As with other recent Cadillac products, solid execution, but their aspirational (read. too high) pricing will likely leave it off a lot of people's lists.

Will have to see where the Genesis brand tries to price position the G80 and G90.

Cadillac also has a bit of a mix between $50-$70K with the CTS, XTS, and now CT6 all in there. They're very different vehicles though.

The previous gen CTS was a bit of a tweener, 5 series-ish size for closer to 3 series pricing levels. This current CTS tried to go direct at the 5/E with size and price. Now the CT6 seems a bit of a tweener again, size between 5 series and 7 series, pricing is also between 5 and 7.

Rear Camera Mirror is interesting, but actual usefulness and value to the consumer is still to be determined.

 

I'm amazed that there are people who still buy products from GM. As somebody who used to live in SE Michigan and had connections to the company, I can vouch that they are crooks.

This CT6 already looks 5 years behind the competition. The interior is clearly filled with a lot of cheaper plastics and CUE as always will be mediocre. With the new E-class arriving (with it's fabulous interior) and a redesigned 5-series, A6, and GS not too far away; I can guarantee the CT6 won't be selling much. I said the ATS and CTS wouldn't sell either and was on point.

 

How do you define "solid execution?" A lot of magazines raved about the ATS and CTS early on only to point out their flaws later, including but not limited to sub-par engines, poor infotainment systems, cheap gauges, inconsistent build quality, and unremarkable styling. And while the CTS for example may be priced high on the surface, they are dirt cheap in reality when you look at how much money is being placed on the hood at dealerships. Still isn't moving any units though.

 

At one time, GM was a bunch of crooks, and built junk. So did Hyundai and Kia. But the world doesn't always stay the same......things change. And they certainly did at these companies. The ignition-switch debacle, at GM, for the most part, does not reflect the engineering of their products today, but that of a number of years ago, before the buyout and organization.

 

I hope this sells well for Cadillac. If they get rid of the CUE system and just start from scratch it would probably double their sales overnight. I can't emphasize enough how bad the current system is.

As for the styling, I really wish they hadn't toned it down. Its a rather busy front, but rather plain looking from the rear and 3/4 view. Also I don't get the front headlights, like somebody else had mentioned, it looks like its crying.

I'm sure it will be the best driving car in this class. I've driven a new ATS HARD on a twisty road and must say that the steering is telepathic, no body roll, it felt like I was driving the sedan equivalent of a Mazda Miata. Rode really nice too, no tire slap/thump over big bumps/expansion joints, very quiet.


I really hope they offer the LT4 V8 from the Corvette as an engine option. The twin turbo V6 is a great motor as well, but it sounds like a vacume cleaner. A big old honking naturally aspirated V8 would be one way to distinguish themselves from the Germans if they want to do a sport model.

 

Were the tire PSI's correct? At recommended PSIs, the ATS, like the M3, has a reputation for razor-sharp handling but a stiff ride for the standards of the class. this class.


One thing about the LT4 that may (?) keep it out of a Cadillac flagship is its being (I think) a push-rod engine. Can you just imagine the press Cadillac would get if it stuck a push-rod engine, under the hood of its flagship, in 2016? Chevy's pushrod V8s (with many modifications, of course), can trace their lineage back to 1955. Even in the two-seat XLR roadster (which, BTW, WAS Corvette-based), Cadillac used the DOHC Northstar V8 rather than push-rods.

 

Umm Cadillac currently runs a pushrod 16 valve V8 in the CTS-V. And it gets great press. And it's 2016.

 

I believe Escalade is push rod too. Not too many complaints there.

 

The CTS-V, though, despite its high price, is not their flagship, and is designed for a different group of drivers than would typically be interested in a CT-6.


I myself generally don't care if an engine is pushrod or OHC. But the auto press makes a big deal out of so-called "ancient" technology with push-rods, despite the fact that push-rod V8s tend to have good low-range torque...a feature that a number of American drivers like. Even the push-rod 3.8L V6, especially the surcharged version, that GM used for many years in a number of Buicks and Pontiacs delivered good torque.


Agreed. The auto press is usually more forgiving of push-rod V8s in big truck-based vehicles than in regular passenger cars.

 

^ MMarshall, the LT4 is such a great engine I doubt anybody would care. They don't in the Escalade and the CTS-V, and both of those are priced around what this new "flagship" Cadillac will cost. I'd much rather have the V8 over a turbo six, any day of the week.

GM could have made that the main selling point with Cadillac IMO, a V8 available in any Cadillac you want, both in a luxury oriented CTS, ATS, and CT6 in addition to all the crazy fast V Cadillacs. I'm just not that crazy about the turbo six when GM could've stuck a V8 in there in its place.

 

CAFE requirements are also squeezing some V8s out of the market. That, of course, is the government....not the auto press.

I'm with you that in most cases, I'd rather have a V8 (even a pushrod one) than a turbo six, but I'll reserve further comment on the 3.0TT in the new CT-6 until I have driven one. I will do so as soon as possible...it's on my review list.

In the meantime, if you get a chance to try one out, by all means, let us know your impressions.

 

See that just irritates the hell out of me that automakers are using CAFE requirements to force smaller displacement turbocharged engines with fewer cylinders on us.

Just some food for thought:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find....36966&id=36974

In case that link doesn't work

2016 Cadillac CTS V-sport 3.6 Twin Turbo V6, 420hp, 430lb ft torque, 4000lb curb weight
16 city/24 highway

2016 Chrysler 300 5.7 pushrod V8, 363hp, 394 lb ft torque, 4400lb curb weight
16 city/25 highway

2016 Dodge Charger SRT8, 6.4 liter pushrod V8, naturally aspirated, 485hp, 475lb ft torque, 4400lb curb weight, 15 city, 25 highway

Anyways, my point is Cadillac could've stuck the LT4 under the hood of the CTS V-Sport and ATS-V and it would've met their fuel economy targets. Dodge is getting similar fuel economy out of a HUGE Charger that weighs 400lbs more and has 65 more horsepower.

Also all these new turbocharged engines don't really get the EPA fuel economy numbers in real world driving. The EPA tests are done at very low RPM/part throttle where the turbo engines stay out of boost. In the real world if you get into boost, they guzzle a lot more fuel.

 

It's not just CAFE requirements for pure fuel economy, a lot of overseas markets have higher taxes/fees on vehicles with big displacements. So thresholds of 2.0L's for the smaller engines and now 3.0L's for the larger engines is likely why you see those sizes popping up for everyone.

 

To say nothing of emissions...

 

It's not like Cadillac sells anything in European markets for it to matter. I know they're trying to change that, but they've been saying that for 20 years now, and they move maybe a few thousand cars in Europe a year. They have one dealer in all of England according to their UK website