Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 923 times:
Cadillac will soon be launching the CTS, the first rear-wheel drive, and optional manual transmission Cadillac built in, well, ages!
OK, so it is not perfect. It's ugly as hell, and only has a V-6 (220 hp however), but they have finally figured out that 1) Luxury cars are NEVER front-wheel drive, and 2) not all the well-heeled buyers of luxury cars just want to cruise down straight roads from their retirement homes to their pharmacy to buy Depends diapers.
Congrats, Cadillac, and welcome to the real world!
747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2742 posts, RR: 17 Reply 1, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 888 times:
While I don't know how Cadillac has built cars in the past, you're right in saying they need to allow those options. You're also right that not all luxury-car buyers want something meant for tame driving.
"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38502 posts, RR: 80 Reply 2, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 883 times:
I agree 100%!
When will this come out?
I pretty much considered Cadillac dead since 1996 when they killed the Fleetwood Brogham. Lincoln, Ford & Mercury is the only one left.
I agree that reer-wheel drive is the way to go on any high-end car sport or luxury!
The Cadillac CTS is ugly but I am sure it will perform well.
Is this based off of what the Evoq is/was supposed to be? That was to be a rear-wheel drive 2 seater coupe with the Northstar engine.
My favorite modern Cadillac would be the 1994-96 Fleetwood Brougham.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 880 times:
I simply find it amazing that Cadillac thought they could get away with front-wheel drive for nearly 20 years. Remember the Cimaron? Yech.
Here's the list of the world's major luxury car manufacturers:
- Aston Martin
- Rolls Royce
All of which are rear-wheel drive only, with the exception of Audi, whose cheaper line is FWD, but up-level offerings are 4-wheel drive.
Front wheel drive was adopted because it was cheap to build. Hardly a consideration when you are building a luxury car, but that is what happens when you give control of a car company to an accountant (Roger Smith). He thought that people wouldn't notice the difference, and that GM could pocket an extra couple of thousand dollars per car on reduced manufacturing costs. Well...
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38502 posts, RR: 80 Reply 5, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 871 times:
The first front wheel drive Cadillac was the 1967 Eldorado. It was based off the 1966 Oldsmobile Toronado. It was a neat concept back then but it went over-board! In 1980, the Seville went to the front drive platform. It was and has been everysince the 4-door version of the Eldorado. In 1985 the entire Cadillac line except the Fleetwood Brougham went to front-wheel drive.
In the 1980s, the emphasis was on fuel efficiency. I was amazed to see Cadillac stay in business considering all the dumb decisions by GM. Remember the 4/6/8 350 engine in 1981? It was to use 4 cylinders going downhill, 6 on a straightaway and all 8 uphill. Neat idea for a James Bond movie maybe. These had a problem getting stuck in 4 cylinders! Some people were getting rear-ended trying to get on the freeway!
Then there was the gas/diesel engine conversion. GM didn't even use a real diesel engine! It was a 350-gas engine converted over to diesel.
Then there was the Cimarron was a Cavalier with a Caddy hood ornament and nicer seats. That was a joke in it's self.
Lincoln has always made quality luxury cars. Even in the 1980s when everyone was making garbage, the Lincoln was still a pretty durable car.
When every GM gets something right, they stop making it.
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 858 times:
Regardless of propulsion, there seems to be a consensus even here...the CTS IS as ugly as sin.
GM is still stuck in the Dark Ages. Their approach to styling is still "make it rounder". Now it seems looking at the CTS a revolution of thought has taken over...."make it boxier and rounder!" No where does 'make it better' enter in.
I know they just hired Bob Eaton back, the man who helped bring some imagination(if not actual better engineering) to Chrysler. Yet GM has a long sad history of lobotomizing creative people with their my-way-or-the-highway corporate mentality. They throw money at people and say "don't be such a renegade. this is how we've always done it".
I predict that unless GM gets a Chrysler-sized corporate enema in the next decade, it's in deep doo-doo.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38502 posts, RR: 80 Reply 11, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 832 times:
I see more Lincolns out here.
Keep in mind that Cadillac is a GM product which is a larger company, more facilities and more plants. Cadillac shares the same platform with other mid-sized GM products. Lincoln platforms are independant of other Ford products except the Town Car . Same as Crown Victoria & Grand Marquis. Cadillac is a bigger name and is what most people think what an American luxury car is supposed to be.
Lincoln is what an American Luxury car is supposed to be.
There is NO correlation between quality and sales.
Look at how well the Pinto, Hyundai and Gemlin sold.
Look at all the people buying Britney Spears junk.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 830 times:
Sorry, but American luxury cars should be on the same level as Mercedes and BMW. Comfortable ride if you are just cruising, but fully capable of hammering flat mountain roads if you want to. American luxury cars generally got the first part right, but hear the tires howl, the frame flex, and the the suspension swing as soon as you step on the gas.
I remember in the 70's, GM made a big deal about the "innovation" of rectangular headlights and Brougham, fake leather roofs. European manufacturers at the same time were putting in disc brakes on all four corners, quad-cam engines, halogen headlights, and suspensions tuned to keep the car on the road. Which "innovations" mattered at the end?
I hope that the CTS sells well, as it is the first Cadillac I've seen that should be able to compete head-to-head with the Mercedes C-class or the BMW 5-series. The Old STS was a decent attempt, but only had 2 doors and was front-wheel drive, so it never got up to par. If the CTS works well, I hope Cadillac will go for a true competitor to the BMW 7-series and Mercedes S-class. That means rear-wheel drive, optional manual transmissions, fully independant suspension, plenty of power and a chassis at home either on interstates or European mountain roads.
Lincoln is a little bit further down the path than Caddy, but not that much.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38502 posts, RR: 80 Reply 13, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 828 times:
The 1968 Lincoln Mark III was the first to have an anti-lock brake system. It was a 4 wheel disc brake system that pumped the rear disc brakes.
Lincoln was putting automatic headlights in there cars back in the early 1970s. BMW still doesn't have that.
Are quad cam engines better?
Lincolns (1976-82) was the only car manufacture to offer 'quadraphonic' 8track players.
I know that doesn't mean a thing now but hey, it sounds cool!
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 827 times:
LOL! I should have known you were a member of the "Bring-Back-the-8-Track" Association!
I didn't know about ABS in Lincolns. The first widespread use of 4-wheel ABS I know of is when Bosch developed a relatively inexpensive ABS "brain", which was first installed (I think) by Mercedes in the 80's.