Cadillac News: 2020 Cadillac CT4-V and CT5-V Aren't As Powerful As Their Predecessors

[surreal1272]

14 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

I just learned that Biarritz is just a way to say convertible...(only in 1976 was Biarritz a high end trim level offering...) 

While Brougham was to designate hardtop.

I think the high end trim I was looking for is "Series 62" and/or "d'Elegance"?  

@balthazar   Please set me straight. 

It wasn’t just for convertibles. 

 

[surreal1272]

18 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

I also love the '57 Eldorado Biarritz and place it high on my list as the '59

I definitely wouldn’t kick it out of my driveway but the ‘59 has always drawn me in. 

[balthazar]

The Biarritz came about when the prior convtertible-only Eldorado gained a hardtop in '56. Then; Seville=hardtop, Biarritz=convertible. In '61 the 'E' went back to being a convert only, was still called the Eldorado Biarritz thru ‘64. In '65 the series moved to become a sub-model; the Fleetwood Eldorado. This went thru at least ‘75. In ‘71 the hardtop reappeared. In the first year the convertible 'E' was gone, ‘77, the Biarritz returned and became-yes; a top level Eldorado luxury trim package.

In '84, the convertible reappeared, but I see both a Biarritz hardtop trim and a Biarritz convertible mentioned for that year. '86 was the year of the (again) downsized 'E', handsome design but just. so. small. BIarritz package still available. By '92, I don't see it in the brochure; it was the Eldorado and the Eldorado Touring Coupe.

 

Edited June 9, 2019 by balthazar

[oldshurst442]

Googling info sometimes gets confusing results.  

But thanks to Balthy and Surreal.  

 

[smk4565]

2 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

Chevy and its Corvette NEED to go racing in the GT class WITH Ferrari, Porsche.

Im not so sure Aston Martin needs this as much as they think they do. But Ill tell you one thing. They thought beating Ferrari, Porsche and Corvette is a status for them. 

 

I do think that potential Corvette buyers in Europe care for IMSA wins.  Not so much for the American market though...

Cadillac potential owners in China, Europe and in the US couldnt give two shytes about racing...

 

I do agree that a lot of buyers don't care about motor racing, they are going to buy what they like.  Maybe some hardcore racing fans build up loyalty to a team and that helps build brand image and loyalty and that's all good.  I think in Europe it matter more than anywhere else, racing seems more popular there.

GM's 6.2 liter V8 isn't European emissions compliant so this summer GM is pulling all V8 models form Europe, that includes the Corvette, so no need to worry about potential buyers there. 

Regardless of what happens on the racetrack, the Chevrolet dealership experience isn't going to rival the Aston Martin or Porsche or Ferrari dealership experience.  

2 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

Didnt Cadillac have a Biarritz trim that did what ya'll are clamouring for Cadillac to do?

I would want that too, but I also want Cadillac NOT to sell vehicles below a certain price point.  In fact, I prefer they stop selling vehicles below the 50 000 dollar threshold over a Biarritz/Avenir/Denali/ higher trim nameplate...

And NO to the idea of a sub brand higher than Cadillac.

Cadillac is...CADILLAC. Point finale.   

A higher trim...yes...but not a sub brand.   Lets first start by  nixing the vehicles in those price points that are NOT befitting of the Cadillac name and then everything else.

 

Barritz would work.  They can make XT6 Barritz, CT6, Barritz, Escalade Barritz.  Make those top engine trim with acoustic laminated glass and extra sound deadening, executive rear seat packages, upgraded leather, suede or silk headliners, etc.  Put that fiber optic headliner in that Rolls Royce has.  Something to make it a special model with a 20% price hike or whatever is deemed appropriate.

[smk4565]

1 hour ago, surreal1272 said:

And the bar gets kicked over once again. From your “platinum” excuse to this sports cars nonsense, the only one who seems that “concerned” about it is you. And funny how you bring up GMCs use of Denali when Mercedes is whoring the AMG name like they’re working a Vegas street corner. More of that fanboy hypocrisy showing. 

