New York 2019: Cadillac CT5 to Debut

19 hours 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.

But not with AWD on the CTS. 

17 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?

With the new stocky greenhouse, interior room should be improved over the CTS. IF it is, that will bring some people back. If it’s cheaper than the CT6, and has room and performs well it should sell well. The CT4 if that occurs will be a problem because why would anyone want it?  The CT5 is adequate as entry level caddy sedan in USA by my feeling. People expect a certain minimum of comfort and size from any Cadillac and so if CT5 delivers that i think sales will be ok, styling be damned. 

36 minutes ago, dfelt said:

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.

This is EXACTLY what happened, I guarantee it.

I loved the Escala and I love this. Coupla observations.. I see exactly what they did.. but because of size, the design exercise of the longer Escala (2010.5 inch vs this being probably 193-195 inch) could not be completely translated over to a smaller car particularly in profile. I still doubt that the CT5 will be much smaller than the current car with the CT4 still yet to debut. I am betting a longer wheelbase for both, even if the actual length drops a bit.

Anyway,.. The black "faux window in the rear doesn't even bother me because tinting the car as I always do will make it a moot point. Only real disappointment is the door handles aren't the hideaway like the Escla.

So cool that they are done with the 3.6L NA in this car and have gone onto feature forced induction as a sole means of propulsion. I am expecting changes in current HP rating from those as well. If the SPORT is available with the 3.0L... outside of an actual V, I see very little reason to break from the "Y" philosophy and offer a V-Sport. What I have noticed Cadillac has done of late with the VSeries program is put them on their website as separate models. Thus allowing them to stick tothe Y with Lux, Prem Lux, Platinum cars even in the V

As a current CTS owner I love it.. and look forward to the VSeries debut in a year or so. I'll be sitting that one out as I want to go into the CT6-V, but curious and excited nonetheless

Again its basically the same vehicle..there's an obvious nod to the Escala in the C-pillar, but what some seem to have issue with is the curved point.. I think it was added to give some flare..:

the one singular interior shot looks to be very nice.. The fastback design comes off as nice and a very welcome change that may just shake things up a bit in the mid-size luxury category. I remember reading here just a few weeks ago, someone saying that the new CT5 wasn't a departure from the current one.. and once again that is proven wrong. The idea has been floating for sometime that the Escala was the design exercise to bet on for cues towards the new Cadillacs.. this is basically a 85% view of that car. This is its competition.. I'm inclined to once again side with Caddy

Not everything can be shrunk and get the same results. 

Lincoln learned that one the hard way with the transition from Mark V to Mark VI. 

1 hour ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

Better styling, reliability.. I see nothing about this vehicle that suggest Chinese knock-off.. I see Escala scaled down. That's it.. I'm ate up.. Eat these nuts B***h 

I think it's hilarious that you are like the personal embodiment of a GM product. You're every bit as classless, and as much a piece of trash. It's no wonder you love them so much. ?

@Drew Dowdell

Is there any reason why we let let this vile, GM leg humping garbage pile continue to plague this site?

3 minutes ago, Frisky Dingo said:

 

I think it's hilarious that you are like the personal embodiment of a GM product. You're every bit as classless, and as much a piece of trash. It's no wonder you love them so much. ?

Check your inbox

Nah, I'm good. 

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

Not everything can be shrunk and get the same results. 

That's what SHE said!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 minutes ago, Frisky Dingo said:

Nah, I'm good. 

Kinda like this...yes?!

I think this could sell... it has coupish looks and a few design elements that although I don't care for, people seem to eat them up.

Oddly enough, Car and Driver is stating the CT5 is a 3-series/C-class competitor, although it looks way bigger than those cars.  C-class pricing of a CT5 is probably a good idea for Cadillac to pursue though.

28 minutes ago, Paolino said:

I think this could sell... it has coupish looks and a few design elements that although I don't care for, people seem to eat them up.

Im one of those folks...

Im disappoint because it has Honda Accord aspirations rather than Cadillac ones (nah...no Escala in this) despite what @Cmicasa the Great  says. 

But it aint a bad looking vehicle.  I get why the CT5 could never be as sexy as the Escala. Shorter vehicle with a much shorter wheel base. Therefore one should never expect a midsizer to exude a certain type of look that a bigger, and longer wheel base car can achieve, but, Cadillac could have done the controversial  C pillar design a tad better, a tad more coherent and hella more sexier because its a damned Cadillac!!!

But I dont have a problem with that C Pillar design per se.  I do have a problem with the CT5 imitating a Honda. 

