Cadillac sure has had a crazy roller-coaster ride in the automotive marketplace since about 1980, no? In 1980, Cadillac was still aspirational, despite the fact that BMW and Mercedes-Benz had been nipping at their hide since about 1970. But here in the heartland, Caddy (and Lincoln) was still king in 1980. But then, oh! Everything went wrong.
In 1954, Cadillac had everyone beat by a healthy margin. Lincoln, for some strange reason, had decided to go after Oldsmobile, and the Chrysler Imperial, while nice, was just not quite as dynamic and gotta-have-it as the Caddy. Example: The 1954 Sixty Special. Spectacular!
And the hits just kept on coming. Cadillac really was on a roll between 1938–with the debut of the Sixty Special–and 1980, the last of the non-grenading or engineering-bereft engines. Just look at that ’63 Sixty Special–who wouldn’t want one? Fins, sheer luxury and robust mechanicals. What’s not to like?
By 1979, with the recently-downsized and fat-trimmed “traditional” Caddys, things were great. While they DID have a bit more in common with the more plebian B-body, that was really no bad thing. Now you could have your “right-sized” luxury car with all the Broughamy accoutrements, and better MPG’s to boot!
By 1985, things had gotten, uh, complicated. Shrunken Mini-Me Caddys took the place of attractive, but unreliable bigger Caddys–and still had the rotten engines. Oh, come on! GM? What is the problem, man?! But the updated 4.5 and 4.9 liter V8s were much better, and the stretched 1989 De Villes and Fleetwoods were much improved from an aesthetic standpoint.
For those for whom even the “embiggened” 1989-up FWD models were not Broughamy enough, there was still the good ol’ Brougham (née Fleetwood Brougham) with traditional full-size RWD luxury. It lasted until 1992 and I wish you could still get a new one with dual airbags.
The last of the yachts was the redesigned 1993 Fleetwood, riding on the same basic chassis as the earlier Brougham. It was still nice looking, but lost a lot of the intricate details and elegance of the 1980-92 version. It never really paid off sales-wise, and bowed out after the 1996 model year, so the Texas factory could pump out yet more Tahoe mommy-mobiles.
That is not to say there was no worthwhile Cadillac any more; the Sedan de Ville, Eldorado and Seville were still very nice cars, but developing Northstar engine issues, particularly for those who deferred maintenance, meant that many bowed out early. Something that seldom happened with the 1986-96 Broughams and Fleetwoods with 307 Olds and 305, 350 and LT1 Chevrolet power.
But the Nineties saw a wave of change at Cadillac. HT4100s were gone, Cimarron a distant memory, and cars that were, more and more, getting up to par with foreign competition. Not there just yet, but getting closer. The Northstar and “Caddy that zigs” Catera (how many people got fired over that dumb marketing campaign?!) added some new stumbling blocks, and then the GM mothership went ker-blooey. Not good! Now what?
Another reboot, more or less. After emerging from bankruptcy, Cadillac became leaner and more focused. They had already made some strides prior to the 2009 meltdown with the gen2 SRX and gen2 CTS (And don’t forget the V Series!), but more new products appeared, including a small sport sedan, the ATS, the final Northstar cars phased out (2011 DTS and STS), and a new large sedan: The XTS, my current favorite new Cadillac, and the sole remaining FWD Caddy.
The XTS appeared in 2012 as a ’13 model, and replaced both the rear wheel drive STS (ex-Seville) and front wheel drive DTS (formerly Sedan de Ville). While it shares the Epsilon II platform with the Chevrolet Impala, it is quite different, with completely different sheetmetal and interior. It’s also, in your author’s opinion, decidedly classier than even the leather-lined Impala LTZ.
You may recall the Future CC I did last year on a 2005 Deville. While that car was more traditionally styled, you could see cost-cutting in some of the trim bits and switchgear. While most diehard lovers of Broughamy Caddys regularly pillory the “new gen” Cadillacs as ugly, stupid and unsalable, I can tell you that the XTS is quite impressive. Better yet, it feels like a Cadillac. Driving it, I felt I was driving a modern luxury car with American style–just like a man driving a new Sedan de Ville or Sixty Special did in 1964. No rip-off styling, no tackiness. Just an elegant, capable and comfortable car.
New car rags love to bitch about the lack of soft-touch plastics, but they will be sadly unable to beat that dead horse upon reviewing this car. Everything you touch has a high quality, well-assembled feel. I am not a huge fan of TV sets touchscreens in new cars, but for what it is, it is not bad to use. This was the first car I have driven in some time with a touchscreen, and despite trying the car out in rush hour traffic, I was still able to change the radio station and adjust the temperature with a minimum of fuss.
The doors open and shut with that W126-like solidity most folks love. Unlike some domestic luxury cars of the ’70s, the wood is real wood, and the stitching, whether on leather or vinyl, is real stitching. No injection molded fakeness here!
This car was made available through the courtesy of McLaughlin Cadillac-Volvo-Subaru, where I have purchased both my Volvo V50 and Lincoln Town Car. I simply stopped by one day and asked my salesman, Brian, if I could try one out. “I’d like to review one as a future classic. I don’t care if it’s a brand-new one, but I’d like to see what they are like compared to the more traditional Cadillacs of the past. And, well, I’d just really love to drive one!” Brian said no problem, and shortly after I wheeled out of the dealership in a loaner in Graphite Metallic and all of 300-odd miles on the clock.
Prior to giving me the key, Brian warned me about the car. “It might not be what you expect. They drive nothing like the older Deville and DTS. Much firmer, less floaty. They’re nice, but very different from the 2005 you drove before.” So, as much as I like the looks of these cars, I got in expecting to not like it as much as I had initially hoped.
However, once I got on the four lane, I found myself enjoying the car very much. The 305-hp 3.6L V6 motivates the car with authority, and if that isn’t enough for you, a 410-hp twin turbo is also available. On a Cadillac! The seats were cushy yet supportive, the car was smooth and quiet, and the stereo system was excellent. I could see driving myself and a few friends out for a round of golf, followed by dinner and drinks, quite easily. I even tried out the back seat. The verdict: not 1964 Sixty-Special roomy, but very good for a 2014 automobile.
The wreath and crest was still present, though now being phased out on 2015 models for a revised version sans wreath. At first I didn’t like the new badging at all, but it is growing on me. I still miss the “crown” and merlettes, however.
Yes, there really is an engine under all that plastic. They even hide the battery under a cover nowadays! The 3.6 has 264 lb-ft of torque and runs through a six-speed automatic. All wheel drive is available as well.
The car stops as well as it charges forward, with vented Brembo four-wheel discs. Magnetic ride control is another gee-whiz feature that adjusts the ride to changing road surfaces and keeps rubber to the road with a minimum of fuss, even on moon-cratered Midwestern roads. Nope, this is not your grandfather’s Cadillac. And yet, there will still be XTSs seen with fake convertible tops and gold pseudo Rolls-Royce grilles, I am sure.
And yet, if you look, there are nods to classic Cadillacs present in the lines of this luxury sedan. Fins, for one! They actually stand proud of the rear quarter panel. It is subtle, as you don’t really notice it from twenty feet away, but standing next to it, they read Fin Era loud and clear. I also love the classic Cadillac script on the polished trim piece above the license plate.
Out back, those vertical taillights and wreath and crest still easily make it identifiable as a Cadillac. Just as the eggcrate grille and vertical headlights (shades of 1965-68) do from up front.
Note the fins in this shot, easily spotted from this angle. I like how this is a modern-looking car, clearly a Cadillac, clearly a luxury car, but still with multiple classic cues. It is subtle, sure, but I read them loud and clear. I wish Lincoln would try to do something similar. The new MKZ is a very attractive car, but the look really does not say “Lincoln” to me, from any angle. And no, the vaguely 1940-41 Continental-ish grille doesn’t count in my book.
