First Impressions: 2020 Cadillac CT5: Comments

[Drew Dowdell]

The Cadillac ATS and CTS didn't sell well.  They had great handling and a large selection of engines, but they were hampered by interiors that were cramped for the class and infotainment systems that could confound people.  Sedans are dying, Cadillac gets that too. That's why they are consolidating the ATS and CTS onto a single car called the CT5, released last week at the New York International Auto Show. Rumors have it that the CT5 will start in the mid-30s and Cadillac is insisting that, despite its size, the CT5 is aligned against the 3-series and C-Class. But in doing so, where does that leave the car? Could Cadillac be realigning their cars so they become the largest cars in a particular price class?  It would be a very traditionally Cadillac thing to do. There was a time when Cadillac would brag about having the longest production cars in its class. Even the original CTS was sized like a 5-series but priced like a 3-series.  More on that later. 

I'm a lifelong fan of Cadillac.  I want to be excited about the CT5. While I do think the car looks handsome, it doesn't excite me like the CT6 does.  There is no one thing I can put my finger on, not even the black plastic triangle playing the part of a third window.  The car just doesn't command a presence as the CT6 does. And though the overall look of the front is handsome, I get flashbacks of Impala from certain angles. It does look far better in person than Cadillac's or my own photography show.

Inside, Cadillac has upped their game on the quality of the materials, but they phoned the styling in. As some readers have pointed out, it even appears as if some trim pieces have been repurposed from the CTS. There is a large tablet stuck to the dash for the infotainment system, which is thankfully no longer the old CUE system. It looks to be similar in function and layout to those found in GMC's trucks. I have found that system to work well, so I don't see any problem there. A large dial in the center console can control the unit as well, useful if you're wearing gloves.  Capacitive touch buttons have been replaced by real physical buttons. They are well weighted and feel substantial, indeed even Mercedes-like for the HVAC controls.    Cadillac took to heart all of the criticism over their gauges in the previous cars and produced a good looking set of round dials for tach and speedometer with a driver information screen between.  The seats are firm and supportive, getting into position is quick and easy, but they don't match the 24+ way seats that Lincoln is offering these days.  Rear seat room has improved dramatically over the ATS, though feels about the same as a CTS.  Cadillac's Precision Control Shift is there.  I've found it annoying to use, but it has a similar operation to the BMW gear control that many people like, so maybe it is just me.  I think Cadillac (and everyone else) should chuck the shifter knob on their cars and go to something more digital.  One piece of technology in the CT5 that I really love is Cadillac's SuperCruise.  I've used SuperCruise to drive from Pittsburgh to New York, roughly 350 miles, and I was only actively piloting the car for about 10% of the time. 

Engines in the CT5 seem to be introductory offers, but there is also room to grow. The base engine is a 2.0 liter twin-scroll turbo producing 237 horsepower and 258 lb-ft of torque. That's a bit light for the class.  The optional engine is a 3.0 liter twin-turbo making 335 horsepower and 400 lb-ft of torque.  Both engines are mated to a 10-speed automatic with all-wheel drive optional. Both engines also have displacement on demand and can shut down cylinders to conserve fuel in light-load situations.  Cadillac has plenty of room to maneuver here with engines though. For future versions like V-Sport and V-Series, they have the 400hp version of the 3.0TT, or the 420hp 3.6TT, or the new 4.2 liter Blackwing when more performance is called for.  

Overall, this could be a very compelling car starting at $34,995 and being as long as a Mercedes-Benz E-Class. That's where the size issue comes in. Cadillac would have a hard time moving this CT5 if they price it alongside the same size German models. If this is going to be Cadillac's strategy, offer the biggest car for the price, then they need to drum that mindset into the heads of consumers. That takes advertising dollars.  Otherwise, they are just going to be repeatedly compared to vehicles outside of their price class and lose in every comparison test.  The CT6 being priced just $1,000 more than an E-Class leads me to believe this is what they are intending to do.   

