oldshurst442

Yup. Maybe the CT4 is more geared to be sold in China? And if they sell a dozen units here, well so be it?

Its really not that bad looking of a car. The front and back are almost....almost...stunning. Especially in that cherry red colour. The interior promises to be worthy of a Cadillac car. So...we are just a bunch of whiny little pansies bitchin' about nothing! Yes. The profile seems to look like a new Accord. The new Accord, to those who like sloping, fastback styling sedans, is quite striking and quite unique and quite pleasant to look at. The profile and silhouette only. Because the front and back of the Accord leaves a lot to be desired. I like it, but its ugly. But having that kind of sloping fastback resemble a Honda is not a bad feature. To those who like that kind of thing. Its just that I, want MORE for Cadillac. I DEMAND excellence for Cadillac as I hold Cadillac in very high regard. For me, its a shame that the stylists and designers for Cadillac dont seem to have that kind of pride that I hold for Cadillac, it seems.

aye yai yai That CT4... People complained about the ATS' lack of rear legroom space. So...how does Cadillac fix that with an even smaller car than the ATS? Maybe its smaller than the ATS? But how can it be a tad bigger than the ATS when the CT5 is believed to be a tad bigger than the ATS? I just dont buy into small Cadillacs. Dont like 'em. Dont want 'em!

I thought they downsized the CT5 from the CTS to become a tweener again like how the 1st and 2nd generations CTS were.

Im one of those folks... Im disappoint because it has Honda Accord aspirations rather than Cadillac ones (nah...no Escala in this) despite what @Cmicasa the Great says. But it aint a bad looking vehicle. I get why the CT5 could never be as sexy as the Escala. Shorter vehicle with a much shorter wheel base. Therefore one should never expect a midsizer to exude a certain type of look that a bigger, and longer wheel base car can achieve, but, Cadillac could have done the controversial C pillar design a tad better, a tad more coherent and hella more sexier because its a damned Cadillac!!! But I dont have a problem with that C Pillar design per se. I do have a problem with the CT5 imitating a Honda. Kudos to Honda for making a FWD appliance car look desirable. (I like the new Honda Accord) Or Ford for its Fusion. Or Chevy for its Impala and Malibu, etc... Boo to Cadillac for not making its new CT5 more prestigious in terms of looks. I mean, it takes a page out of Honda's playbook. Not a bad thing per se, but not good for Cadillac trying to be unique and expensive.... But I said I was one of those folk that would buy a new CT5... Well...I would buy one. I like the way it looks. But Im disappoint because once again, yet another model does not inspire Standard of the World... Maybe, its because its the nature of the segment the CT5 is in. I dont inspire to a Mercedes C Class or BMW 3 Series either... I dont inspire to the last couple of E Class generations nor do I inspire to the 5 Series either. The last 5 Series I insipred to was the E39... Because all those models I mentioned, the last 15 years, are nothing but lease queen specials (along with their CUV counterparts) that have over extended debt morons lease them trying to impress their Facebook friends with them taking selfies and talking about how perfect their life is... So...there is that why I may not be impressed with the CT5, because Cadillac and BMW and M-B know that most of those leased cars in that niche are just broken cigar morons that will lease them so they dont try hard to design a wow factor car because its not about the wow factor exterior, but more about the badge on the hood....

That's what SHE said! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kinda like this...yes?!

1957

To be fair, the Escala is NOT the new CT5. The Escala is to come... But yeah, although I dont feel let down for the same reasons you feel down about the CT5, I do feel let down. But a tiny bit, not as fully down you feel about it. Im just perplexed on why Cadillac felt the need to look like a FWD Honda Accord. And the FWD Accord looks to be longer and sleeker to boot. Which SHOULD be a Cadillac trait. *Sigh* Still waiting for that long, sleek, slick black Cadillac car to arrive. Well, the CT6 Blackwing is certainly that. But 1 model aint enough...

That...my friend I never knew!!! I owned a 1999 Olds Alero... I knew EXACTLY what truck you were referring too, and every time I used to see one on the road, there was always something puzzling to me, like a deja vu feeling... I did not know what was that familiarity feeling I had about that truck...but thanks to you...now I know!!! And I totally see it NOW that you pointed it out! You really dont know how happy you just made me feel!!! No...no sarcasm. I promise! You really made me happy!

Well..yes! Words on a screen...can be quite difficult to detect, um, sarcasm. PS: If you couldnt detect it, my apology is...um...sarcastic...

