Cadillac Owners Forum banner

1 - 20 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
Cadillac ATS
Joined
·
393 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
368 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Prev: 2018 ATS 2.0T NOW: 2020 CT4-V JR
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
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.
 

·
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
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
368 Posts
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
By Cadillac's own admission, they've positioned the CT4 against the A3 and 2-series....so what's off base?

p.s. By the article's own admission, Cadillac STILL sucks at packaging...terrible rear-seat room as compared to its (slightly) smaller rivals.
 

·
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
By Cadillac's own admission, they've positioned the CT4 against the A3 and 2-series....so what's off base?

p.s. By the article's own admission, Cadillac STILL sucks at packaging...terrible rear-seat room as compared to its (slightly) smaller rivals.
Just an opinion, Mr. Audi. What’s your guess as to why they pulled it?

Perhaps GM decided it’s not going to position it against a front wheel drive Volkswagen, I mean A3, due to its much larger size.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
368 Posts
Just an opinion, Mr. Audi. What’s your guess as to why they pulled it?

Perhaps GM decided it’s not going to position it against a front wheel drive Volkswagen, I mean A3, due to its much larger size.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think it has ZERO to do with size class/model comparison and most likely everything to do with timing. I suspect someone at MT inadvertently "published" this before the set embargo date (don't know if that was supposed to be tomorrow or next month...who knows). I had been expecting these reviews to drop soon, so I wasn't surprised to find it this morning, but was surprised when I looked for parallel reviews from other publications and didn't find any. Now I think we know why.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
368 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Prev: 2018 ATS 2.0T NOW: 2020 CT4-V JR
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Cadillac
Joined
·
8 Posts
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.
 

·
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
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.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
2013 ATS 3.6 Premium RWD
Joined
·
339 Posts
Discussion Starter #14 (Edited)
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.

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.
 

·
Registered
Cadillac ATS
Joined
·
393 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Cadillac ATS
Joined
·
393 Posts
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.
Its more than a fair expectation, sub 5 second 0-60 times are becoming standard when you get into serious performance trims. The Audi S3(288bhp) -4.6s, S4(349bhp) -4.4s, the Merc A35(302bhp) -4.7s, BMW M240i(350hp) -4.6s.

Maybe its just too heavy, or the torque isn't being put to good use. Won't know for sure till we can test drive them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
368 Posts
Its more than a fair expectation, sub 5 second 0-60 times are becoming standard when you get into serious performance trims. The Audi S3(288bhp) -4.6s, S4(349bhp) -4.4s, the Merc A35(302bhp) -4.7s, BMW M240i(350hp) -4.6s.

Maybe its just too heavy, or the torque isn't being put to good use. Won't know for sure till we can test drive them.
Remember this one sample was the AWD model...likely the slower of the two variants.
 

·
Registered
Cadillac ATS
Joined
·
393 Posts
Remember this one sample was the AWD model...likely the slower of the two variants.
Good point, the added 100 kilos is likely to slow it down. The added traction could perhaps be a benefit, especially on run flats. So its a bit of give and take, regardless as a speculator and not a buyer the overall package is so much less appealing than the CT5 sport, let alone the V model.

I'm not saying people shouldn't feel compelled to make the jump, its a considerable upgrade to the ATS in many other ways. However huge buyer beware if people think they are getting similar performance to the ATS-V, or a massive improvement over the 3.6L.
 

·
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
Aren't most of the cars in this class quicker with the AWD model?
Audi? Yes. If it weren’t, it’d be a mess with all that power running thru the front wheels.

BMW? Rear or AWD, the way a proper sport sedan should be based, like the CT4.

Typically AWD has an edge off the line but it’s advantage wanes as speed increases.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
Top