Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Cadillac CT6

The 1959 Cadillac Eldorado is the epitome of the American luxury flagship vehicle. With sharp tail fins that soared into the sky, bullet-shaped taillights, and its immense wheelbases, the Eldorado represents the peak of 1950s automotive extravagance. The next four generations of the Eldorado were stately, luxurious vehicles but none quite matched the lavish styling of the iconic third generation. Then, in 1979,  Cadillac's top-of-line models grew smaller and more ordinary looking. The Eldorado, no longer the stunning model of its heyday, went out of production in 2002. Since then, Cadillac's lineup has been devoid of a halo car to represent what the brand is capable of.

Cadillac has hinted numerous times with wild concepts at a replacement flagship. The 2003 Cadillac Sixteen, widely hailed as one of the best concept cars of all time, featured a massive chrome-laden grille and oversized wheels, and a ridiculous V16 engine. Eight years later Cadillac showed off the Ciel at the Pebble Beach Concours D'Elegance. The convertible had rear suicide doors, pointy vertical headlights, and swooping rear taillights. Th Elmiraj Concept, unveiled in 2013, was a pillarless four door coupe, with an aggressive mesh grille, thin vertical lights, and a powerful stance. However, none of these concepts reached production, which brings us to the topic of this post: the new Cadillac CT6.

The new CT6 is not as extravagant as the Cadillac flagships of the past (it starts at just $53,000), but it allows for room above it in the lineup should Cadillac ever want to build a Mercedes-Benz S-Class competitor, or even something to take the fight to Rolls-Royce. However, the new sedan still is quite luxurious, with the front fascia dominated by a immense chrome grille with the new wreathless Cadillac logo. A gaping black lower front grille highlighted by chrome trim and small rectangular fog lamps adds to the imposing, upscale look. The most intriguing element of the front end, however, are the unorthodox headlights. The upper section of the unit is a pretty standard affair for Cadillac, a mix of LEDs and xenon lamps swooping back towards the cabin. The CT6's younger brother, the CTS, debuted an unusual but handsome headlight setup in 2014, where the separate running lights extended the line created by an LED strip in the main unit. The CT6 takes this design cue one step further, with a LED light dropping down from the main unit to become the running light. This made the Cadillac appear as if it is crying, and personally I think it causes the front end to be a bit of an eyesore.

A thin silver bar runs down the bottom of the doors, and while I usually thinks this makes cars look like they're trying to hard to look premium, I think that it works on the Cadillac. This is possibly because the extremely low placement makes it almost look like a running board. Chrome door handles and smooth stately character lines round out an attractive, upright profile. Three creases flow back from the logo across the hood, creating a powerful image. (It makes only 272 hp with the simple turbo I4, but up to 400 when fitted with a twin-turbo V6.)

While the front is a mixed bag and the side is a solid design, I find the rear of the CT6 a bit disappointing. The "Art and Science" design of the swooping vertical taillights certainly is beautiful, but it isn't very different from those on the CTS or new XT5. The top of the line model should be a bit more differentiated from the cheaper cars, or else it doesn't feel as special. The lower rear fascia is understated but very well done. A fine line of chrome elegantly reaches across the full width of the car, sandwiching reflectors with the white bodywork. An translucent reverse light intricately imitates the shape of the grille, and two sets of dual exhaust pipes give the Cadillac an athletic aura.

Overall, the CT6 is a generally attractive vehicle, but sadly doesn't live up to the hype of Cadillac's previous flagships, leaving a hole in the American manufacturer's lineup that if it were to be filled, would return Cadillac to the top of the luxury segment.

Grade
Front: B+
Rear: B
Overall: B

4 comments:

  1. Hi Caleb,

    I love your review on the CT6. I’m the same person who commented on your review of the Continental Concept last year.

    I’ve been a huge fan of Cadillac forever. Historically, they have been pioneers in engineering and design. But I feel as if they’re truly losing it now. I think you hit almost everything dead on about the CT6, from the horrible “crying” front end, to the undistinguished rear end (although it is very pretty, as you said). Almost everything about the car is a complete failure in my book.

    The new naming scheme is idiotic (XT5 and CT6). What does this mean? Are there going to be an XT1, 2, 3 and 4? And a CT1, 2, 3, 4, and 5? They may as well just turn into BMW with their 50 billion cars that all look the same but have a different number slapped on the back! Around 2005 or so, the Cadillac lineup almost all had meaning to it. The acronyms for all their cars had some historic meaning: the DTS/DHS derived from the Deville Touring Sedan, the STS/STS-V came from the Seville Touring Sedan, and the CTS/CTS-V from the Catera Touring Sedan. They eventually stopped supporting these acronyms, but they still held value in the minds of people who remember Cadillac when they actually made the incredible Deville, Seville and Eldorado… Now, all of this is lost.

    Their new designing cues are also completely ridiculous, in my opinion. The running light looks like one of their designers sneezed while designing the front end and forgot to erase the stray marks! Also, the new gaudy chrome slabbed grills that they are putting on the CTS, CT6 and XT5 are just hideous. What happened to the “egg crate” grill that has been a styling cue of Cadillac since the beginning of time? Losing that signature piece is truly a loss to the brand.

