New York 2019: Cadillac CT5 to Debut

I actually like it better in the red than the silver, but I have two big issues with this car:

First is the STUPID COUPE style which kills rear head room and to have headroom the rear passengers have to sit in a hole.

Second is the weird funky 3rd window or whatever the black section in the smaller box above represents. Even the smaller stationary glass piece sucks due to how the door is cut. From the B pillar forward I am very happy with the car.

Best View of the car IMHO.

4 minutes ago, dfelt said:

I actually like it better in the red than the silver, but I have two big issues with this car:

First is the STUPID COUPE style which kills rear head room and to have headroom the rear passengers have to sit in a hole.

Second is the weird funky 3rd window or whatever the black section in the smaller box above represents. Even the smaller stationary glass piece sucks due to how the door is cut. From the B pillar forward I am very happy with the car.

Best View of the car IMHO.

 

No.. I think the head room will be fine due to the seat placement. Word is special attention was paid to avoid exactly what U bring up. The Trunk is even going  to be as large despite outward appearance. Second.. it seems to me that the alternative would have been a filled metal section. With this.. properly tinted windows will make it a moot point and completely unnoticeable

37 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

No.. I think the head room will be fine due to the seat placement. Word is special attention was paid to avoid exactly what U bring up. The Trunk is even going  to be as large despite outward appearance. Second.. it seems to me that the alternative would have been a filled metal section. With this.. properly tinted windows will make it a moot point and completely unnoticeable

With all the scientific evidence about protection from the sun, at least on the rear doors tinting to match should be a standard. I just do not get a luxury car being built with clear glass.

In regards to the seating, the only way you can have a coupe roof line is to drop the rear seats below the front seats so the people sit in a hole and cannot really see out.

No matter what, this is luxury and interior space should be superior over following a stupid ass Coupe trend that everyone has.

They could have done so much better on this rear than they did. I love the rear end and front from B pillar forward, it is just this coupe roof line and the C pillar that I really am not a fan of.

10 minutes ago, dfelt said:

With all the scientific evidence about protection from the sun, at least on the rear doors tinting to match should be a standard. I just do not get a luxury car being built with clear glass. 

It is funny, I'm so used to SUVs with dark tint on the rear sides and rear window standard that it looks odd to see a new vehicle without it..  #jaded 

I really like the look of the car. It has the long hood very short deck design that I like.  Happy about the powertrains too. 

It's about time they start to ditch the 3.6. ??

2 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

It's about time they start to ditch the 3.6. ??

I don't have a problem with the 3.6 being there as long as the 3.0TT is also there. 

1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I don't have a problem with the 3.6 being there as long as the 3.0TT is also there. 

Hopefully they will add AWD as an option to ALL CT models.

1 minute ago, dfelt said:

Hopefully they will add AWD as an option to ALL CT models.

I'm sure they will.  It's basically a requirement these days in that class.  I'm hoping they keep the V-Sport.  The pure V will probably take a year off and debut around this time next year. 

I’m disappointed again just like with the XT6. They seem to be going backwards in style. The blackout side panel really looks out of place on a Cadillac ?

6 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I don't have a problem with the 3.6 being there as long as the 3.0TT is also there. 

They don't need the 3.6, the 3.0TT should be the middle engine, the V8 the top, 3 engines is enough choice I think, unless you had some sort of EV or hybrid thing in there.  Cadillac needs to start thinking of 400ish hp is mid-level, and throw away the corporate V6. Every German sedan has ad a boosted six for 5-10 years at this point, Infiniti has a turbo V6, Jaguar has a supercharged V6, that is all par for the course.  

I think overall the styling is fine.  My nitpicks are the rear 3/4 window is odd, the headlights look like they are from a last generation Cruze above the light bar and the upside down hockey stick thing on the tail lights looks like something Lexus would do.  Cadillac tail lights should just be vertical and that's it, not off shoots to the side.  Proportionally and stylistically I think it looks better than the CTS, I like the styling language just not the shape they put it on.

