New York 2018: 2019 Cadillac XT4 Kicks Off A Product Renaissance

1 hour ago, regfootball said:

It's encouraging that GM has developed a new motor here but the power specs are not as encouraging.  . 

GM already has a 2.0 turbo 4.  Isn't this the same thing already in many GM models ?  Odd that it would be 237hp in the XT4, since it is already 250-275 hp in other models.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Ecotec_engine#LTG

On 3/28/2018 at 11:55 AM, smk4565 said:

How can the CTS be 196 inches long and have a small back seat?

The exact same way the e-class has a small back seat.

1 hour ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

GM already has a 2.0 turbo 4.  Isn't this the same thing already in many GM models ?  Odd that it would be 237hp in the XT4, since it is already 250-275 hp in other models.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Ecotec_engine#LTG

This 2.0t is all-new.

3 hours ago, regfootball said:

It's encouraging that GM has developed a new motor here but the power specs are not as encouraging. If the torque band is lower and more punchy then I hope that bears it out. They could be releasing the all new engine in lower tune to make sure it doesn't self destruct, or it's the guinea pig for real world durability testing before it gets rolled out to other models within GM. The mpg doesn't look like it benefits from the detuning so we will just have to see what the deal is when the vehicle actually hits the street. Usually new motors match their old specs and even can improve on mpg and reliability without any detuning. 

We really need to dispense with the horsepower as a benchmark thing. It's not doing any of us any favors to be fixated on it. Lots of torque, way down low, is the best, way to go.

True but the current 2.0 is rated as high as 295 lb ft in some applications.  The new mill doesn't crank that amount out either.  

2 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

GM already has a 2.0 turbo 4.  Isn't this the same thing already in many GM models ?  Odd that it would be 237hp in the XT4, since it is already 250-275 hp in other models.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Ecotec_engine#LTG

No I think this engine is new. 

I wonder why they would do an all new 2.0. What would be the point.  

27 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

I wonder why they would do an all new 2.0. What would be the point.  

Clean sheet redesign to improve a number of engineering aspects, in all likelihood. Cadillac's not wasting money here.

Ironically, they did the exact same thing in the '60s; the '63 390 was completely redesigned but came out with the same displacement. I believe there a major component of the redesign was to allow larger future displacements, but there were other criteria.

I want to see lighter interior tones and better lighting. There was probably very little breathing room for this debut. 

I think the XT5 has a light brown interior option on some trims right? Where the dash, pillars, seats and doors are light brown. That is a good interior, I want to see the XT4 version of that.

This will actually be the third all-new 2.0t from GM. This new one has AFM.

As we see displacements congeal around even numbers, we'll see this happen more often. 

Plastic on the rear bumper yeah, not all over the place.  The Q5 has way less plastic on it than an XT4.  And if Cadillac has an exclusive 4 cylinder (which is sort of a waste of R&D dollars unless it runs super quiet or something) why does it make less power than an Chevy 4-cylinder?

Cadillac has 258 lb-ft at 1,500 rpm?

Mercedes GLC makes 273 lb-ft at 1,300 - 4,000 rpm

BMW X3 makes 258 lb- ft at 1,450 - 4,800 rpm

Audi Q5 273 lb-ft at 1,600 - 4,500 rpm

Not surprised by who has the most torque at the lowest RPM

3 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

We really need to dispense with the horsepower as a benchmark thing. It's not doing any of us any favors to be fixated on it. Lots of torque, way down low, is the best, way to go.

True, good thing someone is the BEST at doing that.

9 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

True, good thing someone is the BEST at doing that.

Still GM?

ATS 2.0T -295 lb-ft

Will you ever stop being a troll? A tuning decision is not indicative of engineering ability.

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

This will actually be the third all-new 2.0t from GM. This new one has AFM.

As we see displacements congeal around even numbers, we'll see this happen more often. 

i believe i read where it said this the AFM allows it to run on two cylinders?

if an engine is redesigned, it can possibly be

-lighter or smaller to fit in engine bay easier

-simpler

-cheaper

-easier to manuf.

