Cadillac Electrifies an Icon with the Cadillac Escalade IQ

I think this thing looks pretty great on the outside. Of course they botched ANOTHER C-pillar but it isn't the end of the world here. the interior looks great BUT, and there's always a 'but', the all-screen setup is atrocious. 

The inside looks good, the exterior rear looks like a mess.  But if you don't like screens, screens, screens you may not like that interior.  I am not a big fan of screens galore, I hope that trend sort of ends, especially on luxury cars, and they all do screen overkill.  

I wonder if there will be a smaller battery, I think most people really don't need 450 mile range, so you are just paying for battery you don't need.   

I also wonder what the profitability of these 200 kWh battery vehicles is.  Full size trucks traditionally have been cash cows since they can charge big money for a V8, and really the cost to manufacture a V8 powertrain vs a 4-cylinder powertrain probably isn't that big, maybe a thousand dollars.  An Escalade or Silverado battery vs an Equinox or Bolt could be like $15,000 more cost to GM, which does eat away at that margin.

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

I think this thing looks pretty great on the outside. Of course they botched ANOTHER C-pillar but it isn't the end of the world here. the interior looks great BUT, and there's always a 'but', the all-screen setup is atrocious. 

I don't mind the C-Pillar as much as I mind the tail lights, but I think the rest of it looks fantastic.

I'll reserve judgement on the screen until I can try one. The Benz EQS AMG screen was incredibly distracting, especially when the Navi map was loaded. It was the center screen in the MB that really bugged me. The Mach-E and Lightning were less distracting in spite of having similar sized screens in a similar location, but damn if I didn't need night-mode in the daytime with that bright white background.

I'm interested in the light up trim graphics.

I also made a clarification.  SuperCruise is standard on all Escalade IQs.

Love the looks especially in Black Cherry, interior is a home run hit for me. Failure is the rear end and the taillights. WTF Cadillac, you should have kept the current Escalade taillights.

Quite the beast.  The contours make it look it smaller than it is..looks smaller in the side profile pics..would like to see a photo parked next to the regular slab-sided upright Escalade.     'Escaladiq' would have a better name? 

curb weight?  (or did I miss it)

7 hours ago, regfootball said:

curb weight?  (or did I miss it)

Presumably similar to the Hummer EV, like 9000+ lbs... mega bloated. 

On 8/13/2023 at 8:56 AM, Robert Hall said:

Quite the beast.  The contours make it look it smaller than it is..looks smaller in the side profile pics..would like to see a photo parked next to the regular slab-sided upright Escalade.     'Escaladiq' would have a better name? 

It's kinda hard to directly compare EVs to ICEs. They are just so much roomier inside than you'd expect from the external dimensions (except for the Benzes for some reason).  The Bolt feels roomier than the Encore GX. The Ioniq 6 is about the same size externally as the Sonata, but it feels as roomy as my 300.

5 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

Presumably similar to the Hummer EV, like 9000+ lbs... mega bloated. 

According to those that were able to interview the executives at the NY reveal, they are estimating the Escalade IQ to be about 8,500 curbweight.

2025 Cadillac Escalade IQ: First Look at the Electric Escalade! (motortrend.com)

On 8/16/2023 at 6:38 AM, Robert Hall said:

Presumably similar to the Hummer EV, like 9000+ lbs... mega bloated. 

 Mega bloated is such an understatement.

You were not wrong.  8500 lbs.  A shame.   Its nice as a Cadillac and an Escalade.   Worthy of both titles as the interior looks to be as rich and tight with quality worthy of a REAL Cadillac when America was great...   (sarcastic jab on that wonderful The Good, the Bad and the Ugly mug shot and the EV haterz) 

A shame that automakers are not innovating fast enough, (not battery tech), lighter cheaper materials to counter the heavy battery weight.  

@smk4565

You are absolutley right 

On 8/9/2023 at 10:23 PM, smk4565 said:

I wonder if there will be a smaller battery, I think most people really don't need 450 mile range, so you are just paying for battery you don't need.   

 When talking about this...

But...  

Its a Cadillac in a realm of high end cars.  Battery range HAS to be on the upper side of the echelon for bragging rights.   More battery than necessary but that means weight and lots of it. What would be MOST imppressive and compelling IF General Motors or Mercedes or  Rolls Royce or Bentley actually boast about how NOT heavy their luxo barges are.     

ALL like to keep the EV weight numbers on the hush hush...   