My overall complaint would be that I like 3 box sedan design, this has the same shape of a 5-series GT:

Looks like a Gensis G80. And is this another cop-out 'tweener that they are afraid to offer as a true competitor to the established German set? 

13 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

They don't need the 3.6, the 3.0TT should be the middle engine, the V8 the top, 3 engines is enough choice I think, unless you had some sort of EV or hybrid thing in there.  Cadillac needs to start thinking of 400ish hp is mid-level, and throw away the corporate V6. Every German sedan has ad a boosted six for 5-10 years at this point, Infiniti has a turbo V6, Jaguar has a supercharged V6, that is all par for the course.  

Cadillac has been providing not just a boosted 6, but one of the most powerful of the boosted 6es since 2013.  So yeah... 6 years now.

Having the 3.6 as an extra choice hurts nothing.

same part number as on the Ion!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am glad the 3.6 is banished.  2.0 and 3.0 only engine options needed here.

really like the ..ruby red in the top pic.

18 minutes ago, regfootball said:

 

same part number as on the Ion!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am glad the 3.6 is banished.  2.0 and 3.0 only engine options needed here.

Give it a rest... lots of cars have the same part number as the Ion then.. including a lot of the Germans. 

Give it a rest...I agree...especially when that particular Saturn has been out of production for over a decade.

And no, just because it could be the same Saturn part number, it does not take away from the CT5 being a Cadillac.

Its just a bloody window for God's sake.... 

PS: It may or may not be...

It probably take MORE engineering dollars to purposely fit that old parts number piece into a newly engineered car on a completely different platform just to save a few nickels and dimes for an already available number than start with a clean slate piece.

It looks the same, in the pictures. Its probably a whole different part. 

PSS:  The reason why I say its a different part all together, GM would have to purposely engineering the roofline angles and slopes of the CT5 to be the EXACT identical roofline and slope to the ION, which would affect the platform...remember, the ION was a subcompact. The CT5 is a midsizer. One was a FWD unibody while the CT5 is a RWD unibody on two completely different platforms that have NOTHING in common. 

Maybe Im wrong, but when I read that certain platforms dont lend well to different wheelbases to house different types of vehicles, well, Im thinking that on a midsized RWD platform to get all the right ROUNDED ARCs and angles, widths and lengths, thickness... JUST to fit a window piece that went on a FWD subcompact, seems a tad ludicrous for me! 

wow, some folks can't detect sarcasm vs. seriousness

the main takeaway is that its a blocky upright shape that in and of itself is odd and contributes to the clumsiness to the facade of the car.

45 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Cadillac has been providing not just a boosted 6, but one of the most powerful of the boosted 6es since 2013.  So yeah... 6 years now.

Having the 3.6 as an extra choice hurts nothing.

So why not a 4.2 NA V8 as a choice with the same horsepower and torque as the turbo V6?  Choice for the sake of choice doesn't make any sense.  The 3.6 is a torqueless engine that isn't competitive with other luxury V6s with the exception of maybe whatever is in a Lincoln MKZ or Lexus ES.  The could put the 3.6 V6 in the Escalade as a choice, or in the Corvette, doesn't mean it makes sense to.

Plus, CT5 is a low volume car, the turbo 4 is for the rental spec and old folks, who don't care about performance, and BMW, Jaguar, Mercedes all offer that too, because they all have old folks that buy those cars also. Turbo V6 is your sport trim, turbo V8 for the hardcore buyer.  

11 minutes ago, regfootball said:

wow, some folks can't detect sarcasm vs. seriousness

Well..yes!

Words on a screen...can be quite difficult to detect, um, sarcasm. 

PS: If you couldnt detect it, my apology is...um...sarcastic...

The thread is interesting. I will not take sides, but I will say GM has been known to use old tooling on new models. In some cases it was obvious. 

