Detroit 2019: 2020 Cadillac XT6

4 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

Nah I was just saying it is not good enough to be what a Cadillac SHOULD be.  And I think the Lincoln Aviator is a much nicer vehicle, spec wise and looks wise, because I have nothing else to go on.

Spec wise.. Yes. The Aviator definitely has a better drivetrain line-up.. I mean who can argue with 400hp/400lbs torque or 450hp/600lbs  torque? The crazy thing that still boggles my mind is that Cadillac has access to the LF3 from the XTS-VSport, which would beat the Lincoln's first engine.. and the Black Wing, in either tune, to beat the hybrid driveline.

58 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

OH!!! I see your issue.. U hate change. The Wreath is dead.. for like half a decade. Sales have been up globally and has attracted a younger demo. 

The crest will he dead too in another half decade at this rate!  Hey-ooooh! 

All these things were said for the most part about the XT5.
2018 YTD thru October ~
Jag f-pace : $44K - 9770 sold
A-R setvio : $40K - 9946 sold
volvo XC60 : $40K - 26075 sold
BMW X-3 : $41k - 47389 sold
acura RDX : $43K - 50791 sold
Cadillac XT5 : $42K - 51570 sold
audi Q5 : $43K - 55946 sold
MB GLC : $40K - 56236 sold
lexus RX : $43K - 88166 sold
 

8 minutes ago, balthazar said:

All these things were said for the most part about the XT5.
2018 YTD thru October ~
Jag f-pace : $44K - 9770 sold
A-R setvio : $40K - 9946 sold
volvo XC60 : $40K - 26075 sold
BMW X-3 : $41k - 47389 sold
acura RDX : $43K - 50791 sold
Cadillac XT5 : $42K - 51570 sold
audi Q5 : $43K - 55946 sold
MB GLC : $40K - 56236 sold
lexus RX : $43K - 88166 sold
 

and Cadillac could've sold more if they had of just advertised the vehicle and, offered a VSport trim with a more powerful engine. As I've stated before.. it really is a damn nice place to be 

^ Nahhhh, yer wrong; it's boring, it sucks, its uncompetitive, everything else is better, the rear is bland, the plastics are bad, the tech is behind, the power is low, the drive wheels are front, the speakers suck, the leather is thin, the engine is shared, the brand is damaged, it's not a BMW, it's not a MB, it's not a alfa-romeo, it's not a volvo, it's not an acura, it's not a jagooooo-ar, it's not an audi, I like audi's, audi's are great, audi's are greater than cadillacs, government motors.

4 minutes ago, balthazar said:

^ Nahhhh, yer wrong; it's boring, it sucks, its uncompetitive, everything else is better, the rear is bland, the plastics are bad, the tech is behind, the power is low, the drive wheels are front, the speakers suck, the leather is thin, the engine is shared, the brand is damaged, it's not a BMW, it's not a MB, it's not a alfa-romeo, it's not a volvo, it's not an acura, it's not a jagooooo-ar, it's not an audi, I like audi's, audi's are great, audi's are greater than cadillacs, government motors.

Lol.. I see the frustration. U know that. My only issue with the XT6, and 5.. and 4.. for that matter is that they simply need a bigger engine (more powerful). Cadillac can keep it simple and non-complicated. 

I would go with the Aviator if I had the money for either.  But I don't.  The Cadillac elicits no emotion, it is cold, like an electric future.

2 hours ago, ocnblu said:

I would go with the Aviator if I had the money for either.  But I don't.  The Cadillac elicits no emotion, it is cold, like an electric future.

There is this when it comes to electrics. 

This is nice and disappointing.. Same lame V6 rated the same as their chevy counterpart and no showing off of their tech with Super Cruise. 

24 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

This is nice and disappointing.. Same lame V6 rated the same as their chevy counterpart and no showing off of their tech with Super Cruise. 

Super Cruise I have no doubt will be showing up so I have no issue with that. GM would be a fool to introduce a system this complicated on a mass selling CUV from git without a lil more actual driver/consumer time behind the CT6 with it. I think that their approach is more responsible than Tesla's ever was. 

To the engine.. YES.. my only issue. If they are going to use it, OK.. I get it.. but at least have a secondary more powerful engine. This will most likely get the same times as the GMC Acadia Denali .. so about 0-60 in 6.1-6.2

15 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

I doubt most people that lease such CUV appliances are even aware of what is under the hood or which wheels drive it.  They aren’t car enthusiasts.  So GM’s LCD approach should suffice in this niche.  

