Why did Cadillac's Career Go Down The Shitter?

Alas, the brand had the terrible misfortune to be owned by General Motors.

Producing the Catera (1996-2001) didn't help.

I like my XT5...

They're the best American brand right now. I wouldn't turn up my nose at one.

Why can’t they recapture the magic? A lot of their booboos were self-inflicted.

Maybe the new electric Lyriq will help to change things, but right now the Cadillac lineup is two dinky sedans (CT4 & CT5), the ugly XT4, the old XT5, the anonymous XT6 and the Escalade which is a Chevy Tahoe with a Cadillac grille although it does have a nice interior.

It's a sorry group of cars.

Did somebody say Cad? Look up 'cad' in the dicitonary, and there's my pic.

They started their decline in 1970 and have never been able to crawl back. Lincoln kept their nose down and made cars outfitted for commercial purposes that did the trick - airport limos, etc. - and they had the White House connection. Cadillac was a victim of its own mystique - it became too aspirational too soon and quality suffered as demand overrun performance.

A shame as the beautiful early cars of the 20s and 30s as well as some of the later models of the 60s were about as good as luxury automotive design ever got.

They’re doing better than Lincoln.

When you could outfit a Chevy Caprice almost to the same level as a deVille, then you got problems. The badge engineering got really bad in the seventies.

It all started going to shit with the Cadillac Cimarron... which was a rebadged Chevy Cavalier.

[quote]They’re doing better than Lincoln.

Lincoln is not that far behind Cadillac in sales and it does it with only 4 vehicles

But really, the premier American luxury brand is now Tesla.

Those particular cars in OP’s linked photo are a good reason why the brand has lost its way.

Someone should start a similar discussion about Jaguar’s death spiral.

My dad sold Cadillacs from ~1984-1989. He liked the Cimarron, but like someone upthread said it was just a Chevy Cavalier with Cadillac branding.

He hated the Allanté. He said when they first rolled it out they sent someone from Hamtramck, Michigan to show the dealership how to operate the convertible top. He said it was the, “most Rube Goldberg piece of crap” to deal with.

The car from that era I never liked was the Seville with the faux wire wheel cover on the back. That was so ugly.

Bring back the fins!

(However, I’m intrigued by the new all-electric Lyriq that’s coming out soon. The commercial is pretty cool).

GM insists on making unreliable vehicles with indifferent workmanship to satisfy the bean counters and shareholders. Then they try to shove the shoddy crap in the public’s collective face, insisting that they are the equals of the imports. The reality is that they are not. The so called gap has narrowed, but it’s still there. Even the Koreans are making better cars than them, not to mention Ford and Chrysler.

Cadillac's peak year was 1978. In 1978 Cadillac had NO competition. Lincoln was not really competition for them. In southern California the Mercedes Benz ( NO ONE says Mercedes BENZ anymore) was firmly established as a status symbol but in the rest of the country Cadillacs ( especially the Cadillac Seville) were still de rigueur.

The END OF THE END for Cadillac was in the spring of 1984 when GM downsized it's full sized luxury cars such as the Cadillac Deville which was now built on a stretched X car front wheel drive platform. These new MUCH smaller cars were UGLY , stubby cars and no longer represented the Standard Of The World.

R8- 1970 Was NOT when Cadillac's decline began. 1972 , 1973, 1977 and 1978 Cadillac had record sales. Their decline began in 1979/1980 model year when the gasoline shortage and huge increase in gasoline prices sent big car sales plummeting.

They’ve made visually fetching cars like that CT6. But the interior was filled with cheesy plastics that looked like they belonged in a Malibu.

And the XT4 is a rotten vehicle. It shares an engine with Buick and Chevrolet. Other than that the fancier leather and some electronic gimmicks, what are you paying for?

R21- FUCK all these sporty Cadillacs. I miss the Cadillacs of my childhood with the six way power Velour bench seats, cut pile carpeting , simulated wood grain, big V-8 engines , rear wheel drive etc.

To add to R19, they introduced a diesel engine that ran like a dump truck and had severe mechanical issues and introduced the 4-6-8 engine which was suppose to save fuel but ended up getting toasted if you dared to do any highway driving.

The J body was the first GM car to be used by all five divisions: Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick and Cadillac. There was enough differentiation between the Pontiac J2000/Sunbird, the Oldsmobile Firenza and the Buick Skyhawk to set them apart in the average buyer's minds.

But Cadillac didn't even bother to differentiate the Cimarron from the Chevy Cavalier. They even used the same damn dashboard and the same exterior sheet metal.

The most egregious case of badge engineering came when the Chrysler Corporation introduced the Neon in 1993. Chrysler knew it, and didn't even bother to affix the Dodge or Plymouth nameplates to their respective cars.

Racism.

To my generation (30somethings) Cadillac was always known as a car for Black people and if I had a dollar for every time I heard jokes about "Coupe de Ville" and "Ex-Calade" I'd be able to buy us all a very nice dinner.

Whereas Lincoln was Town Cars and pre-Uber car service.

It was with the introduction of the Cadillac Eldorado coupe in 1967 that solidified Cadillac's reputation as a "pimpmobile."

I hate the modern styling of the Cadillacs. They look like rejects from a bad dystopian-future movie.

Toyota and Lexus aren't fare behind, R27, with their something out of "Mad Max" front ends/grilles.

My first car was a 1978 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham d'Elegance. I bought it from the original owner in 1989 for $1500.

R26- WRONG. The 1967 Cadillac Eldorado was a beautiful ,tasteful car. When Cadillac redesigned the Eldorado for the 1971 model year is when they started looking like PIMPMOBILES.

[quote]1970 Was NOT when Cadillac's decline began. 1972 , 1973, 1977 and 1978 Cadillac had record sales. Their decline began in 1979/1980 model year when the gasoline shortage and huge increase in gasoline prices sent big car sales plummeting.

Those "record sales" were the decline of Cadillac.

The car lost all exclusivity.

Peak Cadillac was 1965-1966. The cars were conservatively styled. The interiors were simple but luxurious. Real wood trim. The cars had an understated glamour.

People with real money were already buying the Mercedes but Cadillac still had prestige.

The decline started with the over-styled 67s. To accommodated the new safety laws, plastics invaded the interiors, plastic wood, chrome-plated plastic trim.

Soon the tasteful cloth fabrics were replaced with cheesy looking velour. The vinyl covered roofs became "padded" vinyl covered roofs. Opera windows. All kinds of kitschy gaudy details.

By the mid 70s Cadillacs were associated with pimps and retirees in Florida.

The 1976 Seville was a noble effort to bring back customers who abandoned the brand but it looked a little too much like a Chevy Nova. Then they restyled it with a Hooper body Rolls Royce style bustle at the back. It was atrocious.

