH better handling. Yes it doesn't handle like a an X5 or a GLK (though it is very close), but neither of those two ride like the Cadillac or have the interior awesomeness of the Cadillac. GM went after the Germans with the last SRX and how well did that work out? The new one is gunning for the heart of the segment, the RX, and it's better in nearly every way. If you were producing an entrant to the compact econobox segment would you target the performance enthusiast Impreza and Lancer or would you target the sales leader bland Civic and Corolla? I'd give the new SRX a B. A bigger engine will give it an A. It has the right stuff for 99% of people: a drool-worthy interior, cool electronics, comfort, good handling, quietness, and a serene ride. Some people on this site just cannot understand that a vehicle that isn't high-performance oriented can still be a great vehicle and a more desirable vehicle... If the country was full of enthusiasts Rx's wouldn't outsell anything Germany has to offer.

And for the record, the new AWD SRX actually posts better slalom and skidpad numbers than the previous SRX. I'm not defending GM's choice here I'm just illustrating the facts. The new one is capable of handling better than the old one.

ATS
Its probably going to have the 3.0L V6. That engine sucks. Its a torqueless wonder that would be at home under the hood of a Honda.

What they're doing "dear God why?"
XTS
I'm actually not going to harp on the FWD thing too much. My problem is the size. A stretched LaCrosse is not going to be big enough. The Cadillac flagship should be bigger than the 7, LS or S. It should have an imposing road presence that makes the others disappear into the background. Zeta would be a better choice to deliver the intimidating monster-Caddy.

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

Before you go off on me about the CTS, first tell me where it competes. Because if you name the 3 series segment or the 5 series segment, the CTS falls short big time in those classes in one way or another.

Its all how you spin it my friend. I could say that the 5 doesn't compete in the CTS class as its too overpriced and the 3 doesn't compete in the CTS class as its too tiny. Why must Cadillac abide by the large-midsize (7) small-midsize (5) and compact (3) segments that BMW uses? Why can't Cadillac define its own segment? The CTS should stand on its own, not as a "its an a xyz BMW competitor" vehicle. THAT'S the biggest thing Cadillac needs to do, establish itself as a brand that stands on its own right, not as the "we can smoke the M5" brand.

[2002 Caddy]

A Great post Olds88

Originally Posted by Olds88

Why can't Cadillac define its own segment? The CTS should stand on its own, not as a "its an a xyz BMW competitor" vehicle. THAT'S the biggest thing Cadillac needs to do, establish itself as a brand that stands on its own right, not as the "we can smoke the M5" brand.

We used to be the brand that DEFINED the standards... we used to be the "STANDARD OF THE WORLD"... Those days have long since passed.

Now, at best, Cadillac chases trends and looks for odd ball niche markets...

I like your POV that Cadillac should have a imposing road presence I would use the words "COMMANDING road presence" Other then the Escallade, that they are getting ready to phase out... No other Cadillac, offered for sale in the last 5 years could be considered "imposing".

[BBDOS CV8]

Cadillac can compete with BMW and Mercedes on pure numbers. The CTS-V shows that.

Should they? How does it aid Cadillac for it's headline car to have Brembo brakes and Recaro seats and scoops and flares? Isn't that just like copying a litle too closely and admitting if I can't beat them I'll join them?

Apart from enthusiasts, does anyone in Cadillac's target demographic care about a brute-force supercharged car the performance of which is inaccessible to the average human and it's Nurburging times? BMW and Mercedes are already painting the future of European luxury sophistication and moving via technology into a post-supercharged-petrol-engine future.

To eke out a future internationally and especially in Europe, Cadillac needs a competent ATS with petrol and diesel. And a CTS with diesel. Such a model isn't unimportant in the US, but the US is just not a premium smallcar-buying country. BMW sells lots of 3 series in America but not in the same proportions as in Europe or for as much money/trim. And Cadillac won't be able to command similar prices at home or abroad, which is going to clamp profit margins and equipment levels.

To compete with them in the US and h Western-type countries and the Arab states, Cadillac needs a Holden Caprice-like flagship. The STS was long enough, but too narrow and cramped to really be luxury.

Today, not some vapourware or $millions in R&D away this platform is there. 5-star rated, adaptable, high-hp and streesed forhigh loads.

Already favourably compared with vehicles costing 2-3 times as much. Fitted with MRC, it's even knocked off BMW and Mercedes in comparos. All it needs is some America-specific (maybe quasi-1950's tailfin styling a la 300C) and some electro doo-dads like adaptive cruise control and lane-change warnings Holden can't affford at their price point, and Cadillac would have a hit just like the Camaro, that can't be made fast enough and sells itself. It could even share the Oshawa plant with the Camaro. And could use today's tech. Not unobtainium or dreamware.

FWD is just planning for failure. The market leader in luxury (outside exotica like Bentleys, Rolls and Maybachs) is Mercedes. And they aren't planning anything except a RWD future for their premium cars, and neither are their pretenders, except as noted Audi, who inherit VW FWD architecture and don't have any choice. VW Group owns Lambo and Bugatti-Veyron - hence FWD-based AWD. Ditto Bentley. No-one else does AWD in their lux or supercars.

Check Aston Martin - virtually the sole US-owned foreign premium brand that's profitable. They don't try to out-ferrari Ferrari or out-Porsche Porsche. They simply make an impeccable car with beautiful English/traditional sportscar styling - out of humble Ford parts. Conolly hides. Cut glass, not plastic buttons. Alloy levers.

Cadillac should do the same thing in an American sense. I can't help but contrast them with Harley, I know I harp on about this. But Harley doesn't try or pretend to be anything but Harley. It doesn't win MotoGP or World Superbike events, not Motocross nor offroad rallies. It's bikes aren't canyon carvers or bullets on wheels that will wheelstand in the first three gears. But it's buyers don't care.

It only does a good job of making Harleys. And is the most copied brand on the planet The actual bikes are well-made but really mostly 1950's tech updated for comfort and convenience. It doesn't matter. They've kept them accessible with a low seat height that counters a high weight and stable even if not nimble; and in today's over-policed speed limited congested roads they are strangely suited to modern conditions.

From a virtual punchline in the 70's to a major lifestyle statement that has the parent opening new factories. That's why Harley makes $thousands per bike sale on designer items and accessories.

[GapingOrifice]

It's hard to grade how poorly GM is handling Cadillac without including how poorly they are handling Buick or how poorly they handled Saab/Saturn/Pontiac. Saab was all about premium small-med safe fwd vehicles...Saturn was moving towards premium small-med cars and suvs...Pontiac was supposed to be a sporty step up from chevrolet...Buick has always been known as large landyachts (same as Cadillac), and Cadillac has been moving towards sport luxury. GM gets rid of Saab, Saturn, and arguably Pontiac which were positioned more towards small premium sporty...and now they're trying to move Buick towards the same, and move Cadillac to where Buick had been...I mean how messed up is that?!?

GM has failed big with Saab (apparently the approximate position they believe is lucrative), they failed bringing Saturn (the brand with the least negative associations thus easiest brand in GM's portfolio to cultivate) to Saabs level after a half assed, half model cycle (short lived Aura and Astra), and now they're trying to get Buick (the antithesis of small sporty premium is probably the hardest brand to use for their insane plan) and move Cadillac into Buick's old slot...

It's almost impossible to be positive looking at what has happened...just doesn't make sense!