When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Did yours have flat-spotted tires? I ran into that problem with the one I drove from the same dealership. Took several miles up and down Route 50 (and some back-roads) to get the tires warmed up and smooth.
I still think the Continental's interior, at least from what I've seen of it from images and videos, trumps the CT6's, but I'll reserve final judgement until I actually sit in it.
Yeah the tires were a little flat spotted, it worked out quickly though. That car was on the showroom floor.
That's easily the nicest Cadillac dealer I've ever seen.
Cadillac is doing a nice job of upgrading their current dealerships or opening new facilities. The ones I saw while recently looking at the XT5 were very nice. This is something Lincoln isn't in a position to do right now.
That's easily the nicest Cadillac dealer I've ever seen.
They used to be right in the middle of Tyson's Corner's notorious gridlock on Route 7, but moved out to Chantilly several years ago. They also sold Hummers there until the Hummer Division was dropped.
They used to be right in the middle of Tyson's Corner's notorious gridlock on Route 7, but moved out to Chantilly several years ago. They also sold Hummers there until the Hummer Division was dropped.
I was in Chantilly today on business and drove a few cars, I decided I would have another look at the CT6, this time focusing on seeing what I could get for what I feel this car is worth, which is mid $60s. Take the TT engine out of the equation, and the platinum trim because IMHO it just elevates this car to a place where its just really not a value and doesn't belong. Mid $70s buys you an LS460, a Jaguar XJ, an Audi A8...all vehicles in a different league, and a TT car is mid $70s sparsely optioned, well optioned they are $80k solid. Its not an $80k car IMHO.
If I as a buyer were going to buy a CT6 instead of staying in a flagship car like my LS, I would want to save money, so I figured that $65k was about where I would want to be tops.
As luck would have it, they had a nice one there at the dealer. It was a Moonstone on Cinnamon 3.6L AWD, this was a Premium Luxury car so this had the virtual gauges which is a must. No adaptive cruise or anything like that, no Panaray audio, no active chassis control. Sticker $66k, perfect.
Spent some time with the car and took it on a good test drive, and looking at it as an example of something that I would pay $66k for, meaning I would be in an A6 or a loaded GS or a well optioned 5 series, or an E Class lowly optioned with a 4cyl I came away feeling more positive about the car than I did when I originally looked at it. Its a great looking car, really it is especially in the Moonstone. I like the Cinnamon interior actually, although its a shame it only comes with the carbon fiber trim. I would want wood. The car rides really well, not as well as the LS but very solid and refined, very quiet. The 3.6L is smooth and powerful enough. Base Bose audio is easily better than the base audio in my LS. The latest iteration of CUE works well.
I came away from it looking at it a couple different ways:
1. Its $14,000 cheaper than my LS460.
2. Assuming the next LS goes all LWB like everybody else has at this point but Jaguar (A8 is LWB only too if you don't get the S8), a new gen AWD LS lowly optioned is going to be $85k easy, so now its $19,000 cheaper than that and really anything else in that segment
3. It has an American swagger about it that I personally like. Its not going to be ostentatious like a Jag XJ which would be the remaining value flagship player.
4. Inside it is not as nicely finished as the LS, or any of those flagship cars, but at that price savings thats something you can justify. When its a loaded $80k Platinum it isn't, and many of the quality issues remain on that model.
Looking at it this way, the car has a lot of appeal...would I next time go to a car like the one I drove to save ~$15-20k or ~ $300/mo in a lease payment? Yeah...I seriously might. Would I rather have this car than a loaded GS, a well optioned 535, a loaded A6, or a sparsely optioned E300...yeah...yeah I would.
Some pictures of a similar car:
To me, this is Cadillac's path back to greatness. Draw new customers in by giving them more bang for their buck. If they truly make a great car, word gets out, and more people are drawn to the car, as opposed to the deal. Going toe-to-toe on the car itself, right out of the gate, is just not going to get it done.
To me, this is Cadillac's path back to greatness. Draw new customers in by giving them more bang for their buck. If they truly make a great car, word gets out, and more people are drawn to the car, as opposed to the deal. Going toe-to-toe on the car itself, right out of the gate, is just not going to get it done.
The issue is that Americans tend to price things maxed out, and their original thought process is like mine that to do to a Cadillac that they would want a fully loaded one, or at least the 3.0TT which makes the car less attractive price wise.
I think they would have been better off by having the top car be cheaper, or forgoing the TT all together.
not sure what you base that on, except maybe what you do. my experience with others is that they look at base or middle models first.
