Repair-It

https://www.motortrend.com/news/2020-ca ... 0496FE1A37

It's funny. The sedan isn't the default, standard car. It is a niche for people who specifically don't want something tall and wagony. Because those are the new defaults.

"We're still very committed to sedans," Cadillac president Steve Carlisle said. People who buy sedans often do so deliberately—they are SUV-rejecters. "Sedans also serve as a gateway to the brand," he said. And there is ample opportunity for growth in key large markets such as China so Cadillac will not be exiting the car market any time soon.

Engine options seem fine. The 3.0TT is from the CT6. Interesting that there is no high output N/A V6 which would seem to slot nicely between the two turbo engines. The new model nomenclature is stupid. A number of torque in newton meters with a T? Good grief. That would have made an N/A V6 seem awkward since it has less torque than the 2.0T.

The CT5 will have a standard 2.0-liter turbo-four engine and optional 3.0-liter twin-turbo V-6. Both are paired with a 10-speed automatic transmission. The new Cadillac is a rear-drive car, on the Alpha architecture, and all-wheel drive will be available on all trim levels.
Under the new badging system Cadillac is implementing, the back end will sport a new badge that says 350T, meaning the 275-hp turbocharged 2.0-liter engine will deliver approximately 350 newton meters (Nm) of torque (295 lb-ft). The 3.0-liter generates about 404 hp and 400 lb-ft of torque, which would require a torque-figure badge that rounds up to say 550T. The "T" denotes turbocharged.

Apparently there is another article on the badging: https://www.motortrend.com/news/cadilla ... -strategy/

Super Cruise. I still like their approach to this. More incremental. It is more clear when the system is supposed to work and when it isn't. And they can focus separately on improving the existing function and broadening the circumstances under which Super Cruise is supposed to work.

The CT5 will have Cadillac's Super Cruise hands-free, highway driver-assistance system during its lifecycle but the semi-autonomous feature will not be available at launch. That is similar to its debut on the CT6; Super Cruise was added for the third model year. All models of Cadillac will get Super Cruise starting in 2020.
On the CT6, take rate of the package that includes Super Cruise was 18 percent initially, but as awareness has grown, the take rate grew to 34 percent at the end of 2018 and is now approaching 50 percent, Carlisle said. Engineers are continually updating the software of the system that focuses on hands-free lane centering, braking and acceleration on freeways but does not do passing maneuvers or tackle on/off ramps.

The 2020 CT5 showcases a new design direction and aesthetic language for the brand, says Andrew Smith, executive director of Global Cadillac Design. The new Cadillac sedan features a wide stance, aggressive front, big wheels, and crisp lines along the side and in the hood.

The Art and Science era still offers rough direction but this car takes it further. That means vertical lights remain, but the taillights have been reinterpreted, in part so that the back end of all Cadillacs don't look the same. Time for more individual character. The car has a wide blacked-out mesh grille, reminiscent of the CT6 and XT6, and derived from the Escala concept.

Inside, it appears there is a nicer grain of wood on the dash and doors. The infotainment system is the next generation of what used to be called CUE with a large screen integrated into the dash and a rotary controller for the functions. In addition to the Cadillac crest, the "Cadillac" script is used throughout the vehicle.
The car follows Cadillac's Y strategy, so the CT5 will be offered as a Luxury or a Sport model, each with a distinct look and ride character.

"Boring sedans are dead," Smith said. "Awesome sedans will be around for a long while." It is a tactic other automakers committed to cars are taking, as well. Hyundai's new 2020 Sonata, for example, is more upscale and dramatic than its predecessor.

Aside from a bid to generally sell more vehicles, I think we will see the upscaling of sedans, with prices to follow. What I'd really want I guess is for sedans to be the cheaper option, and get better dynamics and more performance at the same time. Hopefully, at least for Cadillac, if the purchase of a sedan is a specific rejection of something tall and wagony, then it would be nice to see that Y concept (sport vs luxury) explored fully. Don't build me a sedan that is crossover-like or something dumb like that.

Read through the new badging article. Still seems dumb.

It begins

In a somewhat strange move, Cadillac will add badging to its vehicles that denote the amount of torque the engine produces, but in newton meters.

