New York 2018: 2019 Cadillac XT4 Kicks Off A Product Renaissance: Comments

[ccap41]

52 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

H2s were just a Yukon in Hummer clothing. The Yukon, Tahoe, Suburban were just noted for being the longest lasting SUVs on the road and also having the highest average mileage AND also having the most vehicle or there with over 200k miles.

Not saying the situation you mentioned isn't happening, but it is certainly the exception. 

The Escalade's downfall for off-roading is entirely the wheels and tires.  It's as capable as any other full size SUV except it's wearing 22s and summer tires usually.

Oh I somewhat agree and that's also why I still suggest them getting a Tahoe/Suburban to replace it. 

The H2 was definitely more than just Hummer clothes on a Yukon chassis. It was a 2500 Suburban with air ride, electronic locking rear diff, a unique transfer case and Vortec 6.0. Similar, yes. Just dressed up? No. 

[Cmicasa the Great]

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

H2s were just a Yukon in Hummer clothing. The Yukon, Tahoe, Suburban were just noted for being the longest lasting SUVs on the road and also having the highest average mileage AND also having the most vehicle or there with over 200k miles.

Not saying the situation you mentioned isn't happening, but it is certainly the exception. 

The Escalade's downfall for off-roading is entirely the wheels and tires.  It's as capable as any other full size SUV except it's wearing 22s and summer tires usually.

Yup. Found this out the hard way back in March when I literally had to call a tow truck (wench) to get me out of a drenched mud field in my yard due to getting stuck with 24s and obvious summer tires on the Yukon. I called the end of Winter too early and made the change. Winter ended up ending in late April imo LOL.  24s on summer tires are NO GOOD for MUD and SNOW.. let alone off roading

1 minute ago, ccap41 said:

Oh I somewhat agree and that's also why I still suggest them getting a Tahoe/Suburban to replace it. 

The H2 was definitely more than just Hummer clothes on a Yukon chassis. It was a 2500 Suburban with air ride, electronic locking rear diff, a unique transfer case and Vortec 6.0. Similar, yes. Just dressed up? No. 

Point is that at best.. the H2 was engineered in 1997-98. Meaning that it is essentially 20 years old. Maybe its time for them to either rebuild the entire vehicle of sell and get something else

[ccap41]

12 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

Point is that at best.. the H2 was engineered in 1997-98. Meaning that it is essentially 20 years old. Maybe its time for them to either rebuild the entire vehicle of sell and get something else

It is waaaaay overdue selling/trading it in on a newer Tahoe/Suburban/Yukon. 

 

13 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

That wheel design is HAWWWT! It might be 2 inches too big for my taste but she design is fantastic. 

[Cmicasa the Great]

4 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

It is waaaaay overdue selling/trading it in on a newer Tahoe/Suburban/Yukon. 

 

That wheel design is HAWWWT! It might be 2 inches too big for my taste but she design is fantastic. 

Thanks.. but the design in a GMC's .. just larger than their 22s and 20's and in black.

[Drew Dowdell]

18 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

It might be 2 inches too big for my taste but the design is fantastic. 

That's not what she said.

[ccap41]

3 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

That's not what she said.

[Drew Dowdell]

43 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Oh I somewhat agree and that's also why I still suggest them getting a Tahoe/Suburban to replace it. 

The H2 was definitely more than just Hummer clothes on a Yukon chassis. It was a 2500 Suburban with air ride, electronic locking rear diff, a unique transfer case and Vortec 6.0. Similar, yes. Just dressed up? No. 

Well ok... but you can get everything except the unique transfer case on the Suburban. 

If you're going to talk them into a replacement, the Tahoe/Suburban RST Performance or the Yukon/XL Graphite Performance would be the direct replacement.

[ccap41]

Look at all of us 'Muricans... Small, compact CUV thread and we turn it into a full size, BOF SUV thread. ? ??

[Robert Hall]

4 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Look at all of us 'Muricans... Small, compact CUV thread and we turn it into a full size, BOF SUV thread. ? ??

