Cadillac Owners Forum banner

1 - 20 of 137 Posts

·
Registered
Cadillac ATS
Joined
·
272 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Registered
Prev: 2004+2007 CTS 3.6 - 2016 ATS 2.0T AWD Lux. Now: 2018 ATS 2.0T AWD Luxury
Joined
·
2,200 Posts
Just because CT5 starts in the ATS price range, isn't a good reason to say CT5 replaces CTS + ATS.
At 193.8", it replaces the CTS. Despite whatever any reviews say, the CT4 clearly replaces the ATS.

Motortrend's review wants more sport, so they need to test the V version, which has FE3 suspension and
the 3.0 engine.

I have been using the online order guide and the older price list you posted, to compare a CT5 Prem Lux built
up to a CTS Luxury level. Yes the CT5 Prem Lux has less standard than a CTS Luxury.
The CT5 Prem Lux with added options to roughly equal a CTS Luxury, will MSRP around $7000 less.
Whichever Trim you want, CT5 should be a good value now.

While at my dealer, the CT5 trainer was there. He loves the CT5. He said you should not notice a lack
of performance with the new 2.0, compared to the current 2.0.
 

·
Registered
2014 ATS 3.6L AWD Performance
Joined
·
451 Posts
That's very interesting, and I'll be curious to see if other reviews make similar observations. Curious that they refer to it as the 'CT5 2.0T' rather than the 'CT5 350T'...lol...old habits are hard to break. Of course, the 350T tag is meaningless without the context or precedent of knowing how it relates to other trim or powertrain options; totally unintuitive.

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.
CT5 Pros:
  • Improved Infotainment system -> CUE was widely considered a con with ATS/CTS
  • Generous rear seat -> the back seat was always a sore spot for ATS/CTS
CT5 Cons:
  • Overworked turbo-four engine -> pro for CTS: MT called the previous 2.0T output "stout" in the 2014 review
  • Uninspiring interior -> previous interior got mixed reviews, but never 'blah' or 'meh'
  • Lackluster driving dynamics -> pro for ATS/CTS - driving dynamics were praised across the board, on all trims
The V cars will get better press, but so far it's disappointing. 'Tis only the first review...
 

·
Registered
97 Eldo ETC,98 STS,04 SRX N*,06 STS N*,14 CTS VSport Premium, 17 CTS Vsport Prem Lux
Joined
·
986 Posts
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.

I’ll certainly be holding on to my ‘17 VSport for while. This one lacks any appeal to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Mercedes C300 Luxury - ATS retired (torque coverter shudder)
Joined
·
716 Posts
So:

I expect most all auto media will log similar reviews.

So:

Diminished chassis dynamics, overworked engine with diminished power, odd design that only looks good in front view, parts bin interior that doesn't feel luxury, a "cannot recommend" rating from Motortrend's managing editor.

Bright spots:

Better 10 speed transmission, improved infotainment

So sad. My ATS base was the best handling car I ever owned next to my BMW 323i e46 (that car's handling was supernatural) I LOVED my ATS until the infamous torque converter shudder forced me to trade it.

In my opinion Cadillac of late has no clue as to who its customer is and is failing to really appeal to any:

Soccer Mom? Retiree? Upper Middle Class Boomer? Aspirational Young Urban Professional? Casual Performance Enthusiast? Serious Performance Enthusiast? Tech Savvy Millennial? Soccer Dad? One Percenter? Chinese Wealth Class? German Luxury Brand Cross-Shopper? Asian Luxury Brand Cross-Shopper?

Gee, we really dont know so we'll just water everything down and collect a small percentage of all these demographics without really satisfying any of them. After all "we're just a luxury brand that just happens to sell vehicles"
 

·
Registered
2014 ATS 3.6L AWD Performance
Joined
·
451 Posts
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.
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. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
2017 ATS 3.6 Performance Premium
Joined
·
237 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Registered
97 Eldo ETC,98 STS,04 SRX N*,06 STS N*,14 CTS VSport Premium, 17 CTS Vsport Prem Lux
Joined
·
986 Posts
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.
That’s just terrible. Horrific is a better adjective.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
2014 ATS 3.6L AWD Performance
Joined
·
451 Posts
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... :LOL: . 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?"