Now where was I? Oh yes, the drive. Well, Brian was right. This car does not ride like the 2005 Deville I drove, or the 1991 Seville, or the 1989 Eldorado, or the half-dozen 1989-93 Sedan de Villes I test-drove back in the late ’90s. But it is a credible modern luxury sedan. I liked it quite a bit.
Actually, I liked it too much. Now I kind of want one, though certainly not a brand-new one! But I was impressed. It is a blend of American luxury with a lot of Audi in it. Handling was very good, and despite all the cries of “It’s FWD! It is not a true luxury sedan!” I never really got a sense of being pulled along like I do in my Volvo. It is muted. It is sedate. It is comfortable. But it will also giddy up if you so desire. I don’t even want to think about the twin-turbo variant. I am sure I would wrap it around a tree or get way too many tickets in one of those!
This is what I mean about fit and finish. Very attractive, but functional too. And none of the fake gun stock plasti-wood you would see on a 1975 Eldorado. Hey, I love the mid-’70s Caddys, but let’s face it, there were some pretty cheesy details on them! And don’t forget the Insta-Split door panels…
After all the years I’ve been around cars, I have always wanted a CAR. A sedan, a wagon, a coupe. I never really got excited about pickups, or SUVs (FSJ Jeep Grand Wagoneer and 1993-98 Grand Cherokee excepted), or crossovers. In addition, though I love Porsches, Ferraris, MG Bs and other sports cars, I’ve never really wanted one for myself. Other than “getting on it” once in a blue moon, I never really cared for driving fast, either.
Maybe that’s why I like these kind of cars so much. Maybe that’s why I’ve always loved Lincolns and Cadillacs. To me, they were the best, even though I also loved the Volvos my parents drove when I was a kid. The 240 wagons were cool, and Dad’s red ’88 740 Turbo was wonderful, and I loved the Volvos I have owned myself, but…
But. I like luxury cars. I like domestics. That’s why I bought my Town Car, why I’m considering trading the V50 for an MKZ or MKS when I’m ready for a newer car, and why I now kind of want an XTS. Why hot-rod around when the ride is so serene, the acceleration and braking so effortless, and the stereo is so fine?
So, despite my guardedness prior to driving this car, I came away liking it even more than I had originally thought. Call me a GM fan boy if you must, or a domestic apologist. I don’t care.
I don’t have an agenda here, I just like this car. And I’m mighty glad they still make cars like this. Enjoy the ride, my friends.
It’s not my cup of tea, but they have done a nice job, especially with the interior. I can’t stop gazing at those door panels! It’s nice that Cadillac understands that not every car they make has to be a CTS-V. I’m glad they are diversifying a bit, and building competent sports sedans, but this XTS is a perfect example of Cadillac doing what they do best, with a twist of modern driving dynamics.
I agree, I’ve not been a fan of Cadillac in recent years, but this car is a step in the right direction. Love the lines, especially in black.
A business associate has one of these, but I have not yet ridden in it. She likes it very much and the red matches her personality.
I hadn’t really noticed these until seeing hers and now having read your take on it, I’m intrigued. Perhaps I will soon ride in it.
How unruly was the console?
Not a problem at all!
An attractive vehicle, and friends who have ’em love ’em.
One thing that makes this car different from most Cadillacs of recent memory is “presence”–that quality that makes you sit up and notice it. In the metal, it’s got all the right notes to sing, “I’m something special”. Exterior and interior fit/finish/trim all say this is not a run of the mill car.
My buddy’s car is a Platinum Edition, black, just like the car shown, but with saddle-color seats with black accents. That trim really shows off the wood trim and door/dash detailing. Looks like a far more expensive car than it is.
I’m glad you did not rip CUE. All the car mags do as a matter of course. I’ve driven a 2013 SRX for about 18 months now and I find it easy to use. As a matter of fact,when the dealer gives me an older loaner with all the buttons, I find it maddening after the simplicity of the CUE screens.
As for the vehicle. I love it. The way it looks and the way it drives. I transitioned after leasing a Mercedes 350ML for three years. Wonderful vehicle, but I think I’m enjoying the SRX more.
The XTS is beautiful and Cadillac is wisely building cars to a different targeted market than the Fleetwood days. I still like the old Caddys better. You knew what it was two blocks away and they commanded attention. Today we often have to get close enough to read the nameplates to determine the make. While I enjoy driving these new models my heart still belongs to the chrome and steel behemoths of days gone by.
I would say, that with their distinctive front “light pipes” and neon cathedral red tail lights, the newer Cadillacs are some of the most easy to spot cars on the road, I can spot them a mile away, especially the new 14 CTS with its long led DRL’s than run from the base of the front end and curve over the fender.
I rode in one earlier this year, and to me it felt like nothing but an Impala with an extra layer of frosting on top. None of the interior surfaces felt particularly luxurious, and fit and finish seemed lacking (the trim pieces on my door were already loose in less than 10,000 miles of livery service.) The car’s ride quality over some of the bumpier streets in Phoenix also left a lot to be desired.
I do like the look though, inside and out. A fine effort, especially for today’s GM… but not a Cadillac.
Cadillac is back on my dream list…. I’ve had BMW’s in the past, but they seem so common now. This is very nice to look at.
Excellent review. Your feelings about cars generally mirror my thinking when I bought a Chrysler 300C four years ago when I needed a new car; the model’s concept was right and the execution was most of the way there, although its materials and fit and finish were decidedly on the cheap side. It sounds like the new XTS has advanced the ball a long way. I too will have to check it out, for possible purchase as a several years old used car around 2020.
Well, if we’re going to make 1938 references, I’d say it’s more Graham Sharknose than 60 Special!
The fine broadcloth in that 1964 Fleetwood is so much more luxurious than the plastic coated hide in the contemporary lower expectations XTS.
Cadillacs used to have gravitas. Not anymore. They’re following, not leading.
Agree.
I want a car, NOT a video-game-on-wheels.
Old comment, I know. But still this is very well said. I’m going to remember it and use it 🙂
“I was still able to change the radio station and adjust the temperature with a minimum of fuss.”
Love the irony. God help us, we’re in the hands of programmers. I’m one myself; it’s very hard to eliminate software defects, more than most appreciate. Thus, the 2004 2AZ-FE Camry sudden-acceleration scandal, which was a bone-headed error violating Toyota’s own coding standards, not helped by use of the desperately unsafe C language. People’s lives are at stake here!
And why does modern man feel all of life must be computerized, no matter how trivial?
Agree.
I want a car…..NOT a video-game-on-wheels.
Excellent review Tom. I’ve sat in an XTS at the dealer and was very impressed with the quality of the interior and the comfort of the seats. How would you compare the ride of the MKZ , MKS and XTS? (how I miss real car names!)
Haven’t driven either Lincoln yet. That’s next on the list!
In general, I have been impressed with the recent effort that has gone into making Cadillac a worthwhile car again. The traditionalist in me is not crazy about the V6/fwd combo, but it does appear to work well. If Cadillac is able to make these in a way that does not start a massive case of wallet-suck as they age, resale value should improve, making these a good choice.
I have not been in one of these, but if the chance arises, I will have to pay attention.
BTW, the brochure shot of the black 1963 Fleetwood Sixty Special is the twin to the one I owned (or that owned me) in the late 70s. Black with gray cloth and leather, it set the standard for me of what a Cadillac should be. Even as an abused 16 year old, the car had oodles of presence and its deep-down quality still showed. Unfortunately, I bought it at a time when both time and money were short, and I had to bail after awhile.
Looks like a top of the line Subaru to me.
A rather flashy, confusing, busy interior.