    And don’t even get me started on the engine! Are they all insane?! A 4 cylinder or a turbo 6 are the only choices for their FLAGSHIP car? Imagine if Mercedes or BMW did this? Come on guys, it’s a matter of prestige. If they truly believe that the customers of their $53k+ car care about fuel economy, they are just stupid. It should have a freaking Supercharged V8… that would be much more appropriate.

    The concept cars that GM has been producing have been stunning. As you said from Cadillac, the Sixteen, Ciel and Elmiraj are just stunning. And the Avista and Avenir from Buick are equally as beautiful. Not to mention, the public has loved them! So WHY are they not producing these cars? Buick would be a changed company with cars that are actually appealing to people other than the Chinese markets! And Cadillac would finally have a flagship car one again that is gorgeous and clearly defined in price, performance and engineering. Instead they have the wimpy CT6… great.

    I could continue ranting on Cadillac and GM all night, but as it is I’ve had to rewrite this whole thing because I accidentally closed the tab as I was finishing up my last few sentences (grr). So, I just want to quickly praise Chrysler for their work on the new Pacifica. Although I think Pacifica was the wrong name to bring back from the dead, the car is quite impressive. The interior is beautiful and the front and rear ends are quite appealing to my eyes. My only complaint is the small windows… I like to look outside guys, come on! I can’t wait till they add AWD (hopefully)! That would be great for us East-Coasters who deal with a lot of snow…

    Anyway, great work on your blog posts. They are informing to read and you have a great eye! You really do notice all of the small details on these cars. (Although I think your grade of a B is rather generous. I’m sure you can tell I would’ve given it a nice, big fat F)

    Thanks for the great read,
    James

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for commenting James. I agree with you on a lot of your points, although I really do love the CTS, XT5, and new Escalade. The new naming scheme is a pretty bad move in my opinion, because, even though it is easy to understand, I feel like it takes away some of the character from the cars. I think that for the CT6 they shouldn't made it more of a serious S-Class competitor and called it Eldorado. However, Johan de Nysschen recently said that there is room for one, and possibly two, models above the CT6, which implies that a more luxurious model may be in the works. But yeah, I think that Cadillac, and Lincoln for that matter, should stop using their silly alphanumeric names. I want a new Eldorado and Deville and Zephyr (thankfully the new Continental might signal a change at Lincoln).

      In terms of the engine, I was equally appalled to find out the choices they offered. An I4 has no place being offered on a full-sze halo car. V8s definitely should be present, and maybe a V12 would be nice on a CT6-V model. The car is also very strangely priced. Its only $8,000 more than a CTS, and priced almost like an E-Class competitor. However, it is larger than the A6/E-Class/5-Series segment, and the CTS is already supposed to be the Cadillac's model in that segment.

      I also agree with you about Buick's recent concepts, the Avenir and Avista. They have been praised non stop by the public and the media, however, Buick has officially said that they will not make the Avenir and hinted a similar fate for the Avista. Its really sad to see them continue with such a bland lineup.

      I also love the Pacifica, although I also thought it was weird to reuse that name on a minivan, since I thought they would be making a new CUV and other SUVs and could revive it there. However, I still think it is one of the best looking minivans out there. When I see it at the New York Auto Show I will definitely take a bunch of photos and hope to do a post about it.

      Finally, thanks again for commenting and for taking the time to write such great comments. I really appreciate that, it really means a lot. I apologize for not posting as much recently, I have been really bogged down with college applications and finals for school. However, now that I am a second semester senior I plan on having much more free time and posting more often.

      Thanks,
      Caleb Miller

      Delete
    2. Hi Caleb,

      I have to admit I disagree about the CTS, XT5 and Escalade. I think they're incredibly gaudy and appealing to the wrong type of consumer. You're right, the return of the Eldorado would've been kickass (although I would be disappointed if they had put such an infamous name on such an ugly car). I'm very proud of Lincoln right now. Normally I'm not a big fan of Lincoln or Ford, however they are on the ball with the Continental and its styling. Beautiful car with an equally impressive name...

      Again, you're totally right about the engines. V8 at the LEAST and a V12 would be awesome... I think someone would be crazy to take a CT6 over an E-Class.

      Regarding Buick, the only thing I have left to say is a big unhappy face :(

      Can't wait for your review of the Pacifica. I also attend the NYIAS every year, so I'm definitely looking forward to seeing it!

      Good luck with your college apps and such, I'm a junior in HS, so I'll be going through the same thing next year! I really enjoy reading your reviews - no need to thank me for commenting.

      - James

      Delete
    3. You are certainly right that the Escalade is gaudy. I like it in the same way that I like the Mercedes-Benz G-Class: I know its a bit childish to love such a ridiculous, unpractical car, but I still love how badass it is. It's a guilty pleasure in a way.

      -Caleb Miller

      Delete