Read other First Impressions from the New York International Auto Show below:

First Impressions: 2020 Hyundai Venue

First Impressions: 2020 Lincoln Corsair

First Impressions: 2020 Ford Escape

 

 

View full article

[ccap41]

OoOoOooo that really dark red looks great. 

[Matt 967]

Nice review but I’m still torn on the CT5 which I keep calling the CTS...

[Drew Dowdell]

Just now, Matt 967 said:

Nice review but I’m still torn on the CT5 which I keep calling the CTS...

I make that typo all the time. Auto correct switches it back to cts even when I get it right 

[smk4565]

Pricing is key for them.  If they price it like a Lexus ES or Acura TLX But have a better chassis and engine options, I think they can beat those cars.  They probably need this car to start in the $30s to give the salespeople a compelling reason for people to buy it.

And they do have to get away from the Germans with this one.

[riviera74]

This is Mary Barra's GM.  I doubt the CT5 will start much lower than $39,995. 

The CT5 competes with the E Class and the 5 Series, so pricing will matter but Cadillac does not quite have the brand equity of the E and the 5 to price above those two.  Now a Lexus GS should be the main price target of the CT5.

[smk4565]

55 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

This is Mary Barra's GM.  I doubt the CT5 will start much lower than $39,995. 

The CT5 competes with the E Class and the 5 Series, so pricing will matter but Cadillac does not quite have the brand equity of the E and the 5 to price above those two.  Now a Lexus GS should be the main price target of the CT5.

But the media people at the show I have listened to are being told by Cadillac that the CT5 competes with a C-class. 

[surreal1272]

So Cadillac is saying that the CT5, despite the fact that it 5 Series size, is a 3 Series competitor? How does that work and how does that affect the past statements of there being a CT4 (which was supposed to be the ATS replacement)? What is real and what is not?

 

Also, I agree about the presence factor. The CT6 ( and the current CTS) both have it while this one a mixed bag. 

[smk4565]

5 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

So Cadillac is saying that the CT5, despite the fact that it 5 Series size, is a 3 Series competitor? How does that work and how does that affect the past statements of there being a CT4 (which was supposed to be the ATS replacement)? What is real and what is not?

 

Also, I agree about the presence factor. The CT6 ( and the current CTS) both have it while this one a mixed bag. 

If they price it in the high $30s I guess it would compete with a Q50, 3-series, TLX, MKX, ES350, S60, etc.  Although the 3-series is a bit the oddball of that group.  

Really what Cadillac should say, it is a mid-size luxury sedan at X price, and not compare it to BMW.  

CT4 might be the size of today's ATS, but like $29,995.  Maybe it will be the size of today's ATS but with a CT6  level interior and cost the same as a CT5.  Who knows.  I don't get why the big car necessarily has to have the best interior, why can't the small car have the best interior and maybe they sell interior vs size and horsepower on CT4.  

Edited April 23, 2019 by smk4565

[regfootball]

I like the write up. It’s brutally honest. And I do like the holla. (Repurposing trim pieces) so thanks. 

I agree with a lot of what you said. I get the feeling you’re not awestruck by this car. And I’d bet almost no one else is either. 

I like the strategy of selling a larger car than the 3 series etc. this is an advantage that caddy fans would take to like you pointed out. I have a hard time believing this car will sticker at 35 for starters. Like Tesla would either. My reasoning. The XT4 is mostly all above 35k. And the CT5 should price higher.  And GM never keeps prices attractively low.  The current CTs if you look at the actual units at dealers they sticker 55k and up. I don’t doubt the CT5 May have a lot on the lot that is less than that.... I am guessing they will start CT5 at about 42k and up. Most xt4’s on the lot are mid forties for starters so I imagine most ct5’s on the lot will be 46-50k for starters. Maybe the ct4 is what will be 35k.  And will the ct4 have the same 2.0 engine?  Why two models? 