I spend a lot of time around other people who own expensive luxury cars, I'm basing it on conversations I've had with them about what they drive and new models such as this, plus myself. I don't look at the top trim when I'm looking at something from a top tier brand. My LS is not loaded by any measure, and I never even considered an upper level car. Times I've looked at say an S Class or 7 Series, or XJ I have looked at more basic models because thats what suits me financially.
However, if I'm going to go down to a "lower tier" brand, I'm going to want features and a setup that I otherwise couldn't get in my upper tier car. For instance if I got a Genesis G80, I would want the V8 for sure. In a GS I don't care about having the V8. In a Genesis G90 I would want the V8 and the ultimate package, which has equipment I wouldn't consider in an LS because of cost. In a Jeep, I'm going to want a Summit. If I were to buy a Range Rover I would select something pretty lowly optioned.
Its not about what will get people into the CT6 from beneath, but what will get people out of more expensive Lexus, BMW, Audi, MB models into a CT6 and that has to be value. If I go to that $66k CT6 not only am I beneath that tier of cars where I was before, but I'm also beneath other CT6 models...the upper levels of which aren't a value proposition next to the caliber of car I have now. Does that make sense?
Carmakers agree with this premise, this is why you don't see luxury AND F Sport Lexus models, the loaded MSRP is too high for the US market, because Lexus recognizes it has to be a value player to some degree. Thats why you have a 100% loaded G90 for $72,000...thats $15,000 cheaper than a loaded CT6, and its best case equally as good, perhaps better especially inside (have to see one first).
To me the G90 is perfectly priced for what it is, loaded CT6 should be around that $72k figure, that $88k Platinum TT...
I spend a lot of time around other people who own expensive luxury cars, I'm basing it on conversations I've had with them about what they drive and new models such as this, plus myself. I don't look at the top trim when I'm looking at something from a top tier brand. My LS is not loaded by any measure, and I never even considered an upper level car. Times I've looked at say an S Class or 7 Series, or XJ I have looked at more basic models because thats what suits me financially.
However, if I'm going to go down to a "lower tier" brand, I'm going to want features and a setup that I otherwise couldn't get in my upper tier car. For instance if I got a Genesis G80, I would want the V8 for sure. In a GS I don't care about having the V8. In a Genesis G90 I would want the V8 and the ultimate package, which has equipment I wouldn't consider in an LS because of cost. In a Jeep, I'm going to want a Summit. If I were to buy a Range Rover I would select something pretty lowly optioned.
Its not about what will get people into the CT6 from beneath, but what will get people out of more expensive Lexus, BMW, Audi, MB models into a CT6 and that has to be value. If I go to that $66k CT6 not only am I beneath that tier of cars where I was before, but I'm also beneath other CT6 models...the upper levels of which aren't a value proposition next to the caliber of car I have now. Does that make sense?
Carmakers agree with this premise, this is why you don't see luxury AND F Sport Lexus models, the loaded MSRP is too high for the US market, because Lexus recognizes it has to be a value player to some degree. Thats why you have a 100% loaded G90 for $72,000...thats $15,000 cheaper than a loaded CT6, and its best case equally as good, perhaps better especially inside (have to see one first).
To me the G90 is perfectly priced for what it is, loaded CT6 should be around that $72k figure, that $88k Platinum TT...
Nice write-up - I'm glad you reviewed the CT6- I keep seeing the commercial of the white one with tan interior and thinking how nice it looks. I understand your above thoughts, but I would add:
- I think all car brands are looking to BOTH "push" people in (from a lower-end car) and "pull" people down. I think you are saying for you, based on your current car, Cadillac has to "pull" you down a segment and therefore the compelling event has to be value (you don't want to feel like you're taking a huge step down to save some cash). It's an interesting debate whether it's more difficult to create value by pushing people up in a segment or pulling them down. But I absolutely see Cadillac trying to "push" people up out of 5 series, A6 ,etc. into this car.
- Value isn't the only driving factor, or even the primary one, for a lot of buyers. Some folks with an LS, 7 series, A8, S class may just want something slightly smaller, something that handles different than current car, etc.
I haven't seen the CT6 in person yet but I'm intrigued by the interior and exterior styling- I am also intrigued by the G90 and won't be surprised if it offers the overall best value... I just can't get past the front design (yet). Had an Uber driver pick me up last night in a pretty new Genesis and was very impressed- I'm sure the G90 will be light years ahead of that.
