Looks like it's time for a CT4 Folder in Cadillac Forums!!!

It's weird that the CT4-V is revealed first, but it shows what a standard CT4 will look like.
CT4 looks like the next version of ATS, while CT5 looks a lot different that CTS.

I don't really care about V power, because I am not spending V $$$.
It looks like the new engines are relying on Torque, so they may perform fine at speeds we can drive.

I still don't see other specs on CT4, like length, etc. Hopefully the Luxury + Sport will be revealed soon.

CT4 implies being bigger than ATS, yet news stories like to say it's a BMW 1 + 2 fighter.
They said CT5 would be a lot smaller than CTS, but it's less than 2" shorter than CTS gen 3.
Possibly CT4 will still be a bit larger than ATS. I can't see it being smaller than ATS, in which case it should be named CT2 or CT3.

 

Hopefully, for GM’s sake, its only half the piece of junk that the ATS line is.

 

Interesting engine choice for the V variant, torque curve is typical for a long stroke turbo 4 but peak horsepower is anemic for the V variant and if it yields real world fuel economy relative to its applications in bigger platforms it isn't great. I think this first gen 2.7 turbo is GM's response to the Ford Eco-boost 2.7 and 3.5 which have been very successful engines and it will probably improve in later versions, but in daily driving in the full size pickup version fuel economy was actually worse than the more powerful naturally aspirated 5.3 V8. Maybe the 2.7 will look much better with a lighter load when presumably it won't be under boost most of the time.

The CT4 rear end styling may grow on me but it looks Tesla inspired, hopefully the paint quality (read adhesion) is better Pretty basic electric cars will kill vehicles like this one in acceleration from a stop so the market for a V version of this type may be significantly limited in total size and certainly time.

It could likely lose a couple of inches to the present ATS in total length if the available space is fully utilized, the third gen CTS was a step back in that efficiency metric of total length to effective cabin space. It will be interesting to test drive and I suspect this design was heavily driven by GM's desire for success in the Chinese market which could be a troublesome bet.

 

Also interested in seeing the size specs. Depending on the pricing I may be interested in the CT4-V or CT5-V over the 2020 M3. Definitely want something atleast as big as my ATS or slightly bigger. The thing I'm most looking forward to is supercruise, the German's don't offer this level of autonomous driving in their smaller sedans (yet). Kinda disappointed in the power in these engines considering the V badge.

I really hate the front end. The hood looks ok, but the bumper looks really unappealing to me.

 

Well they did one thing right, the c-pillar window molding doesn't have that kink in it like the CT5 does. Otherwise the CT4 is staggeringly bad, I am just in shock. And this is supposed to be a V? Forget the lack of power, the wheel design is very generic and there is no engraved V in the spokes, the wheel gap is atrocious, the front valence and sideskirts are not aggressive at all, the exhaust outlets look gaudy, the trunk is too bulbous like the XTS, straight on rear view is a box a la Ford Taurus, horizontal headlights look pretty much like an Impala's, and the sidemirrors are straight off an ATS. The ATS and CTS are easily better looking cars, they were clean and simple with a great blend of elegance and sportiness that will age well. I was hoping Cadillac would build upon those cars, instead they gave us these atrocities. Not to mention the ATS/CTS got them the younger buyers they wanted, I don't want this thing. I'll be keeping my manual ATS.

2014-2019 will be remembered by enthusiasts as Cadillac's golden age. I have never fallen in and out of love with a brand so fast. RIP Art & Science design language.

 

I never fallen in and out of love with a brand so fast.

My sentiments exactly..

 

Honestly, it looks fine, but I'm just so underwhelmed by everything they've shown so far. If the LTG is just detuned via software and all the parts are the same, then I guess a tune will remedy the odd step backwards they took with engine power and give us about the same power we get today with a tune. Based on the interior shots, the trans tunnel is up much higher which means, to me at least, there there will definitely be no manual transmission version of the CT4. If true, that means I'm out. I'll be maintaining my ATS or 2012-2018 manual BMW 3-series cars until I can't get parts anymore.

