Cadillac News: Cadillac's Upcoming Flagship Has A Name: CT6

[Drew Dowdell]

S500 plug in will do 0-60 in 5.2 seconds and that goes on sale in March.  Waiting 2 years to get 0-60 in under 6 seconds isn't worth it.  If the CT6 comes in under 4,000 lbs that will be very noteworthy and I'll give them props for that.  But the 3.6 V6 goes back to like 2004, even with the twin turbo version it is an adequate base engine but it doesn't have a lot of wow factor for me in a high end segment.  Like the BMW straight six turbo is fabulous for a 3-series, best engine in the segment, but on a 7-series it doesn't have the same panache.

 

Don't your legs ever get tired from all the time you spend moving the goal posts?  3 years ago you were whining that Cadillacs were too big and too heavy, but as soon as Cadillac comes out with a car that is the same size and lighter than the Germans, those traits don't seem to matter anymore. 

 

The 3.6 today is not the same 3.6 from 2004. ... just the same as the 2.0T in the Regal today is not the same as the 2.0T from 9 years ago.  Just because the displacement number is the same, doesn't make it the same engine. 

[G. David Felt]

SMK, While this story covers a wide range of auto's, BMW had 2 cars in it and MB had none and yet the winner as best driving cars was a Chevy Z28! How does German engineering beat American every time in your mind when independent testing shows America can build ultimate driving cars.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/autosbdc/2014-motor-trends-best-drivers-car/ar-BB5Jkrz

 

It beat Porsche, Fiat, Nissan, etc. Long list of auto's that have always been touted as superior but failed to live up to the hype.

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

S500 plug in will do 0-60 in 5.2 seconds and that goes on sale in March.  Waiting 2 years to get 0-60 in under 6 seconds isn't worth it.  If the CT6 comes in under 4,000 lbs that will be very noteworthy and I'll give them props for that.  But the 3.6 V6 goes back to like 2004, even with the twin turbo version it is an adequate base engine but it doesn't have a lot of wow factor for me in a high end segment.  Like the BMW straight six turbo is fabulous for a 3-series, best engine in the segment, but on a 7-series it doesn't have the same panache.

 

Don't your legs ever get tired from all the time you spend moving the goal posts?  3 years ago you were whining that Cadillacs were too big and too heavy, but as soon as Cadillac comes out with a car that is the same size and lighter than the Germans, those traits don't seem to matter anymore. 

 

The 3.6 today is not the same 3.6 from 2004. ... just the same as the 2.0T in the Regal today is not the same as the 2.0T from 9 years ago.  Just because the displacement number is the same, doesn't make it the same engine. 

 

 

 

Well what U have to understand is that typically when most of his favorite manufacturers up the HP they normally up the liters. Take Nissan for instance with the VQ. From 3.5L to 3.7L we saw a bump. GM on the other hand normally sticks with the same size and screws around with the internals to yield more power. At least since 2008. Jeezus.. the 5.7L lasted forever but the power definitely changed

[smk4565]

 

S500 plug in will do 0-60 in 5.2 seconds and that goes on sale in March.  Waiting 2 years to get 0-60 in under 6 seconds isn't worth it.  If the CT6 comes in under 4,000 lbs that will be very noteworthy and I'll give them props for that.  But the 3.6 V6 goes back to like 2004, even with the twin turbo version it is an adequate base engine but it doesn't have a lot of wow factor for me in a high end segment.  Like the BMW straight six turbo is fabulous for a 3-series, best engine in the segment, but on a 7-series it doesn't have the same panache.

 

Don't your legs ever get tired from all the time you spend moving the goal posts?  3 years ago you were whining that Cadillacs were too big and too heavy, but as soon as Cadillac comes out with a car that is the same size and lighter than the Germans, those traits don't seem to matter anymore. 

 

The 3.6 today is not the same 3.6 from 2004. ... just the same as the 2.0T in the Regal today is not the same as the 2.0T from 9 years ago.  Just because the displacement number is the same, doesn't make it the same engine. 

 

They were too big and heavy and not sized against the competition which includes Lexus as well as the Germans and Jaguar.  Cadillac has been fixing that, although the CTS is a bit big.  They are on the right track with small, medium, large sedans plus the XTS while it lasts.  They need to work on the crossovers next and get coupes and convertibles, but at least on sedans they are getting aligned with the others in terms of size and price. 

 

That being said, I think the de Nysschen and Ellinghaus don't really know how to return Cadillac to greatness.  I think in their minds if they just copy the imports and come up with new branding they will be a success.  But Audi's growth has been on cars below $40,000, Infiniti is in the tank this year with their new naming scheme. 

[balthazar]

Mercedes' growth is also primarily on cars (present & coming) below $40K.

[smk4565]

Not over time, and the S-class is their fastest growing model right now and they raised the price of the C-class to $%0k. Mercedes sells more cars over $40k than it does under. Audi can't say that, they sell like 400 A8 and 1400 A6 per month.

[balthazar]

Audi's not a luxury brand, it's a 'premium' that leans too heavily on VW power trains.

The percentage point bump in S-class sales right now due to the new model is nothing in light of MB's focus at the bottom end of the lineup. How many more FWD cars are on the way? Didn't I read "6" ??

 

These premium & luxury downmarket moves are easy money / quick sales that trade on the nameplate, nothing more. It's not sustainable without serious image degredation.

 

although the CTS is a bit big

you have GOT to be kidding. You really want ALL the same features, engine size/output, and overall dimension to be exact, just different badges & grilles in a given segment?? CTS is 2" longer than the 5-series, it is NOT "a bit big" in the least.