But I absolutely see Cadillac trying to "push" people up out of 5 series, A6 ,etc. into this car.
I think the issue is though those consumers are not likely IMHO to see the CT6 as a "push up" from those cars. For instance, when I had my GS, I would have looked at this car as a way to get flagship size in a midsize price point. The finishes in the interior also send that message, quality wise this vehicle is on the lower end of the midsized market inside, even up in the really high trim levels. Hard plastic C-pillar, lower door trim, finishes around the edges, trim around the IP, etc is grainy plastic, leather work isn't beyond what you find in a nice GS or 5 or high option E300...or even a Genesis G80 (let alone the G90). Those issues aren't present in the flagship class interiors at all. The only thing that IMHO is a step up from those cars is size, and not everybody wants a car that big. The CT6 doesn't ride any better than a 5 Series, A6 or E Class, its no nicer inside and is perhaps not as nice depending on trim, the upside is size if you want that. I personally do but a lot of people don't.
Value isn't the only driving factor, or even the primary one, for a lot of buyers. Some folks with an LS, 7 series, A8, S class may just want something slightly smaller, something that handles different than current car, etc.
Thats just it, it isn't really smaller. Its 204" long, which is 4" longer than my SWB LS460, or about the same length as an LS460L (-1).
People aren't going to choose to leave this level of car to go to the CT6 without a value proposition.[/QUOTE]
I liked the CT6 but if you gave me the choice of one vs my LS460, I would take the LS460, even if the CT6 had a lot more equipment. Certainly I would make the same trade with any car on that list, the only reason I would choose the CT6 is value.
I think the issue is though those consumers are not likely IMHO to see the CT6 as a "push up" from those cars. For instance, when I had my GS, I would have looked at this car as a way to get flagship size in a midsize price point. The finishes in the interior also send that message, quality wise this vehicle is on the lower end of the midsized market inside, even up in the really high trim levels. Hard plastic C-pillar, lower door trim, finishes around the edges, trim around the IP, etc is grainy plastic, leather work isn't beyond what you find in a nice GS or 5 or high option E300...or even a Genesis G80 (let alone the G90). Those issues aren't present in the flagship class interiors at all. The only thing that IMHO is a step up from those cars is size, and not everybody wants a car that big. The CT6 doesn't ride any better than a 5 Series, A6 or E Class, its no nicer inside and is perhaps not as nice depending on trim, the upside is size if you want that. I personally do but a lot of people don't.
Thats just it, it isn't really smaller. Its 204" long, which is 4" longer than my SWB LS460, or about the same length as an LS460L (-1).
People aren't going to choose to leave this level of car to go to the CT6 without a value proposition.
I liked the CT6 but if you gave me the choice of one vs my LS460, I would take the LS460, even if the CT6 had a lot more equipment. Certainly I would make the same trade with any car on that list, the only reason I would choose the CT6 is value.[/QUOTE]
Interesting; had no idea it was that long. I watched a couple of YouTube videos on it and when they showed people getting in the back seat it didn't appear to have as much leg room as a SWB LS. Good points and thanks for the details. I'm intrigued enough to eventually go look at it.
Interesting; had no idea it was that long. I watched a couple of YouTube videos on it and when they showed people getting in the back seat it didn't appear to have as much leg room as a SWB LS. Good points and thanks for the details. I'm intrigued enough to eventually go look at it.
Yeah, it doesn't quite have the same legroom in the back as the SWB LS and it feels lower, which makes it feel smaller inside, but not really in a bad way.
Yeah, it doesn't quite have the same legroom in the back as the SWB LS
you're right it's not the same, the ct6 has much more.
CT6
Interior MeasurementsFRONT HEAD ROOM40.1 in.FRONT HIP ROOM55.8 in.FRONT LEG ROOM42.3 in.FRONT SHOULDER ROOM58.3 in.REAR HEAD ROOM38.0 in.REAR HIP ROOM53.4 in.REAR LEG ROOM40.4 in.REAR SHOULDER ROOM56.1 in.
LS SWB
Interior MeasurementsFRONT HEAD ROOM38.0 in.FRONT HIP ROOM55.4 in.FRONT LEG ROOM43.7 in.FRONT SHOULDER ROOM58.5 in.REAR HEAD ROOM38.0 in.REAR HIP ROOM55.5 in.REAR LEG ROOM35.8 in.REAR SHOULDER ROOM56.9 in.
09-21-16, 06:17 PM
my experience with others is that they look at base or middle models first.