What a shame that we all know, politicians know, automotive execs know, engineers know, that EVs are super heavy but NOBODY wants to do ANYTHING about that.  Including anti-EV folk.   

Anti-EV folk still banter on stupid range anxiety fears and false emissions claims that EV are somehow dirtier than ICE.

What they SHOULD be bitchin' about is the weight problem.   And how our existing infrastructure will be decimated very quickly if the weight problem is not addressed. 

PS:  Lee Van Cleef. ole Angel eyes,  dies in the movie...   Keep our fingers crossed that the same fate might happen to the fat dude on trial. 

41 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

You were not wrong.  8500 lbs.  A shame.   Its nice as a Cadillac and an Escalade. 

Eh, mostly down low, and it is still faster than an Escalade V, which is faster than the G-Wagon AMG and in more than a 1/4 mile an F-150 Raptor.

43 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

What they SHOULD be bitchin' about is the weight problem.   And how our existing infrastructure will be decimated very quickly if the weight problem is not addressed. 

Also eh... our infrastructure is built for 80,000 lb tractor trailers, and lots of them. It won't notice something 1/10th of that.

21 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Eh, mostly down low, and it is still faster than an Escalade V, which is faster than the G-Wagon AMG and in more than a 1/4 mile an F-150 Raptor.

Also eh... our infrastructure is built for 80,000 lb tractor trailers, and lots of them. It won't notice something 1/10th of that.

Fast has nothing to do with it.   EVs are fast.  That is great. 

And...  80 000 lbs trailers do enough damage to Quebec streets and hiughways.  

But remember,  Tesla Model X and Cadillac Lyriq both weigh  just under 6000 lbs.   Mustang Mach-E and Blazer EV weigh around 5000 lbs.  All four combined weigh about a quarter of that 80 000 lbs trailer.    But there are going to be many many many more of those EV SUVs on our roads than any 18 wheeler.  And...  18 wheelers dont park  in indoor parking lots or high rise ones.   Those poor entry and exit ways...   And I feel sorry for anybody that will be near those when they eventually fail.   Or the cost to rebuild those.  Before and/or ESPECIALLY AFTER failure. You know, downtown underground parking buidling lots or hospital parking lots, airports.  Let us not forget the little bridges in and out of big cities, small towns, rural areas...    Small streets....

Weight is one of the problems for potholes. In the snowbelt states and provinces at least.  Now that everyday vehicles will be at LEAST 50% heavier than their ICE counterparts, we should expect 50% faster timeline wear and tear on our roads.  

Lets go to the  fast argument again though.  

What carnage will it be when two 5000-6000 lbs SUVs are going to collide?  Let alone a Cadillac Escalade @ 8500 lbs.  UNLIKE the Hummer, the Escalade WILL be in abundance on our roads.   Plus batteries have a slightly edge as a fire hazard than gasoline does in an accident...   And not that easy to put out.    Let us not NOT calculate the fire damage on the roads and surroundings when  battery fire starts...    Its not FUD what Im saying. Its a legit concern. 

But why the fast argument angle.

Most folk cant control a measly 180HP 4 cylinder that accelerates to 60 in and around 8 seconds.   In ANY EV, 0-60 is done at sports car levels.  They attain illegal speed limits in a blink of an eye.  And controlling said speed with all that heft is challenging with the pros let alone moronic first worlders...

On 8/25/2023 at 7:38 PM, oldshurst442 said:

 

What they SHOULD be bitchin' about is the weight problem.    

It is funny how in olden days automakers looked at lightening vehicles for performance and/or efficiency, but with EVs the weight is irrelevant...

1 hour ago, Robert Hall said:

It is funny how in olden days automakers looked at lightening vehicles for performance and/or efficiency, but with EVs the weight is irrelevant...

Yes...

 Admittedly,  some shyte in my post is overdramatic.  Not without some merit though.  

There are battery cut-off switches...yada yada yada.  

The juice to which the accelerator pedal is pressed is not out of control and maniacal...

But the weight problem when North America will eventually switch to and when EVs will outnumber ICE,  WILL be a problem and nobody wants to address it.

And like how you said, light weigh, whether in ICE or EV, WILL improve efficiency.  And the cycle is thus:  Less weight -->greater effeciency -->better range -->longer range --> less KW/H battery needed --> cheaper EV.   

On 8/25/2023 at 7:38 PM, oldshurst442 said:

 

 Mega bloated is such an understatement.