Every AMG has legit performance credentials.  AMG has the Nurburgring record for SUV, station wagon and 4-door car.  The GTR Pro I think has the record for front engine/rear drive car.  I imagine an A45 hatch will take the hatchback record unless there is some ultra powered Renault Clio Sport out there that I don't know about.

I don't know if a Terrain Denali screams luxury, where as a 416 hp A45 is pretty damn fast.  Although I don't really knock GMC for having Denali everything bees GMC isn't a luxury brand.  If Cadillac does Barritz, they should be going for high end luxury with that.  I say V-series every Cadillac too, 100% of Cadillacs should have a V-series, especially when 320 hp counts as V-series these says.  That is why I think they needs SUVs on a rear drive platform.

[oldshurst442]

1 minute ago, smk4565 said:

I do agree that a lot of buyers don't care about motor racing, they are going to buy what they like.  Maybe some hardcore racing fans build up loyalty to a team and that helps build brand image and loyalty and that's all good.  I think in Europe it matter more than anywhere else, racing seems more popular there.

GM's 6.2 liter V8 isn't European emissions compliant so this summer GM is pulling all V8 models form Europe, that includes the Corvette, so no need to worry about potential buyers there. 

Regardless of what happens on the racetrack, the Chevrolet dealership experience isn't going to rival the Aston Martin or Porsche or Ferrari dealership experience.  

I agree to all...except to one...

The bolded part. 

Buying a Corvette at a Chevy dealership should NEVER feel like a Porsche/Ferrari/Aston Martin dealership...

Buying a Corvette at a Chevrolet dealership should be EXACTLY like buying a Chevrolet at a Chevrolet dealership.

Corvettes are not boutique cars. They are mass produced.  Corvette sales over the years have never been lower than 6000 units (excluding the first 2-3-years), have gotten a few 10 000-15 000 sales and for the most part been over 20 000 units. As high as 50  000 and Id say constantly selling 30 000 -40 000 units. 

Porsche 911s have at their most, sold 12 000 units in the US.  twice they did that.  Porsche constantly sells 8000-9000 units in the US.   

Aston Martin and Ferrari even less than that. A LOT less.  As they should sell A LOT less...

If Corvette were to be its own brand, than Id say Corvette would most definitely better be boutique like AM, Porsche Ferrari. But alas, Corvette is but a Chevrolet. And NOTHING wrong with that. 

Hardcore Ferrari guys are NOT buying 911s and hardcore 911 guys are NOT buying Ferraris and both of those guys are definitely not buying Corvettes.  And hardcore Corvette guys...well they are extremely happy when their hotrodded Corvette kicks Ferrari and 911 ass...

Aston Martin guys...probably own 1 Ferrari,  1 Porsche 911 AND some sort of vintage Corvette...possibly even a new Vette...7

Hardcore Ferrari guys have several Ferraris in their garage.  Hardcore 911 guys probably own some sort of classic muscle car, but they will NEVER admit to owning it... 

 

 

 

[surreal1272]

4 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Every AMG has legit performance credentials.  AMG has the Nurburgring record for SUV, station wagon and 4-door car.  The GTR Pro I think has the record for front engine/rear drive car.  I imagine an A45 hatch will take the hatchback record unless there is some ultra powered Renault Clio Sport out there that I don't know about.

I don't know if a Terrain Denali screams luxury, where as a 416 hp A45 is pretty damn fast.  Although I don't really knock GMC for having Denali everything bees GMC isn't a luxury brand.  If Cadillac does Barritz, they should be going for high end luxury with that.  I say V-series every Cadillac too, 100% of Cadillacs should have a V-series, especially when 320 hp counts as V-series these says.  That is why I think they needs SUVs on a rear drive platform.

Whatever you have to tell yourself. Once they decided to slap that AMG brand on a FWD CLA, that was the end of any legitimate discussion about brand exclusivity. Doesn’t matter what lap times they got in the ring when they just slap it on any model they feel they can milk a few more grand out of. Doesn’t mean they are all “legit”. 

