Cadillac wins midsize comparison about a blend of luxury and performance

[Cmicasa the Great]

^^^ No. The issue with the size of the ATS has more to do with the fact that it was designed in 2006.. and was supposed to debut in 2008-2009 as a same size and dimension competitor to the E9X 3series. Simple as that. The F3X 3Series is simply larger.. thus when comparison are made the reviewer comes away praising the 3series for its roomier (by a smidge) backseat. The driving dynamics aside.. the ATS one flaw.. unless the backseat is truly an issue.. is that its gauge cluster is more Chevy than the Camaros. IN fact.. if they gave the ATS the Camaro's cluster.. they'd be good to go for the remainder of the life cycle.. That life cycle is over in just a bit

The ATS is not too small, it is the same size as a 3-series which has sold like hot cakes for 20 years. The ATS is 4-5 inches longer than a mid 2000s C-class. Size isn't the problem, poor packaging and cheap dash are.
 

 

 

Pretty much. 

[smk4565]

The ATS is just poorly packaged, like many GM cars.  A 2003-2007 era C-class was 178.2 inches long, yet had the same rear seat legroom and a larger trunk than the ATS does.  The ATS is sized for the market 10 years ago on the inside, but by todays size on the outside.

 

The ATS is 182.8 inches long, the 3-series sedan is 182.4 inches long.  The ATS is 71.1 inches wide, the 3-series 71.3.  The 3-series still has more rear seat room and a bigger trunk.  

 

Even the CTS isn't well packaged, it is as big as the STS was at this point, the longest car in the segment and it doesn't seem like the roomiest at all.  

[hyperv6]

^^^ No. The issue with the size of the ATS has more to do with the fact that it was designed in 2006.. and was supposed to debut in 2008-2009 as a same size and dimension competitor to the E9X 3series. Simple as that. The F3X 3Series is simply larger.. thus when comparison are made the reviewer comes away praising the 3series for its roomier (by a smidge) backseat. The driving dynamics aside.. the ATS one flaw.. unless the backseat is truly an issue.. is that its gauge cluster is more Chevy than the Camaros. IN fact.. if they gave the ATS the Camaro's cluster.. they'd be good to go for the remainder of the life cycle.. That life cycle is over in just a bit

The ATS is not too small, it is the same size as a 3-series which has sold like hot cakes for 20 years. The ATS is 4-5 inches longer than a mid 2000s C-class. Size isn't the problem, poor packaging and cheap dash are.

 

 

Pretty much.

The dash is a product of the old GM mixed save a dollar past Cadillac managment. JDN has already pointed out he does not like it either so expect it to change soon. It too will be a part of the refresh.

Lets face it we could sit here and pick the car to the bones but that is pointless as the new management agrees with most points and is in the process of addressing it.

I have seen complaints about many detail things like no folding mirrors or even dimming mirror etc. Much of these issues were because old GM was putting the money into the Alpha and not so much on the features and tried to control the price. Lets face it you leave bits like this off because of price. As it is now we have many complaining about price because they find they are no longer part of the Cadillac price structure.

So in a way I can see why they help up on some areas but I no longer see that as an issue anymore as they are no longer reliant on volume anymore and it is all about profit per unit.

Even the Door handle dispute was clearly pointed out in the media that Mark had with GM before JDN arrived pointed out while GM has improved there were still some as Lutz called them people who were part of the problem still at GM and wanted to save 4-5 bucks on a door handle in a car costing $80K?

At this point we know what is there and what changed are needed and just need to see in a refresh how many they can address. Packaging may be improved but we may see some limits in a refresh till they have time to revamp the entire car.

[Cmicasa the Great]

The ATS is just poorly packaged, like many GM cars.  A 2003-2007 era C-class was 178.2 inches long, yet had the same rear seat legroom and a larger trunk than the ATS does.  The ATS is sized for the market 10 years ago on the inside, but by todays size on the outside.

 

The ATS is 182.8 inches long, the 3-series sedan is 182.4 inches long.  The ATS is 71.1 inches wide, the 3-series 71.3.  The 3-series still has more rear seat room and a bigger trunk.  

 

Even the CTS isn't well packaged, it is as big as the STS was at this point, the longest car in the segment and it doesn't seem like the roomiest at all.  

 

 

I can honestly say.. now that I own one.. that the room in CTS rear is adequate. The thing is that at 6'3" I put my seat all the way back and my kid had no issue with legroom on that side of the car. My other kid was sitting on the passenger side laid back like jack.. as the seat wasn't all the way back.  The CTS replacement will probably go to Omega. I could see it staying at 196 inchs.. and getting a bump in Wheelbase (currently at 114.6 inches) too coming in at around 117 in N.Amer, like the 5Series. It has been said that the CT6 handles as well as the current CTS.. so certainly I would think that an Omega based... smaller than CT6... CTS would handle as well or better, not losing any of its agility, and losing a few hundred lbs in the change over. This would be beneficial in amortizing the Omega platform even quicker.. (altho I would still push it out to an Impala at Chevy and a Park Ave or Avenir at Buick) along with the CT7 and CT8. LAstly.. the difference between the CTS and the Competition is negligible

 

 

[smk4565]

The CTS shouldn't be 196 inches long though, the old one was 191 inches long.  If they get any more size creep on the CTS, it will be the size of a 2nd gen Olds Aurora.  What happened to mid-size?  And it is wasted exterior space anyway, as current CTS is 5 inches longer than Gen 2, yet has less interior room.  When you look at that list, the A6 and E-class are smaller than the CTS, but have more room.

[Cmicasa the Great]

The CTS shouldn't be 196 inches long though, the old one was 191 inches long.  If they get any more size creep on the CTS, it will be the size of a 2nd gen Olds Aurora.  What happened to mid-size?  And it is wasted exterior space anyway, as current CTS is 5 inches longer than Gen 2, yet has less interior room.  When you look at that list, the A6 and E-class are smaller than the CTS, but have more room.

 

 

The current CTS is 195.5.. not 196, I just rounded. The part that U didn't bring up is that the CTS has more room in the front than it did in Gen 2. I kno.. I kno.. when driving a car the main concern for U seems to be that their is more room for the passengers in the rear than the ones in the front.. despite the fact that 80% of the time (90% in my case) only the front is occupied. 

 

Truth be told.. I think that the whole legroom thing was exacerbated by U german lovers (yes.. I spelled it with a lower case "G" out of disrespect) because Cadillac's Alpha's are just that damn good. Car beats in 95% of all categories. so lets find the one thing that the germans have as an advantage.. rear seat legroom   . Don't worry tho.. GM hears U.. and will now bring a ATS and CTS replacement out that has that too. Again.. I'm betting because of this complaint we will be seeing a CT3 and CT5 with more legroom, improved driving capability andmin 200lbs less weight. Then.. like I said a week ago when I laid out $$$.. "f@#k gERMANY and their cars"

[balthazar]

The ATS has 1.3 inches LESS wheelbase than the 3-series, but only 1.1 inches LESS TOTAL legroom (it has MORE front seat legroom than the 3-series).

 

How is that "poor" packaging again?

[hyperv6]

The ATS has 1.3 inches LESS wheelbase than the 3-series, but only 1.1 inches LESS TOTAL legroom (it has MORE front seat legroom than the 3-series).

 

How is that "poor" packaging again?

I think it is not so much the dims but the use of the space. The knee room is tight in the back of an ATS like the last Bu and just needs some things moved around a little bit. Nothing that could not be overcome.