Its a Cadillac in a realm of high end cars.  Battery range HAS to be on the upper side of the echelon for bragging rights.   More battery than necessary but that means weight and lots of it. What would be MOST imppressive and compelling IF General Motors or Mercedes or  Rolls Royce or Bentley actually boast about how NOT heavy their luxo barges are.     

ALL like to keep the EV weight numbers on the hush hush...   

 

I don't think it needs to be on the high end of range if doing so is just adding tons of weight that hurts handling, braking, acceleration, efficiency, etc.  You could have a 300 mile range version that would be better in every way except range than the 450 mile version, plus it would cost less.

And Tesla has figured this out to some degree, a Model S dual motor is like 600 lbs less than a dual motor Mercedes EQE sedan and they are about the same size.  Nor surprising the Model S has about 100 miles more range and is a full second faster 0-60, it is hauling less mass around.

51 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

I don't think it needs to be on the high end of range if doing so is just adding tons of weight that hurts handling, braking, acceleration, efficiency, etc.  You could have a 300 mile range version that would be better in every way except range than the 450 mile version, plus it would cost less.

And Tesla has figured this out to some degree, a Model S dual motor is like 600 lbs less than a dual motor Mercedes EQE sedan and they are about the same size.  Nor surprising the Model S has about 100 miles more range and is a full second faster 0-60, it is hauling less mass around.

You are not wrong about anything you said.

However, because of FUD and mis/dis-information regarding range anxiety and all that nonsense with the biased anti-EV rhetoric, I understand why many (all)  brands want to showcase range and sell their EVs with unnecessary amount of battery in their EVs.  And let us not forget,  this is a flagship EV for Cadillac.   Sure, the Celestiq is the PRIMARY flagship, but the Escalade IQ is as well.  Its a showcase for the big and badass SUV class.  And its separate from the GMC Hummer.

Ill repeat, and its kinda like how you put it. But not with less battery. Its with a breakthrough with lighter materials to counter with the unnecessary amount of battery.    A breakthrough of new engineering techniques with new ways of packaging things that use less materials in the packaging.  Also, the use of stronger yet lighter materials but a way to manufacture these lighter but stronger materials in a profitable way for mass production use.

Example:   Aluminium usage in mass production was prohibitive in the 1980s and expensive in the 1990s but in the 2000s it became feasible and today its almost a go-to metal for mass produced vehicles.   

Example: Find a way to mass produce carbonfibre cheaply and there you go.  

These kinds of breakthroughs are necessary and imagine the first automobile manufacturer to find a way to do these things feasibly, imagine the bragging rights???!!!

On 8/25/2023 at 5:42 PM, oldshurst442 said:

Plus batteries have a slightly edge as a fire hazard than gasoline does in an accident...   And not that easy to put out.    Let us not NOT calculate the fire damage on the roads and surroundings when  battery fire starts...    Its not FUD what Im saying. Its a legit concern. 

What facts do you have to back up this fire hazard on batteries? Yes when they do burn, they are much harder to put out due to the in-experience of the fire fighters. 

In regards to fire hazard, I do not see how they are more fire prone than gas?

This is only one of many stories on the FUD of people saying batteries are more prone to fires than gas.

Government data show gasoline vehicles are up to 100x more prone to fires than EVs | Electrek

On 8/25/2023 at 7:21 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

Eh, mostly down low, and it is still faster than an Escalade V, which is faster than the G-Wagon AMG and in more than a 1/4 mile an F-150 Raptor.

G63 is still quicker than an Escalade V. 

The Raptor R is considerably quicker than the V in any use these vehicles will ever see. 

I also LOVE Hagerty/Camissa's videos. They've very well done, IMO. 

40 minutes ago, David said:

What facts do you have to back up this fire hazard on batteries?

Answer:

17 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

Admittedly,  some shyte in my post is overdramatic.  Not without some merit though.  

There are battery cut-off switches...yada yada yada. 

However:

17 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

Not without some merit though.  

Not proof...but there maybe an elephant in the room that nobody may want to discuss fully...because of this push ton all EVs...

Its a long article.  I copy/pasted a good chunk of it.  

The article concludes that there simply isnt enough data to conclude anything.  There simply isnt enough EVs on the road to suggest safer or more dangerous in fire hazard than ICE.  HOWEVER...thermal events will occur more frequent as EVs become more abundant on the roads.  The article states that EVs and lithium batteries ARE safe...BUT...fires will occur at a more frequent rate as EVs are bought more and more.   So...let us NOT say with a rapid response that ICE cars are more prone for fire than EVs.   EVs are just as inherent to be a fire hazard as gasoline powered cars.  BOTH are flammable.   And engineers NEED to be more vigilant to make sure that lithium battery cells arent as fickle as they are now and start combustin'.    