Give it a rest...I agree...especially when that particular Saturn has been out of production for over a decade. And no, just because it could be the same Saturn part number, it does not take away from the CT5 being a Cadillac. Its just a bloody window for God's sake.... PS: It may or may not be... It probably take MORE engineering dollars to purposely fit that old parts number piece into a newly engineered car on a completely different platform just to save a few nickels and dimes for an already available number than start with a clean slate piece. It looks the same, in the pictures. Its probably a whole different part. PSS: The reason why I say its a different part all together, GM would have to purposely engineering the roofline angles and slopes of the CT5 to be the EXACT identical roofline and slope to the ION, which would affect the platform...remember, the ION was a subcompact. The CT5 is a midsizer. One was a FWD unibody while the CT5 is a RWD unibody on two completely different platforms that have NOTHING in common. Maybe Im wrong, but when I read that certain platforms dont lend well to different wheelbases to house different types of vehicles, well, Im thinking that on a midsized RWD platform to get all the right ROUNDED ARCs and angles, widths and lengths, thickness... JUST to fit a window piece that went on a FWD subcompact, seems a tad ludicrous for me!

splitting hairs and being defensive... cool with me. Everything is all right! Not on the Tahoe using a version of a Silverado chassis and the 'Slade being on the Tahoe chassis... In which Cadillac, since the 3rd gen 'Slade has done a fantabulous job of using MAC lipstick on it... But your whole notion trying to troll Dfelt because he said this M-B was a pig with lipstick on it... Why even bring up the Escalade in the 1st place? Its OK...I really dont care about us bickering back and forth... Ive moved on from that. Sorry I even bothered with this discussion. Ill just refrain from posting in the future regarding sensless trolling...

MMMM... maybe 20 years ago...you are right with that comment. But since the 3rd and 4rth générations of the Escalade, not at all accurate...but yeah...trying a tad too hard to troll Dfelt, tho. Hey... even the 2nd gen Escalade was not that bad...better than this rendering anyhow...(and yes rendering as we do not know if M-B will be doing this crossover monstrosity that way...)

Wrong answer

And here we are... NONE of us have complained and dissed this design! Other than Dfelt (And Paolino) but he ended up getting trolled for it too! Yet we all vehemently try to find ANY LITTLE THING Cadillac does and we harp on it. And THAT is the surprising thing...NOBODY has BLASTED it like how the XT6 has been blasted, or the new CT5... THAT is what I find shameful. If anything, this crossover thing is unispiring and ugly and far from luxury a vehicle can get...(on the outside) Mercedes posted this rendering a while back ago...I saw an AMC Eagle sedan then with the design, as I do now! Horrible, for a 2020 luxury vehicle!

I guess, it all comes down to that statement. I agree with your post 100%, BTW!

I saw new Honda Accord in the side profile with the same type of funky C-pillar treatment. Like a retarded Hofmeister kink. But I happen to like the new Honda Accord and I dont mind the retarded Hofmeister kink both on the supposed CT5 or the Acccord. The only thing to bother me is why would a Cadillac try to look like a Honda?

Actually, American manufacturing and engineering of aircraft and automobiles HAVE adapted to the Metric system. No choice as both industries for manufacturing different parts are made world wide for Boeing, Ford, GM, Chrysler, etc... So there is that. Not necessarily. Its easier to scale up and down the different sizes in terms of calculations are concerned especially for engineering purposes, and in a nano technology world that we are living, Metric is the way to go, but not necessarily superior. A 9mm bullet is a good sized bullet to cause damage in someone. But an almost equivalent .357 in magnum form is so much better for stopping power. I know that there is a 10mm bullet nowadays but Im assuming that a .44 is a tad larger, but I also know that a .44 magnum makes huuuuge holes in people. Maybe in today's world, Dirty Harry's pistol aint sexy as its only got 6 shots and an automatic has 15 or so, maybe more with today's crazy magazine technology, but I also know that all the rage of 9mm Glocks of the 1990s has worn down too, and that is why a 10mm bullet is now offered, but again, nothing beats the stop them dead in their tracks .44 magnum style! Im sorry that I went all guns on you in the automotive forum, but no, not everything Metric is superior. Feet and inches, still have merit. Horsepower and torque seem to be best suited for ICE. ICE is not dead yet... 1 horsepower is what work 1 average Clydesdale horse can do. And the Imperial system did a fine job in creating a very good calculating system that works just fine. And its easy to visualize. A 300 horsepower car is calcualted damned close to what 300 Clydesdale horses can do...and we could actually visualize that kind of power even if we dont know how much power that really is... But seriously...can a Metric user honestly say that he knows what 223.71 kilowatts looks like? (that would be 300 mechanical horsepower) Can a metric user honestly say that he could actually visualize how tall is 1.87 meters? 187 centimeters? 1.92 meters? 1.76 meters? One could get used to it, sure. But... Like I said, meters and even decimeters, those units are to big for humans to visualize in space, and centimeters are too small to bunch up together. Shyte...metric users dont even use the decimeter when describing the height of individuals. Shyte...on my drivers license, Im listed as 1.7 meters tall, not 17 decimeters, but 1.7 meters...because Canada uses the metric system, duh...and its been 50 years or more that we use the metric system, yet when a criminal is described on the news, feet and inches are used to identify the perp. Maybe, sometimes meters is used ALONG SIDE feet and inches... I know Europeans actually do know how tall 1.76 meters is (visually in their heads)...but I still challenge them to tell me how many meters 1 person is standing from another, with great precision as 1.76 or 1.89... An imperial user actually CAN be precise using feet though...(visually in their heads) The Imperial system has its merits...it would be stupid to let the Imperial system disappear all together...