Cadillac’s continuing, confusing use of right angle and curves for their exterior styling leaves me cold & bored.
The nicer Cadillac in the line up. I test drove the X TS and I find that the car doesn’t have much power at all. Cadillacs need to be V-8’s.
Are you opposed to the twin-turbo V6? I do like the traditional idea of a V8 Cadillac myself, but those days are gone with the exception of the “V” models. Forced induction on smaller powerplants is how we’re going to make power in the present time and the near future.
If it “doesn’t have much power at all” you must have driven the NA version. And while 310 HP sounds like *plenty* I suppose the lower torque figure and potentially relaxed gearind could give that impression.
I like the car and the overall concept, but for the life of me, I can’t get past the ungainly proportions. The stubby cab forward hood, the unnatural height and naturalness, I don’t know which is worse.
The DTS, even with all its flaws, looked big and imposing. The XTS, despite being only marginally smaller, does not.
While the proportions aren’t ideal, I think they work well enough. it’s a member of the modern FWD design idiom though. The DTS was a cleanly styled car, and handsome, but not distinctive enough. I never found it to look imposing at all. And the interior left a LOT to be desired.
Have you seen one in person, on the street? They do really look a lot bigger when close to one. Color matters, too. The DeVille/DTS in white or tan looks like any other car/blob/Taurus, but in dark blue or black it does command attention, similar to the XTS as well.
The only thing missing is the “float.” My ’95 Olds 98 Regency Elite has a better ride!
A nice analysis and I’m glad to see a car like this still in the Cadillac lineup. I’ve never driven any modern Caddy so I can’t comment on the dynamics, and I expect I’d find a CTS or ATS to be more to my liking, but a car like this is the perfect vehicle for those who just want to soak up the miles in style and comfort. While I do miss the classic proportions, given the architecture I find the design to be pleasant, and the “art+science” design language makes it look clearly like a Cadillac to me. The bold grille helps too. Time will tell on the build quality and reliability, but his has all the markings of a good and competetive effort by Cadillac. Might even make a few prospective LS or E-Class buyers into converts!
The XTS is maddening. I simply do not get it at all. Why build this instead of stretching a CTS? The interior quality seems nice (and for that price, it darn well better be). But the XTS is narrow and claustrophobic. The greatest sin is that it does not look like a Cadillac… instead, it looks like an Avalon wearing a Cadillac costume. The proportions are all wrong. It’s tall and stubby. The right “cues” are there (tail fins, stacked headlights, chunks of chrome), but they’re on the wrong chassis.
Again, I just can’t imagine why GM took this approach instead of stretching the CTS.
Well, the previous circa 2005 STS was a lengthened CTS, but it didn’t do that well, I think that you are looking for will be here for 2016, the new Cadillac CT6 is a large RWD sedan about the size of the previous DTS.
Yes! I’m excited about the CT6… I’m truly hopeful that it will be the “real” Cadillac I’ve been waiting for. The CTS has been an encouraging prelude, but there was never a full-size model with the same philosophy.
Regarding the STS, I did have one as a rental car, and thought it was perfectly nice. But considering that it was a class above the CTS, the back seat was still too small–an extra 4 inches would’ve won me over and perhaps justified the price premium. The interior was high-quality but dull–a very avoidable error.
Anyway, I think that the reason for the STS’s failure wasn’t that it was merely a stretched CTS, but rather that they didn’t take it quite far enough. The car had great bones, and a few little changes would’ve really helped it stand out. I was disappointed that it didn’t get updated with the 2nd-gen CTS.
I like it but I agree the proportions aren’t right. That decklid is way too short for a full sized Caddy. I also take issue with a car that size having less rear seat legroom than my Jetta.
XTS leg room: 40.0″
2014 Jetta leg room: 38.1″
If the rear seat in the XTS is essentially the same as the 2014 Impala (I assume it is) then those numbers may not do it full justice. I sat in the back of the Impala after the front seat was moved all the way back for my 6’4″ frame, and I could sit back there without my knees touching the front seat back. That’s a pretty rare experience for me. It’s a roomy rear seat.
That’s certainly not my experience in a Jetta back seat; reasonably decent, but in a whole different class (or two).
Since the XTS shares quite a bit in common with the Impala under the skin, I would assume that it’s a pretty good ride. I drove the new Impala last year, and was quite impressed with its roominess, quietness, ride quality, performance and handling. I assume the XTS has it beat in terms of ride and handling with its more sophisticated Hiper-struts. Looks? Whatever….
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/future-classic/future-curbside-classic-2014-chevrolet-impala-a-major-upgrade/
So Cadillac is aiming for Acura owners who want to spend More Money?
The 1979 Cadillac was the last Caddy I could envision myself spending money on, owning and enjoying.
Small wonder there is a 2005 Lincoln Town Car in my driveway.
I already own a 2011 Camry, owned an Acura, have NO desire for a Cadillac that looks similar to these two cars and cost 2 or 3 times as much!
Please, tell us one more time, how do you feel about the XTS, you haven’t been that clear in the 7 other posts that pretty much say the same thing, are you all done? Have you made it clear enough that the XTS isn’t for you, great Thanks.
BAWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Too much strong New Orleans dark roast coffee does make me verbose, doesn’t it!
Carmine, is it acceptable for only YOU to make pithy, opinionated, multiple postings on articles here…but nobody else?
Pot…Kettle..Black…
Spot on Carmine.
Cadillac doesn’t care about the folks bitching about the XTS. Those people never buy a new Cadillac anyway.
Cadillac is not making cars for people to buy used ten years from now. They are building cars for people who buy or lease new. And they sell; there are tons of them here in the QC, and we are not exactly Chicago size-wise.
Either it’s your cup of tea or it isn’t. 🙂
It was all in good fun, there are people that don’t like the XTS, but there are lots that do, and they vote with their checkbooks, and the truth is, I’m not in total love with it, of course other than the mandatory GM humping/fist pumping that I MUST do as an obsessed fanboy…of course.
I’ve had the chance to sit in both the XTS and new 2014 CTS a few times, and the XTS is the better bargain, and it does have lots of tech, room and is GOOD looking, but across that lot is the new CTS….and that is LUST, that is one of the most gorgeous cars on the road anywhere, so it would be a tough choice.
If money were no object, CTS all the way. If there were any budget considerations, I’d buy the Impala over the XTS. I see too many odd proportions in the XTS, and there is little funtional advantage over a well equipped Impala – short of springing for the twin turbo XTS.
I still need to try out a new CTS. I’m sure Brian would be happy to oblige. 🙂
Also, you can get navy blue leather in the CTS. Pearl white with that interior would be extremely sharp.
You might want to reanalyze those sales figures; every car they offer is posting YTD losses over 2013. ATS is off 18%, XTS 23%. Even the brand new CTS hasn’t been able to keep up with the outgoing model, it’s down 5%. It’s actually fairly perplexing, as their lineup is arguably the best they’ve ever had, yet the only ones people seem to care about are the SRX and Escalade…
Who quoted sales figures?
Now on the other side of the card, Cadillac’s ATP(average transaction price) is up, so while they might not be selling as many cars, they are getting more money for them, and really, is it about selling lots and lots and lots and lots of Cadillacs? Isn’t that what everyone here points to as the general downfall of the division in the 70’s?
Call me old-fashioned, but I agree with the comments about gizmos in cars. I can change the AC on my Eclipse by touch, without taking my eyes off the road. I have steering wheel radio controls on the BACK of the spokes–also by feel. You have to look at a touchscreen. And the Eclipse’s predecessor, a 2006 Corvette, had electronic door handles…Whenever it got below 70 degrees (rare in Miami) those doors would stick. And no lock cylinders. Real fun in a downpour…What happens in Maine? Electronic door handles answer a question nobody asked. Kinda like disappearing tailgates and convertible pickup trucks. And don’t even get me started on the latest “me-too” luxury gadget–folding rearview mirrors…As for the XTS, I think it has presence. Very pretty and looks like a Cadillac. The quality has to be BEST though, not just better. So what platform is an “ATS”??
