Reviewers don’t miss an opportunity to take on the CT5-V Blackwing.

 

Wow - BMW has a massive 41% of the market combining the 3 and 4 Series.

The Audi A4 used to be like ants around my area - everywhere. Now they barely sell any. Very stodgy looking to me. Even the current A5 doesn't knock my socks off like the older generations did.

Go Cadillac! I'd love it to get a few more sales and take the spot above from Lexus.

 

25% for the 4 and 16% for the 3. That’s 41%, by my count. Where’d I go wrong?

 

I'm just impressed that the 4-Series is outselling the 3-Series. Maybe BMW is doing some attractive leases that are pushing the 4 significantly ahead of the 3, but still. Turns out coupes can sell, even if the front ends look goofy.

 

There’s a 4 series sedan that they call a Grand coupe but it’s not a coupe no matter how bad they want it to be.

I would like to see a breakdown of the 4 series coupe vs the 4 series grand coupe (sedan).

 

On the surface it sounds good but in the end, you have an assembly plant producing only ~30k units/yr.

 

Sadly, look at the entire segment sales of 47k for the quarter for 13 vehicles. The Silverado on its own must be double if not triple the volume in the same timeframe. Hard to make a business case for most of the cars on this list and I'm thankful all of these manufacturers continue to field an entrant when they have to be losing money.

 

Good for Caddy. Great cars and great value compared to the others. we shopped all of them.
IMO, the next version of these great CT4-5's needs to be a little wider. They will then gain more market share.
it was my only complaint on my ATS, and still is on our current CT4 BW.
And I'm not big at 5-8, 190lbs.
I enjoyed the 300 much more from a ****pit standpoint.

 

After the first press day at the NAIAS in '96 where we debuted the '96 GP there were a swarm of Germans crawling all over the GP Sedan on the show stand. I learned later they were Mercedes engineers. Couldn't figure out why Mercedes would care about a lowly Pontiac Grand Prix. Several yrs later the Mercedes CLS was shown at the Geneva Show. Imagine that.

 

Funny - that generation Grand Prix is what popped into my mind when I was reading the "four door coupe" comments. I think that generation of Grand Prix was the first time I ever thought the four-door version looked better than the two door. I do remember GM touting the "coupe look" on the four door GP.

 

I've never been a huge BMW guy, but I keep getting a social media ad for this specific M4 Comp at a local dealer, and it gets my attention every time! If I were building one, it might end up just like this one. I still hate the front end, but I really like the rest of it. At $104k, I won't be getting one. If I could bring myself to spend that kind of money on a car, I'd probably buy a Blackwing.

 

I've never been a huge BMW guy, but I keep getting a social media ad for this specific car at a local dealer, and it gets my attention every time! If I were building one, it might end up just like this one. I still hate the front end, but I really like the rest of it. At $104k, I won't be getting one. If I could bring myself to spend that kind of money on a car, I'd probably buy a Blackwing.

View attachment 74796

View attachment 74798
View attachment 74800

I remember when Motor Trend compared the Cadillac CT4-V Blackwing vs an M4 Competition because they already knew a regular M3 or M4 couldn’t hang with the CT4-V Blackwing.

 

I am interested to hear what GM's reasoning for that was. My conjecture is GM is committed to rebuilding Cadillac and having cars like the CT4 & 5 help with that where the Camaro is NOT crucial to Chevy's image. They are willing to take a loss on the CT4/5 but not with the Camaro. Maybe their cutting the Camaro is telling us the Camaro volume + CT4/5 still wasn't enough to generate profits, and GM generates less loss with the elimination of the Camaro.

The CT4/CT5 are crucial to Cadillac's image, but the Camaro isn't crucial to Chevys!?

Lansing barely built/sold 20,000 cars in 2024, about 1/3rd of what that plant did in 2023, GM is redefining under-utilized.

As an accountant I have to correct you

The costs will be fully amortized no matter how few they sell. You need to turn your anger to Sales & Marketing - they'd be the ones who come up with the sales volume projection which makes the business case to produce the vehicle. They say over 5 years 500,000 Camaro's will be sold and accounting takes that and says "we will have $XXX in costs, our sales price will need to be at least $XXX to cover those costs at 500,000 units. Then only 250k units are sold and the vehicle bleeds cash and the Camaro gets canceled.

I've no doubt $100k ZL1's were profitable - it's the cheaper ones that caused profitability issues.

If GM was making money with the Camaro I very much doubt they'd have canceled it.

If the cheap Camaro isn't "variable profit positive" then just build/sell the higher margin units.

 

The CT4/CT5 are crucial to Cadillac's image, but the Camaro isn't crucial to Chevys!?

