Jump to content
Wings4Life(BANNED)

Cadillac CT6 is Irreparable in 25 States

Recommended Posts

General Motors has a patented method for manufacturing the CT6, one that includes an industry exclusive way to weld aluminium with steel, not to mention the use of advanced materials sprinkled in. As a result, 25 states don’t have a single collision repair shop approved to work on the CT6 in the event of a crash.

Only 150 shops nationwide possess the expertise to repair the CT6 per GM guidelines– in fact, GM won’t even allow uncertified shops to touch the big Caddy, withholding structural measurements and parts from the unapproved.

http://www.gminsidenews.com/articles/the-cadillac-ct6-is-irreparable-in-25-states/

 

As the article mentioned, many shops might not bother with the bespoke hardware purchase and training due to relatively low volume sales and thus, little to no ROI.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then those State's shops lack of expertise needs to be addressed so that they are up to "code."

 I'm pretty sure Wings is attempting to use this as a negative smear against the spectacular CT6, but it inadvertently shows just how advanced the car is  This country needs to,  by and large,  no completely,  embrace technological advancements that move us into the next decades going forward.  Like Drew points out..   your average American  mechanic will not be able to fix your Tesla or Bolt... All why the hell not? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look around many high end cars are not exactly near repair shops of any kind for their brands mechanical of body. 

The reason for the issues is not only the Aluminum but the added Aluminum and Steel welding that is new on this car. It is a technology that will spread to most GM cars and even some other brands due to the ability to increase strength in areas and also help control cost. 

I expect most GM dealers with in house body shops will be set up for this soon and this will be non issues. 

Look for this technology to be common like in the GM trucks where they will have Aluminum quarter panels and steel beds so they do not have holes in them like another brand should you drop say a tool box or bricks. 

One has to consider this technology is a hybrid of the best of two metals and a better solution than just going all aluminum. GM has the rights to it and and already has talked to other MFG to share the rights. In 5 years this will be a very common technology. 

Edited by hyperv6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I posted this because I remember all the backlash from GM fans, relentlessly for months if not years, about how Ford trucks cost to much to repair, fewer repair shops....yada yada.  Yet this is even more complex, and now I would like to highlight hypocrisy where possible.

 

Regarding the technology, when GM puts their minds to something, they can usually solve it.  Sometimes however, you need to ask if it is worth their effort, or more importantly, what is the added value to the customer.  The main benefit here is cost reduction to them, because all they are doing is eliminating rivets instead, which are far easy to repair.  Sure, they will mention weight savings as a reason, but that does not come from this welding process, just the use of added aluminum.

So the added value is primarily to GM.  Great, good for GM.  It will inconvenience a lot of customers through the years, but it does sound good on a brochure and few will ever think about the implications of repair.

As far as Ford trucks and SUV's made out of aluminum.....it was the right thing to do, because in total they will impact so many products on the road, all saving fuel as a result, however small.....but in total volume, very high. They could have easily just went with the same latest high strength lightweight steel (and from the same steel company) as GM did with their redesign, but they went further yet and saved an additional ~350lbs on average.  It really came down to that.  And there are clearly other benefits.  And don't make me laugh with the bricks in the bed.  What a joke.  And if needed, every hear of bedliners?  And just wait until you see how impressive big SUV's can be with their weight reduction, decreased NVH and improved stopping and going performance.  GM will stop efffing around with half measures and focus on real weight savings, with all aluminum, more magnesium and CF too.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CT6 is not the best selling vehicle on the road today.  The massive difference in volume between the F-150 and the CT6 is why we're not that concerned about the Cadillac.  Cadillac will likely just flatbed a damaged CT6 to the nearest available repair shop the same way Tesla does. 

If cadillac were moving 300k CT6s a year, then yes, that would be a cause for concern. 

As far as the weight savings on the F-150... all it did was make a heavy truck into an average weight truck. It brought down the weight to within what the competition was doing. 