As for the Coupe it is every bit as bad as the Camaro. Once you move the front seat up far enough there is little comfort up front and for me at 5/11 my head is into the head liner. But to be fair my head is in the headliner on about 98% of most coupes today. One thing that is worse is the Mustang as my head is into the rear window and it is harder on the noggin.

Over all big picture the complaints on rear sear room in the sedan are small. Yes a little more here and there space would be nice but I really don't think anyone who likes the car is going to walk just for that reason and that single reason only.

Some like to take small issues and blow up to where it is just not real anymore.

Besides if back seat room is that important most people are buying larger cars like the CTS or higher number German car.

[Drew Dowdell]

The dash is a last minute change to fix a serious visibility issue with the originally planned design.  What you see today was supposed to appear as if it were floating behind a darker screen. You would have only seen the text and the needles with a bit of graphics to give it depth.   From what I understand, it would have been a really neat effect.

 

Last minute, this was changed because in certain outside light situations it was found that the dash would wash out completely and was pretty much invisible to the driver.  The only change they could manage at the time was changing the cover glass from the tinted smokey look to a clear look.

 

If you look very very closely at the gauges in person (not in pictures, you can't get the 3d effect), you'll be able to see what they were going for and how neat it might have looked.

 

This info comes straight from a higher up at Cadillac.

[regfootball]

 

 

The ATS is not too small, it is the same size as a 3-series which has sold like hot cakes for 20 years. The ATS is 4-5 inches longer than a mid 2000s C-class. Size isn't the problem, poor packaging and cheap dash are.

On a related note to the dated GS with yesterday's IS-F power train, I saw a Lexus GX the other day with the 2015 grille and thought that is such a joke. The body panels from the A-piller back have not changed since 2002, it has a 4.7 liter V8 making 300 hp getting 14 mpg and people are still buying it. Why? And it looks to tall that it would tip over.

yes, actually that is right regarding the ATS.  The ATS is packaged poorly.  No rear seat room.  Tiny trunk.  And its needs a new interior.

 

Regarding the XT5, I like the new XT5.  There aren't the styling or packaging issues like Cadillac has on the sedans.

 

Cadillac has a one track mind.  You can have performance, or styling, or packaging, or luxury.  Can't rarely pick more than two.

 

That is just it the packaging is the problem not the size. I expect that will be fixed with the refresh or at least improved.

A lot of the short comings of Cadillac are due to the design by committee and the GM interference. Compromises were made to make those who were still the problem inside GM happy. Mark has been fighting them till he was able to pull off the money and arrival of JDN.

 

I was taken aback when i sat in the new CT6 at the auto show the other day.  The front seems cramped and restricted, and not easy ingress / egress.  It's no DTS up there.  The car itself is still narrow.  The back seat did have leg room, but not as much as I expected, and lacked girth also.  The back trim of the front seats was a deplorable deal, cheap cheap unsculpted plastic that would have seemed out of place even in a Grand Am.  Again, this is no DTS...the front felt as tight as in the CTS.  The windshield is in your lap and the doors and center console really narrow up your available seating space.

 

The interior itself seemed cheap as far as the plastics and the assembly......but i will give it a temporary pass, it was the base CT6, so that's not gonna be top of the line.  Cadillac wants you to spend 15-40 grand more to have something nice.  But seriously a Mazda6 had a nicer interior......

 

It's very evident to me now why it's no flagship.  6 is about in the middle.  It's a CTS with some extra rear seat legroom but a duller dash.  There is plenty of room and need for Cadillac to do a better job with the potential flagships.  Meanwhile, the sedan lineup is a complete alphabet soup mess.  They all sit on top of each other and there's not the unique selling proposition in any of them, really.  Like usual they will say they are going to fix it but years will go buy and nothing gets fixed.

 

I think the V series are the new age Pontiacs, the GXp's or whatever.  Lots of body additions, dechroming, no ribbing though.  The V's do look good and do bring the attention but really the rest of the lineup should have some of that pizazz as well.

 

Maybe the Continental will win out against the CT6, gotta wait to see a loaded CT6 before putting the knife in its back.  Continentals interior looked like it had good materials in there (of course, though I am sure it was the loaded one).

The ATS is just poorly packaged, like many GM cars.  A 2003-2007 era C-class was 178.2 inches long, yet had the same rear seat legroom and a larger trunk than the ATS does.  The ATS is sized for the market 10 years ago on the inside, but by todays size on the outside.

 

The ATS is 182.8 inches long, the 3-series sedan is 182.4 inches long.  The ATS is 71.1 inches wide, the 3-series 71.3.  The 3-series still has more rear seat room and a bigger trunk.  

 

Even the CTS isn't well packaged, it is as big as the STS was at this point, the longest car in the segment and it doesn't seem like the roomiest at all.  

Friend who was with me at the auto show this weekend commented firmly about how he thought the CTS was really small inside when we were sitting in it.  First thing he said, he blurted it out, and I never even egged him on to it.  I told him, we ain't even tried to get in the ATS yet.......

 

part of luxury in the car market is space and room, and Cadillac really hasn't delivered on that very well with sedans since the death of the DTS.  Well, the XTS is somewhat roomy but I doubt many Cadillac and GM faithful even know the XTS exists.....

 

It's really strange that way because the SRX is compact outside and actually very roomy and comfortable inside.

 

I remember my selling days a few years back and we had some Merc C classes of the late 00's and early 10's and I recall them being very well packaged from an interior space standpoint.  

Edited March 14, 2016 by regfootball

[hyperv6]

Conti will have its own set of issues. Being based on the Taurus it may not be all that roomy inside and it will still be a FWD based car. Again Ford has made a mistake to take a lesser car and move it up while the CT6 was a better car that is just less than it should have been.

The CT6 is an example of why Cadillac got the 12 billion dollars and people who are willing to make them into what they want with little interference from GM.

For two long GM has tried to build and sell Cadillac's like a Chevy and you can not do that. You need to let them be what they are and not focus on profit by volume. I hope those inside Ford realize this too.

The CT6 is not a bad car but it is not where Cadillac or should I say those who are now running Cadillac want to be. I am grateful they got here before this was declared a flagship and then would have had to start all over in claiming what really is. It was close.

I have wondered if GM may just go with the CT8 as new Flagship Omega. Make the CTS replace the present car and the CT6 at some point as one larger but lighter Omega CTS and then rework the ATS on the Alpha.

[Cmicasa the Great]

The dash is a last minute change to fix a serious visibility issue with the originally planned design.  What you see today was supposed to appear as if it were floating behind a darker screen. You would have only seen the text and the needles with a bit of graphics to give it depth.   From what I understand, it would have been a really neat effect.

 

Last minute, this was changed because in certain outside light situations it was found that the dash would wash out completely and was pretty much invisible to the driver.  The only change they could manage at the time was changing the cover glass from the tinted smokey look to a clear look.

 

If you look very very closely at the gauges in person (not in pictures, you can't get the 3d effect), you'll be able to see what they were going for and how neat it might have looked.

 

This info comes straight from a higher up at Cadillac.

 

 

 

Good info

[smk4565]

Interesting points from Reg about the CT6. I would have expected better space and materials in the interior, although hearing his review doesn't surprise me. It is a theme with all their cars.

The Mazda 6 has a really good interior for the money, better than most Lincolns or Acuras. As far as the Continental goes, they haven't priced it yet, so we don't really know if it has good value or not. The Continental might be priced below the CTS and XTS, then maybe it doesn't look so bad.

