Cadillac Owners Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Prev: 2018 ATS 2.0T NOW: 2020 CT4-V JR
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
It's a good article. Reviews need to get rid of the sub-compact talk.
It seems to say the Sport has the 2.7, which it doesn't in 2020, unless they read some news
that the 2021 Sport gets the 2.7, which it should have, at least as an option.

It's a nice upgrade over ATS, depending on what you are looking for.
Space is basically the same, but the extra .4 CuFt in the trunk is helpful.

The seats in the CT4 Sport + V are a Lot more comfortable and adjust more than the
Lux/Prem Lux seats, leather or not, which have a 1" shorter bottom cushion than the ATS seats.
 

·
Registered
2014 ATS 3.6L AWD Performance
Joined
·
492 Posts
Motor One: "It's an aimless car created by an aimless brand."
Well, it's not all bad news. As expected and echoed in other reviews, Cadillac knows chassis tuning, so as a driver's car, that's its strong suit. It's suitably quick, and up to 0.6 s. quicker than the ATS was with the 3.6 (or 2.0T for that matter). But while some of the ATS's weaknesses were addressed, it still comes down to how the details and execution compare in the marketplace. This doesn't strike me as an effort that will fuel a sense of aspiration in its target audience. This quote stood out for me...
"It's somehow a compact with a subcompact-sized interior. It has more torque than all the competition and is slower to 60 miles per hour. It will pair one of the world's best semi-autonomous driving systems next model year with a tech suite that feels like a leftover from 2015. And as with the CT5-V, as well as the ATS and CTS that came before it, the CT4-V is a very good driver's car that absolutely no one will consider."
It's a 'competent' car, that will probably get onto some shopping lists because of the price tag. But when the car is stationary, and compared with the competitors, which features or aspects of the product will really stick in the mind of the prospective shopper? Cadillac didn't even see fit to make the rearview mirror camera available on this car, which is currently the most notable/unique feature GM has, and on every other Cadillac model. The unavailability of magnetic ride control with AWD (unlike the CT5-V) seems like a 'miss' as well.

If Cadillac wants to be considered by the market they claim to want (regain?), they need to have more than just 'competitive' specs and features. Remember the reaction that the new Escalade interior got? Cadillac needs some aspect (design, technology, or baseline performance) of all their models to get that kind of reaction before they can claim top-tier luxury status. Off the top of my head, it seems that Lincoln and Genesis seem a lot more interested in improving their luxury perception than Cadillac does. Super Cruise is great and all, but where did it get the CT6?

If you want to see what the CT4-V is up against, there's a good comparison of direct competitors tested <here> They're a bit more expensive, but for many, they also have brand cachet and a lot more 'gee whiz' factor in their favor.
 

·
Registered
Prev: 2018 ATS 2.0T NOW: 2020 CT4-V JR
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
I don't know what a truck engine is like, since I have never driven a truck.
I feel that the 2.7 CT4-V feels like a faster ATS 2.0, with a better Trans, better exhaust sound and
smoother riding than the ATS.

I can't compare it to the imports, since I have not tested any imports.
 

·
Registered
97 Eldo ETC,98 STS,04 SRX N*,06 STS N*,14 CTS VSport Premium, 17 CTS Vsport Prem Lux
Joined
·
1,101 Posts
I don't know what a truck engine is like, since I have never driven a truck.
I feel that the 2.7 CT4-V feels like a faster ATS 2.0, with a better Trans, better exhaust sound and
smoother riding than the ATS.

I can't compare it to the imports, since I have not tested any imports.
Seems insulting to refer to it as a truck engine simply because it was first offered in a GM truck. I’ve never heard of the Corvette and Camaro V8s referred to in the same manner. They can be found in GMs pickups and big SUVs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Cadillac ATS
Joined
·
393 Posts
Seems insulting to refer to it as a truck engine simply because it was first offered in a GM truck. I’ve never heard of the Corvette and Camaro V8s referred to in the same manner. They can be found in GMs pickups and big SUVs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The difference is V8s have been used in muscle cars forever. Modern turbo set ups in most trucks try to give it comparable performance to their diesel counter parts. Which is what is needed for hauling and highway miles.

High Low end torque/Low high end torque, moderate HP across the range, consistent torque curve for a flat response. This gives good fuel economy across the board, and power where you need it, as well as less stress on engine components. The downside is poor acceleration, engine idle, less refined NVH, more stress for a weaker transmission.

Basically this car runs out of juice at higher RPMs, most sports engines do the opposite, have peak HP/TQ figures closer to redline.

Putting an engine designed for a truck in a car leads to some interesting results and compromises being made. Most LS engine have a HP/TQ rating near identical, and are either square or short stroke engines. This is much different than a turbo truck engine Gas or Diesel, and much more satisfying experience to drive.