The move starts with the new 2020 Cadillac XT6, which has a 3.6-liter V-6 engine that pumps out 310 hp and 271 lb-ft of torque. But in newton meters, the torque rounds out to 400—so a badge that simply says 400 will be affixed to the rear of the crossover. All badges will be three-digit, and round the torque output to the nearest 50. They are in addition to the nameplate badge.

The evidence that this was dumb was right in front of them!

Starting with the 2020 model year, badging for vehicles with a turbocharged engine will have the torque number and letter T, as in 350T for an upcoming model, perhaps the one to be unveiled next month at the New York auto show.

To further complicate things, V-Series will have V badging but will not bear a torque figure. Why? In part because the number is too large. The CT6-V, for example, with the 4.2-liter twin-turbo Blackwing V-8 engine generates 550 hp and 627 lb-ft of torque or 850 Nm.

The metric part makes me less mad than the fact that they are badging based on torque. I do agree with one thing: badging based on displacement in an era of turbocharged engines across the line does make little sense. But that's why it should be horsepower. That ultimately denotes how fast something is. Torque will tell you something about the drivability and ability of the engine to deliver more or less of its power at a lower rpm, but will not tell you anything about how fast the vehicle can accelerate. In other words, torque is a useful number when you also have the horsepower number available. But if only one is "available" then you will want to know horsepower. Because torque only tells you the usefulness of the horsepower, or maybe more specifically how much of it is available at lower RPMs than peak. Without also knowing the horsepower, it is not helpful at all. MAYBE, very broadly, you could link the torque figure with a kind of "part throttle drivability" rating, but is that really that important to reflect on a badge?? Especially when you can fool most people on part throttle drivability with some simple electronic throttle tuning?

And a more cynical interpretation is that newton meters of torque yields an integer that is numerically larger than both horsepower and lb-ft on these engines. Because, you know, turn it to 11 and all that nonsense.

I will say one thing that is sort of related. We've had discussions about word names vs alphanumeric names for vehicles. A lot of people say they prefer word names. Honestly, unless you are talking about using names that people have actually heard of, using new words is useless to me. Examples:
- Cadillac Fleetwood. If this was used for a large luxury car, then all is right with the world and I have no difficulty translating the name into a realistic expectation for what that vehicle is. But does everyone agree that a "Fleetwood" is inherently a good thing? Maybe not.
- Subaru Ascent. This is a new name. It is their largest family crossover to date. I have no idea what an "Ascent" is so there is no inherent value in a word name for the model.
- Hyundai Kona. What the hell is a "Kona?" Doesn't help me figure anything out. The name means nothing.
- Chevrolet Blazer. This name actually is a good application after a 10 year hiatus (where even then it was "Trailblazer" because, well, they wanted to change the name)
- VW Atlas. Again, a large crossover thing.

That's just scratching the surface. There are actually a lot of new names and I absolutely cannot keep track of what everything is.

So what is the rule...only use names that were once used before, and preferably for several decades, and just keep using those names forever? That is going to need a defense I think.

And the new CT designation is not useless. Once I understand that CT means a Cadillac sedan, I can pretty easily digest a "CT6," a "CT5", a "CT4" or even a "CT8." And if Cadillac then released a "CT3" I would know what that was supposed to be and where it would slot in the market.

Names don't help you do that unless you specifically can tie a reference to some previous decade where the name hierarchy was understood. Which seems arbitrary.

Why not denote displacement? Displacement is a figure that loses its importance as powertrains migrate from combustion engines to electric motors and batteries

A more accurate and fair assessment is probably that torque is a good figure if it is a replacement for putting a displacement-related badge on the car. I will give them that. And this is more useful than a displacement related badge, maybe.

I'll be sure to put a 600T badge on my V-sport.

I think this thinking is short sighted.

Honestly, unless you are talking about using names that people have actually heard of, using new words is useless to me.

That means they never should have used the word Fleetwood in the first place because it didn't mean anything to the initial buyers, but that also means it would have never meant anything for decades after.

Sure when a brand starts out, it doesn't have "brand recognition", but a brand with a good name is valuable. I am pretty sure companies are very careful about their brand, including its name. That is what a car is. It is a brand or sub-brand. What if Facebook was called CT6 to start. Sure you could say it might not matter, but I think a name has more lasting impact than CT3. There are exceptions. M3 has done well. But in this case, M is a brand.

