BrownPride

I personally find the front of the CTS to be overdone and ungainly, and the vertical LED design stretching from the headlights to the fog lights just looks plain odd. I would say that Caddys are more gimmicky inside with their random selection of textures, excessive use of shiny black plastic and chrome, and odd creases and curves.

Infra

iTrader: (1)

Cadillac's problem is that their cars are what poor people think rich people would buy. Which is totally different from what those of means actually buy.

More Cadillacs sell on the basis of them being the sole American luxury brand, than on the basis of the quality of their cars.

Point is, Cadillac sells an image that their target market isn't interested in buying. People like the idea of a quality Cadillac, but no one wants to own one. This is why they get so much hype in the media. Everyone wants them to make a good car so badly, but GM cannot manage to make a quality car on par with its peers.

Cadillac's problem is the opposite of BMWs. BMW is struggling to achieve volume, and is chasing it by allocating the platform cost across many different models, rather than focusing on sports sedans and coupe which had been their bread and butter. Cadillac is burdened with platforms that must be used in Chevrolets, and cannot demarcate their cars very far from the constraints imposed by Chevrolet's needs because Chevy actually sells cars and they don't want to mess up their only good thing.

Moving Cadillac to New York and giving them some level of Independence from the GM group-think is probably the best thing Johan De Nysschen has done. Whether or not that materializes into independence in car design remain to be seen.

mmarshall

Lincoln, though, is catching up. Their image has been significantly increased with the addition of the MKC, the new MKX, and the upcoming Continental.


That alone, though, is not an excuse. We see the same thing at Lincoln, whose products are generally developed from Fords, and at Audi, whose products are VW-based. Not only that, but Chevy also has one product (the latest Impala), that, in the opinions of a number of reviewers (including me) drives better than its Buick LaCrosse and Cadillac XTS platform-mates.

SW17LS

Lincoln is catching up? Not in the slightest.

Sulu

Platform sharing is a necessity these days, due to the high cost of developing new cars. The key, though, is to differentiate the luxury car from their cheaper, mass market cousins. The world's best automakers have learned how to share platforms between their luxury brands and their mass-market brands. Toyota does platform-sharing well (within Toyota, and between Toyota and Lexus), as does VW (among VW, Seat, Skoda, and with Audi and even Bentley). Even BMW is into platform-sharing, sharing their small, FWD platform with MINI, and the Rolls-Royce Ghost shared its platform with the last-generation 7-Series.

Platform-sharing cannot and should no longer be used as an excuse for developing a bad luxury car. Just because Ford and Lincoln cannot do it well yet, and Chevy and Cadillac are forced to share platforms cannot be an excuse for a poor Lincoln or Cadillac.

TangoRed

You've mentioned simplicity in design a couple of times now. This seems more like a personal preference instead of any real "rule" of good design. That is called boring to a lot of people.

You say this, but with gaudy Escalades, imperial Range Rovers, and supreme Mercedes S-classes flying off the lot I can't agree with your statement. There's a reason crazy things like the Range Rover Evoque convertible are being brought to market. High and mighty/flashy designs are just as in style as they've ever been. There's room in the market for both approaches.

Really the only point of yours I agree with, which I also said several posts ago. I do know Cadillac's consumer clinics haven't pointed at the vertical tail lights as being "traumatic," even among younger consumers. I suppose we'll see how everything turns out but I seriously doubt they're going anywhere soon.

mmarshall

Respectfully, I have to disagree there. Their image today, though admittedly not world-class by any means, is significantly better than it was, say, three years ago, before the MKC and new MKX came out. I know that you probably base at least part of your opinion on the new Continental's stretched-Taurus-based platform and its V6 FWD layout. That may be a big deal to some people like us on forums or in he auto press, but, to those who are likely to be Continental buyers, I don't see where it will make much difference. If for no other reason, it will sell simply by being (probably) a better flagship than the ill-fated MKS was.

Right now, as I see it, Lincoln's biggest problem is its too-thin dealer network and its practice of selling out of only selected Ford shops. It needs a system more like what Cadillac has.....not only more dealerships, but Lincoln-only shops. That, of course, will cost money...but then, so does many other things necessary for luxury-vehicle marketing.

chikoo

Range rovers or MB are not gaudy or imperial looking designs. That is what you are missing.

SW17LS

I see no evidence that any of this is true. I don't think they have an image at all quite frankly, I don't think they really factor into the buying decision of the vast majority of buyers. The MKC and MKX aren't significant sellers in their segments at all, in fact...I can't say I've ever even seen an MKX on the road. I'm sure I have...but the fact that I as a car person who picks out cars on the road in my mind all the time don't register having seen one is a problem.

In April, Acura sold nearly 6,000 RDX's. Lexus sold 3,800 NX's, Audi sold nearly 4,000 Q5s as old as it is...MKc? 2,800...and that was up 50% from the previous year. MKX? 2,600..RX? 9,700 units!

While these products are better, they're just not a factor. I think if you dive deeper into it you will find consumers aren't really even looking at the product because they don't know it exists...hence it has no image.

Just food for thought....the Lexus RX outsells the entire Lincoln lineup. The whole thing...and just the Acura RDX outsells every Lincoln utility.

TangoRed

Really now? Styling is subjective of course, but this doesn't scream understated or simple to me:





Yes, all are stock and represent the highest trim levels available for each car. The Mercedes S-class manages to look very classy in more basic trims, granted. But the Range Rover? There's a reason they are an extremely common ride for the elite and star athletes alike, much like the Escalade. And that's not because it goes unnoticed . Again, styling is subjective but bling has not gone out of style. Also, please note Rolls-Royces and Lamborghinis are selling better than ever in the US. There's still a market in flash.

chikoo

Where is the bling on the Range Rover? I fail to see any.

tex2670

Making better cars than they used to doesn't mean they are "catching up". Everyone is making better cars than they used to.

What you are expressing is just your opinion that Lincoln makes nicer cars than before.

I would suggest Lincoln does have an "image"--as the butt of jokes about their idiotic Matthew McConaughey ads.

mmarshall

Well, no, only in some areas......generally the MKC and new MKX. I didn't think the 2Gen MKZ mid-sized sedan was any improvement over the 1Gen model...and the volume/fan slide-finger sensors and My Touch, IMO, were actually a couple of steps down. And, though not may on this particular forum may levant it, I know a number of folks who sorely miss the Town Car. Except for its bad-weather AWD option, 6AT vs. the old 4AT, and generally better handling than the sloppy Town Car, the MKS was just not a suitable replacement. And, getting back to thread-topic Cadillac, I didn't think the XTS was a suitable replacement over the DTS, either....its areas of improvement were pretty much the same as the MKS (6AT, better handling, interior fit/finish, and AWD, but little else). And both the MKS and XTS, IMO, lost a significant amount of ride comfort over their cushy predecessors.


Jokes, however, can quickly become stale and outdated......Hyundai and Kia both proved that.

TangoRed

The intricate grille (I actually posted the toned down version, 22in rims, side blade connecting the FAKE side gills to to a trim line that runs the length of the body (also available in silver), contrasting paint job, etc. Really you'll find that with each successive generation the Range Rover trades more functional styling elements for stylistic flourishes. It's OK. They know the consumers want it. Ignoring the fact that you never addressed my other points, maybe this RR SVAutobigraphy will help illustrate my point:

TangoRed

Agree- even though the vast majority of people likely won't choose the V8 over the TT V6, it needs to be there for appearance purposes imo.