Yep, that's Murica...people aren't happy if it isn't 3 tons and w/ a V8...:)

Edited June 27, 2018 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[ccap41]

31 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Yep, that's Murica...people aren't happy if it isn't 3 tons and w/ a V8...:)

I don't know if I would ever be comfortable driving something as large as these full size BOF SUVs. The're so damn big. 

[Robert Hall]

6 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I don't know if I would ever be comfortable driving something as large as these full size BOF SUVs. The're so damn big. 

Yeah, I've driven a couple current gen Tahoes and the previous gen Yukon.  The current generation drives very nicely--I've had rentals for long weekends driving around AZ and So Cal.  

They are very comfortable, but like a full size pickup, I don't need anything that big and they wouldn't fit in my garage.  The Grand Cherokee is the right size for me. 

[Drew Dowdell]

21 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I don't know if I would ever be comfortable driving something as large as these full size BOF SUVs. The're so damn big. 

Honestly, I'm so done with compact crossovers.  I'm most likely going to end up in a Grand Cherokee (Only because I can't stomach paying the same price for an Avalanche that is 5 years older) and the GC is the very smallest vehicle I'll consider. I'm looking also a Durangos and Tahoes.  I haven't looked at Expedition yet because I didn't think there would be many used ones out of the new body.  I would have considered the Armada also if the infotainment system wasn't utter trash. 

Albert and I talked about this XT4, but if we get the GC, he really just wants a nice lux sedan as the second car.

[ccap41]

10 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Honestly, I'm so done with compact crossovers.  I'm most likely going to end up in a Grand Cherokee (Only because I can't stomach paying the same price for an Avalanche that is 5 years older) and the GC is the very smallest vehicle I'll consider. I'm looking also a Durangos and Tahoes.  I haven't looked at Expedition yet because I didn't think there would be many used ones out of the new body.  I would have considered the Armada also if the infotainment system wasn't utter trash. 

Albert and I talked about this XT4, but if we get the GC, he really just wants a nice lux sedan as the second car.

That's the size I want as well, "mid size". I'll eventually go and drive a Grand Cherokee and Edge but I know I'd "need" the 5.7 in the Jeep and that's quite the gas guzzler... but is it much worse than the 2.7 in the Edge..? There is a local '16 Edge Sport that I want really bad but i know I don't need that. 

[Drew Dowdell]

10 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

That's the size I want as well, "mid size". I'll eventually go and drive a Grand Cherokee and Edge but I know I'd "need" the 5.7 in the Jeep and that's quite the gas guzzler... but is it much worse than the 2.7 in the Edge..? There is a local '16 Edge Sport that I want really bad but i know I don't need that. 

The problem in both cases is that the go-pedal becomes too addictive.  The 2.7 will have the fuel economy advantage if you're very gentle on it, but you might as well get the 4-cylinder turbo instead if you're going to drive like that.  The Hemi does surprisingly well on the highway since it can run in 4-cylinder model when keeping it flat and at a stead speed.... so in that situation, a 5.7 liter running in 4-cylinder mode is acting like a 2.85 liter where a 2.7T with no extra boost is a 2.7 liter 6-cylinder. 

And here is where my personal preference kicks in.  The 5.7 liter can turn the other 4 cylinders back on faster than any turbo (even the electric ones SMK likes to talk about coming from Benz) can build boost. It takes no more than 1/2 of the rotation of the crankshaft for the full power to be back online.  IT will be interesting to see what this new Turbo-4 in the XT4 can do running on just two cylinders. 

[ccap41]

7 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The problem in both cases is that the go-pedal becomes too addictive.  The 2.7 will have the fuel economy advantage if you're very gentle on it, but you might as well get the 4-cylinder turbo instead if you're going to drive like that.  The Hemi does surprisingly well on the highway since it can run in 4-cylinder model when keeping it flat and at a stead speed.... so in that situation, a 5.7 liter running in 4-cylinder mode is acting like a 2.85 liter where a 2.7T with no extra boost is a 2.7 liter 6-cylinder. 

And here is where my personal preference kicks in.  The 5.7 liter can turn the other 4 cylinders back on faster than any turbo (even the electric ones SMK likes to talk about coming from Benz) can build boost. It takes no more than 1/2 of the rotation of the crankshaft for the full power to be back online.  IT will be interesting to see what this new Turbo-4 in the XT4 can do running on just two cylinders. 