 

Honestly this discussion just gets old. Always the same crap about the Vette, Cadillac, and GM in general not being up to a Mercedes fanboys “lofty” standards. We will just skip the fact that Benz should be ashamed that cars like the Vette shame the majority of German cars for far less coin but hey, that “dime store” interior. 

Edited June 9, 2019 by surreal1272

[Drew Dowdell]

On 6/7/2019 at 4:41 PM, dwightlooi said:

Back to the topic... my opinion is VERY SIMPLE:-

• 320hp CT4-V and 355hp CT5-V should where the V/ previously used on the VSport models.
• The high performance CT4-V and CT5-V can wear the V# used on the current CTS-V and ATS-V cars.
• Cadillac can call both V/ and V# cars CTS-V models
• This will not hurt the CTS-V brand, it'll be subtle yet very easy to differential by anyone who cares.

I also believe that a 420 hp version of the 2.7T four banger is the one engine GM really stands to benefit from across the greatest number of models, and that it is EASILY attainable.

Can they put the 2.7 in transversely where the 2.0 currently sits?  I'm thinking XT4 here. 

[Drew Dowdell]

On 6/8/2019 at 5:46 PM, riviera74 said:

Actually, I like the Brougham idea.  I believe that most Cadillacs sold now have a Platinum trim level that matches or exceeds Avenir or Denali at the moment.  Maybe Platinum should be the sub-brand.

Cadillac should have snagged the Pullman or Autobiography trademark before Mercedes and Land Rover respectively.    Does anyone use Portfolio?

[balthazar]

Pullman -despite the obvious cross-industry grab- is a good name, but ‘autobiography’ literally makes no sense as applied to an automobile. I don't mind Portfolio, but still prefer Fleetwood- one of the longest running names ever.

[smk4565]

3 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Can they put the 2.7 in transversely where the 2.0 currently sits?  I'm thinking XT4 here. 

It would make a lot of sense for an XT4-V.  I could see that engine in the XT5 also, if not as an option, maybe as the only option since it would out power the 6 and probably get better gas mileage.

3 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Cadillac should have snagged the Pullman or Autobiography trademark before Mercedes and Land Rover respectively.    Does anyone use Portfolio?

Jaguar had Portfolio for a while.

I don't know why they don't use Barritz or Brougham or something from their past.

[dwightlooi]

5 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Can they put the 2.7 in transversely where the 2.0 currently sits?  I'm thinking XT4 here. 

Yes and no.

(1) The engine isn't the problem. You need a new oil pan and exhaust down pipe of course but that's not a big deal. The 2.7T four banger is 10~12mm taller but that's shorter than the empty space under the 2.0T's dress cover.

(2) GM's new 9-speed transmissions, however, DO NOT have the torque rating to handle 348 lb-ft much less any higher output version of the 2.7T. This is part of the reason Ford did not adopt the GM-Ford 9T65 transmission, but instead made an 8-speed version of the decade old GM-Ford 6T75 (used in the XTS VSport, etc.) which they called the 8F57 to handle the Ford Ecoboost 2.7T V6's 380 lb-ft in the Edge ST.

Basically, the quickie solution will be for GM for buy a few Ford 8F57 trannies for these applications.

[riviera74]

36 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

Yes and no.

(1) The engine isn't the problem. You need a new oil pan and exhaust down pipe of course but that's not a big deal. The 2.7T four banger is 10~12mm taller but that's shorter than the empty space under the 2.0T's dress cover.

(2) GM's new 9-speed transmissions, however, DO NOT have the torque rating to handle 348 lb-ft much less any higher output version of the 2.7T. This is part of the reason Ford did not adopt the GM-Ford 9T65 transmission, but instead made an 8-speed version of the decade old GM-Ford 6T75 (used in the XTS VSport, etc.) which they called the 8F57 to handle the Ford Ecoboost 2.7T V6's 380 lb-ft in the Edge ST.