You don't need to be an enthusiast to test drive two vehicles and one has torque and one doesn't.

25 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

Super Cruise I have no doubt will be showing up so I have no issue with that. GM would be a fool to introduce a system this complicated on a mass selling CUV from git without a lil more actual driver/consumer time behind the CT6 with it. I think that their approach is more responsible than Tesla's ever was. 

To the engine.. YES.. my only issue. If they are going to use it, OK.. I get it.. but at least have a secondary more powerful engine. This will most likely get the same times as the GMC Acadia Denali .. so about 0-60 in 6.1-6.2

 

It's going to be tough to get more test miles in when they're canceling it.. 

Yeah, a base 3.6 would be fine but something more powerful as an option, with all the GM's available engines, should have been an obvious decision. 

So I was very right in my comment on the Cadillac Instagram thread that this looks like a rebadge of the Chevrolet Blazer.

This is clearly a stop gap measure as the real focus is on the Electric versions of CUVs.

6 minutes ago, dfelt said:

 

So I was very right in my comment on the Cadillac Instagram thread that this looks like a rebadge of the Chevrolet Blazer.

 

More like the Acadia with the third row.

Am I the only one who wonders why the 3.6L V6 has so little torque compared to the 3800 and 3900 v6?

4 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

Am I the only one who wonders why the 3.6L V6 has so little torque compared to the 3800 and 3900 v6?

Damn DOHC crap engines focused on producing HP but no real torque to move them. Not a fan of these types of motors. Looking forward to the EV versions of Cadillac. This motor makes me 😴

59 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

It's going to be tough to get more test miles in when they're canceling it.. 

Yeah, a base 3.6 would be fine but something more powerful as an option, with all the GM's available engines, should have been an obvious decision. 

They are selling the vehicle thru 2020. Not to mention its still going to be avail in China market.. I think they can get plenty.

26 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

Am I the only one who wonders why the 3.6L V6 has so little torque compared to the 3800 and 3900 v6?

What @dfelt said. I assume DOHC has emissions advantages as everybody has moved to them awhile ago. 

This is why I'm surprised they didn't use some other engine or have a second optional engine with more torque for the larger vehicle that this is. 

9 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

What @dfelt said. I assume DOHC has emissions advantages as everybody has moved to them a while ago. 

This is why I'm surprised they didn't use some other engine or have a second optional engine with more torque for the larger vehicle that this is. 

You are right on, I am very surprised to not see this as the base engine and a turbo version in the 400HP / 400 lb-ft of torque department.

10 minutes ago, dfelt said:

You are right on, I am very surprised to not see this as the base engine and a turbo version in the 400HP / 400 lb-ft of torque department.

100% agree. 

1 minute ago, ccap41 said:

100% agree. 

That would also have quieted down the Critics pointing to the Aviator. I honestly say Lincoln won this round of CUVs. Sad

47 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

Am I the only one who wonders why the 3.6L V6 has so little torque compared to the 3800 and 3900 v6?

"So little"?  I think it has more but at higher RPM, typical of DOHC.

For the LGX 3.6 these are the specs in the Blazer (same platform):

Which seems plenty enough for this category.  it's more than the old 3800 and 3900 had (some of you are using rose colored glasses). 

Just now, frogger said:

"So little"?  I think it has more but at higher RPM, typical of DOHC.

 

IMHO DOHC engines suck big time and they never unless turbo'd have more torque than HP. This engine is another example, Peak HP 310 HP, Torque while not stated in Drew's story, Autoweek states 271 lb-ft of torque. (https://autoweek.com/article/detroit-auto-show/2020-cadillac-xt6-fills-out-luxury-lineup-detroit-auto-show) 

Found GM's chart on this motor, keeping it the same as what is in the XT5:

People seem to love it, but why not give it the 335HP / 285 lb-ft config for a bigger CUV over the XT5 just makes no sense to me. Still hate the DOHC weak ass Torque design.

I will say as I missed this the first time I read it "CUE will now allow drivers to store their profile in the cloud for customization across compatible vehicles."

This is smart for GM to have this in their auto family that has this feature in their new auto's. Config in the cloud and moved around between auto's. Course how many people can afford multiple new cars in the same year. 🤷‍♂️

Still cool feature.

It isn't the torque number itself, it's how high in the RPM range it is. 