The same story happened with Lincoln. The early to mid 60s cars were elegant. Then they abandoned the 4 door convertible. Abandoned the elegant center opening doors. Jacked up the styling.

The Mark III with its fake RR style grill. People with money and taste did not want that sort of crap.

The 1967 Eldorado was gorgeously styled, but the exaggerated length of the hood, the huge proportions for what was basically a 4 seater...it was easy to see why it evolved into being associated with the pimp-mobile aesthetic.

The last truly great Cadillac.

Its only rival for technology and comfort in 1965 was the Mercedes-Benz 600.

The styling was understated, classy.

The interior of the 1966 Fleetwood....like something you'd see on a Bentley or Rolls of today. Real wood veneer, chrome plate, broadcloth upholstery.

When they cut these off...

Although the 1980s started well enough for Cadillac, with sales continuing to increase, the company responded poorly to this rise of imports. To compete with all the new compact foreign automobiles, the company began downsizing its entire lineup to create a team of smaller, fuel-efficient cars. But its cars quickly became indistinguishable not only from each other, but from General Motors' other brands as well.

And as the company hastily pushed out these smaller cars to try and match the influx of luxury imports, Cadillac encountered a number of failures, the prime example being the Cimarron, the smallest car Cadillac had ever produced to that point. It sold so poorly that it was axed from their lineup by 1988, just six years after its launch.

Consumers recognized the decline in quality of Cadillac's cars, and it reflected in the company's sales. Cadillac's share of the U.S. luxury car market dropped from 31% in 1980 to just 22% in 1990. As Cadillac fell, its competitor Lincoln reaped the benefits. Lincoln's share doubled during the course of the decade to 20%. And in 1998, for the first time in 59 years, Lincoln outsold Cadillac.

By the 1990s, Cadillac lost any appeal it had with the younger market. The running joke became that all Cadillac owners were "somewhere between 60 and death." America's luxury car market was now heavily dominated by Mercedes, with Toyota's newly introduced Lexus brand close behind, followed by BMW, whose sales were quickly rising. But in 1999, the introduction of what would become one of Cadillac's most iconic vehicles would prevent a total collapse and help revamp the brand.

The 1999 Escalade was Cadillac's answer to the full-size SUV boom, and its response to the success of Lincoln's Navigator. The Escalade not only performed well sales-wise, it became a pop-culture icon in itself, making its way into movies and music videos, as well as becoming a popular choice among celebrity car buyers.

Things were starting to look up. Cadillac saw a bump in sales, a rise in popularity with the youth market thanks to the Escalade, and somehow survived General Motors' 2009 bankruptcy that saw multiple brands dissolve.

Unfortunately, the 21st century has not been completely kind to the once glorious name of Cadillac. While Cadillac's array of modern sport sedans and performance models has been well received by reviewers and the media, the numbers say otherwise. In 2018, the brand saw its US luxury car market share dip to a lowly 7%, selling only 154,702 cars that year, which put it behind even Acura. And its sales among American buyers only continue to plummet.

[quote]Maybe the new electric Lyriq will help to change things

Gotta say the commercials are making me consider one. They're pretty nice.

R25- By the late 1980’s ghetto kids desired Mercedes and you’d see pimped out Mercedes parked in run down inner city neighborhoods.

Cadillac needs make its mind up what it wants to be. It is going back and forth between sporty or comfort. For the longest time they couldn't settle, and I still don't know what they stand for. I thought the ATS had the ingredients for a 3-series competitor. But they didn't follow up on it to improve the formula. Then they gave up because sedans were no longer where the money is. And you cannot really maintain a sporty or performance reputation based on only SUV. And they seem to want Mercedes or BMW prices without buyers acknowledging that they deserve those prices.

Cadillac failed to pivot. They were making land yachts while the Germans and Japanese were making sports sedans. By the time Cadillac got to making competition they were too far behind and their insistence on CUE as their MM platform.

The decline started in 1971, when their redesigned lineup of DeVilles/Fleetwoods came out with cheapened interiors. Around this time, GM dove head first into badge engineering, further blurring the lines between the makes.

Before 1971, every GM division operated like an entity unto itself, with separate plants, separate engines, etc. The chassis was a corporate design but everything else on the car was unique to the brand. That started changing in the 70s.

By 1981, the delineations between GM divisions except Cadillac were effectively gone; the cars were using the same engines, built in the same factory, using similar dashboards and essentially using the same body shells. Cadillac had more autonomy than the other four GM divisions , but a series of bad decisions , driven by the accountants running GM and the need to comply with government fuel economy regulations on the cheap, did them in.

First, Cadillac started offering the Oldsmobile Diesel engine in their cars. This was an attempt to compete with Mercedes, but there was one problem. Mercedes diesels at the time were paragons of durability. The GM diesel was a disaster from a reliability standpoint, leading to class action lawsuits over their tendency to self destruct. In fact , this engine basically led to the Diesel engine disappearing from the US Market for two decades.

Next came the 1980 Seville. The 1975 Seville was a handsome car and had been a modest success for Cadillac with younger buyers . The 1980 Seville however was designed in a baroque manner that was supposed to resemble a Rolls Royce from the 1940s/50s.

Then came the V8-6-4 engine in 1981. This was an attempt to improve fuel efficiency by offering a cylinder deactivation feature-basically the car would shut off cylinders during cruising or driving to increase fuel economy. The technology wasn’t there (it didn’t become commonplace until the early 2000s),, these engines failed at an alarming rate and Cadillac had to replace the engines.

The engine replacing that one, the HT4100, came out in 1982. It was gutless (130 horsepower from a 4.1 liter V8 intended to move 2 tons of car), and also unreliable. It took years for Cadillac to work out the bugs in this engine.

In 1982, the Cimarron appeared. Another disastrous move, Cadillac was selling a Chevrolet Cavalier at twice the price and expecting buyers to cross shop it against the BMW 3-Series.

In 1985/86, the lineup was downsized again, and the styling of the Deville, Fleetwood, Seville and Eldorado was derivative. These cars looked too much like an Oldsmobile or Buick that cost 1/3 of the price . Sales plummeted.

Finally, we had the Allante. This was an attempt at compete against the Mercedes SL by having a bespoke 2 seat convertible body placed on a shortened Eldorado chassis. There was nothing underneath the body that was unique about the Allante, and the manufacturing process was absurdly expensive-the bodies were airfrieghted from Italy on a 747 and sent to Michigan for assembly.

They never recovered from these mistakes.

If you want to know more about the failures of Cadillac and GM, I recommend the link below.

It's hard to believe there was a time when this didn't look completely ridiculous.

Caddy and GM are pretty much done. The bean cutters and their cheap interiors, unreliability, and just odd styling choices have GM closer to death’s door than reviving the Empire. Caddy suffered from the North Star engine that ate head gaskets. Replacing them cost more than the vehicles were worth. This problem ran from about 1993 to 2006 when they FINALLyY fixed it.