Basically, the quickie solution will be for GM for buy a few Ford 8F57 trannies for these applications.

Or just build a ten-speed transmission that will handle all that torque.

[dwightlooi]

10 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

Or just build a ten-speed transmission that will handle all that torque.

That'll take time, money and it'll be a tough engineering project. The 9T65 barely fits all the 9-gears in its envelope which is about the same as the 6T75. It actually uses a chain drive to connect the axle to the output ring gear. If you want more torque handling, the transmission needs get bigger or it needs to lose gears or it needs exotic materials.

IMHO, speeds are not as useful as many people think. Ford did not find the 9-speeds to be any more efficient than its 8-speeds and hence did not adopt them despite paying for part of their R&D. What's more important is the ratio spread. I'll venture to say that a 6-speed or even 5-speed will be practically as efficient as a 9 or 10-speed if it has the same ratio spread of 7.6:1. This is particularly so when you have an engine with a torque plateau of 348 lb-ft @ 1500-4000 rpm.

Edited June 11, 2019 by dwightlooi

[smk4565]

I am sure ZF makes something off the shelf that is transverse and can handle 350 lb-ft.  If they really wanted a higher output XT4 there are options out there.  In XT5 with more room I think it would be a no-brainer.  

Although if XT4 and XT5 were built on the alpha platform, then none of this would be an issue.

[dwightlooi]

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

I am sure ZF makes something off the shelf that is transverse and can handle 350 lb-ft.  If they really wanted a higher output XT4 there are options out there.  In XT5 with more room I think it would be a no-brainer.  

Although if XT4 and XT5 were built on the alpha platform, then none of this would be an issue.

Actually, no, they don't.

Borg-Warner has a Transverse 7-speed Dual Clutch with 440 lb-ft handling though. When used by VW-Audi Group it carries the designation DQ500. You'll find that in the RS3, the Golf R and the like.

Getrag has a 7-speed Dual Clutch with at least 350 lb-ft capacity which is used by Mercedes in the CLA/GLA45 AMG cars where it is code named DCT 724.016.

What has happened in Europe was the Automatic guys (like ZF) don't actually do high torque transverse boxes. The manual guys went into Dual Clutch boxes and fills that niche. High torque transverse converter autos is a uniquely American thing.

These are dual clutch boxes though, not torque converter automatics.

Edited June 11, 2019 by dwightlooi

[ccap41]

Do they not have a ZF unit in any of the 2.0T Jeeps? Or are those all RWD-based? 

Actually, is that only in the Wrangler at this point...?

I definitely think I'm looking further ahead than they currently are, come to think of if..lol

[Robert Hall]

51 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Do they not have a ZF unit in any of the 2.0T Jeeps? Or are those all RWD-based? 

Actually, is that only in the Wrangler at this point...?

I definitely think I'm looking further ahead than they currently are, come to think of if..lol

JL Wrangler has a ZF 8spd w/ the 2.0T.    I've seen rumors the next gen GC may get this combo as the base powertrain. 

[ccap41]

27 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

JL Wrangler has a ZF 8spd w/ the 2.0T.    I've seen rumors the next gen GC may get this combo as the base powertrain. 

I guess I forgot it isn't in the Cherokee...

[Robert Hall]

1 minute ago, ccap41 said:

I guess I forgot it isn't in the Cherokee...

They don’t use that transmission in any of the FWD/transverse engine models.  

[ccap41]

7 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

They don’t use that transmission in any of the FWD/transverse engine models.  

I meant the engine, which in turn, would mean the transmission as well. 

[Robert Hall]

3 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I meant the engine, which in turn, would mean the transmission as well. 

The Cherokee gets that engine for 2019, but with the ZF 9spd auto. 

[riviera74]

13 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

That'll take time, money and it'll be a tough engineering project. The 9T65 barely fits all the 9-gears in its envelope which is about the same as the 6T75. It actually uses a chain drive to connect the axle to the output ring gear. If you want more torque handling, the transmission needs get bigger or it needs to lose gears or it needs exotic materials.

