Cadillac Fully Unveils The CT5 Sedan: Comments

[balthazar]

Isn't that standard practice? BMW 4.4L V8 currently in production has a 100 HP & TRQ range, depending on application.
If I were buying, I'd certainly expect a power difference between in the CT6 & CT5 output.

[ccap41]

On 4/20/2019 at 12:16 AM, dfelt said:

WHO CARES other than badge snobs. People buying either the BMW or Cadillac models you state are not buying them as race cars and most people cannot tell the difference between 1 or 2 seconds. I honestly see no issue with a car that reaches 60 in 5 to 8 seconds as it is quick compared to most other cars.

The difference is one is legitimately quick and can be enjoyed more so as a sports sedan with its base engine and the other much less so. That's a significant difference. 

[David]

2 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

The difference is one is legitimately quick and can be enjoyed more so as a sports sedan with its base engine and the other much less so. That's a significant difference. 

I see no mention that this is a SPORT sedan, just a sedan and for most sedan buyers, a couple seconds difference is not going to make that big of a difference to buyers. Let me know when the V-Sport shows up and then we can talk about that time again.

[ccap41]

On 4/20/2019 at 3:51 PM, riviera74 said:

CAFE is also based on sales volume, so I am not surprised that Cadillac might detune the engine for fuel economy.  This is NOT a Corvette with so few sales that it would affect CAFE number.

In 2018, Chevy sold 7,572 more Vettes than CTS, fwiw. 

2 minutes ago, dfelt said:

I see no mention that this is a SPORT sedan, just a sedan and for most sedan buyers, a couple seconds difference is not going to make that big of a difference to buyers. Let me know when the V-Sport shows up and then we can talk about that time again.

So you're really going to try and say the CTS/CT5 is not a sport sedan outside of V trim? 

[Drew Dowdell]

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

In 2018, Chevy sold 7,572 more Vettes than CTS, fwiw. 

So you're really going to try and say the CTS/CT5 is not a sport sedan outside of V trim? 

Lots of things are called sport sedans that aren't. Toyota has been referring to the Avalon as a sport sedan for a number of years now.  The term gets over-used. 

[ccap41]

Just now, Drew Dowdell said:

Lots of things are called sport sedans that aren't. Toyota has been referring to the Avalon as a sport sedan for a number of years now.  The term gets over-used. 

It is overused but an Alpha chassis sedan is pretty much the definition of a sport sedan. 

[David]

2 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

It is overused but an Alpha chassis sedan is pretty much the definition of a sport sedan. 

Just because something has the same chassis, a sport sedan it is not.

Yes, outside of the V models, the CT5 is just a sedan. I feel this way about everything out there. Mercedes and BMW outside of the AMG or M series are just sedans.

[Drew Dowdell]

19 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

It is overused but an Alpha chassis sedan is pretty much the definition of a sport sedan. 

Would you say the same about the C-Class with the base 4-cylinder? 241hp at 5500 RPM.

The Q60, with a 208 hp Turbo-4?

The XTS V-Sport with 410hp and AWD?

Just because they're rear-wheel drive doesn't make them a sport sedan.  The Maxima is faster and has FWD and a CVT. The K900 is rear wheel drive and is a boat.

So I guess what I'm asking is... what about the Alpha makes it a sport sedan? (I'm not taking Dfelt's side here on the application of it on the CT5, I haven't driven it yet).  Suspension tuning is changeable and not platform specific. 

[David]

@ccap41 You can downvote me and that is fine, but I agree with @Drew Dowdell what about the CT5 outside of the Chassis that they are using makes it a Sports Sedan?

[caddycruiser]

Sat in this car last week in NYC. Overall look and interior are definitely an improvement over the ATS/CTS.

Rear seat packaging is most improved and actually adult habitable now, unlike the sometimes "can I even put human legs back there?" of the ATS/CTS. The talk of their work to get the same dynamics but soften and refine out the ragged, harsh impact edges of the ATS/CTS to be a more refined day to day package sounds good too...

Cars are cars. No one cares, and it won't be a big market. So making 1 good one vs. 2 confusing ones is better than nothing.

[ccap41]

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Would you say the same about the C-Class with the base 4-cylinder? 241hp at 5500 RPM.

The Q60, with a 208 hp Turbo-4?

The XTS V-Sport with 410hp and AWD?

Just because they're rear-wheel drive doesn't make them a sport sedan.  The Maxima is faster and has FWD and a CVT. The K900 is rear wheel drive and is a boat.

