The regular Cadillac CT5 is currently offered in three trims—the entry-level Luxury model and, as per Cadillac’s Y-trim level strategy, the Premium Luxury and Sport trims.
All three of these trim levels come equipped with identically-tuned ZF MVS passive dampers, Cadillac CT5 Chief Engineer Mike Bride told our sister publication, Cadillac Society, and unfortunately, General Motors’ Magnetic Ride Control adaptive dampers are not available on them.
To get Magnetic Ride Control on the Cadillac CT5, you’ll have to opt for the performance-oriented Cadillac CT5-V. This is a major departure from Cadillac’s strategy for the ATS and CTS, which the CT5 indirectly replaces. Those two models offered Magnetic Ride Control as an option on non V-Series models, giving customers a bit more choice both on the options list and when behind the wheel.
As Cadillac Society points out, this is the case for the CT5 with both the 2.0L turbocharged LSY four-cylinder engine, as well as models equipped with the twin-turbocharged 3.0L LGW V6. With all three regular CT5 trim levels using the same suspension configuration and having the same available powertrains, the Luxury, Premium Luxury and Sport trims are essentially exterior appearance and equipment packages. The only real performance parts that set the Sport apart from the Luxury and Premium Luxury models are the standard Brembo front brakes. Again, there are no differences in the suspension between the Luxury, Premium Luxury, and Sport trim levels.
The CT5-V’s Magnetic Ride Control system is the fourth-generation version of the technology (Magnetic Ride Control 4.0) and features V-series specific tuning. You can expect the upcoming CT5-V Blackwing model to feature the same Magnetic Ride Control system with the same or similar V-Series tuning.
The Cadillac CT5 hasn’t even launched yet, so it’s possible GM is planning on adding Magnetic Ride Control sometime in the future. Automakers often add equipment and make refinements to models with mid-cycle updates, so we’re not ruling out anything just yet.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more Cadillac CT5 news, Cadillac news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Source: Cadillac Society
Comments
– This part of comment moderated due to being irrelevant to topic at hand –
That said this is yet another situation of GM “cheaping” it’s way to success. MRC is fantastic and regardless of the “take rate” or customer awareness it makes the vehicle better. It should be standard on all Cadillacs as aren’t they supposed be better. I had an ATS 3.6 Premium with it and loved it on long trips.
Pathetic…
Passive damping is fine for base models. Those who buy these cars don’t care for active suspensions. Shoot these people don’t even know anything about their car outside of the badge and CarPlay and the lease payment. Those are the most important factors. Active or passive damping is alien speak to these customers… and only truly starts to matter when you’re talking about mild and high performance versions.
This is a good report and a good do know but your comment is much ado about nothing. BMW, Audi and Mercedes all do the same thing.
Rob is exactly right.
The customer profiles of those who buy the base-level cars in the D-segment support this decision. For the most part, these customers couldn’t tell you how many cylinders their car’s engine has, let alone what kind of suspension system is has. Similarly, they’re also unable to tell the difference in suspension while driving. They buy the C300s and A4s and 330i… all powered by four-cylinder engines… all with passive dampers.
In order of priority, these customers care about 1) the status the badge brings, 2) the lease payment and 3, 4, 5) a few in-vehicle tech features. You can sell them a Chevy Cruze with a BMW badge, a 2.0L turbo engine and some better NVH levels… and they would not know any better. Hence why the Acura ILX and TLX continue to sell… hence why BMW and Mercedes sell so many base 3/4 Series and C-Class models.
In that regard, what Cadillac is doing by offering passive dampers on the base-level is actually spot on for the customer who will shop and buy these vehicles. The passive ZF dampers are very good… and Cadillac did good work to tune them. Ultimately, there’s no point of including a feature that the customers a) will not appreciate and b) that costs more and eats into the margins of the product.
Now, there exists an opportunity to offer a sport package with Magnetic Ride Control on the 350T and 550T models. My first ATS 2.0T Premium had MRC, so I speak from experience here. However, I also recognize that I am the exception to the customer in this space, not the norm. Hence, 350T and 550T models could eventually offer an optional sport package that includes MRC… but it’s far from a priority at launch.