My Mom and Dad always drove Oldsmobile. Her last one, circa 1999 had a brake emergency light that never went off and terrorized her (Senior citizen). Her next car was a Honda Accord coupe that lasted her until she gave up driving with no problems.

One of my cars is a Corvette and it’s one of GM’s bright spots, but even here the interior is cheap and lackluster. GM is in deep shit because noone really wants most of their products besides the Vette. The rest buy GM products because it’s what they can afford.

Detroit isn’t exactly a hotbed for tasteful design or advanced technology.

[quote]Cadillac encountered a number of failures, the prime example being the Cimarron, the smallest car Cadillac had ever produced to that point. It sold so poorly that it was axed from their lineup by 1988, just six years after its launch.

Not true.

The Cimarron was actually a sales success in its first years and lasting 6 years without any major changes was unusual for any American car at the time.

Also, because the car was a very thinly disguised Cavalier, the car was highly profitable for Cadillac. More profitable that any other car that GM built on that platform.

The problem was that the Cimarron helped ruin Cadillac's image.

[quote] and essentially using the same body shells.

That was nothing new for Cadillac.

Caddy shared underpinnings, rooflines, cowls, windshields, side windows, and doors with Oldsmobile 98s and Buick Roadmasters all through the 50s and early 60s.

Even the 1959-1960 Chevys shared rooflines with the Cadillac.

But during those years GM was skilled at differentiating it's cars.

[quote]Detroit isn’t exactly a hotbed for tasteful design or advanced technology.

It sure was at one time.

And one other thing: increased sales is not necessarily a good thing for a luxury brand.

You have to look at how those sales are coming about.

Cadillac was increasing its sales by cheapening the nameplate.

Packard did the same thing. It worked for a while but led to the car's demise.

In Cadillac's defense, I have to say their current lineup looks nothing like the competition. The Lyriq and the current sedans look nice. But as what's been said here is that GM continually steps on their own toes. I was looking for a wagon several years ago and Buick was touting their Regal wagon way back in 2014. The damn car didn't arrive until 2018 and I bought something else in early 2017. The Buick TourX wagon was discontinued in 2020.

This guy sells classic cars and has his theories (starting at 14:10). He sounds like a sassy Florida DL-er.

He says that along with Cadillac's resting on its laurels, financing made it a less exclusive brand and the luxury market moved towards Mercedes.

[quote] The problem was that the Cimarron helped ruin Cadillac's image.

Being thought of as the choice of the elderly also badly hurt Cadillac. By the 1990s American luxury cars were becoming the cars your grandparents drove. For a moment Escalade and the Lincoln Navigator saved them. Young people wanted luxury SUVs.

Cadillac probably should have brought one of the “executive class” sedans made by Opel in the 70s/80s, like the Opel Senator, to the US and sold that instead of the Seville of Cimarron. The European car magazines seriously compared the Opel Senator to the Mercedes S-Class and BMW 7-Series, and it was a strong competitor to both.

Instead , they waited until 1997 to launch the Opel Omega here as the Cadillac Catera, with a bungled ad campaign (“THE CADDY THAT ZIGS”) and poor build quality. It sank in the marketplace.

Lincoln could have done something similar with the excellent European Ford Granada, which had nothing in common with the tacky American Granada, which took a Ford Maverick chassis and attached a tacky body with phony Mercedes accents to the top of it. We didn’t get the Granada here until the late 80s, under the stupid “Merkur” name.

None of their vehicles have anywhere near the level of refinement, solidity, or dynamic abilities of a Mercedes or BMW...but they think it's fine to charge the same sort of prices as those brands.

R50 I think the Opel you are referring to is the Diplomat. It would have made a very nice Seville.

Oh great, the "straight down the shitter" troll is back!

Didn't Cadillac also reject the LaSalle concept car in the early 60s, which Buick turned into their gorgeous Riviera?

Just for that R53, I will create more automotive "down the shitter" threads. Merry Christmas, you're welcome!

Please, R55, enough! I'm almost fully clogged as it is!

Opera windows? Who ever thought they were attractive?

The 1959 Cadillacs NEVER looked ridiculous

They were FABULOUS!

R42 Not a toaster.

R51- Neither BMW or Mercedes are reliable. The are both OVERPRICED money pits.

R48- That BITCHY QUEEN is such a MORON. He is so lacking in knowledge about the 1970's. 1972 and 1973 were RECORD sales years for Cadillac. Regular gasoline was about 38 cents per gallon up until the summer of 1973. The oil embargo began in the fall of 1973 which was the 1974 model year and that's when oil prices and subsequently gasoline prices started to soar. In 1972 and most of 1973 gasoline was cheap and plentiful.

[quote][R51]- Neither BMW or Mercedes are reliable. The are both OVERPRICED money pits.

Tesla is its trust-fund-baby green cousin.

R62- Tesla has only been building cars since 2012. They have an excuse for reliability issues.

Mercedes has been building cars since 1886. What's their excuse?

[quote]1972 and 1973 were RECORD sales years for Cadillac.

He is pointing out that those RECORD sales were detrimental to the brand.

R64- Why would record sales for Cadillac be considered detrimental?

In the USA our standard of living peaked in the early 1970's not the 1950's or the 1960's- which enabled more people than ever to afford a Cadillac.

Maybe it's come full circle. Tesla is an American car company and it's taken away MANY sales from Mercedes , BMW , Audi and Porsche, which is why those makes scrambled to come up with electric super cars of their own.

Simply put, their customers died. The Greatest Generation isn't driving any more. Hell, not many of 'em are still breathing.

They did not find enough new customers who wanted to buy what they were selling by the turn of the century.

They've put out some good cars since then but don't know how to style (the whole knife-edge shite) nor market them.

Now, once upon a time a Cadillac car represented the highest classes in America: the pure, unstained WASP. They never worried about the cost, no. Then the Cadillac car was bought by the rising Jews to show they were just as good, and part of the scheme. Now we've got the Cadillac taken over by our Negro brother to prove he too belongs in the American dream!

R67- Tasteful WASPS in the 1950's would have found Cadillacs TOO showy. They would have driven more restrained but tasteful cars like Buicks and Oldsmobiles.

Bruce Springsteen's salute to Mary Kay.

White people liked them too.

Don't ask us.

Looking at the numbers I cannot say that Cadillac is doing so super poorly. Just glancing at them, I'd say Cadillac is rather stable over all with a slight downward trend. Obviously, the 2020 numbers cannot tell much. And 2021 is just one quarter in.

What I find more interesting is the volatile market share. It's anywhere from -18% to +16% in the last 15 years. For a mass manufacturer this seems remarkable.

