Why are new Cadillacs so fucking ugly, /o/? The back looks ok

>>16255423
found the german fangirl mad Cadillac is starting to take some of BMW's sales away.

the old car looks like a car designed by a 5 year old

the newer one looks like someone was handed a pencil a ruler and paper

both are shit tier

File: cadillac-seville-2000-wallpaper-2.jpg (218KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1600x1200px

>tfw modern Cadillac peaked with these FWD Horriblestar powered garbage piles

>>16255423
have you ever seen cadiallacs of the 80's and 90s??

>2003 was 23 years ago

>>16255423
The new one looks better than the old one.

I'm not even sure why Cadillac was even considered good or cool up to the 70's. The 50's they look about the same as their Buick counterparts, the fins weren't as outrageous as everyone makes them out to be, their engines were nothing special. In the 60's their frames were shared by GM, meanwhile the Lincoln was unibody, then of course Cadillac went fwd. So why are they considered good?

File: 86-88_Cadillac_Seville.jpg (271KB, 2683x1394px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 2683x1394px

>>16255804
>comfy as fuck
>v8
>torque out the butt
>looks fantastic
>more reliable and cheaper than the kraut and gook counterparts
>aged very well
>did i mention comfy

>>16255433
Cadillac cant even be compared with BMW, even if they try very hard

>>16255804
Cadillac was only perceived as good because they were expensive way back in the day

>>16255804
Because they were the top of the line GM product and at that time GM was THE car company so Cadillacs had to be the best there could be. Right?

File: 1.jpg (203KB, 1686x1131px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1686x1131px

>>16255856
Yeah, that thing sure aged well.

Why are American luxury cars ugly in the first place?

>>16255423
As a GM guy, my single biggest complaint about the brand in general these days ( now that they got their paint across the model range up to snuff) is the continuation of the the nearly thirty year "art and science" hard edges of the caddies. It's a big reason why I'd never be seen in one. It was a cool era I suppose but it's time has past

>>16255804
>of course Cadillac went fwd

Genuinely nobody gives a shit about FWD on a landbarge. It makes the car easier for your average person to control in inclement weather. Caddys have had a good reputation because they're comfortable and smooth cars with a couple desirable models under it's brand like the Escalade.

>>16255929
americans can't into good taste.

>>16255929
Americans prefer gaudy to subtle

>>16255959
>Escalade
>desirable
Only if you're a watermellone American.

>>16255995
For the "watermelone" bin stereo type you need some corrections

> my < 2010
>Lincoln Navigator

Ftfy you lazy cunt. Get your slander right or don't bother. You look worse than the bullshit hate you perpetuate.

>>16255995
Once again, you're looking at everything from the perspective of an """"auto enthusiast"""" and not you're average guy. Folks love SUVs like the Tahoe/Suburban which are considered plush in their own right so the Escalade is even more that. If you wanna let people know you've got money in any neighborhood where the average income is lower than 80k a year an Escalade is gonna do that.

>>16256031
People are buying Yukons for the explicit reason of not having a Niggerlac badge on them. Other than that the higher trims of Yukons are basically on par with a Cadillac and not as expensive.

>>16256065
No, people buy Yukons because they're the same thing as the Escalade, but cheaper. None of the people who I've spoken to who bought a Yukon over the Escalade did it because they didn't like the Escalade, they did it because they didn't wanna pay extra for the badge.

When the doctors/entrepreneurs we sell to are looking for a huge SUV, they usually gravitate to the Escalade/Yukon over the Tahoe because they want the bigger engine to haul their boats/RVs, really like the Escalade, but realize the Yukon is just a step down for a lot less. They try out the Escalade, love it, but then feel better about the price of the Yukon.

>>16256103
>When the doctors/entrepreneurs we sell to are looking for a huge SUV... but realize the Yukon is just a step down for a lot less.

