GM Inside News Forum banner
21 - 34 of 34 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
507 Posts
Originally posted by SUPERBADD75@Jun 24 2004, 11:25 PM
Remind me again why you joined a GM carsite? Because it seems alot of your responses to post are negative about GM product. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but just about everything you respond to is negative.
sir, i have said this before, and i'll say it again. i don't HATE GM products, i just realize that they aren't the greatest thing since sliced bread. an objective opinion doesn't mean that i hate the General. example: Hummer is the best thing GM's done in decades, and i have yet to see a Hummer product that i said sucks. i didn't even say in this thread that Cadillac sucks, i merely said that they're not at the top of the heap yet. is their entire product portfolio better than, say, Lincoln. yes. Lincoln only has the Nav as their strong suit, everything else is dated and they need help soon. is Cad better than Lexus? not a chance. that's what i mean. there is a long way to go before Cadillac is considered the "world standard" as they once were. they have a good thing going right now, but before they overtake all of the other luxury marques, they've got a lot of renaissance left. i do not see GM through rose colored glasses, i see it from a reality standpoint. don't confuse that as hatred for them, see it as good constructive criticism. :plasma:
:eek: Oh please...first of all, GM has never claimed it's the best thing since "sliced bread" those are your terms SIR. Second of all, having a objective opinion is one thing, but it seems you've taken that idea to a level all your own. My point is, the majority of the time, it seems your remarks come off more as a bitter child, rather than adult like- with constructive critisim (turns people off and you loose your point).
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,918 Posts
caddy is doing well, very well!

the cts looked weird to me when I first saw it, but over the time it grew on me. the new 300 looks horrible... something that looks bad or simply wrong at first sight won't ever change...

altough I won't exactly say that I LOVE the new caddy styling, for sure I find them interesting. add to this the tremendous bang for the buck and here you have it: a very tough product I would without hesitation buy if I would need a new car!

Way to go Caddy!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,876 Posts
Oh please...first of all, GM has never claimed it's the best thing since "sliced bread" those are your terms SIR. Second of all, having a objective opinion is one thing, but it seems you've taken that idea to a level all your own. My point is, the majority of the time, it seems your remarks come off more as a bitter child, rather than adult like- with constructive critisim (turns people off and you loose your point).
i'd go read some more of my posts if i were you. for one, i didn't say GM thought it was the greatest, it's the people who post on here that do. as far as taking an objective opinion to another level, what exactly is that other level? pointing out things that i feel are problems for GM is, as i said before, constructive criticism. i work for a dealership that sells GM products, and although i will not say which ones, i will say that our ability to sell these cars determines how much money i get to take home each week. many GM products are not very competitive with similar cars in their segment, and it's not very easy to sell a car that has many shortcomings when compared to its competition. i want GM to make better cars, and when i criticize the ones they build now, this is my outlet to say what i think needs improvement. i will say that there are GMs i don't like (most under the bowtie badge, honestly), but there are many i do like, and think just need refinement (a little swedish company, for example). read what i say in more than just one thread. i'm not always bashing GM, i'm only pointing out flaws that many of you don't see because you're too busy worshiping the ground that Bob Lutz walks on. get over it. GM needs to pay a little more attention to details, and that's where i'm coming from. don't get offended. just take what i say at face value, and if you don't like it, move on. there are a lot more people on here that, like me, criticize GM's shortcomings as well. we all look at things from a different angle, and when you look at all of the differing opinions together, you get a good idea of what the general public is like. we're all different people. we think what we think, and sometimes express it. i won't agree with you or anyone else just so i don't offend someone or turn them off. i'd hazard a guess that people from GM do read this stuff and perhaps they get ideas of what to do to improve upon what they are currently doing, or will in the future. just a thought.

lighten up, it's nothing personal. if you want to have a GM love-in, do it. i'm a little more objective, and if i think GM is screwing up good product, i'll definitely let it be known.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,918 Posts
Originally posted by coolcaddy@Jun 24 2004, 07:55 PM
the 1992 Seville was a large front-wheel-drive sedan competing against sexier rear-drive sedans
that has to be the biggest bunch of crap I ever read about anything. sometimes I wonder why I bother reading all this BS written by guys who don't have a clue or simply receive their paychecks from the competition.

the old seville was a great car, how can someone diminish their qualities like that?? ok, maybe it wasn't perfect, but it was STYLISH and FAST!
he says that it was big, for sure he confonds with the deville!
I consider that it looked so good, that I regret that the new sts don't have anything in common no more, beeing more or less a bigger cts...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,809 Posts
The previous Seville had two major problems with it. One, it was front-wheel-drive. Two, the interior was, IMO, NOT up to the standards of its competition. If the old Seville had a higher-quality interior and was rear-wheel-drive, they wouldn't have been able to make enough of them. Nothing wrong with the exterior, they were understated and yet still stylish. Nothing wrong with the motor either. The Northstar is a great engine. Nothing really wrong with the suspension either. For a FWD car it handled respectably and gave a very comfortable ride.

As for Caddy's new styling.. I hated it at first. I thought it just looked wrong. I have to admit, it's grown on me. Now I sorta like it.

As I said before, Cadillac still has a long way to go with the public, but they ARE making progress. If the upcoming STS and DTS are as much of an improvement over the Seville and Deville as the CTS was over the Catera, then Caddy will be in a very good position.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,325 Posts
;)
I must say I am bored with articles about Cadillac's come-back.
There have been posted hundreds of similar articles in this forum.
I would still like to know what the owners say about Caddy,and the drivers of the competition.(I hope their opinion is different than my father's who still claims Cadillacs are crap :angry: )
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,989 Posts
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,465 Posts
This is the most boring overplayed debate i've ever seen.