 

Honestly, it looks fine, but I'm just so underwhelmed by everything they've shown so far. If the LTG is just detuned via software and all the parts are the same, then I guess a tune will remedy the odd step backwards they took with engine power and give us about the same power we get today with a tune.

Never mind. After some reading over the weekend, all these new 2.0T Cadillacs are using a new engine, the LSY, so it's not just a detuned LTG. This whole thing feels like a lost cause.

 

I like the looks of my ATS Coupe much, much better than this car.

 

Me too!!

 

I see this as a replacement for the CTS not the ATS. The center console is wider and taller so it's going to feel cramped inside like the CTS. The hint of tail fin in the back lights is not there like the ATS has so there is really no Cadillac signature there. The front is just OK, the back doesn't look Cadillac in any way.

To be fair I don't like any other new cars at this time, they all seem to be going through an awkward phase and the style trend hasn't matured. The thing that surprised me about the 2013 ATS is that the very first one looked like a well conceived and executed design. Like they had let the design team complete it from concept to production without undermining them.

 

I see this as a replacement for the CTS not the ATS.

Well, if they wanted a model to be a true 'tweener, the CT4 dimensions could have been a decent candidate: more compact than a mid-size, generously sized for a compact. I like the CT4 better than the 5...for now...but it's not so compelling that I know it's my next car, or that I would have my heart set on anything Cadillac. For now, it appears that depreciation will continue to be Cadillac's greatest sales tool on the used lot.

As GM has them categorized now:
Group A: MB-193.8″ / Audi-194.4″ / BMW-194.6″ / CTS-195.5"
Group B: MB-184.5″ / Audi-186.1″ / BMW-185.4″ / CT5-193.8″ / ATS-182.8"
Group C: MB-182.3″ / Audi-175.5″ / BMW-174.7″ / CT4-187.2″

Anybody else get the idea that when CT4/5 first started development, they were direct replacements for ATS/CTS? That plan would have been logical.
The specs for the V models announced have surely been under consideration for some time, but most likely intended as V-sport models (just like the CT6 V-sport)...that plan would have made sense.
Both plans would have 'met customer expectations', but both were scrapped. I get the decision to expand the V family, but they desperately needed to announce that change ahead of the launch. It would seem that just as the CT6 V-sport designation was a last minute change, so was the rebadging of CT4/5-V, and all of the discussions happened in (and were limited to) a boardroom somewhere.

Mary: "Hey guys, any ideas how to improve sales over the old ATS/CTS numbers?"
Mark: "Yeah, too bad about those...it's like the V models got all the love...even the V-sports barely got noticed..."
Steve: "Gee, if only all the cars would have a V badge...ha ha ha..."
Mary: "Hey, that gives me a great idea! What if we..."

:v: for the win! ...lol

 

So this is an ATS refresh with new powertrain and electronics architecture. I hope they worked on some of the interior packaging, because they sure didn't seem to change the body structure. This CT4-V specifically seems to replace the ATS 3.6 Premium Performance RWD, but it doesn't seem to advance the yard stick that far - just differently. Glad to see the most up to date MRC (gen 4 now, ATS Prem only had gen 2), but sad that still no MRC with AWD - curious if they even bother with a sportier suspension tune for the AWD as well. So far I don't care for the interior that much - probably because they show it in black; my Morello Red w/CF trim is aging super well, looks sharp and is different from other brands - CT4 seems to have the same beats as most other premium-to premium-ish cars, for better or worse. Exterior is a nice evolution that I like, except those taillights - blegh! I don't know if I'd want to replace my ATS with this, depends on how the motor engages in the real world.

 

This website has Spec Info on CT4 + CT5:
https://media.cadillac.com/media/us...c/home.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2019/may/0530-cadillac-vseries.html

EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS & CURB WEIGHT CT4-V:
Wheelbase (in. / mm): 109.3 / 2775
Overall Length (in. / mm): 187.2 / 4756 * I didn't think it would be smaller.