PS:  ITS NOT FUD TO QUESTION IT!!!  TO QUESTION THE FIRE HAZARDRY OF EVs.   WHEN A  FREAKIN' HUGE BOAT SANK BECAUSE OF A FIRE THAT STARTED FROM A LITHIUM BATTERY POWERED CAR WITH WHAT IT SEEMS TO BE A SPONTANEOUS FIRE.   IF FICKLE STARTS A FIRE...IM NOT SO SURE IF A SIDE IMPACT TO AN EV IS THAT SAFE...IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2022/03/02/electric-car-fire-risks-look-exaggerated-but-more-data-required-for-definitive-verdict/?sh=4494af312327

The fire risk from electric cars appears to be less than for conventional vehicles, although Americans awaiting their new Volkswagens to be delivered from Europe could be forgiven for doubting that as their new cars were destroyed, apparently by a spontaneous lithium-ion battery fire on the Felicity Ace car transporter ship.

The ship sank Tuesday.

Any firm conclusions on fire risks generally are not yet possible because there is not enough data to decide that pure electric cars are more prone to spontaneous fire than internal combustion engine (ICE) ones, or more likely to burst into flames after an accident

a report in Britain’s Daily Mail quoted the Felicity Ace’s captain Joao Mendes Cabecas saying lithium-ion batteries in the electric cars on board caught fire.

VW warned against a rush to judgement.

“At this time, any comments on the cause are speculative and of course will be subject to investigation,” VW said.

As the battery electric vehicle (BEV) revolution gathers pace, spontaneous fires, or electric car fires after accidents, have attracted media attention. If you see a picture or video of a pricey TeslaTSLA +0.4% engulfed in a spectacular fire it’s easy to make the lazy assumption that this is somehow a problem with all electric cars. After all, a bog-standard internal combustion engine (ICE) car on fire would probably not be in the headlines.  

Graham Conway, principal engineer at the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas, said there’s not enough information to decide if EVs are more prone to spontaneous fire than ICE ones.

“It is still too early to make any conclusions about EVs and spontaneity of fires. I just don’t think we have the sample size of data or the reporting structure for fires to say with any certainty. What is clear is that the fire is more difficult to deal with, the energy release during the exotherm of the electrolyte takes a lot of cooling to extinguish,” Conway said

Conway said the data didn’t allow for solid conclusions.

“The NTSB data said that after 41 fatal collisions involving BEVs, 1 caught on fire (2.44%). The NTSB data said that after 20,315 fatal collisions involving gasoline vehicles, 644 caught on fire (3.17%). The NTSB data said that after 543 fatal collisions involving gasoline hybrid vehicles, 12 caught on fire (2.21%),” Conway said.

“But 41 crashes vs 20,315 crashes vs 543 crashes make it statistically irresponsible to compare these numbers. For example, if there was a 42^nd crash with an EV and it caught on fire then it would be 4.76% of EVs or double the rate of hybrids. Until the sample size is the same and significant we just can’t say which will be worse or not,” Conway said.

Richard Billyeald, chief technical officer at Britain’s Thatcham Research, said EVs generally appear less likely fire risks, but the data is limited.

“Our latest research indicates that the risk of a fire for all types of EV remains less likely than for ICE vehicles. It should be noted that the usable data only goes back five years and even now the number of EVs on the roads still represents a very small sample size. This is also reflected in the safety testing we conduct in the U.K. on behalf of Euro NCAP (European auto safety), where despite the robust impacts to the front and particularly the sides of the vehicle where the battery is most vulnerable, there have been no resultant thermal events,” Billyeald said.

“I believe the likelihood of a vehicle’s battery failing is becoming ever more less likely. However the number of EVs on the road is increasing possibly at a higher rate so I believe thermal events for the foreseeable future are still likely,” Petschenyk said.

In a frontal crash an EV is unlikely to cause thermal runaway.

“Side impact or underside puncture I believe may pose a greater risk to EVs than ICE, anything that can cause cell damage or to short, but again assuming the battery has adequate fail safes, thermal runaway risk is minimized. There have been situations where EVs can ignite some time after an incident, this is typically due to coolant leaking into the battery and again causing cells to short, but similarly the risk of this happening is ever diminishing as technology and fail safes improve,” Petschenyk said.

16 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

 

Answer:

 

However:

 

Not proof...but there maybe an elephant in the room that nobody may want to discuss fully...because of this push ton all EVs...