Kudos to Honda for making a FWD appliance car look desirable. (I like the new Honda Accord)  Or Ford for its Fusion. Or Chevy for its Impala and Malibu, etc...

Boo to Cadillac for not making  its new CT5 more  prestigious in terms of looks. I mean, it takes a page out of Honda's playbook. Not a bad thing per se, but not good for Cadillac trying to be unique and expensive....

But I said I was one of those folk that would buy a new CT5...

Well...I would buy one. I like the way it looks. But Im disappoint  because once again, yet another model does not inspire Standard of the World...

Maybe, its because its the nature of the segment the CT5 is in. I dont inspire to a Mercedes C Class or BMW 3 Series either...

I dont inspire to the last couple of E Class generations nor do I inspire to the 5 Series either. The last 5 Series I insipred to was the E39...

Because all those models I mentioned, the last 15 years, are nothing but lease queen specials (along with their CUV counterparts) that have over extended debt morons lease them trying to impress their Facebook friends with them taking selfies and talking about how perfect their life is...

So...there is that why I may not be impressed with the CT5, because Cadillac and BMW and M-B know that most of those leased cars in that niche are just broken cigar morons that will lease them so they dont try hard to design a wow factor car because its not about the wow factor exterior, but more about the badge on the hood....

35 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Oddly enough, Car and Driver is stating the CT5 is a 3-series/C-class competitor, although it looks way bigger than those cars.  C-class pricing of a CT5 is probably a good idea for Cadillac to pursue though.

Really? I think it looks very 3-series sized. 

4 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Really? I think it looks very 3-series sized. 

I thought it was supposed to be the CTS replacement?  

2 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

I thought it was supposed to be the CTS replacement?  

I thought so too.  I'm going by appearance. 

Have to wait and see what the dimensions are.  

I thought they downsized the CT5 from the CTS to become a tweener again like how the 1st and 2nd generations CTS were.

No one knows what the dimensions are.  It will be interesting to see. The current CTS is as big as a downsized 1980's full sized GM car. The one that it matches is a 1986-1991 Oldsmobile Eighty Eight.( 196 inches long, 72 inches wide).  I thought that was odd. The trunk is smaller.  The wheelbase is longer. So why didn't it have any interior room?   This car CT5 will probably be 190 - 195 inches long. 

I know XTS is shorter than a CT6, but XTS has a bigger trunk.  The CT6 is as a big as a 1990's C Body( Ninety Eight or Buick Park Avenue.). It rides on a longer wheelbase, but the width is about the same. So why is CT6's trunk only 15 cubic feet?  

XTS is as big as a 1990's H Body at 201 inches long, 73 inches wide( narrower by one inch) and the wheelbase is about the same.

The reason I say all of this why is the packing different on these cars( CT6 and CTS).   

3 minutes ago, NINETY EIGHT REGENCY said:

No one knows what the dimensions are.  It will be interesting to see. The current CTS is as big as a downsized 1980's full sized GM car. The one that it matches is a 1986-1991 Oldsmobile Eighty Eight.( 196 inches long, 72 inches wide).  I thought that was odd. The trunk is smaller.  The wheelbase is longer. So why didn't it have any interior room?   This car CT5 will probably be 190 - 195 inches long. 

I know XTS is shorter than a CT6, but XTS has a bigger trunk.  The CT6 is as a big as a 1990's C Body( Ninety Eight or Buick Park Avenue.). It rides on a longer wheelbase, but the width is about the same. So why is CT6's trunk only 15 cubic feet?  

XTS is as big as a 1990's H Body at 201 inches long, 73 inches wide( narrower by one inch) and the wheelbase is about the same.

The reason I say all of this why is the packing different on these cars( CT6 and CTS).   

 

 

You are comparing FWD cars (XTS and 90s C/H bodies) w/ RWD cars.   FWD cars usually have more interior space and a shorter wheelbase than a RWD car of the same overall length.  Just the nature of FWD vs RWD packaging in general. 

I think the one thing we are missing here is the safety requirements. Newer auto's like the CT6 have far more nanny devices / safety features on how an auto is to crumple and fold around the cage holding the humans. As such, I suspect one thing we are all forgetting is that the safety requirements of the auto's are going to eat into the interior room of the auto.

I do not know for a fact, but that is one thing we have not touched on is the increased safety crash testing requirements. This could explain the reduced size of trunks.

I’d assume the smaller trunks are related to the more aerodynamic short deck fastback shapes.  Crumple zones are nothing new, the 80s Merc S class had them and a big trunk.  

