3 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

Which Chrysler? Sure doesn't look like any Chrysler I've seen. 

That sloping, fastback six-window roofline... That particular mix of straight lines and curves... That faux-ducktail trunklid...

What I'm ultimately saying is, there's enough hackneyed design elements there that, when GM starts watering down the design for a production car, it's probably going to wind up looking like this:

Well, OK, best case scenario, maybe this:

Sure, the Escala has better proportions than the Chrysler 200 (thank goodness) or the Audi A7. And it had better, being built on a rear-drive platform and all. But there is nothing refreshing or unique about the rest of the design. It's boring and trite.

The only thing that remotely says "Cadillac" about the entire design are the taillights. Take those away, and this could be any old thing.

Just now, Blake Noble said:

That sloping, fastback six-window roofline... That particular mix of straight lines and curves... That faux-ducktail trunklid...

What I'm ultimately saying is, there's enough hackneyed design elements there that, when GM starts watering down the design for a production car, it's probably going to wind up looking like this:

Well, OK, best case scenario, maybe this:

Sure, the Escala has better proportions than the Chrysler 200 (thank goodness) or the Audi A7. And it had better, being built on a rear-drive platform and all. But there is nothing refreshing or unique about the rest of the design. It's boring and trite.

The only thing that remotely says "Cadillac" about the entire design are the taillights. Take those away, and this could be any old thing.

I understand what you're saying but it looks nothing like the 200 IMO. 

17 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

They

do 

not

need

five 

CUVs

 

They are part of GM, which offers them across the board while Benz and BMW have to offer that many being singular brands with no other branches like GM. How many times does the same thing have to be said to you before you get the hint?

Buick has 3 Crossovers and is at a dealership with GMC who has 4 crossovers/SUVs (if you could Yukon and XL as 2) so there are 7 crossovers/SUVs at that dealership, and it wouldn't surprise me if GMC adds a compact crossover or Jeep competing off roader to make an 8th.

 

Chevy needs to downsize the Equinox to D2XX and add a 4th crossover, with Tahoe and Suburban that gives them 6 crossover/SUV.  Ford has 5 crossovers/SUVs and is supposedly bringing a Fiesta based crossover to make a 6th.  

 

Cadillac needs 3 crossovers minimum plus Escalade, but they could do more.  Crossovers could be 50% of al vehicle sales within 10 years, sedans might be 20%.

4 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Buick has 3 Crossovers and is at a dealership with GMC who has 4 crossovers/SUVs (if you could Yukon and XL as 2) so there are 7 crossovers/SUVs at that dealership, and it wouldn't surprise me if GMC adds a compact crossover or Jeep competing off roader to make an 8th.

 

Chevy needs to downsize the Equinox to D2XX and add a 4th crossover, with Tahoe and Suburban that gives them 6 crossover/SUV.  Ford has 5 crossovers/SUVs and is supposedly bringing a Fiesta based crossover to make a 6th.  

 

Cadillac needs 3 crossovers minimum plus Escalade, but they could do more.  Crossovers could be 50% of al vehicle sales within 10 years, sedans might be 20%.

I'm going to repeat this until you finally get the hint. 

Cadillac

does

not

need 

five

CUVs. 

2 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

I'm going to repeat this until you finally get the hint. 

Cadillac

does

not

need 

five

CUVs. 

I understand your opinion, just be happy with Cadillac being in 6th place in sales in the luxury segment if they don't have it.  The #1 selling body style of vehicle is crossover, and it is rising.

Most people don't give one blink of an eye where their brand of luxury auto is on the sales charts. It doesn't, in itself, sell any more cars.
I would NEVER want Cadillac to be in the top 3 in luxury sales, so yea, (if I cared), I'd be "happy".

Crossovers are fine if a brand is going for full-bore mainstream volume.
Have a few, that's not a problem. But to split the segment into 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 slices… it's just a pointless waste of billions. 3, maybe 4 is all anyone in the luxury tier needs. There's just not much difference in these size classes to warrant so many versions.

 

When I look at this car now that I have had more time and compared it to the Ciel and Elmiraj it appears to use much of both cars and incorporated a fastback roof line like so many cars are doing today. Even the Malibu and Impala have them today. 

The formal roof is out and fast back looks are in. 

The nose has a modifies Elmiraj look and the side looks much like the Ciel. It has taken both a little more production like but the roof is still pure show car with the hatch. 

The cross overs will provide the main income at Cadillac and they will have large medium and small models. as this is where the market is going. Sedans will remain but will fill a smaller roll as will a couple sports cars along the way later on. No mid engine till later though. 

Lutz has a good observation on the market and stated models and brands will change much in the next 20 years and the auto industry as we know will change much. Regulations and development coat are hitting a wall and they can not be sustained. He predicted 4-5-6 companies will survive. 

People can not keep paying more and companies are having a difficult time keeping development cost lower. Something has to give. 

53 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

I understand your opinion, just be happy with Cadillac being in 6th place in sales in the luxury segment if they don't have it.  The #1 selling body style of vehicle is crossover, and it is rising.

Way to overdramatize what I'm saying. Cadillacs sales position is irrelevant. Like Balth said, most people are not concerned with how many cars are sold every month. That's only for bean counters and trolls who have no other argument, especially when they ignore ALL the other facts, like the fact that Cadillac doesn't need all those CUVs when they are only a part of the bigger picture which is GM. 

39 minutes ago, hyperv6 said:

The formal roof is out and fast back looks are in. 

For the most part, this has been the case for, oh, 15 years now.
Frankly, I would welcome the breath of fresh air a formal roofline would deliver.
Might well be time for the pendulum to swing the other way.

Edited August 24, 20168 yr by balthazar

I want my formal roofline back pls. ktnxbye

^ +1 I am also ready for formal roof lines. The Coupe look on everything is so overdone!

Fastback versus Notchback is what we are saying here?

I look at today's conventional roof lined cars such a Honda Accord or BMW 3 or 5 Series and they look like aerodynamic (because of the rounded front ends and the like)   bricks. The 1980s cars were all square all around, which made notchback styling awesome, but when the 1990s came along, the rounded contours made the notchback styling look weird. Most 1990s cars had odd proportions.

I find that the " 4 door coupe" thingy styling of many of the cars today have very nice sleek designs. Kinda like the 1960s again. (Dont hate on me for that comment Balthy) and I like that!

I find the Escala wears it elegantly unlike the awkward proportions of the Audi A7 or Lincoln MKZ. (The Ford Mondeo hatchback back pulls it off waaaaay sexier)

The problem I have with the Escala is that it dont have the ballz out "Im a PHOQUING Cadillac so get the PHOQUE out of my way" styling!

Its too elegant and not enough ballz.

Cadillacs always had that perfect balance of arrogance and elegance.

Edited August 24, 20168 yr by oldshurst442

Just now, oldshurst442 said:

Fastback versus Notchback is what we are saying here?