Lansing barely built/sold 20,000 cars in 2024, about 1/3rd of what that plant did in 2023, GM is redefining under-utilized.



If the cheap Camaro isn't "variable profit positive" then just build/sell the higher margin units.

GM isn't trying to rebuild Chevy's image where they are trying to do so with Cadillac. Camaro certainly has huge brand recognition, but I don't see that it is crucial to Chevy as a brand - you'll have to sell me on how the Camaro is crucial to Chevy's image. Maybe "crucial" is to strong of a word, but I think the CT4/5 are very important to building Cadillac's image, especially the BW's and V's.

It's easy to build more high-end versions, but can they sell them? And if they are just going to sell a lot of high-end versions how does that impact CAFE requirements and therefore sales of the Silverado where all the profits are generated? And is that also going to cannibalize Corvette/CT4/5 Blackwing sales? I get it that a big chunk of the Camaro buyers may not necessarily cross-shop the Vette/CT4&5, but all of those Camaro customers went somewhere.

And don't forget what happens when you stop selling those low-end Camaros - fixed costs of the production line and plant remain the same (building depreciation, etc). So instead of allocating those costs over 50,000 vehicles a year you now have only 10,000 vehicles a year to allocate those costs over - overnight your per unit cost goes way up and it is possible those high-end versions don't make as much profit as you might think.

 

The CT4/CT5 are crucial to Cadillac's image, but the Camaro isn't crucial to Chevys!?

Lansing barely built/sold 20,000 cars in 2024, about 1/3rd of what that plant did in 2023, GM is redefining under-utilized.

If the cheap Camaro isn't "variable profit positive" then just build/sell the higher margin units.

Chevrolet is the volume brand, and isn't in need of Camaro to define the brand. They have Corvette for that.

GM isn't trying to rebuild Chevy's image where they are trying to do so with Cadillac. Camaro certainly has huge brand recognition, but I don't see that it is crucial to Chevy as a brand - you'll have to sell me on how the Camaro is crucial to Chevy's image. Maybe "crucial" is to strong of a word, but I think the CT4/5 are very important to building Cadillac's image, especially the BW's and V's.

It's easy to build more high-end versions, but can they sell them? And if they are just going to sell a lot of high-end versions how does that impact CAFE requirements and therefore sales of the Silverado where all the profits are generated? And is that also going to cannibalize Corvette/CT4/5 Blackwing sales? I get it that a big chunk of the Camaro buyers may not necessarily cross-shop the Vette/CT4&5, but all of those Camaro customers went somewhere.

And don't forget what happens when you stop selling those low-end Camaros - fixed costs of the production line and plant remain the same (building depreciation, etc). So instead of allocating those costs over 50,000 vehicles a year you now have only 10,000 vehicles a year to allocate those costs over - overnight your per unit cost goes way up and it is possible those high-end versions don't make as much profit as you might think.

ABsolutely true. If anything, Chevrolet should be priortizing increased production of low price Camaros, if the objective is to amortize tooling costs. Of course building them won't assure selling them. High powered salesmen can make the difference there.

Cadillac needs to compete in that hotly contested class of vehicles from Benz / BMW with ICE. And Cadilac very much wants to be thought of at the same time anyone thinks of either of the other two.

 

Chevrolet is the volume brand, and isn't in need of Camaro to define the brand. They have Corvette for that.



ABsolutely true. If anything, Chevrolet should be priortizing increased production of low price Camaros, if the objective is to amortize tooling costs. Of course building them won't assure selling them. High powered salesmen can make the difference there.

Cadillac needs to compete in that hotly contested class of vehicles from Benz / BMW with ICE. And Cadilac very much wants to be thought of at the same time anyone thinks of either of the other two.

100% agree!

And the most important part is GM wants and needs to develop Cadillac as a strong revenue stream, so they aren't 100% reliant on big trucks. One day the foreign competition might crack the full-sized pickup market, and GM will be up a creek without a paddle. That's the crux of why I think GM is willing to keep producing the CT4 & 5 yet discontinued the Camaro.

Or, I could be totally wrong - just my thoughts on why they are doing something that doesn't appear to make sense at first glance.

 

GM isn't trying to rebuild Chevy's image where they are trying to do so with Cadillac. Camaro certainly has huge brand recognition, but I don't see that it is crucial to Chevy as a brand - you'll have to sell me on how the Camaro is crucial to Chevy's image. Maybe "crucial" is to strong of a word, but I think the CT4/5 are very important to building Cadillac's image, especially the BW's and V's.

