Template talk:Cadillac timeline 1930-1979

This will probably be controversial. But let's take a stab at it. I've tried to put all of Cadillac's dizzying array of names into a matrix of market segments. Some interesting points come up:

Does the Cadillac SRX really replace the Cadillac Eldorado? The people I know who used to buy Eldos now buy SRXes. Why not?
Does the Cadillac Escalade really replace the Cadillac Fleetwood? Same reasoning.

Thoughts? --SFoskett 14:29, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Great idea, but....

I really liked your time line, but if I might make a suggestion, I believe your classifications are a problem. If you were to classify with more descriptive categories, the chart could be much more informative. For instance, the Eldorado was a luxury coupe, why wouldn't you put it in that category and then show it ending in 2002 and then the category would be an empty slot going forward until Cadillac fields another model in that category. Escalade would be in "large SUV", SRX "crossover SUV", Allante and XLR would go into a "2 seat premium luxury roadster" or something like that. This would provide at a glance, market segments Cadillac abandoned/picked up which is more informative.

Perhaps it might make sense to also allow for the horizontal "categories" to accept multiple lines which would allow for further detail and multiple entries for the years that Cadillac offered multiple models in a particular category or where there were variations in bodystyle and function for a particular model like Coupe Deville and Eldorado both being entered within the "luxury coupe" category, or years when Cadillac offered a particular model in multiple body styles like in the 50s when the deville was offered as a sedan, a coupe and a convertible.

You're also missing the CTS. If I may suggest a category for it, I would classify it as a sport sedan as opposed to "entry level" which would differentiate it from previous "entry level" Cadillacs, which were big "boats" like the rest of Cadillac's line just with less equipment, and the CTS is competing in the "sport sedan" market segment. The old-style "entry level" Cadillacs I would classify as "entry fullsize luxury" or some such.

The Cimarron I would list in an "economy" catagory as its whole reason for being was to satisfy CAFE requirements and the premise that gas prices were going to be $ 3.00 a gallon by the mid-eighties (that would be around $ 6.00+ in 2005 dollars) and besides it was built on an economy car platfrom.

The Seville has been the most expensive sedan in the line up since it's introduction in the 70's, so it probably doesn't belong in a category labeled "value" I'd probably put it in a "premium luxury sedan category" and let it share the slot with the Fleetwood for the years when the Fleetwood was a loaded-up Deville; Or for further differentiation the Seville would be in a "midsize premium luxury" category and the Fleetwood would go into a "fullsize premium luxury" category.

Finally, I think there could be an "ultra luxury sedan" catagory into which the V-16, the Eldorado Brougham, and the upcoming ULS could be placed.

I dont think this would be as unwieldy or large as it sounds, and could be extremely informative with the above modifications.

I'm willing to take a crack at it, but it may be beyond my wiki-ability.

Rawja Apr 11, 2005

It was an idea. I went ahead and adopted some of your suggestions, creating new categories for the trucks and roadsters. But I don't agree about the Seville - it was originally intended as the attainable Cadillac, and it's odd that they switched around the pricing in the 1990s. In 1996, the Fleetwood was $37k, the DeVille was $36k-$40k, and the Seville was $43k-$47k. So the cars were priced upside down from their 1970s marketing. Weird. How about this: We move the models from one row to another to show their shifting positioning. But we'd have to figure out when they swapped spots on the list... --SFoskett 14:05, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the Seville was always more expensive that the other Cadillacs, But I know for sure it was from 1980 onwards (Allante & XLR Excepted).

I recently moved, so I haven't unpacked my reference materials, but I'm positive about the pricing post-1980. Rawja 3:16 EDT, Apr 11, 2005

I'll be darned, you're right. I went back and looked up the pricing, and the Seville was more expensive throughout its whole run. I guess that's why we do this stuff, right? Anyway, I broke it out onto its own line and merged the Catera/CTS with the Calais. Better? --SFoskett 20:32, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I decided to "put my money where my mouth was".... Darn, that chart sure got very complex, very fast. :)

I keep thinking there must be a better way to graph it all out....But the added differentiation is helpful.

Rawja 6:26 EDT, Apr 11, 2005

Large-size

While this is a very nice timeline, some of the descriptions did need revising. First, there is no such thing as Large-size vs. Full-size. A car is either full-size, or not. For this I put in a rowspan. Also, Value and Entry-level, again the same thing; thus I also put in a rowspan for these two descriptions. Also, the Seville was a full-size sedan during its last generation, but I think that would make the timeline to complex. BTW: The description "Luxury" is not specific enough, all Caddis are luxury cars, the Eldorado was personal lux. Regards, Signature ^brendel 02:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the timeline

I don't know the usual resolution of Wikipedia's readers, but this timeline is far too wide. I can split is in two (Early Cadillac vehicles and Modern Cadillac vehicles), but I won't rename every article! Can someone do that with an external tool? -- NaBUru38 03:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cadillac CTC

I'd do this myself, but it seems rather daunting. Anyway, someone needs to edit in the upcoming CTC. Vegasrebel29 05:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]