Overall Width (in. / mm): 71.5 / 1815 (w/o mirrors); 77.7 / 1974 (w/ mirrors)

Overall Height (in. / mm): 56.0 / 1423

Track (in. mm): 60.3 / 1532 (front) 61.7 / 1568 (rear)

Curb Weight(lb. / kg): 3616 / 1640 (RWD, est.)

 

Alpha chassis?

Looks like a warmed over ATS design.

10 sp... I hope they fixed the converter shudder that the A8 had.

Super Cruise - I don't think so. Must Have - "OnStar plan, working electrical system, built-in Wi-Fi Hotspot set to “on,” cell reception, and GPS signal required."

Mag Ride - ask the Corvette guys about it and the cost to replace/repair it.

Wow - 4 pot Bembros all around. My POS car has had that as std for at least 4 years.

New 4 banger... I hope it does better than the 2.0 did in its first 2 years.

No coupe... Shades of the ATS Coupe???

I may test drive one?

 

I've zero interest in a four banger performance version of the ATS. It needed the 3.0TT LGW and instead they dropped in a truck engine?

GM Design under Michael Simcoe is a disaster zone. The 2019 Camaro refresh, and now these two generic-looking Cadillacs. With no sleek lines, no elegance, and no real sportiness, they look like reheated leftovers from Chevy design efforts. The rear end of the CT4 is particularly bad with a multitude of busy shapes and lack of proportion. It does not look like a $50K car.

Even the Kia Stinger's design is far beyond these abominations.


It's also interesting that Cadillac insists on witholding MRC from AWD buyers. AWD buyers nearly all live in the snow belt, which has the worst roads in the nation, and thus the greatest need for MRC. Basically Cadillac managers have decided to leave money on the table by telling customers "we know you want and even need MRC, but we've decided you're not allowed to have it."

Of course they'll send the RWD MRC CT4 out for car magazine reviews, so buyers will mistakenly think they're buying a great handling sport sedan when they buy the AWD CT4, only to find out that it has frumpy old man handling without the MRC.

No wonder JDN bailed out of Cadillac. He must have been furious at the stupidity of GM's stuffy bureaucracy.

 

It's also interesting that Cadillac insists on witholding MRC from AWD buyers. AWD buyers nearly all live in the snow belt, which has the worst roads in the nation, and thus the greatest need for MRC. Basically Cadillac managers have decided to leave money on the table by telling customers "we know you want and even need MRC, but we've decided you're not allowed to have it."

Of course they'll send the RWD MRC CT4 out for car magazine reviews, so buyers will mistakenly think they're buying a great handling sport sedan when they buy the AWD CT4, only to find out that it has frumpy old man handling without the MRC.

No wonder JDN bailed out of Cadillac. He must have been furious at the stupidity of GM's stuffy bureaucracy.

I thought similarly about the MRC. Got interested when in one article it mentioned MRC and AWD available, and then disappointed when the whole story was described in another. Do you suppose it could be a packaging problem (tight space) for both AWD and MRC, or is it just another bizarre poor choice by Cadillac?

 

Wish I could unsee this, hopefully looks better in person.

 

Looks like a hybrid of Toyota's new Corolla's with some korean mix up. Not very cadillac like.

 

RIGHT! It's so weird that the down-market triangle-pieces-at-the-edges-of-the-front-fascia that have mostly been used by Toyota, Hyundai, and Ford, have worked their way up to BMW and now Cadillac. It was ugly before and is still ugly now.

In every case, it's just a piece of cheap, unpainted plastic. It's there to try and make the car look sporty, but I don't see how.

 

I actually think that design trend was started by Volvo, but even the new Bentley has it at their bottom of its fascia.

Whatever the case, when you compare the CT4 V with ATS V it makes me scratch my head on why they renamed it. I was really expecting a bold departure that was either more futuristic like the Escala or a whole new design all together. You would have to really convince some people the CT4 V is the newer model.