PS: Xjug – the first part of your comment was moderated because it was irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you have questions, I encourage you to use the contact page.
Rob is not correct, that is his opinion as is yours Alex. My perspective is actually more valid as I have direct experience. What you’re saying Cadillac should just follow the leaders MB/BMW and NOT offer MRC? Can they not do something to improve vs simply follow especially with a proven superior technology that is on their parts shelf, very little $ needed to fit the new products. My comment states regardless of customer awareness or “take rate” it makes the car better, and Alex should know that. Specifically if Cadillacs simply resemble MB’s or BMW’s in every category… why buy the Cadillac?
Alex says he had an ATS 2.0 w/MRC… I had a ATS 3.6 P w/MRC… I simply do not understand the thinking behind taking a great, vehicle enhancing technology and NOT using it to make your cars better… it fits the track record of continuing to miss opportunities to advance the brand.
xjug – do explain what makes your [woefully misguided] perspective “more valid”. Is it the fact that you owned a car with MRC? Great, congratulations!!! Did you also perform market research associated with the CT5? Have you ever brought an automotive product to market and performed the associated work? Every single one of your comments here on GM Authority indicate that you have never done any of that… and have never come close to doing it, either. That, my friend, makes your comment invalid. It also makes your perspective pure conjecture and opinion… poppycock, in other words. You can have an opinion… but it doesn’t mean it represents what’s actually taking place in reality.
Like I said, the overwhelming majority of those who buy entry-level luxury cars do not care for suspensions. They are basic customers who are buying on badge, payment and a few features. That’s the grave reality of the matter as dictated by data, not by the baseless conjecture that you’ve been spewing. If you think otherwise, then you are simply misguided. Go ahead and study up on purchase priorities of these customers. Spend some time poring over data. Live in a dealership and interact with customers.
Now, there is a small subset of customers who do care about and want advanced suspenders on a semi-base luxury model. You are one of those customers. I am one of those customers. But make no mistake of it: WE ARE NOT THE MAJORITY. We are the minority. To that end, these customers are better served by the newly-repositioned CT5-V – which has MRC along with the FE3 sport suspension. In fact, this is the entire reason the CT5-V has been positioned to be an entry-level luxury car. In fact, the CT5-V is the spiritual successor to your ATS 3.6L with MRC (Performance, Performance Luxury and/or Premium trims). The CT5-V will be priced similarly to the ATS 3.6L Premium, but will deliver a better overall experience.
Cadillac is not “following” the Germans or whatever other nonsense you’ve chosen to try and explain what’s going on. What they’re doing is taking a very mindful, strategic and targeted approach to winning in this segment based on the lessons learned from the ATS and CTS, and based on the automotive luxury environment. If the result of those efforts resembles what the Germans are doing, then it’s a good thing, because they have come to that level independently. It’s called competing and satisfying market demand and customer expectation. Clearly there will be some similarity. Are you going to try and spin that in a negative light, too?
So (Rob and Alex), your generalization is that those of us who don’t like to check all the option boxes just don’t care or we are inept when it comes to cars. Got it.
Not sure what you mean by that, Dan. Care to elaborate?
Nobody is calling anyone inept… just explaining the general conditions of the market at large. Nothing more, nothing less.
Alex, my point is that is seems like you and Rob above seem to diminish anyone who wants a more basic car into a group of people who care and know very little about cars, engines, suspensions, etc. A generalization.
I’m a person who doesn’t like sunroofs. I don’t care for a lot of extra stuff on my vehicles. Yet, because I’m not willing to spend a lot more for those items, I’m then told that I can’t get some things that are important to me. For example: I love a quiet interior with an isolated ride quality. I also love a super sound system. However, in the more base cars, you can’t even order (in GM’s case) the Bose sound. Why? What that tells me is GM feels that only people who are willing to step up can appreciate those types of things. Also, because I love a better ride quality with more isolation, I would certainly be a person who would step up for the MRC on a base car. This would be especially important on a car like the CT5 since they have decided that everyone wants large rims with low profile tires. However, I don’t want anything even close to a V-series or sport package just to get the MRC. Kind of like paying more for the worse ride quality (my opinion) and then paying even more for the MRC just to help improve the ride. Pure stupidity.
