(first posted 12/17/2015)
Dear General Motors,
Many of your business decisions during the 1980s and 1990s, at least in North America, were questionable at best. However, by the 2000s and even as you skated towards bankruptcy, you seemed to be getting your act together. Still, you made one of your most bone-headed product launches of the 2000s with this: the 2006 Cadillac DTS.
The 2000s were perhaps your most creative time since the 1960s. In the ’60s, you prided yourself on engineering experimentation: the Rope-Drive Tempest, rear-engine Corvair, Unitized Power Package Toronado/Eldorado. None of those really amounted to much but damn it, you tried anyway.
After a disastrous 1970s and 1980s, the 1990s saw you implement rampant cost-cutting to restore your ailing fiscal health. By the 2000s though, you realised product was what was really important. Boy, did you have a lot of interesting product! Not all of it was a success, but you did it anyway. Chevrolet received the HHR SS, SSR, Trailblazer SS and Malibu Maxx. Pontiac and Saturn had the Kappa roadsters. You stuffed 5.3 V8s in your front-wheel-drive family sedans.
But Cadillac was where you really seemed to have it together. A daring new design language, a capable rear-wheel-drive platform not shared with any other division, a luxury roadster, a crossover… Just looking at the lineup, you could practically hear the average buyer age dropping. You called it a Breakthrough, and while it wasn’t perfect, it shook up a brand that was becoming too stodgy.
DTS photos courtesy of Brendan Saur
And then you launched this in 2006. You just couldn’t let go of your regular, elderly buyers that were, despite their loyal patronage, killing your luxury brand. You had the oldest buyers in the business and people knew it! Cadillac had become synonymous with “old man’s car”.
Cadillac’s razor-edged new design language could scarcely hide the 2000 DeVille body. It seemed ill at ease with the DeVille’s front-wheel-drive proportions and lengthy front overhang. It arguably looked even more of an old man’s car, a throwback to the 1970s, because it seemed chunkier and less graceful than the DeVille.
The interior was tidied up and was more elegant than the DeVille’s, but it looked much like the related Buick Lucerne’s. You know, the Lucerne that started a good $16k lower than the DTS. And the Lucerne’s interior looked like the W-Body Chevy Impala, which had an opening MSRP of just $20k. Whoops!
Dynamically, the DTS was a monument to the old adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. A four-speed automatic transmission, albeit a smooth-shifting one, when rivals were using 5, 6 and 7-speed automatics. A creamy smooth and now more reliable Northstar V8 with 275 hp and 295 ft-lbs, when rivals were getting that kind of power out of V6s. Front-wheel-drive, when most rivals had abandoned it.
Critics were somewhat impressed with the DTS’ dynamics. It had a traditional Cadillac ride but didn’t completely embarrass itself in aggressive driving. The DTS Performance even came with a higher-output version of the Northstar, inexplicably detuned from DeVille DTS levels, with 292 hp and 288 ft-lbs. The Performance also came with Magnetic Ride Control, one of GM’s greatest engineering accomplishments of the past few decades, that ensured a surprisingly good ride/handling balance for such a big boat.
The DTS’ size was one of its most pleasing attributes, as it made for a roomy interior that could even be equipped with one of the passenger car market’s last offerings of front bench seats. It was a big, comfortable cruiser, like Cadillacs of yore. And that was why it needed to die.
Variety is the spice of life. Cars like the DTS can be immensely pleasing to drive. Not every car needs to be able to carve corners on the Nürburgring. Bench seats have their benefits. All of these arguments are utterly sound, and have many proponents. But Cadillac was trying to cultivate a new image, and the DTS acted as a homing beacon in Cadillac showrooms for the same-old, old buyers that had become regulars. And this stodgy old sedan sat next to cars like the CTS-V and XLR-V.
Some malign Cadillac’s German-beating aspirations. They point to recent sales declines and say this strategy isn’t working, and that Cadillac should just offer plush, all-American luxury in the vein of their offerings of years ago. Within your ranks, General Motors, I’m sure there are a few executives who still think this. Their fathers probably bought a new Coupe de Ville every couple of years and cruised along comfortably, knowing they had it made because every successful man aspired to own a Cadillac someday. Nothing said success like a Cadillac.
Those executives of yours need to get with the times. The market moved on, and myriad poor products of yours in the 1980s helped shepherd those buyers to the German brands and Lexus. You must have known this when you introduced cars like the Seville STS and Catera. You couldn’t sustain yourself on your old consumer base.
To those executives of yours who think Cadillac should return to cruiser-dom, remember this: the DTS didn’t even sell that well. In 2006, there were 58,224 DTS sedans sold, considerably down from DeVille figures just a few years before. Sales fell around 50% for 2008, and then another 50% or so the year after, with the DTS selling in paltry volumes until it was finally killed after 2011.
The DTS-replacing, front-wheel-drive XTS of 2013 is a comfortable cruiser, too, with a huge trunk. It’s a bit narrower, yes, but it is still spacious. It still rides comfortably, but has a V6 as powerful as the old Northstar and an optional twin-turbo V6 and all-wheel-drive. There’s a tech-laden interior miles ahead of the old DTS cabin, with high-quality materials and excellent build quality. Despite its FWD and lack of a V8, it’s a modern-day Sedan de Ville. And it doesn’t really sell. Despite having a segment almost entirely to itself – the main rivals are pretty much just the Lincoln MKS and Acura RLX – it was outsold by the CTS in 2014, a trend that will probably continue. Besides, with the new CT6 coming on board for 2016, the XTS likely doesn’t have much time left.
General Motors, you probably worry sometimes how long it will take for Cadillac to be considered by luxury car buyers as being on the same level as BMW and Mercedes-Benz. It will take time and money, but by offering world-class dynamics, high levels of quality and distinctive styling, I’m sure you will get there. As a Cadillac fan, I earnestly hope you will get there. But you can’t let something like the DTS happen again. If you fire someone because they are a bad fit for the company, you don’t let them keep coming in to work for several years, making sales calls and using your break room.
The DTS stuck around until 2011! When it finally left, this was what was in the showroom next to it.
When it finally left, the only four-speed automatic transmissions left were in low-end Corollas and a handful of GM products. Even Chevy’s bread-and-butter compact and mid-size offerings had ditched their 4ATs.
The DTS just sat in your showrooms, dated and stodgy, eroding Cadillac’s credibility and slowing the march of progress to a younger, more affluent consumer base. A competent offering but poor fit in 2006 became an embarrassing relic in 2011, and it had the opposite of a halo effect on the brand.
The most frustrating part? You had a better car sitting right under your noses. And you may have been bleeding cash by 2006 – all those niche offerings developed during the decade probably didn’t help – but you actually invested money in tooling up a version of the STS for the Chinese market that would have been a vastly better fit for the Cadillac lineup.
I’ve spoken before about how the STS combined competitive handling with a smooth, Cadillac ride. I also mentioned the Chinese-market SLS, with a 5 inch longer wheelbase and a redesigned interior. Launched in 2007, the SLS was redesigned to address Chinese luxury car buyers’ desire for more luxurious and more spacious rear-seat accommodation.
Lavishly decorated with Pommele Sapelle wood trim and leather surfacing, the SLS cabin was a dramatic improvement over the starker STS cabin.
Rear seats were available with heating, ventilation and massaging functions.
Rumor has it, GM, that you had a Zeta-based Cadillac flagship in the works alongside a new V8 engine (the Ultra), but you had to deep-six both because of your impending bankruptcy. The DTS, thus, was just a placeholder. You know what would have been a better placeholder? The Chinese SLS. A mid/late-2000s Cadillac sedan lineup of CTS, STS and SLS would have been a three-pronged assault on the Germans. It wouldn’t have been perfect – after all, the STS sold about as well as the DTS – but it would not have set back the clock on Cadillac’s renaissance.
But you didn’t think about that, GM. You sold the DTS. For six years. This is the kind of offering you used to sell far too many of: the “great used car”. This car surely only appealed to regular Cadillac buyers, because who else would have spent $40-50k on one when you could have gotten the almost identical Buick Lucerne for cheaper, or a better car from another company? You made a lot of poor product decisions in the 2000s, especially investing in niche products at the expense of your core models. But the Cadillac DTS may be your poorest decision of the decade.
Related Reading:
Future Curbside Classic: Cadillac XTS
I must say to a foreigner the DTS sounds kinda fun in an ‘old skool smoker’ kind of way – big saloons have a charm of their own. The Chrysler 300C has a big following here in the UK – with a lot about.
William, there’s a website out there with GM product codes. Old and new. The Zeta based Cadillac is there, cancelled. It also shows what should have happened with the local red team.
The place is not updated, but it shows that its author took the time to research and join the pieces of the puzzle.
I like the DTS’s predecessor better, the more upright front end seems less gimmicky. That was the last Cadillac where I really liked the exterior styling, before they went overboard with the bling-tastic cheese-grater styling cues.
That said, I would would have infinitely more trust in a used Town Car than a used FWD Northstar Cadillac.
