Who Wore it Better?

[ccap41]

Well, pretty simple, who wore it better?  

[G. David Felt]

TIE, This is an Apple to Orange comparison so you really could not compare, they are both excellent for their class they sell in.

You are not going to get cross shopping here between these two.

[frogger]

I'm interested to see how the XT4 AWD system stacks up to a competitor's like the RDX SH-AWD.

 

 

 

 

[ccap41]

35 minutes ago, dfelt said:

TIE, This is an Apple to Orange comparison so you really could not compare, they are both excellent for their class they sell in.

You are not going to get cross shopping here between these two.

Well, if there were winners and losers here you would be in the losers column. The whole point of this blew over your head. 

I never asked if they compete or what class they're in. They've both on the same mid size crossover platform and I only asked about their looks. 

[Robert Hall]

37 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Well, if there were winners and losers here you would be in the losers column. The whole point of this blew over your head. 

I never asked if they compete or what class they're in. They've both on the same mid size crossover platform and I only asked about their looks. 

The better comparison would be the Blazer and XT5, though.   The XT4 lines up with the Equinox in terms of platform and size.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[ccap41]

10 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

The better comparison would be the Blazer and XT5, though.   The XT4 lines up with the Equinox in terms of platform and size.

Luckily, the XT4 and XT5 look the exact same. 

[G. David Felt]

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

Well, if there were winners and losers here you would be in the losers column. The whole point of this blew over your head. 

I never asked if they compete or what class they're in. They've both on the same mid size crossover platform and I only asked about their looks. 

We'll then we will agree to disagree as the grammar did not tell me you were wanting me to think of this in it's own class on rating. Both I think are excellent for their class as luxury and Econo mode. They are both sharp looking CUVs and yet the way I read it made me think you were comparing them against each other look wise.

Luxury I think the XT4 nailed it for the Luxury segment

Economical, I think the Blazer nails it too for the segment. 

Against each other, still a tie as they are both good looking auto's.

[ccap41]

1 minute ago, dfelt said:

Against each other, still a tie as they are both good looking auto's.

LAME. ??

[A Horse With No Name]

4 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

LAME. ??

I am actually glad to see someone else here to express a passionate opinion....other than OCNBLU ragging on ICE vehicles and my endless bashing of FORD MOTOR COMPANY products.

To me though this Blazer looks as hot as the current Shelby Mustang almost...

[Robert Hall]

I guess I want to see it in person before I judge the styling very much.   Definitely Camaro overtones. 

[Suaviloquent]

Well here’s another product planning gaffle.

 

The Chevy gets optional body colour or painted glossy black cladding while the XT4/5 gets toning black plastic cheap looking cladding.

 

i don’t get it, I mean yes the XT4 is entry lux for Caddy,

 

hut in in many ways this Blazer is entry-lux for Chevy.

 

I mean Lincoln does this too, why TF does the Edge get the Titanium elite with body colour cladding while Black Label at the very least does not!?

[ccap41]

To me, the Cadillac looks leaps and bounds better than the Chevy. I'd buy and drive an XT4/5 but I wouldn't buy the Blazer. Although I'm not excited about the XT4/5 engines at all. 

[Robert Hall]

I think I don't find any of these appealing given my bias against FWD/transverse engine platforms..   I'll stick w/ JGC.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Suaviloquent]

I’d get the Cadillac, but only because the Blazer is poorly packaged and has barely any appreciable increase in cargo capacity or passenger space than the Equinox. That’s a shame. 

[frogger]

I'd rather get a Golf R than the XT4. More cargo space, much better performance, good enough interior.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[A Horse With No Name]

55 minutes ago, frogger said:

I'd rather get a Golf R than the XT4. More cargo space, much better performance, good enough interior.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hell yes on a golf R....

[G. David Felt]

Both auto's need to lose the stupid Valance that eats up ground clearance and approach angle. 

[Robert Hall]

34 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Both auto's need to lose the stupid Valance that eats up ground clearance and approach angle. 

Not an issue for Mall Rated CUVs...though it may drag on curbs.   It is funny how low so many CUVs are in the front, though.  My sister's Trax had a black rubber air dam thingy under the front fascia, she tore that off shortly after getting it, going in and out of the driveway in Phoenix.. 