If this was built ground up as a high performance turbo for a sports car, you would see similar performance figures to the M2, AMG C43,Alfa RQ etc.
 

·
Registered
2014 ATS 3.6L AWD Performance
Joined
·
492 Posts
Seems insulting to refer to it as a truck engine simply because it was first offered in a GM truck. I’ve never heard of the Corvette and Camaro V8s referred to in the same manner. They can be found in GMs pickups and big SUVs.
Similar to the issues created by the quiet change of course with the Blackwing name, GM has nobody but themselves to blame for the press bringing up the 'truck engine' label. GM told everyone who would listen that it was a 'truck engine'. When they announced the 2.7T in 2018, they went to great lengths in trying to convince everyone that a 4-cyl. could take the place of a V8 in a truck. Objectively, by the output numbers, they're correct. Per the official GM press release:
Designed as a truck engine
The new 2.7L Turbo engine represents a clean-sheet design for Chevrolet and was developed from the outset as a truck engine.

To help generate the strong low-end torque customers expect in a truck, it was designed with a long piston stroke of 4.01 inches (102mm), which is the distance the piston travels up and down within the cylinder.

...
All elements of the 2.7L Turbo were designed for the demands of turbocharged performance in a truck environment, and the engine was subjected to the same rigorous durability standards as the Silverado’s proven V-8 engines.
So there's that, combined with new messaging from Cadillac that...
According to the CT4's lead development engineer, Dave Schmidt, Cadillac chose the four-cylinder and its dual-volute turbocharger for the “awesome torque response.”
and...
As Caddy’s engineers tell it, the trucks are the true beneficiaries of this arrangement (sharing the 2.7T), as the rather large four-pot was destined for the CT4 all along. Cadillac went to great lengths to make sure it was refined enough for duty in a luxury sedan and while the result is mostly good, mostly good is slightly bad.
So logically, it seems correct to say that what was designed as a regular-gas-drinkin' 'truck engine' was plucked from the development pipeline by Cadillac and retuned (91-93 oct. required) for smoother, sporty car duty.

Oh to be a fly on the wall, but the development process for the CT4 seems to have been such that choosing the 2.7T was a cost-saving measure as much as a performance-driven one. The LGX's output wasn't/isn't necessarily V-Sport worthy, and GM might be nervous about tuning a 2.0T to AMG levels, so objectively-speaking the 2.7T's output numbers are impressive enough (a.k.a. 'Good Enough', by GM) for a mid-range sport-themed compact. As a 'truck engine' first and foremost, it wasn't designed to be Cadillac-smooth or sports car-refined, but the engineers did their best, and now it needs more octane. I'd love to know what JdN's original vision for the CT4 entailed...

With all that said, I have no doubt that the CT4-V drives very, very well. I hope that the aftermarket finds a way to make it sound as good as it handles - "agrarian harshness" isn't a descriptor that Cadillac needs to see in reviews.
 

·
Registered
97 Eldo ETC,98 STS,04 SRX N*,06 STS N*,14 CTS VSport Premium, 17 CTS Vsport Prem Lux
Joined
·
1,101 Posts
Thanks to you both for your thorough explanations of the 2.7. I have a much better understanding of it now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
So anyone here with one of these in their possession now? I have been on a test drive and it honestly drove really well. Power also wasn't half bad for stock. I will say theres a TON of power left in it not being used. These have a really nice vacuum and boost gauge on the speedometer. When WOT, on the 1-2 gear hit you spike the advertised 22psi of boost for about a quarter of a second. Every other gear after that makes less and less boost. (When I say makes less I mean it holds less to redline). By 70-80mph, I noticed its barely pushing about 12-13psi. So if there was aftermarket tuning for this in the future to just hold 22 - 25psi from initial spike to redline, this car I think would rip! Maybe its because they have regular fuel in the car that I drove and not premium? I think that could be a issue.

Other than that, suspension seems to be fantastic. The mag ride 4.0 is the best I've ridden in by far! Brakes seem identical to that of the ats 2.0t coupe. Interior is nice, but the best part is you actually have nice instrument clusters now and the backup camera is actually useful. Cue is also so much faster as well.

10 speed transmission shifts snappy, but it does take a second for it to think of which gear to go into before doing so. Again, this would be amazing with some refinement in the aftermarket world. I have the 8 speed now and this is definitely more sophisticated and smoother.

Anyone else have this car? I want to know what you guys think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
368 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Motor One: "It's an aimless car created by an aimless brand."

I would agree with the author that packaging is still an issue as it was in the ATS (lack of interior space), and the interior isn't special, but this is FAR from a non-competitive car. But otherwise, this is literally the only negative CT4-V review I've found...and the CT5-V reviews are unanimous in its praise (except for...you guessed it, Mr. Brandon Turkus, who wrote this article).
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top