Cadillac stunk in the 80's, got a little better in the 90's, became competitive in the last few years, and now is striving to reclaim "the standard of the world moniker."

Amen!,...hallelujah!...Can somebody please get me some tylenol?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,621 Posts
Originally posted by ab348@Jun 25 2004, 05:20 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 was used to describe the 1994 Dodge Ram Truck. It's been around for longer than that to describe almost any design that takes chances. Building me-too/inoffensive designs is one of the reasons why there aren't any stand-out designers like there were in the past. Remember names like Mitchell and Exner and Lowry and Gregorie?

I give credit to any company who can take styling chances, even if I don't like the execution. I'm not a fan of the new designs from Cadillac, but they've tried something different. Same with the Pontiac Aztek, 1992 Buick Skylark, 1983 Audi 100 (which Ford borrowed for the "breakthrough" 1986 Taurus), 1984 Chrysler minivans, etc.

Styling is a personal thing. What's "ugly" to you is "stunning" to someone else. If there are no luke-warm feelings about a design (like the 1994 Ram), that makes it "polarizing."
 

· Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Originally posted by surferdude00711+Jun 24 2004, 10:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (surferdude00711 @ Jun 24 2004, 10:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-ebacic@Jun 25 2004, 01:58 AM
So am I happy? Yes and no. I have a beautiful car that works like a charm. I'm putting 2000 kms a month on it and it gets great mileage (30mpg on the highway). It's comfortable and plenty fast (I have the 3.6). Why aren't I happy? Well, my wife needs a new car in a year or two and there's nothing out there --
You said the SRX is too big so how about the Saab 9-2X? or Lexu- nvrm mind lol ud be waiting too long for that one.[/b][/quote]

To be truthful, we haven't looked at the 9-2X although historically she finds Saabs odd looking and generally unappealling, although the newer ones are nicer to her -- she calls them more feminine :). BTW my wife considers all Lexi to be ugly and an old-man's car. And I agree with her.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,633 Posts
Caddy is indeed on a roll but i'm still not really into there new letter naming scheme. It just seems so souless to call something an XLR, STS, CTS, SRX, ESV, EXT, etc. These letters should be used as different model designations as before with a central name as they are still doing with the current Deville. But as far as product is concerned I like what Caddy is currently offering.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
I'm happier with CTS than Caterra. I probably wouldn't have bought my CTS if it was still called a Caterra, although that's the car it replaced. Bad image and all that. I'm sure I'm not alone in this and Cadillac probably was stuck and dealt with it this way. Plus it appeals to the youngsters who are fixated on weird misspellings of things.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
507 Posts
Originally posted by SUPERBADD75@Jun 25 2004, 05:55 AM
Oh please...first of all, GM has never claimed it's the best thing since "sliced bread" those are your terms SIR. Second of all, having a objective opinion is one thing, but it seems you've taken that idea to a level all your own. My point is, the majority of the time, it seems your remarks come off more as a bitter child, rather than adult like- with constructive critisim (turns people off and you loose your point).
i'd go read some more of my posts if i were you. for one, i didn't say GM thought it was the greatest, it's the people who post on here that do. as far as taking an objective opinion to another level, what exactly is that other level? pointing out things that i feel are problems for GM is, as i said before, constructive criticism. i work for a dealership that sells GM products, and although i will not say which ones, i will say that our ability to sell these cars determines how much money i get to take home each week. many GM products are not very competitive with similar cars in their segment, and it's not very easy to sell a car that has many shortcomings when compared to its competition. i want GM to make better cars, and when i criticize the ones they build now, this is my outlet to say what i think needs improvement. i will say that there are GMs i don't like (most under the bowtie badge, honestly), but there are many i do like, and think just need refinement (a little swedish company, for example). read what i say in more than just one thread. i'm not always bashing GM, i'm only pointing out flaws that many of you don't see because you're too busy worshiping the ground that Bob Lutz walks on. get over it. GM needs to pay a little more attention to details, and that's where i'm coming from. don't get offended. just take what i say at face value, and if you don't like it, move on. there are a lot more people on here that, like me, criticize GM's shortcomings as well. we all look at things from a different angle, and when you look at all of the differing opinions together, you get a good idea of what the general public is like. we're all different people. we think what we think, and sometimes express it. i won't agree with you or anyone else just so i don't offend someone or turn them off. i'd hazard a guess that people from GM do read this stuff and perhaps they get ideas of what to do to improve upon what they are currently doing, or will in the future. just a thought.

lighten up, it's nothing personal. if you want to have a GM love-in, do it. i'm a little more objective, and if i think GM is screwing up good product, i'll definitely let it be known.
:huh: Dude, Lets understand each other right now. I haven't taken a word you said personal, nor do I get offended when someone has an opinion about GM (good or bad). Furthermore, I'm not a GM fan to the point of where some would say "They can do know wrong" (i'm one of there biggest critic's and watch them very closely) and I certainly don't worship the ground Bob Lutz walks on.

Matter of fact, I still hold the man in question of what his motives are for GM. The only reason I brought anything to your attention (before you explained yourself) was, it seemed your post were hateful torward GM rather than crtitiquing there decision's, thats all! But you responded to me with a bit of a tone and said " sir, I've said this before, and I'll say it again". So please understand, my bringing this to your attention was not to start a flamewar with you, I was just unclear where you stood with GM. Wether it was hate for GM, or disappointment with GM's overall decision making, thats all!
 
21 - 34 of 34 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top