 

No.

This is a formal roofline:

21 hours ago, balthazar said:

For the most part, this has been the case for, oh, 15 years now.
Frankly, I would welcome the breath of fresh air a formal roofline would deliver.
Might well be time for the pendulum to swing the other way.

Not entirely, the formal roof has been still retained many places and no more prominent than Chrysler 300, Bentley, Rolls, etc. Just some Germans and the Later Jags. 

 

While I am not a full fastback Hatch fan I would still like a more formal roof with a little flow. I do not want to see a total vertical rear window. Been there done that and they age poorly. 

Edited August 24, 20168 yr by hyperv6

Yeah there is too much "follower" and not enough "standard of the world" in the Escala.  The light bub went off in my head when I was reminded that this Cadillac boss worked for Audi beforehand.

Say what you will about the 1970's Seville and the 1980's bustleback... both of those junior Cadillacs set off industry-wide styling trends... the Escala follows the low-slung, long roof six window ducktail fastback trend that is (or should be) fizzling out after Mercedes started it all with the original CLS and Audi perfected it with the A7.  This car should have started a NEW trend in luxury car styling.

 

BEEN THERE DONE THAT

I might add that some of the best styled model in history stole from other brands. Harley Earl was a master thief of styling cues from Europe. 

Harley took from aviation and the P-38 for the Cadillac. He took from nature and the Shark for the Mako Shark. [though it is said they painted the fish to match the car to make him happy]. Harley even took from Ferrari to make the grill on the 55 Chevy. It was very controversial and at the time they paniced and redid the nose of the 56 as they felt they went too far from the market. Today the 55 is considered the best of the two. 

As for some other risk while I know the Bustle-back may be popular with some here and enthusiast it was a fad like Member Only Jackets that faded fast. 

As for starting new trends it is like putting your money all on 42 black and spinning the wheel. It is a big gamble and the odds are against you. If you want to build to the future you do it through steady and progressive design and evolve it to where it is the trend not a splash in the pan. 

Just throwing spit balls and seeing what sticks is kind of what the Cleveland Browns have been doing for years now and look where that had gotten them. Now this year they decided to trade down stock up on a number of solid players and not put it all on a number 2 draft pick to save the team. It is a smart move as one car and one model is not going to set the future for Cadillac. I think the Browns finally have the administration that know what will work. It is not a fast fix but it is a way to see steady and continued growth and improvement. The same I think will happen at Cadillac. 

One has to keep in mind that most guys that are home run hitters are often the ones who strike out the most. It is the guys that it the singles, doubles and triples that do the most by being the runs batted in. Not as much glory and excitement but more progress and victories. Runs batted in win more games than just home runs.  

…I would certainly call it "inspired by" WELL BEFORE I'd dub it "thievery". That's definitely over the line.
'Theft" in the auto industry refers to other AUTOMOTIVE design cues, not non-automotive. And it needs to be blatant/obvious, not a 'squint your eyes and think you see it' scenario.

American journalists love to cut the knees out of American innovation, they live for it by & large; seldom does a retrospective piece on the '63 Riviera get penned that abstains from mentioning the Rolls that inspired the Riviera's roofline. Mores the pity that even with the balanced perfection of the Riviera, it has to have that cold water repeatedly thrown on it. Especially when one digs into the actuality of the claim :

1955 Rolls Royce Silver Dawn, the reputed inspiration :

Yeah, a sharp crease. BFD.

shouldn't be, but i get some Acura TL vibe in it.  Maybe its the hofmeister kink

 

Warming up to the overall shape, but it still doesn't say Cadillac loudly, and the front end is still weak, no presence. No bling.

 

 

I dont personally see the TL in the Escala although I could see if one does though. On a side profile....

The reason why I dont see it is because I own a TL myself and I always see my TL as a clunky machine, not a sleek one as the Escala seems to be. Plus I think of my TL as a Stealth Fighter with all the crazy triangular shapes its got incorporated.

clunky with triangular shapes and all kinds of different angles going on

clunky with triangular shapes and all kinds of different angles going on

 

 

 

 

On 8/23/2016 at 10:55 AM, Drew Dowdell said:

BMW has to sell bottom feeder X1s to survive. Cadillac doesn't... GM can sell plenty of Traxes and Encores outside of the Cadillac brand.   

What BMW is trying to do is be General Motors without multiple brands (Mini is niche of a niche and has been struggling big time, Saturn sold more cars in 2009 (79K) the year they were canceled than Mini sold in all of 2015 (58k)

((AMEN)) To THIS!!!

19 hours ago, balthazar said:

…I would certainly call it "inspired by" WELL BEFORE I'd dub it "thievery". That's definitely over the line.
'Theft" in the auto industry refers to other AUTOMOTIVE design cues, not non-automotive. And it needs to be blatant/obvious, not a 'squint your eyes and think you see it' scenario.

American journalists love to cut the knees out of American innovation, they live for it by & large; seldom does a retrospective piece on the '63 Riviera get penned that abstains from mentioning the Rolls that inspired the Riviera's roofline. Mores the pity that even with the balanced perfection of the Riviera, it has to have that cold water repeatedly thrown on it. Especially when one digs into the actuality of the claim :

1955 Rolls Royce Silver Dawn, the reputed inspiration :

Yeah, a sharp crease. BFD.

Actually the claim of stealing was used by Mr Earl years ago. I can not remember the exact quote but he did not hide his taking of ideas and if I recall he said there is no shame stealing from the best. Mr Lutz just recently rephrased this quote in his own terms. I have never see the media even give them credit for stealing the best either.  Harley would come back from Paris every year with notebooks on ideas he found there. Many were used and incorporated into his own ideas. But his ideas were taken from many areas and he held an open mind on what he would consider. He had his visions and wanted them carried out. 

You can call it inspired, stolen, borrowed cribbed but it is all the same. Nothing wrong with taking a good idea and then creating your own version of it. Hell some of the best cars were refined versions of other cars in history. 

Note Harley trick was to make cars look as one and not a bunch of slammed together parts as many were. He combined the body, fenders and hood into one unit at a time a trunk was a real trunk on a fold out platform. The X job really set the trend for the future. Most people who do not know the cars history just assume it is a newer model and do not realize it is a 1938 model. 

Harley said that his job was to make cars longer and lower or at least appear to be and that is what he did. He did have his own original things too but his real key was getting the proportions of the modern car down at least till they started down sizing things like crazy in the 80's. If figure the first down sized Deville FWD in the 80's made him roll over in his grave. 

GM is now just losing some of the poor proportions they had. The new Lacrosse has screamed for more width and finally just got it. The Malibu is a much better proportioned car. 

I really wonder what he would or could have done with a CUV. They are so difficult to design as the two box shape limits you much. It is hard to be original and  good looking at the same time. 

