[tgagneguam]

It amazes me that the lessons learned at Cadillac have not spread consistently through GM's other divisions. I can think of several divisions - Buick and Saturn come to mind - that have failed to translate Cadillac's renaissance recipe: ground-up new vehicles, a focus on quality/reliability, attention to sales satisfaction, a more focused brand image, and an appropriate expansion of their current vehicle lines. Of course, this takes cash, which seems to be in decreasing amounts at the General these days. But it seems that Cadillac has found its way.

I'm glad to hear that Mark LaNeve is aware of the mountains of work GM has left to do with Cadillac. I find GM to be notoriously myopic when it comes to its successes.

 

[tgagneguam]

Originally posted by SUPERBADD75@Jun 24 2004, 08:38 PM
And to answer the question

Really, is there anyone left in the world who doubts that Cadillac is back?

yes, there is. ME. they're on the way, but this time the hill is harder to climb, and they're not at the top yet.

Right on cue!

I had a feeling that either laserwizard or you would answer in the affirmative...

 

[tgagneguam]

Originally posted by laserwizard@Jun 24 2004, 09:52 PM
The styling of Cadillac is horrendous inside and out... It may be 'different', but it isn't good... Quite frankly the edge look is awful on the SRX and that Corvette thang. It doesn't translate well into the STS as it looks like a softened CTS but that isn't a compliment.--just a half-butted attempt at correcting an obvious weakness. The interiors in all Caddy's still are stricken with the GM cheap as hell approach. Nothing about them reeks quality...

No restoration yet. Not by a long shot.

I've read your comments for some time, and I have to admit I'm a bit perplexed by your acrimony. I can surely understand your criticism of GM's many debacles. Hmmm, where does one begin? Half-hearted interiors? The CSV's? The LaCrosse? Aztek? Lack of real hybrids? Killing Olds but keeping Saturn?

But it seems that as much as some GMinsidenews members blindly accept anything GM does, it seems that you (and a few others) have gone to the other extreme: you seem to dismiss anything GM does. I actually agree with some of your critiques, but sometimes the incessant derisive comments make your messages less convincing.

I can only guess why this is. Have you been burnt by GM in some way (disgruntled employee/customer)?

I ask only because it would put your comments into perspective. I also ask this knowing that I, too, may be the target of your scorn! Then again, I have pretty thick skin and can take it...

 

[tgagneguam]

Originally posted by ab348@Jun 25 2004, 10:20 AM
The most misued phrase in the car business these days has to be "polarizing". AFAIK it was coined by GM to try and justify the looks of the original Aztek, a butt-ugly design to almost everyone except the few in the fringes who said they liked it. Because they actually found a few people who weren't put off by it they coined the term "polarizing", i.e. love it or hate it. Forget the fact that 99.9% of people thought it was hideous. Let's drop this phrase and call it like it is. An ugly design is an ugly design, be it from Pontiac, Cadillac or BMW. It's not polarizing, it's ugly.

Polarizing is not a GM neologism. It is an apt word that explains designs coming from Cadillac and BMW.

To polarize is to separate into diametrically opposed, often antagonistic, viewpoints. In reviewing GMInsidenews members' opinions of the Art & Science design theme, there are many who call it plain ugly, awful, and hideous, while there are those like me who find it refreshing and quite appealing. The same can be said for Bangle's work at BMW. There seem to be few people who find it middle-of-the-road.

Interestingly, your proclamation that certain design themes are ugly and my rebuttal that I love them proves the point: Cadillac's Art & Science design theme and Bangle's work are polarizing.