Is The New Cadillac CT5 Hot Or Not: Poll
Sponsored Links
It’s no secret that sedans are falling out of favor with consumers, but that hasn’t stopped GM from introducing the 2020 Cadillac CT5 – a new sedan set to replace the Cadillac ATS and CTS and take on the BMW 3 Series and Mercedes-Benz C-Class in the D segment. The brand announced the CT5 ahead of its official debut at the New York International Auto Show next month. While concrete details are not plentiful, Cadillac released a few CT5 photos, and there’s been much debate about the car’s overall design.
Many of the design elements on the Cadillac CT5 have carried over from the Cadillac Escala concept, including slim headlights with both horizontal and vertical elements, along with a large grille with a shield-like execution. The horizontal part of the lights is new, and was definitely something that came across from the Escala.
The side profile is where the CT5’s fastback-like appearance, long hood and axle-to-dash ration, and relatively short rear deck truly come to light. Though the sloping roofline gives the new Cadillac CT5 a fastback-like appearance, the vehicle retains a standard trunk opening as opposed to a hatch. The sloping roof also flows into one of the more controversial design elements of the new Cadillac CT5 – the C-Pillar treatment, which many readers don’t find particularly attractive.
The rear end borrows from the Escala concept, with thin taillights that – like the headlights – adopt horizontal and vertical lines. The overall design is sporty and luxurious, while delivering an evolution of Cadillac’s current Art & Science design language.
So, what do you think of the overall design? Is the new Cadillac CT5 a step in the right direction for the brand in terms of styling, or not? Vote in our poll and sound off in the comments.
Subscribe to GM Authority (it’s free!) for the latest Cadillac CT5 news, Cadillac news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Sponsored Links
Ever since arts and science, the Cadillac sedans have all had a polarizing look. Aside from the C-pillar, this is one of the more coherent designs in a while.
Unfortunate that the sport trim, which I would prefer, looks Altima-ish.
But I could overlook it if the engine and chassis deliver the goods.
Combine the two negative poll choices and you have the same voting percentage as the negative choice. Definitely a polarizing vehicle and that is on a GM enthusiast site. I am worried the somewhat dated slab-sided look might not fair well in the rear world of Mercedes styling and tech and of course BMW, etc.
Some of us with stats backgrounds see the manipulation of poll answers choices quite easily.
Overall, I like it other than that little C-pillar issue. I’ll just take mine in the dark maroon lux package shown where the C-pillar doesn’t show as bad!
Its hot.
I happen to be one of the few who is leaning towards the “attractive ” side of things with the new design. I also believe the C-pillar piece that everyone seems to be irate about is actually glass (not a window) and not plastic as many assume it is.
I like Cadillac’s design language, I thing it makes more of a statement than say Mercedes, infinity, Lexus, Acura, BMW. I like the straighter lines, they age better IMO vs swoopy/bubbly.
In the end I think waiting till the car debuts this month and gets out on the road will give us a better feel for this car than just a few pictures.
I am about 70% on the car. Its okay. It looks better than the Q50, marginally better than the IS. The new 3 is not bad but nothing ground breaking. The new C is right on the way. I must say that the new Volvo S60 is pretty hot.
A4, 3, CT5, IS, C, Q50, S60, Stinger, G70, TLX, Giulia, XE.
I should’ve bookmarked the site but it indicated that supposedly there’s some type of Cadillac inscription in the plastic black trim of the C-Pillar.
Since the initial reveal, I was trying to see if the C Pillar design would grow on me; it hasn’t. Just pulls the overall design down quite a few notches. What could’ve been a dynamic design is compromised by what looks like a cost cutting maneuver.
Over at Inside GM, someone posted revised designs that run rings around the current design. Kinda sad when someone who doesn’t work for GM can design a better car than GM’s own.
It’s not hot.
The Buick LaCrosse Avenir that is shown side-by-side with CT5 on the GMA headline page is a much sexier vehicle. It looks great and is the best looking production Buick in quite a long time.