This used to be Buick's market niche before they became nothing more than an uglied-up Chevy

>>16255995
nope, pretty common in europe as well, even the nwe model, of course sales aren't big but you can see a few and i love them

>>16255874
you are right thy can't be compared becouse they are better and this is coming from a yuropean

File: muh buick.jpg (133KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 960x540px

>>16256299
That's an uglied up opel to you boy

>>16256443
i think it look rather good but still nothing special

File: 1471304116392.jpg (284KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 1000x750px

>>16255804
Because cadillac had the best of the best of everything and built their engines and interiors in house. their interiors were made by Fleetwood, a coachbuilding company. They were exceedingly luxurious and hung with rolls royce in their prime. You couldn't get a cadillac without AC, or power steering, or in a manual transmission. Their engines were huge and powerful and overengineered and made overtaking your aunts's Biscayne a piece of cake when you stepped on it, with an engine that produced a completely flat wall of torque all the way up to redline.

They stuffed the best technology available into them, and loaded them with standard features. Power seats, power steering, automatic ac and heat, power windows, power breaks, tilt steering wheels, power locks, auto dimming headlights, auto dimming high beams, cruise control, front disc brakes, limited slip differential, all standard. They had self leveling and air suspensions, and shared their transmissions with rolls royce silver shadows.

Mercedes Benz, Rolls Royce and the like were laughably slow when compared to a Cadillac, even well into the Smog years of the 70's, the biggest and heaviest cadillacs would leave them in the dust. A cadillac 500 can handle 2000 horsepower on the stock bottom end.

They were massive on the inside and in the trunk, and the steering wheel worked more like a ships wheel than a steering wheel and you could turn it with your pinky.

Their massive size and suspensions make driving over bumps like a ship breaking small waves, more of a smooth rolling feeling than any sort of impact. The glass is absurdly thick and it is dead silent on the inside. Driving 80 on the highway is no different from driving 35 down the street, nearly silent.

>>16255423
Cadillac is the only luxury car I would even consider, solely because the front has a wonderful aggressive look that all the others lack. Why the hell are so many cars designed as blobs these days?

File: 1.png (902KB, 573x785px) Image search: [Google]

902KB, 573x785px

>>16255929
Because we don't care what you eurocucks think.

>>16256924
So what happened? Why is it that 2017 Cadillacs are just now getting basic luxury features after years of bad sales?

>>16256924
You again
No, no, no, no, and no. Overengineered? You gotta be kidding me lol. Cadillacs reek of cheap wood and corny velour interior. While that is undoubtedly comfortable, they have NEVER been anywhere close to Rolls Royce or Bentley, in quality of materials or price. Theyre probably close today than they were before, that's how wrong you are.

Inb4 you bring up that shitty convertible that had a made-in-Italy body. Fucking lol.

Talk to me again when Cadillac uses a backbreakingly complicated hydraulic system to power everything using dot 5 fluid, or used all-aluminum chassis in the 70s, or engraves its suspension pieces with beautiful branding that the owner would never, ever see.

And Cadillacs? Fast? No, big no, they were a half step ahead of Lincoln there. If you wanted a getaway luxury car you bought a Jag or BMW, end of discussion.

>>16256924
>2000 horsepower
Not even in the old rating system, which by the way, stated the 500 put out 400 horsepower when it was well under 3, from an 8.2 liter lol

>>16256924
Cant even spell 'brakes'

>Opinion discared

>>16255423
>OP image says 1956
Picture is clearly a 1958 Cadillac

>>16255856
>aged well
No...no it hasn't. It looks like a massive piece of shit that should have been dragged into the junkyard 20 years ago. If you want to see cars that have aged well, go look at an E30, early NSX, or FD RX7.

>>16255856

why are GM fans this fucking autistic

The new CTS-V is one of the best looking cars on the market, too bad everything Cadillac has put out since De Nysschen took over is overpriced as balls.

>>16255929
Because when you are the first to do it, you can do it anyway you want. Eurofags and nips are just jelly we were doing all this while they were rebuilding their shitty countries.

>>16258182
I seriously don't understand the pricing. They know they don't have the market share, they should be pricing under their competitors while providing the same or better feature set if they cannot match the quality.