 1980-1981 Pontiac Bonneville and 1985-1986 Pontiac Parisienne 

1994-1996 Oldsmobile Ninety Eight and 1997-1998 Oldsmobile Regency

1982 Oldsmobile 98  and 1988-1990 Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser

1981 Oldsmobile 98 and 1986-1987 Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser

1983-1984 Oldsmobile Ninety Eight and 1984-1985 Oldsmobile Eighty Eight Royale Brougham LS

There are cars that shared parts with other models that were in production at the same time that shared parts:

1971-1976 Oldsmobile Eighty Eight, Ninety Eight, Custom Cruiser and Toronado shared parts

1971 - 1976 Buick LeSabre, Buick Electra, and Buick Riviera shared parts. The 1977- 1978 Buick LeSabre and Buick Electra/Park Avenue and Riviera shared parts.

The 1992-1995 Pontiac Bonneville shared headlights with the Lumina and Transsport minivans 

The Pontiac Solstice and GMC Envoy shared back up lights.

The Saturn Outlook and GMC Acadia shared parts. GMC Acadia used Saturn Outlook parts when it was updated.

Chevrolet midsized cars and El Camino  and Pontiac midsized cars shared parts for decades...

Buick Regal and Century shared parts.

I will take this a step further. The 1991-1993 Oldsmobile steering wheel appeared later on the Oldsmobile Ciera and GMC and Chevrolet fullsized vans.

The Oldsmobile Alero headlights are used on UPS delivery vans. 

Buick Riviera and Buick Reatta shared parts

Cadillac Deville, Seville and Eldorado shared parts in the 1990's and before that. 

Name a platform past or present, you will find shared parts.  Look at the J Bodies.  That one was global. 

Look at Grand Am and Alero. They shared big time. Look at the N cars from the 1980's

The 1990's GM B Body wagons shared so many parts. 

The third window in the C- pillar on the 1980's A Bodies were shared( Pontiac and Oldsmobile) and (Chevrolet and Buick)

The GMC and Chevrolet trucks.

The GMC and Chevrolet vans. 

The GMC and Chevrolet Suv's( including Cadillac). It was not until recently they started to diverge( look distinctive)

The early 2000's Cadillac Deville/ DTS headlights were used on buses. 

Let's not get started on GM Canada. 

I am not getting in the argument, but I am just making a point. They have shared parts for decades and no one complained on those other cars.  It is about economies of scale and sometimes it saves money.  I consider it to be a blessing personally because when I have needed parts of my 1995 Ninety Eight, I have bought 1997-1998 Regency parts and  1994-1999 Eighty Eight parts that were the exact same.  I also have done it for my Toronado too. I bought Riviera or Eldorado parts.

I will tell you the only time it was bad and not good at all was the downsized look a like era 1985-1991. 

Anyone know of any parts  that were shared between GM cars...

14 minutes ago, NINETY EIGHT REGENCY said:

The Oldsmobile Alero headlights are used on UPS delivery vans. 

That...my friend I never knew!!!   

I owned a 1999 Olds Alero...

I knew EXACTLY what truck you were referring too, and every time I used to see one on the road, there was always something puzzling to me, like a deja vu feeling...

I did not know what was that familiarity feeling I had about that truck...but thanks to you...now I know!!!

And I totally see it NOW that you pointed it out!   

You really dont know how happy you just made me feel!!!

No...no sarcasm. I promise!  You really made me happy! 

Parts sourcing aside, how are they going to get this to sell when the CTS, ATS, XTS and CT6 all have pretty lousy sales numbers.

Obviously the shape a a bit different this time around with the fastback/GT rear end, but only 2 sedans sell in this segment in the USA, and 3 in this segment do well in China, so what is the selling point of the CT5 going to be to break the sales decline?

The more I look at that C-pillar, the worse it gets. They completely botched it. It lets the entire design down. They should have made the Escala the way it was. They always do this. Make a jaw-dropping concept, and then make a production version that is more like a Chinese knockoff. What a shame. 