I just think it will be boring if car companies all go to a letter/number convention.

From reading comments, I have found that some people seem to care very much about names and other people don't care at all. I think I am in the latter camp. If there is a good car that I like (and don't forget that even if the name is "stupid" it is still attached to a main brand), then I am going to seek out information on that name. Maybe the argument is if you are a very casual car person and cannot remember such a complex string of characters as "CTS" then I could see why someone MAY show up in a dealership for "Catera" but not "CTS." That's a dumb argument though because the CTS was truly the superior car in all aspects at the time and that completely trumps the lack of name. It's more like "I heard the CTS was pretty significant, let me check it out." Not "What's that new car thing? Ah well, I can't remember, so screw them, I'm going to the Lincoln dealership (to buy the LS???)." That is a very cynical way to characterize the new car buying process. I'd argue that person was NEVER going to be a serious buyer, so no sales lost.

I guess I don't disagree in general that names are more interesting than alpha-numerics. I will also say that from a global market standpoint, alpha-numerics are more universal than trying to either pass off an English name for a car in a non-English-speaking coutnry or juggle a whole bunch of sub-names. With alpha-numerics, the entire world knows what a BMW 528i is. So that's one advantage when talking about internationally marketed vehicles.

My real issue with names is that I see people argue "we need to bring back Fleetwood and Eldorado and DeVille." Maybe, but why? The last time those names were truly valuable was when there was no real Japanese or European competition for vehicles (i.e. the 60s, before major safety, emissions and fuel economy standards, which crippled most American cars through the 70s). So why would anyone under the age of like 70 really give a crap about those names? I'd argue that the name "Fleetwood" just makes someone picture a 1980s Brougham which was an antiquated vehicle even at the time, and had laughable engine options. Somehow the passage of time without a "Fleetwood" automatically means the name is good again? There were almost zero non-old people in the 90s who wanted a Fleetwood, and now somehow we look back and see broad appeal for the name? I dunno, the whole name management thing just bores me ultimately. I think there are more important aspects to worry about. If a name makes or breaks a vehicle in terms of market success, I really question a lot of things and I'd also ask to point where that really even happened.

I agree that bringing back car names that were tarnished for the last half of their lives is not a good plan. I am saying that cars should have names, so bring back good ones, if the new version is like the old, and it ended on a high note, or, make a new name.

I wouldn't mind if they brought back the Monte Carlo or the Grand National nameplates if the new car was a RWD, V8, or turbo 6, mid-sized performance vehicle.

They can also do new names though and build new brands with quality cars. That is really what I think should happen. I think they will have a more lasting impression than CT6. I mean, they have 3 concept names that could work: Elmiraj, Escala, Ciel, they had the Cien. Buick's concept names weren't bad either.

2020 CT5 first look: https://www.motortrend.com/cars/cadilla ... 97006FEB4E

The 3.0T is detuned to 335 hp, a configuration that debuts with the CT5. Standard trim is "Luxury" which seems reasonable. This seems to be replacing the CTS. I believe a CT4 would replace the ATS.

I just realized that 335 hp is what is available in GM's current 3.6L V6. I guess this is more premium with 400 lb-ft of torque. And honestly the 3.6L, as good as it is, is a very corporate engine so I understand not using it here.

Looks like a CT5-V is possible: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a2715 ... ACYmSgGdkA

The good news is, CT5 looks like CTS if you squint.

Also, they need AT LEAST one extra engine between a V and that 3.0T. The V3 has like 650 hp. Going from 335 to 650 is similar to the jump on the V2 side where it was like 308 hp to 556 hp. Too big of a gap. Oh right. V-Sport. Maybe with the ATS-V 3.6 TT just to give it a bit extra over yours? That would actually be a fairly sensible lineup and all with forced induction.


2.0T 237 hp
3.0T 335 hp
V-sport maybe 3.6TT ~460 hp
V with maybe the CT6-V Blackwing ~550 hp

Eh....ending there does not sound right given where the V3 was. But I do like that there is an engine for every 100 HP range. I would assume there is something in the 600s that they can borrow from the C8 that would be appropriate. It would be the first move away from pushrods for the V line.