Cadillac chassis and powertrakn engineers have stepped their game up in recent years, the interior people have not. And the marketing department is non-existant. The CT6 could out perform a Tesla Model S come with a 10 year warranty and somehow the marketing guys wouldn't figure out how to sell it.

[Frisky Dingo]

I was quite impressed by what I saw of the new Continental. Much more alluring that I had anticipated. Didn't get to sit in it, though.

[Drew Dowdell]

I think Reg would find a school bus cramped somehow....

[ccap41]

I was quite impressed by what I saw of the new Continental. Much more alluring that I had anticipated. Didn't get to sit in it, though.

That's how I felt as well. I too couldn't sit in it. It was all up on a spinning pedestal. 

[Suaviloquent]

Actually the Conti is very spacious, they stretched the wheelbase of the CD4 platform by 4 inches. They made it with China in mind, so that point in rendered moot. And it is based on the same platform as the Taurus, except the new for 2017 China-only Ford Taurus as well. The twin-clutch AWD system will address any performance need of the intended buyer.

 

The Conti was supposed to be a fail, I was expecting that but it's turned out far better than I thought.

 

The CT6 is not as spacious as its length would suggest. It is narrower than the bigger cars it goes against. That's not much of an issue.

 

As for interior quality - yeah, remember I said I was unimpressed with the interiors of many cars at the show? Well the CT6 fits in there, and that was the Platinum model. But I also have many Mercedes and BMWs there as well.

 

But again, I would still get the CT6 before anything else. But I would also consider the Conti. If I was in the mood of style and function, then the Conti. If I wanted performance and state-of-the-art feeling then the CT6. But I like stealth wealth too, so the Conti comes pretty close.

 

I just have to see one in the red in person, because I think the red one is excellence in styling from Lincoln.

 

Otherwise, the XC90 and Volvo S90 were luxury kings, especially for the price.

[El Kabong]

Seems not everyone's impressed by the Conti. Or the brand, for that matter:

"I understand former Ford CEO Alan Mulally wanted to drop Lincoln when Mercury mercifully disappeared, but present Ford front man Mark Fields insisted on keeping it. I think Mulally was right. Ford stylists say privately that Fields ordered the Continental be as much like a Bentley as possible, but it looks more like a half-done Asian interpretation of near-luxury than anything worthy of admiration. Aside from the name, of course."

http://www.automobilemag.com/news/by-design-lincoln-continental/

Edited March 14, 2016 by El Kabong

[surreal1272]

I think the Conti is a good car for Lincoln but it will not be the home run some envisioned. It is far better than the MKZ it replaces but my biggest gripe with the car (the than it being FWD) is that the look does not leave a lasting impression on me like some others do. I feel that after a year or so, it will look dated on the outside and, once again, be a distant memory in the minds of a lot of buyers. I could be wrong but that is just the impression I get. I also hate the rear on that thing. Just don't like it. It kills a otherwise nice look on the rest of the car.

[El Kabong]

They tried to stifle the comments about it being a faux-Bentley when it bowed in NY last year, but eventually the truth gets out. The fact that it lost a bit of whatever pizzaz it had on its way to production didn't help.

A thoroughly uninspired effort all around. I said it from the get-go. The CT6 is a vastly superior car.

Edited March 14, 2016 by El Kabong

[Suaviloquent]

I can also go after the CT6 for having a throughly ugly mug in platinum trim with a grille that has the EXACT same outline of a Mercedes Grille, just upsized for American chromy tastes, and mention how it also has S-Class controls, and how the interior is burdened with overbearing instances of the fat crest all over the place, and the steering wheel is perhaps the ugliest one yet in the GM stable, yet it's in a Cadillac. I wish they'd swap it for the Impala steering wheel...except it's the exact design of the last gen S-class.

 

Anyways, Cadillac has yet to deliver a true styling victory that one would expect from the El Miraj or Ciel concepts.

 

And the CT6 is only vastly superior if you're the one driving it with the intent of driving vigorously. Otherwise, It falls short on luxury against other rivals, has less space, and the value proposition erodes on the top trim. Yet the entire segment of buyers has been going away from that for the large part. It's proven by even how the XTS continues to outsell the CTS. And if they'd continued it, it'll outsell the CT6 as well.

 

And going after the conservative roofline is just hysterically nonsensical. How else do you maintain that traditional sedan stance?

 

But yeah, do continue. Some people just reach and reach and reach. I don't even particularly like the car for obvious reasons, but it's a hell of a lot better targeted at the buyers of these kinds of sedans.

[El Kabong]

You could. And if you made a career designing cars it would doubtless carry some weight.

Look. I didn't write it. All the downvotes in the world don't make a lick of difference to me. I suspected I was right about the car being a letdown, and as time has gone on more and more has come out to justify my feelings. And I certainly don't expect things to improve once reviewers get behind the wheel of the thing. FWIW, not even I called for the euthanization of Lincoln. I still want to see what they can do with D6.

Edited March 14, 2016 by El Kabong

[smk4565]

Until they price the Continental we can't compare it to a CT6.  If the Continental is CT6 money, forget it, the Continental will be dead on arrival.  But if a 400 hp all wheel drive Continental is $48,000 and a 400 hp CT6 awd is $78,000 then maybe the Continental has an argument.

 

Speaking of the CT6, Car and Driver tested the 3.0 TT Platinum model, and the 0-60 time was 5.0 seconds.  So even the fastest CT6 is slower than the S550, all that talk about weight loss is meaningless when you don't have low end torque.  The CT6 was 4,371 lbs, vs 4,620 for a BMW 750 with all wheel drive.  So we are talking about 150 lb weight savings, but the 750i has a V8.

[cp-the-nerd]

Conti will have its own set of issues. Being based on the Taurus it may not be all that roomy inside and it will still be a FWD based car. Again Ford has made a mistake to take a lesser car and move it up while the CT6 was a better car that is just less than it should have been.

The CT6 is an example of why Cadillac got the 12 billion dollars and people who are willing to make them into what they want with little interference from GM.

For two long GM has tried to build and sell Cadillac's like a Chevy and you can not do that. You need to let them be what they are and not focus on profit by volume. I hope those inside Ford realize this too.

The CT6 is not a bad car but it is not where Cadillac or should I say those who are now running Cadillac want to be. I am grateful they got here before this was declared a flagship and then would have had to start all over in claiming what really is. It was close.

I have wondered if GM may just go with the CT8 as new Flagship Omega. Make the CTS replace the present car and the CT6 at some point as one larger but lighter Omega CTS and then rework the ATS on the Alpha.

 

First, the Continental isn't built on the chassis of the defunct American Taurus. It's build on an extended Fusion platform. It will not have the same interior packaging issues as Ford's outgoing full size cars.

 

Second, your judgement of the CT6 is extremely premature. Besides an exterior design that falls short of the Elmiraj concept, what exactly is wrong with it? The weight is incredibly well managed within its class, the 3.0T makes a potent 404 horsepower, and GM confirmed a 4.2L turbo V8 (as well as a hybrid) coming in a year or two. The interior has successfully sorted out CUE's greatest shortcomings and the initial reviews have all been very positive.