Exactly, and worse is that I do end to drive very conservatively so really the small engine in both vehicles would do the job 99% of the time. A couple things I like about the top engines is: sound for the 5.7! they can pass with ease(I don't often but when I do i don't like the wait I have now in my N/A Focus, and the potential to get more power out of them because I'm always looking to do things to my vehicles. 

The 9spd in the JGC is very intriguing as well over the 6spd in the Edge. I never had a turbo lag issue with my Escape so that likely wouldn't deter me with the 2.7 either but lag is lag and there would be more than a n/a 5.7, 'MURICAN, V8. 

I also only average 12,000 miles per year so fuel economy really shouldn't be a huge concern of mine but I'm cheap and I can't ignore added fuel costs. 

[Drew Dowdell]

8-speed in JGC and it makes a big difference over a 6-speed.  I never thought I'd say that, but the extra gears do seem to matter.

9-speed is the smaller Cherokee.

If you're cheap, you won't like either of these engine.... premium is recommended.

[ccap41]

3 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

8-speed in JGC and it makes a big difference over a 6-speed.  I never thought I'd say that, but the extra gears do seem to matter.

9-speed is the smaller Cherokee.

If you're cheap, you won't like either of these engine.... premium is recommended.

Yes, sorry. 8spd! 

Recommended but 87 is fine as well, at least for the Ford, and according to the manual. 

[Robert Hall]

19 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Yes, sorry. 8spd! 

Recommended but 87 is fine as well, at least for the Ford, and according to the manual. 

With the JGC, 87 is fine w/ the V6 and 8spd, not sure about the Hemi--it may require premium.   As far as fuel economy, with the V6 I seem to average about 18mpg mixed use (mostly suburban/city w/ some freeway).    I put around 8000 miles on it the first year I had it..(since 2100 of those miles were over a long weekend, it was really only about 6000 miles)..working from home, I'm not driving a lot.  

Edited June 27, 2018 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[G. David Felt]

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

I don't know if I would ever be comfortable driving something as large as these full size BOF SUVs. The're so damn big. 

They drive as easy as any car out there and are so comfy! ?? 

[Drew Dowdell]

25 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Yes, sorry. 8spd! 

Recommended but 87 is fine as well, at least for the Ford, and according to the manual. 

 

9 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

With the JGC, 87 is fine w/ the V6 and 8spd, not sure about the Hemi--it may require premium.   As far as fuel economy, with the V6 I seem to average about 18mpg mixed use (mostly suburban/city w/ some freeway).    I put around 8000 miles on it the first year I had it..(since 2100 of those miles were over a long weekend, it was really only about 6000 miles)..working from home, I'm not driving a lot.  

In both cases, there is a reduction in performance and fuel economy.   Some engines are more sensitive to the change than others.  My experience with the 3.5 Ecoboost has been that it is very sensitive to octane, not just in fuel economy, but even just engine noise. 

[ccap41]

7 minutes ago, dfelt said:

They drive as easy as any car out there and are so comfy! ?? 

They might be comfy but they aren't as easy to drive as most anything smaller than them. 

[G. David Felt]

5 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

They might be comfy but they aren't as easy to drive as most anything smaller than them. 

I Disagree, it amazes me how many people drive bashed up subcompacts and cannot park them and yet I can put SUVs in places that many people thought would not fit.

Driving skill and confidence is what it takes.

[Drew Dowdell]

18 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

They might be comfy but they aren't as easy to drive as most anything smaller than them. 

I would put it differently.  They may not be easier to drive than my Encore, but they are nowhere near as hard to drive as people make them out to be.  Their ease of driving far exceeds common expectations. 

[Robert Hall]

Having driven GCs since 2000, I'm used to driving and parking a midsize SUV.   The times I've driven a full size (Tahoe or Yukon), I found them pretty easy to drive and park.  I didn't try parallel parking, but I don't do parallel parking unless it's unavoidable.   The '15-16 Tahoes I drove surprised me in how nimble they felt on winding N. Arizona mountain roads.   Very comfortable and smooth.    A nice comfy place to be when grinding along in gridlock on the 405 or the 10 (been there, done that). 

