2020 Cadillac CT4-V and CT5-V Aren't As Powerful As Their Predecessors

On 5/31/2019 at 6:20 PM, smk4565 said:

Who knows if there will be a more powerful version than these.  GM can say that now, doesn't mean they will build them.  If these cars don't sell they may not bother to put a bigger engine in.  

This CT4 seems to be a refreshed ATS, I would like to see the actual dimensions and weight of it.  I am also curious on the price, and how Cadillac came up with this strategy and direction for these 2 cars.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a27692341/cadillac-ct5-v-ct4-v-track-confirmed/

28 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a27692341/cadillac-ct5-v-ct4-v-track-confirmed/

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

 

Yeah, I saw that after I posted this. I opened C&G and was still in that last thread so as I was reading through that I posted the comment. 

Here's the summary:-

(1) The WEAK SAUCE CT4-V and the CT5-V are disgraces to and a total squandering of the Cadillac V brand. At the minimum, they should have kept the VSport's "V/" badging even if Cadillac is dropping the VSport name.

(2) The CT4-V's 320hp 2.7T I4 is no more than an ECU retune of the Silverado Pickup Truck's 2.7T four banger engine making a "whopping" extra 10 hp. The CT5-V's 355hp 3.0T V6 is no more than an ECU retune of the 335hp 3.0T V6 in the "regular" CT5. Both of which make significantly less power than the existing 404hp 3.0T (LGW) engine in the CT6 Premium and Platinum cars, the 420hp 3.6T V6 in the CTS VSport or the 464hp 3.6T V6 in the ATS-V. This is before we even get to the fact that engines with tiny turbos which peak early and starts running out of breathe at 4,000 rpm (which are exactly what the these new Caddy power plants are designed to do) are decidedly uninteresting to drive -- its akin to the Peterblit driving experience!

(3) The one engine GM could easily have built is a 420 hp rendition of the 2.7T I4. Based on the compressor and turbine maps simply going to a larger turbo like the Honeywell G25-550 will yield ~420hp @ 5,300 rpm / 420 lb-ft @ 2,200~5,200 rpm. This is without actually dropping compression ratio or increasing the 6,100 rpm rev limit. Going to 9.0:1 compression and a slightly larger turbo like the G25-660 will yield about 500 hp @ 5,800 rpm / 460 lb-ft @ 2,600~5,600 rpm. The former would have been a perfect fit for the CT4-V whereas the latter will work well in the CT5-V, 4 cylinders not withstanding. Such engines will also give GM the bragging rights to the "most powerful" production four cylinder engines in the world, snubbing the likes of the 375hp Mercedes-AMG M133 2.0T -- perhaps not in specific output, but certainly in performance and livability.

(4) As it stands today, the CT5 is a total disappointment. Stylistically, the Mazda front end and the Honda Accord C-pillar does wonders to move Cadillac DOWN MARKET and nothing else. The new Vs do not even hold a candle to the outgoing VSports. As an owner of a 2014 CTS Vsport, I will not even consider the CT5. It may become necessary for me to cause additional US Trade deficits and fork over tariffs to buy German, or more likely seek out a used CTS-V.

@dwightlooi but what if they come up with the goods and use the blackwing as is rumored to be the case?

17 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

@dwightlooi but what if they come up with the goods and use the blackwing as is rumored to be the case?

As I said, AS IT STANDS TODAY, the CT5 is a total disappointment. Besides, it'll be hilarious to watch them spin whatever they try to call it. What will it be? CT5-NOT-FAKE-V?

It could have been very subtle, very logical and very easy to understand. Just use give them the CT5-V/ badge; the same "V/" badge the Vsport uses. Basically, while there is no longer a VSport moniker and all performance models are called CT5-V. The V/ badging denote the WEAK SAUCE cars from the real V# cars with the checkered flag badge.

What I suspect is that GM marketing and the Cadillac BU knows that they do not and will not have a real V# for another year and whats to leverage what they got for immediate revenue production. They slap on the V badge hoping that it'll get them a few additional sales which they may not otherwise get.

