New York 2015: Cadillac CT6 Is Coming With Length

by Derek Kreindler

Published: March 31st, 2015

new york 2015 cadillac ct6 is coming with length

With apologies to commenter CoreyDL, who artfully suggested that the CT6 would be a long wheelbase CT6, we stole your riff on the unfortunate slogan Cadillac uses in China. But nobody can really say that the CT6 doesn’t look like a stretched CTS.

The CT6 is, at least, all new under the skin, riding on GM’s new full-size RWD Omega platform. Along with a 2.0T 4-cylinder and a naturally aspirated 3.6L V6, a new 3.0L twin-turbo V6 debuts with 400 horsepower. While rear and all-wheel drive are available, the sole transmission is an 8-speed automatic.

The Omega architecture is aluminum intensive in its construction, which allows the CT6 to weigh in at around 3,700 lbs, impossibly light for a full size luxury sedan. Despite being 204 inches long, it should weigh in below a BMW 5 Series. Although the much loathed CUE system is in play, a 34 speaker sound system will at least make the music sound good – once you get it to play.

#Cadillac #CadillacCt6 #NewYork2015

Derek Kreindler

More by Derek Kreindler

Comments

Join the conversation

10 of 91 comments

DeadWeight on Apr 01, 2015

The real CT6 competitor at half price or less, with far more standard equipment & HP'(make sure to compare interior & exterior): http://www.hyundaigenesis.com/img/Hyundai-Genesis-Gallery-wallpaper-05.jpg http://www.hyundaigenesis.com/gallery

Like Reply
- See 3 previous
- Dal20402 on Apr 01, 2015
  
  Smaller (it's about CTS-sized) but heavier, and far less refined inside. The Genesis is like the Chrysler 300C, which would be its closest competitor except for demographics -- an excellent product for a mainstream brand but not quite polished enough to play in the luxury space. The first-gen Genesis also had truly terrible suspension tuning. I haven't driven the second-gen one yet; reviewers are saying it's a lot better, but they often say that.
  
  Like
- DeadWeight on Apr 01, 2015
  
  @dal20402 Derek disagrees on all counts. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/04/capsule-review-2015-hyundai-genesis/ You must be defaulting to the last GEN Genesis. Have you sat in the CT6? You haven't driven, or even sat in, the new gen Genesis, right?
  
  Like
- Dal20402 on Apr 01, 2015
  
  @DeadWeight That Genesis review doesn't even mention the interior other than calling it "premium" in passing. You're right that I haven't had the chance to get in one yet. But looking at pictures is enough to confirm that it's got mainstream materials and mainstream details, although it looks well assembled (better assembled, in fact, than any other Hyundai to date). Look at the plastic on the console buttons, the steering wheel buttons, and the shifter. Look at the secondary controls to the left of the wheel. All of that could have come out of a Sonata. That's not bad (at all) in the Genesis's price range -- but it would be very bad at $70k.
  
  Like
- DeadWeight on Apr 01, 2015
  
  @dal20402 Dal,- 1) I've driven the 2015+ Genesis. It's ride composure & suspension refinement is light years ahead of the flawed last gen. 2) It has a roomier back seat than the CTS by far (which I've driven and my uncle owns - 3rd gen). 3) It has better material quality, fit/finish and overall build quality (and especially standard gauges) than the CTS, IMO (YOMV). 4) It has, in base trim ($34,000 real world pricing), a 311 HP V6, versus the CTSs (or CT6s) 2.0T 4 banger. Let's wait and see the real touch/feel, test drives, long term living experiences with the CT6, before falling prey to the "new, glowing, hype."
  
  Like
JEFFSHADOW on Apr 01, 2015

As long as the name is CT6 it might as well be a germanwings flight through the alps. Dead on Take-off. . .

Like Reply
- See 3 previous
- Danio3834 on Apr 01, 2015
  
  Serious question. What would you prefer they call it?
  
  Like
- 28-Cars-Later on Apr 01, 2015
  
  @danio3834 Go back to Seville?
  
  Like
- Crtfour on Apr 01, 2015
  
  @28-Cars-Later IMO, nothing about the name "CT6" sounds high end. For some reason that name keeps reminding me of "K900"....another luxury car with a cheap sounding name.
  
  Like
- DeadWeight on Apr 01, 2015
  
  I honestly could care less about the name. The problem for the CT6, and we haven't even sat in it let alone driven it yet, is that unless it has a magical powertrain and ride (doubtful with the engine choices), its real competition will be the 1/2 expensive FWD Impala (check out an LTZ Impala's interior and registration), or a 1/2 expensive 2015 Hyundai Genesis.
  
  Like

Recent Comments

ToolGuy First picture: I realize that opinions vary on the height of modern trucks, but that entry door on the building is 80 inches tall and hits just below the headlights. Does anyone really believe this is reasonable?Second picture: I do not believe that is a good parking spot to be able to access the bed storage. More specifically, how do you plan to unload topsoil with the truck parked like that? Maybe you kids are taller than me.
ToolGuy The other day I attempted to check the engine oil in one of my old embarrassing vehicles and I guess the red shop towel I used wasn't genuine Snap-on (lots of counterfeits floating around) plus my driveway isn't completely level and long story short, the engine seized 3 minutes later.No more used cars for me, and nothing but dealer service from here on in (the journalists were right).
Doughboy Wow, Merc knocks it out of the park with their naming convention… again. /s
Doughboy I’ve seen car bras before, but never car beards. ZZ Top would be proud.
Bkojote Allright, actual person who knows trucks here, the article gets it a bit wrong.First off, the Maverick is not at all comparable to a Tacoma just because they're both Hybrids. Or lemme be blunt, the butch-est non-hybrid Maverick Tremor is suitable for 2/10 difficulty trails, a Trailhunter is for about 5/10 or maybe 6/10, just about the upper end of any stock vehicle you're buying from the factory. Aside from a Sasquatch Bronco or Rubicon Jeep Wrangler you're looking at something you're towing back if you want more capability (or perhaps something you /wish/ you were towing back.)Now, where the real world difference should play out is on the trail, where a lot of low speed crawling usually saps efficiency, especially when loaded to the gills. Real world MPG from a 4Runner is about 12-13mpg, So if this loaded-with-overlander-catalog Trailhunter is still pulling in the 20's - or even 18-19, that's a massive improvement.