Blame GM for setting up the 3 series comparison - that's the marketing spin they've gone with, despite the size differential. They would also have you believe that the soon-to-be-departed CT6 would be the 5-series competitor, despite being around 10" longer. It makes about as much sense as Chevy bringing out a car that "replaces both the Cruze and Malibu", then telling everyone it's a 'compact segment' competitor because it's 1" shorter than the Malibu and the starting price is in line with a Toyota Corolla.The review is off base because they’re comparing the CT5 to a BMW 3 series. Wrong class. Should be in the midsize 5 series class.
You have to click through the link in the list at the end of the review to see performance numbers. The sad results:Apparently the 'it needs to be less intimidating' mantra permeated more than just the V-series. By MT's feedback, the price, performance (though they don't mention any times), and chassis tuning were all dialed back...and this was a 'Sport' model. Yes, the V models will address the sporty shortcomings MT noted, but that means that only the most expensive models will have much appeal for the enthusiast. Does that make the CT5 more 'accessible' than the CTS?...yes (especially pricing), but I wonder if most of the folks that would be turned off by some of those harder edges are mostly CUV shoppers now, anyway. I guess it's no wonder then that the lists of pros & cons for the CTS and CT5 has basically been flipped.
|Accel, 0-60 mph||7.1 sec|
|Quarter Mile||15.3 sec @ 91.9 mph|
|Braking, 60-0 mph||114 ft|
|Lateral Acceleration||0.88 g (avg)|
|MT Figure Eight||26.2 sec @ 0.68 g (avg)|
That’s just terrible. Horrific is a better adjective.You have to click through the link in the list at the end of the review to see performance numbers. The sad results:
Accel, 0-60 mph 7.1 sec Quarter Mile 15.3 sec @ 91.9 mph Braking, 60-0 mph 114 ft Lateral Acceleration 0.88 g (avg) MT Figure Eight 26.2 sec @ 0.68 g (avg)
By comparison, C&D reported on a 2016 CTS 2.0 as doing 0-60 in 5.8 seconds and 14.5 seconds @ 94mph in the 1/4 mile. So this version is significantly slower while being smaller and not as good-looking. They reported lateral G of 0.84 so the new one is a bit better in that.
Will be interesting to see if other versions make it more appealing.
With the performance bar set that low, it's very safe to say that other versions will be more appealing... . Even back in 2014, when C&D tested with the 6AT, they got a 6.2 sec. 0-60 and 14.8 @95 mph in the 1/4 mile. When they next get to test a CT5, I wonder if they'll be so enthused as to reuse the 2014 headline, "Have we mentioned how much we love this chassis?"Will be interesting to see if other versions make it more appealing.
MotorTrend en Español managing editor Miguel Cortina sums up the CT5 best: "This is one of those cars that I can't recommend to people shopping in this class. I just don't see anything special or attractive here. The design is nice, but I'd prefer a 3 Series or A4 over the CT5. It's a shame because the platform is nice, but everything else doesn't really line up well."
So what do we think for the 3.0TT for 0-60? Sub 5 seconds? Or is that wishful thinking? Order guide has it rated at 360hp and 405lb-ft of torque.The 7.1 0-60 is poor. I thought maybe they found a way to have the new less powerful 2.0 with 10 speed,
perform about the same as the previous 2.0, with the 8-speed, being 5.6 in ATS + 5.8 in CTS.
I could understand 6.1 sec, but not 7.1. It looks like the 3.0 is the way to go, if we want some perf.
Instill say the CT5 is in the 5 Series/A6/E class. Just look at its size. The CT4 is in the 3 Series/A4/C class.Blame GM for setting up the 3 series comparison - that's the marketing spin they've gone with, despite the size differential. They would also have you believe that the soon-to-be-departed CT6 would be the 5-series competitor, despite being around 10" longer. It makes about as much sense as Chevy bringing out a car that "replaces both the Cruze and Malibu", then telling everyone it's a 'compact segment' competitor because it's 1" shorter than the Malibu and the starting price is in line with a Toyota Corolla.
The CTS V-sport achieved 4.5-4.7 sec. with 420 hp & 430 lb-ft., and about 4000 lbs. ...so 5.1-2 sec. for the CT5-V ??? The CTS w/3.6L & 8AT was measured at 5.7 sec., by comparison. The extra torque from the 3.0TT should help a LOT!So what do we think for the 3.0TT for 0-60? Sub 5 seconds? Or is that wishful thinking? Order guide has it rated at 360hp and 405lb-ft of torque.
