Quote:
Originally Posted by DGthe3
Because the point of Buick isn't to build the most exciting cars in the world. But that doesn't mean that they are boring either. Think classy, refined, elegant, smooth. Contrast that against Cadillac thats supposed be big, bold, brash & ballsy. The idea is to bookend both ends of the luxury segment.
|
Sorry, I think of Cadillac as refined, elegant, smooth, because I do not define cadillac by the CTS-V, I just think that it helps their position and impression. And although I may think of mercedes or BMW as more refined, etc, I think they are an example of why you don't need a seperate brand for your "softer" cars. Regular CTSs are plenty "soft", and now they will have another model to help with the branding. BMW makes their top performing cars "M"s, Cadillac "V", Mercedes "AMG". Why does GM need TWO seperate "high end/luxury" brands? Just doesn't make sense and I think defending this is simply trying to split hairs. Really? You're going to argue buick is "refined", but cadillac is not? (yes, I realize we're back to discussing relative to american cars, not euros), buick is "elegant" but cadillac is not? Sorry, it just makes no sense and seems to be one of the reasons the american car manufacturers have so much trouble. They try to keep these brands because they "think" american buyers want them, there's so much "heritage" and all of that, but they are just money-pits. Condensing the lines and then increasing the cadillac models would probably be a far better move for the company, except the UAW would never allow it. The problem is that to survive and be competative, a company needs to constantly change. They can never assume that they'll be able to crank out a certain model or brand into infinity, it just never works in practice. Someone comes out with something better or cheaper. If you can't change, you die. Ford is better in this regard, although I like cadillacs and GMs better.