Now I’m sure your next thought is that I may be one of just a small number who feels this way and actually know more about cars than just where the gas goes. However, I don’t at all agree with you there either. Can you share some of the studies that GM or others have done backing this theory? I ask because I’ve been in the auto business now going on my 18th year now. I’ve sold thousands of cars (Buick, Cadillac, GMC, Honda, Chrysler, Jeep, Ram, Dodge, Chevrolet, Volvo and Mazda along with about every brand of used out there). I’ve worked on the service side for a short time. I’ve worked in the parts side. I’ve worked as a service writer too. My personal experience has shown quite a different side from what you and Rob claim. To this day I work with customers who walk out because they become so frustrated with the restrictions and how they can’t get what they really want. So this is why it would be very helpful to see some type of study on this subject.
I also understand this is not just a GM issue. Want the Bose sound in a Mazda 3? Great, now you get to have vinyl seats (leatherette), the larger rims (yes, with a huge penalty in ride quality), and a bunch more stuff along with the $3,000 price jump that comes with it. Want the R-design XC40 Volvo? Great. But now you have an overly large hole in your roof with the guarantee that Volvo will be replacing the sunroof within the first 2 years. Oh, and once again you get the larger rims with low profile tires along with the guarantee that your rims will be trashed within a year. Don’t want that stuff or the larger price tag that goes with it? Great, so why did you like the R-design? Oh, you like the black roof with the two-tone appearance? Sorry, can’t get that in the Momentum. So my point is that people do care and there are certainly a lot more out there frustrated about the process just like me. What I don’t think you, Rob, GM or the many other brands are taking into account is the amount of people who just walk away and end up buying another brand that may fit their needs better.
I hope this elaborated without getting too long.
Dan – I can’t speak for Rob… but for my part, there is no diminishing of anything or anyone. It’s a simple understanding of the market and a simple statement of fact that you seem to have misinterpreted.
For the most part, those who opt for the base model of vehicles are not looking for the utmost in anything. As I have stated several times already, the base-level luxury cars are purchased based on three primary factors:
1. The badge and status that said badge delivers
2. The lease payment/terms/residual
3. A few in-vehicle features (typically surrounding infotainment)
This is what drives the majority of sales in this particular segment (C- and D-segment lux cars). It doesn’t say anything subjective about these customers but is instead a simple statement of fact.
I performed deep market studies around this when working for a research firm contracted by an automaker, and once more when working in marketing for a regional dealer group (non-GM automobiles). That work resulted in the dealer and then the region completely changing the way they ordered their cars, configuring vehicles differently than before (particularly in suspension and wheel configs). They no longer followed the national ordering suggestions, but instead made their own. Those efforts ultimately resulted in a region-specific package being created by the automaker that impacted several states and about 150 dealers. All of this also surfaced during my employment at GM proper, though it was not my responsibility.
As I have stated in an earlier comment here, a passive damper is capable of delivering the best, most comfortable ride ever. In other words, having MRC does not automatically deliver comfort. Instead, it delivers a very good balance between sport and comfort, and tends to be on the sporty side, even in the softest mode. So, if utmost comfort is the ultimate goal, a properly-tuned passive damper is the way to go. But again, all depends on the tuning.
The more important question is whether or not that kind of experience is what the majority of the target customers are looking for. To answer that – they are not. Most luxury car buyers are looking for a solid balance between comfort and sport from a ride/suspension standpoint. To that end, MRC helps provide a bi-modal balance… but many entry-level buyers won’t appreciate it, or even be aware of it as a feature.
Alex,
Thanks for this info to help better understand where you are coming from. May I ask a couple things: First, who were the people in which this study covered? Again, based on a large span of time and brands, I’ve never had anyone ask me nor have I encountered anyone that has been studied for such things. So what is the test market used?
Second, my point may have gotten lost in all this. It’s not that I’m upset that they will not be offering MRC on the more base models. It’s that they are determined to fill the wheel wells with larger rims/low profile tires. Thus, a higher need for MRC. Hell, for me personally, I’d prefer 16″ (nice looking) rims with more tire and the passive damper system.