-incorporate new technologies

-more power

-better mpg

2 minutes ago, regfootball said:

i believe i read where it said this the AFM allows it to run on two cylinders?

Could be. The new V8 can run on as few as one cylinder in a revolution.

i remember when the GM 4 cyl DOHC's that followed the ill fated Quad 4's put out less power

There were engineering reasons for that. They added balance shafts to smooth out the previously rough engine.  Once they got that sorted out they started increasing hp again.

Also, about 10 years ago...

"In December 2008, GM released a Turbo Upgrade Kit for the LNF engine which increases horsepower to 290 hp (220 kW) and torque to up to 340 ft⋅lb (460 N⋅m), depending on the model. The kit retails for $650 and includes remapped engine calibration and upgraded MAP sensors. The kit is covered by the cars' existing GM warranties."

And before you try to play the CLA/GLA43 card SMK... It took MB 10 years to catch up to and exceed the power output of a 2008 Cobalt SS.

A tuning decision is a tuning decision. It is not a indicator of engineering ability when a company has already proven itself able. 

Power delivery also matters and nearly every review of the CLA complains of turbo lag. So a fat lot of good that extra lb-ft is doing when it takes an extra 3 clicks of the mouse to get it.

11 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Still GM?

ATS 2.0T -295 lb-ft

 

Will you ever stop being a troll? A tuning decision is not indicative of engineering ability.

CLA45? 355hp/332 lb-ft. 

11 hours ago, regfootball said:

i believe i read where it said this the AFM allows it to run on two cylinders?

if an engine is redesigned, it can possibly be

-simpler

Everything else you said is probably spot on but there is no simpler engines being made anymore. Everything is more and more complex.. you even mentioned the ability to run on 2cyl..lol 

I know you can tune an engine to any power level (within reason) but reliability and NVH go out the window if you extract more power than you should from an engine.

I have never driven a CLA, so I don't know what the turbo lag is like, but the M270 has a twin scroll turbo and makes 258 lb-ft @ 1,200 rpm so I can't imagine it is that bad.  And the M274 which is the sister engine to the CLA used in the C-class and GLC has very little lag and you don't really notice the turbo at all plus it won a Ward's 10 best engine award in 2017.  

18 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

CLA45? 355hp/332 lb-ft. 

 

375 hp/350 lb-ft now.  And that is probably going up in 2019 with the new A-class line.  Although I think it pointless to increase it.  If you want more power buy an AMG C-class.  Interesting thing is they are planning an A35 with like 300 hp which could be a sweet spot for that car.

23 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

CLA45? 355hp/332 lb-ft. 

 

Read my post after that.  GM was doing 340 lb-ft from a 2.0T 10 years ago. 

13 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Read my post after that.  GM was doing 340 lb-ft from a 2.0T 10 years ago. 

With a post-purchase modification. From GM or not. That's like saying the EcoBoost Mustangs are 335hp and 390 lb-ft with the Ford Performance tune for only $699. 

Depending what you want to believe from Ford...

30 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

 

375 hp/350 lb-ft now.  And that is probably going up in 2019 with the new A-class line.  Although I think it pointless to increase it.  If you want more power buy an AMG C-class.  Interesting thing is they are planning an A35 with like 300 hp which could be a sweet spot for that car.

They're still only FWD, right?  

They already probably have some trick system to get power down but upping that more they're going to have to re-configure that out too. 

10 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

I know you can tune an engine to any power level (within reason) but reliability and NVH go out the window if you extract more power than you should from an engine.

I have never driven a CLA, so I don't know what the turbo lag is like, but the M270 has a twin scroll turbo and makes 258 lb-ft @ 1,200 rpm so I can't imagine it is that bad.  And the M274 which is the sister engine to the CLA used in the C-class and GLC has very little lag and you don't really notice the turbo at all plus it won a Ward's 10 best engine award in 2017.  