IMHO, speeds are not as useful as many people think. Ford did not find the 9-speeds to be any more efficient than its 8-speeds and hence did not adopt them despite paying for part of their R&D. What's more important is the ratio spread. I'll venture to say that a 6-speed or even 5-speed will be practically as efficient as a 9 or 10-speed if it has the same ratio spread of 7.6:1. This is particularly so when you have an engine with a torque plateau of 348 lb-ft @ 1500-4000 rpm.

Then why won't GM/Ford build such a six-speed AT with the ratio spread that you speak of, if that is the most efficient AT ratio spread that can be done given a number of speeds?

[dwightlooi]

2 hours ago, riviera74 said:

Then why won't GM/Ford build such a six-speed AT with the ratio spread that you speak of, if that is the most efficient AT ratio spread that can be done given a number of speeds?

Because is very hard to do a wide ratio with a small number of speeds. Or, rather, it'll take a very large diameter planetary gear set. Most automatics get to >7 to 1 by using three planetaries in series. With 1 planetary set you can only get 3~4 speeds. By the time you put in all the additional planetary gear sets you may as well get more speeds from them. More gear sets in the same length however means smaller gear widths. Smaller gear widths means lower torque capacity.

[Drew Dowdell]

2 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

Because is very hard to do a wide ratio with a small number of speeds. Or, rather, it'll take a very large diameter planetary gear set. Most automatics get to >7 to 1 by using three planetaries in series. With 1 planetary set you can only get 3~4 speeds. By the time you put in all the additional planetary gear sets you may as well get more speeds from them. More gear sets in the same length however means smaller gear widths. Smaller gear widths means lower torque capacity.

So in theory, if each set can get 4 speeds and manufacturers are putting 3 sets in, the maximum number of ratios is 12?

[dwightlooi]

49 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

So in theory, if each set can get 4 speeds and manufacturers are putting 3 sets in, the maximum number of ratios is 12?

Not really...

The GM-Ford 10-speed uses a total of four planetary gear sets and 6 clutches, although no more than 4 clutches and 3 sequential ratios are ever engaged at any one time (not counting the axle ratio). It is impractical to try to use every single element as input and output to one another.

Edited June 11, 2019 by dwightlooi

[NINETY EIGHT REGENCY]

 

[dwightlooi]

Yeah... except they don;t sell the Escala. They sell the CT5 with a Mazda nose and a Honda Accord C-Pillar which copies, of all things, the stupid ipad on the dash design of unimaginative car interiors. They stuff it with a pair of WEAK SAUCE engines which took a great leap backwards in performance compared to the previous generation despite heaps of complexity and technology like the Tri-Power cam switching valve train.

[balthazar]

I don't know if the 2020 numbers are finalized/correct ~
2018 CTS 2.0T : 268/295
2020 CT5 2.0T : 275/295

2018 CTS 3.6TT : 420/420
2020 CT5 3.0TT : 404/400

IF correct, those certainly do not depict "great leaps backwards" in power. What remains, of course, is the V8 version's output. Everyone seems wrapped around the 'V' badge as opposed to looking at the comparative engines.

[dwightlooi]

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

I don't know if the 2020 numbers are finalized/correct ~
2018 CTS 2.0T : 268/295
2020 CT5 2.0T : 275/295

2018 CTS 3.6TT : 420/420
2020 CT5 3.0TT : 404/400

IF correct, those certainly do not depict "great leaps backwards" in power. What remains, of course, is the V8 version's output. Everyone seems wrapped around the 'V' badge as opposed to looking at the comparative engines.

Where did you get those numbers??? As announced, the CT5 numbers are:-

• 2020 CT5 2.0T:        237hp / 258 lb-ft
• 2020 CT5 3.0TT:     335hp / 400 lb-ft
• 2020 CT5-V 3.0TT: 355hp / 400 lb-ft
• 2020 CT5-V "High Performance" Edition:  Vaporware

[balthazar]

If those are correct then I agree.