Styling and interiors is what Cadillac needed to solve to have high hopes with this model release and for their brand.  And I don’t think they have got it done here. It’s not a knockout or even a solid double inside and out. In the end I think it will drive well but I think this will be a market wallflower. Sad to say.  Needs a bit more base engine. Needed styling outside. Needed awesome interior (although the GM picture album you posted it looks awesome in those pics inside ).  Needs low price now just to hope to move these I think. Unless the 3.0 is cheap and popular.  My advice for Cadillac is get the incentivized lease programs going otherwise not a lot to go on. Give me a ct6 or another brand. 

Edited April 23, 2019 by regfootball

[Drew Dowdell]

@regfootball you're right, I'm not awestruck by this car. I have pictures of the ct6 on my wall in my home office. I'd never with the Ct5

[FAPTurbo]

shame they spent money on the interior this time because nobody's gonna be caught dead inside that fugly thing

[ocnblu]

Wow, rear seat cushions are about as thick as cork drink coasters.  I hope the foam is plenty dense... chintzy.

[regfootball]

22 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

@regfootball you're right, I'm not awestruck by this car. I have pictures of the ct6 on my wall in my home office. I'd never with the Ct5

I may grow to like the interior but the exterior will still take a long time for me, to warm up to. 

[Drew Dowdell]

4 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

Wow, rear seat cushions are about as thick as cork drink coasters.  I hope the foam is plenty dense... chintzy.

Good catch!

[smk4565]

2 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

Wow, rear seat cushions are about as thick as cork drink coasters.  I hope the foam is plenty dense... chintzy.

They probably had 20,000 rear seats that they bought for Malibus then cut production and never use the so they ended up in the CT5.  

This car may have some flaws, but we don't know the price yet, if it is like $37k, then this is Nissan Maxima money, which then this doesn't look so bad.

[Cmicasa the Great]

 To the rear seats... How do they feel though? How does the material feel? Is the seating arrangement up to snuff? The video reviews I've seen say nothing negative about the rear seat. Also.. from what I saw.. the materials are carried over from the CTS.

Lastly.. pricing is to be between where the ATS was, $36K sedan/39K COupe and the CTS which started at $47K.. which means it will most likely be in the $43K range

 

[G. David Felt]

While the CT5 does not carry the presence of the CT6 and I will attribute this to the over kill use of the Coupe design plus shaving here and there, the bigger reason is public perception of cars which is dying as folks move to trucks and SUV/CUVs in replacement of cars.

Honestly, Cadillac could kill off a CT4, no need, just keep the CT5 and CT6 and upgrade the interiors and keep it best in class. Luxury does not need anything below the CT5 / low $30K to $20 K line when you have Buick and Cheverolet. Focus on world class with best ATP's.

Then pour the rest of the money into the CUV / SUV lineup and focus on EVs.

[ocnblu]

Dfelt wants Cadillac sales to tank even further.  "focus on EVs" LOL indeed.

[riviera74]

1 hour ago, ocnblu said:

Dfelt wants Cadillac sales to tank even further.  "focus on EVs" LOL indeed.

One day, once Lithium Ion batteries are replaced with much better ones, the question will be, "Who wants a ICE car when a BEV is so much better and more convenient?"

[G. David Felt]

3 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Dfelt wants Cadillac sales to tank even further.  "focus on EVs" LOL indeed.

Sales cannot tank when they barely exist conservative padawan!

Cadillac has an opportunity to focus on quality with ATP over volume while they build superior EVs.

The whole focus here is that Solid State batteries which are moving from R&D into production by Dyson, Panasonic, Toshiba, Samsung, MIT - Ionic Materials have the benefit of doubling energy density in up to half the package size.

Example of this is the 200 kWh battery pack Tesla is putting in the Roadster 2.0 that is 310 miles of range, drops almost to half the weight and yet gets 620 miles of range with Solid State batteries and no rare earth metals.