1 minute ago, ccap41 said:

It isn't the torque number itself, it's how high in the RPM range it is. 

Yea that is the problem with all DOHC engines is the fact that you have to rev them to make that stated torque and go even higher to get it. Too many solid long life pushrod engines that make a ton of torque low without having to be rev'd so hard.

8 hours ago, ccap41 said:

It's going to be tough to get more test miles in when they're canceling it.. 

Yeah, a base 3.6 would be fine but something more powerful as an option, with all the GM's available engines, should have been an obvious decision. 

Good point about the CT6 cancellation and Super Cruise is classified as a Level 2 system which pretty much every German car has a level 2 system available.  The A8 has a level 3 system now the S-class will be level 3 on the new one.

i even think the 3.6 is weak as a base engine, if they price this low they can get by with it but the 3.0 turbo V6 would have been a better base engine.   

6 hours ago, dfelt said:

Yea that is the problem with all DOHC engines is the fact that you have to rev them to make that stated torque and go even higher to get it. Too many solid long life pushrod engines that make a ton of torque low without having to be rev'd so hard.

Mercedes engines out-torque anything GM makes of similar displacement or cylinder count, and those are DOHC, plus they have electric boost added on too now.  You can easily have 400 lb-ft under 2,000 rpm out of a 3.6 liter engine.  

7 hours ago, riviera74 said:

Am I the only one who wonders why the 3.6L V6 has so little torque compared to the 3800 and 3900 v6?

Because GM powertrain engineered it?

This has been a problem since 2006 with the 3.6 V6.  Ford got smart and did lower displacement turbo engines their 2.3 liter makes 310 lb-ft at a lower rpm than GM’s V6 and that Ford engine has to be 5 years old by now.

35 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Good point about the CT6 cancellation...

tee-hee.

On 1/5/2019 at 8:19 PM, balthazar said:

It remains to be seen if in fact the CT6 is no longer available.

The torque curve on the 3.6 is awful compared to the 3800 and 3900.  That is the real issue.  Why GM insisted on building a V6 based on those four cylinder engines from Germany is still beyond me.  HP is nice, but a torque curve as flat as Kansas is what a LOT OF US want.

On 1/13/2019 at 10:00 AM, William Maley said:

And oddly, almost the same design profile

Sorry for the crudity, but I don't do this often

11 minutes ago, regfootball said:

Not exactly aspirational, is it?  At least in photos, it just does not have luxury cache.

Whoops. Sorry I got the SexT6 and the dodge Dakota journey confused

4 minutes ago, regfootball said:

Whoops. Sorry I got the SexT6 and the dodge Dakota journey confused

Oh shoot, and I didn't catch it until you said something.

Seems pretty entry lux at best in finish and features. I guess the 6 is referring to the size and they are not making their larger CUV more luxurious or feature laden than their smaller models.

I'll admit, even though the XT6 and the forsaken XL7 are almost peas in a pod (same size, same motor)...

It actually does turn out that the XT6 side profile is quite a bit different than the SEX L 7

I will say the XT6 has quite a big ass though.  We are talking Kardashian huge here.

BTW is there anything about the profile of the XT6 that is identifiable as a Cadillac without seeing the Cadillac badge on the car?

Quote

It actually does turn out that the XT6 side profile is quite a bit different than the SEX L 7

Who else was confused on this one? Anyone??
 

Quote

It turns out the new BMW X5 doesn't really look like a hyundai CUV (well; not incredibly so). BMW really should advertise this fact; get the comparison shots out, because… wow!

 

 

actually i never really noticed it but there's probably some folks out there that wouldn't be able to tell them apart aside from the d-bag that usually is piloting a BMW

I was being facetious.

Point is, there's tremendous overlap in profile views of SUVs/CUVs (and pickups) because functionally; they're boxes, and you can only do so much with a box. 

Add to that the Great Homogenization of auto design, and any idea that you can have 60 or 70 CUVs in a single commerce market and they somehow are going to be wildly distinctive from each other is pretty unrealistic, IMO.

13 hours ago, balthazar said:

I was being facetious.

Point is, there's tremendous overlap in profile views of SUVs/CUVs (and pickups) because functionally; they're boxes, and you can only do so much with a box. 

Add to that the Great Homogenization of auto design, and any idea that you can have 60 or 70 CUVs in a single commerce market and they somehow are going to be wildly distinctive from each other is pretty unrealistic, IMO.

yes, lots of truth there.  However, some have managed to pull off some distinction I feel.