BTW, the "Blackwing" 4.2T is another WEAK SAUCE engine. I say that empirically because 119~131 bhp/liter is... meh... and really not worth the complexity, mass and cost of turbocharging. Look at it this way. The 500 hp and 550 hp BW is basically a 238 hp 2.0T or 260 hp 2.0T engine in terms of specific output. Not very impressive. The BW is NOT a tri-power engine; it doesn;t have the 3-stage cam switching valvetrain making it a little out of step with the GM's latest high feature Inline fours. Again, not very impressive. It does not share the turbos, pistons, valves and other internals with the other GM products, reducing economies of scale and increasing costs. Again, not very impressive. Finally, like the new 2.0T and 3.0T engines it spends everywhere on the tachnometer above 4,000 rpm running out of breathe which means it is not very enticing when pushed. The more spirited version engine makes 627 lb-ft but "only 550 hp @ 5700. What that means is that torque has fallen to 507 lb-ft by 5,700 rpm -- 120 lb-ft off its peak of 627 lb-ft @ 4,000 rpm. An engine that pulls weaker and weaker as the revs build is not very entertaining. Again, not very impressive.

I would have based the Blackwing on two 2.7T Inline 4s siamesed at the crank at 90 degrees to create a 5.5L V8 (the 2.7T is actually 2.727cc). The engine shares the Tripower valvetrain, pistons, rods, valves and turbos with the 2.7T. The engine will make 620 hp @ 5,000 rpm and 700 lb-ft @ 1,500 rpm in the luxury cruiser applications. The "V" engine upgrades to two G25-660 turbos, big air-to-water ICs, forged internals and officially makes an "ambiguous" ENOUGH horsepower for the AWD CT6-V, XT7-V and whatever the Escalar V ends up being called.

Unofficial tests will reveal that the engine makes about 1000 hp @ 5,800 rpm with 920 lb-ft @ 2,600~5,600 rpm. For all the insane output, the engine has cylinder deactivation, start/stop and 2-stage valve lift control. Just to add to the pun, the drive mode knob should have three positions GREEN, PLUSH and HASTE.

GREEN: Operates permanently in 4-cylinder mode delivering 310 or 500 hp, with start-stop active and disconnects the front wheels.

PLUSH: Operates with a boost limiter for 500 or 700 hp, with 4-cylinder mode automatically engaged in cruise, with start-stop and AWD active.

HASTE: Unlocks full boost for 620 or 1000 hp with cylinder deactivation and start-stop disabled.

And seriously? 1000HP is what you need? 

To each there own but that makes zero sense in this country unless you own a race track with two mile straightaways. 

...

......

Thanks for playing. 

And 1000HP in a car on American roads is just dumb. 

1 hour ago, dwightlooi said:

...

 

 

 

....

As far as CT5-V goes, what if it is $49,950 including destination with a $2500 cash back or 0% for 60 months finance deal on the hood?  I could see the CT4-V for $39k, if they price these low enough they could get some sales volume.   Although if they can't sell at that price point they might as well give up on sedans.

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

...

As far as CT5-V goes, what if it is $49,950 including destination with a $2500 cash back or 0% for 60 months finance deal on the hood?  I could see the CT4-V for $39k, if they price these low enough they could get some sales volume.   Although if they can't sell at that price point they might as well give up on sedans.

1

....

As far as the CT5-V and CT4-V is concerned, the point isn't whether. a $49K CT5 with 355 hp or a $39K CT4 with 320hp is a selleable product. The point is that they should not be called a CT5-V# and CT4-V# which destroys the hard won Cadillac-V brand for no good reason. As I suggested, if GM wants to ditch the clumsy VSport moniker the weak sauce sport models should carry a V/ badge while the proper performance models can carry a V# badge.

Knock it off with the political posts in this thread. I allowed it in the tariffs thread because they are inherently political. This topic is not.

14 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

As far as the CT5-V and CT4-V is concerned, the point isn't whether. a $49K CT5 with 355 hp or a $39K CT4 with 320hp is a selleable product. The point is that they should not be called a CT5-V# and CT4-V# which destroys the hard won Cadillac-V brand for no good reason. As I suggested, if GM wants to ditch the clumsy VSport moniker the weak sauce sport models should carry a V/ badge while the proper performance models can carry a V# badge.