[smk4565]

The CTS is as big as the 2005-2010 STS. If it is supposed to be a driver's car why is it huge. Maybe when it gets called CT4 it will be perceived as smaller.

[balthazar]

[/goal posts moved again]

Does not matter in the least what a car designed decade ago by the same manufacturer measures, we're in the here & now.

It's PERFECTLY sized for the CTS/E/5 segment.

 

Previous, it was nothing but whining that the CTS was a so-called "tweener", here it is within 2 inches and it's still "wrong".

This is just petty, absurd trolling, not a civil conversation.

Edited October 4, 2014 by balthazar

[Cmicasa the Great]

The CTS is as big as the 2005-2010 STS. If it is supposed to be a driver's car why is it huge. Maybe when it gets called CT4 it will be perceived as smaller.

As Balthazar said U are trolling and seem to be completely oblivious to reality outside of Germany... and even then its a weeee bit too "fairy tale" in your mind.

 

The CTS is the current "best handling car in it's segment." The ATS is in it's. I have kno reason to believe that won't be transposed unto the CT6 either.  Back to the point of your idiotic post.. Why wouldn't teh CTS grow in size??? The other cars in the segment have. The 5 series used to be 191.1inches last gen.. now its 193.4. The E-Class grew in size too. But that's hardly the point.. the CTS is for all intents the STS, tho smaller by an inch, because before there was no ATS. 

[smk4565]

The CTS is 5 inches longer than a Lexus GS.   The 5-series has gotten too big also, it is wide, long, heavy and bulky and sales are down..   The E-class in 30 years has added 4 inches of overall length, it has stayed a mid-size car. 

 

If they are going to make the CTS big, why not just keep the STS around?  Because people didn't want to pay $50k for an STS, Cadillac figured they could get people to pay $50k for a CTS, the car below the STS?   Odd thinking.  They could have just chopped 5 inches in length off the CTS to make it the 3-series competitor it should have been 10 years ago and redone the STS to give it another shot against the Germans, Jaguar and Lexus.  Instead they spend all the marketing dollars to introduce the "ATS" which will be a one and done model replaced by a CT2 or whatever it is, then the process repeats of more marketing dollars.

[balthazar]

GS : 190"

e-class : 192"

5-series : 193"

A6 : 194"

CTS : 195"

 

Not a dealbreaker on one single sale in the segment. In fact; indistinguishable without a tape measure.

 

CTS is still handily above the GS (last month: 1592), the A6 (1510) AND the 5-series (1407) in volume, moving 2282 units.

#2 in segment in the only measure you recognize in judging vehicular 'success' : sales volume.

 

BTW, the CTS has only gained 5" in 13 years.

Edited October 5, 2014 by balthazar

[Cmicasa the Great]

The CTS is 5 inches longer than a Lexus GS.   The 5-series has gotten too big also, it is wide, long, heavy and bulky and sales are down..   The E-class in 30 years has added 4 inches of overall length, it has stayed a mid-size car. 

 

If they are going to make the CTS big, why not just keep the STS around?  Because people didn't want to pay $50k for an STS, Cadillac figured they could get people to pay $50k for a CTS, the car below the STS?   Odd thinking.  They could have just chopped 5 inches in length off the CTS to make it the 3-series competitor it should have been 10 years ago and redone the STS to give it another shot against the Germans, Jaguar and Lexus.  Instead they spend all the marketing dollars to introduce the "ATS" which will be a one and done model replaced by a CT2 or whatever it is, then the process repeats of more marketing dollars.

 

 

Thanks for using the GS. Using sales as the gauge.. the GS is quite possibly the worst mid-size luxo in the game with exception to the TL. Furthermore the CTS, despite the extra size is a better driver all around, with gobs more style. The E-Class, if U've ever been to Europe, is the taxi cab of choice in Germany. Essentially the equivalent of a W-Body Impala. Here in the states its the luxury car of old people. Eff the E-class. 

 

 

I do agree that the CTS should have been what the ATS is and the CTS should have simply been the STS. What happened in this situation was that the CTS became a star. The idea was to cash in on this stardom, allowing for it to move up in pricing using the brand equity created by the positive momentum Gen2 created. Lat month  the CTS took the #2 spot without any real discounts, higher ATPs, and no variants. Its down, yes. The explanation is exactly the same as the reasons I just line-up; "no real discounts, higher ATPs, and no variants." I will also add that no other line-up has a direct competitor, priced almost identically on the lot as the CTS has with the XTS. Technically Cadillac has sold almost 41K Mid-Sizied priced luxo sedans in the two cars. No coupe, no Convert, and no "Vseries." Once the XTS is fleet only, or gone to Buick, CTS sales, along with variants could exceed the 5/6 Series and E-class

[G. David Felt]

So with the stupid names of CT and XT, Guess one can then make the logical assumption that we will have a CT6-V and a XT6-V.

 

Wow, talk about boring names with no logic or sense.

 

CT3 = ATS

CT4 = CTS

CT5 = XTS

CT6 = CT6

 

XT3 = Future Compact CUV

XT4 = SRX

XT5 = Future Full Size CUV

Escalade = Idiot Leader will eventually change to his stupid XT6 since he does not understand why Escalades sell.

 

Then we have the really idiot naming of the performance line.

 

CT3-V

CT4-V

CT5-V

CT6-V

 

XT3-V

XT4-V

XT5-V

XT6-V previously known as Escalade ESV-V

 

This truly deserves an Editorial about Cadillac and Naming and the stupidity and lack of creativity this leader is bringing to Cadillac. I give him 2 years of failures before he moves on to destroying some other brand.