Agree, Paul. My choice of the two:
The DTS had one great commercial that showed what the car could easily have been if it had not been held back by Cadillac’s self-loathing management.
4 professionally dressed guys in their thirties get out of one in front of a diner. 4 older guys are coming out of the diner, glance admiringly at the Caddy and say, “Congratulations on joining the Club of Gentleman, gentlemen.”
I suspect baby boomers would not get it but I think more than a few younger folks would.
I have a 2007 Lucerne bought used for 1/2 of the new price in 2009. That plus William’s excellent analysis tell the story of the Old GM.
Don’t worry Lebaron, I am sure the first owner got a discount too. When half of the market is not open too you, wouldn’t know a CTS from an ATS because they just don’t care, you have to work harder.
With your call sign though, shouldn’t 300’s be more up your alley.
Here is a prediction – and a safe one I think – Cadilac will never challenge the Germans and will even have a hard time keeping pace with Lexus. Perhaps they can find their mojo in China where the brand may still have lustre.
Further, I don’t see a very long term future for the remaining GM brands either. I think they will become nameplates for model ranges under a single brand name and that is probably a better way to use the respective history value of each of these names.
The days of the large domestic ‘Semi premium’ sedans is over. Buyers now either want a real luxury brand or a cheep and cheerful offering, typically from Korea. The middle market is vanishing and this is not just limited to cars, but applies to all products.
I think you are right about a lot of this. Think on this site how many Japanese car advocates for their personal car have shifted over to the Koreans. Most will be frank about the value offered and the peace of mind of the long warranty. We have seen the phenomenon in Japan, the USA, Australia and in Europe where local mid market brands have been decimated. Mainstream cars/cuvs over time will become fewer and ever more alike and much more likely to originate from the third world.
At the same time China, Russia and soon India are opening up large new high end markets that the Germans have done the best job of catering to. Some may decry this as a blanding down of the Germanness of the cars. But that disease is worldwide now, and I was a little surprised to hear William advocate more of this in regard to the DTS, as if it had not already been subject to many generations of it.
I am not so sure. Cadillac has been doing a somewhat credible job as of late, and though that in itself my not be enough, the quality of the premium German cars seems to be getting worst by the day. Odd role reversal, but I see alienated owners of car makes that used to have unassailable reputations, as Cadillac did in the 70’s.
I totally agree there seems to be no room for ‘semi-premium’ cars anymore, foreign or domestic. Except for maybe the Chinese market.
Very excellent take on the DTS. Despite the new sheetmetal and dropping the de Ville name all together, it was a dying relic of a bygone era that GM tried to squeeze every last drop of blood out of.
Some here will argue that the DTS was kept for a specific mission and succeeded in that mission with flying colors. Yes, older folks did like them and bought many of them. But look at it this way, this very platinum 2006 DTS used in this article which I photographed belongs to my great uncle. He purchased it new and has been driving it for nearly a decade now. Though he used to buy a new car every 3 years or so, he’s nearly 90 now and doesn’t do much driving.
Though he’d like a new car, he doesn’t need one and doesn’t want to have to get used to a new car (and believe me, even if Cadillac was still making the DTS, its controls would be new and a lot more complex by now). So essentially, Cadillac has lost a buyer in him. This is the case for many elderly buyers. And by keeping cars like the DTS around in their form, Cadillac (sans Escalade) became unappealing to younger buyers who will now never consider owning a Cadillac.
Now the XTS is an example of how an automaker can build a car catered towards an older (but not exclusively) demographic done right. Big, soft, and luxurious, with advanced safety and entertainment technology, a high quality interior, plenty of power, and an available high-performance model for those that really want it. And, yes, I am praising GM here.
Personally, though the XTS doesn’t appeal to me much, out of all Cadillac’s current and recent vehicles, I view it as the “purest” Cadillac in terms of what a Cadillac should be. Cadillac shouldn’t try to be the American BMW or the super-luxe Chevy Suburban, they should be making more cars like the XTS.
Why can’t they make all 3?
Here we can agree.
Cadillac’s a brand with a clouded mission now. You can’t be this, that, and the other. Look at where it got Oldsmobile with their luxurious 98/Toronado/Auroras, cheapo base Cutlasses/Achievas/Aleros, and Chevy+ Silhouette/Bravada. By the late-1990s, who knew what to make of poor Olds.
Why not? Every other luxury brand seems to be.
299/mo FWD A-class, luxo 600 Maybach, AMG GT and cargo vans?
True.
Your earlier comment about why the presence of one car in a showroom might deter the sale of another was a lot of food for thought.
Halo cars, win on Sunday; sell on Monday, frumpy old people sedans killing sales – all that marketing theory. What works?
In the current world, it seems the dominant and growing business model is the showroom that sells something for everyone. Chevy, Ford, Toyota, Chrysler (with its brand mania in single stores) – increasingly Mercedes – all seem to embody this, and there are many signs of further such consolidation.
Rightly or wrongly, every M-B car and SUV still is positioned and seen as a premium product in the US. M-B’s cheaper products don’t actively damage the brand’s image for perceived quality/luxury like the cheapest Olds and Buicks did (or most of GM’s products did). The bottom of the M-B line is presented just as a smaller portion of what is liked about M-B.
While M-B has a broad line of prices, all of its products still are relatively exclusive. Mercedes’ whole US sales volume is less than the single most popular most popular model from Chevy, Ford, Honda, Toyota, etc. It’s less than 2 percent of total US vehicle sales.
But the XTS is not selling well. I think part of the reason why is that everybody is tired of letter name plates. Its one thing to want to change gear and attempt a new brand identity but it is another to disown your past history.
It was criminal of Cadillac to drop the Deville name from their car line up. Just like it was for Buick to drop the Lesabre name. in both it is very telling that the Lucerne and the XTS really have not sold anything close to the numbers their predecessors sold in.
After all you don’t see Honda or Toyota dropping the name Accord or Camry so why did GM decide it was a good idea to drop the Deville name?
After all in the classic Chuck Berry song Maybellne, Mr Berry is not singing about catching up to his unfaithful girlfriend who was driving a XTS or JTY or some other car with a letter nameplate. No it was a Deville.
They need to ether rename the XTS Deville or come out with a new car called Deville.
+1 how to explain the alphabet numbers on current Cadillacs except chasing Germans. How about Lasalle for the ATS, Seville for the CTS, Deville for the XTS, and Talisman for the SRX
The Germans used the numbers and letters probably because they knew model names in German would not have played on the many cars they exported. There is even a story that the Beetle name was the result of a pre war New York Times story on the car.
Agree, Alpha-Numeric gobbledy-gook ‘names’ are a bane on the car business.
They used to mean something at places like BMW (although, like Porsche, they’ve begun to use them deceptively).
If the letters and numbers don’t convey something technical about the car, they’re just BS.
CTS, XTS, SRX, DTS – what BS! Total confusion. Let’s just re-jumble the letters every few years when a new model debuts. At least at Mercedes the numbers and letters actually mean something, with the higher number being the more premium car. Fleetwood, DeVille, LaSalle and even Calais were all great names. I guess Cadillac thought the new models needed new names to attract new customers. Didn’t work. All they did was alienate older regular customers while younger yuppies still sneered at these as inferior to their German and Japanese brethren.
The older, stodgy, regular customer base the article derides was the backbone of Cadillac for decades. They like prestigious, roomy, comfortable, luxurious and powerful sedans. They value reliability over gadgetry and frankly could care less about which wheels drove the car. They like prestige and tradition, which Cadillac used to provide back in the “Standard of the World” days. When these customers later visited Cadillac showrooms and saw these puzzling alphabet cars, they fled to Town Cars, Lexus and Mercedes.
Agreed. It’s just “monkey-see, monkey-do”. I thought Americans were smarter.
100% correct Paul. Just look at Acura. If they kept the Legend name their flagship would be selling instead of it being another 3 lettered car that is out there that no one knows or cares about. People loved their Legends. And it was THE first Japanese luxury car nameplate in the U.S. To throw that name out was truly stupid and a very backward move on Acura’s part.
Yes, the Legend and Integra had a lot of name recognition and brand equity, Vigor less so.
A lot of this is just me-tooism, automotive is naturally a very conservative industry due to the investment levels, leads to a lot of follow-the-leader decisions.
It’s easier to deflect blame when you fail doing the same thing as everyone else.
And that’s only in America – in the rest of the world it’s still the Legend.
Oh, and I’ll just pre-empt Bryce here by mentioning that in the rest of the world it’s a Honda, too.
If you’re trying to appeal to a different buyer than your traditional market, the very last thing you want to do is to start recycling old nameplates. It works for Chevy because the buyer they’re targeting now is essentially the same buyer they were targeting years ago. Savvier, with higher expectations of quality and less blind loyalty, but still the same buyer. Lower to middle income folks with families who want a good value in a new car. I’d wager that if you renamed the CTS to Seville, you’d actually lose sales, as there are folks who are probably *just* comfortable driving something with the Cadillac crest on it, but saddling it with a historic nameplate and all that baggage of the eighties and nineties would be a bridge too far. Anti-snob appeal, if you will.
