Cadillac CT6 Mini-Review, my thoughts in general and compared to the LS460
05-22-16, 05:19 PM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Cadillac CT6 Mini-Review, my thoughts in general and compared to the LS460
Stopped by the Caddy dealer today and drove the CT-6, two CT-6s actually, a 3.0TT model and a 3.6 V6 model. The TT car was a premium luxury package stickered at $75k, the 3.6 car was a luxury package stickered at $65k. The TT car was black with a black interior, the 3.6 was crystal white with the cinnamon interior and carbon fiber trim. Like I said, got to drive them both and obviously drove there and back in my LS460.
Exterior:
I really like the styling of the car. Its unmistakably American and unmistakably a Cadillac, and I dig it. Outside all the quality touches you want to see are there. Gloss black trim, high quality liquid metal finished wheels, all the trim is just right, not too much, not too stark. The car looks very low and wide, and looks big and substantial on the outside. Sinister in black, and very classy in white. All the lamp housings are detailed and high quality, very nice. In pictures I know people complained it was hard to differentiate it from the CTS, but in person its not an issue, its much more substantial looking.
Interior:
This is where I was really underwhelmed. As soon as you open the door its immediately apparent that this is not a flagship caliber car. Plastics issues abound inside, door trim is quite poor, especially the B pillars which are grainy, hard cheap plastics with visible mold lines. The door panels below the stitched top aren't quality feeling, black plastic around the door handles/seat controls have no dimension. Lower doors have harder touch plastics. Headlining material is rough, A-pillars aren't padded. Carpeting isn't as plush as you would expect. The 3.6 car has the basic gauges, while better than the terrible 90s era gauge clusters on non TFT CTS models and on the ATS, they look like they belong in a Chevrolet more than a Cadillac. The TFT display is excellent. Seat leathers were okay. The console is very plain looking without any wood or trim adornment. Wood trim quality is very good, grain is deep. The CF trim is also nice although thats not my thing. Stitched dash and doors have no padding behind the material.
Compared to the LS the material differences are stark, the LS has none of these issues, all these plastic areas are matte, padded soft touch plastics or stitched leather/leatherette. Material quality inside doesn't seem a step up from the CTS at all. I would say its a step below the Lexus GS, certainly not to the level of the LS. Certainly not to the level of an A8, 7 Series, S Class which trump the LS nowadays.
The CUE system is much improved, the lag is greatly diminished to gone, I liked the big middle screen, and people who don't care for mouse controllers will like the touchscreen.
Overall the car feels smaller than full size, although the space is there in foot room, legroom, etc. I liked that feel, the windshield is much closer to you than in the LS, and is much smaller. The greenhouse all around is quite short.
Rear seat room is quite good, seats are comfortable but again, finish isn't up to the level of the LS.
Ride and Drive:
Overall I liked the way the cars rode and drove. Not nearly as smooth, refined and quiet as the LS, but I would say moreso than the GS, so sort of in between. The 3.6L isn't especially refined, and doesn't move the car along with the effortlessness that the 3.0TT does, or a V8 would. 3.0TT is a great engine, very smooth and refined, I wouldn't mind that vs a V8 at all.
Ride wise, its a lot lighter feeling and more agile feeling than the LS, while still delivering very good ride quality. Like I said, sort of in between a GS and an LS. Driving on a long highway trip I would easily prefer the LS, but driving around town I might select the CT6 based on feel. The TT car had the magnetic ride control which I think is an upgrade worth the $3k.
Very quiet, not as quiet as the LS but quieter than the GS again as a comparison.
Conclusion:
Overall, I was disappointed by the CT6. I went into the test drives excited about the exterior and the car's personality but the execution of the interior immediately blunted all of my enthusiasm. Ride and drive I was quite happy with, but after having been accustomed to a flagship level car the material and build shortcomings of the CT6 would really irk me on a regular basis. Obviously there are higher trims and better material options, but they don't change the core of the vehicle, those B pillars, the lower door panels, etc. These things aren't an issue between $55-65K, but when you start optioning this car to the $70k-$75K-$80k-$85K area where it will go, these material issues are just inexcusable. From a powertrain perspective, I would definitely want that 3.0TT, but it adds so much to the price that you're at a price point where the car's interior just doesn't hold up IMHO.