Edited June 25, 2018 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[ocnblu]

16 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

I am actually glad to see someone else here to express a passionate opinion....other than OCNBLU ragging on ICE vehicles and my endless bashing of FORD MOTOR COMPANY products.

To me though this Blazer looks as hot as the current Shelby Mustang almost...

I've never "ragged" on ICE vehicles a day in my life.  I do know they're like God's Gift compared to pathetic electrics tho. 

New Blazer is gonna be H.O.T.  

I really like the wide stance, nice interior, painted lower body v. cheap textured trim and aggressive front end.  Thankful there is no enviro weenie version, it will be plenty efficient with good ol' ICE simplicity and ease of use in all situations.

Those crying across the interwebs about Chevrolet's choice of name for the product... "That ain't NO BLAZR" act like it is a surprise bomb or something, when we've been seeing spy photos of it for over a year that clearly showed it to be a sporty, stylish CUV, not a rough and tumble (and I love rough and tumble) rock crawling trail beast.

OMG Ford is bringing back the Bronco, Jeep has the Wrangler and Chevy gives us THIS?  Excuse me in 1969 the Chevrolet Blazer did not compete directly with Ford's original Bronco or the Jeep CJ, or the original Scout... it was based on a full size pickup!  WAY bigger!  Ford, Jeep and International ALL THREE made their tiny off-roaders bigger and posher to meet the Blazer/Jimmy concept.  Dodge and Plymouth even entered the game.

So I am not scared or mad that Chevy named this thing Blazer... the last Blazer wasn't exactly Rubicon ready.

Maybe GMC will satiate the need for a GM rock crawler.  If they do, we will see how well it sells.

I just think it's funny that so many are reacting with shock and disdain when the Blazer has been in full view while in development... with the name attached the entire time.

BTW XT4 is not "Cadillac" enough for me, at least as far as I can see so far.  The base model is so cheap looking with textured lower body trim, blah silver painted alloys, etc.  The Sport is better but the clear lens taillights are SO "last decade" and the standard Sport wheels are blah... the Premium Luxury is the most decent and cohesive trim, and it is EXPENSIVE.

Why am I thinking the XT4 is tiny compared to the Blazer?  It certainly looks like it.

[frogger]

I doubt the Blazer will be sporty in any way aside from styling if the Cruze RS is any indication.

 

 

[Robert Hall]

2 hours ago, ocnblu said:

 

Why am I thinking the XT4 is tiny compared to the Blazer?  It certainly looks like it.

It is smaller, remember, the XT4 is in the Equinox/Terrain compact family, while the Blazer is a midsize like the Acadia and XT5.

[G. David Felt]

2 hours ago, ocnblu said:

  Thankful there is no enviro weenie version, it will be plenty efficient with good ol' ICE simplicity and ease of use in all situations.

 

ICE is far more complex, higher cost of maintenance and prone to break down more than EV auto's.

You sure show a horse with blinders approach to how you see the auto industry. 

But then you just might be the type to like a whipping. 

[Robert Hall]

3 minutes ago, dfelt said:

 

ICE is far more complex, higher cost of maintenance and prone to break down more than EV auto's.

You sure show a horse with blinders approach to how you see the auto industry. 

But then you just might be the type to like a whipping. 

ICE and EV are far more complex than the propulsion systems the Amish are used to...they still roll like it's 1699...

Edited June 26, 2018 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[G. David Felt]

Just now, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

ICE and EV are far more complex than the propulsion systems the Amish are used to...the still roll like it's 1699...

So True, if @ocnblu was Amish.  

[Robert Hall]

Just now, dfelt said:

So True, if @ocnblu was Amish.  

Well, he does live in Amish country, maybe the local culture has rubbed off on him...;)

[ccap41]

I find it almost impossible to believe there is more cargo space in a Golf than an XT4. 

[Robert Hall]

10 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I find it almost impossible to believe there is more cargo space in a Golf than an XT4. 

Golf: 17.4 ft³, 53.7 ft³

XT4: 22.3 ft³, 48.9 ft³

With the seat down, the Golf has about 5 more cubic feet of space.