GM cares about salable product.  They could always have Cadillac Blackwing series that is above V-series and slap V-badges on 50% of the product they sell.  Name equity means nothing at Cadillac, they dumped Eldorado Deville and Seville for  STS, CTS, SRX, and dumped those for CT4, CT5, XT5.  They don't care about name brand being built up.  They might be thinking V is desirable, so if they have $40k V cars they will get sales volume.  

I am surprised all SUVs aren't called Escalade Sport, Escalade Imaj, Escalade Evoq, etc

2 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

GM cares about salable product.  They could always have Cadillac Blackwing series that is above V-series and slap V-badges on 50% of the product they sell.  Name equity means nothing at Cadillac, they dumped Eldorado Deville and Seville for  STS, CTS, SRX, and dumped those for CT4, CT5, XT5.  They don't care about name brand being built up.  They might be thinking V is desirable, so if they have $40k V cars they will get sales volume.  

I am surprised all SUVs aren't called Escalade Sport, Escalade Imaj, Escalade Evoq, etc

Then they are a bunch of fools! Brand equity is EVERYTHING. Without brand equity BMW is just another unreliable german car and Lexus is just a Toyota with nicer leather.

9 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

GM cares about salable product.  They could always have Cadillac Blackwing series that is above V-series and slap V-badges on 50% of the product they sell.  Name equity means nothing at Cadillac, they dumped Eldorado Deville and Seville for  STS, CTS, SRX, and dumped those for CT4, CT5, XT5.  They don't care about name brand being built up.  They might be thinking V is desirable, so if they have $40k V cars they will get sales volume.  

I am surprised all SUVs aren't called Escalade Sport, Escalade Imaj, Escalade Evoq, etc

Big talk about naming schemes when your favorite brand has used a hodgepodge of different lettering schemes for decades now. 

Not disagreeing about Cadillac dumping names for letters but let’s keep things in perspective here. 

Why start now?

3 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Why start now?

What do you mean? Cadillac and the lack of names or Mercedes never having names?

35 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Big talk about naming schemes when your favorite brand has used a hodgepodge of different lettering schemes for decades now. 

 

Not disagreeing about Cadillac dumping names for letters but let’s keep things in perspective here. 

SL for 65  years

S-class 47 years

G-wagen for 40 years

E-class 26 years

Pretty consistent there, the suv names are new but the suv craze is new.

4 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

SL for 65  years

S-class 47 years

G-wagen for 40 years

E-class 26 years

Pretty consistent there, the suv names are new but the suv craze is new.

Nice cherry picking there. Want to try that with their CUVs now? Actually, I’ll take care of it. Here’s the explanation straight from Mercedes themselves. 

https://www.mbhuntington.com/mercedes-benz-model-names-explained/

just sayin’, glass houses man. Glass houses. 

11 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

SL for 65  years

S-class 47 years

G-wagen for 40 years

E-class 26 years

Pretty consistent there, the suv names are new but the suv craze is new.

Try again, S-Class has only been since 1993.    Yes, they had cars in those segments prior to those years, but they were not Sxxx until that point. 

1 hour ago, surreal1272 said:

What do you mean? Cadillac and the lack of names or Mercedes never having names?

SMK keeping things in perspective 

19 minutes ago, balthazar said:

SMK keeping things in perspective 

Lol! Gotcha!

3 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Try again, S-Class has only been since 1993.    Yes, they had cars in those segments prior to those years, but they were not Sxxx until that point. 

While we're setting the record straight, the xxxS / Sxxx wasn't in the luxury segment until the 1990s; it was just a run-of-the-mill family sedan prior to. Like a Plymouth.

EDIT :: I take it back- you could get better in a Plymouth (1965 here). Whew- look at those MB door panels! ~ 

6 hours ago, balthazar said:

While we're setting the record straight, the xxxS / Sxxx wasn't in the luxury segment until the 1990s; it was just a run-of-the-mill family sedan prior to. Like a Plymouth.

EDIT :: I take it back- you could get better in a Plymouth (1965 here). Whew- look at those MB door panels! ~ 

I'll tell you this...

The USA is a high cost country. You cannot design, engineer and make cars in a high cost ####ry while trying to be a value leader in the automotive industry. You can bean count all you want; you'll still lose the affordable end of the market to cheap imports and your bean counted products still won't sell as luxury exports. That was GM and the other US manufacturer's folly in the 80s and 90s.

