2009 Cadillac Cts V on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Cadillac exec realizes ELR pricing was stupid high

At least one Cadillac exec has finally started to come to terms with something we knew all along: the initial $75,000 price for the ELR plug-in hybrid was way too high. The bad decision in part led to the model selling just over 1,000 units last year. Company marketing boss Uwe Ellinghaus recently gave an interview to Bloomberg where he discussed what went wrong. "The MSRP was, indeed, a mouthful," Ellinghaus said to Bloomberg. "We overestimated that customers would realize our competitors were naked at that price." People balked at the ELR's price from the very start, and dealers were receiving $5,000 at one point just for getting customers to test drive the PHEV. Later, some incentives for buyers were as high as $14,000. Cadillac planners saw a conundrum when it came to the ELR's price. Too low of a figure was thought to bring the model close to the Chevrolet Volt, and $75,000 was also believed to signal Caddy's PHEV as something special. "We just wanted to make this a statement for the brand of how progressive we are," Ellinghaus said to Bloomberg. Cadillac is now working to rehabilitate the ELR's reputation with a host of updates for 2016. Buyers get a 25-percent boost in powertrain output, additional standard features, and the whole package comes with a $9,000 drop in price. The tweaks should help the luxurious PHEV make a better second impression. Related Video:

How Cadillac improved power output in 2016 ELR by 25 percent

Earlier this year, Cadillac announced that the 2016 ELR would come with a big price drop and a powertrain that packs 25 percent more power output. That's a lot more oomph, but it didn't sound like the Caddy engineers made any major changes to the engine or motors. So, what happened? Let's refresh our memories with the numeric details. The 2016 car is 1.5 seconds quicker to 60 miles per hour than the 2014 model (there was no 2015), down to 6.4 seconds. The 2014 put out 295 pound-feet of torque. For 2016, it will be 373 lb-ft. The specific breakdown of the various components in the powertrain has not been disclosed, but from what we can tell, the two electric motors and the 1.4-liter inline-four engine in the new ELR are not that much different than those in the old one. Sam Abuelsamid, senior research analyst at Navigant Research (and former writer here at Autoblog) said that any of the unspecified upgrades would be difficult to tell on a part-by-part basis, but the overall effect will be noticeable. "The changes to the ELR as I understand them are analogous to getting more performance out of a 1965 Mustang with the entry version of the 289 cubic-inch V8. You can replace the carburetor with a larger version that enables more air and fuel to flow into the engine, thus producing more power. The basic engine hasn't changed, but power capability is being unleashed by feeding it more." "Cadillac has changed components in the power electronics to enable more current flow into the motor and thus produce more torque. When you do this in the Mustang, you probably need to replace the rear axle gears and use a beefier clutch to transmit the power to the wheels. Similarly, the ELR probably has some upgraded clutches, bearings, and gears to withstand the increased total output." Cadillac spokesperson David Caldwell told AutoblogGreen in an email that the new ELR does indeed have more than just new lines of code. "One could not 'reflash' a previous ELR to get the performance of a 2016," Caldwell said. "If one only changed software you would not get the performance upgrade fully, as the 2016 creates higher current, more power. So these have been upgraded physically – hardware.

Why Cadillac needs a real truck in its lineup

Premium brands such as BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Lexus, and Cadillac sell vehicles that cover the spectrum from car to crossover to SUV. But trucks? They remain the last frontier when it comes to luxury brands. These days Chevy, GMC, Ford, and Ram sell cheap, bare-bones work trucks alongside loaded models that top $75,000. There is a reverse elitism that comes with this sales tactic. A brand gets to reflect a rugged working class lifestyle with the emblem up front, while what's behind it costs as much as a small house in middle America. But Americans who spend big money on cars and SUVs have always gradually tailed towards luxury nameplates over time. Everyone knows what an Escalade is, and thanks in large part to that image the Escalade is now the best-selling fullsize luxury SUV in the USA. Cadillac's flagship model, along with its midsize luxury crossover, the SRX, routinely outsell the competition from Audi, Mercedes, and BMW, not to mention Ford's Lincoln brand and most of the Japanese rivals. With trucks already dominating overall sales and headed into the pricing stratosphere, I believe it's time for Cadillac to consider a fullsize truck. And no, not a lipstick version that merely takes a Chevrolet Silverado pickup and throws in a few leather seats and some slight interior touches. That experiment already failed both for Cadillac (the Escalade EXT) and for Ford's Lincoln brand (Blackwood, Mark LT). Cadillac is an American brand that currently focuses a ridiculous amount of energy and resources trying to compete with European car offerings. The brand needs to create the Cadillac of trucks. Head honcho Johan de Nysschen has been blunt in his desire to "restore Cadillac to the pinnacle of global premium brands, not in sales but in aspirational brand character." This sounds well and wonderful. But the present problem in achieving this goal is that, on a global basis, Cadillac is a failed brand. Look at Europe, where Cadillac has sold so poorly in recent years that former Soviet manufacturer Lada managed more new registrations in 2014 by a factor of more than four to one. Cadillac is an American brand that currently focuses a ridiculous amount of energy and resources trying to compete with European car offerings. After more than 20 years of Cadillac models selling themselves as import killers, the only one with sustained success has been the CTS, and even that has been a marketplace loser for the last several years. The CTS-V?