The Volvos have a scultping that I think people are able to recongnize as distinct (the Xc90 for example).

I think the Lexus RX also.

I just think that on the side of the XT6 there isn't really even a hint of Cadillac in it.  The XT5 has a bit of the older SRX in them and also still has a bit of the art and science vibe to it, as well as some CTS influences.  The side flanks of the XT6 I don't think they even had the time to really explore even some decent character lines.

41 minutes ago, regfootball said:

yes, lots of truth there.  However, some have managed to pull off some distinction I feel.

The Volvos have a scultping that I think people are able to recongnize as distinct (the Xc90 for example).

I think the Lexus RX also.

I just think that on the side of the XT6 there isn't really even a hint of Cadillac in it.  The XT5 has a bit of the older SRX in them and also still has a bit of the art and science vibe to it, as well as some CTS influences.  The side flanks of the XT6 I don't think they even had the time to really explore even some decent character lines.

That is why I called it a Rebadge bigger of the Chevy Blazer. There is NOTHING Cadillac about it.

Anyone that says they used Escala DNA is smoking too much dope. 

The best selling premium crossovers sold are all FWD/AWD products from Lexus, Acura, Volvo, and.... Cadillac. Do we expect any crossover utilizing the status quo to actually do anything to raise a brands perception? The truth of the matter is that even with Mercedes, the current leader in luxury, the only SUV/CUV that they currently have that truly offers a glimpse of raising any bar is he G-Wagon. And that vehicle is still basically the same as it was 1000 years ago. The GLS, GLE, GLC, and GLA really do nothing so extraordinary that they make one believe that outside the emblem that they are truly special. I have experience in both the GLS and GLE one on one, and I could not for the life of me figure out why, in this case, the GLS was considered anything superior to an Escalade with a similar drive train. These vehicle are fluff. They are profit makers. GM has clearly stated, and I believe them, that they are going EV. This vehicle, like the XT5, and XT4 are to pay for that mission. Truthfully I believe that this XT6 is gonna be a hot seller. I think it will bring about 45-50K new sales into Cadillac. 

AND.. Its a rebadge.. or better yet a platform engineered entry to a segment where Cadillac desperately needed a contender. I think that is phenomenal for GM considering that this is a platform mate to 5 other vehicles. (Cxx) Lambda's Acadia, Enclave, Outlook, and Traverse reborn. That is six vehicles off one platform and as yet, I have not seen anyone outside of the car rags, and forum readers commenting anything about "rebadging." So much so I have a friend who recently bought a Traverse for himself, his wife has an XT5, and they are looking out for a decent blip of inventory of the Blazer for their daughter who is about to graduate Grad school in the Spring. In conversations with him and his wife, they not once seem to realize that they are driving platform mates. His wife didn't even know that the XT5 and Traverse were apart of the same corporation until they got their statements the same day from GM Finance

Why is that so hard to grapple? The market demanded that Cadillac put out a small and larger CUV that sandwiched the XT5/SRX. They responded pretty quickly considering the fact that outside of the Trailblazer overseas is the only model they have that could have served the purpose and answered a question that no one really asked outside of a group of so-called enthusiasts that probably won't buy anyway. Do I think that the Cadillac brand.. no.. GM as a whole needs a small RWD based architecture for CUVs? Yes.. and NO. If the Cadillac brand is delving into the EV market as they say they are in a few years.. no. Performance in a straight, which is really where the line should be drawn for tall wagons, considering the real driving capabilities of most Americans, is just too evident and too apparent with electric motors doing the pushing. What I think Cadillac should do is offer a secondary take on upcoming Escalade which goes the same route as the Range Rover and Range Rover Sport. Two vehicles.. one blatantly luxo.. the other luxo sport.. but really appealing to the Male demo as the CUVs in their portfolio are really aimed at women. I believe that the target segment for the XT6, intentionally, is to cater to more females than the heavy skewed male target market of the Escalade garners. I bet good money that U will see more men, by percentage, in the Aviator than U will see in the XT6. Similar in the way the old QX56 and Infiniti FX35-45 pulled in more males, while the EX35 pulled in women. But, for the sake of argument I will wait and see. I truly believe that CAdillac specifically designed the XT4,5, and 6 as vehicles to bring more women into the CUV portion of the brand. The Escalade and ESV will continue to be pushed to men, with the XT7, possibly going RWD to attract men looking for a smaller SUV.