Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Cadillac CT6: I'm Not Dead Yet (For U.S.)

      GM executives say the CT6 isn't going away in the U.S.

    Back in November, General Motors announced that it would end production of six models in North America. One of the models listed was the Cadillac CT6 sedan. This surprised a number of people considering that the brand had only refreshed model, and announced some key improvements such as adding Super Cruise and a new twin-turbo V8 engine known as Blackwing.

    But GM President Mark Reuss and Cadillac President Steve Carlisle said they are looking into various options to keep the CT6 on sale in the U.S. The two explained that model was never meant to be on the chopping with other models such as the Buick LaCrosse and Chevrolet Impala. But officials at the time did not mention those plans in the original announcement in November. 

    "From the very beginning, we never said that CT6 was going away, because we're very keen on launching Blackwing and Super Cruise and all those sort of things," said Carlisle on the floor of the Detroit Auto Show.

    "We're working hard to find other alternatives to that. We have some time."

    What are the alternatives being considered? Automotive News reports that GM may move production to another plant (ultimately depending on the negotiations with the UAW to take place later this year), or import the model from China - an idea Carlisle said "would be the least-preferred option."

    Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

    Edited by William Maley

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    1 hour ago, Robert Hall said:

    The Cimmaron was just a rebadged Cavalier, a mediocre FWD econobox. Cadillac wasn’t even trying to build a compact luxury car, just a cheap cynical effort.  The Benz and MB hatches weren’t rebadges and were RWD, just variations of the existing 3 series and C-class. 

    Moot point, though.  All ancient history.   

    A modern Cimmaron equivalent would be if Cadillac had a Cruze rebadge in their line.  The ATS is not.  

    BLS was probably the closest Cadillac has ever gotten since to attempting Cimarron 2.0.  And they left it in Europe but i can bet there was some beancounter in the US that wanted to bring it over.

    I would have been fine with it if they had brought it here, though

     

    image.png

     

    image.png

     

    image.png

     

     

    Edited by regfootball
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    42 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

    That was a one off concept.  Not a  real car. 

    It's a production car study- it's certainly not a 'concept' by definition (IE: anything unique, special, beautiful, advanced, futuristic). Mercedes WANTED it to be a 'real car' because it brought absolutely zero else to the turntable.

    Edited by balthazar
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    11 hours ago, regfootball said:

    and it could have duked it out with the ATS for who had less rear seat room.

    Well, it was a SAAB 9-3 underneath, probably had decent rear seat room like the SAAB.  Rear leg room is usually where FWD platforms are better compared to RWD of similar size. 

    Edited by Robert Hall
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    For its time I don't see how the BLS is worse than the people mover CUVs Caddy is selling now.  They could have just brought the AWD 2.0T and 2.8T versions over.

     

     

     

     

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 1/20/2019 at 10:58 PM, regfootball said:

    BLS was probably the closest Cadillac has ever gotten since to attempting Cimarron 2.0.  And they left it in Europe but i can bet there was some beancounter in the US that wanted to bring it over.

    I would have been fine with it if they had brought it here, though

     

    image.png

     

    image.png

     

    image.png

     

     

     

    The Problem was that the CTS was a $29,995 base price car at the time and superior to the BLS in every way. They would have needed to price the BLS at $26k to not step on the CTS's toes.  A base 9-3 was $30k.

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 minutes ago, dfelt said:

    But, But, But it was based on a SAAB? 🤔 ;)

    Which is precisely why it is a Bullsh!t Luxury Sedan. In what way has a Saab been luxurious or perceived as such? Eccentric, quirky and not too slow, maybe... Luxurious? That is like saying a Citreon or Fiat is luxurious.

    BTW, the Saab 900 of the 80s and 90s is the ache-typical Turbo car which you DON'T want. Dubious reliability, tons of turbolag, a pretty decent mid-range once it is spooled up but not much elsewhere. Pretty much like a Buick Grand National except that it is not particularly fast.

    The "best" turbo four engine from that period is arguably the Mitsubishi 4G63T 2.0L which you will find in anything from the 1989 Eagle Talon Tsi /Eclispe GST/GSX to the Gallant VR4 to the various Lancer Evolutions. It'll take a lot of boost (particularly the early 7.8:1 engines) and with a stock TD05 turbo will make quite a bit (~18 psi) without needing a turbo swap and without EVER running into the knock threshold. It also has impeccable manners (for its time) with its dual balance shafts, hydraulic valve lash adjusters, sequential fuel injection and Karman Vortex MAF meter with no moving parts.