Its a long article.  I copy/pasted a good chunk of it.  

The article concludes that there simply isnt enough data to conclude anything.  There simply isnt enough EVs on the road to suggest safer or more dangerous in fire hazard than ICE.  HOWEVER...thermal events will occur more frequent as EVs become more abundant on the roads.  The article states that EVs and lithium batteries ARE safe...BUT...fires will occur at a more frequent rate as EVs are bought more and more.   So...let us NOT say with a rapid response that ICE cars are more prone for fire than EVs.   EVs are just as inherent to be a fire hazard as gasoline powered cars.  BOTH are flammable.   And engineers NEED to be more vigilant to make sure that lithium battery cells arent as fickle as they are now and start combustin'.    

 

PS:  ITS NOT FUD TO QUESTION IT!!!  TO QUESTION THE FIRE HAZARDRY OF EVs.   WHEN A  FREAKIN' HUGE BOAT SANK BECAUSE OF A FIRE THAT STARTED FROM A LITHIUM BATTERY POWERED CAR WITH WHAT IT SEEMS TO BE A SPONTANEOUS FIRE.   IF FICKLE STARTS A FIRE...IM NOT SO SURE IF A SIDE IMPACT TO AN EV IS THAT SAFE...IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN...

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2022/03/02/electric-car-fire-risks-look-exaggerated-but-more-data-required-for-definitive-verdict/?sh=4494af312327

 

The fire risk from electric cars appears to be less than for conventional vehicles, although Americans awaiting their new Volkswagens to be delivered from Europe could be forgiven for doubting that as their new cars were destroyed, apparently by a spontaneous lithium-ion battery fire on the Felicity Ace car transporter ship.

 

 

The ship sank Tuesday.

 

Any firm conclusions on fire risks generally are not yet possible because there is not enough data to decide that pure electric cars are more prone to spontaneous fire than internal combustion engine (ICE) ones, or more likely to burst into flames after an accident

a report in Britain’s Daily Mail quoted the Felicity Ace’s captain Joao Mendes Cabecas saying lithium-ion batteries in the electric cars on board caught fire.

 

 

VW warned against a rush to judgement.

“At this time, any comments on the cause are speculative and of course will be subject to investigation,” VW said.

As the battery electric vehicle (BEV) revolution gathers pace, spontaneous fires, or electric car fires after accidents, have attracted media attention. If you see a picture or video of a pricey TeslaTSLA +0.4% engulfed in a spectacular fire it’s easy to make the lazy assumption that this is somehow a problem with all electric cars. After all, a bog-standard internal combustion engine (ICE) car on fire would probably not be in the headlines.  

Graham Conway, principal engineer at the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas, said there’s not enough information to decide if EVs are more prone to spontaneous fire than ICE ones.

“It is still too early to make any conclusions about EVs and spontaneity of fires. I just don’t think we have the sample size of data or the reporting structure for fires to say with any certainty. What is clear is that the fire is more difficult to deal with, the energy release during the exotherm of the electrolyte takes a lot of cooling to extinguish,” Conway said

Conway said the data didn’t allow for solid conclusions.

“The NTSB data said that after 41 fatal collisions involving BEVs, 1 caught on fire (2.44%). The NTSB data said that after 20,315 fatal collisions involving gasoline vehicles, 644 caught on fire (3.17%). The NTSB data said that after 543 fatal collisions involving gasoline hybrid vehicles, 12 caught on fire (2.21%),” Conway said.

“But 41 crashes vs 20,315 crashes vs 543 crashes make it statistically irresponsible to compare these numbers. For example, if there was a 42^nd crash with an EV and it caught on fire then it would be 4.76% of EVs or double the rate of hybrids. Until the sample size is the same and significant we just can’t say which will be worse or not,” Conway said.

Richard Billyeald, chief technical officer at Britain’s Thatcham Research, said EVs generally appear less likely fire risks, but the data is limited.

“Our latest research indicates that the risk of a fire for all types of EV remains less likely than for ICE vehicles. It should be noted that the usable data only goes back five years and even now the number of EVs on the roads still represents a very small sample size. This is also reflected in the safety testing we conduct in the U.K. on behalf of Euro NCAP (European auto safety), where despite the robust impacts to the front and particularly the sides of the vehicle where the battery is most vulnerable, there have been no resultant thermal events,” Billyeald said.

“I believe the likelihood of a vehicle’s battery failing is becoming ever more less likely. However the number of EVs on the road is increasing possibly at a higher rate so I believe thermal events for the foreseeable future are still likely,” Petschenyk said.