USA manufacturers, operating in a high cost country, can be a Porsche, a BMW, a Mercedes, a Rolls-Royce or a Ferrari, but they cannot be a Hyundai or a Geely. This necessarily means that they MUST shed marketshare and focus on the premium end of the industry. It's very simple logic, but one which nobody seems to understand for decades.

The only work-around there is if your higher end lines subsidize your lower end models… but from a business case scenario it makes no sense. Why do all the investment/work with no ROI? Yeah; there a couple of reasons, such as filling production capacity, but its still just 'busy work'.

3 hours ago, balthazar said:

The only work-around there is if your higher end lines subsidize your lower end models… but from a business case scenario it makes no sense. Why do all the investment/work with no ROI? Yeah; there a couple of reasons, such as filling production capacity, but its still just 'busy work'.

Why would you want that? Just reduce capacity, sell less and make more money! The point of any business is to make money. It is not to make a lot of things. Profitability is king. Profitability was why Porsche ALMOST got rich enough to take over Volkswagen. In the end they over stretched and got reverse swallowed, but the fact that a 250,000 car manufacturer was even in a position to buy a 10,000,000 car conglomerate 40x its size serves well to illustrate the point.

As far as economies of scale, once you get to a certain volume, there is practically no difference in your unit costs. GM sells about 3,000,000 cars whereas Mazda sells about 300,000 cars. But, the amount of money each manufacturer will have to pay for an alternator, a spark plug or an upholstered seat is for all intents and purposes about the same.

15 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Try again, S-Class has only been since 1993.    Yes, they had cars in those segments prior to those years, but they were not Sxxx until that point. 

They had a 1972 450SEL, they called S-class.  Doesn’t matter if the S was a true end or the front.  The 300SL is still and SL.

6 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

I'll tell you this...

The USA is a high cost country. You cannot design, engineer and make cars in a high cost ####ry while trying to be a value leader in the automotive industry. You can bean count all you want; you'll still lose the affordable end of the market to cheap imports and your bean counted products still won't sell as luxury exports. That was GM and the other US manufacturer's folly in the 80s and 90s.

USA manufacturers, operating in a high cost country, can be a Porsche, a BMW, a Mercedes, a Rolls-Royce or a Ferrari, but they cannot be a Hyundai or a Geely. This necessarily means that they MUST shed marketshare and focus on the premium end of the industry. It's very simple logic, but one which nobody seems to understand for decades.

Toyota builds most of their cars in the USA, and the others in Japan with even higher costs.  They seem to have figured it out.

3 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

Why would you want that? Just reduce capacity, sell less and make more money! The point of any business is to make money. It is not to make a lot of things. Profitability is king.

I agree, but in a manufacturing industry there are a myriad of conditions that have some degree of bottom line/cost. Union contracts and plant costs, raw material contracts which MAY make balance sheet sense to go ahead and put into production than stockpile/ get NO revenue from.

12 minutes ago, balthazar said:

I agree, but in a manufacturing industry there are a myriad of conditions that have some degree of bottom line/cost. Union contracts and plant costs, raw material contracts which MAY make balance sheet sense to go ahead and put into production than stockpile/ get NO revenue from.

There are two alternatives...

(1) You eliminate all wage floors, taxes, regulations, social safety nets and everything else and have absolute capitalism and zero immigration control. In that case, US workers will be able to match 50 cents an hour wages if they have to and if demand and supply allows it. Absolute and comparative advantages that you learned in economics 101 applies again because labor efficiency is measured in man-hours not dollars.

(2) You tariff the hell out of imports to eliminate any price advantage they enjoy from being in a lower cost country. But, we have done the opposite because our leaders have NEVER represented the interest of the country, just the interest of their Globalist corporate donors.

Let me give you an example. The EU is a net exporter of cars, the USA is a net importer of cars. Why? Is it because they make better cars or their workers do a better job? Or is it, at least in part, because EU tariffs US car exports to the EU at 10%, whereas the US tariffs EU cars only at 2.5%?

Wasn’t talking about production WRT immigration, merely within the OEMs POV. 

But agree with you in principle, i don’t understand advocating against instilling the same policies other trade partners do against you. Pretty sure that makes me an ‘anti-redistributionist’.

Gotta love “I love choice as long as you choose us” mantra of some folks.

