M/T: Tesla defines American luxury, not Cadillac or Lincoln

[kevm14]

https://www.motortrend.com/news/why-tes ... B74276E0FC

And a related article.

My simple analysis? Starting up a company is hard, but I'm not sure it is legitimate to argue that Cadillac or Lincoln should have been the ones with the Tesla portfolio.

I think Tesla had a lot of advantages in terms of being perceived as a silicon valley company, with all of the fawning media attention (mostly). That really helped them.

[kevm14]

Elon Musk had every incentive and opportunity to stick to the tried-and-true formula that traditional luxury brands had established. Yet he didn't. Aside from being the interior's focal point, that big tablet in the center of every Tesla's dashboard completely changes the way a driver interacts with and perceives the car. It makes Teslas immensely customizable, intuitive, and future-proof, with each car capable of receiving over-the-air software updates that include new features.

Also their approach to dealers.

I would make a very strong argument that Cadillac or Lincoln COULD NOT HAVE done exactly as Tesla did (when Tesla did it, not after, or perhaps in place of Tesla). There are things that Tesla is bringing to the table that only work due to a lack of baggage. The whole media/investment frenzy I think put it over the top, and made it possible. So while it's easy to say Tesla did what Cadillac and Lincoln didn't, I'd argue that is because they COULDN'T. And I'd also question exactly what they were supposed to be doing. Apparently the answer is start selling really expensive and desirable cars and hope it sticks long enough to backfill the mass market as efficiencies are realized in production/manufacturing.

With Cadillac, the Escalade was sort of a niche success story. Because while American luxury cars were not really even that desired by Americans, at least as ultimate status symbols (remember they DID provide comfort for a reasonable price, the entire time), GM used their truck investments to make the Escalade possible and build it into its own brand. The path GM is on makes sense in terms of cars and overall - autonomy and EV. The devil is in the details, though. And on the path there, they should hopefully make some very good traditionally powered cars, and still apply cutting edge autonomy technology (like SuperCruise). When I watch 2019 CT6 tests, I do get a small vibe that they are actually on the right path. The interior is still a caveat but interior is lower on my list of important features - not because interiors aren't important, but I don't think anything is really wrong with the CT6 interior that I couldn't own one or something. They have brought substantive function to the conversation in terms of the Omega platform itself (light, rear steering, handling, etc.) plus the SuperCruise tech and I think those are major boxes to check. I may not be the luxury car target though. A good compromise would be to offer a "Black label" type interior option and charge accordingly. For me, the depreciated luxury car buyer, I may or may not end up with one, configured as such.

In the end, they need to offer something the competition does not - I think that is really what defines the luxury market. Value is secondary. And back in the day, that would have been big, lazy engines, ludicrous sizes and a focus on overall comfort and convenience. Frankly they never stopped offering that (OK, fine, the 80s offered small and lazy engines). That's why I get annoyed when people say, forget sport, build something comfortable! They did - they stopped being able to sell them as their buyers died and so they went after the Euro market which A) is younger and B) has more money. DUH

[bill25]

I will say one thing about the comfortable part though. The cars might have been comfortable, but for a while they were garbage. Buying big and comfortable is one thing, but the 80's and 90's were dated interiors and sad reliability. Sure you can probably point to some gems, but the name was severely tarnished with how bad the cars had become. Even when GM was doing the LT and LS in the 90's, the deathstar was making it's name for Cadillac. The stuff now is supposed to be pretty good, but you are right. They had baggage. Decades of underachieving. And that is from a GM fan.

[kevm14]

There were plenty of ways to get burned on a Cadillac in the 80s and 90s, I will give you that. However, I guess I would ask the question: how many original owners got burned? It's not a pass for them; I know reputation matters but if most original buyers did not get burned (I will estimate less than 1% buyers of those cars bought them with the intention to drive them to 200k - old people have been buying new cars and trading them in after 3 years for decades, which was a good practice with some engines it turns out), then I'd also argue that the poor reliability of many of those engines was less of an impact than you think. The fact is, the clientele was dying.

Engines that I think lead to poor consumer experiences, probably before 100k:
- HT4100
- Olds 350 diesel, moreso the early ones
- Certain model years of Northstar (supposedly ~97-2000 is the worst but still not sure why it wouldn't be 96 also)
- V8-6-4*

Good engines:
- V8-6-4*
- 4.5L and 4.9L (evolved direct descendants of the HT4100) - both were good engines, especially the 4.9L. All the FWD stuff got these.
- Olds 307 (mostly the Brougham)
- L03/L05 (90-92 Brougham)
- LT1 (94-96 Fleetwood)
- L31 (Escalade)
- Probably most of the Cimmaron offerings were fine, but I'd have to double check
- Post-2000 Northstars but really the RWD LH2 that I have is good. This is outside of the range though so I guess it doesn't count.

Granted after 1995, the Northstar went into everything FWD, which, after 1996, was their entire lineup for cars. Really it looks to me that the late 90s and I guess early 80s were the real problem timeframes. Not the entire two decades.

* V8-6-4 was the last of the Cadillac big blocks, down to 368 cid, with throttle body fuel injection. Good engine. Poor computer control of the cylinder deactivation but I will not write off this engine even though for purposes of this conversation, it did cause negative consumer reactions (disabling the system was easy but not real clear on when everyone figured that out - probably after reputation damage).

[bill25]

I take that back. It went into the 00's too. when the CTS unveiled the new Cadillac design in a production car, and was a complete piece of garbage.

Seems like you would have to make cars for a couple years for someone to bet 50K on a possible grenade.

[bill25]

The problem I see for GM is that if it isn't a V8, the odds it is good are low. This means the volume stuff is usually not great. That might not matter to a used buyer because you can research history, but if a new buyer is burned, they are going to notice.

[kevm14]

GM had a lot of issues with the first gen high feature 3.6L. But honestly your theory does not hold. I don't believe they really had any sales issues with any of the stuff we mentioned. CTS sold well. And they continued the DTS, which had lineage back through the bad years of the Northstar, through 2011. I'll say it again: your theory does not hold. Reliability matters much less for luxury brands. They check a lot of boxes. Economy cars need to cheap, reliable and fuel efficient. Take away reliability and you are missing 1/3rd of the product. There are so many buyers for European cars that were awful in this same exact timeframe and they have been racking up sales the whole time. Because, for the third time, reliability is not as important as you think it is.

[kevm14]

The problem I see for GM is that if it isn't a V8, the odds it is good are low. This means the volume stuff is usually not great. That might not matter to a used buyer because you can research history, but if a new buyer is burned, they are going to notice.

Yes, IF the buyer was burned. Also every single engine in my list except Cimarron stuff was a V8. Plus the 3.6L issues. But I do not think those were issues for the first owner. I will grant you that if the second owner had a bad experience that does not bode well for them becoming a new car buyer of the brand but I am also not sure how much of an influence that is, either.

What I am trying to get across is for all of the issues we can cite looking back, most of them probably made it through the warranty period and possibly through the first owner timeframe. That person would not have been burned and very well may have bought another new one. I bet that happened a lot.

[bill25]

I think you are mostly right. I think if your brand was already not the highest tech, and already not highest performance, and starting to lose the looks battle, then you remove reliability, it is important.

People companies a pass on reliability because they shine somewhere else, be it tech, or performance, or luxury/prestige. Cadillac fell behind on most or all of these for about 3 decades. The performance came back in mid to late 00's.

[bill25]

That person would not have been burned and very well may have bought another new one. I bet that happened a lot.

I agree, but low resale due to issues and cars being worthless 5 years later isn't helping the brand.