Buying newly released SUV this week, what are your first impressions. Cute?

[Anonymous]

Cadillac has one of the worst reputations of all car manufacturers. You will be massively overpaying, and I would not keep it more than 3 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least it's not an Audi or RR.

Totally different class of cars. Cadillacs are all under 100k. The cheapest RR start at over 300k.

Assuming PP meant Range Rover.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cadillac has one of the worst reputations of all car manufacturers. You will be massively overpaying, and I would not keep it more than 3 years.

Why would you buy it if you wouldn’t keep it more than 3 years??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cadillac has one of the worst reputations of all car manufacturers. You will be massively overpaying, and I would not keep it more than 3 years.

Why would you buy it if you wouldn’t keep it more than 3 years??

I wouldn't, I'd lease.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Buick is the very definition of reliable (with the glaring exception of the enclave which is prob what most younger parents are familiar with). I have owned 3 Buick’s over the last 30 years - all fantastic. Not great exterior design, but definitely reliable, comfortable and low maintenance.

This station wagon looks great, tho. I saw it on the road a few days ago and did s double-take.

I've been seeing a lot of Mercedes E wagons recently. I don't get the appeal of station wagons at all, but it's a nice looking car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cadillac has one of the worst reputations of all car manufacturers. You will be massively overpaying, and I would not keep it more than 3 years.

Why would you buy it if you wouldn’t keep it more than 3 years??

I wouldn't, I'd lease.

Ah okay. I’d never lease and keep my cars for 8-10 years. I was thinking no way would I buy it with the intent up front to keep it for 3 years! Thanks for clarifying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Buick is the very definition of reliable (with the glaring exception of the enclave which is prob what most younger parents are familiar with). I have owned 3 Buick’s over the last 30 years - all fantastic. Not great exterior design, but definitely reliable, comfortable and low maintenance.

This station wagon looks great, tho. I saw it on the road a few days ago and did s double-take.

I've been seeing a lot of Mercedes E wagons recently. I don't get the appeal of station wagons at all, but it's a nice looking car.

Higher end Euro wagons have always had a WASPy vibe. Genuine WASPs and WASP-phile wannabes love wagons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Big vulgar cars for big vulgar people.

OP's mini ute is actually quite tiny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least it's not an Audi or RR.

Totally different class of cars. Cadillacs are all under 100k. The cheapest RR start at over 300k.

I'm pretty sure the only way you could spend $300,000 on a Range Rover is if you bought two (or maybe even three) of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least it's not an Audi or RR.

Totally different class of cars. Cadillacs are all under 100k. The cheapest RR start at over 300k.

I'm pretty sure the only way you could spend $300,000 on a Range Rover is if you bought two (or maybe even three) of them.

RR = Rolls Royce

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Buick is the very definition of reliable (with the glaring exception of the enclave which is prob what most younger parents are familiar with). I have owned 3 Buick’s over the last 30 years - all fantastic. Not great exterior design, but definitely reliable, comfortable and low maintenance.

This station wagon looks great, tho. I saw it on the road a few days ago and did s double-take.

I've been seeing a lot of Mercedes E wagons recently. I don't get the appeal of station wagons at all, but it's a nice looking car.

Now if I only could get a wagon with manual transmission. Unfortunately, the only wagon/manual combo available is the VW Sportwagen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least it's not an Audi or RR.

Totally different class of cars. Cadillacs are all under 100k. The cheapest RR start at over 300k.

I'm pretty sure the only way you could spend $300,000 on a Range Rover is if you bought two (or maybe even three) of them.

RR = Rolls Royce

No, that's just a "Rolls".

RR in the accepted context of this forum has always been Range Rover.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When buying a new vehicle, you never get a just introduced model. Wait a couple years until they get the problems worked out.

I am sure this is true most of the time, but 11 years ago I bought a new crossover just as it was being introduced. I still love the car and my model year was in high demand for used sales for the longest time, they have changed the model so much I don't even recognize the car, would not have wanted to own a newer version.

[Anonymous]

Nope, not cute. Butt ugly and a Caddie at that. Total pass.

[Anonymous]

OP, of all places why would you come here seeking opinions and validation? There is no car you could have posted about that wouldn’t have brought out the worst in these people. If you like it, buy it, and ignore DCUM.