It's easy to build more high-end versions, but can they sell them? And if they are just going to sell a lot of high-end versions how does that impact CAFE requirements and therefore sales of the Silverado where all the profits are generated? And is that also going to cannibalize Corvette/CT4/5 Blackwing sales? I get it that a big chunk of the Camaro buyers may not necessarily cross-shop the Vette/CT4&5, but all of those Camaro customers went somewhere.

And don't forget what happens when you stop selling those low-end Camaros - fixed costs of the production line and plant remain the same (building depreciation, etc). So instead of allocating those costs over 50,000 vehicles a year you now have only 10,000 vehicles a year to allocate those costs over - overnight your per unit cost goes way up and it is possible those high-end versions don't make as much profit as you might think.

Do you think the XT5 does more to "build the Cadillac brand" than the Camaro does for Chevrolet, which they are still using in NASCAR among other sanctions?

CT4 and CT5 are lame-ducks, "old Cadillac".

I never said build more higher margin Camaro's, I said just build the higher margin units.

Lansing Grand River is still running, GM is allocating almost the same costs, over 1/3 of what the plant made just 18 months ago, where do you think those costs are allocated now?

Chevrolet is the volume brand, and isn't in need of Camaro to define the brand. They have Corvette for that.

Absolutely true. If anything, Chevrolet should be prioritizing increased production of low price Camaros, if the objective is to amortize tooling costs. Of course building them won't assure selling them. High powered salesmen can make the difference there.

Cadillac needs to compete in that hotly contested class of vehicles from Benz / BMW with ICE. And Cadilac very much wants to be thought of at the same time anyone thinks of either of the other two.

In 2023 Corvette sold 34K, in 2023 Camaro sold 31K, the Corvette was elevated when it went mid-engine, even more room for the Camaro now than there was before.

 

Do you think the XT5 does more to "build the Cadillac brand" than the Camaro does for Chevrolet, which they are still using in NASCAR among other sanctions?

CT4 and CT5 are lame-ducks, "old Cadillac".

I never said build more higher margin Camaro's, I said just build the higher margin units.

Lansing Grand River is still running, GM is allocating almost the same costs, over 1/3 of what the plant made just 18 months ago, where do you think those costs are allocated now?





In 2023 Corvette sold 34K, in 2023 Camaro sold 31K, the Corvette was elevated when it went mid-engine, even more room for the Camaro now than there was before.

The XT5 is what the brand is built for - to sell volume and make money. The Celestiq is to build the brand and sell more XT5's.

Maybe at one time the Camaro helped build the Chevy brand, but I don't think so anymore - sports cars are dying and I don't see that they are a big draw. How do you make a business case for the Camaro when the Mustang sales are tanking, Camaro clearly never did well and the new Charger is a flop (and any new Camaro would probably be some kind of similar hybrid/BEV) and pretty much any sporty foreign competition without the BMW logo on it is a flop? I love the last gen Camaro and the segment, I want the Camaro to be produced but when I take my fan hat off and put my business hat on I don't see how it can be justified. If anything I'd say their money is better spent on a Wrangler competitor, that is where the interest is at today.

I don't understand, you want GM to build more higher margin Suburban's to offset the losses from a Camaro or do you mean spend a ton of money designing and building variants that will all be low volume for Buick, Chevy, etc?

I just explained why I think GM is choosing to continue to build the CT4/5 and the ramifications on the cost. But I'll reiterate - GM/Cadillac is willing to take the loss on the CT4/5 to help build the brand but is cutting its losses and discontinued the Camaro. Yes, all those fixed costs go to the CT4/5, but still less of a loss without the Camaro.

Or give me a better theory as to why GM chose to cancel the Camaro and keep the CT4/5? And "because they are stupid" isn't a good answer - they probably have a good business reason, and my scenario is the best I can come up with.

 

And we actually have no idea what the profit/loss bottom line on the CT4 / CT5 is.

 

Certainly don't, but I'd be surprised if they are making a profit.

 

I wouldn't.

 

That is the CT4 market. not CT5

 

Do you have any numbers that back up the Camaro losing money? Even at the end selling what, 30,000 units, I find it hard to believe they were losing money on a product that was nine years in production. 30,000 isn't that low for a product for which the development costs, outside of some refreshes, was a decade ago. And I'd think that keeping a factory utilized is a positive.

I think it would be a mistake to cancel the CT4 and CT5 just because of how good they are. But the benefit to Cadillac and "building the brand" is questionable at best, since few people are buying them. I'm just hoping for a bit of a revival in the sedan market.

Profits don't seem to mean much to GM when it comes to EVs. They use an "if we build them, they [buyers] will come" approach. But iconic products, rather than improving them, simply get canceled.