So I guess what I'm asking is... what about the Alpha makes it a sport sedan? (I'm not taking Dfelt's side here on the application of it on the CT5, I haven't driven it yet).  Suspension tuning is changeable and not platform specific. 

Yes, they are all still riding on sporty vehicles. 

The Alpha platform is world class and is sporty as hell. All they have to do is use their fancy magnet dampers that can adjust from firm to floppy in fractions of a second, perfect.  It is also the same underpinnings as the V Series. Same sedan. Yea, they change components on the sedan but the same sedan is being used. 

Is an FRS/BRZ no longer sporty because it's slower than those listed above? Is straight line acceleration the only requirement for a sporty car? 

They seem to think it's pretty sporty. 

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

 

1 minute ago, ccap41 said:

Yes, they are all still riding on sporty vehicles. 

The Alpha platform is world class and is sporty as hell. All they have to do is use their fancy magnet dampers that can adjust from firm to floppy in fractions of a second, perfect.  It is also the same underpinnings as the V Series. Same sedan. Yea, they change components on the sedan but the same sedan is being used. 

Is an FRS/BRZ no longer sporty because it's slower than those listed above? Is straight line acceleration the only requirement for a sporty car? 

No, that was my point and why I included the XTS-VSport. Most people don't consider any XTS to be a sport sedan. 

[ccap41]

I just hate the proportions on the XTS so damn much. I don't even consider that a vehicle. I don't care how great it might be. It's on top of my sh!t list with the Impala and MKT. 🤮

[riviera74]

4 hours ago, ccap41 said:

I just hate the proportions on the XTS so damn much. I don't even consider that a vehicle. I don't care how great it might be. It's on top of my sh!t list with the Impala and MKT. 🤮

Both the Impala and the XTS die this year.  Not sure about the MKT.

[Drew Dowdell]

1 hour ago, riviera74 said:

Both the Impala and the XTS die this year.  Not sure about the MKT.

Was extended to January 2020.

[Cmicasa the Great]

Just got back from NYIAS 2019. NICE

 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2019 by Cmicasa the Great

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

[smk4565]

10 hours ago, ccap41 said:

The difference is one is legitimately quick and can be enjoyed more so as a sports sedan with its base engine and the other much less so. That's a significant difference. 

Then don't buy the base engine.  If the CT5 is priced under $40k to start I don't know that a C300 or ES350 are all that fast, probably quicker than the base CT5, but I don't think those buyers care.  CT6's base engine is too weak, I agree with you there.  I think the CT5 V6 needs some quickness as it is then competing with some quick cars to capture buyers that do care more about performance.

8 hours ago, dfelt said:

@ccap41 You can downvote me and that is fine, but I agree with @Drew Dowdell what about the CT5 outside of the Chassis that they are using makes it a Sports Sedan?

I would argue Cadillac might be better served not trying to "sell" a sports sedan.  They should be promoting luxury and other attributes.  Obviously you don't want a car with sloppy handling that body rolls all over the place like an 80s Town Car, but pushing sport has got them no where over the past 15 years.

[smk4565]

7 hours ago, ccap41 said:

 

Power Trip on a 2.0 4-cylinder is laughable.  Maybe on the TT V6 they can use that, but they should have something about 30+ mpg efficiency on the base engine, with no mention of power.  This is probably why Cadillac can't sell cars, they push the 2 liter car as the fast lane, so why buy the big engine.  And no mention of efficiency for people there aren't buying it for performance.

[ccap41]

12 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Then don't buy the base engine.  If the CT5 is priced under $40k to start I don't know that a C300 or ES350 are all that fast, probably quicker than the base CT5, but I don't think those buyers care.  CT6's base engine is too weak, I agree with you there.  I think the CT5 V6 needs some quickness as it is then competing with some quick cars to capture buyers that do care more about performance.

Well no sh!t. The talk was about base engines though. A base engine at BMW is a legitimately quick car while the GM one is much less so, was the comparison. 

[David]

21 hours ago, ccap41 said:

 

That statement not only makes me laugh, but I have to think it is an idiot marketing dweeb that has no fracking clue about power.

[ccap41]

1 minute ago, dfelt said:

That statement not only makes me laugh, but I have to think it is an idiot marketing dweeb that has no fracking clue about power.

Well, it's directly on Cadillac's website. I think we all have said their marketing team has been junk at GM for awhile now. A long while. 

[balthazar]

[smk4565]

But no mention of MPG, marketing people say a heavy duty truck has an “efficient” V8.

[balthazar]

Has Cadillac released MPG ratings for the CT5 yet ??