Its like it’s your choice to go or not to go to church so long as choose going to church. 

And I swore we were done with this idiotic tariff discussion yesterday. Guess some folks just can’t let go of things. Must be a pitiful life. 

Back to the topic... my opinion is VERY SIMPLE:-

• 320hp CT4-V and 355hp CT5-V should where the V/ previously used on the VSport models.
• The high performance CT4-V and CT5-V can wear the V# used on the current CTS-V and ATS-V cars.
• Cadillac can call both V/ and V# cars CTS-V models
• This will not hurt the CTS-V brand, it'll be subtle yet very easy to differential by anyone who cares.

I also believe that a 420 hp version of the 2.7T four banger is the one engine GM really stands to benefit from across the greatest number of models, and that it is EASILY attainable.

38 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

Back to the topic... my opinion is VERY SIMPLE:-

• 320hp CT4-V and 355hp CT5-V should where the V/ previously used on the VSport models.
• The high performance CT4-V and CT5-V can wear the V# used on the current CTS-V and ATS-V cars.
• Cadillac can call both V/ and V# cars CTS-V models
• This will not hurt the CTS-V brand, it'll be subtle yet very easy to differential by anyone who cares.

I also believe that a 420 hp version of the 2.7T four banger is the one engine GM really stands to benefit from across the greatest number of models, and that it is EASILY attainable.

So which vehicle would you put that 2.7T 4cyl in, other than the CT4 and CT5?

On 6/1/2019 at 6:49 PM, NINETY EIGHT REGENCY said:

I have looked at the video and studied these two cars. These are my thoughts only...

GM clearly has not fixed Cadillac. There is a huge problem. I thought about the changes in the lineup.  All they did was drop XTS and replace it with XT6 crossover because this is what sells. XT6 just like XTS appeals to the same segment of buyers. 

They replaced CTS and ATS. They said that was not happening. They did. They go by different names( CT4 and CT5). They have three sedans instead of four.  XTS was too close to CT6 and put the squeeze on CTS. At least XTS had a bigger trunk unlike the small trunk on CT6.  They still have not fixed the fundamental problems of the CTS and ATS. I checked out the dimensions on the CT4. It is as big as a downsized 1986 Buick Riviera.  They at least got the c pillar right on CT4.

They still clearly have not let this Euro aspiration thing go.  They need to stop being ashamed who they they are,  and use the heritage and history to rebuild Cadillac.  GM has the strong heritage and does not use it to rebuild the entire company.

It is like John Mc Elroy from Autoline said:  GM is shrinking its foot print globally for the next down turn. They want to act like a smaller company, but they do not realize they are still a large company.  They are smaller globally:  No presence in Europe, and have left countries they were not selling. That is a good move, but you have got to invest in your brands. GM is scared to take chances and it shows. They cannot depend on China. They need a: Ed Welburn, a Harley Earl, or a Bill Mitchell, a Wayne Cherry, or Chuck Jordan to lead design.

Looking Back on GM’s Six Past Design Chiefs

https://www.automobilemag.com/news/looking-back-gms-six-design-chiefs/

The Cadillac crest needs revision. I at first thought with the guy that was working for Cadillac whose first name starts with a U who left recently was changing it, that maybe it was a good idea. I do not think so now. It does not say luxury or stand out any longer. It is no different than a Chevrolet emblem.  You could put Chevrolet emblems on these two cars and they could pass for Chevrolets. That Cadillac emblem/ crest is missing something.  Even the one from the 1950's said "luxury" 

They need to bring the wreath back or the V or make them emblem more detailed.  Right now it does not say luxury. It says "cheap or mass market"

It is sad when a company favors Chevrolet for everything and it shows. Too many brands have suffered because of Chevrolet. People thought oh, kill brands and it will solve the problem. It has not and GM still is doing the same thing and making the same mistakes. This is getting old. They did not give Oldsmobile this much time to turn around. That was unfair. 

GM should engineer top down and not bottom up. What is good enough for Chevrolet is not good enough for the rest of GM. They should invest and change how they think. 

The people who post here know what Cadillac is. GM does not know.  Cadillac is majestic. It is stately. It is luxury. It stands apart. It has features you should not find on Chevrolet. It has styling to stay you have arrived. 