375 hp/350 lb-ft now.  And that is probably going up in 2019 with the new A-class line.  Although I think it pointless to increase it.  If you want more power buy an AMG C-class.  Interesting thing is they are planning an A35 with like 300 hp which could be a sweet spot for that car.

The NVH of the old 2.0T in the Cobalt was actually pretty good for its day. 

Again, you don't need to take my word for it... look at all the articles regarding the turbo lag in that car

AutoWeek - CLA Turbo Lag - Whether sport or economy mode is selected, the Mercedes always seemed to be a half-gear shy of where it should have been, and the combination of turbo lag and wonky clutch take-up makes smooth low-speed driving difficult. Once on the road there's plenty of power to get into trouble, so it's not a fundamental output issue -- rather it's a lack of refinement between the engine and transmission. 

Cars.com - CLA Turbo Lag - Despite the turbocharged four-cylinder engine's stout 208 horsepower and 258 pounds-feet of torque, excessive drivetrain lag sullies the CLA250. A sustained toe on the gas can induce gratifying low-end punch, where the little Benz surges ahead even at 2,000 rpm. The problem, however, is getting to all that.

MercedesBlog.com CLA AMG45 Turbo Lag - To obtain the high power of 381 HP and the high torque of 475 Nm, relatively small Mercedes turbo engine operates with a big turbo which delivers a maximum pressure of 1.8 bar. But a big turbo means a high inertia and a big turbo lag which you feel at full throttle.

Car and Driver - GLA Turbo Lag - In its default Comfort mode, sluggish shifts accentuate the engine’s turbo lag

Consumer Reports - GLA Turbo Lag - But the seven-speed dual-clutch automatic is unrefined and, combined with the engine's turbo lag, makes the GLA feel lethargic despite its quick acceleration times.

So yea, you could use sport mode all the time, but that will kill your fuel economy.  The reviews above tell me that Mercedes is still a long way off from perfecting this engine into something that is satisfying to drive on a daily basis.  I would be disappointed in Cadillac if the XT4 came out with reviews like what you see above on the GLA/CLA. 

All Cadillac needs to do is tune it similar to the GMC Terrain and they have already beaten Mercedes.

Car and Driver - GMC Terrain Turbo Lag - Our all-wheel-drive turbocharged 2.0-liter test vehicle achieved the top acceleration figures among its competitive set. Credit the Terrain’s minimal turbo lag and plentiful power, as well as the nine-speed automatic transmission’s ability to drop down a couple of gears quickly with a simple boot of the throttle.

TruckTrend - GMC Terrain Turbo Lag - With 252 hp and 260 lb-ft of torque, its output lags behind the 3.6L V-6 that was optional in the previous Terrain, but you’d never know it from behind the wheel, thanks in part to that nine-speed auto. With fleet off-the-line reflexes, minimal turbo lag, and excellent passing power, the 2.0 is a surprising engine to find in the competent—but rarely fun—compact SUV segment. 

Mercedes-Benz... the best or is there a GMC in the comparison?

5 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

With a post-purchase modification. From GM or not. That's like saying the EcoBoost Mustangs are 335hp and 390 lb-ft with the Ford Performance tune for only $699. 

Depending what you want to believe from Ford...

 

Who cares? It is a dealer installed option fully supported by GM and covered by warranty.  It allows the buyer to choose a higher performance model that would require 92 octane or the more standard SS that can run on regular.  Same goes for the Mustang.   It is functionally the same choice as a CLA 250 or a CLA 43... Benz just makes two models out of it while GM lets you upgrade an existing model. (yes I know there are other upgrades on the 43 over the 250.)

The CLA/GLA problem sounds more from the DCT transmission which I don’t know why they use in the first place rather than the fried and true 7-speed auto that they used from 2003 - 2018, and the 9-speed has replaced it in most cars now.

The GLC and C-class don’t have the lag and acceleration problems, a GLC300 can out accelerate a Terrain, not like it matters in that segment.  