I will say that Chevy's commercial was effective, at least on my mother. She called and asked about that because I think she is thinking about a new King Ranch soon and she does put heavy stuff that could pierce the bed back there. I told her to just make sure she gets a bed liner insert and not to worry about it.... but she didn't seem convinced.   I guess we'll see what happens. My dad has been an F-series driver for 45 years... I can't see him changing things.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The CT6 is not the best selling vehicle on the road today.  The massive difference in volume between the F-150 and the CT6 is why we're not that concerned about the Cadillac.  Cadillac will likely just flatbed a damaged CT6 to the nearest available repair shop the same way Tesla does. 

If cadillac were moving 300k CT6s a year, then yes, that would be a cause for concern. 

As far as the weight savings on the F-150... all it did was make a heavy truck into an average weight truck. It brought down the weight to within what the competition was doing. 

I will say that Chevy's commercial was effective, at least on my mother. She called and asked about that because I think she is thinking about a new King Ranch soon and she does put heavy stuff that could pierce the bed back there. I told her to just make sure she gets a bed liner insert and not to worry about it.... but she didn't seem convinced.   I guess we'll see what happens. My dad has been an F-series driver for 45 years... I can't see him changing things.

Good point on the volumes.

 

Completely wrong on the Ford truck weight.

Ford truck was heavier than the competition, but they could have also reduced weight as GM did with latest generation of steel.  They went much lighter while increasing every important metric.  That's a fact.  They are not about the same weight.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wings4Life said:

 

 

I posted this because I remember all the backlash from GM fans, relentlessly for months if not years, about how Ford trucks cost to much to repair, fewer repair shops....yada yada.  Yet this is even more complex, and now I would like to highlight hypocrisy where possible.

 

Regarding the technology, when GM puts their minds to something, they can usually solve it.  Sometimes however, you need to ask if it is worth their effort, or more importantly, what is the added value to the customer.  The main benefit here is cost reduction to them, because all they are doing is eliminating rivets instead, which are far easy to repair.  Sure, they will mention weight savings as a reason, but that does not come from this welding process, just the use of added aluminum.

So the added value is primarily to GM.  Great, good for GM.  It will inconvenience a lot of customers through the years, but it does sound good on a brochure and few will ever think about the implications of repair.

As far as Ford trucks and SUV's made out of aluminum.....it was the right thing to do, because in total they will impact so many products on the road, all saving fuel as a result, however small.....but in total volume, very high. They could have easily just went with the same latest high strength lightweight steel (and from the same steel company) as GM did with their redesign, but they went further yet and saved an additional ~350lbs on average.  It really came down to that.  And there are clearly other benefits.  And don't make me laugh with the bricks in the bed.  What a joke.  And if needed, every hear of bedliners?  And just wait until you see how impressive big SUV's can be with their weight reduction, decreased NVH and improved stopping and going performance.  GM will stop efffing around with half measures and focus on real weight savings, with all aluminum, more magnesium and CF too.

You can not compare a luxury car in low volume to a vehicle sold in great numbers in fleets that operating cost are a major factor.

Aluminum was not a right thing it was really the only option. Ford had little choice. 

Now where you put the aluminum in time will prove to be much more important. Outer panels are fine but bed floors over time will prove to be a problem. Just saying to add a bed liner is not enough.

There is no reason a bed should be holed with a drop of a common hand tool box or brick. Dents are expected holes are unacceptable.

the mix of material will be ever increasing as one material is not one fits all.

Edited by hyperv6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hyperv6 said:

You can not compare a luxury car in low volume to a vehicle sold in great numbers in fleets that operating cost are a major factor.

Aluminum was not a right thing it was really the only option. Ford had little choice. 

Now where you put the aluminum in time will prove to be much more important. Outer panels are fine but bed floors over time will prove to be a problem. Just saying to add a bed liner is not enough.

There is no reason a bed should be holed with a drop of a common hand tool box or brick. Dents are expected holes are unacceptable.

the mix of material will be ever increasing as one material is not one fits all.

WTF?

