These days, the sedan body style is something of an oddity in North America, with the majority of the auto market dominated by SUVs and crossovers. Nevertheless, GM still offers three four-door sedan models in the U.S., including the Chevy Malibu, the Cadillac CT4, and the Cadillac CT5. Interestingly, the Cadillac CT5 and Chinese-exclusive second-gen Cadillac CT6 both break from the traditional three-box sedan design, offering more of a fastback profile. Which leads us to ask – is that a mistake?
Refreshed 2025 Cadillac CT5
Viewed in profile, the Cadillac CT5 and second-generation Cadillac CT6 present a gradually sloping roofline that falls into the trunk at a greater angle than that of a traditional three-box sedan. By comparison, a three-box sedan has three well-defined sections in the profile, including the hood and front fenders (box one), the cabin, roof, and doors (box two), and finally, the trunk (box three).
Comparatively speaking, the Cadillac CT4 and Cadillac CTS have more of a traditional three-box sedan shape than the Cadillac CT5 and second-gen Cadillac CT6.
Cadillac CTS
Cadillac CT5
The fastback profile on the Cadillac CT5 and second-gen Cadillac CT6 include a more horizontal rear window slope that terminates in a short deck and trunk lid. The design is considered to be sportier and more stylish than a three-box layout, and is without a doubt the current design trend among those few remaining sedans still on the market, offering a more coupe-like appearance.
However, even if the fastback profile is the sedan design trend “du jour,” that certainly doesn’t mean Cadillac has to follow suit. By all accounts, Caddy could opt for a more traditional three-box layout, or possibly even follow a completely different path.
Second-generation Cadillac CT6
What do you think, dear reader? Did Cadillac make a mistake with the CT5 and CT6’s fastback designs? Let us know by voting in the poll below, and make sure to subscribe to GM Authority for more Cadillac CT5 news, Cadillac CT6 news, Cadillac news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Comments
No
The mistake is the Chrysler Sebring C-Pillar…
Depends on the vehicle’s intended audience. Folks over 60, like me, HATE the swoopy styling of sedans, forcing us all into UVs, whether we want one or not. We’re not as limber as we used to be and entry and access is too hard with these low, swoopy cars. For Cadillac, I’d say yes, a mistake. Most midsized sedans and larger are also a mistake.
Cadillac never makes a mistake
No, they look great, like sedans rather than crossover grocery getters.
They look very classy.
CT5 – Not a mistake
CT6 – Mistake
Agree, I like the CT-5 best.
The CT5 is a great looker. I get admiring comments all the time with my CT5-V.
Keep the great roofline of the CT5. I also have the V model and have received numerous thumbs up on the styling.
The mistake is not having the CT6 in the US. Some of us still want a FULL sized luxury sedan. The CT5 isn’t big enough for 4 normal sized adults to travel in comfortably. Forget about the CT4 as the back seat isn’t big enough for a pre-teen to be comfortable in.
Bring the US and the US customers a full sized sedan. Not everybody wants a CUV, SUV, pick up truck, mid-size or small sedan. Take a look at Genesis, Mercedes, Audi, BMW and other brands offering full sized luxury sedans. The fugly Celestiq isn’t something that most of the buyers can afford or want because it’s an EV.
Have you considered looking at the Genesis, Lexus and the Germans? The CT6 is not coming back so stating the same thing over and over on here is not going to change Cadillac’s mind.
Bring back the stylist fins from 50s and 60s.These cars still look boxie to me .Giving the Chinese more selection then Americans is dimb.get rid of the ct4 and have a 5,6 available with better style.Id love to see a Eldorado model with looks from the 50s.
No, looks great in my opinion. Very sporty. Hoping to pick one up in a year or so.
Kinda coo but shoulda built another wagon.
Very true, would jump at a sporty wagon.
Agreed. I’m on my fourth wagon now, I love these things! It’s getting harder to find one, especially RWD only, with less than 125k miles on them.
I’m surprised you can find them at all. Takeup was abysmal. They discounted my V-wagon when I bought it. Total sales of the V-wagon over all years was like 1600. They built them and they did not come. The auto-rags loved them though.
