Pretty much in line with what people expected when they first revealed these models months back. Without JDN there isn't a good vision for Cadillac and there attention is purely on saving money, SUVs and eventually shifting gears to electric vehicles. Its plain to see that these were half baked models from the start.

The size is a peculiarity. Not only is the CT4-V longer than its subcompact rivals (by 7.8 inches compared with the A 35 and by 11.4 inches relative to the S3), it's also longer than their compact big brothers (2.2 inches longer than the Mercedes C43 AMG and 0.4 inch longer than an Audi S4). Despite heroic efforts in terms of lightweight materials use and computational optimization of the steel structure, the bigger CT4 ends up weighing 175-220 pounds more than its subcompact rivals. An A220 4Matic that was on hand during this loan felt noticeably lighter and nimbler as a result. Adding insult to this injury is the fact that, according to the tape measure, the CT4 isn't universally roomier inside. All competitors boast greater rear leg room (and a tiny center hump) while the Mercedes A-Class also boasts more front and rear headroom. At least the Cadillac's trunk is bigger than all but the BMW M235i xDrive Gran Coupe's.

- Motortrend

I'm not sure how they managed this, just baffled.

 

The review has already been pulled. I think it was dropped inadvertently as it no longer shows on MT's main page, and the link is a "404 Not Found." There are also no parallel reviews from other publications, and these usually drop at the same time.

That being said, I read it before it was pulled. Overall, I thought it was positive, though unlike the effusive CT5-V reviews, I didn't really feel this particular article circled back around and gave any type of overall summary...or if it did, it wasn't clear. It seems the individual parts are all fairly impressive: engine, steering, handling, chassis dynamics (though it should be noted that this review was the heavier AWD version without MRC), but is the overall package greater than the sum of its parts? I guess we'll have to wait and see once other reviews are published.

 

Still saying 404 error at 1:30PM, so I have only read what is posted above.

CT4 should never have been compared to Subcompacts. The 4 indicates between Compact and Midsize.

The ATS has plenty of front legroom, depending on seat position. So if front seat people are tall, the rear
seat legroom stinks. If front seat people are short, the rear can be decent. A bigger engine
compartment and/or thicker firewall probably wastes interier space in ATS/CT4. With the CT5 not
costing much more than CT4 (compared to the $ increase jumping from ATS to CTS), if rear seat +
trunk room is important, it's not a big $ jump to go to CT5.

 

Still saying 404 error at 1:30PM, so I have only read what is posted above.

CT4 should never have been compared to Subcompacts. The 4 indicates between Compact and Midsize.

The ATS has plenty of front legroom, depending on seat position. So if front seat people are tall, the rear
seat legroom stinks. If front seat people are short, the rear can be decent. A bigger engine
compartment and/or thicker firewall probably wastes interier space in ATS/CT4. With the CT5 not
costing much more than CT4 (compared to the $ increase jumping from ATS to CTS), if rear seat +
trunk room is important, it's not a big $ jump to go to CT5.

I agree with you. The CT4 is no subcompact and shouldn’t be compared to one. Maybe the article has been pulled because it was so off base.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I was able to read the article by searching with the article title, "2020-cadillac-ct4-v-awd-first-test-review", and reading the Google cache of the first search result. I thought the straight line acceleration noted in the article to be disappointing.

 

4.9? Remember, this was the AWD version...I suspect if this follows the same formula as the CT5-V, the RWD version will be lighter, quicker, and more performance oriented.

 

With a CTS V-Sport 3.6TT around 4.4, wouldn't around 4.9 for the CT4-V 2.7T be about what is
expected? The car probably isn't broken in much. It is not the "real" Blackwing V, if that is what
Jbelant is thinking about.

 

I thought Motor Trend measured 5.1 with their Vbox, and the car instrumentation stated 4.9 sec. Don't know which time is more accurate. I was hoping for a bit quicker, but my expectation may not be realistic.

 

I'd trust the V-box, although I wouldn't be surprised if future tests run a little quicker. GM has always seemed to not let its cars launch as aggressively as the Germans, so that could easily be eating a tenth or few. The trap speed is decent for a low revving 325 HP motor though - 0-60 and 1/4 mile are almost half a second quicker and 4 MPH faster compared to the lighter V6 ATS's, so some progress was made!