Since they sit higher, I have to climb up in rather than slide in and out as I can do w/ the GC.   The cargo load floor seemed pretty high also. 

Edited June 27, 2018 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

1 minute ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Having driven GCs since 2000, I'm used to driving and parking a midsize SUV.   The times I've driven a full size (Tahoe or Yukon), I found them pretty easy to drive and park.  I didn't try parallel parking, but I don't do parallel parking unless it's unavoidable.   The '15-16 Tahoes I drove surprised me in how nimble they felt on winding N. Arizona mountain roads.   Very comfortable and smooth.    Since they sit higher, I have to climb up in rather than slide in and out as I can do w/ the GC.   The cargo load floor seemed pretty high also. 

This mirrors my experience.  Suburbans are often my rental of choice when I'm in NJ and I can wheel them through Manhattan like they're a BR-Z

[G. David Felt]

11 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Having driven GCs since 2000, I'm used to driving and parking a midsize SUV.   The times I've driven a full size (Tahoe or Yukon), I found them pretty easy to drive and park.  I didn't try parallel parking, but I don't do parallel parking unless it's unavoidable.   The '15-16 Tahoes I drove surprised me in how nimble they felt on winding N. Arizona mountain roads.   Very comfortable and smooth.    A nice comfy place to be when grinding along in gridlock on the 405 or the 10 (been there, done that). 

Since they sit higher, I have to climb up in rather than slide in and out as I can do w/ the GC.   The cargo load floor seemed pretty high also. 

LOL  I can imagine you having to climb up and in.  I just lift my wife into them all the time, but then she loves sitting up higher. For me even in my lifted suburban I still just slide in, but then I do have side steps for everyone else getting into the suburban. Love the ground clearance and my wife is the one that always tells people they drive like a car as she find them very easy to drive and nothing like what people tend to think of being that old 3 point truck lock to lock turn around in a parking lot.

I think @Drew Dowdell Nailed it with his statement: "Their ease of driving far exceeds common expectations. "

[smk4565]

15 hours ago, ccap41 said:

Not saying the Escalade can't do this but if this is considered mild off roading.. I think the GL would be just fine. I can't imagine needing ANY more than this in a vehicle this size. 

 

Agreed and very good point.  The GL is more than capable for actual off roading, and 95% of the people buying this thing aren't going to drive on a gravel driveway, let alone do actual off roading.  And I doubt a Lexus RX can make it though an off road course like a GLS can.

[smk4565]

3 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The problem in both cases is that the go-pedal becomes too addictive.  The 2.7 will have the fuel economy advantage if you're very gentle on it, but you might as well get the 4-cylinder turbo instead if you're going to drive like that.  The Hemi does surprisingly well on the highway since it can run in 4-cylinder model when keeping it flat and at a stead speed.... so in that situation, a 5.7 liter running in 4-cylinder mode is acting like a 2.85 liter where a 2.7T with no extra boost is a 2.7 liter 6-cylinder. 

And here is where my personal preference kicks in.  The 5.7 liter can turn the other 4 cylinders back on faster than any turbo (even the electric ones SMK likes to talk about coming from Benz) can build boost. It takes no more than 1/2 of the rotation of the crankshaft for the full power to be back online.  IT will be interesting to see what this new Turbo-4 in the XT4 can do running on just two cylinders. 

The real problem is FCA has a torqueless V6 that came out in 2011 model year  and hasn't seen any meaningful gains in power or fuel economy.  Maybe they should update that, so buyers don't have to look to a 5.7 liter engine that gets 14 mpg city and still only gets the Grand Cherokee from 0-60 in 6.5 seconds.

The GLE with the 3 liter turbo does 0-60 in 5.3 seconds.  The Audi Q5 2.0 does 0-60 in 5.8 seconds, Audi Q7 3.0T does it in 5.5 seconds and it is bigger than a GC and gets better gas mileage.  The Hemi GC is slow by comparison, because the Hemi engine is even more dated than the Pentastar V6.

[Drew Dowdell]

No one cares. The Jeep Grand Cherokee prints money for FCA. Jeep sells more JGCs in a month than Audi sells Q anything in a year.