[quote] GM is in deep shit because noone really wants most of their products

American cars are dead. Ford essentially stopped making them. Trucks, SUVs, and CUVs are where it’s at. Both Ford and GM are doing great in those spaces.

There is no other bomb like an old Cadillac.

“Bomb” = “Beater”

My Dad always drove a Lincoln Continental. Caddy's were for parvenus.

Our prestige ended up being used three years later as a dark-town showboat!

[quote]Why would record sales for Cadillac be considered detrimental?

You really don't get it.

Rolls Royce could double, triple, its sales tomorrow with a $75,000 car. So could Ferrari. So could Bentley.

Hermes could sell all the handbags it could possibly make if it came out with bags that cost $100.

They could, but they never will. Why?

Cadillac should have concentrated on exclusivity. Raising its prices. Concentrating on quality and engineering.

GM's volume luxury cars should have been the top of line Buicks and Oldsmobiles, not Cadillac.

WHOOSH! That went RIGHT over your head, r68.

It’s Luba Potamkin’s fault.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s Mercedes and BMW were producing well engineered cars that were extremely durable. Young Americans took to cars like the e30 325i and C & Eclass Benz-these cars were sporty to drive, reasonably thrifty on gas, and lasted 300k+ miles. The Germans built the cars that younger middle class people wanted. Cadillac was still making huge land yachts. When they realized what happened they tried to push off the Catera, a sorry looking GM of Europe car on customers.

Meantime the Japanese were coming at GM from the lower rungs of the market. Toyotas, Hondas and Nissans of the 1990 were great value for money, thrifty, durable and of reasonable size. As the Japanese moved up scale, the Koreans moved in-with pitiful cars at first-but they now make very desirable mass market and luxury cars. GM fucks up everything. Ford brings back the Bronco (finally) to compete with Jeep and it looks great and they even made a nice looking sport model built on the Escape (but you can’t tell). GM brings back the Blazer and any dumb ass can see it is a Equinox with a slightly lower roof. It will be invisible next to a Wrangler 392 or a Bronco.

GM needs to forget about making “as good as” their rivals and do BETTER than everyone else. Use the best materials possible in the interior. Play it conservative with powertrains until reliability is up. No more design by bean counters. If you don’t have the design talent get it. Hyundai/Kia snatched the Audi designer and now their cars look as good as Audis.

[quote] Tasteful WASPS in the 1950's would have found Cadillacs TOO showy. They would have driven more restrained but tasteful cars like Buicks and Oldsmobiles.

This may rank as one of the Top 10 Most Datalounge Responses Ever.

(Extra points too for the whoosh noted at R78)

Truly fabulously rich people don't roll around town in their money, just as they don't build grand houses for all to see.

Inconspicuous consumption becomes their way of life.

R69, the cold hard truth behind the pink Cadillacs.

Nixon gutting the steel industry had a lot to do with the decline of American cars.

How so?

A conflict over the price, it seems. This was when Detroit really started cutting corners and Tokyo was able to take advantage of that and the concurrent energy crisis by offering smaller cars that used less gasoline.

Blame fucking Judy Holliday, the bitch behind it all.

Everyone made a big deal about the 1992 Seville when it came out. But it was still a FWD luxury sedan when its rivals were RWD. So was Audi, but they compensated with standard AWD. Cadillac was too cheap to do that. It would have made them much more competitive. Audi was able to bounce back from a nightmarish PR disaster with the unintended acceleration scandal and now they are considered to be one of the best luxury marques in the business. Cadillac shot it’s load because it’s run by greedy, cynical executives who allow bean counters to build their cars. And now that they know they can profit more from selling crossovers because the regulations aren’t as strict as they are with sedans, they will follow the money and continue to offer crap. And insist that they are the equal of the overseas competition. And they are anything but.

At one of the links posted previously, the author explained that Big Three executives all live in Grosse Point or Grosse Point Woods. It's a pretty clubby, insular atmosphere pretty much shielded from the outside world. Hence, the stupidity that abounds in the industry. Everybody knows everybody else and news ideas are generally frowned upon.

A couple of years ago, the guy who represented Obama and the US government when GM declared bankruptcy was on NPR. The guy said GM chairman/CEO at the time, Rick Wagoner, was so out of touch with reality it was laughable. Not only that, Wagner was haughty as a duchess and did not seem to comprehend the fact that GM was broker than the average wino.

A couple of years ago, Cadillac moved its headquarters to NYC from Detroit, in order to become "edgier." The move did not stem the tide of falling sales and the guy who instituted that moved was sacked and the Cadillac division moved back to Detroit shortly thereafter.

Yes r89. Johan de Nysschen was his name. A South African by birth. Worked at Audi and Infiniti. The move to New York did shit for Cadillac’s image. They fired him and now he’s back with Audi/VW.

GM should have killed Cadillac and created a whole new luxury brand.

Those GM executives showed up in DC via private jet, to ask for a government bailout from President Obama. A private jet. Think about it.

Would GM get rid of Buick before Cadillac? The former has its popularity in China, but the latter is seen as GM's flagship luxury brand.

Bring back the LaSalle marque. Anything else is better than Cadillac. The brand name is ruined. Create a new name even.

All I want from Cadillac is luxury. Comfortable wide seats and lots of gadgets to make my life easier while driving.

DON'T BUY! I bought an off-lease 2014 CTS4. I thought it was beautiful and had all the new gadgets I was looking for -- self-parking, adaptive cruise control, etc). The interior on this car was actually really dnice. It drove well for about 2,000 miles . . . AND THEN. . . it was in the shop for serious issues and recalls for which the shop had to backorder everything from the touch display to the entire front suspension ($6K). When they finally got the parts in, they gave me a new loaner which had a plastic feel to it. I spent a lot of money on this car and finally pulled the plug, losing thousands in resale and repair money. GM has lost a lot of union workers and is hiring people with no experience to build cars. Stay Away.

PS - Buy a Lexus instead. Any model. They're luxurious and last forever.

R94- The same can be said for ANY German car- OVERPRICED PIECES OF JUNK.

[quote]All I want from Cadillac is luxury. Comfortable wide seats and lots of gadgets to make my life easier while driving.

Get a Genesis.

r87 A gold CAR? How tacky. Everyone knows that gold is for TOILETS.

How wide and soft are the seats R97? I drove my sisters Camry and the seat was so hard and uncomfortable it was like sitting on a plastic lawn chair for 200 kms. I like the wide plush seats of my Buick Lucerne.

The Cimarron couldn't hold a candle to the Lincoln Versailles for sheer tackiness.

R100 It makes you wonder: what where they thinking?

The Lincoln Versailles was the same formula as the Cimarron.

The Cimarron was a thinly disguised Cavalier and the Versailles was a thinly disguised Ford Granada.

GM, Ford and Chrysler completely trashed their luxury brands during those years.