Depending on how generous they feel, they may come to a similar conclusion about the CT5 that, "The 2.0T motivates the CTS well enough but falls short of the high bar that Cadillac has set for the car..." Their review could be more like what they said about the 2013 ATS 2.5L - "Sedandom's best chassis, betrayed by its engine." - for a car that did 0-60 in 7.4 sec. and 15.6 @90 mph in the 1/4. The CT5's handling is a bit better now vs. prev. CTS, but the performance benchmark (old ATS 2.5L?) that they deem acceptable (and on a 'Sport' trim...lol) would surely be justified by the new price point. "Hey it's replacing the ATS, it's faster and handles better than the base ATS used to, and it starts at a lower price point - sounds like a WIN!" They keep moving the bar lower, then wonder why the public doesn't take the Cadillac 'luxury' brand seriously anymore.

To add, the last paragraph in MT's review might be applicable for almost all of Cadillac's efforts these days, with maybe the exception of Escalade.
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."
 

·
Registered
Prev: 2004+2007 CTS 3.6 - 2016 ATS 2.0T AWD Lux. Now: 2018 ATS 2.0T AWD Luxury
Joined
·
2,200 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Registered
97 Eldo ETC,98 STS,04 SRX N*,06 STS N*,14 CTS VSport Premium, 17 CTS Vsport Prem Lux
Joined
·
986 Posts
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. :rolleyes:
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.

The CT4 has the same wheelbase as the ATS which it replaces and is actually longer than the 3 Series.

This writer of the article has it correct.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
2014 ATS 3.6L AWD Performance
Joined
·
451 Posts
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 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!
 

·
Registered
Cadillac ATS
Joined
·
272 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Kelly Blue Book Review

The 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.
- Kelly Blue Book
 

·
Registered
Mercedes C300 Luxury - ATS retired (torque coverter shudder)
Joined
·
716 Posts
"Handsome & alluring exterior design"

KBB writers need to set an appointment with their ophthalmologist stat
 

·
Registered
Cadillac ATS
Joined
·
272 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
"Handsome & alluring exterior design"

KBB writers need to set an appointment with their ophthalmologist stat
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.

It takes cues from the Escala, and has the right body proportions to match its competitors. From a car enthusiast standpoint, I totally agree. However, I think the general consumer won't have much qualms with the styling.
 

·
Registered
2014 ATS 3.6L AWD Performance
Joined
·
451 Posts
... I think the general consumer won't have much qualms with the styling.
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." :LOL: 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? :unsure:
 

·
Registered
Prev: 2004+2007 CTS 3.6 - 2016 ATS 2.0T AWD Lux. Now: 2018 ATS 2.0T AWD Luxury
Joined
·
2,200 Posts
The CT5 Sport is basically the same as the Base/Luxury with sportier seats, some sport trim and 19" tires,
with a little higher cost for those sporty updates. The Sport is not listing the 3.0 as an option in the order guide.
That should change later. I cant see a Sport without the 3.0.

It appears that those wanting more performance will want the 3.0 V. It is now listed in the order guide and
has FE3 + MRC with the 3.0. It looks to have summer or AS tires as an option. No price anywhere yet.

Whichever trim you want, it will cost less than the same CTS trim.
 

·
Registered
Cadillac ATS
Joined
·
272 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Winnipeg Free Press Review



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.
The 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.
- Winnipeg Free Press
 

·
Registered
Cadillac ATS
Joined
·
272 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
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." :LOL: 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? :unsure:
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.
 
1 - 20 of 137 Posts
Top