On 8/23/2016 at 3:49 PM, Blake Noble said:

That sloping, fastback six-window roofline... That particular mix of straight lines and curves... That faux-ducktail trunklid...

What I'm ultimately saying is, there's enough hackneyed design elements there that, when GM starts watering down the design for a production car, it's probably going to wind up looking like this:

Well, OK, best case scenario, maybe this:

Sure, the Escala has better proportions than the Chrysler 200 (thank goodness) or the Audi A7. And it had better, being built on a rear-drive platform and all. But there is nothing refreshing or unique about the rest of the design. It's boring and trite.

The only thing that remotely says "Cadillac" about the entire design are the taillights. Take those away, and this could be any old thing.

Strongly disagree here. Please provide an example of a recent Cadillac model becoming watered down or derivative for production purposes.

4 hours ago, hyperv6 said:

Actually the claim of stealing was used by Mr Earl years ago.

My point was; regardless of how Earl may have worded it, all there is in common is a singular sharp crease running over the backlight on both. That's it.

For journalists to repeatedly state the Riviera was 'lifted' or 'a take off' of the Rolls design is ludicrous. If Earl had never said a word, no one would EVER make any connection between the 2. I struggle to make a connection and I'm staring at the pics. That line isn't even a 'cue' (IN FACT, I would preferred it with a bit of radius there).

Back to the point; journalists and armchair historians like to take the opportunity to diminish American design innovations whenever possible. 
It's tiresome and unwarranted. I unilaterally dismiss the association as unwarranted, with all due respect to Mr. Earl.

Well for the most part the phase has been used in many fields and in variations by many people. 

This from the same Steve Jobs who famously said in 1996: "Picasso had a saying -- 'good artists copy; great artists steal' -- and we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
 

As for the Riv the car as you already know is a Bill Mitchell car. Now Bill in so much did not base it on a Rolls as the media reports.They only said this to relate it to the public and I would not be suprised if GM PR did not play it up. The truth is BIll loved the work of  British coachbuilder Hooper & Co.  The originator of the razor edge styling of a roof. 

The truth is many of American designs have used elements of euro design. Even some of the best cars from japan were even designed there. Detroit has long looked to Italy for inspiration and even some rebodied cars. GM, Ford and Chrysler all sent cars there to be bodied. 

Just as Pizza Pie has inspired the American Pizza much styling has been inspired there and perfected here for our own cars. One can not look at a 250 GT Ferrari Lusso and not feel their spirit moved inside.

Even things as simple as the Back Gold Trans Am and the Screaming Chicken has roots to England in a round about ways.  John Schinnella had his staff come up with the large Screaming Chicken. Mitchell hated it and refused to approve it. So John noted Mitchell was riding a John Player Triumph that sported black with gold pin stripes. He had the 455 SD show car painted to match it and sent it for Bill to drive. Well he had a change in mind and now history is as we know it. The Bandit would not have had a car had it not been for an English motorcycle. 

Bill even had a thing about Ferrari Engines. He loved the sound and not only emulated the styling in the second Gen F body but he wanted the sound too. This is where the Pegasus came in and he had a V12 installed in a Firebird. He could never show the car but he drove it and tried to get the engineers to make the similar sound. Well as we know you can not make a V12 sound like an 8 but he tried to capture this in a Pontiac. 

We even can look with in as the 57 Chevy was marketed as the average mans Cadillac. They added the fins and Chrome then went on to offer some options like Cadillac. 

Borrowing, stealing and inspiration has always been a part of design and selling. It is like refining something to a next level for your own use. 

The Americans have been seen for their work too. Others have emulated them over the years also. Look no farther than the X Job as it changed automotive history as we know it. 

The American Design did lose its way in the 70's and 80's on many forgettable cars and is today working to try to get back to where they once were. We have had some good cars but we also have many more we would like to forget. But anymore many others have had the same issues. 

 

I hope they incorporate this concept interior into the cadillacs, but as far as exterior goes, FAILURE all the way. I hope nothing of this exterior gets into current cadillacs.

 

17 hours ago, cp-the-nerd said:

Strongly disagree here. Please provide an example of a recent Cadillac model becoming watered down or derivative for production purposes.

Heh-heh.

I bet you've never seen the original designs for the first-gen SRX or even the second-gen Escalade. (Spoiler warning: They were wayyyy more radical than what we wound up with.)

Maybe in time, you will. Hopefully, on this site.

42 minutes ago, Blake Noble said:

Heh-heh.

I bet you've never seen the original designs for the first-gen SRX or even the second-gen Escalade. (Spoiler warning: They were wayyyy more radical than what we wound up with.)

Maybe in time, you will. Hopefully, on this site.

I have and the production SRX ended up looking better. 

 

47 minutes ago, dfelt said:

I hope they incorporate this concept interior into the cadillacs, but as far as exterior goes, FAILURE all the way. I hope nothing of this exterior gets into current cadillacs.

 

1 hour ago, Blake Noble said:

Heh-heh.

I bet you've never seen the original designs for the first-gen SRX or even the second-gen Escalade. (Spoiler warning: They were wayyyy more radical than what we wound up with.)

Maybe in time, you will. Hopefully, on this site.

Don't respond with condescension and totally fail to rebut my comment. Notice how I said "recent." You're talking about cars two generations and roughly a decade old. I see no relevance to 1) modern production capabilities and 2) cadillac's current track record with design.

What about the Cadillac ELR? That went to production virtually unchanged, as did the CT6. Nothing Cadillac has done lately would imply this car would be watered down to the point of an Audi profile, and that's overlooking the fact that Cadillac crushes the dash to axle ratio in all of its current sedans.

 

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

On 8/26/2016 at 1:02 PM, cp-the-nerd said:

Don't respond with condescension and totally fail to rebut my comment. Notice how I said "recent." You're talking about cars two generations and roughly a decade old. I see no relevance to 1) modern production capabilities and 2) cadillac's current track record with design.

What about the Cadillac ELR? That went to production virtually unchanged, as did the CT6. Nothing Cadillac has done lately would imply this car would be watered down to the point of an Audi profile, and that's overlooking the fact that Cadillac crushes the dash to axle ratio in all of its current sedans.

 

Anyway, let's pick apart your post.

Number one: You said "recent." The definition of "recent" can be very relative. 

Five to ten years fits my definition of "recent" if I'm thinking in terms of the automotive industry. Why? Most product cycles are, in fact, between five to seven, sometimes even ten years in length. Adding to that, a car debuting for, let's say, the 2014 model year would've been designed typically around 2008 to 2009, give or take a year going forward or back. Hence why I mentioned the Escalade (I'll quickly concede here that I made a typo in my earlier post; I meant to say third-generation Escalade, i.e. the GMT900-era model, and not second-generation) and SRX.

Can you explain your reasoning for thinking in such short one to two or two to three year terms? I'm failing to see why I should...