The CT5 has the awkward plastic C-pillar trim, slab-sided body, and overly extended, hatch-like roof line that all contribute to a cheap look. The roofline looks like GM’s ill-fated 1978-1979 Buick Century and Cutlass Salon that also attempted to present a fastback look but with a conventional trunk; buyers hated them and they were quickly redesigned. Looking at the CT5 in profile, I can’t help but think I am looking at the reincarnation of the 1978 Buick Century sedan with some Saturn Ion mixed in. The biggest problem with the look is that it doesn’t have an expensive visage. It’s most unfortunate and impossible to believe that after all the lead-up and hype from Johan de Nysschen that this the actual car. If it’d been revealed today, I’d swear it was an April Fool’s Day joke. Alas, I think they are serious with this thing.
I like it. I said before I’m not sure if this is what a Cadillac buyer is after but I can say for certain a Chevrolet buyer would love it. It really does look like a modern Chevrolet Monza. In coupe form this thing would sell big time IMO, in sedan form it should do well too. I always loved the Monza. Much like the second gen Camaro (which I think is very much Avista like in modern interpretation), I preferred the European influence of those Chevrolet’s. So hopefully it will work for Cadillac.
It needs a refresh already to fix the gaffe of that C pillar.
I was really hoping this was an early April fools joke and don’t find this car hot in any way. It’s okay front and back but the sides are way too generic and that C-pillar combined with the fastback look make it seem like a cheaper car and that is not a good thing at all.
The front and rear profiles look powerful, cool and aggressive. The side profile looks just like my neighbor’s 2018 Nissan Altima. Maybe in person will look better?
The front and back are hot. If the inside is hot and the way it drives is hot, who will care about
the C-Pillar.
Maybe they are going for a look that appeals to younger buyers.
I am wondering if the newer 2.0T will perform up to the 2.0T that ATS/CTS has had? It should exceed it!
Otherwise the 2 engine choices will be between not fast enough and faster than most need/want.
Well, who wouldn’t want to pay $50k to $60k for a 4 cylinder car with black plastic window plugs in the C pillar. Drop in an upgraded Chevy interior and we have a winner!
Squint your eyes and it looks like an old Saturn Ion. I think the front and back look fantastic, but they really struggled with the rear 3/4 side profile. They could put a quarter glass in the c-pillar and things would look way better, but then you’ll loose some of the quarter panel structural rigidity. The problem is trying to get the rear seat headroom where you want it, which requires raising the roofline and causing an unattractive c-pillar. I really believe that if they were to solve the c-pillar area, this would be a great-looking car. But again, I’m probably wasting my time typing this, as my comments don’t usually get posted.
I’m not sure . Guess I need to see how that side profile works with the rest of the car . It has a bit of a Chevy look to it , but I know the price won’t reflect that notion . Also we haven’t seen a good picture of the interior where it will either sell well or not . If Cadillac went to GM’s parts bin and cheapened it by using Corporate parts and nothing totally new sales will suffer as a result . So it’s a wait and see………
I’d like to see something that would really stand out on the road: a formal roofline. Not as severe as the 76 Seville or 79 Eldo, but I’m sick of the continuous curve greenhouse. Who cares about a half mpg on a $50k car when you can get more head turns and more headroom?
They should have stuck with all-vertical taillights and used LEDs to make the headlights so, as on the Ciel and Elmiraj.
The car looks OK but I certainly wouldn’t buy it, and this if from a long-time Cadillac customer. If like the XTS and CT6, it will be cramped for room inside and underpowered. As we can see, it looks like a turtle, like every other sedan being made these days. I hope Cadillac does well with it because I want Cadillac to succeed, but don’t expect to find one in my garage.
I think the CT5 is a nice looking car that look even better in person. I’m certain by the time the car goes into production alot of things may change. As it says on the cadillac website this is a pre-production models, actual production model may vary. So there you have it the C pillar may not make it to the the actual production car.
As a CTS owner I love the front and back—–a little iffy on the side view from the rear of the front door on back.
I cannot help it but it looks small, especially from the side… It could have looked like an Audi A7 in profile, but instead it looks more like a Japanese car. However, the front and back are nice looking.
Overall I still prefer the CTS and CT6 looks. The side is… well, cheap looking, especially on the sport version. Will stick to my 2014 CTS a bit longer.
Anyone want to guess at what the shape is between the rear headrests? Very large if it’s a dash screen.
Hasn’t anyone picked up on the fact that this is an April fools joke?
if only you weren’t kidding !!!!
I’ve bought or leased 16 new Cadillacs since 1980, including 5 CTSs , but I am not not replacing my 2017 CTS with a CT5. It looks like a Chevy Cruise !!!