How is Aluminum the only option? They could have easily switched to new steel formula, just as GM recently did.  I have CLEARLY mentioned that.  GM shed hundreds of lbs with it.  Ford considered that option, but instead went further, just as GM will one day too.  In total, Ford will soon be selling trucks and SUV's with aluminum.  Fleet is a small part of the whole picture with all the products sold. Repair costs have also been proven to be a small difference, relative to steel.  And honestly, nobody drives without insurance, so it's not like people are cutting a check for repairs, if they happen.  I asked my insurance agent about any added costs to the Ford truck, and he said it was small, on the order of about $50 per year, probably mostly inflation.  But the TOTAL savings (no more rusting beds, better FE, capability, etc) has to be factored in, and then it's a wash no doubt, if not more.

And stop with the tool box commercial.  A liner or even a bed mat, which costs like $50, completely cancels that concern of people hoisting heavy sharp objects over their heads.....and slamming them down. LOL

 

 

But enough about Ford, this is about the fact that GM customers will be inconvenienced.  Surely with time, as vehicles have to be moved across states several times.

Edited by Wings4Life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wings4Life said:

WTF?

How is Aluminum the only option? They could have easily switched to new steel formula, just as GM recently did.  I have CLEARLY mentioned that.  GM shed hundreds of lbs with it.  Ford considered that option, but instead went further, just as GM will one day too.  In total, Ford will soon be selling trucks and SUV's with aluminum.  Fleet is a small part of the whole picture with all the products sold. Repair costs have also been proven to be a small difference, relative to steel.  And honestly, nobody drives without insurance, so it's not like people are cutting a check for repairs, if they happen.  I asked my insurance agent about any added costs to the Ford truck, and he said it was small, on the order of about $50 per year, probably mostly inflation.  But the TOTAL savings (no more rusting beds, better FE, capability, etc) has to be factored in, and then it's a wash no doubt, if not more.

And stop with the tool box commercial.  A liner or even a bed mat, which costs like $50, completely cancels that concern of people hoisting heavy sharp objects over their heads.....and slamming them down. LOL

 

 

But enough about Ford, this is about the fact that GM customers will be inconvenienced.  Surely with time, as vehicles have to be moved across states several times.

That is just it. If Ford had thakened the GM route they would not have gained as much of a weight advantage. They really did have a major weight issue. 

As it is the advantage is not that great and once GM makes a move to their aluminum steel hybrid the will come in less and still hold a stiffer and stronger package. 

The new welding is a major advantage as well as the elimination of bonding with adheasive.

The fact remains that a good bed should not require a liner or mat to prevent holes. 

You would be saying the same thing if it was Chevy receiving holes with a similar test.  No bed no matter the make shoul hole like that. 

Time to stop believing the advertising illusion of the term military grade like it means it is as thick as it would be on a tank vs being closer to the grade on an airplane.

The truth is Ford got caught out with something they could not dispute.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hyperv6 said:

That is just it. If Ford had thakened the GM route they would not have gained as much of a weight advantage. They really did have a major weight issue. 

As it is the advantage is not that great and once GM makes a move to their aluminum steel hybrid the will come in less and still hold a stiffer and stronger package. 

The new welding is a major advantage as well as the elimination of bonding with adheasive.

The fact remains that a good bed should not require a liner or mat to prevent holes. 

You would be saying the same thing if it was Chevy receiving holes with a similar test.  No bed no matter the make shoul hole like that. 

Time to stop believing the advertising illusion of the term military grade like it means it is as thick as it would be on a tank vs being closer to the grade on an airplane.

The truth is Ford got caught out with something they could not dispute.

I have seen comparisons between body and bed weight alone, and the aluminum is about 350 lbs lighter.  That is just a simple fact and it follows along pretty closely with basic physics and the mass of each metal.  Arguing this will not change it.

Now, when you take the total truck weight into consideration it is a bit less, about 300lbs less weight for Ford truck, but only when you compare two identical base trucks.  Weights swing wildly due to features like glass roofs, etc. and then discussions get stupid.