There is also the advanced research that has gone on by PNNL here in the PNW that is using a Solid State Lithium battery as a mid step to the Crystal Polymer solid state battery that Dyson, Samsung and Ionic Materials are developing into commercial cells. 

The PNNL uses existing Lithium and unlike current batteries where cells start to decay after 100 cycles of fast charging, these new solid state Lithium batteries can handle 700 fast charging cycles before decay even starts. Far longer battery life than most are used to having and again without rare earth Cobalt.

https://www.machinedesign.com/motion-control/solid-state-batteries-evs-key-long-distance-driving

Toyota and VW both have moved into early production runs of their new Solid state batteries that also have the benefit of NOT loosing charge or capacity in extreme heat or cold. Right now their batteries can go from -50 to 212 with no degradation or explosive issues like a liquid Lithium battery does.

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/batteries-lithium-ion-or-solid-state-126772.html

Again, with Green energy, solid state batteries and much less maintenance, the future is EV for the bulk of society.

FOR ANYONE interested in reading on solid state versus traditional liquid Lithium, this is an excellent short read that covers it well. Current for where we are at:

https://www.lithium-battery-factory.com/solid-state-lithium-ion-batteries/

Best thing is Toshiba goes into commercial production this spring for their Solid state battery for cars where you get 320 Kilometers in 6 minutes. 

For those that can only do US standard is that equals 198 miles in 6 min, the large battery is 396 miles of range in 12 min. Range and recharge anxiety solved!

 

[balthazar]

What Tesla Roadster?
- - - - - 
Much like a new model's sales peak (because it's new!!), it might be prudent to watch EV sales going forward. Tesla's 61% sales collapse from Q4 to Q1 is not a mere blip.

[G. David Felt]

 

 

9 hours ago, balthazar said:

What Tesla Roadster?
- - - - - 
Much like a new model's sales peak (because it's new!!), it might be prudent to watch EV sales going forward. Tesla's 61% sales collapse from Q4 to Q1 is not a mere blip.

 

[surreal1272]

16 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Dfelt wants Cadillac sales to tank even further.  "focus on EVs" LOL indeed.

And you want them to stay stuck in the past. You should have been born in the late 1800s so that you tell folks like Henry Ford and their ilk how no one wants gas powered cars when we already have a abundance of horses available. ?

[balthazar]

^ Except internal combustion vehicles took off FAR faster than EVs have done over the last, well to be honest; efforts go back to the 1970s [if you push the whole early 1900s EV market off to one side].

RE the Tesla Roadster : I'm not seeing it on the Tesla site; available to build & price. Perhaps those vids were taken before Elon shot it into space.

Edited April 24, 2019 by balthazar

[Drew Dowdell]

2 minutes ago, balthazar said:

^ Except internal combustion vehicles took off FAR faster than EVs have done over the last, well to be honest; efforts go back to the 1970s [if you push the whole early 1900s EV market off to one side].

What EVs were sold commercially at scale in the 1970s?

It took a long time for cars to scale and they were for the 1%ers

[balthazar]

8 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

What EVs were sold commercially at scale in the 1970s?

That's precisely the point. And at 2% of the market today, one can argue they still aren't at scale.

>>"It took a long time for cars to scale and they were for the 1%ers"<<
Most still are. $75K is not a mainstream-price product. There's only 3 in the meat of the price range (Model 3, leaf, Bolt), and most of the proposed models seem to also be skewed toward the upper end too.

[Drew Dowdell]

1 minute ago, balthazar said:

That's precisely the point. And at 2% of the market today, one can argue they still aren't at scale.

>>"It took a long time for cars to scale and they were for the 1%ers"<<
Most still are. $75K is not a mainstream-price product. There's only 3 in the meat of the price range (Model 3, leaf, Bolt), and most of the proposed models seem to also be skewed toward the upper end too.