33 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

The CLA/GLA problem sounds more from the DCT transmission which I don’t know why they use in the first place rather than the fried and true 7-speed auto that they used from 2003 - 2018, and the 9-speed has replaced it in most cars now.

The GLC and C-class don’t have the lag and acceleration problems, a GLC300 can out accelerate a Terrain, not like it matters in that segment.  

Really? You don't know why they didn't use the automatic from the 2003-2018 era?

Put on your deerstalker cap there Sherlock..... maybe you'll figure it out. 

The question was never and is never about raw performance in these crossovers. It is about drivability around town the way 99.9999999% of people use them.  A jumpy, laggy engine transmission combo is not going to be as satisfying as one with low lag and no jumpiness.  

The XT4 will do better than the GLA there and still have plenty of scoot. 

18 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The XT4 will do better than the GLA there and still have plenty of scoot. 

I'd assume you're correct but those are just guesses at this point as we're talking transmissions now and nobody has driven this XT4 matched to the brand new engine. 

Just now, ccap41 said:

I'd assume you're correct but those are just guesses at this point as we're talking transmissions now and nobody has driven this XT4 matched to the brand new engine. 

The 9-speed has largely been fine in everything I've driven with it. I highly doubt that it will be less good than the Terrain 2.0t. Cadillac has to do literally nothing to the GMC tuning to make it top notch.  If there is anything about this engine has a question mark next to it, it would be the active fuel management. 

Just now, Drew Dowdell said:

The 9-speed has largely been fine in everything I've driven with it. I highly doubt that it will be less good than the Terrain 2.0t. Cadillac has to do literally nothing to the GMC tuning to make it top notch.  If there is anything about this engine has a question mark next to it, it would be the active fuel management. 

I bet there is actually quite a bit of tuning that goes into it because the new 2.0T doesn't have the same exact outputs and outputs at a given rpm.

I'm not doubting they will do a fine job, just saying it's a new combo that nobody has driven yet. 

1 minute ago, ccap41 said:

I bet there is actually quite a bit of tuning that goes into it because the new 2.0T doesn't have the same exact outputs and outputs at a given rpm.

I'm not doubting they will do a fine job, just saying it's a new combo that nobody has driven yet. 

You're absolutely right that I am making assumptions here. I think I'm justified though.  GM is already starting from a great position with the 9-speed, so any adjustments are likely to be minor.  Plus, front wheel drive automatics are a GM specialty. They've been doing it, and doing it well, for longer than just about anyone in the business.  

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Really? You don't know why they didn't use the automatic from the 2003-2018 era?

Put on your deerstalker cap there Sherlock..... maybe you'll figure it out. 

The question was never and is never about raw performance in these crossovers. It is about drivability around town the way 99.9999999% of people use them.  A jumpy, laggy engine transmission combo is not going to be as satisfying as one with low lag and no jumpiness.  

The XT4 will do better than the GLA there and still have plenty of scoot. 

I always figured they used the DCT for fuel economy as the CLA gets 38 mpg highway and doing some digging I found Mercedes said the DCT had a 9% fuel economy gain of the previous A-class.  But the 7G-Tronic torque converter automatic is a better transmission even if it is heavier and not as good on gas, it has driveability.   

XT4 is 9 inches longer than a GLA, 1 inch shorter than a GLC.   And you can get 503 hp in a GLC for plenty of scoot.

4 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

I always figured they used the DCT for fuel economy as the CLA gets 38 mpg highway and doing some digging I found Mercedes said the DCT had a 9% fuel economy gain of the previous A-class.  But the 7G-Tronic torque converter automatic is a better transmission even if it is heavier and not as good on gas, it has driveability.   

XT4 is 9 inches longer than a GLA, 1 inch shorter than a GLC. 

The 7G-Tronic is a longitudinal transmission, not a transverse transmission.  If Mercedes couldn't design and build a decent front wheel drive transmission, they should have contacted the experts over at GM. 

