Cadillac's V-Series Was Apparently Too Powerful for the Mainstream

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

We, like everyone else, bemoaned Cadillac’s new V-Series models for seeming underpowered. And yet the company now suggests that putting a lid on power was part of the plan all along. Apparently, GM claims, shoppers were being scared off by the CTS-V’s big numbers.

“There was, frankly, some people who were intimidated by the cars,” GM President Mark Reuss elaborated last week, according to Automotive News. “When we did a [V-Series], they were hammers … There’s some intimidation there.”

While undoubtedly true of some customers, is Cadillac certain that’s the message they want to impart? No matter how you slice this cadaver, the fact remains that the brand is still delivering two V-Series entrants that fail to impress on paper the way their predecessors did. We’ll happily admit that horsepower isn’t everything, but you cannot lead with how the CT4-V’s improved efficiency and lighter curb weight will make it a better car than the ATS-V its replaces when all anyone can notice is a glaring horsepower disparity.

The outgoing, 6.2-liter V8-powered CTS-V currently produces 640 hp. Meanwhile, the CT5-V that replaces it utilizes a twin-turbo 3.0-liter V6 that’s estimated to crank out 355 hp and 400 pound-feet of torque. The CT4-V’s 320 hp and 369 pound-feet get it a little closer to the ATS-V, but there’s still over 100 hp separating the two.

We got into this yesterday, so we’ll not rehash everything, but Cadillac’s current solution involves vague promises of subsequent V-Series models aimed directly at enthusiasts. While not a terrible idea, there’s nothing to it presently. Cadillac probably could have led with the big guns, allowing the current CT4 and CT5 V-Series variants to come in as affordable alternatives to the new car everyone envies. But it didn’t. As things stand, no details exist on the more hardcore models — save for General Motors’ promise that they will someday exist.

Of course, had GM expended its initial energy on overpowered, low-volume vehicles, it would miss out on the brand appeal it’s currently trying to expand within a floundering segment (sedans).

From Automotive News:

V-Series customers, GM executives said, are the best advocates for Cadillac, and expanding that base will help the brand as it continues to launch a new or redesigned product roughly every six months through 2021. The CT5 is scheduled to arrive this fall, followed by the CT4 in early 2020, with the V-Series versions slated to reach dealerships shortly after the standard versions in both cases.

“Performance isn’t going to go out of style and these sedans are really attacking a different play than what other people have,” Reuss said. “I still think there’s a lot of room for sedans here.”

Like most of Cadillac’s efforts over the past fifteen years, the current strategy of moving performance-branded models downmarket is reminiscent of its German rivals. While this methodology served the brand exceptionally well in China, the same cannot be said for the United States. (This could have more to do with the brand being late to the crossover party than anything else.)

Still, we — and many others — were under the impression that V-Series cars are supposed to be tributes to American excess, singularly fixated on giving the customer as much power as Cadillac’s luxury mindset will allow.

Saying GM had to soften them because customers were afraid of their raw power feels like a cop-out and doesn’t raise confidence in the high-output models that are supposedly in development. Cadillac is chasing volume, not glory, and seems endlessly preoccupied with China. If only things were a little more balanced.

Hopefully, the new cars deliver in terms of overall performance and are above reproach in terms of luxury per dollar. All we can say now is that they aren’t terrible to look at, seem to provide a better interface with drivers than older models, and should offer more of the technologies well-heeled shoppers are interested in — especially if they happen to live in China.

[Images: General Motors]

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 54 comments
  • Rick Astley Rick Astley on Jun 04, 2019

    Now if only the Mazda6 Signature didn't have a nicer interior than these hum-drum, run-of-the-mill, GM products. It's as if only one GM designer in the past 30 years had heard of a soft or curved line, and they were relegated to designing a more brittle single use push clip than they currently have.

  • Wodehouse Wodehouse on Jun 05, 2019

    It always seems odd to me that the "V-Sports" models are on a lower ladder rung than the "V" models. Maybe, Cadillac is planning to reintroduce V-Sports as the top performance models...or...not.

  • W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
Next