|
Oh, I don't know if the vehicle aging with the Cadillacs is that bad (on the outside, at least). There are a couple of older CTS-V's around my area and the new ones do look like an evolution of the older ones. The E90/92, as well loved as they are around here, actually look older to me than the one CTS-V of the pair that I know is a 2012 or 13...so the same age as a late E90 M3. Granted, I never had the same fondness for the E9x chassis as most folk on this board do, but I really don't think they've aged better than the contemporary CTS.
However, I have thought for a while that one of Cadillac's big issues is the constant name changes. Counting mostly enthusiasts, folk KNOW what an M3 is, and they know what an M5 is. M4 or M2 don't carry the same name weight but it's still close. ATS, CT4, CTS, etc... don't have history and with the switch from ATS/CTS to CT4/CT5, Cadillac isn't retaining what they built with the CTS over the space of 15+ years. And despite years of effort, it's still hard for many of us to consider Cadillac against it's long, long history of building cars that ran from uninspiring to downright awful.
Maybe it's different for folk who are younger than I am. If you never looked at Cadillac until after 2010, you might have a different perspective as you weren't paying attention during the 80's through the 2000's or something. I don't know. But even many casual enthusiasts had gotten to the point where they knew what a CTS-V was...changing the name just seems like a bad idea. Branding really is a thing.
|