If I spent oer $40k for a vehicle, I would expect it to operate normally. What I seen in that video was pathetic as far as the car goes. Good thing GM increased their warranty period, the customer is going to need it.
Is Cadillac this bad???
- Thread starter Da Game
- Start date
- Status
Mom had a Caddy. Musta' been around 5 years or so ago. Forget the model. Constant problems. Endless problems.
Traded it in within a year.
One way to get an idea about a make/model's reliabilty is my oft babbled "go talk to a used parts seller at the wrecking yard."
Another way to get a "feel" about reliabilty is to go to
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/
and poke around until you find the TSB (techical service bulletin) area. Input the proper/required info and, almost magically, a list of TSBs appear before thee.
Did this for an Uncle with a 90's era Caddy. An IMMENSE number of TSBs, far far more than for the average listing for many other makes/models.
As I have written many moons earlier, I copied the info from the TSBs and printed them for the Uncle. He took them to the dealer where his Caddy had repeatedly been into the shop in an attempt to fix an ongoing problem. One of the TSBs led the shop to the problem and it was corrected. Interestingly, the dealer (in Fremont Nebraska) proclaimed that the TSB that led to the solution was not in their database!!!!! Whether that was factual is beyond my determination.
Whatever the case..... if you see a lengthy list of TSBs it may show a problematic vehicle.
Gotta' look at the TSBs, though, since some to many can be for very minor things unrelated to safety or reliabilty. Yah' just gotta' peek for thineself to ascertain if the TSB data leads to any sort of factual conclusion.
You betcha'.
Traded it in within a year.
One way to get an idea about a make/model's reliabilty is my oft babbled "go talk to a used parts seller at the wrecking yard."
Another way to get a "feel" about reliabilty is to go to
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/
and poke around until you find the TSB (techical service bulletin) area. Input the proper/required info and, almost magically, a list of TSBs appear before thee.
Did this for an Uncle with a 90's era Caddy. An IMMENSE number of TSBs, far far more than for the average listing for many other makes/models.
As I have written many moons earlier, I copied the info from the TSBs and printed them for the Uncle. He took them to the dealer where his Caddy had repeatedly been into the shop in an attempt to fix an ongoing problem. One of the TSBs led the shop to the problem and it was corrected. Interestingly, the dealer (in Fremont Nebraska) proclaimed that the TSB that led to the solution was not in their database!!!!! Whether that was factual is beyond my determination.
Whatever the case..... if you see a lengthy list of TSBs it may show a problematic vehicle.
Gotta' look at the TSBs, though, since some to many can be for very minor things unrelated to safety or reliabilty. Yah' just gotta' peek for thineself to ascertain if the TSB data leads to any sort of factual conclusion.
You betcha'.
If I spent $50,000 on that car and it performed like that, I'd be rip-roaring furious.
The person in the video uses such repulsive language that I stopped the video after a minute or so. I can understand being upset about the car, but that kind of language simply makes him look like an idiot.
My hypothesis about Cadillac is that for years they've relied on an older generation of loyal buyers who either weren't that sophisticated about cars or were merely interested in having a "Cadillac" as a status thing, or even that they *thought* Cadillac meant "quality". GM could get by with that for a long time, but not any more. Younger buyers don't care about the Cadillac name, and are generally more demanding of quality, just like the rest of us now.
So the bar has been raised, and Cadillac is (or has been) relying on "status", name-recognition, and older owner loyalty. Let's be honest: a lot of that generation has passed on or is passing on or maybe doesn't even drive any more. And many that still do are looking elsewhere now.
Used to be people said this or that was the "Cadillac" of [whatever], meaning the best. Now I just snicker when I hear that on the rare occasion.
So the bar has been raised, and Cadillac is (or has been) relying on "status", name-recognition, and older owner loyalty. Let's be honest: a lot of that generation has passed on or is passing on or maybe doesn't even drive any more. And many that still do are looking elsewhere now.
Used to be people said this or that was the "Cadillac" of [whatever], meaning the best. Now I just snicker when I hear that on the rare occasion.
Cadillac at one time did represent the epitome of quality. The cars had ample power, were usually exuberantly, often flamboyantly styled, and featuered many technical innovations. Cadillacs had Cadillac V-8s, and used the very best of components from GM's broad, deep internal supplier network. GM components were at one time considered world class. For example, Jaguar, Rolls-Royce and even Ferrari used GM automatics, while Rolls speced GM air conditioning.
In the late '70s, the downsized C-bodies, including the Cadillac, were a great success, while the downsized Eldo also did well, like its sisters the Riv and the Toro.
Anyway, Cadillac is as much a victim of GM's relentless penny wise and pound foolish cost cutting as any division. As a need for product with a more youthful appeal arose, as other, imported nameplates became the aspirational vehicles for generations of younger Americans, GM responded with feeble gestures, like badging the Cavalier as a Cadillac, or baging a pretty good Opel as a Cadillac.