But thanks for giving better insight into this. BTW, I posted on the Corvette article from August 19th about the Bose sound. You can read that if you have time, but overall question is if you have any insight into GM cars and Bose vs. standard. That would be a terrific article.
I don’t understand CT5 politics. Base price is 36000 USD but the following model CT6 costs 58000 USD. There is a big price gap.
The CT5 covers the spaces of the ATS and CTS… which is why it’s an indirect replacement of both models.
I would think of it this way: the lower-end CT5 models replace the ATS while higher-end CT5 models replace the CTS. Conversely, the lower-end CT6 models replace the higher-end CTS models.
Hence, they’re using one model- the CT5 – to stretch further between the D- and E-segments… while the CT6 picks up some of the higher-end E-segment. Let’s not forget that the E-Class starts at $54,090, and the base CT6 offers more everything than the base E. It’s your typical “tweener” positioning.
I could see it trickling down to the Premium Lux and Sport trims a few years after the CT5 has been out, maybe as a refresh.
Side note – if the upcoming Escalade is a sign of things to come then there’s hope for Cadillac. Didn’t JDN say it would take 10 years to get Cadillac where it should be? Or at least that’s what his plan was. Let the SUVs bring in the cash to bankroll the next generation of vehicles
The CT5-V RWD (with MRC) is the spiritual, though lesser-powered, successor to the RWD CTS V-sport (with MRC).
The CT4-V (with MRC) is the spiritual, though slightly better-powered, successor to the RWD ATS Premium Performance (with MRC).
MRC is confirmed unavailable with AWD on the CT4-V, so I’d expect the same for an AWD CT5-V. That the non-V cars come with passive dampers (FE2 suspension) comes as absolutely no surprise, and MRC (historically code FE3) won’t be available on lower trims at any point in the model run…the same as it was with the ATS/CTS. Remember, ‘V’ doesn’t mean what it used to. 😉
Very interesting. I recall a while back talking about the large rims with diminished ride qualities and how having less rubber between the road and rims makes the ride too harsh. In that exchange (on here btw), someone made a point to me that MRC makes all the talk about tires/rims a mute point. They praised how good it is, and I can affirm the effect (good) that MRC does have on the cars as I’ve sold Cadillac’s with it and without. So I do agree in part with the statement that person made back then. Now here we are learning that the 3 base models of the CT5 will not offer MRC. Yet, they all have the same overly large rims/low profile tire sizes to contend with.
Tell me again how this isn’t just another sign of Cadillac pandering to the much smaller number of people desiring the sportier side of the brand? All while leaving those of us wanting a more tranquil and isolated ride to look elsewhere.
I don’t think it’s too far of a departure. I remember that the only CTS and ATS models that had the magnetic shocks were the Premium and the V. It’s more or less the same here, just with different names.
“Tell me again how this isn’t just another sign of Cadillac pandering to the much smaller number of people desiring the sportier side of the brand?”
That’s not what’s happening.
MRC tends to be on the sporty side of damping technologies, even in the baseline “tour/touring” mode. In fact, if luxury is ALL that one is looking for, a passive damper can do the job perfectly. What matters is how that passive damper is tuned.
Now, the CT5 uses 18-inch wheels on the Luxury and Premium Luxury models as standard. 19s are optional two levels into the packaging. 19s are standard on Sport only. The 18″ rims are not “large” – they are now standard on luxury cars in this segment. So, a small wheel with more tire plus a passive damper that is likely tuned to deliver a good balance between sport and luxury is EXACTLY the opposite of “pandering to the much smaller number people desiring the sportier side of the brand.” Instead, it’s pandering to a significant wave of potential customers that an all-MRC setup would have prevented, or would have necessitated a different tune for an extra-soft mode… while raising the cost of goods sold.