It’s a lot harder to get brand recognition for some alphanumeric gobbledygook than for a word. Even a made-up word. The marketeers should know that. I don’t wash my clothes in KT5, or clean my teeth with SQ7.
“A word vs alphanumeric” isn’t always a clear contest. Over many years Infiniti managed to develop and refine a compact sports/luxury sedan – G35/G37 – that was their bread-and-butter car and brought strong brand recognition to a division that overall has failed to do so for Nissan. The car, with great performance, build quality, reliability, and value-added features, came to be universally known as “The G” and was reasonably competitive in its market segment.
To a great extent Nissan/Infiniti threw that away with their revised Q naming convention. Of course the G’s successor, the Q50, had more problems than just being a Q among many as it was more expensive (less features for the money), less reliable (poorly functioning tech) , and a new yet dated product (same drivetrain, and far from unique styling).
The SRX is best selling, followed by that ATS and XTS, both selling around 40,000. Then the Escalade and CTS.
Through October this year:
SRX-81,794
ATS-48,917
XTS-38,800
Escalade-33,375
CTS-18,491
Interesting that the truck is the only one with a name.
Looking at these numbers, a few things stand out to me. Circa 40,000 a year Escalades just in the USA at full price of 80k a pop is fanatastic. Circa 100,000 SRX at the tale end of that style is also great. A 60/40 split of sedans modern/traditional is enough evidence to me that the traditional sedan is justified for another generation. The holes in the line up are a 80k sedan, coupe, and convertible. A running of the numbers might indicate that 20k USA plus exports would be profitable with ample gravy for higher volumes. The other glaring omission is a pint size CUV, how fancy can you make an Encore/Trax, Does the 3.6 fit? The SRX is well differentiated from the Equinox, On a Caddy Calais? one must do even better.
The XTS sold about 40,000 copies this year, which is a reasonable number considering the car’s positioning.
The days of shifting 100,000+ DeVilles per year are gone, never to return….
What’s in a name? Would a rose by any other name not smell so sweet? God, did I just quote the most overrated playwright of all time?
But seriously. I just bought myself a Mercedes Metris. What the heck is a “Metris” anyway? Its called the Vito in Europe. I bought it because it met all the needs I have for a vehicle while continuing to be a Mercedes (a brand I happen to trust). I woulda bought it if it were called the Metris, the Vito, the MCV200, or the Mercedes Don Vito Corleone. I would have bought it if it were called the Freightliner Metris, too.
Cadillac’s sales of large, mass market, mid-priced, luxury sedans on plebian mechanicals has been going down as market tastes have changed. Cadillac is seen, (mostly incorrectly) as an overpriced Chevy. If they want to sell alongside Mercedes, Audi, and BMW- at similar prices, they need to prove that their vehicles have the engineering, luxury, and quality to go along with it.
I’m not against changing back to long-form names. I think it would help, actually. But it doesn’t actively hurt. I would be astonished if the average BMW buyer sets foot in a Cadillac showroom during their consideration process.
Ultimately, the problem is that when you use marketing spin (i.e. lying through your teeth) to try to convince people your products are competitive (I once saw an ad saying that the Catera was comparable to a 5-series, and the DeVille DTS was a capable S-class competitor) Maybe you could say they were good enough for the vast price difference, but I’d argue. When you do that for so long, when the comparison is a lie, it takes a long time to get people to believe you, or even pay attention to you, when it happens to be true.
Agreed on the name / numbers.
Re-introduce a new Cadillac Coupe de Ville and the internet starts to complain it sounds too French / too foreign / not German enough / not Texan enough / whatever.
Congratulations with your new Benz V-Class (447-series). The panel van is (still) called the Vito in Europe. The Metris is the name of the V-Class in America, as far as I know.
The V-Class is actually an upscale version of the Vito/Metris aimed at consumers rather than commercial customers, with a much more luxurious interior and an different, elegant dash and door panels that look more like they’re from a Mercedes sedan. Supposedly some though has been given to exports to the US and I hope they do – we need a nice small van from a luxury brand that will make them be perceived as desirable.
Right, that’s why the 447-series is the best model designation. The Metris name is North America only.
The (upscale) MPV is just called V here, like Mercedes-Benz V250 BlueTec. The panel van of the 447-series is called the Mercedes-Benz Vito, just like the previous generations.
Ear firmly to the ground many of our customers say they don’t like the newer designed XTS as well as the Deville or DTS because it is narrower, less comfortable, don’t recognize the name and find the dreadful touch screens and CUE system to be a major turn off. And these are not 70 year old people I’m talking about. Some also say the new car looks awkward and ungainly. I have driven loads of Devills and DTS sedans but have yet to drive an XTS. From other reviews it also sounds like the ride is very stiff and the low end grunt and sound is also lacking compared to the old Northstar but I digress.
Beltline is way too high for both XTS and MKS, and they figured it. Belt line is so much lower on CT6 and Continental.
Around 2006, an ex of mine had a job cleaning a large, multi building GM dealer showroom. The owner knew me and let me check out some of the rides while I waited around. I was excited to get to know the DTS! I come from a family that values their boats, one of their treasures being a mint 1988 Town Car. They had one of the heirs to the Deville out, in black, and in what I hope was the lowest trim available. She looked a little bloated, with a beltline that reached too high and nothing interesting going on, giving the impression of an old man with his pants too high. The interior was, and I struggle for adequate words here, CHEAP. I was used to my beater cars from the 90s and was taken aback by a Cadillac, a luxury brand, that had worst fit, finish, and materials than my 95 Pontiac. Everything was thin, hard plastic. There were more and bigger gaps than in the teeth of a certain stereotype. The seats were decently comfy, but not “I’m driving a couch” plush. I kept thinking to myself “this is what a showroom car is today? This is what they picked to represent the flagship of Cadillac?”. Nothing about the car was impressive to begin with and now you’ve exacerbated its boring nature with major quality issues. The 2004 Grand Am I bought months later was actually a better, if smaller car. What the hell happened with GM in the mid 2000s?
Glad you liked the interior of the Grand Am. Many have poo-pooed it. But it had it’s own style and a clientele who loved it. Since it sold so well, GM probably worked a little harder to give the customer what it wanted.
Then of course it also went alpha-numeric and on a world platform. Progress?
The Grand Am interior wasn’t groundbreaking, but it was very driver-centric, comfortable, and well made, with soft surfaces and no gaps. It looked like H.R. Giger had a hand in designing it, which I love. The eyeball vents are very easy to use. My only complaint about the car was a lack of traction up front. The 3400 chirped the tires on dry pavement, no matter what tires the car wore. It was either fast or decent on mileage. If you wanted any kind of passing ability, you’d get it, but that fuel needle would visibly move at full throttle. I almost got the coupe version with a stick and four cylinder, but the two door had a frighteningly bad crash rating.
Didn’t the Cadillac XTS also replaced the STS as well? Now Cadillac according to Google Wikipedia is saying that the upcoming CT-6 is going to become a successor to the long gone STS and YES the CT-6 is a bit larger than the XTS and its a few millimeters longer than the 1976-79 Seville so who would be the actual Seville/STS replacement the XTS? or the CT-6? Anyway, I created this Seville/STS Family Tree which even shows both the XTS and the CT-6 because one or both of them had and/or will be replacing the STS. After our last STS, I even included the Chinese Market long wheelbase 2014 Cadillac SLS as well next to it.
Today, the new bigger 3rd gen CTS is the closest car to the STS in the line up, the CT6 is more a neo-DeVille/Fleetwood heir. Some say the XTS was a DTS/XTS replacement, but to me its mostly a DTS replacement.
I think the XTS is a good replacement for the old FWD Deville or Seville. The new CTS is a good choice to replace the STS (either the FWD or RWD version, depending on what the customer is really looking for).
Some here will argue that the DTS was kept for a specific mission and succeeded in that mission with flying colors
After 2009 the DTS was indeed kept for a specific mission. It would have been discontinued in 2010 were it not for heavy pressure from funeral directors and livery operators. The DTS was to the funeral trade what the P71 Crown Vic was to law enforcement. As with the police departments that bought extra 2011 P71s, hearse builders such as Accubuilt stocked up on conversion-prepped 2010 and 2011 DTSs. Today it’s not uncommon for funeral homes that can easily afford a new XTS- or MKT-based coach to buy a nice used DTS.
The Town Car had most of the stretch limo and “black car” business, but there were enough Cadillac loyalists in that trade to get GM’s attention as well.
I am curious as to why we beat on Cadillac all the time about its missteps but we tend to give Mercedes a free pass on its ills and missteps.
I am no GM apologist or fanboy, I do like GM and cars in general but I have no problem calling out a manufacturer for doing something dumb (like placing a cup holder in the door panel directly under the crank for the window so you have to remove the cup/bottle from the holder in order to roll the window down or up(thanks GM for doing that on my Colorado) )
But we gloss over the fact that everything that Mercedes has made since 1995(after the ending of the W124) has had questionable build quality with poor rust proofing, questionable electronics, poor resale value and bland looks.