Agree. It used to be that luxury and convenience were defined by simple and easy to use. The early GM Comfortron automatic HVAC controls are exhibit A in my case. One lever and one temp thumb wheel. You could operate it with your eyes closed after using it a few times.
The dome light and dash dimmer in my 2012 F-150 are together on a funky rocker switch and it seems impossible to turn on the dome without screwing up the adjustment on the dash lights. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
I will give credit to folding rearview mirrors on a large truck. I wouldn’t be able to clear my garage door frame on the passenger side without them. But, completely unneccessary on my average size cars.
The ATS is an Alpha based RWD platform, it is currently used on the new CTS too and will be the basis for the 6th generation Camaro and some yet undisclosed future models.
Folding mirrors are an old fad I just disposed of a 93 Nissan Sentra equipped such,
The ATS platform is new, and the new CTS sedan is built on the same platform. It is called the ALPHA. Designed to be light weight.
My 83YO father lets me drive his dark blue over taupe on occasion. I find it a great improvement over his prior DTS, which IMHO harked back too much to the float-boats of yore. Or Eeyore.
The XTS is a competent, fun though snug car. NEVER thought I would say that about a Cadillac, though I’ve wanted to test a CTS wagon for a while.
The one thing he and I have in common is that we are both analog, and new cars are a mite too digital. My interest in BMW’s ended around 1990, so how they compare to this XTS is irrelevant.
Perhaps in future drives I will learn a little more about the CUE; for now, I know how to make the radio blow twice as hard on my feet.
Things I like:
Easiness to spot from a distance and I.D. as a Cadillac (+1 Carmine)
Using real wood
Things I don’t like:
FWD
V6
Busy interior
The wood may be real but looks faker than the fake wood on my base trim Electra.
But being generous and putting aside those gripes:
****TOO SMALL, inside and out****
I don’t ask them to bring back the 1980-92 BOF RWD Brougham with airbags, because, I know they won’t. Do I want them to? Yeah, but I’m realistic, even if I have my opinions.
But, I do ask them to bring back a properly sized big car with RWD, 215 in + in length, 75 in width. At this point, I’m cutting my losses: I’ll deal even if it’s too busy inside, has 8 computer screens, has plasticky looking real wood, has an interior that only comes in black and grey, and has about 3 inches of overhang on either end. For god’s sake, why can’t we have a goddamned Cadillac, this is that stupid ’87 Seville again, adjusted for 2014 tastes.
I pray that the CT6 is a substantial car. Lots of legroom, lots of headroom, lots of width, lots of length. But I’m guessing it’ll be another international platform thingy.
215 plus is a bit of a tall order today, the new CT6 is supposed to be about 204 inches long in the SWB version and a bit bigger in the LWB version that is going to launch later, so the SWB version is about the size of DTS, which is about the size of an S-class or a 7. The rumored “top o’the range” superCadillac will be even bigger.
I just don’t think that there are as many people clamoring for a 229 inch long Cadillac as there are people on the internet clamoring to want one.
Not asking for 229 (in this car, anyway). 215 is really not that big. That’s ’11 Town Car sized. Make it as modern as you want but a flagship Cadillac is supposed to be big and roomy.
Very disappointing. Will the SuperCadillac exceed 210 in? Sorry, just seems way too small to be a Cadillac flagship to me. The European cars are small because, that’s what European cars are. Small.
Hope they keep making the Escalade.
Looks like I am not the only multi-posting traditionalist on this article today.
🙂
Well, I guess there’s always limos and moving vans, I think a 205 inch long car, in modern times, is pretty big, again, thats about the size of an LS/7/S-class/A8, and I’ve never heard anyone call those cars small, is it as big as a 233 inch long 76 Fleetwood, no, but then again, its not 1976 anymore either. Something over 200 inches can hardly be called small.
For comparison:
Bentley Mulsane 219in
Cadillac Escalade ESV 224in
Rolls Phantom SWB/LWB 229/239in
Mercedes S550 206in
Lexus LS460 L 205in
A couple of these cars have reclining rear Lay-Z-Boy type rear seats within their miniscule 205-207 inch dimensions.
Yes the Town Car is 215 inches long, but it’s also riding on a platform from Jimmy Carters presidency, so I think that we could make some advancements in interior space efficiency since 1979 that could allow us to have a car even roomier than a Town Car on the inside but not quite as big on the outside.
Agree to disagree. Because only the Mercedes and the Lexus are shorter than 215 in the group you just used as an example. Kind of proves my point in that the rest exceed that length.
The rest are Big Cars.
The Escalade is still big. I don’t see why the cars can’t be big, too. Indeed, we may be able to make them more space efficient yet. Great. Then we can have Fleetwood 75 room in the 60 special. Sounds awesome. But I like my cars to be big on the outside too, not just some stubby little hood and trunk. That is part of the reason for a big car, not just the space. It’s supposed to have presence too. That is, without a doubt, part of the reason people buy the Bentley, the Phantom, and the Escalade.
Again, that doesn’t mean it needs to be a 1976 Fleetwood Brougham, but at least get something back to DTS-Town Car size. It doesn’t have to LOOK LIKE the DTS and Town Car. But it should be that big. At least.
Anything under 225 inches is “mid sized” to me, but again, I don’t think like the public in general, the Rolls and Bentley were presented as outliers, the 7 and A8 are all under 215 inches too, the CT6 ISN’T going to be an ultra low volume $300,000 car like the Rolls and Bentley, I only included them for a comparison between big and really big, Yes, the Rolls is big, its also a bit silly and vulgar, not that I don’t like for Cadillacs to be silly and vulgar too.
Yes, the Escalade ESV is big too, it should be, its a 6000lb 7 passenger truck, and the example I used is the biggest ESV version, the more popular Escalade “normale” is a trimmer 204 inches, so it’s not big either?
I’m not sure what you’re getting at, if under 215 is small, then by your equation, the DTS was small at 207 inches? I think you’re complaining for the sake of complaining?
A8L-207in
760iL-205in
XJ-L-206
Current XTS-202in
And these are all the L LWB versions.
Nope, not complaining for the sake of complaining. You should know I’m happy there are cars even this big still on the market. That said, I just think they could make a bigger car. No more, no less. I’m sure the XTS is perfectly nice. Just seems too small to me, so I hope the flagship’ll be bigger.
The wood may be real but looks faker than the fake wood on my base trim Electra. The wood may be real but looks faker than the fake wood on my base trim Electra.
QFT. Real wood with 1/8″ of smooth glossy urethane on top = plastiwood in my book.
Although give it a few years of expansion/contraction cycles and the clear will eventually crack just as the real wood in my Dad’s Lexus is starting to do. “see I told you it was real wood!”
My newspaper says that oil took another dive yesterday due to high supply and low demand. I have this nagging fear that with plentiful petroleum and with tightening CAFE requirements, we might be in for a re-run of 1980-83, a situation I am not looking forward to (because I lived it the first time). I would love to see a repeal of CAFE if for no other reason than to see what GM, Ford and Chrysler are capable of building and selling without CAFE interference. Cars like this Cadillac are not designed because the guys at Cadillac think its the best they can do and because they think people will love them. They are designed because there are requirements for fuel efficiency that simply must be met unless the manufacturers want to incur huge fines. We bemoan the lack of distinction between Cadillac and other cars, but the legal environment is a large part of this result.