[surreal1272]

I can also go after the CT6 for having a throughly ugly mug in platinum trim with a grille that has the EXACT same outline of a Mercedes Grille, just upsized for American chromy tastes, and mention how it also has S-Class controls, and how the interior is burdened with overbearing instances of the fat crest all over the place, and the steering wheel is perhaps the ugliest one yet in the GM stable, yet it's in a Cadillac. I wish they'd swap it for the Impala steering wheel...except it's the exact design of the last gen S-class.

 

Anyways, Cadillac has yet to deliver a true styling victory that one would expect from the El Miraj or Ciel concepts.

 

And the CT6 is only vastly superior if you're the one driving it with the intent of driving vigorously. Otherwise, It falls short on luxury against other rivals, has less space, and the value proposition erodes on the top trim. Yet the entire segment of buyers has been going away from that for the large part. It's proven by even how the XTS continues to outsell the CTS. And if they'd continued it, it'll outsell the CT6 as well.

 

And going after the conservative roofline is just hysterically nonsensical. How else do you maintain that traditional sedan stance?

 

But yeah, do continue. Some people just reach and reach and reach. I don't even particularly like the car for obvious reasons, but it's a hell of a lot better targeted at the buyers of these kinds of sedans.

The difference is though Sauve is that there are more publications (not just Automobile Magazine) having these types of issues with the Conti than they are with the CT6. I realize you don't like what he is saying because of his pro-GM rhetoric but, like he said, he did not write the criticism being levied at the Lincoln. You are going out of your way to kill the messenger in this case, is what I am saying.

[hyperv6]

 

Conti will have its own set of issues. Being based on the Taurus it may not be all that roomy inside and it will still be a FWD based car. Again Ford has made a mistake to take a lesser car and move it up while the CT6 was a better car that is just less than it should have been.

The CT6 is an example of why Cadillac got the 12 billion dollars and people who are willing to make them into what they want with little interference from GM.

For two long GM has tried to build and sell Cadillac's like a Chevy and you can not do that. You need to let them be what they are and not focus on profit by volume. I hope those inside Ford realize this too.

The CT6 is not a bad car but it is not where Cadillac or should I say those who are now running Cadillac want to be. I am grateful they got here before this was declared a flagship and then would have had to start all over in claiming what really is. It was close.

I have wondered if GM may just go with the CT8 as new Flagship Omega. Make the CTS replace the present car and the CT6 at some point as one larger but lighter Omega CTS and then rework the ATS on the Alpha.

 

First, the Continental isn't built on the chassis of the defunct American Taurus. It's build on an extended Fusion platform. It will not have the same interior packaging issues as Ford's outgoing full size cars.

 

Second, your judgement of the CT6 is extremely premature. Besides an exterior design that falls short of the Elmiraj concept, what exactly is wrong with it? The weight is incredibly well managed within its class, the 3.0T makes a potent 404 horsepower, and GM confirmed a 4.2L turbo V8 (as well as a hybrid) coming in a year or two. The interior has successfully sorted out CUE's greatest shortcomings and the initial reviews have all been very positive.

 

First lets get something straight. My point is Ford is making a Ford into a Lincoln when it should be making a Lincoln that could be shared with a Fords. Your point is even worse as they take a $35K mid size platform and try to transform it into a High end luxury car. Sorry but while it may not be as bad as a Cimaron, last Fleetwood or Catera GM at least learned from their mistakes. Today they work from the top down and I hope Ford learns this fast so they can apply this to their other models and all will enjoy the kind of refinement we see in the Alpha.

My judgement was basically what Cadillac has said by their own people. JDN and others made it clear that it was not the flag ship when they arrived. Yes originally it was intended to be but when the new management came in not under GM management duress they made it clear they have bigger plans.

I like the CT6 very much and was impressed with it but I am more impressed with Cadillac management that has clearly indicated that they need to do even better.

You and some others may be setllers  But the management of Cadillac is no longer happy with good enough to compete. There are many things great about the car and not a lot {I will not say bad] not as good as it should be. The point is there is so much that could be even better and remove any of the debate on what model is best in class.

GM can build a better car than anyone if they let their people do it. The CT6 was built with Mark Reuss pushing for better quality parts and features and being told no by others inside GM. His fight over the cost of the door handles was stupid on the part of GM. The first thing people touch getting in a car is the handle and it should feel and work to a level like a well tuned machine. Mark wanted better and they said no?  

 

Other areas of the car could be refined even better yet. 

 

Yes I am happy with the cars we have now but I am more happy that Cadillac will gain more control over what they do and those in charge are wanting better. 

Like in a heavy weight fight you can not just go rounds and win. You need to go for the knock out and that is what JDN and company are planning to do with the $12 Billion and the increased profits per unit they are doing. 

 

Now if you think the CT6 is the tits that is fine but I am willing to let those in charge do the models they want and just see how much better they can do. 

 

Here is a line that was in the Cadillac ad from 1915 called Penalty of Leadership. They sum up the ad with a line that is so fitting today that it should be on the wall over every Cadillac facility and office. 

 

"That which is good or great makes itself known, no matter how loud the clamor of denial. That which deserves to live – lives. “

 

Read this and really think about what they are saying here. At no other time does this ring more true about GM and Cadillac. You want to set the standard of the world then you must be the standard all others are measured by. 

At this time there has never been a better time to challenge the Germans as they are good but no where like they sued to be. 

Sorry but while today's car is great they are planning better and I am all for it. I am not a settler. 

 

To me the CT6 is only like the XTS a stepping stone to where this is all going not the destination. 

Edited March 14, 2016 by hyperv6

[hyperv6]

I know many have seen this but some may not have. Here is the 1915 Cadillac ad Penalty of Leadership. It was their response to Packard's sniping on who truly was the leader in the market. 

 

Read it and while the language may be a little old the meaning still rings true. GM lost their way with Cadillac and this is story on what it takes to be a leader in the segment. 

Note I believe the Dare Greatly program was based on this ad as it has a very similar vibe but just more trendy for today's market. 

 

 

                                                                                                                         The Penalty of Leadership Cadillac ad from 1915

 

“In every field of human endeavour, he that is first must perpetually live in the white light of publicity. Whether the leadership be vested in a man or in a manufactured product, emulation and envy are ever at work. In art, in literature, in music, in industry, the reward and the punishment are always the same. The reward is widespread recognition; the punishment, fierce denial and detraction. When a man’s work becomes a standard for the whole world, it also becomes a target for the shafts of the envious few. If his work be mediocre, he will be left severely alone – if he achieves a masterpiece, it will set a million tongues a-wagging. Jealousy does not protrude its forked tongue at the artist who produces a commonplace painting. Whatsoever you write, or paint, or play, or sing, or build, no one will strive to surpass or to slander you unless your work be stamped with the seal of genius. Long, long after a great work or a good work has been done, those who are disappointed or envious, continue to cry out that it cannot be done. Spiteful little voices in the domain of art were raised against our own Whistler as a mountback, long after the big world had acclaimed him its greatest artistic genius. Multitudes flocked to Bayreuth to worship at the musical shrine of Wagner, while the little group of those whom he had dethroned and displaced argued angrily that he was no musician at all. The little world continued to protest that Fulton could never build a steamboat, while the big world flocked to the river banks to see his boat steam by. The leader is assailed because he is a leader, and the effort to equal him is merely added proof of that leadership. Failing to equal or to excel, the follower seeks to depreciate and to destroy – but only confirms once more the superiority of that which he strives to supplant. There is nothing new in this. It is as old as the world and as old as human passions – envy, fear, greed, ambition, and the desire to surpass. And it all avails nothing. If the leader truly leads, he remains – the leader. Master-poet, master-painter, master-workman, each in his turn is assailed, and each holds his laurels through the ages. That which is good or great makes itself known, no matter how loud the clamor of denial. That which deserves to live – lives. “

 

In the end we know which one lives 101 years later. 

