Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have had a couple of wagons over the years. The first was a diesel Chevy that cost $1100 and ran for 4 years and 100k miles before the engine sized and the rust got it. Then there was a Mercury that I threw away as a POS that never ran correctly. The last was a '92 Buick Roadmaster that was about the best overall car I have ever owned. It died of frame rot because of New England salted roads. This car could haul five people, get over 25 mpg on a flat highway, go over a hundred and stoplight drag rice rockets.
The Buick is on my Win the Lottery resto rod list along with a 65 Falcon Wagon or the Nova equivalent. I would call them big and little.
Oh, I had heard they were switching the coupe and wagon to the ATS. Kind of surprising they would have both especially on the wagon with the SUV and Crossover. Hopefully the V line continues and a convertible comes out. Not sure what the X and A are supposed to stand for and I think the CTS stands for Catera Touring Sedan which kind of blows considering how bad the Catera was.
AFAIK the CTS will remain in coupe, wagon and sedan form. The ATS sedan is of course confirmed as is the coupe, but the wagon is still not 100% yet. Some rumors are still saying 2015, but it seems like they are not sure it will be a fit in the US market. The ATS is also going to China and Europe. The Chinese prefer sedans much like the US does and Cadillac isn't exactly a strong brand in Europe. I think the way it may play out is if the ATS gains popularity in Europe, that market will demand a wagon and then we may see it in the US.
The V-line is definitely continuing with the CTS-V being available in all three body styles. The ATS is expected to get a V variant at some point in the future and it would only make sense that it was available in at least both sedan and coupe.
The ATS was originally slotted to have a convertible, but the latest word is that the convertible has been completely scrapped, so as of right now there won't be any convertibles in the Cadillac lineup.
As for what the letters mean, they don't mean anything from what I've heard. The "A" was chosen as it was smaller then "C" and I don't think they wanted any confusion with the Euro BLS by going with "BTS". As for the XTS the "X" is meaningless, but if you ask the guys on the Caddy forums it stands for "Xpensive Buick".
FWIW, when they originally launched the abbreviations it was CTS=Catera, DTS=Deville and STS=Seville. However, Cadillac quickly backed off that not wanting to associate the new product with the old. They now refer to the cars by their first letter as a series and have for many years now. The CTS is called the "C-series", the ATS is called the "A-series", etc. Consider it the further destruction of the very American tradition of giving cars real names.
Agreed, on lack of wagons. Just basically a regular sedan but with a back on it. You have to go Euro it seems. Many people I talk to like to ride up high, they are so used to SUVs now. I think it is because the american car companies know they can charge lots more for a crossover or a SUV than try to sell you a regular car/wagon. It is always the $$$ you know.
Agreed, on lack of wagons. Just basically a regular sedan but with a back on it. You have to go Euro it seems. Many people I talk to like to ride up high, they are so used to SUVs now. I think it is because the american car companies know they can charge lots more for a crossover or a SUV than try to sell you a regular car/wagon. It is always the $$$ you know.
When it comes to crossovers they don't have nearly the profit margins that the truck based full sized SUV's have. Overall crossovers have similar profit margins to cars, whereas the full size SUV's are pretty much all gravy since the platform design costs are spread over the huge numbers of pickups that are produced. The lowest margin vehicles are compact cars.
It's also not just the American car companies either. Toyota and Nissan both derive a large portion of their profits from the sale of full sized truck based SUV's.
I for one love wagons, especially ones that are fun to drive. Ive got a 03 WRX Wagon and absolutely love it.....I like the sedans, but the wagons just look so much better, IMO. But yeah, I love pretty much anything in a wagon if it is sporty enough.
When it comes to crossovers they don't have nearly the profit margins that the truck based full sized SUV's have. Overall crossovers have similar profit margins to cars, whereas the full size SUV's are pretty much all gravy since the platform design costs are spread over the huge numbers of pickups that are produced. The lowest margin vehicles are compact cars.
It's also not just the American car companies either. Toyota and Nissan both derive a large portion of their profits from the sale of full sized truck based SUV's.
Yeah, just look at the number of SUVs/cross-overs that Toyota sells, and they only ever get praise on making fuel-efficient cars.
I for one love wagons, especially ones that are fun to drive. Ive got a 03 WRX Wagon and absolutely love it.....I like the sedans, but the wagons just look so much better, IMO. But yeah, I love pretty much anything in a wagon if it is sporty enough.
I like wagons that are non-sporty as well.
Just like this:
The amount of cargo room you can have in such a small car, if it's a wagon, is exceptional. And all with high fuel efficiency!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.