Then there is the Mercedes M Class(especially the W163) which is a complete turd.
Finally GM always gets criticized for keeping models unchanged too long. So lets talk about the Benz R107. This is a car that remained almost unchanged from 1971 to 1989. A full 18 years in production. This means that somebody born in 1971 when this car was production would have graduated high school with it still in production.
Heck it could have enrolled in school and graduated itself. I have never understood the popularity of the R107. It was a 1980’s Yuppie wet dream but it was heavy, outdated and too thirsty for gas.
Say what you want about the Deville and DTS, they sold lots of them and there are lots of them on the road still.
Did you miss the article earlier this month that asked the question: Is the ML a M-B “deadly sin?”….or words to that effect.
When the DTS name replaced De Ville, I figured most folks at Cadillac must not really care. Maybe it’s my age showing but DTs used to be the abbreviation for a symptom of a serious alcoholic hangover….definitely NOT something you willingly acquired.
The car itself? I never paid much attention to Cadillacs after they went through that second/bungled down-sizing in the 80s that turned them into rolling appliances. To me those cars said GM was more interested in maintaining the “rolling boudoir” look to a Cadillac’s interior and no one (certainly not the potential customers) REALLY cared how they drove or what the outside looked like.
BTW, while I find many Korean cars to be tempting and many folks say the quality is now on a par with the Japanese, I hate to say it but I’m enough of a “brand snob” that I would more likely purchase a “domestic” brand before I bought a Korean branded car.
Also many points in this article could also be pointed at the 2011 Town Car, a RWD relic from a 1979 design. It too had an old as dirt drivetrain with a 4 speed automatic transmission, a less powerful and efficient 4.6 V8, aquatic handling, many cheap interior bits and even lower tech than the 2011 version of the DTS such as no bluetooth or even a MP3 reader in it’s CD player. And it was mounted on a full frame with a solid rear axle where the DTS was at least on a more modern unit constructed car with fully independent rear suspension. The Grand Marquis and Crown Vic of course were basically shorter wheelbase versions of this. Yet despite this people still like them to this day, especially the Livery and Taxi companies. Ditto the Deville/DTS.
We beat on Cadillac in general because it went from being synonymous with achievement, performance, quality, luxury, and prestige to being irrelevant to America’s movers and shakers.
However impressIve you find DTS and Deville sales in this period, I guarantee you that GM wasn’t happy.
I tend to agree with William that the Chinese market SLS would have been a better large (flagship?) car for Cadillac North America in this era. Was the SLS made in North America and sold export only? If so, the scream you hear is probably mine. In many ways, the STS, upon which the SLS was based, was underrated and under marketed. Hmmm, sold as a short and long wheelbase RWD flagship – where have I heard that before? If they had thrown a few bucks at it and pushed it out wider, even better.
The DTS body shell would have made a better Lucerne. A nose and butt job and viola! A better big Buick where it could have been the flagship of a group of FWD cars. The Lucerne (from stealing its name from Safeway dairy products to its amorphous meaningless style) was a mistake on several levels along with the DTS.
This, folks, is why you should be careful reading things online. What Dave said is actually incorrect. You think GM named a car after a grocery store product? I’d like to point you to the nearest map and look up Lucerne, Switzerland–a city over 1300 years old (that’s before Safeway). The namesake of the ehrm…Lucerne. Louis Chevrolet comes from Switzerland and the naming was an homage to his legacy at Buick. Lucerne is one of the most beautiful cities in beautiful Switzerland. A fitting name whether you like it or not!
My intent was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But, technically, without the meeting minutes, we don’t really know which Lucerne the Buick was named after. 😉
But, it is entirely possible to bring home your Safeway Lucerne Ice Cream in your Buick Lucerne.
And, marketing is really about context. Where Buick Lucernes were sold, there is a decent probability that more people knew of the ice cream than the city.
You’re right dude. Kinda like how the DeVille is named for CC DeVille, a block of cheese is for which the Lucerne is named.
The Buick wasn’t much of a compliment to the city of Lucerne. And, for that matter, it seemed that Safeway couldn’t be enticed into any marketing tie-ins. 😉
Perhaps it’s best to leave it that the Buick Lucerne was named for the melted block of cheese after which it was styled.
The Lucerne was a disappointment styling wise, it’s goal was to replace the Park Avenue and the LeSabre in one car, it was an “ok” LeSabre replacement, but it never measured up as a Park Avenue replacement.
The Lucerne left me just dumbfounded.
The LeSabre it replaced was a bit of a mixed bag styling wise, but it was distinct and clearly a Buick. And, it had enjoyed a several year run as America’s best selling full-size car.
The Park Ave that it also replaced was a terrifically styled Buick as far as I was concerned. A huge trunk and spacious interior were part of the package. The interior was a little dull, but that damn monochrome era that every car had to go through was the problem.
I always thought that if the Park Ave had carried the Lexus name that it would have been an out-of-the-park hit. Unfortunately, I seem to hear too many credible stories that the quality of the car wasn’t what it should have been.
The LeSabre and Park Ave really did have two distinct missions, and the Lucerne’s styling was as compromised as its mission to replace the two cars.
That’s where my thought that the DTS body shell might have made a better Lucerne came from. A brawnier look that said Buick flagship might have worked better.
The dark times 2005-2007, Buick was just down to 3 models, 2 meh sedans and the med Rendezvous. It didn’t start getting better until the Enclave came out, which has been a pretty solid hit for Buick and actually looks like someone who cared styled it vs the LaCosse/Lucerne.
The circa 2000 LeSabre was pretty nice, but I always thought it looked awkward, there are some styling sketches out there of the original design concept, it originally looked a lot more like a 4 door version of the 1995-1999 Riviera, which I though was a very pretty car, but somewhere along the way, it got boned.
Only the Chinese Market received the Holden based Buick Park Avenue which in essence is the same car as the Chevrolet Caprice PPV and exclusively available only for Law Enforcement Service clients only and NOT the General Public. For the General Public and scarce distribution where available, only the shorter Chevrolet SS is available which incidentally was the same car as the Pontiac G8.
Style is subjective. I think the Lucerne is one of the most beautiful cars ever–that’s why I bought one years ago. I think the DeVille (DTS) is beautiful also, but will not drive a Cadillac. Please refer to the old “Buick as doctor’s car” adage.
The Park Avenue was barely a step-up from the LeSabre. Set your mind to ~1986 for reference. And ~1992. GM did a smart thing and combined the two. Remember, the market had changed. The Lucerne sold very well in the beginning…again, the market was still changing and customers were literally dying off. Today we have the Enclave as its replacement–it too has some shortfalls but it has that classy traditional Buick style. Again, subjective.
Carmine, GM designer Bill Porter says that the Riviera styled LeSabre required a remote battery location, like the Riviera. GM wouldn’t do it for the LeSabre.
I must respectfully but strenuously disagree about the styling. The 2000-05 Deville is one of my least favorite Cadillacs styling-wise. It may be “purer of line” than this car but it’s just so bland. Other than the eggcrate grille and the vertical taillights, nothing about that car says Cadillac.. And while the DTS is built on the same platform and shares many of the hard points, at least it shares cues with other Cadillac models. It has the family Art and Science nose, and it sharpens up a lot of the soft, flabby lines of the Deville. Is the beltline too high, the overhangs too long? Sure. But to me it’s just as attractive, if not better-looking, than the concurrent STS, which always looked like a watered-down (if slightly better proportioned) CTS.
The rest of the article’s criticisms are valid though. It was an antique platform full of outdated technology, and while I think the idea that its mere presence in the showroom repelled potential CTS and STS buyers is a bit overstated, it really was aimed at a demographic who they had no business chasing. A quite literal dead end. Short-term sales (and not all that many of them) at the expense of longer-term customers, though given the bankruptcy, discontinuing the DTS would not have resulted in anything taking its place. Better to never develop it in the first place and put that money into a slightly larger second generation of the STS, as mentioned.
I’ve never understood the concept of people not buying one car because it shares showroom space with another car?
That’s the mindset behind those who think Corvette should be a separate brand. And I don’t agree either,
Corvette represents the best of Chevrolet, one of the handful of “all things to all people” brands who should continue to operate and market as such, Buick and GMC be damned. Especially if Chevrolet is to regain the status it enjoyed 50 years ago…a status its current products deserve IMO.
I’m not going to buy a Dodge Charger SRT Hellcat because there’s a Caravan in the showroom.
> while I think the idea that its mere presence in the showroom repelled potential CTS and STS buyers is a bit overstated, it really was aimed at a demographic who they had no business chasing
That’s how I feel about the Escalade scaring away potential BMW converts from an ATS or CTS
The DTS is a maddening car, to me. It is not unattractive. It is comfortable. It was for Cadillac buyers what the Town Car was for Lincoln buyers. But with a couple of differences.
First, Cadillac went all-in with FWD in a way that Lincoln never did (at least up to that time). So, Cadillac’s “legacy” platform was stuck with FWD. Not optimum for that price class, but Cadillac was painted-in by decisions made long ago in response to CAFE.