Meanwhile, Toyota was developing the Lexus.

Yeah r101 because the first generation Chrysler Lebaron and Dodge Diplomat were basically bacon wrapped Volares and Aspens. But the public ate them up. But I remember a Popular Science review of the Lebaron vs. the Seville and Versailles. They said that while the Chrysler had comparably lush interior appointments, the ride, quietness and handling trailed the other two cars by a considerable margin. No one was buying the large Chryslers, so the Lebaron/Diplomat twins were a rush job too.

At least German cars have superior workmanship; not nearly as chintzy as Caddys or Lincolns. Their parts are pricier but they don’t break down as much as American cars.

[quote][R94]- The same can be said for ANY German car- OVERPRICED PIECES OF JUNK.

Wrong. Very wrong.

General Motors is a company that is run by bean-counters. Always has been, always will be.

Many car brands, particularly luxury ones, have a demographic associated with them. For BMWs, unfortunately, it's asshole douches.

For Cadillacs, I think of fat old white male Republicans.

GM can’t seem to get away from its bin of plastic parts, and scatters them across its lines. I tested a Lincoln Corsair against a Cadillac XT4, and bought the Corsair. It was so much better.

[quote]For Cadillacs, I think of fat old white male Republicans.

Cadillac advertising is targeted exclusively to black people.

More black folks like foreign cars nowadays. Just like everyone else.

The interiors of the new Lincolns are exceptionally nice. Good choice, R107. Several neighbors have new Lincolns, but none are getting Cadillacs.

Anyone who says Lincolns are chintzy has not seem the current lineup. Lincoln had a real identity crisis, but has really found its niche in the last couple years. The new Aviator is a gorgeous vehicle.

The new Cadillac Escalade has a much-improved interior, but the rest of the lineup still has that GM cost-cutting feel. Their ever-changing naming convention is doing them no favors. Eveyone knew the names Deville, Seville, Eldorado, and Fleetwood. WTF is a CT4 or CT5? And the discontinued full-size CT6 was a sales failure.

Performance-wise, Cadillac's current cars (NOT the XT crossovers) are quite impressive, with class-leading driving dynamics, but the styling inside and out is "rental upgrade" and not "American luxury."

Lincoln advertising created the "sanctuary" identity for the brand. It is brilliant marketing.

Cadillac still doesn't know how to create a high-end image for its current cars.

The Lyriq looks good, but the intro commercials really don't have much of a message.

R12 is a liar. Cadillac kills Lincoln in sales. The Escalade outsells the Navigator nearly 2 to 1, even though the Caddy’s average selling price is higher. R9 was correct.

This is an analysis on Lincoln's and Cadillac's different approaches on regaining relevancy. It's from 2019, but since it's about long-term strategy it's still a good read.

The only two things that may need to be considered in addition to the article: I would say that the topic of electric vehicles gets a lot more traction than anticipated in 2019. And Lincoln's 'comfort luxury' strategy is probably more challenging with the rise of Hyundai's Genesis division.

R108 - I haven't noticed that. I'm not saying my take on Caddie owners is realistic and it probably is outdated, but it's still my impression of the brand.

I would just feel weird driving a Cadillac. I still associate it with old suburban white people (usually Republicans) with some American flag sticker or some other Christian signaling shit somewhere on the car.

[QUOTE] But the main event will be the first look at the 2021 Escalade later this year: a vehicle that cannot be ignored and keeps Cadillac visible. Even with its age, the brand sold almost 37,000 of the big boys last year compared with fewer than 18,000 new Navigators.

Even the geriatric previous gen Escalade was slaughtering the brand new Navigator in sales.

[quote] Cadillac advertising is targeted exclusively to black people.

Black people = 14% of the population. Are you really arguing that Cadillac is spending millions of dollars on advertising to sell cars to only one race. Unlike every other car company, they don’t want to sell as many cars as possible. Really?

Explain how you reached that conclusion?

OP is just as racist. We all know what color shit is.

R117 what are you on about?

OP answered his own question the moment he asked it.

How does that make me a racist and how does that give you the right to call me shit? DL’s “pointless butchery” tagline I get, but not stupid bitchery.

I'm 6'4. The interior of todays Cadillac's even the SUV's are claustrophobic. I feel like I'm strapped into a fighter plane cockpit. How I long for the living room sofas.

I owned a 2015 ATS. It was a no-frills version. It had been used a fleet sales car. When I bought it, it was 3 months old and had 21,000 on it. I had one problem with it. The Infotainment Center was having issues. It was under warranty and replaced. There was one recall and it was handled with no problem. I had zero issues with my car. Alas, I traded it in as it was too big. I'd lost 3 family members during the time I owned it so there was no reason to have a car that big. Otherwise, I'd probably still own. It was black and very stylish.

Since Cadillac was getting away from smaller sedans, and I couldn't afford any of the CUVs, I traded it in for a Buick Encore. I love this car. But it's brand new (bought it in November 2020) and I haven't driven it much. I'm still not at 3k miles for the first oil change.

Wow, you really don’t get it, do you?

R123, are you referring to me at R122?

R122 the ATS seems to be better than the CTS for some reason. My neighbor had an ATS at the same time I had the CTS. The interiors were basically the same. She said she hasn't had any problems with it, while my CTS was a piece of junk. PS I don't think R123 was referring to you.

Thanks, R125. I was just sharing that I hadn't experienced any major issues with my Cadillac. In the 70s, my paternal grandfather would buy a new Cadillac every couple of years. Not too bad for a man who drove an MTA bus for 40 years. I always loved his car and had dreamed of owning one. I waited until I liked the style.

Sorry to hear about your CTS. I looked at those but they were quite costly.

We had a 1977 Seville. For its size, it was a beautiful driving car with a great ride. I do remember once we were driving over the Grapevine outside of LA and you could actually watch the gas gauge go down. I also had great memories of the older ones. I loved all the gadgets and design.

That’s the issue, r126. Starting in the 70s, Cadillacs became a car for successful muddled aged/retired working class people, instead of a car young professionals strived to own.

The Potamkin Cadillac commercial above demonstrates this-their ads highlighted the fact that you could get a gently used Cadillac or lease a new Cadillac from them for not much more than the price of a Mercury or Pontiac.

The brand was diluted as a result, and the lookalike styling of 80s Cadillacs didn’t help. A 1986 Eldorado that cost $30k looked way too similar to a $10k Buick Somerset.

Lincoln’s brand also became diluted when Lincoln Town Cars became the default luxury class rental car at Hertz and other rental car agencies in the 80s.

All the great American luxury brands from the late 50's and early 60's were destroyed by the mid 70's. Sure the gas crisis played a part but the big 3 did it to themselves. Buick + velour upholstery+ plastic fake wood grain+ vinyl top +opera window - $3000 = 1976 Cadillac

"Lincoln’s brand also became diluted when Lincoln Town Cars became the default luxury class rental car at Hertz and other rental car agencies in the 80s."

