[CadillacGM]

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.

 

[Phantom14]

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?

 

[RonBaker]

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".

 

[Phantom14]

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.)

 

[RonBaker]

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).

 

[CadillacGM]

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.

 

[RonBaker]

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:

 

[rsingl]

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.

 

[RonBaker]

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

Lol!

 

[SaveTheManuals]

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

 

[RonBaker]

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

 

[OHHEY]

"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.

 

[CBcadiATS]

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...

 

[rsingl]

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.

The funniest WSJ article I have ever read was about the Yugo. Quite a few of them were imported into Canada and after many customer problems the Canadian trade rep called his Yugoslavian counterpart in for a consultation. He detailed many customer horror cases and my favorite was the customer who picked up his new Yugo and tried to fill it up on the way home from the dealer. After pumping in more fuel than he thought the car was supposed to hold he stopped and then found he had filled up the interior of the car with fuel because the connection from the filler opening to the tank was only connected at one end. Another customer had the windshield wiper control and motor repaired 5 times in one month. After the Canadian rep spent most of an hour describing similar cases with no real resolution, the Yugoslavian rep informed him that in his country people weren't allowed to drive cars which they couldn't repair by themselves and he felt the Canadian drivers needed to become better mechanics. Perhaps his son went to work for Cadillac.

 

[mikesul]

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.

 

[oemtech]

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

 

[Phantom14]

Some additional marketing spin that doesn't quite come across the right way. On justifying why the V-series was expanded/diluted:

"There was, frankly, some people who were intimidated by the cars," GM President Mark Reuss said after unveiling the cars last week. "When we did a V series, they were hammers. … There's some intimidation there."

[Automotive News]

...and some additional commentary to read on Jalopnik. This lower-end V model could have passed as a V-sport, or even a top-level Sport trim under the new Y-strategy, but nope, a weaker V will sell because it's not so...'intimidating'? :hmm: Seems to me that's the very least of Cadillac's problems...

 

[Sydtron]

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?

I'm pretty sure the CTS can be optioned with AWD and MRC, so I wouldn't think it is a packaging issue.

- 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.

That AWD 3.6 weight number might be pre-refresh. The 2016-2018 cars weighed a bit more due to structure changes and start-stop equipment - per C&D, a 2013 Premium RWD 3.6 weighed in at 3561 lbs and a 2017 weighed in at 3662 lbs. If the 3616-ish lbs for the RWD CT4-V hold for the real world, it is a slight weight loss.

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...

Weight should be about the same as the Premium RWD 3.6L - see response above. And less peppy, but a lot more torque - as long as lag isn't too bad and throttle response is good, I wouldn't be surprised if the new 2.7T is making 50-100 lbs-ft more real world torque between idle and 5000 RPM over the LFX/LGX. Won't be as fun to run out as the 3.6L, but in the real world I honestly don't get a chance to use that last 1500 RPM in my 3.6L very often. Here's hoping it doesn't fall flat on it's face after 5000 RM!

 

[SaveTheManuals]

Some additional marketing spin that doesn't quite come across the right way. On justifying why the V-series was expanded/diluted:
[Automotive News]

Just because he was intimated by the ZR1 doesn't mean everyone else is intimated by lots of power. haha jk

These models should have been top level Sport trims, or Performance if that's still the name. Then there should have been Vsports above these. And V-series above those. imo

 

[Phantom14]

That AWD 3.6 weight number might be pre-refresh. The 2016-2018 cars weighed a bit more due to structure changes and start-stop equipment - per C&D, a 2013 Premium RWD 3.6 weighed in at 3561 lbs and a 2017 weighed in at 3662 lbs. If the 3616-ish lbs for the RWD CT4-V hold for the real world, it is a slight weight loss.

Per GM, 2013 sedan weights: 3.6L RWD – 3461 lbs. / 3.6L AWD – 3629 lbs. ... 2017 sedan: 3461 lbs. (3.6L RWD) / 3629 lbs. (3.6L AWD) || coupe: 3530 lbs. (3.6L RWD) / 3693 lbs. (3.6L AWD)
Granted, a true apples-to-apples comparison is hard, but if you presume reduced engine weight in the CT4, but add 168 lbs. for AWD, you still end up with a 3784 lbs. CT4-V AWD. I can't see them adding 4.5" of length without gaining something. And maybe the 2.7T isn't so light? GM: "The new 2.7L Turbo engine represents a clean-sheet design for Chevrolet and was developed from the outset as a truck engine." For reference, GM pegged the 2017 ATS-V sedan (assumed base, MT) at 3812 lbs. by comparison.

...less peppy, but a lot more torque - as long as lag isn't too bad and throttle response is good, I wouldn't be surprised if the new 2.7T is making 50-100 lbs-ft more real world torque between idle and 5000 RPM over the LFX/LGX. Won't be as fun to run out as the 3.6L, but in the real world I honestly don't get a chance to use that last 1500 RPM in my 3.6L very often. Here's hoping it doesn't fall flat on it's face after 5000 RM!

I'm sure it's retuned slightly for the CT4, but in the truck, the 2.7T's peak hp comes at 5600 rpm and peak torque falls off after 4000 rpm. I have no doubt that it will get up and boogie - a sub-5 sec. 0-60 is almost assured - but yes, throttle response and the soundtrack are big question marks.