billgiacheri wrote:Lets be honest, the base CTS and ATS are not luxury enough. Period. Cadillac has great performance cars, and mediocre luxury at best.
I don't know if this is fair to state with the current ATS and CTS. An entry level 3-series doesn't have any real advantage to a base ATS, in my view. Likewise, I'm not sure a base CTS is any "less luxurious" than a base 5-series. I would have agreed with the 1st gen CTS and to an extent, the 2nd gen. But this 3rd gen is very good.
The CTS-V comes standard with 20-way seats for christ's sake!
I am good with premium quality, premium price, but quality doesn't have to be 0-60; it shouldn't even be thought to be compared with the Hellcat. It should be compared to Bentley.
That is my point. I don't see anybody talking about the CTS as a great car. When I do hear about the CTS-V, it is about performance. Car and Driver says the interior is outdated and others say it is cheap.
Maybe if the CTS-V is going to be 85K, the CTS should be 75K, and not just be the "base CTS-V", it needs to really show off.
I am not really saying there is anything wrong with the CTS-V, I am saying that there is something wrong with the CTS - Nobody cares about it and in the current lineup it should be the moneymaker/bread and butter.
I don't really hear anyone challenging the luxuriousness of Cadillac. In this segment, it's all about caché. I don't think the mission statement is to be over the top luxurious but to be competitive. Then have the external appearance and design language suitable of a premium brand. Finally, the performance and driving experience has to be there (rather than something that is MAINLY just for looks or sitting in). I don't personally want them to turn down performance to turn up luxury, or add luxury and add price. But that's just my preference. For what Cadillac has to do as a brand, I dunno, but being super luxury doesn't make sense to me. They can have a flagship for that, but the entire line doesn't need to be the most luxurious car in the class or anything. Competitive is fine imo. Lincoln isn't more luxurious than anyone else. In fact I think they are competing mainly on price these days, not luxury/quality. That's not where Cadillac wants to be so they should not copy that approach.
Lincoln is so far from being in the conversation with real luxury brands. Cadillac IS in the conversation, at least among auto journalists and many enthusiasts. Perhaps they just need more time for this to sink in with the general public. Well, that and some new marketing.
As far as my first point, caché, it would be nice if Cadillac was a brand that you would actually aspire to simply to impress your friends and neighbors. The Escalade, in a way, is that product for them currently. We'll have to see if the CT6 can pull that off in a sedan.
The Chrysler 300, also, is something that perhaps pulls off what you are asking for. But I think that platform falls short of true performance pedigree. It's nice to look at and has a nice interior with fancy premium materials but I'll always look down on it because it seems to prioritize the appearance of luxury over actual driving/performance.
Cadillac can't be making cars like the Fleetwood anymore. Then again, half the world still pictures big RWD boats when they think "Cadillac" which I suppose you could make an argument for them to just embrace. But that's not how it works. You don't cater to a perception. You CHANGE the perception. That's what they've been working on for the past 10+ years. They had to amplify the performance characteristics to change the conversation.
This was kind of my gut feeling, at least for cars I am interested in. It doesn't really bother me that the Malibu is not leader of the class. Not NEARLY as much as it would if I liked Fords and I saw all the cool RWD shit coming out of GM (Cadillac line, the SS, The Corvette, and even how good the Camaro got on Zeta).
I want to like Ford, and taken at a corporate glance, I do. And I should dislike GM - again, corporately speaking, I do. But my three cars are all GM. Because they are/were the only things in their market spaces.
My DD is a CTS-V wagon. Ford has nothing like this - and I don't mean a super-horsepower car, I mean a four-door with RWD and a manual. Chrysler comes a little closer with the 300/Charger, but GM has three cars that meet this criteria (ATS/CTS/SS).
I have an Avalanche for truck-like activity and for transport of five. A double cab truck would handle the passenger side, but I couldn't haul drywall/plywood in it. A long-bed would take care of that but couldn't accommodate the people. Yeah, it's a weird niche vehicle but it's what I needed and it's the only one.
And I have a convertible Corvette, which is pretty self-explanatory.
So, despite the fact that the only Ford I've ever owned was a complete piece of junk ('92 LX V8), I'd be happy to buy another...if they made anything that interested me. The GT350 does, but it's too late.
GM has a far more diverse portfolio. Ford (MoCo) has no Corvette, but it also has no SS, and also no answer to the better Cadillacs
As far as looks:
I would give Ford/Lincoln credit for the Fusion, Taurus, and Explorer.
I would give GM the Cruze, Impala, Camaro, Silverado, CTS-V, and Corvette
I am not a fan of the current Lincoln styling and car makers fail at making the economy sized cars look good.
What would I actually drive:
Cruze, maybe Fusion, and Camaro.
A 6 cyl AWD maybe even manual version of the Cruze or Fusion would be a cool daily driver.
Impala and Taurus are too big and not RWD so not interested.
Explorer is a package I would never have fun driving even though they look awesome.
I can tell you what would make me buy a Cruze as an everyday driver:
The Fusion comes with an AWD option. I don't want AWD necessarily in the Cruze SS, but I do want RWD. If they made a Cruze AWD, they could also do just RWD right? They are already sending a drive axle to the rear wheels in AWD with a diff.
With that being said:
Cruze SS - 6cyl from the Camaro, RWD, Suspension upgrade (currently you need the 2LT for this at 24K)