Thats exactly my point, I don't think they've spent nearly the development money on those vehicles they should have, they're all just warmed over Ford vehicles and that shows through when you sit in them and drive them. GM has invested WAY more into Cadillac.

 

Yes, I was already a typing a response before you posted, but I find the answer to be quite easy if we start at the time of the DaimlerChrysler merger. Daimler bought Chrysler to complement Mercedes on the lower end. While Chrysler had moments of seemingly upscale aspirations (remember the ME-412 concept?) the German management at the time squashed those hopes and fired many of the brilliant people working at the company at the time. Then came the economy crash.

Under FCA, the answer is even more clear. FCA is on a shoestring budget and knows that taking Chrysler upmarket or relaunching Imperial would require too much time, money, AND would not take advantage of the global presence of brands like Maserati and Alfa Romeo that are already in the stable. Even with Cadillac getting massive investment, it's very clear they still have a perception issue. Chrysler's perception issue is twice as bad. If FCA was just flush with cash I think such a thing would be considered, but now is certainly not the time to be bothering with that effort.

 

Even Cadillacs, IMO, aren't necessarily that much better than lower-priced Buicks and Chevys. The Impala, for example, is truly an outstanding large sedan for its price....though its dash contours take a little getting used to. If you haven't yet sampled one, I highly recommend that you try out a V6 version. It's hard to find anything else for the money that drives like that.

 

But Mercedes and BMW are not "premium only" in most of their markets. Mercedes has A class and B class cars in Europe that compete with Ford Focus (and even Fiesta). There are drab interiors for taxi use and very small engines. BMW also has a line of small cars and has even transitioned to FWD.

Ford lost its way for a while. In 2000 they established a Premier Automobile Group that included Jaguar, Volvo, and Land Rover. The first domestic entry in this class was the Lincoln LS sedan which was based on the Jag S type. It was widely praised by the auto press as the beginning of Lincoln's rebirth. That is when they got lost. The Premier Auto Group died and along with it the follow-on Lincolns. When Alan Mulally took over, he sold off the foreign brands so that Ford did not need to take bail-out money from the government, and started rebuilding Ford into a profitable company. On of the elements is that higher end cars (and pickup trucks) generally have higher profit margins than economy or mainstream family cars. Ford needs Lincoln to be highly profitable so the F150 doesn't carry all the load. It is not easy to re-establish a luxury reputation. Cadillac has poured a huge effort into advance tech and very nice cars and yet is having difficulty selling them.

I sincerely hope both Lincoln and Cadillac succeed.
Steve

 

I disagree entirely. If you compare say, an XTS to an Impala then perhaps, but if you compare a CT6 to an Impala, the additional R&D they invested in the CT6 is very apparent, its a bespoke platform, RWD, Cadillac specific engines. Cadillac also has invested in their own infotainment setup (love it or hate it) while Ford just reuses Sync and MyFordTouch in Lincolns and it all looks exactly the same.

The steps taken to differentiate Cadillac from the rest of GM's lineup are much clearer than the steps taken to separate Ford from Lincoln. Multiple vehicles on Cadillac RWD platforms vs none at Lincoln...

 

Agreed.....probably more so with the Impala/XTS than the CT6. Even so, the CT6, being RWD, is more of an Autobahn stormer, particularly with the TT V6, but, IMO at least, the Impala was actually more pleasant in everyday, low-to-medium-speed driving. And the particular CT6 I sampled had tires that had flat-spotted and took about 10 minutes or so to warm up and get the shimmies out. I don't know if all CT6s use that certain brand of tire or not...though there are two different wheel/tire sizes.

Again, I'll say......if you have not sampled a V6-equipped Impala, by all means, do so...there are several Chevy shops not far from you. Then you may see what I'm talking about. Consumer Reports was also floored with their Impala. They gave it 95 out of 100 on a road-test, unheard of for a mainstream Chevy sedan...those kind of road-test scores are usually racked up by cars like the LS460 and S-550.

Well, it wasn't like a totally new effort from scratch. GM already had spent earlier money on the CTS's RWD Omega, Sigma, and Sigma II platforms, and the CT6 basically came from a revised version of the Omega platform. Same with the Continental.....a fair amount of that came from a stretched version of the Taurus.

 

Seriously, nobody really cares about the Impala.

 

Toyota and Lexus kind of overlap at some price points. Lexus is to Toyota what Lincoln is to Ford. What is the big deal?

 

Yes, that's right......just like there's never a need to use your parking brake, either.

 

At 70K, I would agree...that's a lot of money. (I wouldn't spend 70K on any vehicle LOL). But, lower-line versions at 45 or 50K may be another matter.......and it's nice that, in a base Continental, you don't have to put up with a 2.0 turbo four like in the base Cadillac CT6.

 

I have said before you like to push GM, it's obvious. The Impala maybe a nice vehicle, but reading things on this forum and watching the press and incentives, it seems nobody honesty really cares about the Impala.

As for the parking brake, I never really use it. Never have I heard or seen an issue without it being used. I doubt its a big enough of an issue, bit that is for the other thread.

 

What's the big deal with the 2.0t. The GS has one, so does the E class and the 5 series has a 4 banger. The CT6 2.0t weighs less than the IS200t, it's a astonishing what GM has done for the CT6 and it should be commended.

 

Yeah, I'm pushing GM.......that's why I came very close to buying a Lincoln MKC last year. The only thing that stopped me was its poor reliability record and questionable build quality. And there's no guarantee that my next vehicle will be from GM....especially the way Buick is going SUV-crazy and is screwing up their sedan marketing.

And, next year, I may not be in much of a position to go shopping....it looks like my other knee (not the one that was injured and operated on last June) is pretty much on borrowed time from loss of cartilage. Though not painful or preventing me from walking, it's somewhat deformed now, and, in time, is going to need either a partial or total knee-replacement. That will take some more recuperation and therapy, just like I had this summer.

 

What is wrong with the Verano? I figured you would keep it for at least 10 years.

 

Nothing, but I've never kept any car for 10 years....5 to 6 is about average for me in the last couple of decades. And, if my knee replacement next year (or whenever I have it) doesn't go well, I may need something with a higher entry/exit height.