Seems that not all of the MT articles were pulled. Here’s a short one, probably an off-shoot from the one they took down.

6 Tech Highlights From the 2020 Cadillac CT4

Cadillac’s smallest new sedan runs large on innovation, with a fancy new type of turbo, a new double-jointed/hard-mounted front suspension, and more.

www.motortrend.com

Nice find! Some neat stuff in there - Stealth Lighting is a stupid easy special thing to do, and I'm really interested to experience the updated suspension design to feel if it strikes a better balance than the non-MRC ATS's. Sadly I'm not sure my dealer will ever stock a CT4-V, much less put one in loaner duty when my ATS is in.

 

Seems that not all of the MT articles were pulled. Here’s a short one, probably an off-shoot from the one they took down.

6 Tech Highlights From the 2020 Cadillac CT4

Cadillac’s smallest new sedan runs large on innovation, with a fancy new type of turbo, a new double-jointed/hard-mounted front suspension, and more.

www.motortrend.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Nice article on the Tech, should have quoted more I guess. I really hope they release it in full and unaltered. The article had a bunch of delicate interpretations of data to say the least, which were clearly meant not to put off potential buyers of the CT4-V. Regardless, it looks like the CT5-V is the one to buy, not even a competition anymore.

They mentioned for the difference in 0-60 time could have been due to the car not being broken in.(5.1 vs GM's 4.9)

Their comparisons between the German manufacturers being better should be taken with a grain of salt, because they haven't had as much time with them as they have had with the CT4-V.

Handling wasn't as confident or impressive as they remembered, but their model was AWD without the MRC.

The performance by all accounts is less than the competitors, but then again it is 5k cheaper.

As mentioned before, it has the least exterior room, but it does have the most trunk space.

The review basically had that zig to it,they were rooting for it hard, but couldn't bring themselves to sell a car that could be a critical and consumer disappointment.

They were however outright impressed with how Caddy tuned a truck engine and had it perform as if it was made for a luxury sport sedan.

 

The CT4-V from the pulled MT article, is photoed in this MT article about testing during CV.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/how...997&wc_rid=4035:1762143&_wcsid=32EC81CA1561C43B126522EAB2C8C7A9E749AE018450CD3D

 

There are now a bunch of Youtube posts on CT4 + CT4-V. Most are watching the car
drive around, not actual reviews.
Sample:

 

There are now a bunch of Youtube posts on CT4 + CT4-V. Most are watching the car
drive around, not actual reviews.
Sample:

Just noticed strong similarities to the C pillar on to the ATS. They moved the glass higher up and the trunk, and then adjusted to the pitch to carry the roof slope down to the rear. The tail lights and side skirts and rims do look very nice. Still disappointing how they made only aesthetic changes, and didn't really take the same effort in making a roomier vehicle, as well as maintaining the handling pedigree.

 

It's back up, for what it's worth:

https://www.motortrend.com/news/2020-cadillac-ct4-v-awd-first-test/

I haven't seen anyone else (mag-wise) post one yet, but will stay tuned!

 

A very re worked version to what was originally written, although its a lot of the same in a prettier way. Consensus remained the same so I guess the authenticity is intact.

 

And now C&D's turn: 2020 Cadillac CT4-V Down on Power, But Not Out

 

And now C&D's turn: 2020 Cadillac CT4-V Down on Power, But Not Out

Sort of a short review...didn't go into a lot of depth, but clearly C&D is impressed. The article's tag line is: "The Cadillac CT4-V loses nearly a third of its predecessor's horsepower and is, in many ways, better for it."

 

I noticed that CD gives an estimated 0-60 time while MT actually tested it. 5.1 is disappointing for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Melissa Grady (CMO - Cadillac): "We're pulling our advertising"

Motor Trend: "We'll reword it"

Melissa Grady: "See that you do, and send it to us before you publish"

Motor Trend: "Will do"

 

I think it's pretty odd that only Motor Trend and Car & Driver reviews have been published. When the CT5-V reviews dropped, they ALL dropped at once...6-7 outlets.

