Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Cadillac to Kick Off Production of Gorgeous ELR in 2013

By - Source: GM | B 28 comments
Tags :

GM confirmed that it is moving the ELR electric coupe into production next year.

 The car will be built at the company's Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly plant and is targeted to enter manufacturing in late 2013.

The vehicle is largely based on the Chevy Volt and is expected to share key elements of its "extended range" powertrain, which combines an electric motor with a combustion engine that essentially turns the vehicle into a hybrid. Compared to the Volt, however, the ELR received much more aggressive design that promises one of Cadillac's emotional vehicles when it is released.

There is no word on specs and pricing, but we hear that there could be a slight increase in power and basic performance such as acceleration, along with an increase in price. Don't expect this Cadillac to ring in at much less than $50,000. The Volt surely has not paid off for GM so far, but the ELR could, with some performance upgrades, relight the fire of electric cars at GM.

GM said that the ELR's production at the Detroit-Hamtramck plant requires a $35 million investment, adding to $526 million in investments to Detroit’s only automotive manufacturing facility since 2009. The ELR will be Cadillac's first 2-door vehicle built at the plant since the departure of the Eldorado in 1999.


Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the News comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
  • -7 Hide
    chunkymonster , October 22, 2012 4:39 PM
    Nothing more than a more expensive version of the Volt.

    Greenies and liberals barely buy American made vehicles to begin with.

    Yeah, right! I smell FAIL at tax payers expense in order to keep GM afloat.
  • 1 Hide
    lamorpa , October 22, 2012 4:48 PM
    " the ELR received much more aggressive design that promises one of Cadillac's emotional vehicles when it is released."

    This car promises another car? Is the second one for free?
  • 4 Hide
    mt2e , October 22, 2012 4:52 PM
    GM needs to increase the quality of their vehicles first and foremost......until then this is all pointless
  • Display all 28 comments.
  • 0 Hide
    house70 , October 22, 2012 4:58 PM
    chunkymonster...Greenies and liberals barely buy American made vehicles to begin with...

    Hmmm, I wonder why is that?!...
    I would like to have the actual stats on which you based your statement.

    ...Unless that was supposed to be an insult?

    This is not a bad looking vehicle, but there has to be more to it than just looks. Except for Ford, the domestic manufacturers are putting out POSes lately.
  • 1 Hide
    stevelord , October 22, 2012 5:11 PM
    I too would only buy a Ford if I were to buy domestic (mainly for the F150). Both my vehicles are Toyota and have been extremely reliable.
  • 4 Hide
    DRosencraft , October 22, 2012 5:32 PM
    mt2eGM needs to increase the quality of their vehicles first and foremost......until then this is all pointless

    Actually, according many industry experts, the Big 3's quality has improved substantially. The problem i see is the problem that has always been the case - no one wants to pay for it. Sure, if you poll a bunch of people they say they like the idea. But when it comes to actually setting down the cash for these things, few people have it, and fewer are willing to spend it on these electric vehicles. You either get cheaper ones like the Nissan Leaf that are alright but have bad styling and no space, or you get things like this that have better styling but will likely cost far more than anyone will willingly spend on it.

    Then you have a bunch of stupid internal problems. Little known fact about the Volt is that for several months after launch many states didn't even allow you to legally own one due to their individual regulations. You aren't gonna have a successful product launch for a major company like GM if you're only selling your vehicle in a handful of states.

    I wish them luck, because despite all the rhetoric about oil, fact is prices are never gonna come down a significant amount for a prolonged period of time. Best to get off the oil bandwagon as soon as possible, before it crashes on a bumpy road. Only way it's gonna happen is if more vehicles like this are pushed to market and gain success, bringing down costs over time.
  • 1 Hide
    cknobman , October 22, 2012 5:33 PM
    A gussied up Volt? No thanks.
  • -5 Hide
    djscribbles , October 22, 2012 5:33 PM
    chunkymonsterNothing more than a more expensive version of the Volt.Greenies and liberals barely buy American made vehicles to begin with.Yeah, right! I smell FAIL at tax payers expense in order to keep GM afloat.

    Never mind that Chrysler is not GM...
    Also, if I'm not mistaken, the Govt has already completed it's involvement in Chrysler.

  • 0 Hide
    freggo , October 22, 2012 5:54 PM
    Gorgeous is clearly a relative term.
    Besides, Detroit would be better of spending money on improving quality than offering a new bumper and fender design every year.
    Of course we know why they do that... to make sure everyone sees you do not drive a late model car. Quality improvements are not directly visible.
  • 0 Hide
    manny_bones , October 22, 2012 6:04 PM
    djscribblesNever mind that Chrysler is not GM... Also, if I'm not mistaken, the Govt has already completed it's involvement in Chrysler.