[hyperv6]

Note to on the Conti. If I were in charge at Lincoln I would be fighting for a RWD/AWD platform that could support several Lincolns and a Mustang. 

Ford is paying a big price on the Mustang now as they have no leverage on the cost of the platform and it shows in the handling and stiffness of the Camaro vs the Mustang today. I see they are moving up the new Mustang and I hope it includes a Lincoln first as they can afford to better refine the Lincoln and then that will hand Ford a better platform than they would get on their own. I am sure there are folks their fighting to do this but will they win? Cadillac fought for many years for their own things and now they are finally getting them. Someone at Ford should understand the money to be made and how this can transform Lincoln from a Buick Lexus challenger to a real global challenger. 

 

In the luxury segment if you are going to do it you must do it right or not at all anymore. Look at Fiat Chrysler and how they are now discounting the 300 to the price of a mid size FWD car? That should have never happened. They could be doing so much better with it at higher prices but yet they discount it deep and just slather on some mild refreshes. It is a real shame of mismanagement at it's best. 

Edited March 14, 2016 by hyperv6

[El Kabong]

Until they price the Continental we can't compare it to a CT6.  If the Continental is CT6 money, forget it, the Continental will be dead on arrival.  But if a 400 hp all wheel drive Continental is $48,000 and a 400 hp CT6 awd is $78,000 then maybe the Continental has an argument.

 

Speaking of the CT6, Car and Driver tested the 3.0 TT Platinum model, and the 0-60 time was 5.0 seconds.  So even the fastest CT6 is slower than the S550, all that talk about weight loss is meaningless when you don't have low end torque.  The CT6 was 4,371 lbs, vs 4,620 for a BMW 750 with all wheel drive.  So we are talking about 150 lb weight savings, but the 750i has a V8.

Two things: the Continental will start at 50 large in FWD, NA V6 trim. The CT6 will start at 54 for RWD and four cylinders.

Second... if we are going to be comparing GM's TTV6 to a V8 Benz then I believe we already know how out to lunch the Germans are in this segment. Or, more likely, their fans.

[regfootball]

I think Reg would find a school bus cramped somehow....

Well, its just evident the entire industry is forced into making cracker cans.  So what is large is not what it used to be.  

 

I just in this case went off the DTS as a reference point.  I would have thought the CT6 would feel equal in size to that.  But regardless of numbers, it feels narrower and the front seems more tight.  

 

All Cadillac really needs to do is a few simple things.  Raise up the dashboards a couple inches.  Make the vehicle doors a little wider (especially at the base in the rears) and bring the window heads up a bit.  Get the mounting hardware up high enough off the floor in the back so you can get your feet under the front seat  (for example on a Buick Encore you can get your feet under the seat quite nicely....on a 2016 Malibu Limited, you cannot).  Other things, like on the ATS, the rear seat, the front edge of the rear seat actually sits quite a bit back then the floor platform below it, getting rid of a bunch of space for your leg to get in there. Then, the floor pan is shaped at an angle as it approaches the vehicle side and it doesn't place a large enough area for one to get their foot on the floor pan and under the seat before you duck your head and wedge yourself into the back (because you can't get any part of your foot under the front seats, see above).  

 

There's a sense of mockery in your post there but when ones go to these auto shows its absolutely evident about why people are flocking to crossovers etc.  in no way am I the only one.  Easier to get into and out of.  Higher seats / fewer dashboard obstacles to move around. etc.  You hear enough of the graying population making jokes about needing a newer vehicle because their hips going out and they have a hard time getting down into their sedan.

 

This global influence and useless mandate system and such constantly pushing these higher mpgs and such is basically forcing the market to keep squeezing a mpg here and there.   Perhaps if the sedan market wasn't constantly creating cars no one wants due to their lack of size and usability, they would sell better.

 

The new Malibu was getting quite a bit of good comments at the show.  People were noticing the roominess, etc.  Cars can still be made in various sizes, but the effort has to be made to not do stupid stuff in the engineering and packaging. And this gets back to things like why GM is so inconsistent in this regard.  They really don't give a crap it seems sometimes.

 

I think a base 2.0 RWD CT6 will be a nice discounted buy off the showroom floor in about 15-18 months, at 15k off sticker.  Might be a nice idea for someone looking at a LacRosse or Regal but wanting still a RWD large car to just tool around in.

Edited March 15, 2016 by regfootball

[balthazar]

Speaking of the CT6, Car and Driver tested the 3.0 TT Platinum model, and the 0-60 time was 5.0 seconds.  So even the fastest CT6 is slower than the S550, all that talk about weight loss is meaningless when you don't have low end torque.  The CT6 was 4,371 lbs, vs 4,620 for a BMW 750 with all wheel drive.  So we are talking about 150 lb weight savings, but the 750i has a V8.

3.0TT isn't the fastest CT6. 4.0TT is coming.

[Suaviloquent]

My issue here is that all some folks have managed to prove is that styling is subjective. 

 

And on those merits, that person who nitpicks the designs of cars certainly isn't a designer anymore. And what qualifies him? I've read more of his pieces. Some designers loathe his analysis. So what would you say to that? Ian and Moray Callum - the designers at the helm of the designing of the beloved Jagaurs, the recent Ford GT, and others don't like him.

 

I don't even like the Continental - I just like domestic vehicles, finally, and that designer did also say was that the interior was pretty damn good - and was thoroughly American. Especially if his highest praise of a vehicle is that it is "interesting."

 

Ultimately, the Continental will be successful for Lincoln in China. It's here in America just because. And ultimately, they've figured out that their buyers aren't looking for brash marketing about daring to be great aka - becoming a driver's machine when everyone is starting to loath driving for the majority of situations.

 

Lincoln cannot possibly at this time or ever be the BMW competitor. That's not even in the formula for their identity.

 

And honestly, all this talk of Cadillac, and we yet to see their definitive halo car. This is coming from me - who you all know would never hesitate to plunk money down on the CT6 first above all. I can bring up an anecdote of an auto journalist you all know of, who's probably cheered at MT more than anyone  else for Cadillac, but he went on to say that Cadillac should fire its interior designers for the ultimately subjective conclusion that he made that the interior leather was clearly lacking. But of course, he won't get the same attribution to expertise. 

 

And Cadillac better respect that power of branding, because the Germans continue to throw curve-balls. Cadillac needs a big win at the top of their range that sets the entire brand together. I'm not talking about their excellent top-end performance.

 

I'm talking about a halo car.  The ones that they're going to build, but perhaps too late. 

 

Subjective opinion is not fact nor is it truth. Especially for styling. 

 

And I saw the Continental in person, and I immediately stuck how the only game in town for that kind of look is one of two hyper-luxury English tanks. Everyone else is leaving a vast market in styling. I don't care how the Continental looks - atleast the folks at Lincoln figured out that chasing after Cadillac or BMW isn't their forte nor should it be. 

[El Kabong]

Uh... Robert Cumberford's column for Automobile is called "By Design." He's the longest-tenured staffer they have, having been with the magazine since it was founded. In other words, his words carry weight. As they should. And he points out some objective things, since as the sloppy paint detailing at the top of the a-pillars and the vast bumper strike faces that lack detail.