In a frontal crash an EV is unlikely to cause thermal runaway.

“Side impact or underside puncture I believe may pose a greater risk to EVs than ICE, anything that can cause cell damage or to short, but again assuming the battery has adequate fail safes, thermal runaway risk is minimized. There have been situations where EVs can ignite some time after an incident, this is typically due to coolant leaking into the battery and again causing cells to short, but similarly the risk of this happening is ever diminishing as technology and fail safes improve,” Petschenyk said.

 

Just like how we have idiots in their rolling Coal trucks that ICE charging stations, you are right in that we do not have enough large data to know one way or another. Just like the Ship that sunk and the fires on ships that people are jumping to saying it was EVs that caused it. We have no idea if it was the EV battery packs, human error, human hatred of EVs that started the fires on the ships or what.

Yes, poor battery cell design can lead to fire issues as was proven in the BOLT battery pack recall. Yet enough also has been done to know that over all with less flammable fluids in an auto, EVs tend to be safer from fires than ICE.

Time will prove this out and of course fire departments around the world are learning how to deal with an EV fire issue and like you said, the by-pass of the battery pack to make it safe for emergency personal to extract folks from an accident also help.

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

G63 is still quicker than an Escalade V. 

The Raptor R is considerably quicker than the V in any use these vehicles will ever see. 

I also LOVE Hagerty/Camissa's videos. They've very well done, IMO. 

 

That's why I said "more than a 1/4 mile" because the Raptor tops out well before the V does.

1/4 mile times are less of a useful metric these days because it's too short of a distance to capture the full capability. Both the Raptor and V have 10-speed automatics and they made it to what, 4th or 5th gear?  The Raptor hit its speed limiter while the V and the G were still stretching their legs. 

If you let these keep going, the V is likely to come out in second behind the Lambo because it has the most torque + tallest gear ratios. The Lambo wins for being light and not shaped like a brick.

And yes, his videos are fantastic

2 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

That's why I said "more than a 1/4 mile" because the Raptor tops out well before the V does.

Yeah, the tires are only rated to like 112pmh or something. 

I'm just saying, in the real world, where these will be driven because they're not seeing miles-long races, the Raptor R is whoopin' it. 

1/4 mile time is plenty useful for this class/size of vehicle. For sports cars/muscle cars? Much less so, IMO. 

As cars get faster, and as transmissions get more gears in them and as electric motors have an almost endless amounts of RPMs and almost no need for transmissions...the 1/4 mile speed metric does seem to be too short of a distance metric.  Automobiles today seem to have more pull after the 1/4 mile mark than ever before.  

During the musclecar era ('60s)...doing the 1/4 mile in 14 seconds @ 95 or 100 MPH was fast.  20 years before that time, cars werent even able to do 100MPH let alone to do it in a racing fashion to determine performance domination.

0-60 was a good metric.  That metric today is not as relevent.  Passing times in a specific speed range is much more indicative of what a fast car can do today.    1/4 mile times are becoming what 0-60 became 10-15 years ago.  

Also.  liek @ccap41 stated, tire ratings seem to be the obstacle.  Limiting speed is important though as tires are not engineered to be going that fast in heavy heavy EV vehicles like that.   Especially Raptor like trucks that are buiklt for offroading and the tires offered are of the offraoding kind. 

Yeah I know.   The Raptor aint an EV.   OK...substitute Raptor for GMC Hummer then. 

9 hours ago, ccap41 said:

G63 is still quicker than an Escalade V. 

The Raptor R is considerably quicker than the V in any use these vehicles will ever see. 

I also LOVE Hagerty/Camissa's videos. They've very well done, IMO. 

 

The G63 is slower than a GLE63, but I get they wanted the heavy brick for comparison, but this video shows 2 things really:

One is that the Range Rover is the biggest ripoff since it is the slowest, while also being the least reliable and for sure will depreciate the fastest.  

Second is a base Tesla Model X smokes all these, you don't even need the Plaid.   These ICE cars are basically pointless now.

2024 Ford Mustang GT with all the performance upgrades is $64,000 and Car and Driver got a 4.2 second 0-60 time.  Tesla Model 3 Performance after just the federal tax credit and not any state credits is about $45,000 and does it in 3.2 seconds.  

I've have V8 powered cars the past 20 years, the V8 is basically a dinosaur now, I know my next car will be EV, I can't imagine who will want these ICE cars in about 10 years time.