[Robert Hall]

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

The real problem is FCA has a torqueless V6 that came out in 2011 model year  and hasn't seen any meaningful gains in power or fuel economy.  Maybe they should update that, so buyers don't have to look to a 5.7 liter engine that gets 14 mpg city and still only gets the Grand Cherokee from 0-60 in 6.5 seconds.

The GLE with the 3 liter turbo does 0-60 in 5.3 seconds.  The Audi Q5 2.0 does 0-60 in 5.8 seconds, Audi Q7 3.0T does it in 5.5 seconds and it is bigger than a GC and gets better gas mileage.  The Hemi GC is slow by comparison, because the Hemi engine is even more dated than the Pentastar V6.

There is no 'problem'...it's an SUV, not a muscle car...and they have the SRT and Trackhawk versions for people that want faster. 

[G. David Felt]

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

The real problem is FCA has a torqueless V6 that came out in 2011 model year  and hasn't seen any meaningful gains in power or fuel economy.  Maybe they should update that, so buyers don't have to look to a 5.7 liter engine that gets 14 mpg city and still only gets the Grand Cherokee from 0-60 in 6.5 seconds.

The GLE with the 3 liter turbo does 0-60 in 5.3 seconds.  The Audi Q5 2.0 does 0-60 in 5.8 seconds, Audi Q7 3.0T does it in 5.5 seconds and it is bigger than a GC and gets better gas mileage.  The Hemi GC is slow by comparison, because the Hemi engine is even more dated than the Pentastar V6.

You clearly have not talked to the bulk or type of people that are buying JGC. They DO NOT CARE about 0-60 times, they care about if it gets them from point A to B and safely with their tech toys.

My son is a perfect example, when he was shopping to replace his Jeep Patriot that he loved but was starting to have issues at 81,000 miles he test drove a JGC with a V8 and loved it, but the cost and gas mileage for commuting to work and doing his kind of active lifestyle did not justify him spending the money when the V6 was fast enough to get on the freeway and merge, roomy for him and his girlfriend and did everything he wanted it to do.

The 0 - 60 Time crowd is less than 1% of the population and even smaller among auto enthusiast like here on C&G. As @Cubical-aka-Moltar points out, JGC has the Trackhawk and Trailhawk to deal with those crowds and it does it well.

XT4 related and I do admit to being partly to blame for going off into the weeds with full size SUVs, the XT4 will NOT compete against the Compass, Terrain, Equinox or many other CUV's out there.

What would be interesting is to see a chart if anyone has the time to dig up a comparison of the XT4 to the X3, GLA, Q3, etc.

Yet so many websites say the competition is the Acura RDX, Infiniti QX50, Audi Q5, BMW X3, Mercedes-benz GLC, so a hunting I went and found on the website "The Car Connection the following comparison:

Weird, the saved picture is much bigger than what is shown above. Here is the website link:

https://www.thecarconnection.com/compare/cadillac_xt4_2019_choices

[G. David Felt]

QUESTION: Does anyone know if the XT4 requires Premium or can run on regular or premium? I noticed in the comparison chart that all the other auto's are stated as Premium fuel required.

[smk4565]

2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

No one cares. The Jeep Grand Cherokee prints money for FCA. Jeep sells more JGCs in a month than Audi sells Q anything in a year.

Worldwide Audi outsells Jeep.  And the cheapest Audis are Grand Cherokee price.  Jeep is a successful brand no doubt, they have the styling, they have the loyal fan base, they have brand image, they have a lot going for them.  They are by far FCA's best brand.  But Jeep is saddled with FCA's sub-par powertrains and poor reliability.  If Jeep was owned by GM they outsell Buick, GMC and Cadillac combined and be more profitable than they are now.

[smk4565]

52 minutes ago, dfelt said:

My son is a perfect example, when he was shopping to replace his Jeep Patriot that he loved but was starting to have issues at 81,000 miles he test drove a JGC with a V8 and loved it, but the cost and gas mileage for commuting to work and doing his kind of active lifestyle did not justify him spending the money when the V6 was fast enough to get on the freeway and merge, roomy for him and his girlfriend and did everything he wanted it to do.