I'm sorry that you are dismayed that folks are starting to pull out the knives with this car. But having seen how this racket works from both inside and out, I could see it coming from a mile away. This Lincoln can't hold a candle to the CT6, either here or in Shanghai. End of discussion.

Edited March 15, 2016 by El Kabong

[hyperv6]

To be fair styling is subjective and the public is unpredictable. Even the Bangle BMW as Dame Edna looking as they were still sold because of what they were not how they looked. 

The issue at Lincoln is heritage or linage of the car. That will do more harm for them as anything. 

 

Now you can get away with using lesser platforms for the SUV and CUV models but the sedans you need your own bones. too many short cuts are made on the way to make a Chevy or Ford vs. a better sedan that can not be engineered in later. The Fusion is a great Ford but it is not a great Lincoln. They should have learned that already. 

[oldshurst442]

Uh... Robert Cumberford's column for Automobile is called "By Design." He's the longest-tenured staffer they have, having been with the magazine since it was founded. In other words, his words carry weight. As they should. And he points out some objective things, since as the sloppy paint detailing at the top of the a-pillars and the vast bumper strike faces that lack detail.

I'm sorry that you are dismayed that folks are starting to pull out the knives with this car. But having seen how this racket works from both inside and out, I could see it coming from a mile away. This Lincoln can't hold a candle to the CT6, either here or in Shanghai. End of discussion.

 

his words carry weight.

 

 

HA! HA! HA!

If he buys my next car for me, out of his own pocket...then and only then does his words carry weight...

If anybody wants to buy ME a car...from THEIR own pocket...then and ONLY then do their words carry any weight with me...

 

If he tells me that my favorite modern muscle car, the Hellcat Challenger is a craptastic design and he tells me that the Alpha Camaro is the modern Mona Lisa...and he wants to buy the Camaro for me...then yes...Ill agree to his words...if not...his words are just...words. Like anybody else's on this planet....and we are 7 billion people and counting....

 

 

And he points out some objective things

 

You mean.....SUBJECTIVE...

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

 

Even Ford Edsels today fetch a fair amount of coin at auctions...

All he does is just criticize...just for the sake of criticizing...

 

Not that I dont share some of his opinions on some of the styling choices and decisions Lincoln took with the Continental...

But please...this man makes a living by criticizing...

He will find flaws in the Greek Parthenon...

He will find flaws in the Statue of Liberty.

He will find flaws in the Mona Lisa.

 

Just to sell you a copy of his editorial in the magazine he writes in so he could collect his pay and go on and buy that Lincoln Continental so he could drive it to New York City just to look at the Statue Of Liberty again, then take a plane to Paris and Athens to see the Acropolis and the Mona Lisa again...

 

Like I keep on saying...automotive journalists are whores...they will say anything just to make a buck or two...

 

Ive read many of his so called opinions on automotive style on many cars he has done...

All of them...he just negatively criticizes...

 

Funny...I keep on hearing about Harley Early, Ian Callum, Henri Fisker and even Bangle...but not once does this clown's name come up for automotive design...

 

Taking the Howard Stern approach of shock and awe is sooooooooo passé, overdone and not very credible.

Edited March 15, 2016 by oldshurst442

[oldshurst442]

And about the CT6...

 

Cadillac's darling?

 

HA!

 

Its a fine automobile...its a good thing Johan was hired when he was hired because I have a funny feeling that had Cadillac went along with the CT6 being the best Cadillac had to offer to beat those Germans, I think Cadillac's run for supremacy would have been very short lived right after the CT6's launch...

 

Reality is that the CT6 is good, but not good enough.

Mercedes Benz is not staying still...

Sure, the low end entry level stuff is crap....but the high end stuff...its really really good. And the CT6 does not hold a candle to those.

Maybe a CT6 is far ahead of the CLA...but reality is...many people buying into the CLA wouldnt be caught dead in the CT6...even if Robert Cumbersome would praise the CT6's style and denounce the CLA worse than he has the Continental...

[ccap41]

^ great words, Olds. 

 

Opinions on styling are exactly subjective. There just isn't a true way to measure style. The only way would be to poll EVERYBODY and that just isn't realistic in any way. That's why you adore cars I think are hideous and I adore cars you think are hideous. The closest possible way to measure would be sales and that's just ridiculous because there is no way everybody can buy the most beautiful cars. I guarantee you I wouldn't have bought an Escape, lol.

 

NOW I understand why Bong takes his words to heart. "Robert Cumberford is a former automotive designer for General Motors"   

 

Everything makes since now.   

[Drew Dowdell]

There's a sense of mockery in your post there.

 

I would think that after 10+ years, we'd be able to joke with each other.

[smk4565]

Speaking of the CT6, Car and Driver tested the 3.0 TT Platinum model, and the 0-60 time was 5.0 seconds.  So even the fastest CT6 is slower than the S550, all that talk about weight loss is meaningless when you don't have low end torque.  The CT6 was 4,371 lbs, vs 4,620 for a BMW 750 with all wheel drive.  So we are talking about 150 lb weight savings, but the 750i has a V8.

3.0TT isn't the fastest CT6. 4.0TT is coming.

Right and I all along said they need a Dohc V8, I'd like to see it in a CTS VSport or Escalade too. But there were several people on CT6 threads a few months back saying the TT V6 would outrun their German V8s because of lower weight, and I knew that wouldn't be the case and it isn't.

The German three also all offer a 6 liter 12 cylinder. That might not be for the CT6 to worry about but they need to remember that on CT8.

[ccap41]

 

 

Speaking of the CT6, Car and Driver tested the 3.0 TT Platinum model, and the 0-60 time was 5.0 seconds.  So even the fastest CT6 is slower than the S550, all that talk about weight loss is meaningless when you don't have low end torque.  The CT6 was 4,371 lbs, vs 4,620 for a BMW 750 with all wheel drive.  So we are talking about 150 lb weight savings, but the 750i has a V8.

3.0TT isn't the fastest CT6. 4.0TT is coming.

Right and I all along said they need a Dohc V8, I'd like to see it in a CTS VSport or Escalade too. But there were several people on CT6 threads a few months back saying the TT V6 would outrun their German V8s because of lower weight, and I knew that wouldn't be the case and it isn't.

The German three also all offer a 6 liter 12 cylinder. That might not be for the CT6 to worry about but they need to remember that on CT8.

 

smk does have a good point. 

 

SHOW YA FACES! 

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

Speaking of the CT6, Car and Driver tested the 3.0 TT Platinum model, and the 0-60 time was 5.0 seconds.  So even the fastest CT6 is slower than the S550, all that talk about weight loss is meaningless when you don't have low end torque.  The CT6 was 4,371 lbs, vs 4,620 for a BMW 750 with all wheel drive.  So we are talking about 150 lb weight savings, but the 750i has a V8.

3.0TT isn't the fastest CT6. 4.0TT is coming.

Right and I all along said they need a Dohc V8, I'd like to see it in a CTS VSport or Escalade too. But there were several people on CT6 threads a few months back saying the TT V6 would outrun their German V8s because of lower weight, and I knew that wouldn't be the case and it isn't.

The German three also all offer a 6 liter 12 cylinder. That might not be for the CT6 to worry about but they need to remember that on CT8.

 

 

You just looooooove cherry picking.