>>16258201
They're not trying to compete on pricing, they're trying to compete on quality. Problem is no one is going to spend BMW/MB money on a Cadillac, marque is important in the class they're trying to cater to.

They should have tried to build loyalty among younger, wealthier customers. Build a brand image as a livelier car for a youthful crowd. It's not too late for them to try that focus, but I don't think they will.

>>16258215
>Build a brand image as a livelier car for a youthful crowd
But people keep telling me that Cadillacs weren't known for being lively, they were known for being comfy luxury rides for families. Hence why the Escalade does well.

I'm a young person looking for a new car, I'd totally consider the Cadillac if it was just a casual good drive with nice appointments inside and out. But the price is really high for what they offer.

>>16258233
Their performance and racing division (V) was the only thing that saved them from oblivion in the middle of the last decade. The CTS was a plasticky, awkward looking mess but it had a tight, competent chassis that ran really well with a 550 HP Corvette engine bolted into it.

I don't know if I buy "comfort luxury rides for families" being the traditional place of Cadillacs. The company's motto is "the standard of the world," and imo has always been about pushing the line with technology and engineering in cars. I ain't gonna look it up now but if you want you can look up all the technologies and features that Cadillac has pioneered in automobiles.

I think the bleeding edge of the industry right now is in sport luxury vehicles, and I think they're doing the right thing by focusing on making cars for drivers rather than just making iterations of the same luxo-barges. In the near future, people who hate driving will either use automated vehicles or ride share. The folks that like driving or can afford the luxury will want cars that are fun to drive.

Also, the Escalade is a giant piece of shit and people like them because people are retarded.

>>16257779
Their market analysts said "young people dont want grandpa cars!" The looked out and saw younger people with money buying sporty BMW's and audis and they said we gotta get that market. Then it went to shit.

>>16257856
>Cadillacs reek of cheap wood and corny velour interior.
bet your mom didnt mind when she cucked your dad in the back seat of one.

They've improved with time immensly from the 1990's until present day, and to be fair I'd even like one from the 90's.

>>16255423
>new Cadillac
>post picture of car that's been out of production for nearly a decade.

wut

>>16258299
In the back seat of a front wheel drive car that cost some clown 1400 bucks in a Lordco parking lot? I seriously doubt that.

File: shark.jpg (134KB, 1000x683px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1000x683px

Show me a modern affordable car that looks as much like a shark as a Cadillac does.

>>16256443
I actually really like the way this thing looks .

>>16255874
Cad CTS produces more hp and is lighter than the 5 series in both turbo 4 and turbo 6. Car and driver and consumer reports say cad is a better driver's car.

Also more comfy IMO

File: 1478038750985.png (155KB, 285x268px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 285x268px

>>16255781

>>16264998
this

>>16258215
>They should have tried to build loyalty among younger, wealthier customers
That's hard for them to do in the current market unfortunately because of how shit they have been.
I've got a CTS-V coupe and it was way better than the C63 AMG I tried and way better than my friend's E60 M5 I've driven a few times (and he agrees).
The main problem is with image. Whenever I tell people I have a Cadillac you just see them wanting to ask "Why?" And most of them do. It has had such a bad reputation for a long time that nobody can imagine them being better cars than the german performance cars.

Even with the stigma though I would take them any day over all the sport/fast/luxury brands other than Porsche.

>>16257856
>uses a backbreakingly complicated hydraulic system to power everything using dot 5 fluid, or used all-aluminum chassis in the 70s, or engraves its suspension pieces with beautiful branding that the owner would never, ever see.
That's all useless bullshit. Cadillacs managed to be functional and attractive without retarded gimicks.

>>16257874
He's saying the bottom end can withstand that much hp without needing rebuilt which is feasible.
You're a fucking retard m8.