Second, FoMoCo ignored Lincoln for a long time for two reasons – Lack of money in the early 80s and a Premier Auto Group to lavish (waste) resources on instead. I have more trouble trying to figure out why Cadillac was selling a car of such modest specs for such a premium price as late as it was.
I’m not crazy about the alpha-numero soup names, but I don’t think that the name sells a car. The car sells a car. The Chrysler 300 revived the Chrysler name from meaning fedora and suspenders because of what it was, in performance, concept and style. Cadillac needs to do the same thing. Will the next model do it? Time will tell.
Cadillac’s alpha names (ATS, CTS, XTS, ….) are confusing as there is no obvious hierarchy. The new system, beginning with CT6 at the top implies that the CTS is a CT5 or less and the ATS must be below 4, should be easier to sort out, but not clear if sedans are all even number and coupes are odd.
Cadillac has a long history of changing their naming convention. There were three shifts during the 1930’s.
I argree with you that the names do not sell the car. A good car will sell if the market wants it.
The DTS was a car that fit a certain demographic and I never really thought it did anything to damage the brand as it was trying to have a “renaissance”.
An interesting tidbit is that when I arrived in Gallup the local Chevy dealer was (and still is) Amigo Chevrolet Cadillac – next door was Amigo Toyota (no Lexus). During GMs bankruptcy when the number of Cadillac dealers was being culled Amigo lost their Cadillac franchise but kept Chevy.
As a result during the past few years there has been a marked uptick in the number of Toyota Avalons on the streets of Gallup NM as those DTS are being traded in. There is still a market for an “Old Man’s Car”.
How many and how big a market is Gallup? Did these DTS’s sell at a profit for GM? Is it enough to warrant millions in R&D, marketing and re-tooling a plant?
Avalons and large cars are fading in sales, check recent sales reports.
And, Cadillac competes with Lexus, not Toyota. Avalon cometes with Impala, and Caddy shouldn’t sell lower grade products. GM can make more $$ selling pickups to Gallup buyers.
Is there anyone in America who cannot give one glance to a Lincoln Town Car and be able to instantly identify it by name?
Try that with Cadillac’s current alpha soup of names.
You could say the same for the Crown Victoria and the Grand Marquis, but where are they now?
I can certainly tell an ATS from a CTS from an XTS, only the XTS and CTS get murky when your coming up on one in traffic, but I can definitely tell its a Cadillac.
The Town Car has its own whole bag of baggage, running parallel to the DTS, a model that was kept around too long with too little enthusiasm for any real improvements because it was still selling so why mess with it attitude. It was like they would try to find a way to remove content and trim from the Town Car every year in hopes of saving 12 cents.
At least the DTS had a couple of performance and luxury packages like the Platinum to sprinkle some powdered sugar over its moldy bread.
Seriously, this is a 2007 Town Car instrument panel. I wouldn’t approve this cluster on an E350 cutaway….
Agreed. The Deville/DTS was a more advanced car than any Panther, which was basically a freshened basic design from 1979 with a full frame and solid rear axle. Ford/ Lincoln didn’t even bother offering Bluetooth hands free phone or even an MP3 player in the Panther cars right up until there demise in 2011 whereas the DTS had both as std by this point. This basic platform was first founded in 1995 with the all new Aurora and for 1997 was lengthened for the Park Ave and later for the 2000 Deville etc car line. Caddy at least offered a firmer suspended DTS with more power and better gearing which the Town car also lacked and as you stated offered the buyer many choices in trim and it’s instrument cluster looks far more upscale than the TC.
Around the time when Town Car was still made in Wixom, the material wise was still alright, but the last year Town Car ( 2011 ) , a former diplomatic vehicle for sale here in Ferndale, the quality of the interior is the same grade as fleet Crown Vic in the late ’90s.
Perhaps “Cadillac Carmine” can decipher the alphabet soup models of recent Cadillac offerings; but I strongly suspect most car buyers cannot. Nor do they want to do so.
“ATS……CTS……M-O-U-S-EEEEEEE.”
🙂
An MK what?
Agree. They must have copied that from Cadillac.
Regarding the “dump the letters, go back to names” cry: At this point, the letters have been in use for, what, ten years? Twelve? Long enough for whatever current customers Cadillac has are used to them, while most of the customers who were familiar with the classic names to have died off (and while they’re changing the current to yet another alpha/numeric combination is beyond me).
Leaving internet bloggers (who have a habit of refusing to buy cars until they’re used) as the one crowd yelling for the names to come back.
Cadillac’s problems go a lot deeper than the model names:
1. Boomers won’t drive Cadillacs for the same reason that Millenials won’t ride Harley-Davidsons – that’s dad’s ride. I want my own. Cadillac’s hope is to skip my generation and start selling to my kids. Unfortunately, darned few of them are going to be in a financial situation anytime soon to start buying luxury cars. And how good the car is (within reason) doesn’t mean beans. Luxury cars are about status and showing off.
2. Admirable that they’ve made an American BMW, but the only reason I could see buying one is that I don’t want to be caught dead in a real BMW. Otherwise, why buy the copy?
3. Yes, Cadillac needs to be a Real American Luxury Car. Now, what defines that? So far, the Escalade seems to best define the RALC. And I want to puke.
I think you nailed it here.
I’m maybe a little older than “your kids” (b. 1983) but yeah…to my parents, Cadillac is definitely their parents car and nothing Cadillac does is going to change that. Now, I have a yen for old school Cadillacs, but I look with interest at what Cadillac does now, too…even as I disapprove heavily of any effort to imitate BMW.
And also, you hit the problem. I have a big old vintage car, but I’d happily also buy a new Escalade. I love the Escalade. Problem is, I can’t swing an Escalade, my profession is not paying what it used to, the student loans are killer, I knew they would be there but I signed up for this gig in 2005 when we all expected things would end up a lot better than they did. I’ve made it where I am via a good rent deal and some luck. A $70K car and several of the club memberships someone like me might have had 15 years ago are just not in reach with today’s salaries vs. today’s liabilities.
They’ve reached me but I can’t reach back.
Here’s the thing about the DTS…and I drove several, back in the day:
It still had that cheap GM front-wheel-drive feeling. Like parts were going to fall off the front suspension. Every one I drove only felt MARGINALLY better than my cousin’s ’06 Malibu Maxx.
The STS4 I drove in that same time frame was like night-and-day…it rode and drove like the premium vehicle it is. I’ve driven both STS and DTS for hundreds of miles at speeds up to 125MPH. And while the DTS rode comfortably, the STS rode even better because it drove better.
THANKFULLY GM’s front-wheel-drive offerings, at least the ones I’ve driven, are so vastly improved from ten years ago I’d actually consider buying one.
Guess my point is…or maybe there’s two:
1) The China offering, the stretched SLS, sounds like it would have been a better car than the DTS. I’d have liked it better, FWIW.
2) While Cadillac should continue developing and building ATS/CTS etc. and the V-series…I think they need to remember and take care of the Escalade market/mindset as well. Like it or not (and I don’t, but only due to its execution) the DTS is part of that bloodline. While I’d think of the XTS and CT6 as successors in that bloodline, they need to re-embrace ancient history and build the Ciel. Build the Elmiraj.
I really don’t care how many they sell as long as they make a good profit on each transaction and only build what they can sell. Or better yet, be like Porsche and build “one less car than the market requires.”
Cadillac needs to aim higher than Germany. They need to become The Standard Of The World – even if it takes another fifty years.
The biggest problem that Cadillac has, frankly, is a misunderstanding of itself. All luxury brands have to offer certain things, in order to succeed as a luxury brand. It needs to offer powerful, smooth, and effortless engines. It has to offer a very high level of apparent interior quality (Mercedes currently has the benchmark almost to the level of untouchable, although it was once Audi, and I’m sure someone else will snatch it away again). It has to offer a certain level of ego satisfaction. It has to be excellent.
Excellent handling, excellent styling, excellent engineering, excellent safety, excellent refinement. All excellent. Excellence above other products is what makes a luxury car an acceptable product.
And it must, must, must offer a distinct advantage such that you don’t think the buyer bought a gussied up whatever- in other words, people who negatively view the buyer of the car can think anything they want, as long as the buyer is not perceived as stupid (jerk, ass, pompous, and having too much money are fine, and possibly the point). The Escalade, or the ES350 for that matter, makes some people think you are stupid, for you could have bought a completely similar product for less. But not true of other Cadillac cars (except the ELR, buyers of whom can be called merely stupid with only the greatest of charity!)
And from what I can tell, just about everything but the Escalade and ELR at Cadillac really do meet that benchmark. And I will argue about the interior quality, too. Mercedes has Cadillac (and everyone bloody else) beat six days a week and twice on Sunday right now. But… I would call Cadillac either two or three (the contest being Audi). The quality of materials they are using inside the cars now are quite frankly excellent. Some niggles, sure, but really, top of the class.
Thats the universal stuff that all has to be achieved. No matter what else you do, you need that. The rest of the stuff involved leaves a lot of scope, though.