 

The RWD S550 with a twin turbo V8 is 0.1 seconds faster than an AWD CT6 3.0TT.  A statistical tie..  Cadillac caught a RWD 4.7 liter Bi-Turbo Benz V8  using an AWD 3.0 liter twin-turbo V6 and did so with a 49hp and 116 lb-ft of torque deficit.   yes, the weight matters. It's funny that you only see the 0.1 seconds while I see all of the extra grunt Mercedes has to use just to catch a Cadillac V6.  Mercedes is throwing a lot more metal to get to 4.9 seconds than Cadillac is to get to 5.0.

 

Astonishingly, that also means that the CT6 AWD 3.0TT is only 0.3 seconds slower to 60 than the S65 V12...  The fastest S-Class is the S63 though, because it has AWD.  It's best 0 - 60 is 4.6 seconds. 

 

That gives Cadillac lots of room to maneuver.  If they cared about the 0.1 seconds that much, then the 3.6TT is just an email from JDN away.  Then there is the 4.0TT also coming and that's not even the V-series model. 

[surreal1272]

 

 

Speaking of the CT6, Car and Driver tested the 3.0 TT Platinum model, and the 0-60 time was 5.0 seconds.  So even the fastest CT6 is slower than the S550, all that talk about weight loss is meaningless when you don't have low end torque.  The CT6 was 4,371 lbs, vs 4,620 for a BMW 750 with all wheel drive.  So we are talking about 150 lb weight savings, but the 750i has a V8.

3.0TT isn't the fastest CT6. 4.0TT is coming.

Right and I all along said they need a Dohc V8, I'd like to see it in a CTS VSport or Escalade too. But there were several people on CT6 threads a few months back saying the TT V6 would outrun their German V8s because of lower weight, and I knew that wouldn't be the case and it isn't.

The German three also all offer a 6 liter 12 cylinder. That might not be for the CT6 to worry about but they need to remember that on CT8.

 

And you have been told ALL ALONG that the V8 was coming. Also, the TTV6 hasn't been tested against those V8s yet (side by side anyway) so you might want to hold off on your many assumptions for now, especially given early tests showing your precious S Class being a whole .1 seconds "faster". Seriously. Do you not see the problem here?

 

Oh and a V12 is a waste when it has to carry the heft of those overpriced uber cars. Talk about wasted power.

Edited March 15, 2016 by surreal1272

[surreal1272]

^ great words, Olds. 

 

Opinions on styling are exactly subjective. There just isn't a true way to measure style. The only way would be to poll EVERYBODY and that just isn't realistic in any way. That's why you adore cars I think are hideous and I adore cars you think are hideous. The closest possible way to measure would be sales and that's just ridiculous because there is no way everybody can buy the most beautiful cars. I guarantee you I wouldn't have bought an Escape, lol.

 

NOW I understand why Bong takes his words to heart. "Robert Cumberford is a former automotive designer for General Motors"   

 

Everything makes since now.   

So did you read his entire back story and not just the part where he worked for GM fifty years ago?

http://www.automobilemag.com/author/robert-cumberford/

 

As a matter of fact, he is just as honest about the new Camaro.

http://www.automobilemag.com/news/2016-chevrolet-camaro-design-analysis/

[smk4565]

 

 

 

Speaking of the CT6, Car and Driver tested the 3.0 TT Platinum model, and the 0-60 time was 5.0 seconds.  So even the fastest CT6 is slower than the S550, all that talk about weight loss is meaningless when you don't have low end torque.  The CT6 was 4,371 lbs, vs 4,620 for a BMW 750 with all wheel drive.  So we are talking about 150 lb weight savings, but the 750i has a V8.

3.0TT isn't the fastest CT6. 4.0TT is coming.

Right and I all along said they need a Dohc V8, I'd like to see it in a CTS VSport or Escalade too. But there were several people on CT6 threads a few months back saying the TT V6 would outrun their German V8s because of lower weight, and I knew that wouldn't be the case and it isn't.

The German three also all offer a 6 liter 12 cylinder. That might not be for the CT6 to worry about but they need to remember that on CT8.

 

 

You just looooooove cherry picking.

 

The RWD S550 with a twin turbo V8 is 0.1 seconds faster than an AWD CT6 3.0TT.  A statistical tie..  Cadillac caught a RWD 4.7 liter Bi-Turbo Benz V8  using an AWD 3.0 liter twin-turbo V6 and did so with a 49hp and 116 lb-ft of torque deficit.   yes, the weight matters. It's funny that you only see the 0.1 seconds while I see all of the extra grunt Mercedes has to use just to catch a Cadillac V6.  Mercedes is throwing a lot more metal to get to 4.9 seconds than Cadillac is to get to 5.0.

 

Astonishingly, that also means that the CT6 AWD 3.0TT is only 0.3 seconds slower to 60 than the S65 V12...  The fastest S-Class is the S63 though, because it has AWD.  It's best 0 - 60 is 4.6 seconds. 

 

That gives Cadillac lots of room to maneuver.  If they cared about the 0.1 seconds that much, then the 3.6TT is just an email from JDN away.  Then there is the 4.0TT also coming and that's not even the V-series model. 

 

S550 with or without awd has been clocked at 4.8 seconds, the coupe for some reason is 4.5 seconds, even though it doesn't weigh any less.  The 9-speed cars are faster though, I think when the sedan switches transmissions it will be closer to 4.6 seconds.

 

But if we want to cherry pick, an Audi A8L 4.0 (not an S8) can do 0-60 in 4.0 seconds and posts better fuel economy than a CT6.  29 mpg highway on the V8 Audi, 26 on the CT6, both are 18 city.  But as I said, many thought the 3.0TT V6 would outrun the Germans, it doesn't.  I'll listen to and agree with that the 3.0TT V6 is a nice mid-level engine choice on a Cadillac sedan or could be good on a large crossover.  And I know the V8 is coming, I hope it comes soon.  

[surreal1272]

 

 

 

 

Speaking of the CT6, Car and Driver tested the 3.0 TT Platinum model, and the 0-60 time was 5.0 seconds.  So even the fastest CT6 is slower than the S550, all that talk about weight loss is meaningless when you don't have low end torque.  The CT6 was 4,371 lbs, vs 4,620 for a BMW 750 with all wheel drive.  So we are talking about 150 lb weight savings, but the 750i has a V8.

3.0TT isn't the fastest CT6. 4.0TT is coming.

Right and I all along said they need a Dohc V8, I'd like to see it in a CTS VSport or Escalade too. But there were several people on CT6 threads a few months back saying the TT V6 would outrun their German V8s because of lower weight, and I knew that wouldn't be the case and it isn't.

The German three also all offer a 6 liter 12 cylinder. That might not be for the CT6 to worry about but they need to remember that on CT8.

 

 

You just looooooove cherry picking.

 

The RWD S550 with a twin turbo V8 is 0.1 seconds faster than an AWD CT6 3.0TT.  A statistical tie..  Cadillac caught a RWD 4.7 liter Bi-Turbo Benz V8  using an AWD 3.0 liter twin-turbo V6 and did so with a 49hp and 116 lb-ft of torque deficit.   yes, the weight matters. It's funny that you only see the 0.1 seconds while I see all of the extra grunt Mercedes has to use just to catch a Cadillac V6.  Mercedes is throwing a lot more metal to get to 4.9 seconds than Cadillac is to get to 5.0.