[ccap41]

4 minutes ago, balthazar said:

If those are correct then I agree.

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/cadillac/ct5/2020/2020-cadillac-ct5-first-look-review/

 

[regfootball]

Early CT5 design study unmasked!!

[dwightlooi]

8 hours ago, regfootball said:

Early CT5 design study unmasked!

You worked too hard and researched too deeply. Cadillac's LOSER designers simply plagiarized their work from a car they see everyday while driving to work!

Edited June 29, 2019 by dwightlooi

[regfootball]

2 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

You worked too hard and researched too deeply. Cadillac's LOSER designers simply plagiarized their work from a car they see everyday while driving to work!

Actually I never really saw the resemblance to the Accord before but you hit the nail on the head!

[Drew Dowdell]

just like the CT5, I can't tell if I like the accord or not.  I think it is one of those vehicles that only looks good in black.

[dwightlooi]

9 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

just like the CT5, I can't tell if I like the accord or not.  I think it is one of those vehicles that only looks good in black.

It's OK. It's just not a design feature that exudes "luxury" or "exclusivity". A luxury car that "looks" like a Honda Accord is, well, meh...

[riviera74]

2 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

It's OK. It's just not a design feature that exudes "luxury" or "exclusivity". A luxury car that "looks" like a Honda Accord is, well, meh...

Exactly.  A Cadillac should say something and leave a positive (or at least polarizing) impression on anyone who sees one going down the road.  I like the XT5 and the CT6, but the only Cadillac that truly leaves an impression is the Escalade.  Cadillac needs to fix that on all their other models ASAP.

[ocnblu]

The CTS coupe is an example of a polarizing Cadillac.  So terrible though.  With a gunslit back glass when viewed from inside the car, and just an ugly fat ass.  Difficult to believe it came from the same company that has ACED the coupe mystique innumerable times over its history.

I did like the ATS coupe, but now I feel it was a bit too tame perhaps.  Where is Cadillac's GOLDILOCKS?  Escalade.  CT6.

[dwightlooi]

5 hours ago, ocnblu said:

The CTS coupe is an example of a polarizing Cadillac.  So terrible though.  With a gunslit back glass when viewed from inside the car, and just an ugly fat ass.  Difficult to believe it came from the same company that has ACED the coupe mystique innumerable times over its history.

I did like the ATS coupe, but now I feel it was a bit too tame perhaps.  Where is Cadillac's GOLDILOCKS?  Escalade.  CT6.

I like the (2nd generation) CTS Coupe. It looks like the VW Corrado to be honest, but I like it. Can't say the same about the creaky Recaro seats in the car though. Those were a disgrace.

[ccap41]

13 hours ago, ocnblu said:

The CTS coupe is an example of a polarizing Cadillac.  So terrible though.  With a gunslit back glass when viewed from inside the car, and just an ugly fat ass.  Difficult to believe it came from the same company that has ACED the coupe mystique innumerable times over its history.

I did like the ATS coupe, but now I feel it was a bit too tame perhaps.  Where is Cadillac's GOLDILOCKS?  Escalade.  CT6.

I think the CTS Coupe is one of the ugliest vehicles of the modern era. It looks so incredibly bad from anywhere but the front. The sedan looks so good but the just quit on the coupe and just "made it work".

[Drew Dowdell]

I really like the CTS Coupe

[David]

53 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I really like the CTS Coupe

Me too in V edition.

[ccap41]

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I really like the CTS Coupe

[Drew Dowdell]

hahah, I think there's a lot of cars that I like that you don't. 

[ocnblu]

Different strokes for different folks.

[Robert Hall]

I like the CTS coupe a lot..it grew on me...it's a very distinctive design and I like the sharp angles.    The ATS coupe is nice, but it just looks like a 2dr version of a 4dr...not as distinctive. 

[David]

GMAuthority.com have captured 4 of the Cadillac CT5-V Blackwings testing and for those that want the rumble, here is what they sound like taking off from a stop for lunch.

 

[dwightlooi]

NO whistle