[FenwickHockey65]

http://wot.motortrend.com/1502_spied...place_srx.html

XT5.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

http://wot.motortrend.com/1502_spied...place_srx.html

XT5.

I'm still trying to figure out what makes less sense: the CT#/XT# naming scheme or 'moving' Cadillac to New York City

[FenwickHockey65]

The naming scheme makes sense, it's just dumb and unnecessary IMO.

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

The naming scheme makes sense, it's just dumb and unnecessary IMO.

Sounds more BMW like....

[Burt]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

The naming scheme makes sense, it's just dumb and unnecessary IMO.

Looking at the ATS vs. CTS vs. CT6, it looks like they're not only going after the Germans with a similar naming scheme, but the one-style-fits-all design process as well.

I've read that both ideas are supposed to focus on brand recognition. If you see a Mercedes S550, you don't think, man, that's a nice S550, you think, man, that's a nice Mercedes. Same thing with the styling. Most people don't see an Audi A6 3.0T on the road amd think of it as an A6 3.0T, or even an A6, they just see an Audi. I think that's what de Nysschen is going for. When you differentiate your models, you have to build an image and credibility for each model, and they're only done that for the Escalade, and to a degree, the CTS. The goal is to generate a single, recognizable brand image for Cadillac that will stick with people and get them into showrooms.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by Burt

Looking at the ATS vs. CTS vs. CT6, it looks like they're not only going after the Germans with a similar naming scheme, but the one-style-fits-all design process as well.

I've read that both ideas are supposed to focus on brand recognition. If you see a Mercedes S550, you don't think, man, that's a nice S550, you think, man, that's a nice Mercedes. Same thing with the styling. Most people don't see an Audi A6 3.0T on the road amd think of it as an A6 3.0T, or even an A6, they just see an Audi. I think that's what de Nysschen is going for. When you differentiate your models, you have to build an image and credibility for each model, and they're only done that for the Escalade, and to a degree, the CTS. The goal is to generate a single, recognizable brand image for Cadillac that will stick with people and get them into showrooms.

Yeah but to counter that point, IMO Cadillac has that already with the CTS and ATS. That design language already makes me go, thats a nice looking Cadillac.

[FenwickHockey65]

MotorTrend is reporting a SWB and LWB XT5. C1UL and C1ULS.

[stoopid]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

http://wot.motortrend.com/1502_spied...place_srx.html

XT5.

"turbocharged 2.7-liter V-6"

Sounds like something I'd want in a future Camaro...

[Burt]

Originally Posted by shaffe

Yeah but to counter that point, IMO Cadillac has that already with the CTS and ATS. That design language already makes me go, thats a nice looking Cadillac.

I think they've already got a distinctive style, they just lack the model range for full recognition and coverage. I'm not saying I'd do the naming like they are, I'm just saying that I think that's why they're doing it. The individual models will continue to be good, but they want less focus on individual models, and more on the brand as a whole. They don't want you to remember that the CTS is good now, if you're looking for a mid-size SUV, just that Cadillac is good.

[Burt]

I'll just leave this here...

[FenwickHockey65]

TTV8 in development.

[GretchenGotGrowl]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

TTV8 in development.

Cadillac only?

[FenwickHockey65]

So far that's all it's slated for. CT6-V of some sort.

[FenwickHockey65]

GM trademarked "Badlands" for trucks.