2014 Cadillac Cts Premium on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

Junkyard Gem: 1981 Cadillac Eldorado with V8-6-4 engine

Skyrocketing fuel prices caused by geopolitical events in 1973 and 1979 led to gas lines, federal fuel economy requirements, and an increasing reluctance on the part of American car shoppers to buy big, thirsty Detroit luxury machines. General Motors had pulled off some amazing technological feats in the past — the small-block Chevrolet V8 engine and Hydramatic transmission being two extraordinarily successful ones — and so Cadillac's bosses figured that a combination of computer wizardry and clever mechanical engineering would give the 368-cubic-inch Cadillac V8 a cylinder-deactivation system and resulting superior fuel economy. Here's a very rare example of one of those 1981 Cadillacs, found in a California self-service wrecking yard. The idea behind the V8-6-4 was that computer-controlled solenoids would physically disengage the rocker arms for one or two cylinders on each engine bank under low-load conditions, converting the engine from a 368-cube V8 to a 276ci V6 or 184ci V4 (that's 6.0, 4.5 or 3.0 liters, respectively, for the metric-system aficionados among us). This sort of variable-displacement magic is commonplace today, but it was science-fiction stuff in 1981. An "MPG Sentinel" display on the dash would let the driver know how many cylinders were active at the moment, and the car would get Chevy Citation fuel economy with Cadillac luxury. The V8-6-4 was the standard engine in all 1981 Cadillacs (except for the Seville, which had the troubled Oldsmobile diesel engine as the base powerplant and the V8-6-4 as an option). Unfortunately, the V8-6-4 worked about as well as the Oldsmobile diesel: very poorly. Within a few years, most owners of these engines had disconnected the rocker-deactivation solenoids and just drove their cars as regular full-time V8s. This one has the snazzy "Cabriolet Roof Treatment" option, which boasted "textured elk grain" vinyl and could be had in one of 17 available colors. Front-wheel drive gave the early-1980s Eldorado plenty of interior space, despite its more proletarian Olds Toronado origins, and these velour-covered seats made for very comfortable road trips. The price tag started at $17,550, or about $51,650 in 2019 dollars. The 1981 Imperial went for $18,311, and that car was based on the same platform as the lowly Plymouth Volare. Meanwhile, A BMW 733i cost $28,945 and a new Toyota Cressida a mere $11,599. The 1981 Cadillacs were just a little too much ahead of their time, it turned out.

2017 Cadillac CTS-V Drivers' Notes | V is for velocity

The 2017 Cadillac CTS-V is as close to a four-door Corvette Z06 as you're ever likely to get. Underneath the carbon-fiber hood rests one hell of an engine, a 640-horsepower supercharged V8. It's only slightly less powerful than what you'll find in the Corvette. Thanks to GM's chassis wizards, the car's handling is an equal match for the powerful engine. This particular car packs in a number of options, including Recaro seats and the performance data recorder that allows owners to measure lap times and record video. The most expensive option is the $6,950 Carbon Black Package. This nets you a carbon fiber hood vent, front splitter, spoiler and rear diffuser. This car isn't cheap, but it does undercut the less powerful Audi RS7 and Mercedes-AMG E63 S. Associate Editor Joel Stocksdale: This is a seriously fun, if also flawed, car. And the biggest contributor to the fun is the big lump of V8 under the hood. The supercharged 6.2-liter makes 640 horsepower, but Cadillac could've left the number off and just called it "effortless." The gentlest pressure on the gas pedal will result in you picking up an extra 10 mph without ever noticing. And when you stomp on it, you get this huge and immediate surge of acceleration. It's truly giggle-inducing. Although the CTS-V is big and heavy, it handles the power well. It gives you enough info on what's happening so you feel in control, and the chassis is impressively composed. The only real weak points I can find on the CTS-V (besides the low gas mileage) are the interior controls. They are abysmal. The infotainment screen is pretty poor, with a clutter of information at the main screen, and difficult-to-find commands for getting to other menus. But worse than that are the climate and volume buttons. They're all touch-sensitive spots on the center stack. They're not very responsive, and the vibratory feedback it provides isn't noticeable while driving. It doesn't help that the feedback feels pretty inconsistent, too. For me, I think I could learn to live with the infotainment, simply because I love the way the rest of the car feels and drives. But, Cadillac, you need to get to updating this ASAP. Associate Editor Reese Counts: OK, Cadillac's infotainment system sucks. Let's get that out of the way. Touch capacitive interfaces don't work well in cars. This does have the old version of CUE, so I'm hoping the next-gen system will fix some of the interface issues. Like Joel, this wouldn't turn me off from buying the car.