- Kelly Blue BookThe 2020 Cadillac CT5 is an all-new luxury sedan that replaces the CTS in the American automaker’s lineup. Though slightly smaller than the model it replaces, the new CT5 is something of a ‘tweener: Dimensionally it is closer to a midsize sedan, but it has a starting price lower than compact-luxury sedans like the BMW 3 Series and Mercedes-Benz C-Class. In addition to a base price below $40,000, the CT5 has an alluring, angular design and offers Cadillac’s Super Cruise hands-free driving system.
Beyond those traits, however, the Cadillac CT5 has an uphill battle against better, more entrenched rivals. Its standard turbocharged 4-cylinder engine has less power than those of its competitors, the Cadillac’s driving manners are not as enjoyable, its cabin feels more cramped, and the vehicle’s overall interior and technology feel a step behind those of rivals ranging from the aforementioned Germans to the fresh Genesis G70 and Volvo S60.
I've yet to see it in person but hopefully around the holidays I can take a stroll to a local dealer. I know its not ground breaking or super sophisticated looking, but based on whats trending right now, it sits comfortably in the "oh, that looks nice" area."Handsome & alluring exterior design"
KBB writers need to set an appointment with their ophthalmologist stat
I don't know if that reviewer has displayed any previous bias against Cadillac products, but it sounds like the exterior was his favorite part. Almost everything else makes it sound very underwhelming, culminating with the statement that, "The CT5 may bill itself as a sports sedan, but amid today’s excellent competition, we would prefer almost any of its competitors if it were our money."... I think the general consumer won't have much qualms with the styling.
The 2020 CT5 is unmistakably a Cadillac, with a big, multi-coloured crest adorning the middle of the black front grille and the trunk lid in the rear. We’ll forgive you for saying it looks like one of Audi’s Sportback models when viewed from the sides. According to Cadillac, it’s more of an homage to large, coupe-like sedans designed by the excellent Bill Mitchell, such as the Sixty Special.
- Winnipeg Free PressThe biggest problem is the base engine. For some reason, Cadillac chose a turbocharged 2.0-litre four-cylinder that produces 237 horsepower at 5,000 r.p.m. — 41 horsepower less than the comparable engine in the old CTS, which didn’t rank among the most potent in its class to begin with.
The slow takeoffs and passing manoeuvres don’t do justice to the dynamic chassis and make us wonder why this car is called the CT5 Sport. The addition of a heavy AWD system no doubt makes it worse.
To be honest, I couldn't take the review seriously. It was like a very bad Carwow copy, mixed with some Doug Demuro banter. But you may be right, or on to something at least here in North America. I also do agree with their strategy being the complete opposite of what it takes to compete, Genesis is in no new territory. Lexus, Infiniti, Acura all had the same approach at launch and it doesn't really equate to long term success.I don't know if that reviewer has displayed any previous bias against Cadillac products, but it sounds like the exterior was his favorite part. Almost everything else makes it sound very underwhelming, culminating with the statement that, "The CT5 may bill itself as a sports sedan, but amid today’s excellent competition, we would prefer almost any of its competitors if it were our money."
I had to chuckle when, in the video, the exhaust note was referred to as, "More cow than engine." The 2.0T should really be limited to the very least expensive trim...if you're paying more for the Sport or Premium Luxury trims, you should at least get the power of the 2.7T. The CT5 doesn't have enough brand cachet or 'come hither' looks to make up for the performance deficit. But the base price is cheaper, right...so we're all good with that? A base 255-hp 3-series gets to 60 mph in under 6 sec., but a 188-hp A4 takes 7.4 sec. ...soooooo, 7.1 is 'good enough'?
Call it a hunch or just spidey-senses tingling, but between the CT4/5 launch and V-debacle, I detect products that are doomed to die on the vine. They'll lack promotional support, and after slow sales, conveniently go away without an MCE soon after the Alpha platform-mate Camaro goes on hiatus in 2023, making way for new platforms and electrification. What they have so far almost feels like they begrudgingly moved forward with v. 2.0 of ATS/CTS, taking them down-market in the hopes of getting enough sales to recoup development costs. Just a hunch... not saying these are 'bad' cars at all, just not compelling.
As usual, a more substantial option lies just across the GM showroom floor. A fully-loaded AWD Regal GS with a 310-hp V6, adaptive cruise, HUD, nav, sunroof, etc., etc. stickers under $45K, or around $600 less than the base price of a CT5 Sport AWD with 237-hp and lacking some safety technologies that, as the reviewer points out, are standard on a base Honda Civic. I dunno...maybe Cadillac should stop worrying about having low-end Cadillacs and start focusing on making 'premium GM' products...translate the Hyundai/Genesis approach into GM/Cadillac. Wasn't that how it was prior to the days of Cimarron?