This is what I mean, if FCA didn't have a weak V6, then the V6 would be faster than the current Hemi and still get the gas mileage.  The Grand Cherokee is a compromised vehicle because the engines in it are from 2010.   A nice change would be to put that new 300 hp turbo 4 in the GC, and the Alfa Romeo V6 as the optional engine.  The Alfa V6 would spank the Hemi in power and get better fuel economy.

[Drew Dowdell]

3 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Worldwide Audi outsells Jeep.  And the cheapest Audis are Grand Cherokee price.  Jeep is a successful brand no doubt, they have the styling, they have the loyal fan base, they have brand image, they have a lot going for them.  They are by far FCA's best brand.  But Jeep is saddled with FCA's sub-par powertrains and poor reliability.  If Jeep was owned by GM they outsell Buick, GMC and Cadillac combined and be more profitable than they are now.

You're stats are meaningless and you fail at moving the goal post. Audi has like body 87 variants. That is a huge cost to develop. 

I don't care how many A1 compact cars Audi sells globally...it's not relevant to Grand Cherokee sales in the US. In the US, the the Grand Cherokee crushes any Audi Q in volume and probably profits.

5 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

This is what I mean, if FCA didn't have a weak V6, then the V6 would be faster than the current Hemi and still get the gas mileage.  The Grand Cherokee is a compromised vehicle because the engines in it are from 2010.   A nice change would be to put that new 300 hp turbo 4 in the GC, and the Alfa Romeo V6 as the optional engine.  The Alfa V6 would spank the Hemi in power and get better fuel economy.

I'm just going to label you fake news.  Your facts are always lies. They can't even be mistakes anymore since you've been corrected so many times.

[frogger]

I think the XT4 is a bit of a tweener.. Bigger than subcompacts but definitely on the small side of compacts, not really suited for a 2 kid family.. Whereas a q5 or RDX could get by in that regard.

 

[G. David Felt]

17 minutes ago, frogger said:

I think the XT4 is a bit of a tweener.. Bigger than subcompacts but definitely on the small side of compacts, not really suited for a 2 kid family.. Whereas a q5 or RDX could get by in that regard.

 

Totally agree as to why the competition I see with the XT4 is the GLA, X3, Q3, etc.

[Robert Hall]

It will be interesting to see how it fares in the market.   There is a lot of competition..

[Drew Dowdell]

Like @balthazar says, people don't shop with a tape measure. It's all going to be based on who can offer the most features for $3990 down, $399 a month for an ultra low mileage lease.

[smk4565]

44 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

You're stats are meaningless and you fail at moving the goal post. Audi has like body 87 variants. That is a huge cost to develop. 

I don't care how many A1 compact cars Audi sells globally...it's not relevant to Grand Cherokee sales in the US. In the US, the the Grand Cherokee crushes any Audi Q in volume and probably profits.

I'm just going to label you fake news.  Your facts are always lies. They can't even be mistakes anymore since you've been corrected so many times.

Jeep also isn't a luxury brand, so I would hope they outsell the Audi Q's in the USA.  And as I said Jeep's brand image and styling and off road reputation and American image all work really well for it.  FCA is the weak part, they don't have any new powertrains or hybrids outside of the Pacifica.  Look at the lower end Jeeps with that awful 2.4 liter engine from the Dodge Dart for example.

And the fact is, the Alfa Romeo V6 has 505 hp, the 5.7 liter Hemi has 360 hp and the 6.4 liter SRT Hemi has 475 hp.  So the V6 out powers both and gets better gas mileage than both.   FCA gives the good powertrains to Alfa, Jeep and Chrysler are still using Daimler-Chrysler era stuff.  Where is the update?

[G. David Felt]

4 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Like @balthazar says, people don't shop with a tape measure. It's all going to be based on who can offer the most features for $3990 down, $399 a month for an ultra low mileage lease.

Or in this case, $3,329 Down and $309.00 a month for 36 months.

[smk4565]

2 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Or in this case, $3,329 Down and $309.00 a month for 36 months.

Thats even cheaper than a front drive GLA lease that comes in at $36,87 down and $339 a month.