Vacationed in Florida and rented a car from Budget, circa 1981. For some reason, I was upgraded to a Lincoln Town Car. I was thrilled until I got in it. The interior and instrument panel was reminiscent of a 1966 Impala: lots of plastic and vinyl, hardly luxury car stuff. Driving back to West Palm from Disney World, the seal that held the windshield in place broke.

My husband has a Cadillac XTS which is a fwd old people’s car. It’s actually pretty nice and the interior is not shockingly cheap. The thing you have to be careful for with pre-2012 GM’s 3.6 high feature v6 is the timing chains will fail, and wreck the engine. Timing chain upgrade is expensive. The 2.0 turbo has even more issues.

I said this earlier in the thread. Mercedes , BMW , Audi and Porsche have lost significant sales in recent years to Tesla. That's why they scrambled to create their own Electric SUPER cars. But I think it's too late for that. In my upper middle class town I see SO MANY Teslas in the last year.

I wouldn't discount them yet. Going EV is like a blank sheet for every manufacturer; everybody is getting their second chance right now. Including Cadillac, as long as they take it serious.

I'd be more concerned about the second tier upper-class manufacturers like Honda/Acura or Nissan (Renault)/Infiniti. They're severely lagging behind the electrification of their fleet. And Tesla, exciting right now, has an aging fleet. At some point they will no longer be the new kid on the block anymore, and their tech will be a commodity like everybody else's.

I would not be surprised if Tesla eventually merges with another car manufacturer.

A Honda/Tesla merger would be interesting although Acura would get shut down (no big loss, they haven’t made an interesting car in years ).

I could imagine a merger with Honda or even Stellantis.

R135- I agree. Acuras have LOW road test scores and aren't even reliable anymore.

What does CONSUMER REPORTS say about recent Cadillac models? You have to pay for access to their data online.

"Acuras have LOW road test scores and aren't even reliable anymore."

Not disputing your claim, but why? Model for model, Acuras are just glorified Hondas. I think they're all made in the same plant.

How and why can virtually identical cars made in the same plant have such different levels of quality?

I want a CT5-V Blackwing very badly.

The Acura ILX is based on the 2013 Civic and is no longer really competitive.

I know in the 2000s Honda V6s were known to have fragile transmissions, so maybe that’s it?

CR’s methodology for their reliability rankings is attached. It does indicate that they use a carmaker’s prior history to help calculate scores for cars with a low sample size.

I know several makes (like Ford) had problems with touchscreens and infotainment displays, and that has been a driver in CR’s reliability ratings over the years. And because a luxury car will have more gadgets than its downmarket counterpart, a luxury car is more likely to be unreliable.

Acuras were the best when they first came out, despite being FWD. They were well-assembled and ran like Swiss watches. I don't know what happened.

R139: In the past, Olds and Buick often had much better cars even though the components were largely the same as in Pontiacs and Chevies.

Caddies were prestige cars--they were important symbols for Blacks in the 50s and 60s. Often rented, they were a way for people who'd gone North to show off for family down South. Caddilacs continued to sell well in the 70s and even 80s but had lost their prestige. Mercedes had been eccentric cars and tricky because of the diesel engines. BMWs really rose in status during the 70s and 80s, but became associated with "yuppie scum". By the late 80s, Caddies had become old white guys' cars---I remember living in Nashville, where Cadillacs seemed very popular, but always driven by old white guys. My former brother-in-law bought an Eldorado after he divorced my sister around this time---it seemed like a throwback car.

The Diesel Olds and Cadillac cares were awful. A cousin of mine had an Olds and it went through multiple engines. The cars may have sold in those days but it had lost its cache. I remember getting an upgrade to a Caddie as rental in the mid-90s. It was terrible--vague handling, surprisingly sluggish pickup, with an interior that seemed more tacky and vulgar than plush. I never aspired to won a Cadillac but after that never wanted to be in one again. Lincolns never impressed me either--an uncle bought a new one every year or two and they surprisingly didn't seem much more luxurious than Chevy.

These days, Lincoln seems to survive on Navigators--before that, it was town cars. I will say that I've ridden in more recent Cadillacs and really liked them. I think they still have reliability problems. They also continue to lose value rapidly. The only higher end car that ever interested me was Volvo--I liked the feel, but there was only one dealer in my area and they a bit of bait and switch, bringing into people in showrooms based on prices for demos--I thought that sort of thing had died out ages before, but this was Atlanta, grifter-central.

Caddies and, to a lesser extent, Lincolns were seen as pimpmobiles in the 70s, esp. the Eldorados, which were chunky, ugly vehicles--as were a lot of cars at that time. But BMWs and Mercedes soon became favorites of the drug dealer crowd (regardless of race).

Honda and Acura both ruled when the VTEC engine came out - nothing gave you as much economical power. I had an Acura Integra that was hot shit, outperforming V6's and even some V8's with an inline 4 with VTEC. The original NSX used a larger version of that same engine to be a reasonably affordable sports car competing with much more expensive high-end macines.

Then Honda got fat and happy with Accords and Minivans. They simply lost their edge.

The Corsairs and Aviators catch my attention when they drive by. They really are handsomely styled cars.

The new CT4 and CT5 already look like they need an update.

[quote]but it had lost its cache.

Oh, dear.

The word is CACHET.

One summer in the early 80s when I was in college I worked for a rich couple in my college town. They had a 1967 De Ville convertible in their collection and lent it to me. I had some hot sex in that car, little did they know. The sex smell never builds up in a convertible.

Looking back I find it curious people drove the American land yachts of the late 50s through the late 70s. 18 foot long cars with long trunks and shallow depth that were only good for carrying groceries, golf clubs, and hard-shelled luggage. Hoods so long that you didn't know where the car was going when making a turn, much less housing a motor that gave only 8 mpg. Vague, sloppy handling with heavy body sway and suspensions so floaty the there was no road feel. Granted, the cabins were roomy and that was the selling point for those cars. The Big Three really got a slap in the face during the 1980s when people discovered that Japanese compacts were great handling cars with good gas milage and better build quality and dependability. Even though GM, Ford and Chrysler already had compact cars in their portfolios, they weren't up to snuff compared to the imports. Then the Japanese began building American-style sedans, further accelerating the decline of the American automobile. If not for the success of minivans, SUVs and trucks since the 1990s we wouldn't have an American auto industry. We are still very competitive in those segments, but I'm afraid that the American sedan is dead. I think it's up to Cadillac to prove me wrong.