47 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

I thought they downsized the CT5 from the CTS to become a tweener again like how the 1st and 2nd generations CTS were.

 

I have heard that was the plan.  We really need to see some dimensions of this car to know how it is sized, in and out.  At least with real specs which I imagine will come in April then maybe we know what they are going for.  I get they hold off on pricing until the fall though.

So if the CT5 is to be a tweeter, then the CT4 might be between the 2 and 3/4 series in size.  Curious. 

7 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

So if the CT5 is to be a tweeter, then the CT4 might be between the 2 and 3/4 series in size.  Curious. 

I honestly hope this is not the case, I would rather they go on the bigger size than scale down.

4 minutes ago, dfelt said:

I honestly hope this is not the case, I would rather they go on the bigger size than scale down.

Yes, I see no point in downsizing. 

aye yai yai

That CT4...

People complained about the ATS' lack of rear legroom space.  So...how does Cadillac fix that with an even smaller car than the ATS?  Maybe its smaller than the ATS? 

But how can it be a tad bigger than the ATS when the CT5 is believed to be a tad bigger than the ATS? 

I just dont buy into small Cadillacs. Dont like 'em. Dont want 'em! 

ATS is 184 inches long. It is 73 inches wide. I do not think this new CT5 will be that small.  

Deleted my earlier comments. Was in a horrible mood....upon further reflection I actually really like this.

9 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Deleted my earlier comments. Was in a horrible mood....upon further reflection I actually really like this.

Glad that Whiskey ? is working my friend or was it a boiler maker? ?  ?

2 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Deleted my earlier comments. Was in a horrible mood....upon further reflection I actually really like this.

Its really not that bad looking of a car.  The front and back are almost....almost...stunning.  Especially in that cherry red colour. 

The interior promises to be worthy of a Cadillac car. So...we are just a bunch of whiny little pansies bitchin' about nothing! 

Yes. The profile seems to look like a new Accord. The new Accord, to those who like sloping, fastback styling sedans, is quite striking and quite unique and quite pleasant to look at. The profile and silhouette only. Because the front and back of the Accord leaves a lot to be desired. I like it, but its ugly.  But having that kind of sloping fastback resemble a Honda is not a bad feature. To those who like that kind of thing.  Its just that I, want MORE for Cadillac.  I DEMAND excellence for Cadillac as I hold Cadillac in very high regard. 

For me, its a shame that the stylists and designers for Cadillac dont seem to have that kind of pride that I hold for Cadillac, it seems.

38 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

So if the CT5 is to be a tweeter, then the CT4 might be between the 2 and 3/4 series in size.  Curious. 

Which A3/A-class size cars don't have a lot of volume to begin with, those are mostly in existence for Europe.  Cadillac buyers think the ATS is small, I don't know why they would go smaller, at a time when sedans are not in demand.

3 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Which A3/A-class size cars don't have a lot of volume to begin with, those are mostly in existence for Europe.  Cadillac buyers think the ATS is small, I don't know why they would go smaller, at a time when sedans are not in demand.

Yup.

Maybe the CT4  is more geared to be sold in China?  And if they sell a dozen units here, well so be it? 

10 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Glad that Whiskey ? is working my friend or was it a boiler maker? ?  ?

A big bowl of mint chocolate chip ice cream actually. Glad to see the powertrain choices here.

11 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Which A3/A-class size cars don't have a lot of volume to begin with, those are mostly in existence for Europe.  Cadillac buyers think the ATS is small, I don't know why they would go smaller, at a time when sedans are not in demand.

And considering with each new generation, the standard bearer 3-series gets larger..as does the C-class and A4 I believe.  Bigger and heavier is the norm for generational redesigns.

6 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

Yup.

Maybe the CT4  is more geared to be sold in China?  And if they sell a dozen units here, well so be it? 

 

Could be..since GM has given up on Europe, China would make sense as a target for sedans..but in China they would need a long wheelbase version.

It's fun to speculate, though...the reality of the truth (or the truth of the reality) shall become apparent in due time...

15 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

Yes. The profile seems to look like a new Accord. The new Accord, to those who like sloping, fastback styling sedans, is quite striking and quite unique and quite pleasant to look at. The profile and silhouette only. Because the front and back of the Accord leaves a lot to be desired. I like it, but its ugly.  But having that kind of sloping fastback resemble a Honda is not a bad feature. To those who like that kind of thing.  Its just that I, want MORE for Cadillac.  I DEMAND excellence for Cadillac as I hold Cadillac in very high regard. 