    I think you're right, but what does Chrysler have to do with the volt? Also, the OP, while I'm sure is trolling, is somewhat correct that GM needs to spread the Volt platform around (like they would do with various car platforms, really) to bring down costs, since it costs Chevrolet more to build the Volt than even it's $40k price tag. I imagine by that logic then "greenies" probably don't buy American (at least not until recently) because the Japanese have long been "ahead" in terms of fuel efficiency and American companies are only now getting decent vehicles to compete with them.
  • -5 Hide
    john_4 , October 22, 2012 6:45 PM
    Is Government Motors (GM) aka the United Aoto Workers Union who co-owns GM with Obama. Are they going to have it subsidized at taxpayer expense like the volt. If Romney gets in they won't. Impeach the liar Marxist Kenyan, Obama and GM can go F itself.
  • 0 Hide
    john_4 , October 22, 2012 6:47 PM
    djscribblesNever mind that Chrysler is not GM... Also, if I'm not mistaken, the Govt has already completed it's involvement in Chrysler.

    Chrysler is now owned by Fiat, so the Fiat 200, 300 and 500 are all Italian owned.
  • -2 Hide
    f-14 , October 22, 2012 7:39 PM
    Ford, GM, and Chrysler need to pull an Apple/GE, move the entire production line to china, and get congratulated by the american president for being so successful.

    Granting PNTR to China will signal to the world that the United States has, in effect, abandoned the cause of putting worker rights and environmental standards on the agenda of international trade and financial institutions. The Chinese government’s record on these issues is well known. Its authoritarian blend of state control and privatization of public assets to elites (a la Russia and Mexico) has brutally repressed basic worker and human rights in order to keep labor costs low in the pursuit of expanding exports. Despite claims that a market economy is bringing democracy to China, the U.S. State Department’s 1999 human rights report on China concludes that the Chinese government’s “poor human rights record deteriorated markedly throughout the year, as the government intensified efforts to suppress dissent, particularly organized dissent.” Documented human rights abuses include: extrajudicial killings, torture and mistreatment of prisoners, forced detentions, arbitrary arrest and detention, lengthy incommunicado detention, and denial of due process. Violent repression of any effort at independent union activity continues (U.S. Department of State 2000).

    U.S. trade deficit exacerbated. The U.S. trade deficit with China continued to rise throughout 1999, reaching almost $70 billion by year’s end. A $70 billion trade deficit translates into a loss of almost 900,000 jobs in industries producing “tradable” goods.1 On its current trajectory the trade deficit will double over the next 10 years. The largest contributors to the trade deficit with China have been industries that produce apparel, toys, and footwear, with imports in these areas having grown by 60% in the last five years. The next largest contributor to the trade deficit has been the machinery and transportation equipment industry, where imports in the same period have grown almost 140% (Scott 1999). The new China-U.S. trade pact – even if fully and faithfully implemented by both sides – would aggravate this trend. Its primary economic consequence will be to encourage more U.S. investment in low-wage production for export back to the United States. One only has to look to the recent North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) for clear evidence of the likelihood of this outcome. NAFTA’s proponents convinced Congress in 1993 that the agreement was certain to bring large net benefits to the U.S. economy.

    the 2012 trade deficit now stands at 1.710 trillion according to the IRS, but if you look at obama's numbers he says just 775 billion. i tend to believe the IRS more as they have to tax things accordingly and politicians manipulate numbers to their advantages (aka LYING using statistics.)

    obama just made another free trade deal with asia that was signed in Feb.2011 called ASFTA (american -sino free trade agreement) just like pot smoker slippery willy CLInTons NAFTA.

    NAFTA’s proponents convinced Congress in 1993 that the agreement was certain to bring large net benefits to the U.S. economy. Then, as now, supporters dubbed it a “no-brainer.” It was claimed that the United States could only gain from expanded trade because Mexico began with higher tariffs and was therefore reducing its trade barriers further. Moreover, it was claimed that NAFTA would encourage “reform” politicians in Mexico to privatize their economy, and, in doing so, create a vast middle-class market for American goods. The Clinton Administration confidently predicted that NAFTA would result in a rising trade surplus with Mexico and, because of this, would be a net U.S. job creator. In particular, NAFTA promoters predicted a boom in U.S.-made autos sold to Mexico. In fact, the opposite occurred. NAFTA encouraged large U.S. and other foreign investors to move capital south of the border in order to exploit production costs made cheap by the absence of effective worker protections and environmental standards. The new factories then exported their products back into the United States. Investors in these factories were aided by a sudden drop in the value of the peso, against which NAFTA offered no protection. This devaluation made Mexican imports even cheaper and U.S. exports even more expensive. As a result, by 1999, the United States was running a trade deficit with Mexico of $23 billion. Major contributors to the deficit were autos and auto parts, computers, televisions, and telecommunications equipment. Instead of raising living standards in Mexico, NAFTA reinforced “reform” government policies in Mexico that reduced real wages for workers by 25% and increased to 38% the share of the Mexican population living on less than $2.80 a day (Laos 2000; Rendon 2000). The
    Clinton Administration’s case for the China-U.S. trade agreement is similar to that which it used to sell NAFTA. The administration argues that U.S. exports to China will rise because tariffs will be lowered on goods like autos and auto parts and that quotas will be raised on the import of foreign wheat by China. But, as with NAFTA, the most important part of the agreement provides for the opening up of China to further U.S. investment. For example, China promises to allow foreign firms to own larger shares of Chinese telecommunications companies, to permit foreign banks to conduct local currency operations, and to allow U.S. insurance companies to sell insurance and to invest in equity shares of Chinese businesses.