CT6 is a good start, but it is not complete. That c pillar on that car does not say Cadillac. It says Toyota, Audi or other six window design c- pillar cars.  You look at CT5, you do not immediately think Cadillac. You think Saturn or Chevrolet. It should not be that way. Cadillac needs to lay off all that black trim. Again.. it says cheap.  

They have taken the Escala concept styling and put it on the  CT4( small) the CT5( medium) and the CT6( large).  That philosophy does not work. That is what BMW does. BMW is in trouble right now too. 

If Pontiac was here and they said these two cars were Pontiac, no one would have an issue because that is what they would expect from Pontiac.  If they said they were Holden, no one would have an issue. 

When you look at Cadillac, you should want to own it or drive it.  It should be nice to look at. The only vehicle that has stayed true to Cadillac's mission is Escalade. They need to look at that vehicle and build on that. They need to learn who they are again.

They need to start using real names. The letter and number thing is not working.  Just stop. 

I am just expressing how I feel. I do not work at GM, but it is clear to the outside what needs to happen to fix Cadillac. 

I want GM and Cadillac to be great again. What will it take?  What must happen? 

 

 

 

 

 

Can anybody tell me the difference between today's Cadillac from all other luxury makes?  As in a unique selling point.  SuperCruise is great but Cadillac needs a clear identity that a ten-year-old would recognize.  Escalade truly fills the bill, while the XT CUVs do fall short.  The sedans do need to stop trying to be German.  Neither Lexus nor Acura made that infuriating error.  Luxury car buyers are not going to ditch the Germans or Lexus if Cadillac is not true to itself.  Ideally, Cadillac would have its OWN design studio AND its own factory so that GM can make Cadillac vehicles, not share facilities with the others.  Cadillac needs its own leadership who understands what Cadillac is and proceed accordingly.  Sometimes that means telling the CEO NO to stupid bean counting moves that hurt the vehicle more than its helps the bottom line.  In fact, Cadillac should return to names so that it can be a true All-American luxury make (the alphanumeric designations belong to Germany ---- send those back).  At a time when a lot of people are pushing for a clear identity, why can't GM in general (and Cadillac in particular) push for an all-American identity that can bring pride to its owners, not just mere badge snobbery?

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/mark-phelan/2019/06/06/cadillac-v-series-sedan/1340604001/

I agree with Riviera that Cadillac needs identity.  But Cadillac right now reminds me more of Chevy.  The design language inside and out screams Chevy, all their SUVs are based on Chevys as well.  I can’t remember a time that Cadillac design seems so close to Chevy since maybe the dark days of the mid 80s.  

It is NOT that Cadillac doesn't have an identity. It is that its identity keeps changing!

Through the 90s, Cadillacs were comfort barges just like every other American luxury marque.

Then Cadillacs were the High Value Luxury with stupid cars like the BTS followed by the CTS

Then Cadillacs were the Performance Luxury with the ATS and 3rd Gen CTS

Now, Cadillacs are the balanced luxury -- a mixture of above average performance with above average comfort for above average value.

It should have been very simple for GM -- Buick is Comfort Luxury to take on Lexus and serve Chinese likings, Caddy is Performance Luxury to beat BMW. But GM's wavering has complicated their own game.

1 hour ago, riviera74 said:

So which vehicle would you put that 2.7T 4cyl in, other than the CT4 and CT5?

420 hp @ 5,300 rpm, 420 lb-ft @ 2,200~5,200 rpm goes a long way and is really a sweet spot for performance vehicles particularly so when its from a four banger.

• XT4-V# *
• XT5-V/ *
• XT6-V/ *
• CT6-V/ *
• Escalade (as the base engine)
• Camaro RS
• Buick Regal GNX *
• Silverado Z71
• GMC Terrain Denali R *
• GMC Acadia Denali R *

* AWD w/ Ford 8F57 8-speed Automatic transmission

@riviera74, @NINETY EIGHT REGENCY, @smk4565, @dwightlooi ~ ALL the above premises are erroneous.