For me, its a shame that the stylists and designers for Cadillac dont seem to have that kind of pride that I hold for Cadillac, it seems.

 

I'd rather it evoked thoughts of something like an S5 Sport back if it was ditching the Art and Science lines and going the fastback route than an Accord..

1 minute ago, frogger said:

I'd rather it evoked thoughts of something like an S5 Sport back if it was ditching the Art and Science lines and going the fastback route than an Accord..

 

 

And it looks like you would be correct in your logic. As the CT5 would be the A5/S5's sportback's competitor.

But you got to admit, the CT5 comes off more like an Accord than an S5 sportback.

And I think it all comes down to that retarded Hofmeister kink...which I will state again...I like it. 

I also think that the hood of the CT5 looks to be a tad frumpy. Especially as compared to the S5. The S5 has the illusion of the front end to be longer than it actually is. Which accentuates the timeless design of a long hood/short deck theme.

The CT5 does not pull that look off.

The Escala has it, but the Escala is also a longer car with a much longer wheel base.

The Accord also pulls off the long hood/short deck theme quite nicely too. Maybe on the CT5, the picture is too dark and we lose that effect?  We should all see it in person before we continue to crucify the CT5...

51 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

Its really not that bad looking of a car.  The front and back are almost....almost...stunning.  Especially in that cherry red colour. 

The interior promises to be worthy of a Cadillac car. So...we are just a bunch of whiny little pansies bitchin' about nothing! 

Totally agree on the color comment.

No we are not pansies bitchin, that back section from B to C pillar is terrible, but the rest of the auto is awesome enough to deal with that flaw.

Life is not perfect, eat some chocolate and drink your wine and enjoy the majority of what we can!

2 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

FWD cars usually have more interior space and a shorter wheelbase than a RWD car of the same overall length.  Just the nature of FWD vs RWD packaging in general. 

CLA had same overall length as ATS, with 3" less WB but 9" less legroom (FWD vs. RWD), IIRC. It's where the whole 'ATS is unliveable' claim falls apart.

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

CLA had same overall length as ATS, with 3" less WB but 9" less legroom (FWD vs. RWD), IIRC. It's where the whole 'ATS is unliveable' claim falls apart.

Note I said 'usually', not 'always'.   There are plenty of counter examples where FWD cars have bigger interiors yet shorter wheelbases than similarly sized RWD cars because they have more of the interior within the wheelbase because of the transverse layout.  (I feel dirty pointing out a positive aspect of FWD/transverse). 

40 minutes ago, balthazar said:

CLA had same overall length as ATS, with 3" less WB but 9" less legroom (FWD vs. RWD), IIRC. It's where the whole 'ATS is unliveable' claim falls apart.

But that seems to have been fixed.  the A-class sedan has 41.8 inches of legroom in front and 33.9 inches in the rear.  ATS sedan has 42.5 inches in front and 33.5 in the rear.  So the ATS's total legroom is .3 inches more than the A-class which is smaller.

I don't think the ATS is too small necessarily, but most Cadillac buyers aren't looking for a car that small.  But the ATS has other issues other than size that stopped it from selling.

24 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

But that seems to have been fixed.  the A-class sedan has 41.8 inches of legroom in front and 33.9 inches in the rear.  ATS sedan has 42.5 inches in front and 33.5 in the rear.  So the ATS's total legroom is .3 inches more than the A-class which is smaller.

Wait- so MB redesigned/renamed the CLA and gave it the same, "unliveable" rear leg room?? Were they benchmarking the outgoing ATS??

5 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Wait- so MB redesigned/renamed the CLA and gave it the same, "unliveable" rear leg room?? Were they benchmarking the outgoing ATS??

The C-class is closer in size to the ATS.  The A-class is 179 inches long.    If CT4 is smaller than the ATS, then they are going to have to go under 180 inches in length, and still have the same interior dimensions of the current ATS with shrinking the exterior, seems like a tall order for GM design.

I don't think the CT5 will be a C-class competitor, nor do I think CT4 will be smaller than the ATS.  And it probably doesn't matter because there is almost no market demand for Cadillac sedans.  Maybe in China there is some demand, but not much in the USA, and zero in Europe or other parts of the world.  

Probably what they should do is price the CT5 at $39,995 and play the value leader game.  It is their only hope.

50 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

But that seems to have been fixed.  the A-class sedan has 41.8 inches of legroom in front and 33.9 inches in the rear.  ATS sedan has 42.5 inches in front and 33.5 in the rear.  So the ATS's total legroom is .3 inches more than the A-class which is smaller.