Those desiring the sportier side will want the CT5-V or CT5-V Blackwing.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one Alex. I not only have a ton of automotive experience in sales, service and parts, but I’ve also had more new (and used) cars over my years than I’d prefer to admit to. 18″ rims are not small, and in order to achieve the look and proper wheel to opening ratio, the sidewalls are quite thin (55 series or less). Although this looks nice, it offers little to no protection against curbs or potholes. This is certainly a trend that the American brands have fallen into by trying to be German and sporty. They absolutely could design just as nice a looing rim in the 16 to 17″ size. And I guarantee that there are many people out there just like me who would be willing to pay just a little more for MRC in a more base/luxury (non-sport) model.
Dan – are you seriously advocating for 16/17 inch wheels?
If that is, in fact, what you’re arguing for and it’s not April Fools day, then you’re going to have an extremely tough time selling 16 or 17 inch wheels to buyers of modern luxury cars. Most of these customers do not want small wheels as they don’t think they look good. And most do not mind the ride that is associated with 18 inch wheels and 55/S tires.
It’s really as simple as this: take two equally-specced luxury cars. Same color, same trim level, same everything. Put one a 16-inch wheel and put the other on an 18-inch wheel. Put them side-by-side and let the customer choose which one they would buy. The overwhelming majority is not going to go for the car with the smaller wheel based on aesthetics alone. They won’t know the size of the wheel, nor will they care. They will simply prefer the look of the car with the larger wheels.
There are a few who want more sidewall for a softer ride…. but don’t kid yourself into thinking that these customers are anything more than a small minority. That’s also the case for those who care about AND are willing to pay for MRC on a base-level model. Those do exist as a minority… and their demand can be satisfied with an active suspension package at any point during the car’s lifecycle.
I would also encourage you to keep in mind that the ATS didn’t offer Magnetic Ride Control until the highest trim levels. For 2019, MRC was only included with Premium Performance models… which means that the 1) base model, 2) Luxury, and 3) Premium Luxury trims did NOT have MRC. That’s three ATS trims that made do with a passive damper, yet nobody was all up in arms about that… why is it any different with the CT5, which is a spiritual successor to the ATS?
Yes. I am totally advocating all brands to OFFER 16 and 17″ rims with higher profile tires. Just not totally ugly ones.
If you take two identical cars side by side and put 16″ (identical style rims) on one with higher profile tires and 18″ identical rims with lower profile tires on the other, I’ll bet you would have at minimum a 50/50 split. The problem Alex is that nearly all brands purposely (I feel) design very ugly rims in the smaller (under 18″) sizes. This is probably done on purpose to cause the buyers to do exactly what you suggest above: Go with the larger rims. Hey, they are in this for the money. I get that. But suggesting that an overwhelming majority would take the larger rims sounds like opinion to me. Do you have any type of study showing this?
Again, my personal experience shows quite a different story.
Wow, that perspective is as far from reality as it gets. I’m really surprised a sales person would present such a standpoint.
You can offer the best-looking 16 inch wheel, but the majority of customers will prefer a larger wheel (17/18 and above). This was resolved 10-15 years ago by clinics performed by pretty much every automaker around the world. Based on these studies, we now have bigger wheels, with cars being able to accommodate those larger sizes via changes in body design and suspension engineering.
The rough synopsis of the study is this: bigger wheel = more desirable car. Doesn’t matter the model or the segment, this is pretty much a universal thing, though it’s not a linear thing (people do not want donks, of course).
No one will show you results of confidential clinics, and neither will I, though I have been part of them and have seen consumer reactions to different designs. Wheels play a major part in the perception of a design.
With every automaker is now offering larger wheels and to great success, but only a few are complaining. Those few represent exceptions to the rule, not the norm.
In fact, those who want smaller wheels want smaller wheels not because they look better than a larger wheel. Instead, they want smaller wheels for secondary reasons – such as a softer ride afforded by greater sidewall, etc.
How is this even up for discussion? This has to be opposite day or they have let the loonies out of the asylum.
Yes most people want bigger wheels. Nobody wants tiny wheels no matter how good they look, this is common sense for crying out loud. An observation of automotive trends over the past years will show you that people want larger wheels. You have to live under a rock or in a very secluded bubble not to notice this trend.
This is your typical horse vs. car argument. The majority of people have moved on from small wheels and want larger wheels much like most people have moved on from horses and want cars.
