Last post on Mar 14, 2013 at 8:16 AM
You are in the Cadillac CTS/CTS-V
What is this discussion about?
Cadillac CTS-V, Cadillac CTS, Sedan
#675 of 2880 Re: A couple of things... [bingoman]
Mar 03, 2007 (7:46 am)
A new Cadillac every 3-4 years in every garage!
Every man a king, every man a king and you can be a millionaire. . .
A few years ago, cars changed much more slowly -- other than style -- than they do these days. Perhaps cars will be made to be able to be updated, outfitted with newer technology, THEN those of us who want the new features, functions, performance, safety, economy, fun, etc, can keep the 2012 CTS for 10 years but not have to forego the new features that "revolutionalize" mileage and cornering in the 2014 MY. Instead of paying for the whole car, simply replace the engine management computer and the front and rear suspension modules (at a relative fraction of the cost.)
Those who want to keep the features of the 2012 model can do so, those who want the features of the 2014 model can acquire them and those who can afford or simply want the 2014 model can elect that option.
Of course, who knows, maybe there will be brand new bolt on fenders and all the other exterior (and interior) parts that can be replaced, essentially making it possible to buy a CTS sedan in year one, then in year three (after you have replaced the suspension, electronics and guidance system), you could replace the exoskeleton with the pieces that make up the then current SRX, etc. And when you do that, you can also decide to use the new infinite speed hyper transmission unit, etc.
Still, unless mandated by the safety police, you could keep your car "as it was the day you bought it" until it completely wore out. And, even then, you would not have to acquire a new car, you could just update the car to a newer (not even the newest) generation.
Fundamentally, we have some folks who don't place an economic value on a new(er) car high enough to buy/rent one every three years, opting instead to keep the car perhaps 10 years. Then we have other folks who see a higher economic value in replacing their cars regularly and somewhat frequently (every 36 months or 50,000 miles, for instance.)
Since no one legislates (yet) that we must keep our cars at a certain level of "service pack," these two "extremes" can co-exist quite well.
I wonder where telecommunications would be if people kept their cell phones for 10 years, rather than 10 months though? Or, like cars, would there be people who would still be using their "brick sized, 2 pound cell phones," side by side folks using their "credit car sized, 2 ounce cell phones?"
Does demand drive new features, functions, performance, economy, safety? Or does supply "compel" (some folks like me) to replace a "functioning as designed and built" 2005 car with a 2008?
Would the retaining (rather than replacement) of a "perfect" 2005 car reduce innovation, improvements in economy, safety, performance, features, functions (the supposed benefits?) Or does invention and innovation induce one to replace an otherwise OK 2005 with the 2008?
If the 2008 ABC was without improvements over the 2005, and the 2005 required somewhat to a lot lower costs than replacing it with the 2008, I, for one, would have little reason to let loose of the 2005. The fact that the 2008 (presumably) will offer "new" and "better" technology is (for some of us, me, for one) worth the opportunity cost of the replacement of a perfect 2005 with the '08.
There is a phrase on a plaque on one of my client's walls:
"Use it up"
"Wear it out"
"Make it do"
Funny thing, he is of German heritage and always drives a new BMW 7 series.
Takes all kinds.
Sure hope the CTS lives up to "our" ever escalating expectations.
Mar 03, 2007 (2:27 pm)
Then we have other folks who see a higher economic value in replacing their cars regularly and somewhat frequently (every 36 months or 50,000 miles, for instance.)
Except... this isn't good economic sense. It is good emotionally and makes you feel happier, sure. But the reality is that human reflexes and muscles virtually are the same now as they were 10,20,or even a thousand years ago. Me - if I had the money, I'd buy a Lotus Exige and keep it for 20 or 30 years. Because even if I gave it to my son in 20 years, it would still be more than he'd ever require or need get get around in. The same goes for, say, a 911. Sure, the 1980 model isn't as fast or as agile as the newest one, but was and still is more capable than 99% of drivers will ever require.
I find it entertaining that people feel the need to replace their cars after 3-5 years as if they have evolved or need that much better of a car. I guess it's their right, but me... I wonder exactly what's the dirfference between my 20 year old 4Runner(current beater-commuter box) and a guy in his 3 series when we're both in 30mph traffic on the way to work. A/C - check. MP3 player(Kenwood stereo) - check. manula transmission - check. stuck in traffic only needing 35-40hp... check.
Now, if I was like my cousin and actually did road-racing on the weekends, I might need a new car every three years...
Mar 03, 2007 (4:58 pm)
To each his or her own.
In this case, economic sense is exactly what it is. For some it is good, for other it isn't.
Worth is sometimes based on hard cold facts. Sometimes worth is determined by "the market."
Last year some houses were worth $X, this year they are worth 95% of $X. Some of these houses are new, never been lived in. Some of them, last year (or the year before) were being sold in days or weeks for the asking price.
The house today is worth less because of demand, in part.
For some folks, worth is "what they'd pay" to have it. Clearly some folks think it is worth more than others to have a young car. It doesn't make one possess more or less economic sense.
Nor does it make the other one have more or less economic sense -- it is worth less to YOU it is not worth less to some other people.
Some people would not pay $100,000 for a Porsche or the new Audi R8. Certainly there will be folks who will pay over sticker and never feel they were making an economic decision that was "bad."
We need "things" to be valued differently by different people.
Variety is the spice. . .
And, Cadillac, life, liberty and the pursuit. . .
#679 of 2880 When there's no new info
Mar 04, 2007 (7:55 am)
the threads meander in sometimes meaningless directions.
#680 of 2880 Re: When there's no new info [biker4]
by Kirstie@Edmunds HOST
Mar 05, 2007 (8:23 am)
Yes, and it's might confusing/disconcerting to members who are new to this discussion - they drop in because in reading the discussion title, they figure they'll peruse the info available on the CTS.
Let's try to meet those expectations, OK? Auto News is a great place for non-model specific conversation.
#682 of 2880 Re: When there's no new info [150mphclub]
Mar 06, 2007 (5:31 pm)
We've certainly gone off on a tangent, but not a meaningless one.
I was looking at a current model CTS today and realized that the 08 model seems to have a much higher deck lid, but still has the same (inadequate) trunk space. I'm afraid I'll miss the nice creases on the trunk, which seem to be all but gone on the new model.
While I expect a coupe model will be a fastback, I would prefer something more like the 79-85 Eldorado. A crisp notchback coupe would be unique among new cars.
#683 of 2880 Re: When there's no new info [ral1960]
Mar 06, 2007 (8:29 pm)
If the rear deck lid is higher why do you believe that the trunk space is not greater than on the '03-'07 model?
#684 of 2880 Re: When there's no new info [bingoman]
Mar 06, 2007 (9:23 pm)
I'm pretty sure 13.8 cu ft was in the press release, which incidently is also the trunk space of the STS.