 

By the numbers, the CT4 is obviously an evolution of the ATS, though some have noted that the proportions don't quite seem right. They're probably thrown off by the fact that the ATS wheelbase of 109.3" has carried over, while the overall length has grown 4.4" from the outgoing sedan, to 187.2 for the CT4. The shape & size of the passenger compartment is almost a complete carryover, so it's not hard for the CT4 to look like ATS v.2. I'm honestly surprised they didn't use the ATS-L specs, which would have added inches to the overall length as well as the wheelbase, but I guess they went the cheaper route.

Also worth noting:
- the F (60.3") & R (61.7") track for the CT4-V is the same as the ATS coupe
- vs. the ATS sedan, CT4-V width is up 0.4" and height increased by 0.1" (visibly inconsequential)
- front/rear head and leg room in the CT4-V are virtually identical to ATS sedan: CT4 rear legroom is technically less by a few mm
- F (12.6") & R (12.4") brake rotor sizes on the CT4-V are the same size as ATS (CT4-V gets 4-pot rear calipers)
- vs. the ATS Premium AWD, CT4-V's wheel size (18x8) is the same & tire is only 10mm wider (235/40r18)
- CT4 is likely heavier: CT4-V RWD 2.7T is 3616 lbs., where ATS 3.6 AWD was 3629 lbs./2.0T RWD was 3373 lbs.

The electrical architecture and powertrains are obviously completely revamped, but I also suspect that there's a considerable list of parts that continue to be shared with ATS/CTS/Camaro. It would make sense for the CT4 to share the 5x120 bolt pattern with CT5/Camaro, though I suspect 5x115 will continue and give ATS owners a new pool of replacement wheel choices. Prediction: the 4-piston Brembo calipers on the rear of the CT4-V will be a bolt-on upgrade for the 2013-18 ATS...lol. :highfive:

None of this implies that the CT4 won't be a *good* car. When it's marketed against the other entry-level lux entries, it wins by comparison with some extra rear seat space - never mind the fact that the ATS spent the last 6 years being derided for cramped rear quarters, regardless of it's competition. In it's new segment, it matches up as considerably longer (~12" longer than A3, 5">CLA) and heavier than its classmates. That's not necessarily good for performance, but maybe it bodes well for the higher volume trims. The extra length didn't go into the passenger area, so maybe it's in the trunk?

 

The proportion that seems most off to me in both the CT4 & CT5 is the greenhouse. It's bulbous, it isn't raked, it removes any hint of attitude. Second worst proportion is the mom-jeans beltline, way to high with door handles too high and too far back. Then there is the lack of trunk shelf, cementing the impression that screams "I hike up my pants and so does my car".

 

The proportion that seems most off to me in both the CT4 & CT5 is the greenhouse. It's bulbous, it isn't raked, it removes any hint of attitude. Second worst proportion is the mom-jeans beltline, way to high with door handles too high and too far back. Then there is the lack of trunk shelf, cementing the impression that screams "I hike up my pants and so does my car".

So, what's interesting when you look at both cars together, the DLO shapes aren't that dissimilar; interior measurements are so similar that the geometry can't have changed much. But yes, the front handle looks higher, more in line with the rear on a line that's more perpendicular to the ground and the prominently 'flat' body line below the DLO. The diminished rake is obvious, and there looks like more front fender between front tire and hood line. The perspectives in the shots used to compare below aren't perfectly the same, but you can see that the stance isn't as aggressive...mom-jeans at the front axle line - yep! lol. The flatter, more upright nose probably doesn't help things, either. 'Slab-sided' comes to mind...reminds me a bit of the A3/A4 in that regard. ...and maybe some of it's just a bad camera angle?

(Pay no mind to the fuel door on the wrong side of the ATS-V - the image is mirrored.)

 

In this comparison the differences dont look very pronounced and the CT4 is certainly more of an evolution of the ATS design in comparison to the CT5 which to me is a big departure from the CTS design. The CT4 is less offensive to me than the CT5. The CT5's greenhouse is Pontiac Aztek level fail.

I think the crux of why the designs aren't well received on this owners forum is they lack passion and an intangible element of attitude. It's as if the designers used CAD CAM software to "evolve" the previous designs but didn't add any designer flair, no "car guy" touches, no corrections when the program got proportions wrong.

