I remember reading that Cadillacs were considered the best cars in the world back in the '50s. To the extent that they were better than a Rolls. So what happened? What caused the decline, and when? Why'd it take them so long to start getting their act back together? Just curious.

That's a hand grenade as explosive as "why is abortion legal? Just curious."

Half of people responding will say that GM, and the other US automakers, sat on their laurels for decades due to mismanagement and the false belief that people would not buy import cars. The other half will say that the AFL-CIO made production costs too high, and that Japanese manufacturers engaged in dumping (selling cars at below cost to gain market share) and other questionable business practices to force GM/Ford/Chrysler into bad financial positions, at which point the Big Three couldn't afford the R&D necessary to keep up with the market leaders. Which is more accurate? I have no clue, but it's probably somewhere in between.

I'm just glad they're back on the right track with the second-generation CTS.

VTAK kicked in yo.

Lexus, Acura, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Audi happened.

Amen to that one.


The stuff stated above and the whole fact that American cars simply got too big because domestic designers got too cocky with the whole "my car is bigger than yours." Oil crisis rolls around and those big barges are sunk in favor of small, cheap, imports. That led to loss of sales and you know the rest...

Except that Caddy was really sucking wind in the 1980s and 1990s, when oil prices were pretty low. If oil prices were to blame, Caddy should have recovered as soon as the oil crisis in the 1970s ended.

I think Caddy somehow ended up being the choice of the elderly and conservative. They were then afraid to move the brand forward too radically for fear of alienating their customer base. Thus the brand became stagnant. It happens to restaurants all the time.

The same thing that happened to Buick who at one time made big bad and bold muscle cars. They got complacent due to their past success and under estimated the power of t3h VTAK.

I would argue that you can sum it up with the statement: "The market changed".

to that I would add "and GM didn't".

I'd argue that they were back on track as soon as the first CTS.

I think the statement "Cadillac were the best car maker in the world..." is in itself questionable. To whom were they the best car maker? To the Americans? go ask people in Europe what they think was the best car manufacturer in that era, and you will get a range of different answers, and I could almost guarantee that the name Cadillac won't come up.
Also, as CarDesigner'09 mentioned, the fuel crisis in the 70's(if I'm not mistaken) played a huge role in the declining car market in the US at that time(with GM obviously being one of the biggest players).
The had a few very awesome cars, but they were never ever the 'best' IMO.
Also saying they were better than a Rolls is a huge statement IMO. The two manufacturers dont even compete with one another (not to my knowledge, unless Cadi builds some hi-end luxury vehicles). Its like saying a RS4 is better than a Mazda 2, yes, but NO. Completely different market segments.
They (Cadillac) were once on top of their game, but they have dropped considerably. Also, if you were to compare the market situation back in the 50's to now, the differences are huge. Back then the American market consisted of mostly American cars, with a few manufacturers like VW, Toyota, Subaru, Datsun ,etc. making appearances. Nowadays the market is flooded with tons of different brands of vehicles. It is no longer as easy to be top dog as it was then.
The same question you asked about Cadillac could be asked about VW. What's happened to them(nowadays) from their heydays in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's. Same thing that happened to Cadillac, if you ask me.The market grew, and it was no longer 'easy' to be great.

Sorry for the long post

cheers

Did you really just call the 1940s the heydays of Volkswagen? Y'know, when the company used roughly 20,000 slave laborers?

No VW commercially available in the US was ever made by slave labor. Those vehicles were for the war effort and made prior to the British occupation. I had more of a problem with him calling the 40s and 50s VW's heyday.

Is this conversation restricted to the US market? I mean, it was started by a guy in Dubai, and a South African dude is talking about Cadillac's image in Europe.

But they did. The Cimmaron was a huge frickin' change, and it's not the only example. They changed, but the change was poorly-executed and either severely underfunded or profoundly half-hearted (until recently).

No, but I could leave the "in the US" part out and it's still a true statement.

By heyday, I'm not taking into account the ethical issues behind the brand. Hitler built a huge part of the German Autobahn system; he was a dickhead, but that does not mean he didn't build a great highway system...know what I mean?
And what I meant(sorry I didn't elaborate properly) that those were the days when VW still actually fitted the profile of 'Peoples Car'. (Volks Wagen= Peoples' Car) They built a car (Beetle) that pretty much helped mobilise the whole of Germany, and at a hugely affordable price to the average person.
Look at VW's car lineup nowadays, they do not produce any cars that are widely affordable. Yes the Golf and Polo are 'affordable' cars, but not like the Beetle was. That was a car that was affordable to almost any family at the time.
What I was trying to get at with the comparison between Cadillac and VW was just to say that VW has 'suffered the same fate' and is simply not where it once was.

Gotcha. But for the record, anyone who can afford a Civic or Corolla can afford a Rabbit, at least with US pricing. Other markets may vary.

OHirteenfelder, I don't think Cadillac's success in the '50s was limited to the US market. They were the benchmark for all luxury brands at the time. This was to the point that things were called the "Cadillac of..." when something was the clear leader of a certain segment.

Cadillac was the benchmark of all luxury brands..in the '20s and '30s, not in the '50s, at least not worldwide. By the '50s the europeans didn't know what to do with those finned monsters.

Oh ok, I got my timetable wrong, but my point was there was a time when they were the benchmark for the world.

I read somewhere that Cadillac introduced the world's first production car with a V8 engine. Truth or propaganda?



I've got no first-hand experience with either generation, but from what I've read, the Catera and especially the CTS were heading in the right direction, but the second-generation is when they really became competitive with the market leaders again.

Partial truth, Cadillac did it in a production car in mass production where I'm guessing previously it was low quantity stuff.

^ The Catera was thinking in the right direction, but it was nothing but a rebadged Opel (albeit a good RWD one) with an underpowered V6 by the time the 2nd generation rolled around. The CTS was Cadillac getting their act together, and making a dynamically competent RWD sedan (albeit flawed in some areas).