 

Certainly not - I believe I noted that this is a best guess (numbers to back up profits). I'm relying on my experience in manufacturing accounting and what I think GM intended for sales volume when the Alpha chassis was originally launched back in 2013. Back in 2013 GM produced a ton on ATS and CTS's and ended up with a ton of $$ on the hood to move them as they weren't selling. What does that tell me? It tells me they originally intended to sell a lot more and that has a big impact on how costs are allocated and how much in costs there are (the capability to make 100k units a year comes at a cost, especially if underutilized). But that doesn't change the depreciation, etc timeframe. We have certain costs, like a building, that will be depreciated over 30+ years - chances are those costs are still there. Then there is the cost of the tooling directly attributable to building the ATS and CT4. The equipment that is only useful for making the ATS will be depreciated over the expected production cycle of the ATS and then when the CT4 starts it gets its own new equipment to depreciate. Equipment that is known to be useful to anything built on that chassis will be depreciated over the expected life of the chassis (probably two generations - ATS + CT4). Then there are costs of equipment/building like a paint room that isn't specific to a vehicle but will be depreciated over the life of the paint room.

What's my point of all of the above? It is very unlikely that all of that has been fully depreciated.

And, even if it was, now GM is underutilizing a plant. GM wants product in that plant that can fully utilize that space to maximize profits.

I very much doubt GM wants 15 different, low volume variants each with their own design costs, etc - that all costs a lot more money to produce that the normal few variants. Or, if they did have all those variants I very much doubt they could be sold for $40k, they'd have to have a much higher starting price for the consumer to cover all those costs thus ensuring low volume. And that's why you don't see mainstream manufacturers doing this. And, that's why you only see this on high end vehicles with high end prices.

I'm not sure why you'd say BEV profits don't mean anything to GM, they certainly do. They have more than made it clear that they were expected higher volume which they need to make profits. They'd have known they'd not be profitable as they ramp up volume. The problem is they are stuck in that ramp up phase as the consumer isn't cooperating via buying. They very much care (it impacts their bonus), but they have to put positive spin on things for Wall Street.

And the other big thing that makes me certain the Camaro wasn't making money - they canceled it. GM didn't cancel it because they wanted to crush Camaro fans, they canceled it because it either was making only a little money or the more likely scenario was generating a loss. If it was making money hand over fist then we'd have a next gen coming out.

 

Do you think the XT5 does more to "build the Cadillac brand" than the Camaro does for Chevrolet, which they are still using in NASCAR among other sanctions?

Actually, in NASCAR, it's now just a "Chevrolet". They removed all the model names of Camaro across the board. The body still LOOKS similar to a Camaro, but it's just a Chevrolet.

Do you have any numbers that back up the Camaro losing money? Even at the end selling what, 30,000 units, I find it hard to believe they were losing money on a product that was nine years in production. 30,000 isn't that low for a product for which the development costs, outside of some refreshes, was a decade ago. And I'd think that keeping a factory utilized is a positive.

I doubt it was losing money. It's been basically unchanged for those 9 years. Very similar to the RAM trucks. Minor updates, nothing special. Just weren't making the coin the damn trucks and SUVs are. Where's that $4/gallon gas?

 

Actually, in NASCAR, it's now just a "Chevrolet". They removed all the model names of Camaro across the board. The body still LOOKS similar to a Camaro, but it's just a Chevrolet.

The "Camaro" NASCAR cup cars still have ZL1 in the grill so I suspect we will see that model designation again in the future.

 

^^ It was not a matter of any particular significance with that month. It might have been posted in Ward's, an industry journal. Or maybe it was Automotive News. None were of more particular significance than any other. I just recall that 61% figure jumping out at me. It may have been for the month of October 1980, which coincided with the release of the 1981 A special body MCE, which was a huge seller for 1981.

Anyway, nothing mysterious here.

 

Is there anything out there as to when Detroit started dumping tons of cars into rental fleets to maintain volume (probably a gradual timeframe as Detroit started pumping more and more into the rental fleets)? We are looking at market %, but that doesn't tell the whole story. At some point Detroit's maintaining that market share and their volume became very unhealthy.

 

They needed to keep the plants operational due to the number of UAW workers that would have been idled otherwise.

 

According to autorentalnews ~ in 2012, 5 out of the top 10 models rented were hyundais. corolla was #5, jetta was #6, mercedes c-class was #10. US brands in the top ten were Mustang & Town & Country.

 

Yes - and Detroit has pulled themselves out of dumping cars in rental fleets as they've fixed their business models. Nothing necessarily wrong with selling to rental fleets, but Detroit was doing it excessively.

 

^ No; I’m also asking. Anytime someone (in general) states ‘tons’, I always think ‘well; how many is ‘tons’? I want numbers.