Number two: The CT6 did not have a concept precursor unless you'd like to count the Sixteen, Ciel or Elmiraj concepts. For the sake of your argument, you might want to reconsider that.

Number three: Your post acts as if a GM designer comes up with one design for a car, sends it off to management and they just send it straight to the production line without a question or thought. Needless to say, that's not how things work.

If that were the case, then the Cadillac XTS, for example, could've wound up looking like this:

And yes, that was, in fact, a proposal for the XTS (more specially, the XTS "concept").

When I first posted that here four years ago everyone seemed to agree that it was a better design than what we wound up with. GM watered the XTS down too much.

Number four: The Converj did become the Cadillac ELR with its most of its major design cues intact. But many small details changed on the way to the production line. The headlights, lower door sculpting and taillights are some of the big ones that jump out in my mind.

Number five: Uhhhmmm... the Escala concept and the A7 already have a very similar fastback roofline and glasshouse, so I fail to see how the Escala could somehow be different if or when it goes to production.

On 8/26/2016 at 11:58 AM, surreal1272 said:

I have and the production SRX ended up looking better. 

 

Well, there were actually even more radical and dramatic themes considered for the Vizion concept than what GM wound up rolling out at the Detroit Auto Show. One proposal I've seen had a more dramatic slope to the rear hatch and a blacked-out c-pillar treatment.

Whether or not the SRX looks better than the Vizion is actually irrelevant. The point is, the Vizion concept looks far more radical than what GM wound up producing, hence it was "watered down."

2 hours ago, Blake Noble said:

Geez. Thin-skinned are we? If someone hasn't told you this already, let me be the first to tell you: then That's not a good thing.

Anyway, let's pick apart your post.

Number one: You said "recent." The definition of "recent" can be very relative. 

Five to ten years fits my definition of "recent" if I'm thinking in terms of the automotive industry. Why? Most product cycles are, in fact, between five to seven, sometimes even ten years in length. Adding to that, a car debuting for, let's say, the 2014 model year would've been designed typically around 2008 to 2009, give or take a year going forward or back. Hence why I mentioned the Escalade (I'll quickly concede here that I made a typo in my earlier post; I meant to say third-generation Escalade, i.e. the GMT900-era model, and not second-generation) and SRX.

Can you explain your reasoning for thinking in such short one to two or two to three year terms? I'm failing to see why I should...

Number two: The CT6 did not have a concept precursor unless you'd like to count the Sixteen, Ciel or Elmiraj concepts. For the sake of your argument, you might want to reconsider that.

Number three: Your post acts as if a GM designer comes up with one design for a car, sends it off to management and they just send it straight to the production line without a question or thought. Needless to say, that's not how things work.

If that were the case, then the Cadillac XTS, for example, could've wound up looking like this:

And yes, that was, in fact, a proposal for the XTS (more specially, the XTS "concept").

When I first posted that here four years ago everyone seemed to agree that it was a better design than what we wound up with. GM watered the XTS down too much.

Number four: The Converj did become the Cadillac ELR with its most of its major design cues intact. But many small details changed on the way to the production line. The headlights, lower door sculpting and taillights are some of the big ones that jump out in my mind.

Number five: Uhhhmmm... the Escala concept and the A7 already have a very similar fastback roofline and glasshouse, so I fail to see how the Escala could somehow be different if or when it goes to production.

Well, there were actually even more radical and dramatic themes considered for the Vizion concept than what GM wound up rolling out at the Detroit Auto Show. One proposal I've seen had a more dramatic slope to the rear hatch and a blacked-out c-pillar treatment.

Whether or not the SRX looks better than the Vizion is actually irrelevant. The point is, the Vizion concept looks far more radical than what GM wound up producing, hence it was "watered down."

You are making a rather severe hair splitting argument. If you look at the SRX concept and compare it to the last gen SRX, there are many similarities. Hell, just one look at the headlights on the concept prove exactly where it went. On top of that, who cares? Show me one concept out there that kept every detail because that seems to be the bar you expect Cadillac to set. Every maker out there does this but you seem to think only Cadillac merits the criticism of not producing exactly to spec against the CONCEPT (capitalized for emphasis). Your condescension to CP and myself aside, you seem to have a very unrealistic expectation of what should actually come out of a concept. 

 

Btw, what you call radical is also irrelevent since it is clearly just a matter of opinion, and an unrealistic one at that. 

Edited August 27, 20168 yr by surreal1272

#1. Your 10+ year old examples are not valid. You and I both know this, you're just stuck backpedaling. I can't even find the escalade concept you're referring to (but 2nd gen must have been early 2000s). What they designed for the 1st gen SRX concept versus production holds absolutely no relevance to what Cadillac is building now. Ergo the qualifier of "recent" because common sense dictates only newer examples matter to this discussion.

#2. I stand corrected on the CT6. I thought its introduction with that name was a concept. Well prior to the ELR, the last high profile Cadillac concept that went production was the CTS coupe in '08, which wasn't greenlighted until they saw the public reaction to it. Older than I care about here but still FAR more applicable here than the 2001 Vizon.

#3. A design sketch is not even close to valid in this discussion, come on. Every car in existence has a design sketch differing from the final product. Give me a break. This discussion at the bare minimum starts when they pull the cover off a physical, rolling car for press.

#4. You're completely splitting hairs about the ELR. If the Escala went to production as closely as the ELR, you'd be eating crow.

#5. Nobody is going to confuse the Escala profile for an Audi A7/S7. An A7 looks like an aborted offspring of an A6 sedan and wagon.

And again with the smug condescension. Get over yourself.

11 hours ago, cp-the-nerd said:

#1. Your 10+ year old examples are not valid. You and I both know this, you're just stuck backpedaling. I can't even find the escalade concept you're referring to (but 2nd gen must have been early 2000s). What they designed for the 1st gen SRX concept versus production holds absolutely no relevance to what Cadillac is building now. Ergo the qualifier of "recent" because common sense dictates only newer examples matter to this discussion.

#2. I stand corrected on the CT6. I thought its introduction with that name was a concept. Well prior to the ELR, the last high profile Cadillac concept that went production was the CTS coupe in '08, which wasn't greenlighted until they saw the public reaction to it. Older than I care about here but still FAR more applicable here than the 2001 Vizon.

#3. A design sketch is not even close to valid in this discussion, come on. Every car in existence has a design sketch differing from the final product. Give me a break. This discussion at the bare minimum starts when they pull the cover off a physical, rolling car for press.

#4. You're completely splitting hairs about the ELR. If the Escala went to production as closely as the ELR, you'd be eating crow.

#5. Nobody is going to confuse the Escala profile for an Audi A7/S7. An A7 looks like an aborted offspring of an A6 sedan and wagon.

And again with the smug condescension. Get over yourself.

1. Careful, now. Your rebuttal there tasted a trifle tu quoque. You aren't going to win here criticizing my criticism and questioning of your definition of "recent."