And you sound like a butt-hurt GM fan.  Military grade denotes material grade.  Only a complete friggin idiot would believe it should be as thick as a tank.

And with remarks like that, I see I am wasting bandwidth.

Again, back to the CT6 and it's repair-challenged options currently.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wings4Life said:

I have seen comparisons between body and bed weight alone, and the aluminum is about 350 lbs lighter.  That is just a simple fact and it follows along pretty closely with basic physics and the mass of each metal.  Arguing this will not change it.

Now, when you take the total truck weight into consideration it is a bit less, about 300lbs less weight for Ford truck, but only when you compare two identical base trucks.  Weights swing wildly due to features like glass roofs, etc. and then discussions get stupid.

And you sound like a butt-hurt GM fan.  Military grade denotes material grade.  Only a complete friggin idiot would believe it should be as thick as a tank.

And with remarks like that, I see I am wasting bandwidth.

Again, back to the CT6 and it's repair-challenged options currently.

 

You my friend underestimate the public. 

Years ago a Ford engineer told me that they could paint a car with no orange peel but they chose to leave it in. 

Why?

because they found folks saw orange peel on a Benz and believed it a

was a sign of high quality because the paint was thicker. 

Ford marketing is doing the same with their comments as if you asked most few could accurately discribe what military grade is.

Yes there are many idiots out ther and they drive all brands.

You appear so butt hurt if you have to be so defensive over 300 pounds on a truck that will need to lose more in the future.

To be honest I see the Ranger as well as the GM mid size replacing the half ton and  the 3/4 ton taking the full size lead slot. The regulation as they are now favore this unless it changes.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. There is no such thing as 'military' grade aluminium. That is marketing bullshyte 101.

2. Metals that are military grade mean different things for different purposes and applications. Sometimes cost is the qualifier. Yes...cheaper in price could also dictate a metal as military grade...something to think about. Sometimes its thickness. Sometimes its strength...

3. Tanks are not made with aluminium.

Steel. That is the material of choice for tanks. You guys did say tanks...armoured vehicles use aluminum in certain areas. Not tanks.

Depleted uranium is used on the Abrams M1A tank between sheets of steel for its armor plating...

Modern tanks as in new generation tanks use newly engineered composite materials in the ceramic family...

There is some form of aluminium that is used in tanks...but that is not what is meant by military grade and this aluminum is called aluminium oxide...not the same material at all...

You guys could continue arguing now...

Edited by oldshurst442

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it is marketing, its not technically untrue. The military does use aluminum is its equipment, from aircraft to weapons to ships. Tanks don't solely make up the US Military. For example, they use 5000-series - 7000-series aluminum. The F-150 is made with 6000-series aluminum. This grade of aluminum  would technically be used in military applications, thereby, according to Ford, making it "military grade".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Intrepidation said:

While it is marketing, its not technically untrue. The military does use aluminum is its equipment, from aircraft to weapons to ships. Tanks don't solely make up the US Military. For example, they use 5000-series - 7000-series aluminum. The F-150 is made with 6000-series aluminum. This grade of aluminum  would technically be used in military applications, thereby, according to Ford, making it "military grade".

Yes...I know.

But...they said tanks...'they' as in the parties in this thread that are discussing...

And this:

From wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_alloy

Quote

 

The International Alloy Designation System is the most widely accepted naming scheme for wrought alloys. Each alloy is given a four-digit number, where the first digit indicates the major alloying elements, the second — if different from 0 — indicates a variation of the alloy, and the third and fourth digits identify the specific alloy in the series. For example, in alloy 3105, the number 3 indicates the alloy is in the manganese series, 1 indicates the first modification of alloy 3005, and finally 05 identifies it in the 3000 series.[7]