What studies do you need Dan? The proof is that every automaker is offering larger wheels and people are loving it. It is a ongoing trend for years now. Only a few holdout luddites like yourself are trying to argue in favor of going in the opposite direction and the only reason you’re doing that is because you want a cushy ride but that’s not even the optimal solution.
My current S550 has 19″ wheels and my old S400 has 18s. Both ride better than anything that rides on 16 inch wheels without looking ridiculous with tiny wheels and major unused room in the wheel well room. Both cars can also handle a corner which is more than you can say of a car on 16″ wheel with tons of sidewall. My CT6 Platinum on 19s rides like a dream. Like Alex states the key is tuning the damper. Tune it right and it feels great. Tune it wrong and it feels wrong, even with small wheels and tons of sidewall. Cadillac tuned everything perfectly in the CT6 which is why I’m on my second one.
Most people want bigger wheels because they look better. An invisible minority wants smaller wheels but for all the wrong reasons. These people like Dan should be arguing for softer suspensions instead if smaller wheels and even then they’re a ridiculously small minority. No wonder customers walk out of your showroom when you try to force them into getting a stupid-looking car with small wheels. How someone who supposedly sells cars doesn’t understand the basics of consumer preferences is beyond me. My guess is you’re really new to the auto game or are really old to want tiny wheels. LMFAO it has to be opposite day!!
@opposite day:
Are you done with your condescending post? Good. I’m glad you were fortunate enough to be able to afford such expensive cars. Not all of us are that lucky or have the golden spoon handed to us.
I’m going on a limb here and can only assume that I have more experience than you only based on what you are saying. Whatever. But because you are late to this discussion, I’ll save you the time and let you know that nowhere have I suggested the auto industry go back to smaller rims. Not even close. What I have been fighting for and my personal experience with many clients has been the need to give customers a choice. If the people are like you, then great. Let them spend their big bucks and buy the fanciest brand/car/model with the biggest rims their heart desires. The many people, myself included, who don’t want the bigger rims should not be forced to take them or go someplace else.
Let’s put some perspective on this. Let’s say you have your favorite restaurant that you have been going to for many years. You walk in one night to find that the entire menu has changed and now only offers plant based food products instead of the steak or seafood you loved. You call your wait staff over to ask what happened to the menu, only to be told that a major study was conducted and the “majority” of clients now prefer plant based burgers and vegan dishes instead of steaks. You do what? You either make a choice to eat what they decide to place on the menu or you leave and find another restaurant that fits your liking. But when the craze catches up with that restaurant too, then what?
I’d hope in my silly example that you would fight for what you like and want. I hope you make the suggestion that they offer both plant based items as well as steak and seafood. That would make sense. But to say that major studies have been done confirming that people all want bigger rims is just not accurate. And by the way, I am and have been very successful in the automotive world. People are not walking out because I attempt to “sell them smaller rims”. I do my very best to present the benefits and features of whatever brand/model I’m selling. When people walk, nearly every time it’s because they can’t get what they really want and don’t want to spend thousands more for the stuff that matters little to them. And yes, it often has to do with wheels, radio systems and sunroofs.
This sounds like cost-cutting to me. (Then again, so does a four-cylinder engine, but the CTS had that, too.) If it were up to me, I’d couple the 2.0T four with the passive dampers. It’d be the basic CT5 package, if you will. All models with the 3.0T V6 (and, I hope, a V8 at the CT5-V top end) should have Magnetic Ride Control. It just rides better.
Another detail that bothers me on the CT5 is that black panel on the C-pillar behind the rear door window. My 2015 Chevy Cruze has the same. That black filler is fine on the Cruze, but it cheapens a luxury car like the CT5. In fact, with that black panel, the CT5 looks like nothing so much as an overgrown and tarted-up Cruze. Here again, I blame cost-cutting. I much preferred the late CTS, even if it wasn’t a big seller.
Beeeeeeeean-Counters at it yet once again. But I get Flack for calling GM out for moves such as this.
GM DOES NOT know what they need to do with Cadillac. It is Mind Numbing and embarrassing. So simple. Offer More for Less. Grow your customer base one Model Cycle at a time. It took Audi years to get to the level they are now. And they are Printing Money for the VW Group. Come on GM, get with it. It shouldn’t be this hard.