The CTS and the STS repesent serious efforts to revive the brand, and to restore it to a level of aspirational appeal. Does anyone remember the slogan "Nobody sweats the details like GM"? Too bad GM seems mainly to sweat saving pennies, while failing to deliver the kind of reliable, durable car that could revive the Cadillac brand. Oh well, I guess there is at least the Escalade.
In the late '70s, the downsized C-bodies, including the Cadillac, were a great success, while the downsized Eldo also did well, like its sisters the Riv and the Toro.
Anyway, Cadillac is as much a victim of GM's relentless penny wise and pound foolish cost cutting as any division. As a need for product with a more youthful appeal arose, as other, imported nameplates became the aspirational vehicles for generations of younger Americans, GM responded with feeble gestures, like badging the Cavalier as a Cadillac, or baging a pretty good Opel as a Cadillac.
The CTS and the STS repesent serious efforts to revive the brand, and to restore it to a level of aspirational appeal. Does anyone remember the slogan "Nobody sweats the details like GM"? Too bad GM seems mainly to sweat saving pennies, while failing to deliver the kind of reliable, durable car that could revive the Cadillac brand. Oh well, I guess there is at least the Escalade.
That dude is such a dramatic baby. So his car had a problem oh no! My new 2002 subaru had a couple problems, but my new 2006 chevy express has been flawless. My buddy has a BMW X5 4.8is which has had TWO ENGINE FAILURES. It happens. This guy is such a baby its killing me.
To answer your question....no. Cadillac is not that bad. I can only wish that they were. That would be more work for me! Every car has it's good and bad. The CTS is a relatively problem free car. The problems that they have, unfortunately, are mostly electrical, and mostly intermittent little gremlins. One thing I will say about the CTS-V....it is not a BMW, Mercedes, or a refined car like either of them. It is a street sleeper. It looks quite harmless but it is a Mustang's worst nightmare. These little cars are a blast. On the downside, they rattle, whine, clunk....everything you would expect from a muscle car from years past. If creature comfort and a quiet ride are important, the "V" is not for you. On the other hand, the 6 cylinder automatic is a pleasure to drive. Well tuned 5 speed tranny, ample power, and MUCH quieter.
Cadillac Is an Italian word for a fools chevrolet.
Ferrari is an Italian word for a fool's Corvette
That is why I want a Ford GT 40
Do you want a GT40, or a Ford GT? An original GT40 would be neat, while a Ford GT would be useable.
You are correct, but I want to make sure I am not referring to a Mustang. My fantasy car.
The GT is a thing of beauty, which you can't say for any Mustang.
I think it is really nice of you to want to give Z06 drivers something pretty to look at in their rearview mirrors on track days.
I think it is really nice of you to want to give Z06 drivers something pretty to look at in their rearview mirrors on track days.
This depends on the manufacturer...Ford and GM both seem to issue a large number of TSBs about things like transmission fluid/coolant/oil recommendations, new service tools, new service procedures, etc.
Some other manufacturers do not issue TSBs unless they pertain to a specific problem.
GM's idea to bring the Cadillac name to Europe with the BLS (more or less a Saab 93 with the Cadillac name) is just plain STUPID.
Attention GM: You have the Saab 93. How about making more of an attempt to market that in, say, Germany?
Attention GM: You have the Saab 93. How about making more of an attempt to market that in, say, Germany?
Sure you can...watch: "The Mustang is a thing of beauty."
See? That was easy. You should try it.
CTS-V is a hot-rod just like an old BMW M. The newer 6.0L LS2 has a bit more refined feel than the 5.7L LS6 did but just because its a little less cammy. This car is a hot-rod. Its the modern day equivelent of the 1970 Buick Skylark GS455 Stage 1 .
I think you will find the CTS 3.6 Sport 6-Speed Manual is a much more refined (if slower) car. You will also find the Chrysler 300C SRT-8 with the 425 bhp 6.1L Hemi is a better daily driver. More of a "Executive Hot-Rod" or "Poor Mans AMG".
I think you will find the CTS 3.6 Sport 6-Speed Manual is a much more refined (if slower) car. You will also find the Chrysler 300C SRT-8 with the 425 bhp 6.1L Hemi is a better daily driver. More of a "Executive Hot-Rod" or "Poor Mans AMG".
The Mustang has been, sometimes, a decent looking, or even nice looking car. The highly prized early car is an amalgam of every styling cliche known to man, while the Mustang II is best forgotten. Some of the later 'sities and early 'seventies cars are not bad.
In any event, unless you are either blind, blind drunk, on drugs, or insane, you cannot utter the words "The Mustang is a thing of beauty".
In any event, unless you are either blind, blind drunk, on drugs, or insane, you cannot utter the words "The Mustang is a thing of beauty".
- Status