18 minutes ago, Frisky Dingo said:

The more I look at that C-pillar, the worse it gets. They completely botched it. It lets the entire design down. They should have made the Escala the way it was. They always do this. Make a jaw-dropping concept, and then make a production version that is more like a Chinese knockoff. What a shame. 

To be fair, the Escala is NOT the new CT5. The Escala is to come...

But yeah, although I dont feel let down for the same reasons you feel down about the CT5, I do feel let down. But a tiny bit, not as fully down you feel about it.

Im just perplexed on why Cadillac felt the need to look like a FWD Honda Accord.

And the FWD Accord looks to be longer and sleeker to boot.  Which SHOULD be a Cadillac trait. 

*Sigh*

Still waiting for that long, sleek, slick black Cadillac car to arrive.

Well, the CT6 Blackwing is certainly that.  But 1 model aint enough...

It does have an Accord shape.  I am not a fan of the new Accord.

2 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Parts sourcing aside, how are they going to get this to sell when the CTS, ATS, XTS and CT6 all have pretty lousy sales numbers.

Obviously the shape a a bit different this time around with the fastback/GT rear end, but only 2 sedans sell in this segment in the USA, and 3 in this segment do well in China, so what is the selling point of the CT5 going to be to break the sales decline?

For one.. Americans seeking a better vehicle than those asswipes in Germany can provide.

Well, the new CT5 has solved a few issues: engine choice, replace two slow sellers with one seller (sales TBD), new(ish) platform that fixes the old platform issues.  Back window and coupe profile aside, I like it.  I really like the CT6 and maybe the CT5 should have cribbed from the larger model a little more.

4 hours ago, smk4565 said:

So why not a 4.2 NA V8 as a choice with the same horsepower and torque as the turbo V6?  Choice for the sake of choice doesn't make any sense.  The 3.6 is a torqueless engine that isn't competitive with other luxury V6s with the exception of maybe whatever is in a Lincoln MKZ or Lexus ES.  The could put the 3.6 V6 in the Escalade as a choice, or in the Corvette, doesn't mean it makes sense to.

Plus, CT5 is a low volume car, the turbo 4 is for the rental spec and old folks, who don't care about performance, and BMW, Jaguar, Mercedes all offer that too, because they all have old folks that buy those cars also. Turbo V6 is your sport trim, turbo V8 for the hardcore buyer.  

Lincoln doesn’t even use a N/A V6 in the MKZ. It’s a 2.0T, 3.0T or 2.0T hybrid. 

On 3/18/2019 at 6:44 AM, dfelt said:

I actually like it better in the red than the silver, but I have two big issues with this car:

First is the STUPID COUPE style which kills rear head room and to have headroom the rear passengers have to sit in a hole.

Second is the weird funky 3rd window or whatever the black section in the smaller box above represents. Even the smaller stationary glass piece sucks due to how the door is cut. From the B pillar forward I am very happy with the car.

Best View of the car IMHO.

I was about to say the same EXACT thing regarding the two problems. From a profile angle, that rear pillar just kills the flow. The front and grill look super sharp but the coupe look is getting way too played out (priotizing form over function).

Want to bet they cover that black triangle in carbon fiber on the V-series version? 

12 hours ago, ccap41 said:

Lincoln doesn’t even use a N/A V6 in the MKZ. It’s a 2.0T, 3.0T or 2.0T hybrid. 

Maybe Cadillac should copy that.

I don't mind the coupe-styling on 4 door cars but maybe this is just too short or the design language doesn't match it. Maybe it would look better longer? I think it looks great looking at the front. I think it looks great looking from the rear. But, I think it looks a little awkward at most any other angle. 

4 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

Want to bet they cover that black triangle in carbon fiber on the V-series version? 

That spot just gets worse the more I look at it. And now that someone mentioned earlier, the profile does look a little too much like this...

