4th Jan 2013, 09:27

Well, things were quiet and back to normal for a week, but here we are again with another one of your opinionated novels that will open up yet another can of worms. I'm asking you nicely, please do us all a favor and take the arguments back over to the Toyota threads.

4th Jan 2013, 23:36

Are you trying to say that the Cadillac ATS is what the company once stood for? Once again your opinions on Cadillac are wrong; never once did they stand for a small, plastic, harsh riding compact, with no interior or trunk space with a non V8 engine.

5th Jan 2013, 09:52

As was stated previously, we are all entitled to our own opinions. Those of us that love big, traditional, soft riding cars certainly have our right to do so, and it is hard for us to imagine why anyone would choose a bland compact that rides like a donkey cart over one.

However those who favor the smaller modern cars feel the same way about the older full-size cars. Unfortunately though, we are now definitely in the minority for a variety of reasons, not all related to tastes, and we more than likely will never have the opportunity to buy these types of cars new again.

There is always hope, maybe one day we will find a reliable, cheap fuel source that gives decent power so as to haul around 2+ tons of car. Then maybe Americans will be able to appreciate the land barges that were part of our landscapes for so long and endeared by so many. I just hope I'm around to see it.

5th Jan 2013, 10:04

The ATS is a great car if you follow the school of thought that the European and Japanese car manufacturers do. As someone else stated, that model has very little to do with what Cadillac stood for for most of the last Century. Marques like Cadillac, Buick, and Lincoln were never intended to be anything like Mercedes and BMW. I could care less if a car is track tested, I have never driven on a round smooth track, my daily commute takes me over bumps and potholes, and it would be nice if Detroit would build a suspension again to try and soak up some of those imperfections instead of make them more pronounced. I guess that costs too much money these days.

As we have gone around and around saying, not everyone appreciates that type of car, and we shouldn't all have to drive variants of the same car with the same suspension. If you ask me, we are going backwards as far as choice is concerned in the automotive market. Pretty soon we are all going to be driving black Model Ts again.

5th Jan 2013, 11:11

I am very pleased that you brought up value and appeal in the 50s era. I have been extremely successful buying and selling cars from the 40s to the early 70s domestics. Buying a 4 door Mercury from the 50s is not a recommendation I would ever make. I would recommend a 4 door early 60s suicide door Lincoln.

I am a car enthusiast and have historically been very good at it. There are very few 4 doors I would even touch. I am sure many on here are aware of value and appeal without me dwelling on it to any great extent. Some parts can be moved to a 2 door as a donor. I would buy a 40 Ford Coupe, but not a 40 Plymouth Coupe as I know what has greater appeal.

It is very easy to never get your money out of a car. I know guys that have done long term restorations and they never hit the road. Lots of body work, dealing with rust and other issues. Then they get disheartened and they sit.

Buy a car like a 55-57 Chevrolet 2 door or a 55-57 T Bird and it's hard to go wrong. Unless you buy a rust bucket or give a blank check to a restoration shop. I can appreciate new cars as well being a piece of art. I have 2 classics going up in value; both are 1970 models. A 1970 Chevelle SS and a 1970 Corvette that I recently bought. I know this is a Ford review. I see larger models as gaining popularity in the future.

5th Jan 2013, 13:10

I can actually say that I agree with most of what you're saying. However, also remember the other quality flops the Big Three made (Ford Taurus I'm looking at you) that everybody else tried to emulate; which basically set a crappy standard for the US automakers.

GM backed out of the full size car market after 1996, mainly due to the insane popularity of SUVs, but also due to the fact that their big Cadillac Fleetwood and Chevy Caprice weren't exactly hot sellers due to their "beached whale" styling and questionable quality control. A luxury car like the Fleetwood deserves real wood and metal; no plastic and cheapy materials inside.

The 1990s Lincolns were great from a mechanical aspect; however, their quality really slipped in the later part of the decade. When I rode in my buddy's 1999 Town Car, I was shocked at how cheapened the interior looked compared to my '82, it was a mess. It was a mix of styles, trying to be several things at once. The interior was more plastic than anything else. While it was a reliable, tough car, the car definitely could not match the quality and detail of the older versions.

The newer Lincolns and Cadillacs are held in disdain by most enthusiasts, I think because they're just badge engineered versions of "lesser" models. The Lincoln MKZ is the worst offender, literally being a modern day Lincoln Versailles. However, I do hope that both Cadillac and Lincoln can branch out with more distinct models in the next couple of years. It doesn't have to be a high performance vehicle, just a high quality sedan with a powerful engine (kinda like a Rolls-Royce). Most young people won't look into Cadillacs or Lincolns anyway, both brands have lost too much prestige over the decades; Cadillac in 1985, and Lincoln in 1998.

I'll agree that American luxury could use a bit of a revamp. Lincoln and Cadillac can build a big good luxury sedan that can sell well. The problem is that Ford and GM are unwilling to invest tons of money into expensive models (especially in this economy). It has to be high quality and well engineered as well (look at the Rolls-Royce Phantom and Ghost, both are big and luxurious and still capture the minds of young and old people), no plastic and no fake mock ups. Real wood, real metal, and real high quality leather.