1960 Cadillac Deville Base Hardtop 2-door 6.4l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Cadillac ad boss is happy controversial Poolside TV ad created debate

Remember Cadillac's controversial commercial for it ELR plug-in hybrid? Did you find it provocative? If so, that's a good thing according to the brand's advertising director, Craig Bierley. First aired during NBC's coverage of the Olympic opening ceremony, the minute-long spot returned to the tele again this weekend, bookending the Academy Awards on ABC. Titled Poolside, the bit was meant as "brand provocation" and whether you enjoyed it or not – sentiment is said to run 3:1 on the pro side – we can probably all agree it fulfilled its role as such. If you were one of those who felt the ad erred on the side of nationalistic consumerism (or what have you), your anger might be somewhat assuaged after reading this article from Advertising Age in which Bierley addresses most of what he believes are misconceptions about the message. For one, the spot isn't aimed at the One Percent, just those who make $200,000 a year. Or, as Craig Bierley, Cadillac's advertising director, calls them, "people who haven't been given anything." Bierley told Advertising Age that the spot doesn't celebrate workaholicsm, instead, "We're not making a statement saying, 'We want people to work hard.' What we're saying is that hard work has its payoffs.'" While our commentors seemed mostly to enjoy discussing the value proposition that is (or is not, depending on your point of view) the Cadillac ELR, the majority appeared to enjoy the commercial. If you were one of those offended, however, let us know if your opinion has changed upon reading Cadillac's defense. If you don't remember what all the fuss was about, scroll below to take another dip in Poolside.

2017 Cadillac XT5 First Drive

Thousands of feet above the Pacific Ocean, the winding roads that lead to the summit of Palomar Mountain turn from undulating curves to tight, blind, hairpin bends. Most drivers along this route are looking for a chance to exploit the limits of their cars' handling as much as one can on public roads, while taking in the bucolic views and endless blue skies. Up here, taking the thrilling curves at high speed is best left for drivers of performance cars who have platinum health insurance, lest the possibility of rolling a vertical mile toward Hellhole Canyon Preserve (we are not making this up) is not a deterrent. How different the experience is when you've chosen to climb the mountain in the 2017 Cadillac XT5, the crossover that replaces the SRX in a growing lineup of refined and redefined XT-named utility vehicles. An instant reminder that this SUV is not a Lotus comes as we enter a corner with a smidgen too much gusto, the tires begin to claw for traction, and the seatbelts tighten with the grip of sudden death. A quick tap of the brakes releases the belts, but not before a bead of sweat forms on the forehead. The overwhelming feeling is one of being unsure if this exercise is out of the XT5's comfort zone, despite Cadillac's goal of hitting the high-achieving sweet spot of the sport-luxury crossover segment. You'll know that an XT5 isn't an SRX when you first see one, although the differences are harder to tell when the two are parked side by side. The XT5 is the second Cadillac model to arrive since the brand learned to speak with a New York accent (albeit an affected Soho dialect) and it's a key pillar to the brand's chances at worldwide success. In 2015, the final year of sales for the five-year-old SRX, Cadillac managed to sell almost 100,000 of them around the world – no small feat for a model about to be replaced, and proof of the crossover's relative freshness and its popularity in export markets like China. Like the SRX that precedes it, the XT5 will be available with either front- or all-wheel drive (a $2,645 option), but that's one of few commonalities with the outgoing model. A new, lighter chassis helps the XT5 shed about 300 pounds, although Cadillac favors high-strength steel for bodywork and leaves aluminum for the engine and interior trim. In line with the revised brand guidelines for naming, SRX evolved into XT5, leaving room for larger and smaller utility vehicles to eventually join the lineup.

Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.