R148: You exaggerate a bit. Gas mileage was in the teens and some cars like the GM intermediates got great gas mileage (mid 20s) on the highway--they had perfected efficient small block V8s. Suspensions were still evolving and people preferred a soft ride to feeling every bump, but that often meant that handling was vague, but you could find comfortable cars that handled well. Reliability was hit or miss---Chrysler built truly ugly or, at best, plain looking cars that had very reliable mechanicals during the 50s-70s. GM varied--they built some cars like mid-sized Cutlass and Skylark of the early 70s that had legendary durability as well as horrible cars like the Vega. Ford has always stood for Fix or Repair Daily---cars that were easy to fix but needed it often. The Falcon was a lemon that never sold well after its first year---the Mustang was built on its chassis and was never a great car. The later ones were bulky and handled miserably and the Mustang II failed to capture the magic of the original and was built on a base of the unreliable Pinto.

R149, Maybe slightly exaggerating, but I was specifically referring to the full sized cars. I did have a mid-sized '76 Cutlass that handled well, had nice clean styling with a 350 cu in V8, and got a decent 18mpg on the highway. I loved that car! But, you are correct; American cars were all over the place for quite some time regarding quality, reliability, and styling. Things were hit or miss for quite some time.

R149, you brought back a sweet memory for me! I had a '69 Skylark my senior year of high school. It had vinyl, bucket seats that I used to Armor-All within an inch of its life. My friends hated sitting in the back because, when I took a corner, they would slide from one side to the other.

In my HS yearbook, there's a picture of my car. The sun is glinting off the right rear corner panel. I think that was probably my favorite car. I've owned a VW Jetta, a Saturn, Mitsubishi XL-7, LeBaron Coupe, Mercedes C200, Cadillac ATS, and now a Buick Encore.

Sorry to derail the thread.

I had a used '71 Cutlass--comfortable and a great turnpike cruiser. It was my favorite car until I had a '99 Passat that had great pick-up and handling (unlike the Toyotas or the anemic VW I'd had in the interim). Unlike the Cutlass, the Passat had reliability issues and I traded it for a Honda, which was a bit less fun but a lot more reliable.

Americans associate whiteness with wealth and luxury.

[quote]The Falcon was a lemon that never sold well after its first year

Not true.

The Falcon sold very well until the introduction of the Mustang.

[quote]Chrysler built truly ugly or, at best, plain looking cars that had very reliable mechanicals during the 50s-70s.

Not true.

They did make some really ugly cars in the early 60s but their1965-66 line-up (Plymouth, Dodge, Chrysler, Imperial) was well styled across the board.

The styling of the Charger, Challenger, 3rd generation Barracuda was very well received.

[quote]Americans associate whiteness with wealth and luxury.

Only Americans?

Americans associate wealth and luxury with WHITENESS. Difference.

R157 Of course they do. Just like they do in most other countries. You've obviously never been outside of the US.

[quote]Chrysler built truly ugly or, at best, plain looking cars that had very reliable mechanicals during the 50s-70s.

Chrysler Corp cars were known for quality up until the 1957s.

They were beautifully styled (The Forward Look) but were rushed into production and suffered severe quality control problems. They quickly became known as notorious rust-buckets. The problems were mostly ironed out by 1959 but the damage was done.

I'm 68 and have lived in the US all my life. I've never owned an American car. My parents (born in the '20s) were diehard GM buyers until the early '80s, when they finally gave up and bought a Toyota Camry--and never looked back.

I have been r158. Asia, Europe and the Caribbean.

We’re talking about an American car marque and American culture right now. Have a seat.

Compared to the British car industry the Americans have a great success story.

R159: Chrysler built durable cars after the Forward Look for another decade or so. The problems with the Forward Look cars was mostly the bodies and interiors. The mechanicals were fine.

R103- NOT TRUE. Volkswagens have a reputation in the United States for being UNRELIABLE. That is why they only sold about 360,000 vehicles in the US in 2019. Their peak year in the US was 1970 when they sold over 700,000 vehicles but once Americans discovered Japanese cars ,Volkswagen sales started to plummet in the US and have never gotten ANYWHERE near their 1970 peak. German luxury makes such as Audi , BMW, Mercedes and Porsche are seeing their sales suffer from Tesla in recent years.

Tesla is going to take a hit after that Consumer Reports debacle.

^^^what about workmanship and fit & finish?

American cars are overpriced crap. The best cars I've owned have been Hondas and VWs.

The Olds Cutlass was really the last American car in the 1970s which had the mantle of reliability, before the Japanese cars arrived. The Cutlass was good looking, fast, sexy and (if I recall) the bestselling American car for a number of years before the Honda Civic took over. The Cutlass was kind of sandwiched in between the VW and the Honda and one of the last truly reliable American made cars.

Not a 40K grey toaster and you can find it in the parking lot.

R168- That's not true. GM downsized all of it's full sized cars for the 1977 model year- The Chevrolet Caprice Classic, Pontiac Bonneville, Cadillac Sedan Deville, etc. Those cars were the best cars on the road in the late 1970's . The suspensions, engines, transmissions, climate control systems, interior appointments and spaciousness were the best at the time. Ford , Chrysler and American Motors cars were not in the same league as GM in terms of refinement. Japanese cars at the time although reliable were underpowered and undersized with cramped spartan interiors and punishing rides. The Volkswagen Rabbit was a LEMON. It did not have the reliability of the Beetle. Volvos were the only decent European car of the late 1970's. Mercedes were ridiculously expensive to purchase, maintain and repair. I drove a 1979 Buick Electra Limited Coupe. It had a beautiful dashboard. I bought it when it was nine years old from a tacky dentist who gave me the warranty for his am radio. I kept the car until 1990.

he Chevrolet Caprice Classic, Pontiac Bonneville, Cadillac Sedan Deville, etc. Those cars were the best cars on the road in the late 1970's

Interiors that looked like a Reno Nevada whore house, lots of velour, seats in the form of pillows, chrome plated plastic, faux wood molded plastic, rear windows that could not open, cheap-ass buttons and switches on the dash.

It's no wonder people with taste wouldn't be caught dead in them.

Here's a 1979 Mercedes....still looking classy and contemporary.

[quote]The Chevrolet Caprice Classic, Pontiac Bonneville, Cadillac Sedan Deville, etc. Those cars were the best cars on the road in the late 1970's

Interiors that looked like a Reno Nevada whore house, lots of velour, seats in the form of pillows, chrome plated plastic, faux wood molded plastic, rear windows that could not open, cheap-ass buttons and switches on the dash.

It's no wonder people with taste wouldn't be caught dead in them.

Here's a 1979 Mercedes....still looking classy and contemporary.

R171- A Chevrolet Caprice Classic was about $7,300 in 1979. The Mercedes in your photo sold for about $23,000 in 1979. Mercedes were ridiculously expensive. The Germans were good at building status symbols then but not medium priced cars such as Volkswagens which had ATROCIOUS reliability.