Lexus’s problem is that it doesn’t really have a theme, and hasn’t since “The relentless pursuit of Perfection” stopped being enough to sell buyers. Trying to find the inner identity has been their problem since. They sell to people who want the Lexus image of money without the compromises of better but more complicated (and therefore less reliable) European machinery.
Infiniti, once they found their sea legs, has been a “Japanese Sportiness” brand, and thats what people see in them, and what they sell.
Acura? It has always been exactly one thing: The virtues of a Honda in a more luxurious, more expensive package. Acura = Nice Honda. It is one of their problems, but it remains a very consistent image since day one.
Maserati? Italian Passion, complete with the cars mechanicals behaving like a prima donna Italian mistress.
BMW has always been “The Ultimate Driving Machine”. You expect a certain amount of sportiness and road feel.
Audi is “Innovation Through Technology”, and has been the Avantgarde in tech, things like all aluminum construction, and the Quattro four wheel drive system. High tech, sleek, and Bauhaus.
Mercedes is summed up in its slogan: The Best or Nothing. They have the most balanced levels of excellence, beating absolutely everything in their class, in almost every way, at a slightly higher price, in every area but outright reliability.
Volvo is Swedishness. Complete with the Ikea-like interiors, and the OCD safety attitude.
Jaguar? Well I left that to last not just because I am sorta working from East to West. But because it has the same problem as Cadillac. Jaguar is Grace, Pace, and Space. Excellent handling, smooth feline design, and a certain very British take on luxury- with advanced engineering solutions.
But that all ended a decade or so after the XJ debuted. Because when it did, all British cars had a overly leather and wood interior. All cars had lots of chrome. And somewhere along the way, largely spurred on by the fact the company couldn’t afford to redesign their cars for ever, and the XJ40 was a design by committee, and the British auto industry was practically dead by the time Ford injected cash into Jaguar, Jaguar was perceived by a lot of people as being a Wood, Leather, Chrome, and Round Headlamps company stuck in its past.
And so most thoroughly revolutionary luxury car of the mid-2000s, with the most advanced body then put on a sedan… ended up looking just like its predecessor, with an outdated interior that couldn’t touch what BMW and Mercedes were doing. Sir William Lyons was probably spinning like a top in his grave.
When Ian Callum started fixing Jaguar not long before Ford finally sold it, he had figured it back out. Their current lineup is EXACTLY what a modern interpretation of Jaguar should be. That is their nature, their heritage, their direction. Sporty, British, luxurious, advanced, and very emotionally feline. But most of all, the part long ago forgotten- MODERN.
Mercedes, BMW, and Audi adapted to changing market conditions as time has gone on, without really losing what their brands respectively stand for. Blunders have happened, of course, but it only lasts a generation. The W220, while of frankly poor quality, was exactly what its current buyers wanted. The W221 maintained that, and fixed the quality.
So what is Cadillac? Lets strip our way back in time. For the 80s and much of the 90s, Cadillac was “Modern 70’s”. That can’t be it, because Cadillac is older than the 70’s. In the 70’s, Cadillac was the Ultimate Brougham, and aside from their engines and some puffery, identical to other GM cars.
But prior to that, it was essentially the embodiment of the best thinking GM had to offer. It wasn’t the finest American car before the mid-50s- that went to Packard and Dusenburg before them, and Peerless before them, and finally initially Stanley. And frankly, in the 60’s Lincoln had them beat.
But it had a distinct level of presence. They were flashy, they were powerful, they were luxurious, and comfortable. And not ever sporty. Which means, honestly, that the first and second generation CTS’s were the closest to a genuine Cadillac in decades. But the current ATS and CTS are a bit too subdued. And a bit too German.
In the 80s and before, people looked to Mercedes cars and enjoyed their German Spartanism. But Spartanism is not really part of Mercedes basic brand identity. The market wanted more plushness, and Mercedes adapted without diluting the basic nature of their brand. I don’t like the more modern plushy chromey Mercedes interiors particularly, but that hasn’t stopped me from buy a Mercedes because the general nature of the cars is still the same.
And being a rolling Bordello, like nearly all medium to expensive American cars of the ’70s, is not part of Cadillac’s nature. They should have rolled back on that, and moved in towards the 80s and 90s. But GM in general didn’t roll with the punches very well. If they had taken away some of the crushed velvet and other bordello items, and also worked towards making Cadillacs distinctly the best engineered products GM made, with clearly superior engineering and features, they would have maintained their loyal Q-tips.
Its not about fast change. It should have been an evolution, as with Mercedes or BMW. Mercedes didn’t go from having something as Spartan as the W126 to having the luxury of a built in perfume atomizer overnight. It took 30 years, in fact.
So a Cadillac should be a throughly engineered modern luxury car, sharing only what parts with lesser GM products as would not hinder that goal. It should handle well, but with careful attention paid to a nice ride and passenger comfort- it doesn’t have to beat BMW as a sports sedan, but nor can it fail to have similar capability in a more comfortable, less sporty way. It should have a interior hewn from the finest materials- but it doesn’t have to be done the German Way.
Cadillacs should be a bit more softly plush then a German, a little more isolated, and more bling. And they should be a bit bigger, because an American car needs a big enough interior to contain overblown American egos (You have to wonder why German cars are so small, since the only Egos bigger than American egos are German egos!). The first two CTS’s were the perfect size for a Cadillac 3-series competitor. As the STS was the perfect size to compete with the 5-series. And yes, a Cadillac should have a big, grandiose sounding name- because being overly grandiose is a part of being American.
But honestly, on the overall whole, I think Cadillac is largely on the right track, except for their attempt to tone themselves down on the bling front.
Thoughtful analysis, almost an article in itself, and I think you make a very good point.
The problem with these cars for me boils down to two things:
1. Northstar. This one may be a good engine, but that name has been so tainted. I’d probably love a Deville or DTS as a daily driver, but with the Northstar, it’s not going to happen.
2. The interior. The Chevrolet Impala doesn’t have a beautiful interior like an Audi, but it’s not bad. It’s also pretty much the same interior as in the Buick, which is pretty much the same as in the Cadillac.
Interior refinement makes the Buick look like the more economical choice, with Cadillac going for brand appeal. The problem- they don’t have hardly any brand appeal!
Around ’06-’09, Impala LTZ with certain options came with really nice interior, even better than certain Audis at higher price, but it was pretty rare. After ’10, I don’t see any W-Body Impala coming with nice interiors anymore.
’09 Impala LTZ vs ’08 Audi A6 (chose the A6 as it’s of similar size). I’m having a hard time seeing how the Impala’s hard grainy plastics, cheap looking switchgear, plastiwood, and “leather” is better than or even as nice as the Audi’s real wood and metal, soft stitched dash, solid looking controls, and supple leather. Granted the Audi cost a lot more, but comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges IMHO.
I will probably never own a Cadillac unless it is circa 1949. My observation is that the real Caddy was dying by the mid 60’s and the deed was done by 1971. I think GM/US would have been farther ahead to have dropped everything but Chevy during the bankruptcy, perhaps even becoming Chevrolet Motor Company. Once Chevy was well and truly recovered, they could then have re-introduced a luxury brand. I think GM wastes too many resources promoting all their US brands and trying to resurrect what is really just a storied name with little resonance to someone like me who came of age in the early 80’s
I’m going to ignore the debates about what Cadillac “needs” to do (frankly, I don’t like playing armchair quarterback unless I’m in a position to buy a new car). So, I’ll just focus on the DTS itself. I like it.
I’ll be honest, for as distinctive as it is, I’ve never been a fan of the A&S look. It’s just got to many sharp edges and angles and whatnot that it’s all dependent on the angle and color, sometimes it works, other times it resembles Origami gone wrong. The DTS is what I like out of it, there’s enough soft edges and rounded shapes there that the angularity isn’t as pronounced (also helps that it came after the 00-05 Deville, one of my least favorite Cadillac designs ever)
I know the Northstar has its faults, (Understatement of the Millennium, I know), but speaking from experience, they are rather good engines. Decent amount of HP, nice torque, decent acceleration, nice sound, smooth. The fact that this is made when the bugs have been worked out is just more encouraging, and it’s a big car that actually has enough interior room proportioned to the size.
I think the other problem is that when this car came out, there was another competitor that did all of what this does but better. The Chrysler 300C, a car that followed what the traditional American luxury buyer wants (big looks, smooth ride, V8 engine, lots of interior space, big trunk), but was RWD, was a radical new style that was familiar without feeling outdated, and didn’t have the Old Man stink on it. And all for almost half of what a DTS cost new.
Still, I do like the DTS. If I ever needed a new car, I would take a look at one and take a test drive to see how it holds up. If anything, I certainly like it better than the concurrent Town Car of that generation.
Joseph: have to agree. The minor changes to that blob DTS that came before it make this a lot more attractive visually.
I rode in one from the Eugene airport back to Newport when visiting my parents. I loved the way it looked, but the interior was no better or worse than any other GM vehicle of the period. Not what I’d think Cadillac would be offering. Too many generic pieces and nothing special about it. Even my Mother’s 88 Coupe De Ville seemed more special and exclusive.