>>"Can anybody tell me the difference between today's Cadillac from all other luxury makes?"<<
If you can answer how Audi/BMW/mercedes/lexus are different than all other luxury makes, you can answer the same for Cadillac.
>>"The sedans do need to stop trying to be German."<<
They're not; it was the Germans who became distinctly American, then eclipsed Cadillac in many instances. This was a clear targeting/copying, and they did a good job by the '90s, but prior to they weren't even on the same field.
>>"Not everyone agrees the V-series is what Cadillac needs, though. Cadillac super cars “answer a question the world wasn't asking,”"<<
Wow, an issue "not everyone" agrees on? We're still on Earth, correct? "Not everyone" agrees with anything you care to mention, especially within the automotive industry.
>>"I agree with Riviera that Cadillac needs identity."<<
It has as much as any other luxury brand, with a richer heritage.
>>"It is NOT that Cadillac doesn't have an identity. It is that its identity keeps changing!"<<
It really hasn't in the 2000s. Prior to that, it was a near non-stop bemoaning of how out of step Cadillac was in the luxury field. They adjusted their course heading and now people want them to go back. 

Where people fall into their own wormhole is their erroneous idea that Cadillac MUST be a singular, black & white, hard-line "definition"; a one-mission brand. I struggle to think of a multi-model mainstream brand that does this. I guess one might say ferrari or Lamborghini, tho ferrari's low point in the '80s is hard to remedy with their before & after.

Is Cadillac where I personally would advocate they be? Not exactly, but my perspective is highly unique. But it's from the vantage point that I can see the Overall Picture that people have cried out for 'Cadillac to go back to being Cadillac' with no Earthly idea how to define that or what that means.

15 minutes ago, balthazar said:

@riviera74, @NINETY EIGHT REGENCY, @smk4565, @dwightlooi ~ ALL the above premises are erroneous.
Is Cadillac where I personally would advocate they be? Not exactly, but my perspective is highly unique. But it's from the vantage point that I can see the Overall Picture that people have cried out for 'Cadillac to go back to being Cadillac' with no Earthly idea how to define that or what that means. 

"Highly unique" while being "average in many areas and outstanding in none" is an oxymoron.

1 hour ago, dwightlooi said:

 

It should have been very simple for GM -- Buick is Comfort Luxury to take on Lexus and serve Chinese likings, Caddy is Performance Luxury to beat BMW. But GM's wavering has complicated their own game.

But Chevrolet is the performance division of GM as proven by the fact that the Camaro and Corvette have better performance than any Cadillac.

The gen 1 CTS was a good looking car, it stood out, looked nothing like any other GM product.  The XT6 looks like it was designed by the same person that designed the Blazer as do a lot of other Cadillacs.  

Yes the identity keeps changing that is a big problem, the other problem is product as displayed by CT4 and CT5, and the 3rd problem is marketing.  They have 3 main issues and I don’t know if they can get 1 right let alone all 3.

I was at first against the reduction in power of the CT4/5-V.

The German brands have expanded their M models and AMGs to no detriment to their high power options. I don’t think this has be different for Cadillac either.

I like the CT4 quite a bit too.

I think Cadillac in terms of non-crossovers really only lags in glitzy looking infotainment systems and model choice like coupes, or ultra luxury level cars above the CT6.

7 minutes ago, Suaviloquent said:

I was at first against the reduction in power of the CT4/5-V.

The German brands have expanded their M models and AMGs to no detriment to their high power options. I don’t think this has be different for Cadillac either.

I like the CT4 quite a bit too.

I think Cadillac in terms of non-crossovers really only lags in glitzy looking infotainment systems and model choice like coupes, or ultra luxury level cars above the CT6.

There is nothing wrong with a 355hp CT5 or a 320 hp CT4. But why give them the full CT5-V and CT4-V badging? As I said they could have used the old V/ badge from the VSport without calling them VSports.

Good grief. I’m a bit mystified by the lettering change but I’m not going to harp on it for three pages until more details come out regarding other trim options. Who knows? There might actually be a semi good reason for it. 

2 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

"Highly unique" while being "average in many areas and outstanding in none" is an oxymoron.

I didn't say Cadillac was highly unique. Then again, none of the other luxury players are either. 

Or were you saying I was 'average in many/outstanding in none'? 

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

But Chevrolet is the performance division of GM as proven by...