To me, this is a $65k car. If it were $65k nicely optioned and leasable between $700-800 a month then it would be really attractive. It would have been a car I would have seriously considered instead of my GS because its more my sort of car, but as a replacement for an LS or other flagship car, it leaves me wanting considerably.
In short, great looking car that fills an interesting niche in the market, but the details and the finish is still lacking, pricing is too aggressive and ultimately this will hold it back from being the breakthrough car that it could be. Its about $10,000 overpriced IMHO...same as the CTS.
Exterior:
I really like the styling of the car. Its unmistakably American and unmistakably a Cadillac, and I dig it. Outside all the quality touches you want to see are there. Gloss black trim, high quality liquid metal finished wheels, all the trim is just right, not too much, not too stark. The car looks very low and wide, and looks big and substantial on the outside. Sinister in black, and very classy in white. All the lamp housings are detailed and high quality, very nice. In pictures I know people complained it was hard to differentiate it from the CTS, but in person its not an issue, its much more substantial looking.
Interior:
This is where I was really underwhelmed. As soon as you open the door its immediately apparent that this is not a flagship caliber car. Plastics issues abound inside, door trim is quite poor, especially the B pillars which are grainy, hard cheap plastics with visible mold lines. The door panels below the stitched top aren't quality feeling, black plastic around the door handles/seat controls have no dimension. Lower doors have harder touch plastics. Headlining material is rough, A-pillars aren't padded. Carpeting isn't as plush as you would expect. The 3.6 car has the basic gauges, while better than the terrible 90s era gauge clusters on non TFT CTS models and on the ATS, they look like they belong in a Chevrolet more than a Cadillac. The TFT display is excellent. Seat leathers were okay. The console is very plain looking without any wood or trim adornment. Wood trim quality is very good, grain is deep. The CF trim is also nice although thats not my thing. Stitched dash and doors have no padding behind the material.
Compared to the LS the material differences are stark, the LS has none of these issues, all these plastic areas are matte, padded soft touch plastics or stitched leather/leatherette. Material quality inside doesn't seem a step up from the CTS at all. I would say its a step below the Lexus GS, certainly not to the level of the LS. Certainly not to the level of an A8, 7 Series, S Class which trump the LS nowadays.
The CUE system is much improved, the lag is greatly diminished to gone, I liked the big middle screen, and people who don't care for mouse controllers will like the touchscreen.
Overall the car feels smaller than full size, although the space is there in foot room, legroom, etc. I liked that feel, the windshield is much closer to you than in the LS, and is much smaller. The greenhouse all around is quite short.
Rear seat room is quite good, seats are comfortable but again, finish isn't up to the level of the LS.
Ride and Drive:
Overall I liked the way the cars rode and drove. Not nearly as smooth, refined and quiet as the LS, but I would say moreso than the GS, so sort of in between. The 3.6L isn't especially refined, and doesn't move the car along with the effortlessness that the 3.0TT does, or a V8 would. 3.0TT is a great engine, very smooth and refined, I wouldn't mind that vs a V8 at all.
Ride wise, its a lot lighter feeling and more agile feeling than the LS, while still delivering very good ride quality. Like I said, sort of in between a GS and an LS. Driving on a long highway trip I would easily prefer the LS, but driving around town I might select the CT6 based on feel. The TT car had the magnetic ride control which I think is an upgrade worth the $3k.
Very quiet, not as quiet as the LS but quieter than the GS again as a comparison.
Conclusion:
Overall, I was disappointed by the CT6. I went into the test drives excited about the exterior and the car's personality but the execution of the interior immediately blunted all of my enthusiasm. Ride and drive I was quite happy with, but after having been accustomed to a flagship level car the material and build shortcomings of the CT6 would really irk me on a regular basis. Obviously there are higher trims and better material options, but they don't change the core of the vehicle, those B pillars, the lower door panels, etc. These things aren't an issue between $55-65K, but when you start optioning this car to the $70k-$75K-$80k-$85K area where it will go, these material issues are just inexcusable. From a powertrain perspective, I would definitely want that 3.0TT, but it adds so much to the price that you're at a price point where the car's interior just doesn't hold up IMHO.
To me, this is a $65k car. If it were $65k nicely optioned and leasable between $700-800 a month then it would be really attractive. It would have been a car I would have seriously considered instead of my GS because its more my sort of car, but as a replacement for an LS or other flagship car, it leaves me wanting considerably.