I explained to you how I defined "recent." Then I asked for you to extend me the courtesy of sharing and explaining yours. Instead you gave me that stuttering waste of time.

How about you give it another shot?

2. You are completely wrong about how the last-generation CTS coupe entered production. GM management had decided to build the car long before they showed the "concept" to the public. Per Motor Trend:

Quote

Manoogian credits designer Bob Munson for drawing the sketches that led to the coupe concept about two years ago, as work was wrapping up on the 2008 Motor Trend Car of the Year, the Cadillac CTS sedan.

“Bob had done a sketch of a two-door,” Manoogian says. “And everyone’s reaction immediately was, ‘There isn’t a market for two-doors, why would we want to do that?’ We said, ‘Well, let’s just kind of give it a shot.’ So we did a scale model, based on Bob’s sketch.” With design chief Ed Welburn’s prompting, that led to a full-size clay. “So we did a full-size clay, took it out on the patio one day for Mr. Lutz, and he came out and said, ‘Wow! That’s pretty cool!’ Then we made arrangements to show Mr. Wagoner as well, and everyone agreed: we can’t afford not to do this car.”

Now, I know there's a chance you're going to click the link, read the article and make note of how Motor Trend claims the design of the CTS coupe "didn't change from Bob Munson's sketch." Then you'll probably want to come back and go, "See! CTS and blah, blah, blah."

Well, about that... First, let's observe the sketch:

"Unchanged" isn't exactly true. Per Motor Trend once again:

Quote

And, so, what about that caption, “Supercar,” on his original drawing? It turns out there have been some changes. Munson says he drew that sketch in his basement in 2004, after he and others on the Cadillac design staff were asked to draw their visions for what the Cadillac showroom should look like in 2015. The “Supercar” was Munson’s interpretation of a production mid-engine Cien, but under Mike Simcoe’s direction, Munson melded the supercar with the second-generation CTS sedan design already well underway. Simcoe is executive director for exterior design, GM Design North America.

So it seems the CTS coupe was intended to be an evolution of the Cien concept. And even if the design were intended to be a CTS coupe from the start, I can pick out a handful of differences: the glasshouse, the rear brake cooling duct, even the roofline.

3. Does it now? Seems to me like it's very valid in this discussion, especially considering the hole you somehow dug yourself into above.

4. Splitting hairs? Not really. You're acting as if a design does not or cannot change to enter production.

And this whole discussion stems from this post, remember?

Quote

Please provide an example of a recent Cadillac model becoming watered down or derivative for production purposes.

I think I've went above and beyond in my response to you.

5. Uh... what was that? OK, I was trying to keep the discussion at a high standard here, but that...

 

6. Ooh! Going for ad hominem this time! You sassy boy, you!

14 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

You are making a rather severe hair splitting argument. If you look at the SRX concept and compare it to the last gen SRX, there are many similarities. Hell, just one look at the headlights on the concept prove exactly where it went. On top of that, who cares? Show me one concept out there that kept every detail because that seems to be the bar you expect Cadillac to set. Every maker out there does this but you seem to think only Cadillac merits the criticism of not producing exactly to spec against the CONCEPT (capitalized for emphasis). Your condescension to CP and myself aside, you seem to have a very unrealistic expectation of what should actually come out of a concept. 

 

Btw, what you call radical is also irrelevent since it is clearly just a matter of opinion, and an unrealistic one at that. 

So we've suddenly switched from the first-gen SRX to the second now? OK then. Whatever, hoss.

Both of you are trying too hard if your end goal is just to troll me. 

On 8/27/2016 at 11:47 AM, Blake Noble said:

1. Careful, now. Your rebuttal there tasted a trifle tu quoque. You aren't going to win here criticizing my criticism and questioning of your definition of "recent."

I explained to you how I defined "recent." Then I asked for you to extend me the courtesy of sharing and explaining yours. Instead you gave me that stuttering waste of time.

How about you give it another shot?

2. You are completely wrong about how the last-generation CTS coupe entered production. GM management had decided to build the car long before they showed the "concept" to the public. Per Motor Trend:

Now, I know there's a chance you're going to click the link, read the article and make note of how Motor Trend claims the design of the CTS coupe "didn't change from Bob Munson's sketch." Then you'll probably want to come back and go, "See! CTS and blah, blah, blah."

Well, about that... First, let's observe the sketch:

"Unchanged" isn't exactly true. Per Motor Trend once again:

 

So it seems the CTS coupe was intended to be an evolution of the Cien concept. And even if the design were intended to be a CTS coupe from the start, I can pick out a handful of differences: the glasshouse, the rear brake cooling duct, even the roofline.

3. Does it now? Seems to me like it's very valid in this discussion, especially considering the hole you somehow dug yourself into above.

4. Splitting hairs? Not really. You're acting as if a design does not or cannot radically change to enter production.

And this whole discussion stems from this post, remember?

I think I've went above and beyond in my response to you.

5. Uh... what was that? OK, I was trying to keep the discussion at a high standard here, but that...

 

6. Ooh! Going for ad hominem this time! You sassy boy, you!

So we've suddenly switched from the first-gen SRX to the second now? OK then. Whatever, hoss.

Both of you are trying too hard if your end goal is just to troll me. 

 

 

Btw, my point of the second gen. SRX was to show the obvious similarities between the Vizon concept and it because it's true. Sorry it doesn't fit your agenda to place the bar so high on Cadillac while ignoring the simple principle behind your average concept car, which has been explained to you already. Just keep the condescending thoughts to yourself next time because I find a certain irony in you criticizing CP for his thin skin when I can easily reference your skin and it's thinness via the Pokemon thread where you basically insulted anyone older than yourself. Practice what you preach is the lesson to be had here. 

 

And again with the sketches as "proof". Seriously? 

Edited August 27, 20168 yr by surreal1272

I see the second generation Audi A7 is coming along well.

Careful on your examples. 

The ELR was a concept that made it to production much intact like the SSR. But in the end both were filled with many issues that would never have happened in a car built for the market more than show. Things like no back seat room and even on the SSR to adjust the seats you have to open the door. Frame flex was horrible etc. 

As for the CT6 it was a street car made into a Show car.

 

Car companies have three ways to build show cars. #1 you build them for show and cherry pick things to add to the production car after many changes. #2 You take a car set for production and customize it for show. #3 Take a Show car and force it into production and if it is not changed enough you end up with many ergonomic, poor site lines and other issues that will create problems for the consumer. 

None of this is any different than the old Motorama days. Most of their cars were concepts where they only took ideas from. Some were forced into production like the 53 Vette that lacked things like roll up windows etc. Then there some production cars with some dressing to make them special but they moved into production. 