I don't think the ATS is too small necessarily, but most Cadillac buyers aren't looking for a car that small.  But the ATS has other issues other than size that stopped it from selling.

I wonder how the new CLA compares to the first gen.  It is slightly larger.  

15 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

The C-class is closer in size to the ATS.

Pay attention, Bunky. I mentioned 2 identical-sized sedans of 183" : CLA & ATS sedans. Total legroom was (IIRC) 9 inches apart- terrible packaging by mercedes. Now, the newer, name-changed entry car is the 'a-class', yet it's rear legroom is just as bad as the ATS's supposed was, and the ATS came out in 2013.

The A-class is intended to compete with other small-compact entry lux sedans like the Audi A3.  The CLA continues ( 2nd gen in 2020) as the ‘coupe’ variation.  

The ATS is in the larger compact niche w/ the C-class, 3 series, A4, etc.  Where the CT4 and CT5 line up is TBD. 

Problem is/was; the CLA sedan was also in the 3-series / c-class larger compact niche. I think that's why MB shrunk the a-class a bit.

Regardless of market intentions, the initial comment I made was addressing interior vs. exterior dimensions.

12 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Really? I think it looks very 3-series sized. 

Its similar in size to the current 5 series.. I think they probably dropped the size a few inches to 194-195 inches. It's currently (CTS) 195.5, while the 5Series is 194.6. So yeah.. I could see that. I think what U are gonna see is a tweener pricing strategy more than anything else.. but the escalated trims will raise the prices to the same level as the German competition. My guess still is that the CT5 is going to be priced like the now $40K BMW 330i, but obviously larger.. SO I figure starting around $45K with the 2.0LTT, which is still $8K less than the 530i. Most don't realize that is what is done with the CT6 and XT5 already. A CT6 starts out at $51K, but in luxury trim where in truth the 7series, for instance, doesn't even have a competitor (4cylinder engine) .. but once U get to the level where a 740i starts... the CT6 Sport 3.0LTT swoops in with a price point that isn't far behind at $70K.. and if U go Platinum.. it is right on top of the 740 at about $88K.

I think the confusion comes because there is an idea that the A Class/CLA and A3 are the proper spots for compact luxos and the segment leader, 3Series has now grown to almost previous gen Camry size.

To me the CT5 is a nice departure.. that may flip the script and bring in new buyers that were turned off by the still perceived snooty look of even the current CTS. Lets face it.. as beautiful as it is, the GEN3, it still comes off as more of an STS, or mature Mid-Size than it does 5Series, boring but Camry-ish look for millennial. This CT5 looks genuinely sport in both forms

53 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

Its similar in size to the current 5 series.. I think they probably dropped the size a few inches to 194-195 inches. It's currently (CTS) 195.5, while the 5Series is 194.6. So yeah.. I could see that. I think what U are gonna see is a tweener pricing strategy more than anything else.. but the escalated trims will raise the prices to the same level as the German competition. My guess still is that the CT5 is going to be priced like the now $40K BMW 330i, but obviously larger.. SO I figure starting around $45K with the 2.0LTT, which is still $8K less than the 530i. Most don't realize that is what is done with the CT6 and XT5 already. A CT6 starts out at $51K, but in luxury trim where in truth the 7series, for instance, doesn't even have a competitor (4cylinder engine) .. but once U get to the level where a 740i starts... the CT6 Sport 3.0LTT swoops in with a price point that isn't far behind at $70K.. and if U go Platinum.. it is right on top of the 740 at about $88K.

I think the confusion comes because there is an idea that the A Class/CLA and A3 are the proper spots for compact luxos and the segment leader, 3Series has now grown to almost previous gen Camry size.

 

To me the CT5 is a nice departure.. that may flip the script and bring in new buyers that were turned off by the still perceived snooty look of even the current CTS. Lets face it.. as beautiful as it is, the GEN3, it still comes off as more of an STS, or mature Mid-Size than it does 5Series, boring but Camry-ish look for millennial. This CT5 looks genuinely sport in both forms

The car is growing on me more and more, but then I always liked the front half and the rear end. Just that weird part by the C pillar, but I do agree it will be a moot point once you tint those damn rear windows and realistically all of them. Still think that redish color is the best so far on this sedan.

3 minutes ago, dfelt said:

The car is growing on me more and more, but then I always liked the front half and the rear end. Just that weird part by the C pillar, but I do agree it will be a moot point once you tint those damn rear windows and realistically all of them. Still think that redish color is the best so far on this sedan.

Whiny little pansy...perhaps?