With the back seat down, the XT4 has only slightly more space than the Trax!

Trax: 18.7 ft³, 48.4 ft³

In comparison, the XT4's GM brand relatives are way more spacious.

Equinox: 29.9 ft³, 63.5 ft³

Terrain: 29.6 ft³, 63.3 ft³

So utility was not a priority in the XT4 development, it sounds like...even the larger XT5 isn't that great---

XT5: 30 ft³, 63 ft³

compared to the Acadia:

Acadia: 12.8 ft³, 79 ft³   (that seat up figure is odd, 3rd row?) 

Edited June 26, 2018 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[ccap41]

14 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Golf: 17.4 ft³, 53.7 ft³

XT4: 22.3 ft³, 48.9 ft³

With the seat down, the Golf has about 5 more cubic feet of space.

With the back seat down, the XT4 has only slightly more space than the Trax!

Trax: 18.7 ft³, 48.4 ft³

In comparison, the XT4's GM brand relatives are way more spacious.

Equinox: 29.9 ft³, 63.5 ft³

Terrain: 29.6 ft³, 63.3 ft³

So utility was not a priority in the XT4 development, it sounds like...even the larger XT5 isn't that great---

XT5: 30 ft³, 63 ft³

compared to the Acadia:

Acadia: 12.8 ft³, 79 ft³   (that seat up figure is odd, 3rd row?) 

Yeah that's why I thought it was impossible to be that small.. WOW! Thank You!

Come to think of it, I do remember reading how the XT4 was supposed to have the roomiest back seat and I guess that is why, they ate into the hatch space. Still odd that with the seats folded it isn't the same size as the 'Nox/Terrain. 

[Robert Hall]

14 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Yeah that's why I thought it was impossible to be that small.. WOW! Thank You!

Come to think of it, I do remember reading how the XT4 was supposed to have the roomiest back seat and I guess that is why, they ate into the hatch space. Still odd that with the seats folded it isn't the same size as the 'Nox/Terrain. 

Less rear overhang.

[G. David Felt]

I just hope the XT4 is quiet when riding inside. I feel that cadillac has given up the quietness of the luxury area. Buick Envision is quieter than the XT5 I recently just had.

[ccap41]

20 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Less rear overhang.

Why would they do that..? 

[Robert Hall]

Just now, ccap41 said:

Why would they do that..? 

Styling?  

[ccap41]

Just now, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Styling?  

Seems like an odd choice to me but whatever..lol

[frogger]

2 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Golf: 17.4 ft³, 53.7 ft³

XT4: 22.3 ft³, 48.9 ft³

With the seat down, the Golf has about 5 more cubic feet of space.

With the back seat down, the XT4 has only slightly more space than the Trax!

Trax: 18.7 ft³, 48.4 ft³

In comparison, the XT4's GM brand relatives are way more spacious.

Equinox: 29.9 ft³, 63.5 ft³

Terrain: 29.6 ft³, 63.3 ft³

So utility was not a priority in the XT4 development, it sounds like...even the larger XT5 isn't that great---

XT5: 30 ft³, 63 ft³

compared to the Acadia:

Acadia: 12.8 ft³, 79 ft³   (that seat up figure is odd, 3rd row?) 

I'm reading the Golf has 22.8 Cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seat, not ~17.

The CRV and RAV4 both have near 40..

 

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by frogger

[Robert Hall]

5 minutes ago, frogger said:

I'm reading the Golf has 22.8 Cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seat, not ~17.

The CRV and RAV4 both have near 40..

 

 

Oddly, the Golf R comes up as 22.8, but the regular Golf and GTI come up as 17.4 when googling...does the R have a smaller backseat or something? 

[frogger]

3 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Oddly, the Golf R comes up as 22.8, but the regular Golf and GTI come up as 17.4 when googling...does the R have a smaller backseat or something? 

Not that I know of, I got 22.8 right off the VW site for a plain Jane one and a few other sites as well.

 

 

[G. David Felt]

36 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Oddly, the Golf R comes up as 22.8, but the regular Golf and GTI come up as 17.4 when googling...does the R have a smaller backseat or something? 

 

31 minutes ago, frogger said:

Not that I know of, I got 22.8 right off the VW site for a plain Jane one and a few other sites as well.