The problem today is people are having a hard time decerning what is producible and what is not. Case in point the Avista. Here is a car that was not considered for production as it came from a studio not a panning committee. The styling staff was trying to show just what they could do. The problem along the way is that it was not designed to be used on a production car and to put it into production it would lose many key eleements leaving those crying to build it upset because it changed. 

We went though a long period where many show cars were customized production cars. Now people expect everything is producible. Well much is not. Many of today's cars are much like the future looking Motorama cars. We will see elements of them in future products but like in the Avista the b pillar would be added the wheels would shrink as would the brakes and the interior would be something much more conventional. Ride height would be raided and the bumpers changed. 

As for Cadillac all their show cars to this point have been just hat show cars nothing more. They have built cars that barely just go down the road if they even do that. Each one has gotten closer to being real but even the Elmiaj could not be made as is as the Omega can not be set to the same wheel base due to hard points. This was a major issue when they looked at it. The latest car may be the closest to production but even it would need to see some extensive changes to live in the real world. 

Right now there is a fight at GM and Cadillac over volumes. GM wants more Volume and profits and Cadillac is more focuses on more profits not so much volume. There will be a push for more Crossovers models as this will add the needed volumes but image is still going to be built with the car lines. Even Porsche sells more crossovers but it is the 911 and Boster that set the image for the company. 

It was made clear by JDN that the large 4 door sedan is been pushed back. He said there is still a flag ship coming so you have to read between the GM speak here. Does that mean there is a 5 door coming to compete with the Tesla and Audi? Does it mean there is an image building coupe and convertible coming? I really do not see it as a SUV as they will sell that no matter what. Take what he has stated and think of the options. Also put off the Mid engine car as that is still off in the future, He has made it clear they could not have it till 2025. 

 

I will put in the next post on the things JDN has recently stated to add more fuel to this fire here and get us all a little more updated as to what is really going on. He was as clear as he could be so read up. 

 

Here is what JDN has stated about the rumored changes in Cadillac's plan do to GM getting more involved. 

 

He then spills what is confirmed for Cadillac’s future, stating substantial costs have already been committed to each program. Per de Nysschen, here is the future of Cadillac:

We ARE planning a Cadillac flagship which will NOT be a 4 door sedan;
We ARE planning a large crossover beneath Escalade;
We ARE planning a compact crossover beneath XT5;
We ARE planning a comprehensive enhancement to CT6 later during life cycle;
We ARE planning a major refresh for XTS;
We ARE planning a new Lux 3 sedan entry;
We ARE planning a new Lux 2 sedan entry;

Here is my take. The flag ship is a 5 door or two door. 

The larger cross over was something we already  knew was coming. Just what platform?

We knew there was a smaller SUV coming than the XT5 as these will push profits. 

The CT6 getting many changes. Well it was not a JDN product so he will make the needed changes to fit his plan. 

The XTS is going to live on but watch it be used for volume, Service and Livery use. NYC has replaced most town cars with these as have many other cities.

The LUX3-2 models I suspect are the ATS and CTS that will be resized to better fit the line up. They need to move away from the CT6 as the CTS is stepping all over it in size. 

I also look to see changes in the XT5 that JDN could not add by intro. 

JDN also has made a point that Cadillac needs to make enough profits to fund their own projects and not rely on GM for all their money and design work. He would like to see them in control of their income so they can best chose what they need not GM. 

The fight for autonomy is still on at GM and Cadillac. GM really needs to step back and let them have a go at it as every time they step in they come up short. 

Now that this info is added have at it. This is key to any argument about Cadillac. It is not so much what we do know but the many things we do not know going  on behind the scenes that is in play here. GM has given Mark Ruess grief on trying to do what is right on the CT6 and they appear to be now doing the same with JDN. 

If you want Volume you do crossovers. You can whore them out all day with no issue with image. Now with a car you have to use care as the market is flicked and you build too many cars the image is never gained or it is lost as we have seen in the past with Cadillac and Lincoln. At least in the NA market. Europe see's it differently. 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, hyperv6 said:

Careful on your examples. 

The ELR was a concept that made it to production much intact like the SSR. But in the end both were filled with many issues that would never have happened in a car built for the market more than show. Things like no back seat room and even on the SSR to adjust the seats you have to open the door. Frame flex was horrible etc. 

As for the CT6 it was a street car made into a Show car.

 

Car companies have three ways to build show cars. #1 you build them for show and cherry pick things to add to the production car after many changes. #2 You take a car set for production and customize it for show. #3 Take a Show car and force it into production and if it is not changed enough you end up with many ergonomic, poor site lines and other issues that will create problems for the consumer. 

None of this is any different than the old Motorama days. Most of their cars were concepts where they only took ideas from. Some were forced into production like the 53 Vette that lacked things like roll up windows etc. Then there some production cars with some dressing to make them special but they moved into production. 

The problem today is people are having a hard time decerning what is producible and what is not. Case in point the Avista. Here is a car that was not considered for production as it came from a studio not a panning committee. The styling staff was trying to show just what they could do. The problem along the way is that it was not designed to be used on a production car and to put it into production it would lose many key eleements leaving those crying to build it upset because it changed. 

We went though a long period where many show cars were customized production cars. Now people expect everything is producible. Well much is not. Many of today's cars are much like the future looking Motorama cars. We will see elements of them in future products but like in the Avista the b pillar would be added the wheels would shrink as would the brakes and the interior would be something much more conventional. Ride height would be raided and the bumpers changed. 

As for Cadillac all their show cars to this point have been just hat show cars nothing more. They have built cars that barely just go down the road if they even do that. Each one has gotten closer to being real but even the Elmiaj could not be made as is as the Omega can not be set to the same wheel base due to hard points. This was a major issue when they looked at it. The latest car may be the closest to production but even it would need to see some extensive changes to live in the real world. 

Right now there is a fight at GM and Cadillac over volumes. GM wants more Volume and profits and Cadillac is more focuses on more profits not so much volume. There will be a push for more Crossovers models as this will add the needed volumes but image is still going to be built with the car lines. Even Porsche sells more crossovers but it is the 911 and Boster that set the image for the company. 

It was made clear by JDN that the large 4 door sedan is been pushed back. He said there is still a flag ship coming so you have to read between the GM speak here. Does that mean there is a 5 door coming to compete with the Tesla and Audi? Does it mean there is an image building coupe and convertible coming? I really do not see it as a SUV as they will sell that no matter what. Take what he has stated and think of the options. Also put off the Mid engine car as that is still off in the future, He has made it clear they could not have it till 2025. 

 

I will put in the next post on the things JDN has recently stated to add more fuel to this fire here and get us all a little more updated as to what is really going on. He was as clear as he could be so read up. 

 

Very well said and that is what Mr. Noble needs to consider before attacking and insulting others because they see reality whereas he sees fantasy and distortion. There is literally nothing he has levied at Cadillac that can't be applied to every other make out there. Pure Swiss cheese. 