But we get what we get because GM went the Purely Cheap Route and utilized yet again a Sub-Par Structure instead of an All New from the Ground UP program which was needed and we got the MCE ATS I mean CT4 and the CT5. I guarantee you that internally even GM is embarrassed with how they have treated Cadillac.
Cadillac deserves so much more. It is Shameful.
Your point of view is on the extreme end of the “glass half empty” perspective, eh?
Offer more for less? Cadillac is doing EXACTLY that.
– The CT4, CT5 and CT6 are bigger cars with more interior room than their direct competitors. Is that not the literal definition of more for less?
– All Cadillac models in the range offer more standard features than the competitors, especially when it comes to in-vehicle technology (see how much you have to spend to get a decent infotainment system in the German models). That’s more for less.
In fact, configure the Cadillacs to feature parity with the Germans, and you’ll see the Cadillacs being less than the competition, while offering more.
Why would you recommend a ground-up overhaul of models that actually needed exterior and interior refreshes? Indeed, the ATS and CTS were perfect from a driving dynamics and architectural standpoints. What they needed was a more modern exterior and interior, and revamped positioning. That’s exactly what happened with the CT4 and CT5. There’s no need to redesign the wheel when all that needs to be fixed are several spots on that wheel. They learned from the ATS and CTS… and delivered targeted improvements. Whether or not you choose to see it that way is your prerogative… but what I’m outlining is the reality.
As for passive dampers on the base-level CT5 models, that’s par for the segment. Why would you offer a feature that the overwhelming majority of your customers don’t care about, or even know about, or would e we appreciate? Does that sound like a good business move to you? It certainly isn’t.
Since you brought up deserving more, let’s talk about the fact that Lexus is discontinuing the rear-drive GS and replacing it with a front-drive, nose heavy ES. Lexus has also introduced a three-row RX with the same exact wheelbase as the regular RX, making for the worst three-row luxury crossover in the industry. Lexus’ large SUVs (GX and LX) are going on what, two decades now, of riding on the same platform. Toyota’s Lexus deserves more… but nobody is crying foul. But no, it’s GM/Cadillac that are doing everything wrong… pinching pennies… letting the bean counters win… etc. sounds like a text book definition of a double standard. Is that about right?
Nobody complains about Toyota n Lexus here because we care about Cadillac and want it to be the best it can be, and it is clearly not.
Oh and those Toyota’s are iconic products that continue to sell. Perhaps Toyota/Lexus should change their names and confuse everyone like GM does…?
“Nobody complains about Toyota n Lexus here because we care about Cadillac and want it to be the best it can be, and it is clearly not.”
You missed the point by a mile. The point is that GM/Cadillac seem to be treated with a double standard. When they’re doing the right things, there will be those (like yourself) who cluelessly say they are doing thing the wrong way. And when they’re doing things the wrong way, you will still say they’re doing things the wrong way. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. This phenomenon simply does not exist for other automakers, such as Lexus, who are most definitely doing a lot of things “the wrong way” lately.
I’m all for criticism when it’s deserved and I’m often the first to point out flaws when it comes to GM. In fact, that’s how GM Authority was started! But in this case, it’s not deserved whatsoever. You just happen to have an opinion about it… an opinion based on falsehoods and lack of information… and you’re spewing it every which way possible.
“Oh and those Toyota’s are iconic products that continue to sell. Perhaps Toyota/Lexus should change their names and confuse everyone like GM does…?”
The Lexus GS was consistently the worst-selling model in its segment. The Lexus GX and LX and are consistently the worst-selling vehicles in their segments… and yet you say the “continue to sell”.
Do you see the double standard?
Please let me know where they’re doing the right thing? Perhaps “now” they’ve got pricing right but:
1 – Quality (my ATS was recalled about 9X – never had any car ever recalled let alone 9X),
2 – Customer service – Stinks, Dealers – Stink…. got my car back dirtier than when I took in in
more than once…
3 – Styling – lack luster – COULD / SHOULD be bolder, give us stunning-gorgeous, why make ehh?