    • Thanks 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    18 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

    Which is precisely why it is a Bullsh!t Luxury Sedan. In what way has a Saab been luxurious or perceived as such? Eccentric, quirky and not too slow, maybe... Luxurious? That is like saying a Citreon or Fiat is luxurious.

    BTW, the Saab 900 of the 80s and 90s is the ache-typical Turbo car which you DON'T want. Dubious reliability, tons of turbolag, a pretty decent mid-range once it is spooled up but not much elsewhere. Pretty much like a Buick Grand National except that it is not particularly fast.

    The "best" turbo four engine from that period is arguably the Mitsubishi 4G63T 2.0L which you will find in anything from the 1989 Eagle Talon Tsi /Eclispe GST/GSX to the Gallant VR4 to the various Lancer Evolutions. It'll take a lot of boost (particularly the early 7.8:1 engines) and with a stock TD05 turbo will make quite a bit (~18 psi) without needing a turbo swap and without EVER running into the knock threshold. It also has impeccable manners (for its time) with its dual balance shafts, hydraulic valve lash adjusters, sequential fuel injection and Karman Vortex MAF meter with no moving parts.

    I would give ya the laugh emoji too for your post if I could, cause what you posted is what I was also thinking. Quirky, Eccentric and Different, but NOT Luxury. :P 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    8 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

    Which is precisely why it is a Bullsh!t Luxury Sedan. In what way has a Saab been luxurious or perceived as such? Eccentric, quirky and not too slow, maybe... Luxurious? That is like saying a Citreon or Fiat is luxurious.

    BTW, the Saab 900 of the 80s and 90s is the ache-typical Turbo car which you DON'T want. Dubious reliability, tons of turbolag, a pretty decent mid-range once it is spooled up but not much elsewhere. Pretty much like a Buick Grand National except that it is not particularly fast.

    The "best" turbo four engine from that period is arguably the Mitsubishi 4G63T 2.0L which you will find in anything from the 1989 Eagle Talon Tsi /Eclispe GST/GSX to the Gallant VR4 to the various Lancer Evolutions. It'll take a lot of boost (particularly the early 7.8:1 engines) and with a stock TD05 turbo will make quite a bit (~18 psi) without needing a turbo swap and without EVER running into the knock threshold. It also has impeccable manners (for its time) with its dual balance shafts, hydraulic valve lash adjusters, sequential fuel injection and Karman Vortex MAF meter with no moving parts.

    Every mitsu power plant ever built though went into Gods own original pentalty box of a car.

    Hard pass from me as an enthusiast.

    I do like the previous generation evos...but not enough to want to own one.

    And yes enough people disagree with me that resale vales are really high.

    1 hour ago, riviera74 said:

    SAAB and Luxury are mutually exclusive, then and now and forever more.

    As are Saab and reliability and resale. There is a reason dead brands are dead brands.

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    11 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

     

    Not terribly sure this is Cadillacs best effort. I expect more from the brand...honestly.

    8 hours ago, dfelt said:

    But, But, But it was based on a SAAB? 🤔 ;)

    GM has had no shortage of fantastic ideas...sadly they have also had a few that qualified as dumpster fires.

    • Upvote 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    11 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

    Not terribly sure this is Cadillacs best effort. I expect more from the brand...honestly.

    I don't agree. I think #1, Cadillac in terms of CUVs was in emergency mode. I think that the platform is fine for the time being and will do no harm to their credibility as far as luxury going forward. Comparing it to the Lincoln Aviator's performance is inevitable, but the engine choice changes could quell that issue immediately. Will they do it is my question. Materials? I'd have to see. It has been my experience as of late that Cadillac, and GM as a whole likes to reserve better materials for their higher trims. I maintain that the Base models should be killed and that at Caddy, that only the material quality currently present on the Premium Lux and Platinum (and V) should be available for their vehicles. The Prem. Lux and Platinum interiors, on say an XT5, are extremely nice and if they were the only choices avail during reviews, Cadillac's reputation would be solid and rightfully so. I'm not saying that they are the only luxury make that does this (look at BMW) but they are the most scrutinized of them all. That includes Jag, which I truly believe has one of the worst interiors in the luxury game

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...