Edited August 28, 20168 yr by surreal1272

On August 26, 2016 at 7:13 AM, hyperv6 said:

We even can look with in as the 57 Chevy was marketed as the average mans Cadillac. They added the fins and Chrome then went on to offer some options like Cadillac.

I dispelled this theory the last time you brought it up. Then, you claimed Chevy pitched it in advertising, but Chevy neither stated or implied anything whatsoever to do with the luxury field or Cadillac. It's a fallacy. "Chrome?" C'mon...

6 hours ago, balthazar said:

I dispelled this theory the last time you brought it up. Then, you claimed Chevy pitched it in advertising, but Chevy neither stated or implied anything whatsoever to do with the luxury field or Cadillac. It's a fallacy. "Chrome?" C'mon...

You are not the only self proclaimed expert in town on this. I have found others many published and accredited over the years that have made much more compelling cased on how the Chevy was marketed. 

The influence went as far as even seeing the  El Morocco  sold by Chevy dealers. This is how the public saw the Chevy and it was not all by chance. 

Sorry if I don't follow you on this one as I just do not agree and I do agree with others. 

Not trying to be rude and not trying to piss you off but you have to give it a rest and that once in a while we will not always agree. 

 

Edited August 29, 20168 yr by hyperv6

Hyper, in all the years we've been on this board, we have SELDOM agreed. It is what it is.

But holy hell; the El Morocco ?? Do you know how many El Moroccos were built in TWO years time? 37.

How could any of these "accredited" folk, supposedly with a firm grasp on automotive history, possibly make the extrapolation that the 3-dozen independently-manufacturered El Moroccos POSSIBLY have ANY effect on the consumer's mind WRT Chevy aspiring to be Cadillac?
37 cars influencing 1,525,177 car buyers??
The El Morocco had zero publicity, and besides, all it was was a cobbled-together rear-clip copy of the Brougham. Just because it was based on a Chevy doesn't in any way mean the actual production Chevy was a 'junior Cadillac'. The El Morocco was an automotive unicorn, except no school kids ever drew pictures of them.

Edited August 29, 20168 yr by balthazar

3 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

@Blake Noble--You do understand that I said "others" and not myself right? You insulted CP and you have insulted me in the past on the Pokemon thread but I clearly said "others" in my last post. Try to keep up here and come back to reality. 

OK... Look, I'm going to drop my act for a second here and give you a little advice. I hope you might consider it. And try and chill out. For your own sake.

My advice is as follows: This is the internet. Not every comment you read on the internet is 100 percent serious business.

It's great you've decided to invest your time on these forums. But I also genuinely hope that you don't take up sole residence here, or anywhere else online for that matter.

Take care of yourself. If you feel the need to continue this conversation, do yourself a favor and find the strength to just let it go. None of this is really all that important.

Now, as for the rest of you guys, how about that new Audi 200 Cadillac made for that car show all the rich douchebags go to?

I don't see any issues with Cadillac(or any manufacturer) having a little radical concepts. That's just kind of what they all have always done. Every car gets watered down come production because of a multitude of reason. Some are financial, some are government regulations, and some just aren't functional. This concept actually looks pretty close to a production vehicle and that's impressive to me because there are manufacturers like MB who released that Vision-something-or-whatever that looks fake as F. Nothing about that will be production. 

17 hours ago, Blake Noble said:

OK... Look, I'm going to drop my act for a second here and give you a little advice. I hope you might consider it. And try and chill out. For your own sake.

My advice is as follows: This is the internet. Not every comment you read on the internet is 100 percent serious business.

It's great you've decided to invest your time on these forums. But I also genuinely hope that you don't take up sole residence here, or anywhere else online for that matter.

Take care of yourself. If you feel the need to continue this conversation, do yourself a favor and find the strength to just let it go. None of this is really all that important.

Now, as for the rest of you guys, how about that new Audi 200 Cadillac made for that car show all the rich douchebags go to?

So....you admit to trolling.

You also admit that the internets sometimes have less than truthful posts in them and you are a preacher of less than truthful posts....but in this thread you wanted to also be taken serious because you were posting your trolly shyte as a matter of fact all in the while being a condescending jack ass....

 

Yet you want people to heed your advice to chill out....while continuing to be a condescending jack ass.

Truth is, you started this mess, people got upset with you, they hinted at you to stop trolling, you did not heed their advice to you when obviously they smelled your shyte the MICRO-SECOND you shat on us and you are gonna sit here telling us to chill out?

HA!

Dude, we know (CP, Surreal and myself) what trolls smell like. We had plenty of practice sniffing the likes of you out! 

One suggestion to you:

If you gonna troll with us around, up your game big time because you are an amateur.

 

PS: usually trolly stuff could be quite funny and entertaining....

This shyte you spewed was neither funny nor entertaining.

I hope for Cheers and Gears sake and its followers that for the last 4 years you post in here that you are a better humorist and conversationalist that you have showed us in this thread (and in the Pokeman thread as well)......

In short: YOU SUCK!

 

Edited August 29, 20168 yr by oldshurst442

9 hours ago, ccap41 said:

I don't see any issues with Cadillac(or any manufacturer) having a little radical concepts. That's just kind of what they all have always done. Every car gets watered down come production because of a multitude of reason. Some are financial, some are government regulations, and some just aren't functional. This concept actually looks pretty close to a production vehicle and that's impressive to me because there are manufacturers like MB who released that Vision-something-or-whatever that looks fake as F. Nothing about that will be production. 

That is just it. They used to be called Dream Cars. People would look at them and consider this is what we may see in 10 years just as with the Harley Earl X job. 

Then over the last couple decades automakers started to get to the point they tried to make the dream cars reality. First we had the Viper and then some others like the, Solstice,  SSR and Prowler. That set off a wave of production cars that got some custom work to make them appear to be show cars when they were lightly veiled production cars. 

I think this got people to start thinking even the full on concepts were now going production. I remember the Sixteen and how many people were like Build it and how they thought it was a production car. No way in hell GM was going to do a V16 engine and I though well they might take some of the styling and move it to the STS. Well it never did and I was not disappointed as I knew it was a dream car to start. But many others are still upset today about it and the following show cars. Even this new car is mostly dream but I suspect the styling cues are closer than they have been. 

I think makers really need to get back and present these cars as they are intended as true show cars with hints of what we may see in production in the future and stop this leading people to believe they are real cars. 

Buick tried to do this at one point when the stylist came out and said it was just a in house project they did to show what they could do. I think the car was done more to show GM what they could do and to get more freedom to expand on the styling they have been assigned. Too many times GM has been the limiting factor of the divisions as like Ponitiac has broken many rules over the years to get what they knew they could do. 

I truly think the Avista was a cry to let us do more to GM than it was for the public. 

That is just my take on concepts today and the confusion around them. 

23 hours ago, balthazar said:

Hyper, in all the years we've been on this board, we have SELDOM agreed. It is what it is.