The styling, though, was “just right”.
I agree. the current Chrysler 300C Platinum is much more a Premium American Motorcar than anything Cadillac has on offer.
We see little to no issues with 2003 on up Northstar engines and even the earlier 2000-2002 aren’t really that bad if you don’t mind throwing a new intake gasket at it when it gets higher miles. The 90’s engines have there fair share of issues but even with those once you throw new head and intake gaskets in they can last another 100K pretty easily.
And yet that dts was my favorite car cadillac put out in the 00s. Isnt that crazy that one person can go on and on with how much they dislike something but to another its perfect.
The thing about the Cadillac styling was that it really was a “love it or hate it” affair. I’m not a fan, but getting strong opinions is a good thing.
For reading, see how Lee Iacocca compared the upcoming Taurus to the Dodge Dynasty. That’s proof that boring doesn’t work too well….
The same goes for the current Chrysler 300. Some find it too plain and bland, some find the tiny windows silly and some liken it to a gangster mobile while others think it’s the best styled of the bunch. I think it’s looking positively dated since the same basic look debuted back in 2005 and little has changed other than grilles, taillights and plainer sides with no exterior trim to brighten it up.
I was told the designers of face-lifted 300 were spotted in the stripper clubs in metro Detroit, and Chrysler 300 does have a higher presence there.
With the bigger wheels and in the light colour, that looks a totally different car.
It’s a little ironic, the mention of the “great used car” comes under a picture of a black DTS in NYC; no doubt a car-service car that’ll be used *up* when it’s let go.
A few simple changes would’ve made the DTS a real contender: 6-speed transmission, better brakes, and nicer interior trim. Nothing revolutionary, and still plenty of room for a fat profit margin.
I test drove a used DTS Platinum (with MangeRide and the funky steering). I loved the drive–the right balance of ride and handling. What an American luxury car should be. But I certainly didn’t like the chintzy trim. The wood veneers were gorgeous, but everything else was flimsy dreck. In the end, we went with an SUV (which didn’t smell like cigarettes).
$%&# “getting with the times”. In case you are oblivious, these are very bad times indeed. Looking to the past may be a brilliant idea… because that’s when things worked.
Just got back from the grocery store today and saw one parked in a handicapped space. That vertical crease in the trunk, well defined taillights and a chrome strip at the bottom of the trunk all work beautifully. Add the better detailed headlights and grille and the improvements are immense. These look “right” and with just a few small details. The 2000 looks like the designers forgot to finish it. It would have made a nice Caprice.
Too many cars today put that chrome strip between the upper part of the taillights that looks out of place, cuts none of the visual height and just accentuates the kicked in the rump, fat bottom look.
Just a few details like that improved the DTS immensely over that generic, anonymous earlier one. The front of that 2000 looked like the Ford Scorpio.
Why not combine the traditional names with the alpha numeric and bring back the Sixty Special as the traditional Cadillac?
The “commercial” plates indicate that this is a livery car – not surprising.
You know what they say about assuming…..
This is actually an elderly gentleman’s car (read above). “Commercial” =/= livery.
My Uncle had a 2010 DTS Premium that he bought brand new. It was his 6th Cadillac and also his favorite. He told me it was the most comfortable, fastest and best one he ever had by far. My Aunt also said she really enjoyed riding in it more than any of the other ones too. The sad thing is that after he passed away last year the family tried to sell the DTS with horrible results. It only had 59k miles on it and was like brand new in and out – yet the offers they got were a joke. The resale value was so bad the Caddy dealer didn’t even want it! After several months of it not selling, they went back to the dealer and they bought it from them for 10 grand. Sadly the market for a mint condition 59k mile DTS was not very strong.
I know some people with a similar story, but with a clean 2006 or so STS, with only like 35K on it. I think they are still trying to sell it, I keep flirting with making them an offer on it.
Its a tough sell and depending on where they are, like in South Florida for example, the market is saturated with them, plus once it starts getting towards 5 years, some dealers don’t want cars beyond a certain year, they can’t get as favorable a loan on one compared to a newer car etc etc.
And the sad thing is that it was a beautiful car that was meticulously cared for. I felt like they were giving it away, so much so that I contemplated buying it myself.
I liked them better than their predecessors but not better than anything preceding that. As noted in discussions of late, the Cadillac of Cadillacs now, in my view, is the Escalade. It best embodies the swagger and presence of the Cadillacs of yore, yet appeals to modern buyers. If I could actually afford one, I would jump at the chance to have one.
I think that you should all be aware that when the Lucerne and the DTS came out (2006 model year) the platform was over 10 year old. It did get some additional refinements, but 2006 was before the FWD 6 speed automatics went into production (or the RWD for that matter). This is an aging platform, and these two cars are the end point for the platform.
Second: I agree that Cadillac’s naming scheme is not well thought out. When Cadillac brought out the Seville Turing Sedan in the late 80’s, the STS became well known, probably more so after the 1992 model came out. I think the popularity of the STS is why Cadillac thought making everything (but the truck) some sort of 3 letter name was a good idea. The floated the idea when the 2003 CTS came out that the C was a series name, and then the S was an upper series name, with the TS meaning Turing Sedan. The SRX was therefore an S-series, but the RX is not clear to me. But where the D-series fits in is not clear, except obviously a de Ville.
The new scheme, with CT (probably Cadillac Turing) and a number will allow one to know where in the price range the car fits. The 6 is higher priced than the CTS, which should get a number of 4 or 5.
BMW series are well known to be 3, 5 or 7 with meaningless numbers added on for a three digit name. At one time the engine size could be sorted out. Mercedes had number way back which I do not understand. But at some point the went to a series naming scheme of C-class (low end), E-class, and S-class (high end). But now they have a mishmash of letter names that I don’t understand (without looking it up online).
Cadillac’s old names (from the end of 1930’s) were series 60 (60S, and 62), series 75 (high end V8’s), and a series 90 (exceedingly high end V16’s). The Deville name is a post war name that was very popular and people sort of understand it. Fleetwood was a high end custom body builder that did not last through the depression. The last Fleetwood bodies were on early 30’s Cadillac’s (GM owned Fleetwood then). The bodies were replaced by Fisher bodies trimmed by Fleetwood craftsmen. After the war, Fleetwood is little more than a memory and a trim level.
Um, yes and no, until the 70’s, all of Cadillacs bodies were built at Plant 21, Fisher-Fleetwood in Detroit, down the street Cadillac’s Clark Street Plant-“The” Cadillac Plant.
The remains of Fleetwood was the special limousine line, they made all the Fleetwood Seventy Fives, they had a dedicated body line within the Fisher plant, they made limousines half the year, the rest of the time, the made GM prototype tooling and concept cars.
As late as 1958, the special Eldorado Brougham had “Body by Fleetwood” on its trim tag opposed to the regular “by Fisher” tag.
What you fail to understand is that GM owns both the Fisher Body and Fleetwood Body trademarks, which means that they can put either on a Chevy Sonic if they choose.
This website has the history: http://www.coachbuilt.com/bui/f/fleetwood/fleetwood.htm
But it is long…
This quote is relevant:
“The new 1932 Cadillacs were a milestone for both Cadillac and Fleetwood. Many consider the 1932 Cadillac to be the pinnacle of the marques Classic Era designs. Unfortunately, it marked the end of Fleetwood as a distinct custom body coachbuilder as Fisher and Fleetwood now shared the same basic body shells. “
I think I’ve gotten into this with you before, and I thought I educated you about it before and I really don’t feel like doing it again.
FACT-the trim tag on a 1957-1958 Eldorado Broughams READS Body by Fleetwood.
I believe that the sill plate on my 1963 Sixty Special also said “Body by Fleetwood”. I had seen enough “Body by Fisher” GM cars as of that time that I thought this was one of the coolest things about the car.
The 1967-1970 Eldorado had Body by Fleetwood on the door sill plates, I think the Fleetwood sedans have it too, but their trim tags are Fisher.
There are also the more confusing variations of Body by Fisher/Interior by Fleetwood sill plates and seat emblems that Cadillac used into the 80’s.
But what does that really mean? Who is Fleetwood? I would like a serious answer to both questions.
Apparently it was important enough and the Eldorado Brougham body was sufficiently unique that they felt the need to designate it a Body by Fleetwood.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-outtake/curbside-outtake-generation-gap/
I don’t dispute that the Eldorado Brougham had a unique body or that Cadillac could call it a Fleetwood body. But what I have been getting at is that it is too glittery to be a classic Fleetwood design. Look at Fleetwood bodies (interior) from the early 30’s or even older. Fleetwood Body made custom bodies for Lincoln and other higher end makes. The interiors are tasteful not garish.
Ok, so its not a Fleetwood because tastes from the 50’s are different from the 30’s…
Ok, whatever…..
If you had bothered to read the coach built article and understood it you would know that after world war two, Fisher body is really all thats left. GM took over Fisher and what had been Fleetwood Body was gone by the end of the 1930’s. Fleetwood is only a trim level after the war, not a body builder. Any bodies GM makes after the war are really Fisher bodies. However, Fisher body is gone too, having been phased out during the 80’s or 90’s.