I don't get why they went with that DCT, vs doing a transverse 7G-Tronic.  Older A-classes had a CVT, no doubt that sucked.  Perhaps they will refine the DCT for the next generation A-class/GLA/GLB/CLA, but like I said I never drove a CLA to know what it is like.  The 7G-Tronic is near telepathic, and I am sure the new 9 is even better.

Well, first impressions have come and gone, and my opinion has softened on this little buggy.  It could be cool I guess.  As far as I can tell, Cadillac's colourizer tool features the base model, with base wheels.  It's a bit meh as portrayed in CGI, but the higher trims might be hotter looking.  The XC40 looks like an athletic shoe, where the XT4... something sensible with a low heel.

I saw a Nissan Titan today (the new one) and it made me think of the XT4.  Because Nissan didn't really do anything ground breaking to steal sales off the established Silverado and F150, and I see the XT4 as the same, way.  It can easily get lost in the shuffle of all these other entry lux crossovers.  The Germans are the establishment, Lexus has that core buyer base, the new Volvos have the looks and the powertrain, I don't see Cadillac's big advantage.

Of course; once Cadillac becomes competitive, the bar is automatically raised to "GROUNDBREAKING".
Someone must be nervous their usual bar for the XT4 (sales volume) is too likely to be strong like the XT5 has been.

There is no 'groundbreaking' in the CUV segment in any price tier. What- falcon wing doors??

Please.

The XT5 outsells all of the Germans in its price class and all but one of the Japanese and it's not groundbreaking either... Nor is any of the competition.  All the XT4 needs to do is duplicate that.

11 hours ago, smk4565 said:

I saw a Nissan Titan today (the new one) and it made me think of the XT4.  Because Nissan didn't really do anything ground breaking to steal sales off the established Silverado and F150, and I see the XT4 as the same, way.  It can easily get lost in the shuffle of all these other entry lux crossovers.  The Germans are the establishment, Lexus has that core buyer base, the new Volvos have the looks and the powertrain, I don't see Cadillac's big advantage.

I mean they kind of did.. They made a 2/3 heavy duty with a 5.0 Cummins.

On 4/2/2018 at 7:50 PM, ocnblu said:

Well, first impressions have come and gone, and my opinion has softened on this little buggy.  It could be cool I guess.  As far as I can tell, Cadillac's colourizer tool features the base model, with base wheels.  It's a bit meh as portrayed in CGI, but the higher trims might be hotter looking.  The XC40 looks like an athletic shoe, where the XT4... something sensible with a low heel.

Actually I think the colourizer tool features the Sport trim with the base Sport wheels.

XT5 and SRX have done well because they are GM's only crossover that fits a slot like the Edge is in. Large, 2 row crossover. Chevy badly misses an edge competitor. Buick could use one also. Cadillac benefits because they can still make decent profit and volume by there being no Chevy or buick clone. But the market to me dictates they should have had them yesterday. I saw that GM may ditch the impala. I think it's an opportunity to move the impala nameplate to a crossover, as large as he Edge, maybe longer. A little more sleek and sporty. Malibu should gain 4" in length to the backseat and add some roof height and offer v6. Then give buick an impala clone also. 

32 minutes ago, regfootball said:

XT5 and SRX have done well because they are GM's only crossover that fits a slot like the Edge is in. Large, 2 row crossover. Chevy badly misses an edge competitor. Buick could use one also. Cadillac benefits because they can still make decent profit and volume by there being no Chevy or buick clone. But the market to me dictates they should have had them yesterday. I saw that GM may ditch the impala. I think it's an opportunity to move the impala nameplate to a crossover, as large as he Edge, maybe longer. A little more sleek and sporty. Malibu should gain 4" in length to the backseat and add some roof height and offer v6. Then give buick an impala clone also. 

Acadia = Edge

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Acadia = Edge

 

That's a 3-row SUV and is 5.5 inches longer.

After looking them up... It seems to split the Explorer and Edge almost perfectly.

Edge: 188.1in

Acadia: 193.6in

Explorer: 198.3

9 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

That's a 3-row SUV and is 5.5 inches longer.