So we're still looking for the Model-T of the EV world.  It'll happen.

I still maintain that the Bolt's relatively poor sales are largely due to its dorky shape.  Had they built some SA into it or made it more of a crossover (mutually exclusive, I know) it would have sold a lot better.  It's not a bad car to drive at all and in reality could satisfy the needs of most small and mid-size sedan drivers. 

[G. David Felt]

30 minutes ago, balthazar said:

^ Except internal combustion vehicles took off FAR faster than EVs have done over the last, well to be honest; efforts go back to the 1970s [if you push the whole early 1900s EV market off to one side].

RE the Tesla Roadster : I'm not seeing it on the Tesla site; available to build & price. Perhaps those vids were taken before Elon shot it into space.

Roadster 1.0 is not in production any longer. 2.0 reservations are available.

https://www.tesla.com/roadster

[surreal1272]

2 hours ago, balthazar said:

^ Except internal combustion vehicles took off FAR faster than EVs have done over the last, well to be honest; efforts go back to the 1970s [if you push the whole early 1900s EV market off to one side].

RE the Tesla Roadster : I'm not seeing it on the Tesla site; available to build & price. Perhaps those vids were taken before Elon shot it into space.

Fair point but you are forgetting that it was the old guard who held EVs back more than the “new tech” level of it. See GMs EV debacle of the 90s as the most recent example. Competing industries and corrupt politicians (bought and sold by the lobbyists of said industries) held the tech back. It is only in the last 15 years or so that the tech has been allowed to finally catch up to the real world, i.e. more range between charges. My point about the reluctance of some people to accept simple progress and changes in technology stands. The arguments against EVs are getting weaker and weaker every year. Just my opinion though. 

Edited April 24, 2019 by surreal1272

[surreal1272]

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

So we're still looking for the Model-T of the EV world.  It'll happen.

I still maintain that the Bolt's relatively poor sales are largely due to its dorky shape.  Had they built some SA into it or made it more of a crossover (mutually exclusive, I know) it would have sold a lot better.  It's not a bad car to drive at all and in reality could satisfy the needs of most small and mid-size sedan drivers. 

I agree with you on the Bolt. I get the gripe about it’s looks but it is a solid and surprisingly quick little car (thank you endless torque). I drove one across town (when I was working at a Chevy dealership last year) and I actually liked the way it drove but the outside is a bit “odd” and yes it should have been a true CUV to better fit in to current buying trends. 

[ccap41]

2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I still maintain that the Bolt's relatively poor sales are largely due to its dorky shape.  Had they built some SA into it or made it more of a crossover (mutually exclusive, I know) it would have sold a lot better.

100% agree. 

I don't understand why companies try and force EVs to have a funky look to them. 

[balthazar]

I find the Bolt kinda cute, if I had to apply a general adjective. It's more generic/utilitarian than 'dorky'. At least it's not origami-esque like the horrible prius.

Bolt is selling well…… for an EV. So far this year, it's #2 in sales. But there's a weird disconnect here where 'poorly selling' is commonly attached to 'the Bolt', when other than one Tesla, ALL EVs sell poorly. 
 

2 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

Fair point but you are forgetting that it was the old guard who held EVs back more than the “new tech” level of it. See GMs EV debacle of the 90s as the most recent example. Competing industries and corrupt politicians (bought and sold by the lobbyists of said industries) held the tech back. It is only in the last 15 years or so that the tech has been allowed to finally catch up to the real world, i.e. more range between charges. 

I don't know that I buy that theory- there were dozens upon dozens of mainstream OEM, small company & private enterprise (read backyard efforts) at designing & marketing EVs over the decades- there just weren't buyers for them. From what I've read on the EV1, the bottom line is it wasn't viable from a business case, and that's eminently believable. I JUST read the finance report that Tesla reported "it's first quarterly loss since" 9 months ago. 