 

Astonishingly, that also means that the CT6 AWD 3.0TT is only 0.3 seconds slower to 60 than the S65 V12...  The fastest S-Class is the S63 though, because it has AWD.  It's best 0 - 60 is 4.6 seconds. 

 

That gives Cadillac lots of room to maneuver.  If they cared about the 0.1 seconds that much, then the 3.6TT is just an email from JDN away.  Then there is the 4.0TT also coming and that's not even the V-series model. 

 

S550 with or without awd has been clocked at 4.8 seconds, the coupe for some reason is 4.5 seconds, even though it doesn't weigh any less.  The 9-speed cars are faster though, I think when the sedan switches transmissions it will be closer to 4.6 seconds.

 

But if we want to cherry pick, an Audi A8L 4.0 (not an S8) can do 0-60 in 4.0 seconds and posts better fuel economy than a CT6.  29 mpg highway on the V8 Audi, 26 on the CT6, both are 18 city.  But as I said, many thought the 3.0TT V6 would outrun the Germans, it doesn't.  I'll listen to and agree with that the 3.0TT V6 is a nice mid-level engine choice on a Cadillac sedan or could be good on a large crossover.  And I know the V8 is coming, I hope it comes soon.  

 

Doesn't matter. It still BARELY beats a TTV6 (sorry .1 seconds is a virtual tie that could swing either way with a different driver and you know that) so that really isn't anything to hang your hat on there. The TTV8 is also going to be a beast to contend with, whether you want to admit that or not. 

[regfootball]

 

There's a sense of mockery in your post there.

 

I would think that after 10+ years, we'd be able to joke with each other.

 

Yes, I did infer that, and it's cool w/ me.  All in good fun.

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

 

 

Speaking of the CT6, Car and Driver tested the 3.0 TT Platinum model, and the 0-60 time was 5.0 seconds.  So even the fastest CT6 is slower than the S550, all that talk about weight loss is meaningless when you don't have low end torque.  The CT6 was 4,371 lbs, vs 4,620 for a BMW 750 with all wheel drive.  So we are talking about 150 lb weight savings, but the 750i has a V8.

3.0TT isn't the fastest CT6. 4.0TT is coming.

Right and I all along said they need a Dohc V8, I'd like to see it in a CTS VSport or Escalade too. But there were several people on CT6 threads a few months back saying the TT V6 would outrun their German V8s because of lower weight, and I knew that wouldn't be the case and it isn't.

The German three also all offer a 6 liter 12 cylinder. That might not be for the CT6 to worry about but they need to remember that on CT8.

 

 

You just looooooove cherry picking.

 

The RWD S550 with a twin turbo V8 is 0.1 seconds faster than an AWD CT6 3.0TT.  A statistical tie..  Cadillac caught a RWD 4.7 liter Bi-Turbo Benz V8  using an AWD 3.0 liter twin-turbo V6 and did so with a 49hp and 116 lb-ft of torque deficit.   yes, the weight matters. It's funny that you only see the 0.1 seconds while I see all of the extra grunt Mercedes has to use just to catch a Cadillac V6.  Mercedes is throwing a lot more metal to get to 4.9 seconds than Cadillac is to get to 5.0.

 

Astonishingly, that also means that the CT6 AWD 3.0TT is only 0.3 seconds slower to 60 than the S65 V12...  The fastest S-Class is the S63 though, because it has AWD.  It's best 0 - 60 is 4.6 seconds. 

 

That gives Cadillac lots of room to maneuver.  If they cared about the 0.1 seconds that much, then the 3.6TT is just an email from JDN away.  Then there is the 4.0TT also coming and that's not even the V-series model. 

 

S550 with or without awd has been clocked at 4.8 seconds, the coupe for some reason is 4.5 seconds, even though it doesn't weigh any less.  The 9-speed cars are faster though, I think when the sedan switches transmissions it will be closer to 4.6 seconds.

 

But if we want to cherry pick, an Audi A8L 4.0 (not an S8) can do 0-60 in 4.0 seconds and posts better fuel economy than a CT6.  29 mpg highway on the V8 Audi, 26 on the CT6, both are 18 city.  But as I said, many thought the 3.0TT V6 would outrun the Germans, it doesn't.  I'll listen to and agree with that the 3.0TT V6 is a nice mid-level engine choice on a Cadillac sedan or could be good on a large crossover.  And I know the V8 is coming, I hope it comes soon.  

 

 

So when the CT6 4.0TT comes out, then we'll have to compare it to an A8L 4.0..... in the MEANTIME, the Audi A8 3.0 is clocked at 6.4 seconds while the CT6 3.0 is clocked at 5.0 seconds..... so yes, the 3.0TT CT6 very much outran that german. 

 

Edit: I've gotta take that back.  Three glasses of wine in and I should have realized that the A8 3.0 at 6.4 seconds is a TDI which Audi can't even legally sell anymore. 

 

Edit 2: Don't post while drinking Drew... the GASSER Audi 3.0 has a 0-60 time of 5.5 seconds.... so my point stands. 

[balthazar]

Cadillac caught a RWD 4.7 liter Bi-Turbo Benz V8  using an AWD 3.0 liter twin-turbo V6 and did so with a 49hp and 116 lb-ft of torque deficit.

 

Astonishingly, that also means that the CT6 AWD 3.0TT is only 0.3 seconds slower to 60 than the S65 V12...  The fastest S-Class is the S63 though, because it has AWD.  It's best 0 - 60 is 4.6 seconds.

 

"Oh….. oh NO! NO!!!!"

{cue crushing despair}

[hyperv6]

Folks the V12 is a dead or dying engine in the market. As time rolls on it will only be found in the most expensive and exotic cars. Even the V8 will be rare in many cars or priced out of reach of many, 

 

Cadillac will make due with the 4, V6 and V8 engines and most all will be turbo charged because of their global intentions. This is the only way they can beat the taxes in many countries. These engines as long as they are technical will be admired for their performance and advanced technology as well as any, 

Ferrari is going turbo and Mclaren already has with their V6 and no one is complaining one bit. 

Now with the Diesel issues it may not be a need much longer as Europe is starting to turn their back on the Diesel engine. Some are recommending higher taxes on the engine along with higher emission standards. This would for sure drive it out  of the market sadly. 

 

The Future for Cadillac will be hybrid performance cars where they will be  very advanced and the hybrid systems will provide power or power assist much like we see in a LaFerrari. While the systems will not be as expensive I peg them to be nearly as effective in power boosting or efficiency. 

I could see a CT8 AWD with a TTV8 and hybrid assist module. 

[ccap41]

 

^ great words, Olds. 

 

Opinions on styling are exactly subjective. There just isn't a true way to measure style. The only way would be to poll EVERYBODY and that just isn't realistic in any way. That's why you adore cars I think are hideous and I adore cars you think are hideous. The closest possible way to measure would be sales and that's just ridiculous because there is no way everybody can buy the most beautiful cars. I guarantee you I wouldn't have bought an Escape, lol.

 

NOW I understand why Bong takes his words to heart. "Robert Cumberford is a former automotive designer for General Motors"   

 

Everything makes since now.   

So did you read his entire back story and not just the part where he worked for GM fifty years ago?

http://www.automobilemag.com/author/robert-cumberford/

 

As a matter of fact, he is just as honest about the new Camaro.

http://www.automobilemag.com/news/2016-chevrolet-camaro-design-analysis/

 

Nah, I just read the part where he worked for GM which was all I needed to read to know 'Bong would be worshiping his words.