It matters not at all that Cadillac & Chevrolet are both under General Motors. This is where you continually trip yourself up. 'General Motors' is a far secondary to Cadillac and Chevrolet. Just like when Buick & Olds & Chevy & Pontiac all had mid-6 liter V8 muscle cars selling near 100K per year ('66 GTO) and pulling down a 54% market share, there is literally no reason 2 (or 3 or 4) brands cannot have performance cars. None. VW has Lambo, bugatti & porsche under the same corporate letterhead- where's the outcry there? Don't all 3 have some excellent performance cars; which is the "performance division" of VW?? Full-fledged & blatant hypocrisy.

It's exactly like saying only one division should have CUVs, and you've actually said the complete opposite there.

30 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Or were you saying I was 'average in many/outstanding in none'? 

That...that right there...would be me.

Got you beat by a mile! 

@smk4565

I wanted to respond to that Chevy is GM's performance rant of yours...but I got bored writing it all up...I guess @balthazar took care of it anyway...and I wrote it EXACTLY how he put it...  Its awesome!!!  And Im impressed with myself...you know....the whole Im average in many/outstanding in none thing...

But since he did not mention the one thing that I wanted to...Ill do it now.  All of a sudden, I got some excitement again in me.

OK...

Chevrolet has no high performance SEDANS anymore...and that is worldwide too.  Chevrolet has got ONLY 2 two door coupe sports cars...1 that seats 4...more or less, and the other that only seats 2.  

Cadillac...yeah...Cadillac...I did say Cadillac, right? So as we dont confuse Chevrolet with Cadillac and sedans with coupes.

Cadillac....has got 3 high performance SEDANS and NO high performance coupes for sale. 

So...although, like I wanted to say, but Balthy said it anyway...there is NO reason why even BUICK cannot sell high performance stuff under the GM umbrella...but as it stands NOW...Chevrolet and Cadillac dont even sell the same high performance shyte...

And while the way the market has shifted lately, I dont think Chevy is hurting without the SS 4 door, and I dont think Cadillac is going to hurt without having a 2 seat sports car in their line-up.   

Cadillac is hurting not having a PERSONAL COUPE and CONVERTIBLE though.  And the PERSONAL COUPE thing need NOT be a car. It could also be a 4 door fastback CUV  type thingy... an IMPOSING... "get the phoque outta my way I have arrived" type personal CUV thing. One that even outdoes the Escalade in the "get the phoque outta my way I have arrived" category. 

It could be as big as the Escalade or it could be as big as the XT6...but it needs one.

And to answer Balthy's respoonse above about how one perceives what Cadillac lacks.

Ive been whining about Cadillac longer than all of of you...

But there is always ONE thing that I always say...

And yes...its to go back to what they are known for. 

And that is ARROGANT, IMPOSING, IN YOUR FACE LUXURY the ONLY way Cadillac and AMERICA knows how...

Lincoln is kinda doing it...but the Continental was a bust, because it truly was NOT an imposing, in your face American luxury car....

But Cadillac could CERTAINLY do high performance. SHYTE...they've been doing it BETTER than the Germans...And I wouldnt worry too much about these new V cars...there is more to come...

19 minutes ago, balthazar said:

It matters not at all that Cadillac & Chevrolet are both under General Motors. This is where you continually trip yourself up. 'General Motors' is a far secondary to Cadillac and Chevrolet. Just like when Buick & Olds & Chevy & Pontiac all had mid-6 liter V8 muscle cars selling near 100K per year ('66 GTO) and pulling down a 54% market share, there is literally no reason 2 (or 3 or 4) brands cannot have performance cars. None. VW has Lambo, bugatti & porsche under the same corporate letterhead- where's the outcry there? Don't all 3 have some excellent performance cars; which is the "performance division" of VW?? Full-fledged & blatant hypocrisy.

It's exactly like saying only one division should have CUVs, and you've actually said the complete opposite there.

2 brand can have performance cars, but Cadillac should have the best performance cars at GM, then work your way down to the others.  

To use the VW example, Bugatti is $1 million plus, Lamborghini is $250k-$500k or whatever they cost, Porsche is $50k-$250k (baring a one off Carrera GT or 918 Hybrid).   Throw in Audi if you want but the R8 is not as fast as a Huracan and their SUVs or A8 aren't as fast as a Cayenne or Panamera.  They keep things in levels, it makes sense what they do.