In short, great looking car that fills an interesting niche in the market, but the details and the finish is still lacking, pricing is too aggressive and ultimately this will hold it back from being the breakthrough car that it could be. Its about $10,000 overpriced IMHO...same as the CTS.
Last edited by SW17LS; 05-22-16 at 05:57 PM.
05-22-16, 05:41 PM
#2
Lexus Fanatic
Thanks for the input, Steve. I have a CT6 full-review myself coming up. Already done the static part, and just have the test-drive left to do. On the static-review, I agree with you on the car's basic good looks (FAR better than the XTS, IMO), its low-stance, the still-complex CUE's improvements, the loose-feeling of some of the exterior trim (especially door handles), and the cheapness of a few of the interior materials. But I have a somewhat higher opinion of the overall interior trim than you do......to me, the dash and door-panel trim seemed well-done, with good materials.
(I also agree, BTW, that the car looks best in the Pearl White...but that paint job is $995 extra. ALL of the colors cost either $495 or $995 extra, except the base silver and black......a ripoff, IMO )
(I also agree, BTW, that the car looks best in the Pearl White...but that paint job is $995 extra. ALL of the colors cost either $495 or $995 extra, except the base silver and black......a ripoff, IMO )
Last edited by mmarshall; 05-22-16 at 05:50 PM.
05-22-16, 05:47 PM
#3
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
The materials are good, but they're not as good as they should be for the car to really be something between a midlevel luxury sedan and a flagship sedan. I'm not expecting quality to the level of the LS, because this is a car that starts $20,000 less than the LS, but I was expecting materials better than those in a GS, or within Cadillac's own lineup than those in a CTS, and I don't find thats the case here. The headlining, carpeting, dash and door material, seat material, door thresholds, out of the way trim, etc should be a step up from that CTS and they aren't.
A loaded CT6 is over $85k. That modestly optioned 3.0TT I drove was $75k. Thats LS money, A8 money, XJ money. The CT6 is a huge step down from those cars inside optioned at those prices.
Optioned conservatively for me a CT6 rings up at $74k. Thats 3.0TT, Premium Luxury, not platinum. No Panaray audio, does have the magnetic ride control which I would want. My LS460 stickered at $79k. I would certainly opt to pay $5k more for the LS. Now if this car optioned this way was even $67-68k, the value would be there and I would seriously consider it.
A loaded CT6 is over $85k. That modestly optioned 3.0TT I drove was $75k. Thats LS money, A8 money, XJ money. The CT6 is a huge step down from those cars inside optioned at those prices.
Optioned conservatively for me a CT6 rings up at $74k. Thats 3.0TT, Premium Luxury, not platinum. No Panaray audio, does have the magnetic ride control which I would want. My LS460 stickered at $79k. I would certainly opt to pay $5k more for the LS. Now if this car optioned this way was even $67-68k, the value would be there and I would seriously consider it.
Last edited by SW17LS; 05-22-16 at 05:56 PM.
05-22-16, 05:58 PM
#4
Lexus Fanatic
The materials are good, but they're not as good as they should be for the car to really be something between a midlevel luxury sedan and a flagship sedan. I'm not expecting quality to the level of the LS, because this is a car that starts $20,000 less than the LS, but I was expecting materials better than those in a GS, or within Cadillac's own lineup than those in a CTS, and I don't find thats the case here. The headlining, carpeting, dash and door material, seat material, door thresholds, out of the way trim, etc should be a step up from that CTS and they aren't.
A loaded CT6 is over $85k. That modestly optioned 3.0TT I drove was $75k. Thats LS money, A8 money, XJ money. The CT6 is a huge step down from those cars inside optioned at those prices.
A loaded CT6 is over $85k. That modestly optioned 3.0TT I drove was $75k. Thats LS money, A8 money, XJ money. The CT6 is a huge step down from those cars inside optioned at those prices.
Last edited by mmarshall; 05-22-16 at 06:03 PM.
05-22-16, 06:00 PM
#5
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Yeah, I'd agree the top-level model is probably overpriced. I'll save any more comments for my test-drive, as I don't plan to drive the twin-turbo 3.0L in the top model. This car probably doesn't need it...the N/A 3.6L will probably be adequate for most driving situations, as it is in the CTS. (and I think the majority of CT6 models will probably be sold with the 3.6L, as for most American buyers, a turbo-four is a joke in a car of this caliber).