4 – Technology – I always liked CUE but seems few other did…
5 – Value – my 2013 ATS 3.6 Premium was $49K but it was on paper a better car than the C Class,
3 Series, and A4, at launch cept the next year all of them were revamped and the ATS really
never was…
6. Warranty – ehh….
7. Interiors – consistently reviewed as sub par – Motor Trend called the XT6 a “nice car” but not a
luxury car… and MT likes everything…
8. Powertrain – NVH has always been an issues especiallly with the 6’s and the 4’s don’t quite
have the balance of the Europeans.
9. Cadillac website – Go to Volvo they have high resolution photos, gorgeous shots, make the
web site a visual delight… currently its ehh…
10. Portfolio – the current portfolio of CUV’s are all slightly tweaked GM platforms and there is nothing special there. Cars are exclusive but are really not very special in any category…
11. Did I miss anything?
I don’t think folks here bi%ching is a double std, again, we just wish GM would dust the competition. BUILD the CIEL or build a CUV that is the equivalent of the Ciel in terms of styling and excitement. Build vehicles that excite like the El Miraj did. Don’t twist my words, though I’d buy and El Miraj I’m advocating vehicles that excite, like those did… There is nothing on a Cad lot that excites except the CT6-V (now that the CTS-V is gone), and that vehicle has been treated like a redheaded step child…
Yes yes, nice list. I can provide you a similar list of issues for my MBZ SL AMG that I recently sold (thankfully). Heck, my list with the Mercedes will be even longer… and a more costly undertaking, too. At least when GM recalls its vehicles, its does so across the board. Mercedes issues service bulletins on a vehicle’s suspension and then expects the customer to pay for it (to the tune of $8,000-$10,000).
The goal you’re referring to needs to be adjusted: Cadillac’s goal should not be only to “dust the competition”… but to also turn a profit while doing so. It’s easy to “dust the competition” when a firm has no profitability targets and doesn’t care to make money (Tesla is the prime example). GM and Cadillac are a business. They don’t exist to serve one’s every single need. They exist to serve their customers while making it worth their while.
If the current batch of Cadillac sedans doesn’t excite you, then so be it… though I find that very strange. The CT5 delivers MASSIVE improvements in every single area over your ATS… does that not excite you? Or maybe the question should be… “what does excite you”? And as a follow up, does doing what’s exciting to you a worthwhile, money-making endeavor for Cadillac/GM?
Also do realize that Cadillac has two ultra-high-performance vehicles in the works that will slot above the CT4-V and CT5-V, aka the CT4-V Blackwing and CT5-V Blackwing. If these two soon-to-come models don’t get you excited, then I’m not sure what will.
This and the CT6 reminds me of the Buick Avista concept that never made it to production. :-(((((
“The Cadillac CT5 hasn’t even launched yet, so it’s possible GM is planning on adding Magnetic Ride Control sometime in the future. Automakers often add equipment and make refinements to models with mid-cycle updates, so we’re not ruling out anything just yet.”
The opposite is also true as in XTS. Which BTW I swapped out 20’s for 18’s on mine for a huge ride improvement in the traditional Caddy sense. On the CT5, a comparison test drive is in order. If I like it, I may trade my XTS for a new one despite the tiny trunk.
Alex has a point here. “MRC tends to be on the sporty side of damping technologies, even in the baseline “tour/touring” mode. In fact, if luxury is ALL that one is looking for, a passive damper can do the job perfectly. What matters is how that passive damper is tuned.” We bought out Impala LTZ and XTS Plat at the same time. I could not get over the feeling that the Impy had a seemingly more comfortable ride than the XTS with the same 20″ tires on both. Also, the XTS brochure’s Mag ride description mentions “handling and control” not comfort.
I will say this, MRC is an amazing technology! It is not suited for most daily drivers, luxury or not, big wheels or not! If you look at the licensees of the tech you can see exactly where it is suited, performance, racing, and off road applications. It has nothing to do with choices/models a new buyer makes. That is the problem, GM included it because it is an amazing technology but now they see the error of their ways by including it only on performance models as it should be!