    However, in China the United States has a trading partner even more oppressive of human and worker rights than was Mexico, and with even more independent power to manipulate its currency in order to increase its trade balance with the United States. Under these conditions, every increase in U.S. direct investment in China leads to an increase in Chinese exports to the United States and a decrease in U.S. exports to China (Burke 2000). Finally, promoters of the China-U.S. trade pact claim that any increase in imports will simply represent diversions of imports that would have come from other Asian countries. NAFTA’s supporters made a similar argument in 1992, claiming that any increased imports from Mexico would be diverted from Asia. After NAFTA was passed, however, imports rose from both Mexico and Asia. Increased U.S. debt exposure. In 1999, the U.S. current-account deficit (the gap between financial outflows and inflows) reached $340 billion, driven largely by the rising trade deficit. Because the United States must borrow to pay for its excess of imports over exports, the rising and persistent trade deficits have increased America’s net public and private international debt to an estimated $1.6 trillion at the end of 1999 (Blecker 2000).

    No country can continue to borrow forever. At some point, the United States will have to force a reduction in its trade deficit. Already the trade deficit has been cited by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan as one of the growing economic “imbalances” that has prompted him to slow down the economy with higher interest rates (Reuters 2000). Reducing the trade deficit will involve some combination of a substantial depreciation in the dollar, a forced increase in the domestic savings rate, a prolonged period of domestic austerity, and a restructuring of U.S. trade policies to reduce imports and stimulate exports. Trade with China now represents one-fifth of the United State’s total trade deficit, and it is certain to keep growing whether or not the U.S. Congress approves the China trade deal. Pressure on Chinese leaders to create jobs by increasing exports and limiting imports will only grow over the next decade, as they face the enormous challenge of restructuring their economy. Already, unemployment, in a country where citizens once had an automatic right to a job, is huge, with some estimates as high as 80 million workers unemployed. Despite heavy press censorship, there are widespread reports of strikes, riots, and growing violence.2 With a large part of the U.S. trade deficit tied to China, whose leadership will be increasingly desperate to export, conceding PNTR to China will make it even harder for the United States to deal with its growing debt exposure. Although the agreement does, on paper, allow the United States to apply anti-dumping restrictions for 15 years and continue its right to retaliate against sudden import “disruption” for 12 years, these restrictions can be applied only under certain conditions in very narrowly defined markets. Moreover, the United States would have no recourse to protect itself against a continued general expansion of the trade deficit with China resulting from a depreciation of the Chinese renminbi. Unlike the yen, the euro, or even the Mexican peso, the exchange value of the renminbi does not float in the market but is largely determined by the Chinese government. In 1994, the Chinese devalued it in order to expand their exports and reduce their imports. There is nothing in the accession agreement to prevent another episode of such “exchange rate protectionism.” Thus, should the United States give up its right to renegotiate its trade relationship with China, the future burden of reversing the trade deficit – which eventually must be faced – will be even harder, and require even more austerity for America’s workers.
  • -3 Hide
    f-14 , October 22, 2012 7:53 PM
    btw was it mentioned hillary clinton is a wal mart board of director? amazing how fast NAFTA and PNTR with China got pushed thru so fast with a democratic congress and a democratic president as well as the repeal of glass stegal banking protections that would have prevented a repeat of the 1930 financial crash as well as the repeat we suffered in the late 2000's after a democratic congress and democratic president put the affordable housing act on super dose of super steroids to fannie mae and freddie mac to non qualified borrowers as well as low income borrowers to compete for the same houses as the rest of us and too big to fail banks jumped on board with variable APRs and other predatory lending practices knowing they would capitalize not once or twice but 3 times when every one lost their jobs to these pntr and nafta trade deals, first in the repossession, then in the insurance money on the loan, then on the bail out, oh, and a 4th time in buying back the bailout repo-homes and selling them with the same process soon to start all over again. and to top it off they became even too-bigger to fail after buying out the competitors who failed! can you guess what the next bubble is going to be with obama's ASFTA trade deal, Obama/RomneyCare (hillarycare)and presidents wife michelle a hospital lawyer and hillary clinton as secretary of state?