[riviera74]

The only reason EVs are poor selling is because they can be better but they are obviously not cheap enough for anyone to take a risk on a true BEV yet.  When a Crossover BEV is less than a base model Civic/Corolla, then the sales will come.  People will not change unless there is a giant incentive for them to do so.  Right now a true BEV is simply too expensive for most people to experiment.  Charging stations are already here or are forthcoming but the price must be low enough to effectively replace large chunks of the used car market in order for BEVs to completely win the marketplace.

[ocnblu]

3 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

I agree with you on the Bolt. I get the gripe about it’s looks but it is a solid and surprisingly quick little car (thank you endless torque). I drove one across town (when I was working at a Chevy dealership last year) and I actually liked the way it drove but the outside is a bit “odd” and yes it should have been a true CUV to better fit in to current buying trends. 

Poppycock.  Looks aren't everything.  If it really were the panacea that some here like to preach, it would be selling in much higher numbers DESPITE its looks.  It just ain't all that and a bag of chips.

[Drew Dowdell]

10 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

Poppycock.  Looks aren't everything.  If it really were the panacea that some here like to preach, it would be selling in much higher numbers DESPITE its looks.  It just ain't all that and a bag of chips.

Looks matter. Put the powertrain in the Lacrosse or Regal and I'd drive it. 

[G. David Felt]

^^^

Agree that the Bolt is not bad looking, would have sold better if it was a CUV. GM missed reading the tea leaves for the current auto trend.

Also agree that the Asian auto's do follow a very popular Origami type design. Yet while that sells well in the Asian rim and in Europe, they seem to have not realized that Americans are not huge Origami fans.

Leaf and Prius would have sold better if a more Butch style was used I think.

53 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

Poppycock.  Looks aren't everything.  If it really were the panacea that some here like to preach, it would be selling in much higher numbers DESPITE its looks.  It just ain't all that and a bag of chips.

I call your BULLSHIT OF NARROW VIEW!

People who drive EVs tend to buy them unless you have a wife who has an input and your huge like me. Then a much larger one would be better. 

BOLT is an excellent drive, if they had done a CUV rather than a hatch back I bet it would be selling even more. 
Just because you want to breath toxic fumes and coal dust not everyone does on the planet and before you know it as Solid state batteries hit in EV late this year and next year with many more CUV EV options, sales are going to jump up much faster.

[ocnblu]

22 minutes ago, dfelt said:

sales are going to jump up much faster

Dream on

[surreal1272]

3 hours ago, balthazar said:

I find the Bolt kinda cute, if I had to apply a general adjective. It's more generic/utilitarian than 'dorky'. At least it's not origami-esque like the horrible prius.

Bolt is selling well…… for an EV. So far this year, it's #2 in sales. But there's a weird disconnect here where 'poorly selling' is commonly attached to 'the Bolt', when other than one Tesla, ALL EVs sell poorly. 
 

I don't know that I buy that theory- there were dozens upon dozens of mainstream OEM, small company & private enterprise (read backyard efforts) at designing & marketing EVs over the decades- there just weren't buyers for them. From what I've read on the EV1, the bottom line is it wasn't viable from a business case, and that's eminently believable. I JUST read the finance report that Tesla reported "it's first quarterly loss since" 9 months ago. 

None of those startups had the backing and a few of those got swallowed by the big boys before anything could even hit the market. Like I said, the technology had roadblocks that went beyond the limits of the tech itself. It is clear that those hurdles and obstructionists of the past have been sent to the sidelines. Tesla opened the door and others are slowly getting the hint and making the investment like what Ford is doing with Rivian. 

1 hour ago, ocnblu said:

Poppycock.  Looks aren't everything.  If it really were the panacea that some here like to preach, it would be selling in much higher numbers DESPITE its looks.  It just ain't all that and a bag of chips.