The result is a sterile vehicle with little presence and few brand cues that simply does not get the blood pumping (for me anyway).

 

So, what's interesting when you look at both cars together, the DLO shapes aren't that dissimilar; interior measurements are so similar that the geometry can't have changed much. But yes, the front handle looks higher, more in line with the rear on a line that's more perpendicular to the ground and the prominently 'flat' body line below the DLO. The diminished rake is obvious, and there looks like more front fender between front tire and hood line. The perspectives in the shots used to compare below aren't perfectly the same, but you can see that the stance isn't as aggressive...mom-jeans at the front axle line - yep! lol. The flatter, more upright nose probably doesn't help things, either. 'Slab-sided' comes to mind...reminds me a bit of the A3/A4 in that regard. ...and maybe some of it's just a bad camera angle?

(Pay no mind to the fuel door on the wrong side of the ATS-V - the image is mirrored.)
View attachment 548774

The proportion that seems most off to me in both the CT4 & CT5 is the greenhouse. It's bulbous, it isn't raked, it removes any hint of attitude. Second worst proportion is the mom-jeans beltline, way to high with door handles too high and too far back. Then there is the lack of trunk shelf, cementing the impression that screams "I hike up my pants and so does my car".

View attachment 548772

Completely agree with everything being said. Its even a worse of a thought that GM is intentionally holding back this V model not only performance wise but aesthetically was well. The ride height is ridiculously high and the wheel arches aren't as pronounced as the ATS-V.

Can't wait to see this in person though, to make a fair assessment.

 

Those rear end shots are the perfect example of the weakness of the new design @CadillacGM.

The ATS-V rear end looks totally badass

The CT4-V rear end looks wussy to the max

The Aztek designer must be channeling his flair:

 

The Aztek designer must be channeling his flair:

Lol. This is what I think of. Straight on rear view is just a big block.


CT4_Taurus_ COMP by C B, on Flickr

 

The weight increase with the CT4 over the current ATS is significant, increasing power (although the stated power for the 2.7T "truck" engine is less than the current 3.6 NA) could make up for acceleration but the size/weight increase is a big negative for the nimble steering and braking that makes the ATS special. Making it bigger outside with no increase in interior space doesn't compare with the stupidity of Boeing's critical safety system reliance on a single very vulnerable sensor but it isn't something that would make Einstein proud.

Their cross town rival uses a more powerful 2.7 twin turbo V6 in some of their offerings and nothing I have seen about the new 2.7T inline 4 from GM makes it anything special in terms of power/performance or economy. In Cadillac trim, it looks like it is tuned to produce 10 more peak horsepower than when used for pickups but I think the primary intent of the 2.7T was to be a competitor against the ecoboost in light truck/SUV use and I think they missed the mark there also. In marketability, this engine may be the "8L transmission of the engine world" being a day late and a dollar short compared to well tested existing competition.

Hopefully the CT4 when launched will differ significantly from what is currently showing up on the web.

And that is a great post Ron. All we need is something that pulls in the worst features of the AMC Pacer and the Pontiac Aztek, now they just need to continue to build the infotainment system with the reliability of a Yugo.

 

"now they just need to continue to build the infotainment system with the reliability of a Yugo."

Lol!

 

Wasn't the radio the only thing that worked on the Yugo?
My favorite Yugo joke was that it had a rear window de-icer so your hands didn't get cold while pushing it.

 

Totally! At least the Taurus has taillights to break up the Lego rearview a tad..

 

I have to say I love the current ats-v sooooo much more than this design. and the weight ugh. the new ct4 is a porker with a smaller less peppy engine. I dont really understand this.... were they worried about EPA shiz? not to mention that the back looks like a Chrysler 300...

 

I just want the availability of a manual model. My current ATS lease (3rd in a row) is up 10/2021. Maybe by then the "real" V will be available with my manual shifter.

 

Bottomline... Cadillac has living on 75 year old reputation and China sales.

Just wait till China nationalizes foreign companies like the Saudi's and IIRC Venezuela did. Can't happen? Don't bet on it.

Sent from my LM-Q710.FG using Tapatalk