 

New MT comparo between the CT4-V and the Merc A220:

Cadillac CT4 vs. Mercedes-Benz A 220 Comparison Test

Specs, features, and driving behaviors comparison. Which is the better entry-luxury sedan?

www.motortrend.com

 

I finally saw the CT4 gauge cluster in this article - just like the one in the XT6 loaner I have, and man is it terrible. Tach way out of the way, DIC down from 3 info boxes to 2, they acknowledge the speedo is useless by always posting the speed on the top screen, fuel tank and temp gauges are nightmares to look at on the road (I wasn't sure exactly how the fuel gauge was going to work until it was "down" an eighth. Hopefully the HUD rescues some usability, but GD they really punted on these Alpha re-hashes. For all the heat the ATS/CTS CUE center stack got, at least it was very unique and stylish - new Cadillacs just look like a focus-grouped rehash of what every other mainstream brand has now for design.

 

After the absolute, Fischer-Price DEBACLE of the ATS (and CTS base) gauge clusters, you guys are dogging on these!!? You guys clearly have short memories. I'm disappointed they don't offer a TFT in the CT5 (at a minimum) like the recent CTS, but these gauges are decidedly serviceable, and not the embarrassment of the last models. In fact, MT was quite favorable of the gauge cluster in this review. SMH.

 

What is it that so many dislike about the ATS cluster?

 

I liked how ATS has 3 info windows. CT4 has 2 windows, but it does have one
of the most important stats "miles to empty" always there. Other stats don't
need constant watching, unless monitoring a problem.

 

Besides imports using the tablet style CUE screen, I think Cadillac went with that style,
because if the screens keep breaking, they are easier/cheaper to replace than the CUE
screens in ATS/CTS.

Now with multiple ways to adjust/change CUE options, there are fewer needs to touch the
screen, so that should help it last longer.

The CUE screen looked a lot more classy in ATS/CTS, but that design has our dash being torn
apart to replace it.

Possibly the wave of the future is the kind of dash being used in the new Escalade and some
other vehicles/brands.

 

The Car & Driver test car is a RWD model, with the MRC. The MT car is an AWD model, with standard shocks. Cadillac is not positioning AWD in the new Vs as a performance enhancer, but rather as a traction enhancer for those who live with severe weather conditions on a frequent basis. The lack of MRC mirrors the old ATS Premium conundrum: MRC with RWD, no MRC for AWD. The Mercedes and the Audi need the AWD for performance, because FWD can't really handle that level of power, while RWD can. Only recently are BMW and MB adding AWD to their over-powered sport sedans, to help them get 600+ hp to the ground. The M2 and the most recent M3 and M4 are RWD only, like the ATS-V, and the CT4-V probably drives better with RWD and MRC accordingly, except on ice and snow. It's certainly lighter.

The CT4 is quite obviously a reworked ATS, with a slightly longer body and an upgraded interior. I think the extra length may be in the rear, as the trunk is a bit larger, and the opening is larger and more accommodating to large items. The interior is still cramped, unless the front seats are moved forward, but the "competition" is equally cramped. The BMW 3 Series, the MB C Class, and the Audi A4 are all a bit roomier, but a fair amount more expensive. As far as performance, let's see how the turbo lag is. The 2.7 off-boost should have more shove than any 2 liter off-boost, even with AWD. I recently saw an article about the effect of turbo-lag on real world performance, and how the 5-60 performance is more telling than the 0-60 performance, especially when they pre-load the turbos. I bet the CT4-V RWD with 2.7 may run away from the competition with the rolling start. Time will tell. They talked about how the BMW X2 M35i with AWD does 0-60 in 4.6, but 5-60 in 6.4, barely quicker than a Honda minivan (6.6 sec)! Apparently, it takes awhile for the turbos to spool, the transmission to find the right gear, and the AWD to send the power where it needs to go. As a comparison, the Mustang GT does 0-60 in the same 4.6, but 5-60 in a much quicker 5.0 seconds. No contest.

In any event, this might have been called a CT4- V Sport in past nomenclature, like the BMW M-Sport, so I think it's a pretty good effort for the money. It's too bad the rear end is kind of ugly, and the rear upper fenders are so busy. It probably has all of the performance anyone can really use on the street. It just lacks bragging rights.