But holy hell; the El Morocco ?? Do you know how many El Moroccos were built in TWO years time? 37.

How could any of these "accredited" folk, supposedly with a firm grasp on automotive history, possibly make the extrapolation that the 3-dozen independently-manufacturered El Moroccos POSSIBLY have ANY effect on the consumer's mind WRT Chevy aspiring to be Cadillac?
37 cars influencing 1,525,177 car buyers??
The El Morocco had zero publicity, and besides, all it was was a cobbled-together rear-clip copy of the Brougham. Just because it was based on a Chevy doesn't in any way mean the actual production Chevy was a 'junior Cadillac'. The El Morocco was an automotive unicorn, except no school kids ever drew pictures of them.

We have just never communicated well. You do not always get where I am coming from and I assume the same with you. That is why I seldom try to communicate directly to you and for a long while blocked you as I just wanted to keep the piece. I know you are knowledgeable and well informed but at times you present it like you are the only one that is. 

Too often you take a simple point and blow it way out of proportion as you have here. 

I am not going to ague with you on this. It was well know as Chevy from the early 50's to the last 50's started to add many features that were never even considered for Chevy and to entice people to think they were getting things like they could on a Cadillac. The 57 was given fins and Chevy never tried to not get people to consider it a Cadillac. This even in small numbers lead to Chevy letting dealers sell the El Mooccos in dealer. They simple either planted the seed or let people think this. 

I grew up with a GM Executive that was a great uncle and he was really a grandfather to me. He told me may stories from GM and what went on in Detroit. He had been at GM from 1927 to the early 60's. He knew all the greats and worked with most of them. He hated Delorean because he was not old school GM. He even knew Henry Ford and was invited to the Henry Ford Museum opening. His greatest regret was he did not go to the dinner because it rained. He was an engineer and helped in his early years develop the first tandem axle trucks and the use of Pneumatic tires at Goodyear. He worked for White Motors and several other companies before GM. I even have one of his blue prints for a 1920's C cab truck he drew up in the 20's. He shared much with me and I heard and even saw things that most people never saw. His collection of Goodyear truck and GMC truck photos are special to me as they are the original cloth photo's, 

I even have all the paper work on the cars he bough since the 20's. It is amazing to see how much he paid for cars he bought regularly. 

The bottom line since I was very young I have been taught much about GM and today it gives me a perspective on many things other will never see or even know about. Because Frank was such a hard line Sloan GM type I can see easily it was his kind that prevented change and really was what drove GM into the ground. 

I have made my point on this as have you. I am not going to piss over the semantics and anal reflections. 

I want to get along with you and leave it at that. You do have much to offer but you need to let others have their own opinions, views and recollections. Trust me I don't always agree with all you say either but I do not try to ague ever point. 

If need be I will just block it as you can say what you like and I will just be fine ignoring it. I don't want to do that but I have done it before and will do it again. Life is too short for a pissing match. 

 

 

 

Back to Cadillac's future, Autoblog had a story where Johan himself mapped out the product plans.

 

"We ARE planning a Cadillac flagship which will NOT be a 4 door sedan;
We ARE planning a large crossover beneath Escalade;
We ARE planning a compact crossover beneath XT5;
We ARE planning a comprehensive enhancement to CT6 later during life cycle;
We ARE planning a major refresh for XTS;
We ARE planning a new Lux 3 sedan entry;
We ARE planning a new Lux 2 sedan entry;"

I think it will be interesting to see what this flagship is.  Good idea not to make it a sedan as the S-class is unbeatable.  We knew they would add 2 more crossovers.   I don't know why they bother with the XTS, and that sub-ATS is on the way folks.  Even if ATS and CTS both die, for the new Lux 2 and Lux 3 sedans, with XTS and CT6 they still have 4 sedans

 

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

I think it will be interesting to see what this flagship is.  Good idea not to make it a sedan as the S-class is unbeatable.  

@smk4565 I am going to only state the obvious, Cadillac thought they could never be beat and coined the term standard of the world. 

The S-Class is Beatable, nothing is perfect and nothing stays the best for ever. 

It might not be Cadillac, but I can tell you that some car company someplace is going to come along and beat the snot out of your unbeatable S-Class and your gonna be left looking like this!  

So just be ready cause some day will come.

I'm going to finish off my tangent to this thread here, and sign out. Cadillac Escala, blahblahblah, it's great.
You guys don't mind one more off-topic post, right?

Hyper ~
I also do not care to get into a 'pissing match', we already have the newbies carrying on here for that (and over up/down votes, of all the inconsequential things.) I agree to walk away from the El Morocco issue. Perhaps one day we can crack a beer together and trade Pontiac stories.

- - - - -
Here's an example, so in the future you understand where I am coming from.
• 1948 Tucker 48, curb weight :
Wikipedia : 4200 lbs
Carfolio.com : 4235 lbs
conceptcarz.com : 4235 lbs
supercars.net : 4200 lbs
hagerty.com : 4235 lbs
hotrod.com : 4235 lbs
thehenryford.org : 4235 lbs (HFM owns # 1016)

You can quickly google the above. These are ALL established auto-centric entities (well.. not wikipedia.  )
And they're all wrong. Because they really don't CARE all that much. In fact, they are all regurgitating each other's info.
Not because I say so -I have no pawn in this game- but because the data says so. I don't need any credit, I just want the damn specifications correct. Update all the major info depositories and I'll slink quietly back to my cabin in the woods.

The '48 Tucker is nearly identical in dimension to the '48 Roadmaster. However, the Roadmaster had a cast iron I-8, a cast-iron Dynaflow with 11 quarts of fluid, a steel-encased steel driveshaft (TorqueTube) and a solid rear axle. Roadmaster weight? 4160.

So I'm supposed to shut up and accept a 4200 / 4235 weight for a car with an aluminum flat 6, no driveshaft and an independent rear? Why, because numerous sources said so?? Not gonna happen because I KNOW it's wrong.

Richard Jones (co-founder of the TACA) got in a mild back-n-forth with me online about this issue (has to be 8 years ago or more; Jones has been dead 4 years). Because I challenged it; said I figured it was closer to 3700. He felt it inconsequential. I wish I could link you to the forum where it played out, but the site is permanently archived/ offline. 

I pushed a little (some might say 'blowing it out of proportion'), but he admitted I was right, that all the cars weigh around 3600. Then he promptly challenged me to figure out the Tucker engine serial numbering system… you know; something IMPORTANT (I had no data for that, so could not contribute there).

Just last week I came across this online, first time I had ever seen the document, and my study of the Tucker goes back 30 years, since corresponding with Alex Tremulis (now dead 25 years). These are supposedly factory specs for the '49 model (attached). That's 2 highly credible sources agreeing with my research and bucking EVERY other source. How about that; the 'published / experts' are all wrong.

It happens… and often.
'See something, say something'.