I agree that the timing of the new regs along with easy oil are going to be a less than ideal combo in some regards. But the XTS was always going to be a stop-gap car until Cadillac got serious about building a true top of the line model, as they are now going to do so. I don’t think the CAFE regs had much of a hand in this car. It and the new Impala share the platform and probably most of the hard points, so it was expedient.
Let’s face it, new GM has had to prioritize and get its feet on the ground before they were going to commit to a big Caddy. Sounds like the time is right for that.
The thing is that the XTS isn’t a flagship or top of the line model, its a DTS replacement, which wasn’t a flagship either, it was a DeVille.
it never was the most expensive car or truck(CTS-V/Escalade Platinum is) not the biggest, again Escalade, not the highest performance either, it always was sort of designed as a placeholder.
I could see Cadillac still offering a car like this, even after the RWD large sedans come out.
I can agree with this a lot more than I can agree with the argument above that an A8 is a big car so I should be happy with something that size, but maybe that’s because we do the same thing for a living. 🙂
Actually this does fit a niche for aging/conservative Cadillac buyers that still bought the DTS, its the large, but not too expensive, relatively conservative, “big” Caddy. It gets good mpg, but its not like this is some sort of CAFE mileage miser with a 27hwy mpg and nearly 4000lb curb weight. Its basically a Sedan deVille.
True. Even though I get a Fleetwood vibe from it, it is really a Sedan de Ville. Like the CTS is the Seville and the ATS is…hmm. Calais?
Cimarron I think, but much better.
To me the regular XTS is the DeVille and the XTS Platinum is the Fleetwood,(Fleetwood d’Elegance?) at least that’s how it sort of works in my mind.
The XTS is available in 4 different levels of trim, but the interior is not much different in the lower levels. The top trim has an upgraded leather (which is what my ATS has I think), so mostly you get less options with the Platinum as mostly everything is standard.
Its recognizably GM the frontal styling is shared with the Holden Colorado pickup.
*googles Holden Colorado*
Hmm. No. Maybe after a few gin and tonics…
It does remind me of a Tahoe, not surprising since it’s based on a Chevy.
How about the previous generation badge-engineered Isuzu D-Max? The grille is still too small, but there is a vaguely similar styling theme.
I imagine it would be prohibitive when the car is based on an existing platform, but I’d prefer to see this car with a taller roof, more upright windshield and a slightly raised seating position. This would create a more formal look, better road presence and better interior space. Make it more like an Escalade sedan if you will. I bet the purchasing market would be onboard and it would also better suit conversion into a limousine.
That Isuzu grille was around on the U.S. Ascender back in 2003, the Holden grille is the Chevy corporate “face” that came into being around the same time.
Cadillac did build cars that were approximately what you’re describing for a long time. Many were sold but I think few people loved them. IMO, it’s the fastback, short decklid styling that totally makes the XTS and Impala. Here’s it’s predecessor:
The front of the passenger compartment looks good, very much improved since my last look at a Cadillac. Back seats looks like any Chevrolet. Outside looks like a flagship KIA. Front looks ghetto. Just what I would expect with those low lease rates they are advertising. I am not their market target.
When I finally gave up on get a used or aging new CTS wagon, I looked at the ATS and did give the XTS a look, but did not want a FWD because of the excess front overhang which tends to drag on pavement any time there is a moderate incline for a driveway or even just city street intersections. That was the one thing that I found with the last three FWDs that I had that I did not like. My 2007 SRX, with more ground clearance and less front overhang, never scraped its nose on the steepest driveway I could find.
I was somewhat concerned with the ATS dragging it’s nose, but I have not found it to do that, but I am careful on steeper driveways.
I love the XTS for what it is, and was briefly selling cars (1.5 years) at Jim Coleman Cadillac in Bethesda, MD when it came out. From my perspective it was so much better looking and handling than I expected when we got our first one that I was very impressed. Quite a lot of customers were quite pleased to buy them as well.
That said, it was introduced basically as a stop-gap solution. In 2012, Cadillac only had one car, the CTS. They had discontinued the STS and the DTS after 2011 and they needed a bigger car in the line-up, as the CTS back seat was quite small. To my understanding it is the maximum width and length the chevy malibu platform can be stretched, and it shares the platform with the Buick LaCrosse and now the Impala as well.
Its strengths are that it has a fairly large back seat, quick steering, good pickup in a front-wheel drive version (all wheel drive with the non-turbo is a little slow), a nice match between the engine and transmission, and a somewhat reasonable starting price ($45,000). Weaknesses other than the general weaknesses of front-wheel drive are the back seat is quite upright, and hard-breaking on the highway at speeds above 70 make for a very light rear-end that threatens to lose control.
In my view, it’s the only Cadillac car in the line-up that’s priced properly for the market. As a salesman I thought the ATS should have started at $29,990 (it actually started at $33,990) and the new CTS should have held the old CTS base price of $39,990 (I believe they raised the base to $45,990). With the XTS at $44,990 it would have been a good line up of sedans. I also understand that the ELR is now offered with a $15,000 rebate, and I think I base price of $62,000 would have made more sense than $77,000.
So, what you have is a Chevrolet with a Chevrolet V-6 for about, what, $60000? Sign me up for an Accord.
Actually the 3.6 V6 made it’s debut in a Cadillac, so its not a “Chebby motar”, its made by GM Powertrain, but thanks for stopping by, it wouldn’t be the same without your misinformed and obviously incorrect opinions, thanks.
It’s like Barney Fife shooting his gun on The Andy Griffith Show, he fires into the courthouse floor, the ceiling, etc.
I bought mine brand-new for 60% of the number you quoted; you are quite a ways off.
The differences between this and an Impala are FAR greater than that of a Brougham and a Caprice.
+1. Yanns, how are you liking your XTS?
When I first saw a picture of an XTS, I didn’t like it very much. But upon seeing one in person, I immediately loved it. Modern cars have so many complex curves and stampings that they look a little flat in pictures. But once you stand next to one, these cars look great.
I thought the same of the current Camaro and 2013-up Lincoln MKZ. Looked poor in pictures and excellent “in the metal.”
It seems to be a good car. I kind of like the somewhat sporty side to it. The LaCrosse sibling/cousin was a bit mundane so I went ahead with the XTS. I’ve always liked the design, although it looks awkward in areas, which I’m fine with. I don’t understand how/why they made the interior/cabin so narrow. I definitely prefer an American Cadillac, but this is a hold-over ’til I splurge on a gas-guzzling SUV that I really wanted.
Over eight grand off base MSRP!? Wow.. $36k is literally where an Impala with the V6 starts. Judging from your purchase, there must be no way Chevrolet is actually fetching close to that figure.
I have no clue, I didn’t cross-shop Chevy (I do know the base model Impala is selling for $23k however). GM is very optimistic/stupid on their pricing.
I really don’t have anything bad to say about the styling, in fact when I first saw it I quite liked it since, unlike the old DTS, it fits right in with Cadillac’s current design. I don’t particularly like the interior design, particularly the V shaped center stack but then again I think modern interiors pretty much suck across the board, from Lincoln to Mercedes Benz and the XTS might actually be more pleasant to my eyes than most
What I don’t like is, and not to fan the flames of FWD/V6 hate, even though yes I do passionately hate that layout, is that it seems like a place filler model more than anything else. It’s the “big” Cadillac, I’m not clamoring for the dynamics of a RWD chassis, but it does seem kind of out of place in a lineup of ATSs and CTSs whose biggest claim to fame besides the Art & Science styling is the return to RWD after a looong absence from the division. The old DTS was merely a relic of Cadillac’s geriatric FWD past, it was clearly on life support the minute the CTS came out, whereas the XTS is new, it comes from the RWD Art & Science era but it’s FWD, because of that it seems like a compromise. No matter how good it is(and it’s hard to argue it’s merits) I personally can’t shake that thought when looking at it
It seems to me that Cadillac has the prodigy and desire to come around and make proud the pre-war heritage they have. With the XTS and the new CT6. And if the CT6 is one notch above the current XTS, then i can only dream of a cars to bear the names CT8 and CT9. CT6 would be like smallish Sixteen, CT8 would be a large Elmiraj and CT9 would be exactly Ciel – something to compete with RR and Bentley, at least in style.
