Last post on Nov 30, 2012 at 1:51 PM
You are in the Cadillac Escalade
What is this discussion about?
Cadillac Escalade, Cadillac Escalade EXT, Cadillac Escalade ESV, SUV
Dec 10, 2003 (9:34 pm)
Nvbanker, I agree totally. My neighbor bought a 2002 CTS after having trading a 1994 Seville. It's a nice car (had to program the dash computer for her) but the dash is average looking to me.
The dash on the Escalade is nice and decent looking and I have two Mercedes to compare it to! For a large truck, everything is placed where it should be and is easy to get to. That's what I like about it. The adjustable pedals are nice too.
For me, luxury or not, I'll carry whatever I want in the back whether it be plywood or a piece of furniture, bicycle or any other item. Yes, I like a nice SUV but I want it for it the utility too.
My ML500 is a 2002 and I think I'll keep it another year then trade it. The Escalade is at the top of my list for a larger SUV because I like the rear bumper sensors that the GMC Yukon XL doesn't have. I know that the Navigator has them but I want the extended chassis on whatever I get. I think Lincoln will offer a longer vehicle and will consider it once it arrives.
Dec 11, 2003 (3:54 pm)
I, too, agree that the SRX/CTS interior is underwhelming. Too much plastic on the dash!! The SRX should've copied the interior of maybe the Toureg, FX, XC90, or Aviator. All those seem much nicer. The CTS should've been more like the G35, which is the best sports sedan out there (unless you say the 3-series which is way too pricey and not worth it). All that real wood isn't enough to take my eyes away from the black dash. Even with the beige "neutral" interior, the dash is still black!! Talk about cost-cutting! The dash in the Escalade is even worse. LOL Maybe Cadillac is reading this right now and thinking "boy, he must be right..."
#712 of 1000 I'd like to see a black or charcoal
Dec 11, 2003 (4:49 pm)
Interior in my luxo cars. With silver brushed alumin. accents.
Dec 11, 2003 (7:48 pm)
I'm not monitoring this board to knock the Slade, but rather to watch what is being said about it, in the event I want to get one next time. I've not driven one, but I have driven the Yukon, and certainly, it's competent, comfy & well built. I'm hoping GM picks up some features that the Navigator has, or even some it doesn't have besides just the big engine to make the Slade competitive. First on the list, would be a WOW interior design. But frankly, I like the one it has better than what I see going into the SRX.
#714 of 1000 Tahoe/Escalade
May 25, 2004 (10:24 am)
We drove a loaded up Tahoe and an Escalade back to back. Went straight from the Chevy dealer to the Caddy dealer. There's quite a bit of distance between the two. Yes you can tell they're obviously from the same basic design but the Caddy is smoother and faster. The steering is quite a bit lighter and the Escalade is quieter too. It just has a more luxury car feel to it.
The interior, while similar in dash shape and the gauges, is also much more luxurious overall. The leather seats and door panels are nicer, there's zebrano wood trim and lots of little touches that really dress it up over the Tahoe. Almost everything is standard on the Escalade. You have to drive and see them back to back to really note how different they are.
Of course exterior style is a matter of taste but the Escalade seems to be the popular hot looking SUV right now.
#715 of 1000 What about
May 25, 2004 (1:16 pm)
#716 of 1000 Drove one now........
May 25, 2004 (3:30 pm)
I drove an 04 last week. It was the 2wd with the small motor, and it drove just like I thought it would, like the Tahoe. Not that it's bad, but the Navigator is a lot more refined, IMO. Depends on how you like them to drive I guess.
The Escalade is a beauty on the outside to be sure, and is definitely preferred by the music video crowd, at least. As well as many others. But if everybody preferred it, we wouldn't have an Infiniti QX56, or a Lexus LX 470 would we?
#717 of 1000 Drove one now..
May 26, 2004 (12:14 pm)
Absolutely. Everyone has different tastes. I'm somewhat surprised you didn't feel any difference driving an Escalade and a Tahoe. The ride is smoother in the Caddy due to probably softer springs and the road sensing suspension which adjusts the shocks electronically. And the steering is much lighter. More noise isolation too. Since you drove the 2WD version there's no difference in the engine but the AWD model of course has more power than the Tahoe. And you get the stabilitrack in the Caddy. To be truthful I prefer certain things in the Tahoe, mainly the tighter steering and the low gear for the 4WD. But the Caddy is a lot more luxurious.
Paisan, I didn't drive the Denali. We did drive an Envoy and didn't particularly like it, but I didn't even see any Denali's around. My wife pretty much had her heart set on the Escalade because of the looks and to be honest if you're spending this much money you do want the Caddy crest rather than the GMC one. Or at least we did.
Same basic reason people pay a lot more for the Lexus over the Land Cruiser or the Infiniti over the Armada. None of these luxury SUV's are a necessary purchase when you look at it rationally.
#718 of 1000 True true
May 26, 2004 (12:45 pm)
was just curious how close the denali was to escalade. I personally won't be getting a full-size SUV til the GMs come in Diesel since I use it for towing about 10k miles a year and milage towing 10K miles a year is an issue.
May 26, 2004 (4:17 pm)
NOW we're talking!! I think if ANYBODY put a diesel in their big SUV (Excursion and Suburban excluded, too big), they could sell a whole raft of 'em.