[Drew Dowdell]

2 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Jeep also isn't a luxury brand, so I would hope they outsell the Audi Q's in the USA.  And as I said Jeep's brand image and styling and off road reputation and American image all work really well for it.  FCA is the weak part, they don't have any new powertrains or hybrids outside of the Pacifica.  Look at the lower end Jeeps with that awful 2.4 liter engine from the Dodge Dart for example.

And the fact is, the Alfa Romeo V6 has 505 hp, the 5.7 liter Hemi has 360 hp and the 6.4 liter SRT Hemi has 475 hp.  So the V6 out powers both and gets better gas mileage than both.   FCA gives the good powertrains to Alfa, Jeep and Chrysler are still using Daimler-Chrysler era stuff.  Where is the update?

1.5t - 2016, 2.0t - 2018, 3.6 was heavily revised in 2016

[frogger]

27 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Totally agree as to why the competition I see with the XT4 is the GLA, X3, Q3, etc.

I think you mean X1 but yeah.. I think this could have been an XT3 with room between it and the XT5 for another CUV.

 

[balthazar]

Audi sold 116K Q3-5-7s in the US last year.
Jeep moved 828K SUV/CUVs. That's not remotely close.

I sincerely hope Cadillac is looking at this XT4 as an experiment of sorts; gauging market performance/ROI with a CUV so small. Everythin to come should ONLY be larger than the XT4, never smaller.

[Robert Hall]

10 minutes ago, frogger said:

I think you mean X1 but yeah.. I think this could have been an XT3 with room between it and the XT5 for another CUV.

 

Yeah, kind of feels that way.. it's a few inches shorter length wise than the Q5, X3, and GLC.  Bigger than the Q3, X1, and GLA.    Slightly longer than the MKC. (MKX is XT5 sized).

Edited June 28, 2018 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[smk4565]

I still feel like Cadillac dropped the ball with the XT4 because they will never get big money for what is basically a glorified Equinox.  They will just have an Acura RDX/Lincoln MKC type competitor that sells a couple thousand a month because of $309 lease specials, but that isn't a big profit driver.

And on size, XT4's dimensions are 181 L x 77 W x 64 H

Car and Driver had 3 SUVs this month with dimensions and price of:

185 L x 77 W x 66 H  $85,340

186 L x 77 W x 62 H  $104,910

185 L x 76 W x 63 H  $96,295

 

 

[Drew Dowdell]

8 hours ago, smk4565 said:

I still feel like Cadillac dropped the ball with the XT4 because they will never get big money for what is basically a glorified Equinox.  They will just have an Acura RDX/Lincoln MKC type competitor that sells a couple thousand a month because of $309 lease specials, but that isn't a big profit driver.

And on size, XT4's dimensions are 181 L x 77 W x 64 H

Car and Driver had 3 SUVs this month with dimensions and price of:

185 L x 77 W x 66 H  $85,340

186 L x 77 W x 62 H  $104,910

185 L x 76 W x 63 H  $96,295

 

 

No one cares. Cadillac is going to sell the crap out of these. It will probably become their highest volume vehicle just like the Encore did for Buick.  This really is the next step up in luxury for Encore or GLA drivers who want only slightly larger than their current car.

No one is going to bring a measuring tape with them. You are lying about this being related to Equinox, it is related to Regal.

The GLA can't take a V6, but this XT4 can. 

[regfootball]

2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

No one cares. Cadillac is going to sell the crap out of these. It will probably become their highest volume vehicle just like the Encore did for Buick.  This really is the next step up in luxury for Encore or GLA drivers who want only slightly larger than their current car.

No one is going to bring a measuring tape with them. You are lying about this being related to Equinox, it is related to Regal.

The GLA can't take a V6, but this XT4 can. 

the XT4 has huge rear seat numbers for a compact.  Even if the trunk got compromised some, everyone knows you can fold the rear seat.  Caddy purposely returned more space to the back seat vs. trunk.  For this reason alone, the XT4 should do gangbusters.  Especially after all the flack Cadillac took for no back seat in the ATS .  XT4 replaces ATS as Cadillacs 'port of entry'.  So the main critique of car with no back seat has been remedied.

[ccap41]

11 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Car and Driver had 3 SUVs this month with dimensions and price of:

No Worries, they're still selling the Escalade.