It seems like a fine car. And I’m glad that TK can get excited about it. But around here (California college town where I live, and the heart of Silicon Valley where I work) it’s a minor footnote in the automotive scene. I see more Chrysler 300’s -or Teslas or Vanagons or ’50’s pickups – in a day than I see late model Cadillacs in a week. Or maybe I just don’t notice the Chevillacs. With all due respect, these are no different than the Cimarron, merely based on a much newer – and MUCH better – Chevy.
How can it be “based” on a Chevrolet when it pre-dates the car it shares its platform with( but NONE NONE NONE of its exterior sheetmetal or interior components with)by a year? Comparing this to a Cimarron and expecting anyone to take your comment as nothing more than mindless silly drivel is pure ignorance.
Carmine, it really isn’t necessary to respond to everyone’s comment that may express a different opinion from you. As I tell my dog when he’s about to chase every squirrel he sees (which he also can’t resist) : “Just Leave It!”
It’s not like you’re actually going to change anyone’s mind 🙂
I hesitated before replying, but …
– I wasn’t the first to point out the similarities between this car and Chevy-branded vehicles.
– As such, the comparison with the Cimarron is very valid.
– I am old enough to remember when Cadillac was a quality car, with a prestige image here in California.
– I still find myself using the term “Cadillac” as a metaphor for quality (or superfluous decoration), which I think goes right over the heads of my younger colleagues. I won’t even mention “Dagmar” bumpers.
My real point was that in our most populous state, this brand has been deemed irrelevant by consumers, and I don’t think this XTS will turn that around. Which by the way, may make it a great candidate for future CC status, as it sure won’t be found on every street corner.
Ohhhhh, bullet points, like a powerpoint presentation!
-So because you were just as wrong as the others before doesn’t make it right
-No it isn’t, if you can’t understand why it isn’t, well, there isn’t much I can do to help you
-Congrats? I remember when C-classes and 3 series weren’t cross shopped with Camrys and Accords.
-Ummm…Okay.
I must have missed where ANYONE said that the XTS was aimed at establishing a beachhead with 20-30 year olds in the Peoples Republic of California…..thats not what its for.
I dare say this shares just as much body/chassis structure as Cadillacs of the 1950s onwards
John, if you meant Cadillacs and Chevys from the 50s, back then the two shared absolutely nothing, except maybe some bolts and fasteners.
But the 2104 Impala and XTS share a huge amount, just under the skin. I’m not making a judgement on that, just pointing it out. But the same applies to all car families these days. The commonalty in platform parts, drive trains and other parts has become huge, and no one really cares or notices.
But back in the 50s, it was very different, even at GM. The Chevy and Cadillac used totally different Fisher bodies, and the rest of the cars were engineered by each division. Well, possibly the power steering pump, or a generator or such might have been the same.
Update: The ’59s did share the basic body structure, and that would be mostly the case from then on. Maybe you meant 59. But the chassis and drive train and stuff took longer to become unified across divisions.
Carmine, what is the nature of your association with Cadillac?
Cadillacs I like: late ’30s, late ’60s, late ’70s (pre engine debacles).
But the market has moved on, & for better or worse, no one wants those barges anymore, or at least CAFE stds won’t allow them. For my part, recent Caddies seem like Benz wannabes, however well-done, but to be sure, I don’t want gadget-happy, high-octane German cars either, having no real advantage in American driving conditions & being potential moneypits as well. Perhaps the low-tech approach of past Cadillacs & Lincolns was best, after all.
For the foreseeable future, I’ll stick with mainstream Nippon cars, they already have more luxury than I need, but w/o the useless & costly Autobahn fantasies.
Amen. The only reason I’d have a Benz or a Bimmer is if I had the money for a top of the line S class or 7 series, and then for the snob appeal rather than anything it could do. I think they both can have v12s in them, but I really wouldn’t care if they only pushed them along like Olds 307s in a old GM wagon. As long as that roundel doesn’t wear off or some prick doesn’t snap off the hood ornament, you’ll get plenty of rubbernecking from all the plebians.
Otherwise, how many interstate off/on ramps do you carve before that starts to get really old? No thanks.
I want to like it…. There are many nice elements to the design, but some of the proportions just don’t seem as balanced as other Cadillacs (ATS, CTS). The best part about Cadillac design lately is the tail lamps….beautifully done.
My favorite Cadillac right now is the ATS….but here’s what I find happening a lot lately – I get the current ATS mixed up with the last generation CTS to the point where if viewed from the rear I look for the model number on the back to be sure what the model is.
I wish I could like these as much as you Tom but from some angles the car looks like an anteater. I prefer the more muscular Impala though the taillights need updating to look more like the ones on the Camaro/Malibu. I love the ATS and CTS. I know three people who would buy an ATS tomorrow except that it is too expensive.
One thing I hate about Cadillac is the new boss. He says he wants to limit volume, to make Cadillac more exclusive and keep prices high, then announces a future model below the ATS that is based on the Chevy Cruze?
He was around when Audi introduced the first A4 and has been riding those coattails ever since. He likes names such as CT6 because those are “good for China” and but thinks “Eldorado” sounds too old fashioned. Maybe to someone as clueless as you.
CT6 is the dumbest name for a Cadillac I’ve ever heard. Over at The Brougham Society last week, we had a long discussion about said corporate klutz whining about Facebook groups mocking the CT6 name. Top tip for Cadillac brass: don’t give a prestigious luxury car such a stupid name, then maybe you will not be mocked. “Danger, Danger on Planet CT6, Will Robinson!” 🙂
Just call it Fleetwood, or Sixty Special, for Pete’s sake.
I think that the old names are old fashioned (Fleetwood (now only a trademark name owned by GM-no division that could actually build one), de Ville, Eldorado). While CTx, where x is a number to denote the rank of the car, is kind of like the series numbering scheme used back in the 1930’s, it is also kind of like Audi’s scheme and BMW’s. I don’t care what they are called if the cars are really good and the names are consistent with some scheme.
I’ve not been at all attracted to the XTS, but your review has got me thinking maybe I should reconsider. I’m not a fan of the plebian drivetrain configuration, but my only real gripe with the car as it’s executed is the very cab-forward proportions. I agree it has some presence to it in the styling and detailing, but it really screams “I’m FWD!”. IMHO, that makes it instantly lose points as a prestige car.
Still, for the right audience, I’m seeing how it could be the right car. Good review!
Great review of a new car I’m really into. The single downside to the XTS is that the Impala is such an impressive car and – as far as I’m concerned – slightly better looking, too. There’s more than enough that differentiates the two and makes the Epsilon Caddy worth the extra $$$, so this isn’t even really a flaw. If anything, it can be seen as one of those “good problems” to have, and there probably aren’t many potential buyers who, like me, would be very torn between a loaded Impala or basic XTS.
I want to be absolutely clear on that, because I’m with CARMINE here in his valiant defense of Cadillac for once.