After looking them up... It seems to split the Explorer and Edge almost perfectly.

Edge: 188.1in

Acadia: 193.6in

Explorer: 198.3

Acadia is only an optional 3-row.  In terms of overall bulk, they feel pretty darn close. Most of that 5.5 inches lost would be in the cargo area, so to the passengers, they'll feel largely the same.  Edge, Grand Cherokee, Acadia, Murano, all sit roughly in the same space. 

Chevy needs an Edge sized crossover, hopefully that is what their version of the Acadia/XT5 is.  

One thing I've noticed in pics is how short and stubby the rear of the XT4 looks.  Hopefully it looks more substantial in person.  

5 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Acadia = Edge

 

No,

a- it's a three row

b- it looks like a truck not a sporty crossover

c- its a GMC not a chevy

acadia is now something that is supposed to appeal to someone who either likes grand cherokees, or 2005 trailblazer / envoy / ascender / rainier / saab 9-7x

we don't need another trucklike crossover.

Chevy needs to go the X4/X6 / panamera / Merc GLC / Ford Edge / Acura ZDX sorts of looks.  LARGE front and second row.  huge trunk.  No need for three rows.  

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

Chevy needs an Edge sized crossover, hopefully that is what their version of the Acadia/XT5 is.  

see above ^^^^

the edge is the gold standard IMO for accessible priced 2 row sporty crossover that basically replaces the sedan.  I would sex it up a little more and slap the Impala badge on it.  

Plus, they ruined the Acadia, it's ugly now

23 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

One thing I've noticed in pics is how short and stubby the rear of the XT4 looks.  Hopefully it looks more substantial in person.  

basically they stretched the wheelbase relative to length, gave it to rear leg room, and the trunk area will probably be shorter..

I think "neutral density" taillights went out of style before Lexus stopped using them on the U.S. version of the Toyota Altezza.  But I see where the base and super luxury versions of the XT4 use red taillights.  Much nicer.  I think the Sport maybe should have gone with a dark lens... not a clear one.

29 minutes ago, regfootball said:

Chevy needs to go the X4/X6 / panamera / Merc GLC / Ford Edge / Acura ZDX sorts of looks. 

[pic of, I think, BMW X4]

Well let's look at the hard data here in this left field fantasy.
March 2018 X4 sales : 513 units.
March 2018 Edge sales : 13,919 units.

Chevy has this sporty lil CUV within 1 inch of an X4. It's called 'Equinox'.

March 2018 Equinox sales : 31,940 units.

Obviously, that's a real, tangible problem. By all means- spend 100 million, stretch it 4 inches, make it the amorphous and infinitely definable 'sleeker', and, you know; watch the sales sink like a stone... but 12 people FEEL BETTER about this new Equinox.... I guess because it's more like vehicles that far fewer people want to buy. Good Plan.

The Equinox is not anything close to total interior space compared to the Edge.

The Equinox is COMPACT

An Impala sized crossover would be wider and longer than the Captiva 2.0 (Equinox) and would get back sales the Impala sedan is losing to other crossovers, like the ford edge

There was an article last year about another Chevy CUV, between the Nox and Traverse...haven't heard anything more since then. 

1 hour ago, regfootball said:

The Equinox is not anything close to total interior space compared to the Edge.

You mentioned 'looks' multiple times and included exterior pics, and never mentioned interior space comparisons with those other SUVs. I responded accordingly.

Edge has a long wheelbase and is fairly wide, but most of the other SUVs you posted exterior shots/no interior dimensions LOSE interior space relatively speaking, so my question is: which do you want?

I like the idea of the Ford Edge because it is relatively large with two-row seating and sporty looks.  I think it looks more mature and masculine than the Nissan Murano, a direct competitor.

Murano is where Pontiac would be had they lived and continued their over wrought styling, but since nissan isn't a domestic brand, it's uncool to bag on them for design.

Edge is pleasant, but it's certainly not sporty looking. I liked the MCE 1st gen, looked at them back when new.