Not “poppycock”. Fact. If it was put into a CUV, the sales would be much higher and that is not even a debatable point. Whether you choose to accept it or not is 100% irrelevant. It sure as hell isn’t like you’ve had any real time in one so your opinion on this is taken with a grain of salt. 

[ocnblu]

13 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Fact. If it was put into a CUV, the sales would be much higher and that is not even a debatable point

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Lacrosse

??? What is a "LaCrosse"?  Is that a Canadian word?

[Drew Dowdell]

1 hour ago, ocnblu said:

??? What is a "LaCrosse"?  Is that a Canadian word?

What I'm saying is the Bolt lacks the visual Allure.

[ocnblu]

All of you crying out in agony over the Bolt's looks... the manufacturer calls it a Crossover.  In every OEM reference to the vehicle, it is grouped and classified as a Chevrolet CUV.  So I don't have a clue why all the crying and excuses saying it would sell better as a CUV... it already is.  And a puny selling one at that.

[riviera74]

If you had an EV the size of an Equinox or Traverse, sales would be much better.  That eventually will come.

[Robert Hall]

29 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

If you had an EV the size of an Equinox or Traverse, sales would be much better.  That eventually will come.

Yes, if they had a decent sized EV CUV that looks like a normal CUV (the Bolt is a humpy tall hatchback), sales would be better. 

Edited April 25, 2019 by Robert Hall

[ccap41]

13 hours ago, dfelt said:

Solid state batteries hit in EV late this year and next year with many more CUV EV options,

There are solid state batteries ready for the market? Who's using them first? What're they going in? 

56 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

If you had an EV the size of an Equinox or Traverse, sales would be much better.  That eventually will come.

After a smallish sedan, that size should have been next. I feel like there is no reason there shouldn't be more of those out already instead of funky styling and odd sizing in the Bolt. 

[Drew Dowdell]

3 hours ago, ccap41 said:

There are solid state batteries ready for the market? Who's using them first? What're they going in? 

They're going into phones first, but I would imagine that cars aren't far behind. 

[ccap41]

23 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

They're going into phones first, but I would imagine that cars aren't far behind. 

What kind of improvement in phone batteries will that bring? Could it take my one charge per day(overnight) to one charge per two days? That would be pretty amazing. 

Since I got my XR, I have only used my phone so much throughout a single day that I felt the need to charge it before bed once. It will easily last 24hrs before getting under 20%. I stretched it to 28hrs once to see about how long it'll go on a charge and I think that was around 5% battery remaining. 

[Drew Dowdell]

1 minute ago, ccap41 said:

What kind of improvement in phone batteries will that bring? Could it take my one charge per day(overnight) to one charge per two days? That would be pretty amazing. 

Since I got my XR, I have only used my phone so much throughout a single day that I felt the need to charge it before bed once. It will easily last 24hrs before getting under 20%. I stretched it to 28hrs once to see about how long it'll go on a charge and I think that was around 5% battery remaining. 

My guess is that they'll likely use the tech to make phones thinner and lighter rather than extending the time it can go without charging... but you never know. It could be a combination of both. 

[surreal1272]

17 hours ago, ocnblu said:

??? What is a "LaCrosse"?  Is that a Canadian word?

Funny how you laugh at the truth. Show us on the doll where the EV touched you. 

[surreal1272]

8 hours ago, ocnblu said:

All of you crying out in agony over the Bolt's looks... the manufacturer calls it a Crossover.  In every OEM reference to the vehicle, it is grouped and classified as a Chevrolet CUV.  So I don't have a clue why all the crying and excuses saying it would sell better as a CUV... it already is.  And a puny selling one at that.

I want you pay special close attention to the first paragraph describing the Bolt on CHEVY’s own page. Nowhere does it say CUV but it sure does mention the word “car” a lot. And no one is crying but you because you’re the only one here who gets their underwear in a knot over any positive attention directed at EVs. We get it. You hate them so maybe staying out of the conversation and not trolling at every EV turn would be better here.