Maybe it is not in American Standard but in German metric. could be looking at a difference then.

[Robert Hall]

Metric would be something like 250 cubits though.  This was inches.  Don't always believe Google search results I guess

[frogger]

Metric capacity is usually measured in litres.

 

[G. David Felt]

?

When will America just drop the stupid Standard measurement and join the rest of the world on superior Metric. 

[Robert Hall]

30 minutes ago, dfelt said:

?

When will America just drop the stupid Standard measurement and join the rest of the world on superior Metric. 

That would be socialism!

[G. David Felt]

17 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

That would be socialism!

If so, then you found the only redeeming point of Socialism.  Consistent math for all.

[A Horse With No Name]

Or maybe he is just a normal dude who loves cars.

[ocnblu]

21 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Well, he does live in Amish country, maybe the local culture has rubbed off on him...;)

Sadly it has been a while since anyone has rubbed off on me.

[A Horse With No Name]

7 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

Sadly it has been a while since anyone has rubbed off on me.

Maybe the new Blazer will spice things up in other ways for you.

[Cmicasa the Great]

I think this comparison is weird.. As some have stated.. the XT5 vs Blazer would be a better comparison, but again.. the purpose would still come into play. Even more obvious tho.. is that the only reason one would make this comparison is that they are both coming from a GM division and on a similar platform. For me.. the XT5 for the luxury, and wouldn't even consider an XT4 due to the size relative to my size. The Blazer I would choose as a Daily Driver. No different than people did with the Impala vs the XTS.. or owing a Camaro and a CTS. I kno a guy with an Escalade and a Tahoe. One he uses for luxury purposes.. the other is literally his work truck on sites (he owns a construction co) and Daily Driver.

Looks wise.. still the XT5. I think it is gorgeous, but I have said that since day one. The XT4's styling by comparison is even sexier, using the Escala's front homage. The Blazer is more "badass" utilizing the Camaro's looks. It in essence looks like a 4door CUV Camaro. Its appeal will be to those individuals who want sport over lux.

Both, if not all three vehicle ACTUALLY would be insane to incorporate actual Hi-Po versions. None need a V8 really. But the TT 3.0L or even 3.6L would be very desirable

[Drew Dowdell]

I do like them both, but I like the XT4 better.  There is a substantial size difference though.

The XT4 is a variant of Epsilon platform, not Delta platform like the Equinox/Terrain.  That makes the XT4 closer related to the Regal Wagon than the Equiniox.

Why?  The Delta platform isn't built for a V6, but the Epsilon is.... so you can make some inferences about Cadillac's plans for XT4.

On 6/26/2018 at 9:37 AM, ccap41 said:

Yeah that's why I thought it was impossible to be that small.. WOW! Thank You!

Come to think of it, I do remember reading how the XT4 was supposed to have the roomiest back seat and I guess that is why, they ate into the hatch space. Still odd that with the seats folded it isn't the same size as the 'Nox/Terrain. 

XT4 has a very low roofline. It's not much taller than a Golf, but the floor is higher due to being an SUV.

[ccap41]

38 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I do like them both, but I like the XT4 better.  There is a substantial size difference though.

The XT4 is a variant of Epsilon platform, not Delta platform like the Equinox/Terrain.  That makes the XT4 closer related to the Regal Wagon than the Equiniox.

Why?  The Delta platform isn't built for a V6, but the Epsilon is.... so you can make some inferences about Cadillac's plans for XT4.

XT4 has a very low roofline. It's not much taller than a Golf, but the floor is higher due to being an SUV.

Interesting. I really thought it would have been dimensionally identical to a 'Nox or Terrain(or within an inch or design differences). 

[Drew Dowdell]

Just now, ccap41 said:

Interesting. I really thought it would have been dimensionally identical to a 'Nox or Terrain(or within an inch or design differences). 

Length and width possibly, but not height.  It sits lower than them. It is definitely closer to the "car" side of crossovers than it is to the "SUV"  It feels like a slightly lifted hatchback more than an SUV.  It's bigger than the GLA which it will compete against... it's like Cadillac looked at the formula of the GLA and said "That'll be too small for American sized people... increase it 15%"