1952 Cadillac Coupe Deville With Continental Kit on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Cool car technology is cool until it breaks

Ah, technology – the beautiful date that impresses all your friends but costs you a fortune to keep happy, up-to-date, and working. Automotive News puts some numbers to the economic toll we're paying to jockey this technological Trojan horse, an analysis it sums up with "Technology is great - until you have to replace it." Back in 2000, for instance, you could replace a Cadillac Escalade taillight lens for $56.08, or replace the entire unit for $220.49. Crack the rear lens on your 2015 Escalade and you have to buy a new unit for $795 - there's no such thing as just replacing a lens anymore. What about headlights? It was $210 for an Escalade headlight in 2000, it's $1,650 for the current unit (pictured). This is nothing we didn't know, these are just hard numbers to demonstrate it. Edmunds recently provided the same with its sledgehammer-bashing of the 2015 Ford F-150, Tesla Model S buyers have been shrieking about repair costs to their electric sedan's all-aluminum bodywork, and used-car sites are full of articles about which expensive-to-repair features to steer clear of if you want to avoid big repair bills. Those expensive bits increase the price of a car - Kelley Blue Book says the average price of a car is now more than $33,000 - and that raises rates for repairs and insurance. This comes in spite of some carmakers that have been collaborating with insurance companies and repair shops at the design stage in order to engineer parts that are easier and less expensive to replace. But the tech can have its cost-saving benefits: a 2011 study by the Highway Loss Data Institute found that Volvos fitted with that company's City Safety feature "filed 27 percent fewer property-damage liability claims" than luxury SUVs without it, and just last month the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety called adaptive headlights one of the top four crash-preventing technologies on cars today (after coming out against them in 2006). So yes, the technology costs a mint when it needs to be fixed - but being able to avoid an accident in the first place might make it worth it. News Source: Automotive News - sub. req.Image Credit: Copyright 2015 AOL Cadillac Car Buying Used Car Buying Auto Repair Insurance Maintenance Safety Technology Luxury replacement parts

Cadillac's de Nysschen won't budge on raised pricing

According to new Cadillac boss Johan de Nysschen, it will take between 10 and 15 years to elevate GM's top brand, which was once hailed as "The Standard Of The World," back to prominence in the minds of American customers. And to hear the executive talk of it, the brand is going to have to be willing to see sales falter in the near-term before they recover:
"Either you have to bring your volume aspirations into alignment with reality and accept that you will sell fewer cars... Or you have to drop the price and continue to transact at the prices where you were historically... I think the logical conclusion is that it's better to build off a very solid base in terms of [product] credibility, charge a fair price for the car and realize you have to wait until the volume comes."
In other words, sales will fall before they rise, and the brand has to be okay with that. Notice, too, that de Nysschen speaks of "a fair price" for Cadillac cars and utility vehicles. In this case, "fair" means more than many of the brand's traditional buyers are accustomed to, and roughly in line with the brands and machines Cadillac believes it is competing against. For instance, the newly enlarged 2014 CTS carries a suggested retail price that is over $6,000 higher than it was in 2013, and some trim levels boast an even higher price premium over the models they replace.

Cadillac tops Tesla in Consumer Reports semi-automated driving test

General Motors' Cadillac outscored Tesla in a new ranking of partially automated driving systems tested by Consumer Reports and released on Thursday. The highly influential nonprofit organization, which tests and rates a variety of consumer products from appliances to vehicles, said it compared Cadillac's Super Cruise and Tesla's Autopilot with similar systems from Nissan and Volvo. Nissan's ProPilot Assist was ranked third and Volvo's Pilot Assist fourth. Consumer Reports said it has been testing partially automated driving systems for several years but elected to conduct a formal study intended for publication, because "we are at a tipping point where they are now going mainstream," according to Jake Fisher, director of auto testing. The organization said its tests, conducted on a private track and on public roads in Connecticut, were designed to measure the systems' ability to automatically control steering and speed in certain situations, while helping drivers pay attention and regain manual control of the vehicle when required. CR noted that any of these systems can increase driving risk if used in inappropriate situations, or if drivers become inattentive or over-reliant on them. While they can help relieve driver stress and fatigue, Consumer Reports said, the partially automated systems are "not intended to be self-driving features." The systems typically use cameras, radar and other sensors, as well as mapping data, to monitor location and traffic conditions and help keep a vehicle centered in the lane at a safe distance behind other cars. Each system has limitations. Cadillac's Super Cruise, for instance, only functions on divided highways that have been mapped by GM. In contrast, Tesla's Autopilot can be used even on small, curvy roads with poor lane markings, but "operates erratically in those situations," Consumer Reports said.The organization tested Super Cruise on the Cadillac CT6; Autopilot on the Tesla Model 3, Model X and Model S; ProPilot Assist on the Nissan Leaf and Infiniti QX50; and Pilot Assist on the Volvo XC40 and XC60. Consumer Reports said Cadillac's Super Cruise did "the best job of balancing high-tech capabilities with ensuring the car is operated safely and the driver is paying attention." Tesla's Autopilot was cited for its capability and ease of use, while Nissan's ProPilot Assist did a better job than Autopilot or Volvo's Pilot Assist in keeping drivers engaged.