Taste is subjective and everything, but I find it very hard to understand how alleged fanatics of the brand can find any serious faults with the current lineup. They’re all cars that have an overt Cadillac-ness to them, but without being the rolling anachronisms or woeful compromises that accounted for nearly everything they built between 1980 and whenever the first CTS came out. How did it become conventional internet wisdom that Cadillac must build big, fat, soft cars in order for them to be proper Cadillacs? Prior to the ’80s, their efforts were always modern and up to date, always matching or exceeding the competition. When “luxury car” started taking on a new definition in the following decade, they really dropped the ball. It’s purely coincidence that cars were fatter and softer, in general, 40 years ago – but that isn’t what defined those cars as Cadillacs, IMO. Was anyone back in the ’50s and ’60s insisting that Cadillac had jumped the shark because they no longer offered V12 and V16 powerplants? I’m sure… and now they’re all dead and no one remembers them, because they were wrong. Times change, and it’s ridiculous to expect Cadillac to build a 1975 Fleetwood with airbags, or for anyone to buy it if they did.
I agree that the Impala is very impressive, it had to become better, it now sort of has to fill the big car role in covering everything from the “cheap” big car base Impala to the loaded LTZ Impala which fills the old Bonneville/Delta 88 niche.
Sean, you probably find it hard to believe because you continue to state that we want a 1975 Cadillac when we have said that we don’t but would like a somewhat larger Cadillac than the current offering of mid sized sport sedans. So the XTS is fine for what it is, but having ridden in one around here as livery service, because they seem on the way to becoming the black car of choice in town, I would have hoped for a bit more spacious.
Feel free to continue to suspend disbelief and resort to hyperbole. I don’t see anyone here who demanded they reproduce exact replicas of the 1992 Brougham outside of wishful thinking by Tom in the post and by Carmine in the past.(which car you then enlarged to the 1975 model to support your position about lukewarm sentiment). It’s an exaggeration and mischaracterization.
I think we all hope Cadillac does well both with what it has and what may come. However, as bonuses get (hopefully) bigger I may want a new car and I happen to wish it were larger than the XTS. Different strokes.
Of course I’m exaggerating, but take a look at all the complaints regarding the XTS or any other Cadillac, they’re all over the place: Too aggressive looking, too generic looking, not a specific length, not RWD, or RWD just for the sake of matching the Germans (if we’re talking ATS/CTS), not powered by a massive V8, too powerful just to match the Germans, not enough overhang, no bench seat, too aerodynamic, too much like a German car and not like “a Cadillac” in many other abstract ways, not floaty and soft enough, shares a platform with other GM vehicles, roofline isn’t “formal” enough, too full of electronics, too full of emissions controls, too hi-tech, etc…
I’m reading what you’re all saying, but all I hear is “this car isn’t a Cadillac from 1975”.
Is there any way you would ever have considered the XTS (even a 225″ long version) anything more than “not completely terrible”? I don’t think so. Which is all well and good if that’s the way you feel… but if that’s the case, why try to put the blame on Cadillac for failing to deliver when the issue is really that you just don’t like any modern car?
Different strokes, yes… but there’s a difference here. In a perfect world, I’d have a garage full of Panhards, Tatras and Corvairs… so it should go without saying that I don’t consider mainstream contemporary style to be the zenith of auto design. But there’s several very good reasons why none of those cars, and (allegedly) “traditional” Cadillacs, exist anymore. Trying to hold modern design up to the peculiarities of our own tastes is utterly pointless, and given the limitations of experience and perspective, there really isn’t any way to objectively say one is better than the other. They’re all products of their time and should be evaluated as such. The criticisms listed above (which were all plucked from CC comments) speak to a steadfast single-mindedness and outdated ideal of what a Cadillac should be; they’re the Brougham equivalent of the “brown, diesel, 6-speed manual station wagon” trope… IMO, of course.
Well said. But everyone will always have a “dream car” to wish for, and that’s ok too. 🙂
I would suggest that rather than hearing that, you are hearing what you wish to hear to suit your purposes. C’est la guerre.
I will look forward to the CT6.
The only purpose I have is pointing out why I think these criticisms are bogus. Every one I mentioned is paraphrased but portrayed accurately. If Cadillac were to build a car tailored to address them, they’d be building a car from the ’70s. They already tried to do that through much of the ’80s and ’90s and it didn’t work out so well, but even beyond that, it’s just completely unrealistic. It’s like hoping that carburetors and leaded gasoline make a comeback (both of which are occasionally suggested in CC comments!)
As much as I love old cars and prefer the styling of earlier eras, I don’t feel that nostalgia is something that should be turned into an ideology. Incorporating classic references is good, but it’s a fine line and the world doesn’t need or want a Caddy retromobile. Defining their modern hallmarks is much more important, and I think they do that well. Even the critics seem to agree that this car is distinctively “Cadillac”.
Of course, like Paul mentions, none of that stops me from holding out hope for another rear-engined, sporty Chevrolet compact with a boxer six… but I know there’s about as much chance of that happening as the stars spelling out the answers to the Times’ Sunday crossword puzzle.
The preceding from Mr. Cornelis is the blog equivalent of placing his hands over his ears, Woody Allen style, and yelling “wahwahwahwahbloopbloopbloop” so he can just tune out any reply and continue to insinuate that I am insisting Caddy spit out a ’75 DeVille with paisley seats rather than, merely, a bigger sedan.
LOL, I don’t know if you’ll even read this since I couldn’t get here yesterday, but you’ve gotta know I’m speaking in general and not specifically in reference to your gripes alone. There are always plenty of comments, most of which I listed above.
As impressive as a car this one may be; is it worth paying roughly twice the price of an all-too-similar Impala?
The thing is, is it really 2x’s the price? A fleet/rental grade baser LS Impala with cloth seats and a 2.5 4cylinder, w/o nav and plastic wheelcovers is $27,000, thats not really comparable with an XTS which starts at $45,000 with a V6, leather, CUE, alloys, and all the other Cadillac toys, a more accurate comparison would have to be an Impala LTZ V6 compared to a base XTS to even get close to the level of equipment, and you still aren’t getting Cadilac Shield, which is the owner services package, now you are only at a difference of about $9000, $36000 vs $45000, not “twice the price”.
True, the “sticker” prices are close to what “Cadillac Carmine” quotes…but in the “Real World” a Chevy dealer will “Dicker on the Sticker” of an Impala much more than a Cadillac dealer will on a Fleetwood.
A Chevy Dealer Discount of 3 to 5K , added to the 9K difference Cadillac Carmine quotes, for a very similar car, makes a HUGE difference to many of us trying to pay the bills every month in the “Real World”. FOURTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS difference, for a most similar car!!!!
Also, how much more does the leather seats cost on an Impala (standard on the Fleetwood?) Another thousand? Not everyone is in love with slippery, cold-in-the-winter, hot-in-the-summer leather seats.
Free oil changes appears to be the closing argument incentive/offer for many dealerships as of late.
Even with your “generous” math, $14,000 still isn’t twice $27,000, so I’m still right.
Also, if there’s $5000 in dealer mark up on an Impala that would be the first I’ve ever heard of it.
Currently an 2014 LTZ Impala lists for $36,715 with an invoice of $34,740 so almost $2000 in mark up plus a $1500 customer cash for a 2014 Impala and you would be looking at something $33,240 if they sold it a dead invoice w/ the rebate, maybe a little lower if the dealer had the car on the lot for a while and he wanted to really move it.
Cadillac dealers will deal on an XTS, I don’t know why you think that they wont, the base $45,525 XTS has an invoice of $41,905, though Cadillac isn’t currently offering an cash on the XTS, there is an additional $1000 for current GM owners, but hypothetically you could get an XTS for $40,905 at dead invoice as a current GM car owner, so were really only at a difference of $7665/$8665 if you’re not a current GM owner, between the Cadillac and the Chevrolet.
Even if one does accept your “fuzzy logic” mathematics, $8600 is still a LOT of money in the “Real World” to pay for a Caddy that is more alike with a Chevy than it is different.
OF COURSE those who have paid the “Big Bucks” for the Cadillac version will argue differently.
You’re one of those folks thats always “right” no matter if they are or aren’t?