Just now, smk4565 said:

Maybe Cadillac should copy that.

Don't all the major luxury brands pretty much have that same exact setup? 

Turbo-4

Hybrid

Turbo-6

1 minute ago, surreal1272 said:

That spot just gets worse the more I look at it. And now that someone mentioned earlier, the profile does look a little too much like this...

 

The Accord profile looks better, though, because it has a window there and not a pointless piece of black plastic.  And the rear door window frame trailing edge leans forward, rather than being vertical. 

1 minute ago, surreal1272 said:

That spot just gets worse the more I look at it. And now that someone mentioned earlier, the profile does look a little too much like this...

 

It's like they mashed up the Accord and Infiniti Q60's window but it jsut didn't work that well. 

8 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

The Accord profile looks better, though, because it has a window there and not a pointless piece of black plastic.  And the rear door window frame trailing edge leans forward, rather than being vertical. 

And that’s the sad part. The mainstream brand car should not look better than a luxury car, in any way IMO.

7 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

It's like they mashed up the Accord and Infiniti Q60's window but it jsut didn't work that well. 

I actually like how Infiniti did theirs though. At least they put some effort into the actual design aspect whereas it looks like the bean counters at Cadillac took over when it came to CT5s.

2 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

And that’s the sad part. The mainstream brand car should not look better than a luxury car, in any way IMO.

I actually like how Infiniti did theirs though. At least they put some effort into the actual design aspect whereas it looks like the bean counters at Cadillac took over when it came to CT5s.

The Infiniti Q70 has a nice take on a 6 light greenhouse w/ a curvy body below...

14 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I don't mind the coupe-styling on 4 door cars but maybe this is just too short or the design language doesn't match it. Maybe it would look better longer? I think it looks great looking at the front. I think it looks great looking from the rear. But, I think it looks a little awkward at most any other angle. 

That’s my bad with it. From the rear doors to the front, it looks nice. But that C pillar window treatment kills the rest of it. I do look forward to what they will do with the interior but I just hope it’s not the same rehash of the “slab dash” look that exists in cars like the CT6 and their smal CUVs. It looks clean but it also just looks too plain for the brand IMO>

Personally, I think Cadillac should have kept the angular C-pillar and forward angled rear door upper frame of the CTS..that's a strong design cue with Cadillac sedans going back 15+ years to the first gen CTS.    Pointy and angular.  Or commit to a 6 light greenhouse like the CT6.  But instead, they go with weird pillar trim that serves no purpose. 

12 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

I actually like how Infiniti did theirs though. At least they put some effort into the actual design aspect whereas it looks like the bean counters at Cadillac took over when it came to CT5s.

Oh I definitely agree. It's a small difference but it's a make or break difference. 

14 hours ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

For one.. Americans seeking a better vehicle than those asswipes in Germany can provide.

Better? Haha, that's a good one. Better at what, exactly? Looking a mashup mix of a Chinese knockoff of a Caddy concept and a Genesis G80? You're ate up. ?

18 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

The Infiniti Q70 has a nice take on a 6 light greenhouse w/ a curvy body below...

What do you mean by "6 light greenhouse"? 3 windows per side? 

1 minute ago, ccap41 said:

What do you mean by "6 light greenhouse"? 3 windows per side? 

Yes...

36 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

And that’s the sad part. The mainstream brand car should not look better than a luxury car, in any way IMO.

I actually like how Infiniti did theirs though. At least they put some effort into the actual design aspect whereas it looks like the bean counters at Cadillac took over when it came to CT5s.

I would say they were building a scaled down Escala and then the Bean Counters showed up at the point of the B Pillar and said you have X amount of cash left, finished the car with X dollars and we ended up with that back end mess.

25 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

Yes...

Thanks, I had just never heard it described like that before. I don't keep up on my design language language.

2 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Thanks, I had just never heard it described like that before. I don't keep up on my design language language.

probably something I picked up long ago in a car magazine..