The traditional Cadillac should be a more 3-box sedan… A three box sedan is more formal and reminiscent of Cadillacs greatest pinnacle designs.. Yes there should be a model also with a more raked back roofline to add a sporty look as well . Remember Cadillac’s were known for the luxury of choice!.; not the luxury of take it or leave it!.. .Also to appeal to a wider group of potential buyers you need the additional choices!…
Both generations look O.K. to me. They are beautiful cars. I would buy one, but ease of entry and exit is difficult for many of those of us who have the money to buy one. Sadly, the SUV has many more practical features than a car.
Fast back design is great but why not a sport back or lift back fo more useablity
I believe the younger generation prefer the three-box style as do I. The younger guys at the track are not driving the Black Wings and I know they can afford them. I have a first-generation CTS that is in great shape and is my winter beater work car. It is amazing how many people like that car and can’t believe it’s that old. The front of the CT5-6 is awesome the rear could be better.
NO! Absolutely not. Cadillac & GM is right.
The 3 box design configuration is hopelessly obsolete and out of date. The sedan’s trunk space is also useless with small cargo space.
Not enough headroom, legroom and cargo space in a 3-box sedan! No wonder fewer people buy sedans anymore.
The “4-door Coupe” profile is cool & sportier and here to stay, and also more aerodynamic too.
A lift-back hatch would be greatly appreciated for easy access to cargo space.
The Cadillac Celestig EV has it, and a 4-door with a coupe profile too.
The Celestiq, CT5 and the new CT6 are great looking cars.
Cadillac design is the step in the right direction.
Everything you just said is wrong. A boxy profile allows for more headroom and greater storage space because it isn’t compromised by a slope cutting into the head and cargo areas. This is also why squished and compromised crossovers with fake sporty lines are less usable than boxy SUVs and minivans.
The CT5 is absolutely hideous with a downmarket C-pillar that draws inspiration from entry level Japanese commuter cars. The Celestiq and CT6 get by with massive wheelbases and large overhands that compensate for their elongated DLOs, keeping things in proportion.
You know nothing about anything. Stop talking.
How about bringing out the CT5 Coupe that had line drawings patented by GM? It was nice looking and it would compliment the CT5 Sedans (as a sort of “halo” car.) Better yet, make a few of the CT5 Coupes as limited production Convertibles! Audi, BMW, Mercedes and Lexus all offer Coupes and Convertibles. Cadillac buyers will pay a premium to get them. (Then consider something modeled after the El Miraj concept car by Cadillac.) The C-pillar (“sail panel”) of the CT5 needs much design improvement–this element cheapens the car no matter what the version (Blackwing, V, Premium Luxury or Performance/Base.)
When you arrived in Cadillac, people noticed you, classic inside out, I drive one a sedan
Everything Cadillac has done since they discontinued the DTS, XTS and CT-6 has been a mistake. The Cadillac brand isn’t even recognizable. Where’s the room, the comfort, the ride and the luxury that Cadillac owners are so used to? It certainly isn’t in a CT-4 or CT-5, or in any bumpy SUV for that matter.
Yes, mistake. Looks like a hatchback.
They should make it an actual hatchback. This is a repeat of the 1978-79 Buick Century and Olds Cutlass.
I love my 2016 CT 6. Very disappointed I will not be able to buy another one once I want to trade this in. Great size. Great performance. Just routine maintenance. 90k miles and counting.
No! But then Yes. Huh?
When placed alongside each other, the 3rd-Gen CTS and CT5 basically have similar profiles.
Where Cadillac erred is with the greenhouse design inclusive of that fugly C-Pillar which visually cheapens the look of the vehicle. Whereas the CTS had overall presence, the CT5 is a mixed bag.
It’s a head-scratcher of how the supposed inspiration taken from the Escala was so poorly executed on the greenhouse of the CT5.
Love my 90,000 + mileage CT 6. Great ride. Only car that has come close was my E350 Mercedes, but it didn’t have near the storage space the CT six has. I would buy a new CT 6 in an instant.