  • 1000 series are essentially pure aluminium with a minimum 99% aluminium content by weight and can be work hardened.
  • 2000 series are alloyed with copper, can be precipitation hardened to strengths comparable to steel. Formerly referred to as duralumin, they were once the most common aerospace alloys, but were susceptible to stress corrosion cracking and are increasingly replaced by 7000 series in new designs.
  • 3000 series are alloyed with manganese, and can be work hardened.
  • 4000 series are alloyed with silicon. They are also known as silumin.
  • 5000 series are alloyed with magnesium.
  • 6000 series are alloyed with magnesium and silicon. They are easy to machine, are weldable, and can be precipitation hardened, but not to the high strengths that 2000 and 7000 can reach. 6061 alloy is one of the most commonly used general-purpose aluminium alloys.
  • 7000 series are alloyed with zinc, and can be precipitation hardened to the highest strengths of any aluminium alloy (ultimate tensile strength up to 700 MPa for the 7068 alloy).
  • 8000 series are alloyed with other elements which are not covered by other series. Aluminium-lithium alloys are an example

 

 

 

The link also provides more info...

And if one chooses to read the link, one will see that there are different levels between the series as well, and 6000 series as the bolded part says, is used in almost everywhere in any domain...civilian or military...

Meaning what I said about military grade being marketing bullshyte 101  very very very very very ACCURATE!!!

 

If the admin at CheersandGears would stop being arrogant sometimes and just listen to what I have to say and the admin could stop trying to act as if they know it all, all the time...maybe they could learn something from time to time....

I dont often say bold and factual things...but when I do....its because there is TRUTH to what I say...

Sometimes Im 100% accurate, sometimes Im missing a tiny piece of information....but in any case....Im very very very very very ACCURATE!!!

Thanx for trying to school me, but yet again...'tis you that needs to take a step back to rethink it all...

Yeah....like the P-38 incident....

I havent gone over that.....

Its a shame because the REAL and ACCURATE source of info that I got is lost forever...what we have left is the romantic tale of the P-38...

But then again...I did mention tail fins...but your ego couldnt allow me being even PARTIALLY right to meet me in the middle....what we did get was MY POSTS WERE ERASED!!!

MERRY XMAS NON THE LESS!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

1. There is no such thing as 'military' grade aluminium. That is marketing bullshyte 101.

2. Metals that are military grade mean different things for different purposes and applications. Sometimes cost is the qualifier. Yes...cheaper in price could also dictate a metal as military grade...something to think about. Sometimes its thickness. Sometimes its strength...

3. Tanks are not made with aluminium.

Steel. That is the material of choice for tanks. You guys did say tanks...armoured vehicles use aluminum in certain areas. Not tanks.

Depleted uranium is used on the Abrams M1A tank between sheets of steel for its armor plating...

Modern tanks as in new generation tanks use newly engineered composite materials in the ceramic family...

There is some form of aluminium that is used in tanks...but that is not what is meant by military grade and this aluminum is called aluminium oxide...not the same material at all...

You guys could continue arguing now...

I get it so there is no argument. 

#1 was my point. 

#2 was part of my point. They do have military graded materials but that vary by application. They  have specifications for pencils too that is also considered a military grade. 

#3 was just my illusion of Fords marketing making it appear as if they build tanks with it. An airplane also has military grade skin on an air plane that I can push an ice pick though. Means nothing. 

Note they built and reman the M1 tanks near me so I am well versed in what they are made out of. 

This is a case where  you missed my point. 

 . 

Edited by hyperv6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanx Hyper for acknowledging me....

Both rants of mine were not really intended for you, even though it seemed like it was.

I knew you knew about the military grade BS...

Sorry if I did sound like an arrogant condescending prick...

In this case...more for Wings and the Admin....I felt it was needed for me to be a condescending prick so my  voice could actually be heard.

Thanx again Hyper for acknowledging me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Falalalalalalala... keeping my mouth shut about aluminum issues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

Thanx Hyper for acknowledging me....

Both rants of mine were not really intended for you, even though it seemed like it was.

I knew you knew about the military grade BS...

Sorry if I did sound like an arrogant condescending prick...

In this case...more for Wings and the Admin....I felt it was needed for me to be a condescending prick so my  voice could actually be heard.

Thanx again Hyper for acknowledging me...

Were good! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum 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

×