Hasn’t this been the case for a good long while? OK, so a DeVille is just a “tarted up Caprice”, but does any Caprice have Caddy fins, the Caddy hood ornament or most of the Caddy doodads? Nope. Same with a new Impala vs. an XTS.
When you want the image and some of the extra gingerbread or doodads, you pay for them. Its like some geniuses thinking they should be able to buy jewelry for basically spot bullion prices. No Junior, that isn’t how it works in the Real World. Thus it is and will always be, per omnia saecula saeculorum…
I went through the build it your self and found that a nicely equipped Impala runs about $41000 (recall that my ATS is fully equipped). The LaCrosse runs a bit more at $42000 but has a variable suspension which I think is not available on the Impala and I don’t have it either.
My Cadillac dealer is the Chevrolet dealer and I think they will deal on any car to get it sold. My previous Cadillac dealer was and Oldsmobile dealer (with GMC) and wanted to buy out the Pontiac/Buick dealership but GM said that they could keep GMC but not Cadillac. They would deal on Cadillacs too.
The trick to getting a “deal” requires them to have the car you want in stock and not moving…
FORTY ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS for a Chevvvvvyyyyyy????
No wonder I have one seen only one or two here in New Orleans.
The top Impala (LTZ 2) with options to compare with the XTS is about $40000 depending. An XTS Luxury is over $52,000 and the Premium is more than $57000 depending on options. The premium gets you a larger gauge screen that is reconfigurable.
Edmunds.com shows that the Impala’s markup is about $2500.
Looking like “Cadillac Carmine” is going to challenge anyone who’s opinion differs for his….so I am declaring a self-imposed moratorium on any more replies on this article.
Okay. Don’t let the door, etc., etc.
I do like the styling of these – especially the finlets! The only hesitation I have is that, like so many FWD cars, the front wheels are too close to the front door. It doesn’t make it heinously ugly (unlike the awful shrunken FWD 1980s Caddies!) but just means the styling lacks the final bit of ‘oomph’. Overall though, the XTS (which was a trim level on the 1980 Toyota Corona…) fits in very well stylewise with the rest of the Cadillac line up.
On a side note, ditching the wreath from the badge is a poor decision. Having spent years in marketing, I can visualise the meeting where that move was decided. No doubt it was presented as ‘edgy’ and ‘exciting’, a newly-revitalised emblem to revitalise Cadillac. The presenters would have said how the wreath signified all that was wrong with Cadillac, and that plus-sizing the crest was going to plus-size the brand’s perceptions. They would have marvelled at the sense of subtle sophistication exuded from the shape of the crest in the chrome trim around the heater controls on the centre console. Doesn’t affect me personally of course, seeing as Caddies aren’t currently sold here new, but it seems akin to Rolls-Royce deciding to chop the wings off the silver lady…
The thing is that Cadillac re-does their badge every 10 or 20 years or so, hell, in the 50’s it was different every year, getting wider and wider until it was almost flat in 1960. The “wreath” has only been around since 1963 on Fleetwoods, it didn’t become part of the official Cadillac logo until 1984.
Yeah I figured that it was a ’60s invention. I was more being a grumpy
oldyoungish man with my former-marketer cynical hat on vis-a-vis some modern marketers who want to discard anything someone else invented (“created…” looks better on a CV than “worked with the existing…”). Then again, my glorious Nissan Laurels all had (and the current one has) wreaths around their ‘L’ emblem, so maybe I just like wreaths 😉 I’ll go take my happy pills now lol!I’m with you on that front wheel being too close to the door. The car looks great from behind and in Tom’s 3/4 shots but the full-on side view is just awkward. The cabin looks too long and too far forward. Sure it has great space for such a tidy size but the trade-off in appearance isn’t worth it. The XTS is like a pair of pleated pants — more comfort and room than flat-fronts but the poofs make them look like pants for a fat guy. Our eyes are used to RWD proportions in a sedan of this size, a very simple point but one you never hear people make.
The old guard at Cadillac must have felt the same way because that CT6 will essentially replace the XTS in the line-up for those looking for room. The more athletic RWD architecture will cure all ills for me… too short front box, anteater look, torque steer. An added bonus is that the engine compartment will be large enough for a beefy clean diesel which is how most of these will be powered in 10 years. RWD/longitudinal layout allows for a large transmission which is needed to handle the the prodigious torque from a turbo diesel.
It kills me that the new car won’t be called the Fleetwood. The folks who believe the name is too old fashioned perhaps haven’t noticed how much young people like old Cadillacs and how well the Escalade sells. One of the coolest things about the Escalade is the Cadillac name which is decades older than Fleetwood or Eldorado. The 2004 Chrysler 300C was an enormous hit in part because of the charm from the old school (not old fashioned) name.
My opinion of Mary Barra is very low for letting this loose cannon have his way with the brand. She seems very weak and out of control.
Yes that’s right. The XTS is an Impala. Never mind the Caddy came out a year earlier.
And, the TSX is an Accord, the MKZ is a Fusion, and the ES350 is a Camry. All the same!
Or perhaps it is just platform sharing. Nothing new. Take a look at a 1961 Thunderbird versus a 1961 Continental…or a 1959 Impala vis a vis a 1959 Coupe de Ville.
Nothing new, folks. Relax. 🙂
Tom, it doesn’t matter which car came out first; those were decisions driven by a number of factors, including marketing, production facilities, etc.. The reality is that the Imapla and XTS share very much in common. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s true.
The TSX is a European Accord, with nicer trim and more powerful engine, and it has a shorter wheelbase than the US Accord. But yes, they share quite a lot under the skin and elsewhere.
We’re all pretty familiar with the relationship between the Camry and ES350. Although, FWIW, the top Toyota sedan and Impala competitor (Avalon) has nothing in common with the top Lexus sedan (LS).
The ’61 Tbird and Conti shared aspects of their inner structure and other chassis aspects, but different wheelbase, 2 door vs 4 door, and very different styling.
Yes, the ’59 Caddy and Chevy shared the same basic body, but under the skin, they were essentially totally different.
All your examples have varying degrees of relevance to the comparison, but FWIW, the Impala and XTS are more closely related than all of them, except perhaps the Camry and ES 350.
The real issue is that in this day and age, sharing is becoming ever more common. Who cares, as long as the car delivers what is asked or expected of it?
I was being facetious. 🙂
Seems like the “MKZ is a Fusion” (I mean the 2013-up model) and the “XTS is an Impala” has been the Internet’s term of the year for car sites, replacing last year’s brown diesel station wagon–that everyone wants and no one buys. I’ve seen and sat in all four of these cars. Parts, dimensions and engines in common? You bet. But each car does have its own personality. Just as an ES vs. Camry, et al have their own personalities.
but these are all Epsilon II vehicles so the Opel Insignia is the oldest and first on the platform!
The new version of the Epsilon, dubbed Epsilon II, debuted in 2008. It is adaptable for front, rear and all-wheel drive applications. In long wheelbase format, Epsilon II supports US EPA Large Cars, allowing GM to replace the G and W platforms. The architecture was developed by Opel in Rüsselsheim, Germany.
Current and announced vehicles built on Epsilon II:
2008–present Opel Insignia, Buick Regal (saloon, hatchback, estate) (SWB)
2010–present Buick LaCrosse/Alpheon (LWB)
2010-2012 Saab 9-5 (LWB)
2012–present Roewe 950 (LWB)[2]
2013–present Chevrolet Malibu, Holden Malibu (SWB)
2013–present Cadillac XTS (LWB)
2014–present Chevrolet Impala (LWB)
Aha! The XTS isn’t an Impala, it’s an Opel! 😉
Tom, XTS is a 1980 Toyota Corona trim level dammit!! 😉
Splendid review of a very fine car.
Cadillac ended in 1976.