There is still a place for Imperial measurements in today's world. Even for the rest of the world that uses the Metric system. Although I find some Americans refusing to learn the Metric system as stupid...I also find Metric users stupid when they make fun of Americans for using the Imperial system. feet and inches is still ideal for someone to describe height because feet is the perfect size.One Meter is too big to visualize. Centimeters too small to bunch them all up. Nobody uses the decimeter... 1.87 meters? 187 centimeters? 18.7 decimeters??? Sure, one could adapt... 6 feet 1 inches is simpler isnt it than all three metric measurements?! Fahrenheit, although I personally get confused with it, I ould deal with it as I work with Fahrenheit in my restaurant kitchen. Well, the Quebec health department makes us work with both Celsius and Fahrenheit, but I think its because Fahrenheit is more precise? So, Americans shouldnt be forced to change, but Americans should learn the Metric system. Actually, the world over shouldnt have dropped the Imperial system all together because it has its merits too! As far as Cadillac goes: ^^^ THIS!!!

The Hellcat purrs, the Hellephant GROWLS!!!

That kitty could get quite thirsty, yes. But she rewards you with some awesome purrs when you treat her just right.

The Mustang and Camaro have gone with base 4 cylinder engines. I dont see as how the Challenger cant do the same. Plus, the Challenger has gone all wheel drive too on the 6 cylinder version. So, its not as if the Dodge engineers and marketing folk are afraid to mess with a supposed muscle car formula... If anything, with 4 cylinder pony cars from GM and Ford and AWD with Mopar in theirs, I think the Dodge engineers and marketing folk are full aware of the possibilities to keep the Challenger and Charger nameplates alive. 'Tis not in Auburn Hills that is the problem, but the "F" part of FCA... If the "F" part in FCA would release some R&D funds for the "C" part which includes Dodge and not totally soak up the Jeep and Ram profits only for Alpha Romeo, Fiat and Maserati, then Dodge and Chrysler will survive just fine, if not...

There was even talk about resurrecting the Barracuda name plate and making that a smaller and lighter convertible based on the Giorgio platform. And If Im not mistaken, this was why all the talk was about how the Challenger would also be on the Giorgio platform too. Or something like that... All those 5 year product reviews that Marchionne did every 6 months...had FCA projects going in all directions, then cancelling, then re-approving, then shelving, then reassessing, then pleading to other manufacturers to merge or form partnerships with, then trying to force partnerships with other manufacturers, then seeing nobody is interested, then issuing more 5 year product reviews every 6 months going in all directions, then cancelling, then re-approving, then shelving, then reassessing....rinse and repeat. Before I forget, somewhere in there in between all those 5 year product reviews every 6 months, FCA separated with Ferrari. Probably a good thing for Ferrari. As for the C in the FCA part which includes Dodge. The future looks grim Im afraid...

I agree with you on the top speed part, but the 0-60 and quarter mile stuff on the Model Y is pretty fast tho. Just like the other 3 Teslas. I guess the Model Y cant be a winner on speed on all fronts then? Because I dont know what else to say about it.

Yeah...I heard about Adidas too! Twice cockblocked. LOL Ironic to the S3X part and what I just said in that when we were young , we used to say that Adidas stands for All Day I Dream About Sex