And by 1999 Chevy sales figures were a quarter of what they had been in 1979.

I agree about GM cars in the 70s. They really were better than the competition. And the Cutlass was the bestseller for several years. I had a 1977 Grand Am, which was a cousin to the Cutlass. It had kind of a double teardrop shape. Ran great.

Mercedes, as expensive as they were, still wiped out Cadillac in the 70s. Everyone wanted a root beer brown 450SE or SL.

R176- When it comes to cars of the 1970's you don't know your ASS from your ELBOW.

Cadillac had RECORD sales in the 1970's. 1972, 1973,1977,1978 were ALL record years for Cadillac.

Just a visual so that we all know what people bought in the late 70s.

R168 My family almost always had Oldsmobiles, and my mom had several Cutlasses in a row. They were very good cars, although not very good rust proofing, but back then everything rusted badly. With Mercades, I think they “arrived” in the 1980s with many SE or SELs being sold along with the 380sl and 500sl. A woman who owned a hair salon in back on my home had and still has a lovely SL from the 80s. A couple of years back I bought a pristine red/tan interior 320ce. Some dumb bitch backed into it and demolished it. I have a E350 right now, but no longer need a practical car so I’m pondering replacing it with a 500 or 560sl from the 1980s.

R177 Those RECORD sales brought down the prestige of the brand.

When Cadillac was at its 1960s "Standard of the World" peak, the brand only sold around 165,000 cars a year.

By 1979 the brand was so cheapened they were selling close to 400,000 cars. It was no longer aspirational. A Mercedes was.

Bringing it back to OP's question - here is my hypothesis: Cadillac, like every Detroit 3 brand, got too successful for their own good in the 60s and 70s. Others swooped in. Instead of improving quality, corners were cut and DC was lobbied to legislate protectionism. None of this was suitable to restore former glamor. GM and Ford learned in the last 15 years that good quality could be the only way to save them. But: Good quality only catches you up with the others. You're still just an also-ran. Specifically Cadillac and Lincoln need to be outstanding in some aspect. Cadillac tried performance but it didn't stick, and GM doesn't have the endurance to build performance cars that really can rival BMW or Mercedes long term. They have halo cars every now and then, but the brand overall has not regained a reputation yet that it stands distinctively for something truly outstanding. Electrification is a chance.

Thoughts?

The Seville of 1977 sold 45,000 units. The Mercedes of 1977 sold 48,000 units. Cadillac was on its way out. If you could afford to buy or lease a luxury car in the late 70s you went with the Mercedes.

The trouble with quoting production figures is that producing a lot of shoddy cars leads to people not buying them in the future. Chrysler's forward look cars sold in record numbers. Unfortunately, the build quality was terrible with leaks all over the place---it hurt them for years. The Chevy Citation had a record launch, but the cars were horrible--unederperformers with poor reliability. Similarly, selling lesser versions of luxury cars kills brands---Packard was historical example, until Caddy started selling tarted-up little Chevies.

Ford, in particular, came to be run by bean counters--David Halberstam had a great book, "The Reckoning" that documented this and how it undermined their cars. Ford was rarely an innovator in engineering, so it was easy for them to fall back on this model. GM really had too many platforms--they could have dumped Pontiac in the 50s (which they considered doing) and Chevy and Olds could easily have covered their price range. They gradually made the bodies more alike (the senior Olds and Buicks had long shared shells with Cadillac) and took away the unique engines---competition among the GM brands had created better engines, transmissions, etc. in the past and contained failures like electronic fuel injection. GM never made really good small cars, nor did Ford--the Falcon's sales never came close to their first year because those cars were so awful. GM innovated more, but with disastrous results--Corvairs with numerous problems, Vegas that burned up. Chrysler built more reliable small cars but they were ugly and never as popular as the GM and Ford makes, because they had no idea how to market them.

Caddy damaged their brand with cars that obviously were just like their GM stablemates. They let build quality decline. They were slow to recognize changing tastes. Mercedes had become the aspirational car for the well-off in the 70s. BMW went from being a sporty niche brand to being the yuppie scum car that a small, sporty but distinct Caddy could have been in the 80s. The personal luxury car market (Eldorado, Riviera, etc.) had moved on from enormous angular beasts to BMW. The Swedes tapped into a market for something that was quirky, yet practical (but not always super reliable--Saabs, in particular). These were well-off submarkets that Detroit just missed entirely. Cadillac's more recent models are huge improvements, but reliability needs some work and the overall outcome is more "me too" than truly moving ahead of the competition. The Lincolns just seem like fancy Fords.

I'm an auto worker's kid, but that last car I owned was a Honda. At least it was assembled in my home state. I no longer own a car, but rent when I need one--I liked the Chevy Cruze (finally a decent small car from GM 50 years too late) and like the Chevy SUVs, but I'd still think twice before buying GM. I'd never buy a Ford (they're still mediocre with sloppy transmissions and the bluetooth rarely works right) or a Chrysler product (just awful on every dimension, although the Jeep vehicles have started getting better).

GM products 2015-12019 all have bad transmission and torque converters that they refuse to acknowledge..the article below is one of the many out there ...My 2017 Chevy Camaro auto 8 speed just flat out refused to shift through the gears at the worst times...Caddies have the same damn problem

So what happened? People stopped buying over priced pieces of crap

I'm still pissed off about my '14 CTS. I got taken to the cleaners -- it's what I get for buying it at a used car dealer in Jersey City. I paid $26K for a $20K car. It was beautiful. Nothing wrong with the engine, but everything else broke. I sold it after a year for $13K, hoping the new buyer wouldn't recognize all of the defects and bought a used Lexus RX350 for $15K. So I sold a four-year-old Caddie for half its cost a year later and paid more for a ten- year-old SUV. I HATE Cadillac. But I love the Lexus.

Cadillac is only listening to the shareholders and bean counters. Good for short term profits but bad for brand image and quality.

"Interiors that looked like a Reno Nevada whore house, lots of velour, seats in the form of pillows, chrome plated plastic, faux wood molded plastic, rear windows that could not open, cheap-ass buttons and switches on the dash."

My mother owned a few GM luxo-cruisers in the 70s and 80s: DeVille/Electra/Ninety Eight Regency/Ninety Eight Regency Brougham.

And yes, they were all like you described.

My dad owned a 1975 Buick Electra Limited Coupe. Gorgeous car. But she drank gas like it was crack and the automatic transmission was troublesome. But the leather…

Sales people are just awful. I walked out of the dealer in Ft. Lauderdale because he was terrible; telling me what to do.

R188- $6000 and it's not even LEATHA ?

The leather was perfect r190. The mechanics of the car were not.

R80- Extremely durable? ANY car will last for 200,000 miles plus if you throw enough $ at it. All of the cars you’re so impressed with are money 💰 pits after the warranty and free maintenance expires.