File: 13ca2fc20dfd2c55.jpg (29KB, 500x315px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x315px

>>16255423
>Why are new Cadillacs so fucking ugly,
because you are not the target market
>The back looks ok but the front is absolutely hideous with all the hard edges
it must be strong if its big with hard edges
> oversized grille and vertical headlights; they look like toy cars
makes it look safe
> What kind of rich idiot still buys a Cadillac anyway?
retirees who still think buying a Mercedes helps Hitler and will never forget Pearl Harbor

>>16266093
>forgets pearl harbor
Camry driver detected.

>>16266098
do people even give a fuck about Pearl Harbor still

it was 75 years ago get over it

>> shit was fucking ugly in the 50s too, enjoy toting that 3 ton barge around.

>>16266108
>it was 75 years ago get over it
Yes goyim forget your history, forget all the people who died,

>>16266133
>caring about irrelevant shit

File: coexist.jpg (23KB, 734x219px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 734x219px

>>16266141

File: 3392372062_9822cfe4d6.jpg (83KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 500x375px

>>16255423
That's a 1958 Cadillac; pic related is a 1956

>>16266149
obviously we should coexist

nice message anon

>>16266163
Yes, i'm glad we could put our differences behind us and move forward together.

>>16266159
Looks like bender baka desu senpai

File: 6e6b2057139b8a4a9c88b250d16219f7.jpg (103KB, 700x413px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 700x413px

I've owned a lot of Cadillac and 1968 is my favorite year.

>>16258359
agreed :3

File: 1454393702603.jpg (27KB, 313x286px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 313x286px

>>16255781

>>16266079
Yeah nah, I said there's no way the bottom end could hold that power stock. Maybe for a drag or two at 1000 hp. Maybe. And that's only because cadillacs are unrefined and overbuilt in some ways (and cheaped out on in others).

>functional and attractive
I'll give you a 6/10 in both categories. They were functional but, again, unrefined, using soft as fuck springs on a shitty floppy chassis that would grenade in a wreck. They looked big and spacious, which is a plus, but their interiors just reek of fake/cheap wood and 70s sofa material. It works but it's basically tits on a fat girl, luxury is more than just checking off things on a list that a luxury car should have. There should be attention to detail and uniqueness.

Cadillacs are still cool, but nothing to brag about

File: CadillacFleetwood.jpg (1MB, 3906x2500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3906x2500px

Last good modern Caddy in my opinion was the 94-96 Fleetwood. LT1 V8 RWD over 18 ft long and comfy as hell and could tow 7,000lbs. try that with a newer caddy thats not a prettied up Tahoe

>>16258201
>they should be pricing under their competitors while providing the same or better feature set if they cannot match the quality.
If GM tried that route the Hyundai Genesis and Equus would give them problems.

File: 1474670283163.png (1MB, 1365x767px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1365x767px

>>16257779
>So what happened?
A few things.

This changed in the 70's, as did the CAFE regulations initiated in 1975. Hippies wrapped their hands around Cadillac's balls and tugged hard.


Once upon a time GM was smart enough to allow the division to produce FEWER cars than what the market demanded. This kept both demand and resale values high. The first year that Cadillac volume crested 300,000 the division president admitted; “We didn’t build 300,000 Cadillacs last model year, we built 300,000 Buicks.”

In 1977, the big Caddy became just another large GM car. At the same time, Cadillac was pushing for huge volumes to the point where dealers began discounting the cars. It’s hard to claim exclusivity when you’re building over 400,000 cars per year. Combine that with fading quality and you have a slowly-evolving disaster in the works.

The quality difference between the ’76 and ’77 became quickly apparent after a few years of even gentle use. Sagging felt headliners, broken window switch panels, rusty rear bumpers, fading interior plastics, broken door pulls, iffy paint all sent this generation of Cadillacs to the back row of the used car lot prematurely.

>>16268098
>There's no way the bottom end could hold that power stock

http://www.cad500parts.com/catalog/page6.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJSdQ3gqUJA

>>16269007
I guess that's true, but isn't the Genesis new? And Hyundai is Korean right? Versus the appeal of buying American, which would've given Cadillac a boost.

Rather than talking about looks, talk about quality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK1fWijbEjI