2010 Cadillac Escalade Esv Lux Awd Sunroof Nav Dvd 61k Texas Direct Auto on 2040-cars

Auto blog

The future's electric — but the present is peak gasoline. Burn some rubber! Do donuts!

I vividly remember the year 1993 as a teenager looking forward to getting my driver’s license, longingly staring into Pontiac dealerships at every opportunity for a chance to see the brand-new fourth-generation Firebird and Trans Am. Back then, 275 horsepower, courtesy of GMÂ’s LT1 5.7-liter V8 engine, was breathtaking. A few years later, when Ram Air induction systems freed up enough fresh air to boost power over 300 ponies, I figured we were right back where my fatherÂ’s generation left off when the seminal muscle car era ended around the year 1974. It couldn't get any better than that. I was wrong. Horsepower continued climbing, prices remained within reach of the average new-car buyer looking for cheap performance, and a whole new level of muscular magnitude continued widening eyes of automotive enthusiasts all across the United States. It was all ushered in by cheap gasoline prices. And as much as petrolheads bemoan the coming wave of electric vehicles, perhaps instead now would be a good time for critics to sit back and enjoy the current and likely final wave of internal combustion. Today, itÂ’s easier than ever to park an overpowered rear-wheel-drive super coupe or sedan in your driveway. Your nearest Chevy dealership will happily sell you a Camaro with as much as 650 horsepower. Not enough? Take a gander at the Ford showroom and youÂ’ll find a herd of Mustangs up to 760 ponies. Or if nothing but the most powerful will do, waltz on over to the truly combustion-obsessed sales team of a Dodge dealer and relish in the glory of a 797-hp Charger or 807-hp Challenger. Want some more luxury to go with your overgrown stable of horses? Try Cadillac, where you'll find a 668-horsepower CT5-V Blackwing. You could instead choose to wrap that huffin' and chuggin' V8 in an SUV. Or go really off the rails and buy a Ram TRX or Jeep Wrangler Rubicon 392 and hit the dunes after a quick stop at the drag strip. Go pump some gas. Burn a little rubber. Do donuts! There is nothing but your pocketbook keeping you from buying the V8-powered car of your dreams. Yes, just about every major automaker in the world has halted development of future internal combustion engines in favor of gaining expertise in batteries and electric motors. No, that doesnÂ’t mean that gasoline is going extinct. There are going to be gas stations dotting American cities and highways for the rest of our lifetimes.

Cadillac CT4 Luggage Test | How much fits in the trunk?

If you go by exterior specs, the Cadillac CT4 is more similar to a BMW 3 Series or Mercedes C-Class. However, if you go by interior space (or price), it's more like a Mercedes A-Class or BMW 2 Series Gran Coupe. That's definitely true of the trunk, which measures a rinky-dink 10.9 cubic feet, according to GM's specs. That number is what you'd expect in a small luxury coupe rather than a sedan. Indeed, the old ATS Coupe had 10.4 cubic feet.  Nevertheless, the CT4 is somehow not the smallest in the segment. That would be the A-Class and its 8.9-cubic-foot trunk. Good grief. Now, Mercedes has been known to shortchange its cargo capacity numbers so we'll have to luggage test that at some point to know for sure. Today, let's see if the CT4 is in keeping with that 10.9 number. Also, how much worse is it than the also rinky-dink CT5 trunk or the overly optimistic 2 Series Gran Coupe? Yep, that looks pretty small. Also, note the weird rail-like things that hampered the CT5 (below right) are also present here in the CT4 (below left). There's also a similar lip to clear for the folding back seat, but the CT4's opening seems bigger.  As in every luggage test I do, I use two midsize roller suitcases that would need to be checked in at the airport (26 inches long, 16 wide, 11 deep), two roll-aboard suitcases that just barely fit in the overhead (24L x 15W x 10D), and one smaller roll-aboard that fits easily (23L x 15W x 10D). I also include my wife's fancy overnight bag just to spruce things up a bit (21L x 12W x 12D). All but the biggest bag fit, which is exactly the same number that could fit in the CT5. As the below photo shows, the bigger car has just a bit more space left over. Maybe for a pair of grocery bags. That would be consistent with the difference in cubic feet: 11.9 cubic feet versus 10.9. What about the BMW 2 Series Gran Coupe? BMW says it has 15.1 cubic feet of space, but it doesn't. At least not using the same measurement criteria that the vast majority of other manufacturers use. It can carry the biggest bag, but it would still need to leave the fancy bag behind. That's also while utilizing the 2 GC's ample under-floor storage compartment.  As such, the CT4 does indeed have a small trunk, but it's at least in keeping with its competitors. The CT5 cannot say that, regardless of which segment you compare it to.  Unfortunately for the CT4, though, the story does not stop here.

2019 Cadillac XT4 vs. other compact luxury crossovers: How they compare

After years of every other luxury car maker stocking their showrooms with trendy crossovers, Cadillac is finally joining the fray. Its latest addition is the 2019 Cadillac XT4, a tidy little crossover that proudly bears signature Caddy designs such as the tall slender taillights. And based on our first drive of the car, it impresses in many ways, such as its refined engine, classy interior and excellent ride quality. View 39 Photos That's good news for the little Cadillac, but it needs to stand out in a big segment. To see if it has any other areas where it shines, or maybe some where it's a bit dim, we decided to compare its specifications with those of four of the segment's bestselling compact crossovers, the Lexus NX 300, Acura RDX, Audi Q5 and BMW X3. And for good measure, we threw in the XT4's crosstown rival, the Lincoln MKC. View 15 Photos Here's a chart showing each of these vehicles' vital stats, including horsepower, torque, fuel economy, cargo space, passenger space and price. Further analysis follows. If you'd like to compare any of these vehicles with other luxury crossovers, be sure to check out Autoblog's Car Finder and Compare tools. Also, this is solely a comparison of basic specifications, and for more in-depth information on these cars, be sure to follow the links to our full reviews. And don't be afraid to check these cars out in person at their respective dealerships. Engines, transmissions and fuel economy With the exception of the Lincoln MKC's optional 2.3-liter engine, every competitor here resorts to the same type of engine, a turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder, for its propulsion. And unsurprisingly, they make similar power, in the mid-200 horsepower and mid-200 lb-ft of torque range. Of the 2.0-liter engines, the standout is the Acura RDX, which produces a hearty 272 horsepower and 280 pound-feet of torque. It's second in power only to the Lincoln's optional turbo 2.3, which makes 285 horsepower and 305 pound-feet of torque. The bottom of the pack is the Lexus with 235 horsepower and 258 pound-feet of torque, but the next least powerful crossover is the Cadillac XT4, with just two more ponies than the Lexus, and the same amount of torque. View 22 Photos Though the Cadillac is nearly the least powerful, it does get to claim the best fuel economy numbers, rated at 24 mpg in the city, 30 on the highway, and 26 combined with front-wheel drive.