- MotortrendThe 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.
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.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.
By Cadillac's own admission, they've positioned the CT4 against the A3 and 2-series....so what's off base?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
Just an opinion, Mr. Audi. What’s your guess as to why they pulled it?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.
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.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
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.
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!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.
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.
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
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.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.
Remember this one sample was the AWD model...likely the slower of the two variants.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.
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.Remember this one sample was the AWD model...likely the slower of the two variants.
Audi? Yes. If it weren’t, it’d be a mess with all that power running thru the front wheels.Aren't most of the cars in this class quicker with the AWD model?