Last post on Apr 08, 2009 at 7:01 AM
You are in the Cadillac STS/STS-V
What is this discussion about?
Cadillac STS, Cadillac STS-V, Sedan
#1023 of 1325 Re: Edmunds' TMV vs. Reality.... [volvodan1]
May 09, 2005 (9:49 am)
1. Yes, a few hundred dollars more perhaps. The FWD 3.6 is probably also different from the RWD version.
2. Yes there are additional features. However, they may only cost a few thousand to put on the car, so the profit margin is perhaps more than 100%.
I, for one, am hoping for some RWD's from either Buick or Pontiac in a reasonable price range. I expect to drive my FWD Seville for a few more years, so GM does have time to develope RWD in the lower price ranges. I also expect the STS to revise its packaging in the future, although the 2006 model seems to remain more or less as is. The CTS has changed its packaging since 2003.
I see nothing wrong with Cadillac charging as much as possible for the STS, however, it is out of my price range unless there are incentives in excess of $10,000.
#1024 of 1325 Re: Edmunds' TMV vs. Reality.... [sls002]
May 09, 2005 (12:17 pm)
I'm not sure if the 3.6 RWD is that different from the FWD version. I would think they made sure it was compatible for both when designing it. The FWD Northstar was not intended for the RWD applications it is being used for now, so it had to be modified heavily.
The optional packages always give the manufacturer more profit. I don't think it is quite as much as most think, but they make money there. For $50,000 you can get the V6 loaded, so the Northstar is the big mark-up item there. But I think that's smart. 9 out of 10 of my customers who want the V8 would NEVER consider the V6. There is status in the V8 and they want the top of the line.
#1025 of 1325 Re: Edmunds' TMV vs. Reality.... [volvodan1]
May 09, 2005 (3:31 pm)
Well, the LaCrosse engine is rated at 240 hp, down from the CTS's 255; the torque is 225 lb-ft, down 10% from the CTS's 252 lb-ft; clearly there are differences. The northstars are available as crate engines, the FWD version is $5000, while the RWD VVT is near $4000. Certainly, one would expect the V6 to be somewhat cheaper to build, but I would say that the cost difference is near $1000 at most.
The magnetic ride is about $1500 on a Corvette...
HID headlights are $500....
Sunroofs are $1200...
The other odds and ends are worth something, but for $10000 more than the luxury package V8, I think that the premium luxury performance package probably only costs $5000 more to build.
#1026 of 1325 Re: Edmunds' TMV vs. Reality.... [sls002]
May 09, 2005 (4:01 pm)
There may be more differences between the FWD and RWD 3.6's. Maybe, maybe not. I would think that the power differences are more from differentiating the Caddy from the Buick. The SRX has 260 horses.
Like I said, the options are where a chunk of the mark-up are.
#1027 of 1325 Re: Edmunds' TMV vs. Reality.... [volvodan1]
May 10, 2005 (6:25 am)
Cadillac's website currently states 255 hp for all of the 3.6L V6 engines, including the SRX. At the time that the 3.6 was going into production, there was some expectation of getting 260 hp out of it. However, that did not hold up.
The point that I have been making is that the STS appears to be priced at a high profit level, particularly the V8. There is nothing wrong with that, but in the long run I think they will lose sales.
#1028 of 1325 Re: Edmunds' TMV vs. Reality.... [sls002]
May 10, 2005 (1:04 pm)
You are right. Our initial training info had 260. It is 255.
The loaded V8 is probably selling for a proportionally higher profit. Maybe Caddy should have done what Lexus did and price them artificially low to establish (or in Caddys instance, reestablish themselves).
#1029 of 1325 Re: Edmunds' TMV vs. Reality.... [volvodan1]
May 10, 2005 (1:43 pm)
GM is currently not profitable. They need to make money where they can. However, I think that most of the car lines are priced a bit high. The LaCrosse, for example is quite expensive when you get the top of the line model - priced in the $30,000 to $35,000 range. That is really quite high. The STS is priced quite reasonably compared to the BMW 5-series. However, the 5-series is highly thought of. There are some other quite good cars that are cheaper. Some posters here are looking at and buying the Infinity M45.
#1030 of 1325 Re: Edmunds' TMV vs. Reality.... [sls002]
May 10, 2005 (2:23 pm)
The STS is actually priced pretty decently. The CTS may have been the first GM car to be priced right starting off and little rebates even 3-4 years later.
Yeah. I think they could turn a lot around by taking LaCrosse, Malibu, etc. and actually pricing them closer to transaction prices. They are supposed to do that but I have yet to see that. The HHR looks to be priced well. We'll see on Cobalt.
Imagine 4-cyl G6 starting at $15,995. LaCrosse at $19,995. Top of the line LaCrosse at around $30-31. That might catch peoples attention. Oh, Well!!!
#1031 of 1325 Re: Edmunds' TMV vs. Reality.... [volvodan1]
May 11, 2005 (11:33 am)
"Maybe Caddy should have done what Lexus did and price them artificially low to establish (or in Caddys instance, reestablish themselves). "
Without the "maybe", I agree 100%. They should have done (should do) exactly this.
Now I am only 1 (potential) customer. But my sense is that (today) GM needs sales. Caddy has a good product here. (Other GM divisions really are struggling – I think I saw Pontiac with 30+% off vs. last year-to-date as of the end of April.)
I will be very interested to see if Caddy offers larger rebates in the coming months - and if they address the (my) base price / MSRP issue and / or the option availability issues for 2006.
Well, again – they are issues for me. And (driving a 2003 Lincoln LS V8 Sport right now) I would have thought I’d be on their radar as a potential STS “conquest” sale . . . Apparently not.
Obviously not nearly as smart as the Marketing Geniuses at GM . .
#1032 of 1325 Re: Edmunds' TMV vs. Reality.... [volvodan1]
May 11, 2005 (12:06 pm)
The May issue of Automobile had a comparison including the V8 STS priced a nearly $67,000. They did not think it worth that, since the Mercedes E500 was a much nicer car at thousands less. The BMW 545 was also not thought much of, but was cheaper than the E500. They did like the Lexus GS430 better than the E500, and it was priced lower than the 545. However, the top rated car was the Audi A6, priced thousands less than the Lexus, and $10,000 less than the STS. I do not think that the STS is priced anywhere close to reasonable. However, Cadillac may have a reason for limiting sales of the perfomance models by pricing them way out of line.