This link to a Fisher Body manual indicates that all Cadillac Bodies are Fisher in 1969: http://archmagev.com/Chevelle/1969FisherBody.pdf
Ok Fred….whatever.
See first post.
“At the end of the 1950s, Cadillac once again offered a series-built custom-bodied Cadillac, but unfortunately, it didn’t come from Fleetwood. Called the Eldorado Brougham, there were two versions of the car. The first was built between 1957-58 ” from the Coachbuilt website
One big question to ask about GM’s former “Senior Specials” [DTS, Century] is were they profitable? If the DTS only sold with huge discounts to seniors on a fixed income, then did they make money?
GM isn’t a charity, and couldn’t last much longer nearly giving away cars.
ALSO: Someone posted “…there’s a marked uptick in the number of Toyota Avalons on the streets of Gallup NM as those DTS are being traded in. There is still a market for an “Old Man’s Car”.”
Again, profit, not padding the #’s and “keeping plants running”. Avalons and other “Old Man’s big cars” are dropping sales #’s nationwide, and Cadillac is not meant to compete with Toyota. If these Old Folks were buying Lexuses, then it would be an issue.
BTW: 60-something Boomers are buying new SUV’s, so the Avalon and class maybe off the market in a few years. So no need to bother with throwback products.
The Lucerne/DTS platform was more than 10 years old, and probably mostly paid for.
Same for the Century. It was on the long paid for W platform and the A before that. The older folks who bought all those Centurys very often got them as year-old GM “program” (mostly ex-rental) cars, making them all the more affordable on a fixed income.
On the subject of interior trim, I stuck my head in one mid-2000s DTS with dark brown leather seats..the rest of the interior was still beige, but this was some sort of interior upgrade that was offered for a year or two…I don’t recall much about it, and was struck by how little effort was made to make the brown tie-in with the rest of the interior.
Up to 2005 the Deville was the base model, with an DHS and DTS version available (at least 2003 to 2005). The DHS was a higher trim level and the DTS got the performance engine.
The Deville turns into the DTS for 2006 with a new body design/style on the G-platform. A base and performance engine is available, and bench or bucket seating is available for the front seats.
Not sure what year you were looking at, but before 2006 the DHS was an upgrade.
David, that’s a picture of the DTS Platinum which was introduced in 2010. It replaced the Performance and offered that model’s Magnetic Ride Control and “NHP” Northstar with 292 hp, while adding different wood, leather-wrapped dash, and those brown leather seats. An improvement over the regular DTS but still hardly class-leading. From what I can see, they didn’t sell all that well… they were the priciest DTS, after all, and most buyers went for the bench-equipped Luxury I and Luxury II.
The Platinum came in in 2008 with alacantra headliner, and the Performance exited in 2009.
Many of the alphabet lingo on the majority of the Cadillacs ever since they have started using this system in naming their cars, they are as follows:
1) CTS = Catera Touring System
2) STS = Seville Touring System and same can be said with the Chinese model SLS which also had the same Seville ancestry as well.
3) DTS = Deville Touring System
Since Cadillac had ran out of model names according to their lingo acronym and the former models that they had succeeded, they had to resort to using an unrelated past model just to legitimate a Cadillac entry model like the:
4) ATS = Allante Touring System
Since the “C” for the Cimarron was already used for the Catera. Keep in mind though that the two seater Allante roadster was a far different and unrelated model to the ATS. The Allante totally unrelated model to the Corvette based XLR would be the only one close if there was ever some connections between the two except as a future “spiritual successor” two decades later. The last lingo of acronyms listed below however had nothing to do with their predecessor however and they were as follows:
5) ELR
6) BLS (not marketed in the U.S. and Canada)
7) SRX
8) XTS
and the upcoming:
9) CT6
only the
10) Escalade SUV
still used the full name system.
I think the TS -> was Turing Sedan not system.
The CTS could have been interpreted as Cimarron TS, or Catera TS or Cadillac TS (there used to be a Cadillac Turing Sedan). At the time Cadillac claimed that the C was just the C-series, the S was the S-series.
The ATS is a base Cadillac, the Altante was high end.
You forgot the ETC (Eldorado Turing Coupe). The CTS coupes were still CTS’s.
The new system should make more sense in that the low end is a low number and the high end will be a high number (CT8).
YES you are right TS means a Touring Sedan. Since the CTS immediately replaced the Catera, I still would interpret it as the Catera Touring Sedan. Only the ATS or Allante Touring Sedan is the one I find contradictory. The ETC I was not totally aware of since it may have been already known as an Eldorado and its already incorporated to the Eldorado product line just like when Seville had a Seville STS before Cadillac’s new alpha naming shortened some models coincidentally with some of the cars they replaced which continues through this day. I am not sure though whether the XTS and the CT6 would become the flagship of the line or a much anticipated “Fleetwood” larger sedan would be revived close to the end of the decade so this one will become Cadillac’s flagship car.
Is there any documentation of ATS standing for “Allante Touring Sedan”? Because that’s flat-out odd, to base an acronym off a nameplate that was last used on a 2-seat convertible 20 years ago. Sounds more like a retronym to me (trying to make ATS stand for something and that’s what came out).
I could see CTS having been based off the Catera nameplate, and the DTS/STS are spot on as they appeared as trim levels on the named cars first.
What I saw at the time the three letter names were brought out, which started with the CTS, was that the first letter was to indicate a series. What the hierarchy might be was never made clear. The CTS was intended to be considered competition for the BMW 3-series, or the Mercedes C-class. The CTS was the base (or lowest priced) Cadillac, and, as such, would remind some of the Cimarron or Catera, but the CTS was an all new car on a new platform exclusive to Cadillac.
The STS was obviously a replacement for the Seville Turing Sedan, popularly known as the STS (some called it the Seville STS). The SRX was a crossover comparable to the STS for size.
If the hierarchy of the first letter is meaningful, the a lower end car, as the ATS was, should either be a BTS (already used in Europe) or ATS. I do not think that there is any connection to the Allante.
No Cadillac WTF? 🙂
The letter A and S in Alphabet soup stand for Alphabet Soup. All of the other letters stand for other things. I think the L is for Lassie and the P is for Popeye.
Just another failing brand with silly alphabet soup naming that means nothing Cadillac is trying too hard to remain relevant.
An an owner of an ’09 Lucerne that has served me well for about 100,000 miles, my only beef is the too-soft suspension. Great cruiser, lots of room ,huge trunk, all let down by a marshmallow suspension and a cheap-ass 4-sp autobox.
However, I DO have the traditional bench seat.
I’ve driven cars and pickups with 6 and 8 speeds, and I prefer the 4 in my DTS Platinum. You don’t have to wait for a downshift or two to accelerate or climb a slope, which drove me crazy in the STS V6 I had for a month.
The biggest difference between the Plat/Perf and the regular DTS isn’t the engine, it’s the final drive ratio. Instant throttle response at the cost of 2-3 mpg. Unfortunately, there’s no touring/sport choice in the MRC as there is on other cars with it.
The interior in my 04 Deville was more ergonomic and better looking (with 3 window regulator failures), even if the fake wood didn’t have inlays like the Platinum.
I rented a DTS in 2006 on a trip to Southern California, and it was the nicest car I have ever driven.
The STS interior was too narrow and short, particularly with a sunroof, and its trunk too small (<14cuft). I liked the way the XTS looked overall, despite the FWD proportions, but the hard and tall seat bolsters made it uncomfortable to get in and out, so I never test drove one. The CT6 needed a higher roof for more road presence and headroom. It also needed plusher-looking seats. They must have lost a ton of money on its short run, not that the Alpha cars have been profitable.
Obviously if I knew the recipe for the Secret Sauce I’d be working for one of these instead of commenting about it; but I offer as evidence the wife’s on her 3rd Lexus ES over 15 years. There absolutely is a market for the “fairly big near-lux sedan with little to no sporting pretense whatsoever” but with the demise of Lincoln as a car company, both Buick and Cadillac as players in that sort of sedan market, and Chrysler phoning it in with the long-in-the-tooth 300 that the market has been ceded to the ES. But with Toyota axing the Avalon I wonder if they’re just going exclusively ES or even that’s now in jeopardy.
A friend of mine bought a new DTS not sure what year. The car was apiece of junk. Electrical gremlins they couldn’t fix. After 4 years of fighting the problems the dealership thought the best resolution was to sell them a new car and take the old car in on trade. The dealer low balled them so bad on the old car they left. Went down to the local Honda dealer and traded it in on a new Honda.
Cadillac went off the rails when it went with the Art and Science motif. They should have gone with a more Italianate look, a la the Pininfarina- inspired styling of the Allante. Incorporating the better elements of the Allante- the front clip, the side design. Then ditching the confusing alphanumeric family tree. You would then have: Deville (large sedan), Allante( sport sedan), Calais (small SUV), and Escalade (large SUV).
Beautiful! Well thought out and informative, yet tight enough to be read in ful by every GM recipient.
Cut, paste, send!