    just make sure you divest from healthcare when china/india starts illegally dumping medical supplies and another brain dead republican gets his 2nd term in office like crack smoker bush jr.

    i know it comes off as a rant, just connect the dots, ASFTA was made right after the auto bail outs, and ASFTA is 90% about importing more autos from asia with no limit by 2014 all so ford gm and chrsyler can try and sell another 1,000-3,000 trucks to asians who can't afford their 20,000-45 starting price tags as it is.

    seriously, how many ford f-150s do you see driving around in japan, china, korea, how about mac, ken worth or peterbuilt tractor trailers and dump trucks
  • 1 Hide
    rebel1280 , October 22, 2012 8:34 PM
    Ok, just put the LS9 (ZR1 motor) at 650hp and make it AWD with dual exhaust joining into a single large one down the middle like the Lamborghini and ill lease that puppy today! .... oh and build in some kind of functionality that lets me control an android phone or tablet via the cars own 7" touchscreen :)  When your spending well over 50K (car described above would be well over 100k) on a car, being "green" takes on a whole new meaning haha
  • 1 Hide
    SGTgimpy , October 22, 2012 9:02 PM
    For the uninformed person who called GM Government Motors obviously needs to get their facts straight.

    GM paid back the government loan in 18 months which is, First off amazing they did it in that short of time and Second, they are one of the only companies to pay back any of the bail-outs loans. The US Government has no more stake in GM. Now Chrysler, that is a different matter.

    Also the Chevy Volt is doing quite well Especially in CA where Gas is now sitting at $4.50 p/g. but I really don't see anyone buying this fro that price. I would rather buy a Tesla Model S at that price.
  • -1 Hide
    itpro , October 22, 2012 9:36 PM
    Actually, sgtgimpy, the taxpayers lost over $25 billion in the GM takeover. Yes, a loan was paid back, but the Federal government also bought stock in the company, and still owns 26% of the company and 74% of what used to be GMAC. A substantial stake in the company was also given to the UAW, paid for by the taxpayers. Neither the government nor the taxpayers will ever be paid back for all the losses in this deal.

    Also, the Volt is a boondoggle. It is estimated that GM is losing $48 thousand for every volt sold. I guess when you are spending someone else's money (in this case, the taxpayer's), it is easy to claim it is a success.
  • 1 Hide
    SGTgimpy , October 22, 2012 9:56 PM
    Again you not completely informed. The 24.9 Billion was not all GM. It was Split Between GM and Chrysler. 17.4 to GM and Chrysler.
    6 billion to GMAC which GM had already sold off (Now is Ally Financal)
    1.5 Billion to Chrysler Financial.

    GM paid back their part of this loan in 18 months, and while people bitch about them not paying any income tax from 2009-2011. This did not cost or take anymore away from the US tax payers.

    The Volt in the first year of production was costing GM money since they were not hitting volume numbers. Now they are hit and exceeding their volume numbers in they are no longer losing money on them.
  • -1 Hide
    10tacle , October 22, 2012 11:08 PM
    sgtgimpy GM paid back their part of this loan in 18 months, and while people bitch about them not paying any income tax from 2009-2011. This did not cost or take anymore away from the US tax payers.

    They didn't pay that loan back with profits. They paid it back with TARP money...effectively ANOTHER taxpayer funded loan. It's like paying off a Visa bill with a MasterCard.

    sgtgimpyThe Volt in the first year of production was costing GM money since they were not hitting volume numbers. Now they are hit and exceeding their volume numbers in they are no longer losing money on them.

    Wrong again. They've actually had to idle the production line several times, twice this year alone in March and just last month due to a lack of meeting sales goal quotas. To put things into perspective, the Prius sold about 15,000 annually nationwide in its second year (2001) in the US. The Volt is at not quite 14,000 sold this year with just over two months to go in its second year...well below the 40,000 cars that GM originally had hoped to sell in 2012.Toyota sells more than 10,000 Prius vehicles a MONTHnow in the US.

    And regarding money earned per car sold? It is STILL a massive loser for GM: "GM acknowledges the Volt continues to lose money, and suggests it might not reach break even until the next-generation model is launched in about three years.". So with all due respect, it is you that's not informed.
  • -1 Hide
    john_4 , October 22, 2012 11:34 PM
    sgtgimpy GM paid back their part of this loan in 18 months,.

    Wrong, they did not, they wanted to pay off a couple months ago but the fascist/socialist ion the White House would not let them.
Display more comments