05-22-16, 06:07 PM
#6
Lexus Fanatic
You should drive both. I would only consider the car with the 3.0TT power plant after having driven both. The 3.6 is not especially smooth or refined, and if you're comparing cars with V8s, you need that 3.0TT. The 3.6 is fine in the CTS, but not in a step up. It would be like driving the LS with the 3.5L from the GS, its not a refined enough powertrain.
Did you see the extra comment I added, above, about the Continental having enough sense not to use a turbo four even in the base version? I don't quite understand Cadillac's reasoning with their base turbo four....except to maybe help satisfy CAFE laws.
05-22-16, 06:09 PM
#7
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Yeah I don't understand the turbo 4.
Trending Topics
05-22-16, 07:30 PM
#8
Great review.
The biased American rags always talk up the CT6 and other Caddys like world-beaters. They're getting loaded Platinum models to review which cost more than loaded E-classes. A run-of-the-mill CT6 (and even the Platinum ones I've been inside) did not have great interiors. They are not bad, but relative to what the competition is churning out GM is once again trailing behind the big boys. All the buttons and switches are plastic, as are the rear-seat TVs which just look plain horrible (screen included). Which clowns thought putting two different wood veneers on the dash was a good idea? Attention to detail? Sure. Tasteful? No.
The only advantage the CT6 has over cars like the excellent new E-class (with an interior to die for) is a few inches of extra room, otherwise it is outclassed in every measure. The 5-series, A6, and GS are all better cars too.
The biased American rags always talk up the CT6 and other Caddys like world-beaters. They're getting loaded Platinum models to review which cost more than loaded E-classes. A run-of-the-mill CT6 (and even the Platinum ones I've been inside) did not have great interiors. They are not bad, but relative to what the competition is churning out GM is once again trailing behind the big boys. All the buttons and switches are plastic, as are the rear-seat TVs which just look plain horrible (screen included). Which clowns thought putting two different wood veneers on the dash was a good idea? Attention to detail? Sure. Tasteful? No.
The only advantage the CT6 has over cars like the excellent new E-class (with an interior to die for) is a few inches of extra room, otherwise it is outclassed in every measure. The 5-series, A6, and GS are all better cars too.
05-22-16, 07:41 PM
#9
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it.
Its kind of interesting when you look at the stats. Believe it or not, the CT6 is the same length as an LS460L, yet it definitely feels smaller inside than my SWB LS460. Only 2.5" shorter than an S550. I wonder if the reason is the shorter greenhouse.
Its kind of interesting when you look at the stats. Believe it or not, the CT6 is the same length as an LS460L, yet it definitely feels smaller inside than my SWB LS460. Only 2.5" shorter than an S550. I wonder if the reason is the shorter greenhouse.
05-22-16, 09:02 PM
#10
Lexus Fanatic
05-23-16, 05:52 AM
#11
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by mmarshall
Actually, the roof and windows are high enough to give decent headroom and relatively easy entry/exit both front and rear. That's something I noted in my static review.
05-23-16, 05:34 PM
#13
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
All that is completely irrelevant to you (and most) because you LEASE,so you're not paying $5k more or less, the difference is hard to say due to incentives, negotiations, lease terms, mileage, etc., and most people who lease luxury cars do so because they write it off. So in the end it's not about money because if it was, people would drive an ES which is a good value luxury car. People will either like a luxury car or they won't. Is a base s class worth 96k? Probably not, but if someone wants it, and they lease, they'll get it, even though it's 23k more than a base LS.
05-23-16, 05:51 PM
#14
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
The price has a direct correlation to the lease payments too. I noted lease payments in my review. At those numbers a CT6 isn't going to be any cheaper to lease than an LS460 or an XJ, A8, Etc. The net result is the same whether we're talking about lease payments or purchase price.
If I could lease that $75k CT6 for $750 a month is be interested, the interior is commensurate with that, as is the whole package. That car however is going to be $1000 a month, and IMHO the interior can't support that.
If I could lease that $75k CT6 for $750 a month is be interested, the interior is commensurate with that, as is the whole package. That car however is going to be $1000 a month, and IMHO the interior can't support that.
05-23-16, 07:37 PM
#15
Lexus Champion
Bottom line, the LS has one beautifully crafted interior that belongs in a car that costs much more. I sat in the recent F Sport and non F Sport models when I had my GS and was blown away. That would be my choice as well if I needed a car that large.