By on June 26, 2015

2016 Cadillac XT5

Kinja blogger saw930 stumbled upon the new SRX-replacing XT5 in NYC’s trendy SoHo district. The next new model from GM’s premium brand looks to be wearing a copy-and-paste version of the CT6 front fascia design, complete with wreath-less crest sitting front and center.

1313288928280785811After being confirmed earlier this month in a Cadillac press release, the new SUV looks to be gearing up for its auto show reveal as it takes part in a photo shoot.

Not much can be gleaned from the photos here, though many are suggesting the SRX replacement will get a version of the 3.6L V6 seeing duty in many other GM products, sending power to the front or all four wheels through an automatic gearbox.

With this early of a public showing, the Cadillac XT5 could make its first formal debut at the Los Angeles International Auto Show in November. Or Cadillac could forego a typical auto show and do something in conjunction with a non-automotive event in NYC.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

81 Comments on “2016 Cadillac XT5 Found In Manhattan With CT6 Face...”


  • avatar

    My Aunt still has a fully loaded 2009 Cadillac SRX with V8 RWD
    Driving is awesome – and in my opinion, more fun than the same model year’s CTS.

    Her problem with the 2nd generation SRX was the lack of the 3rd row seat – as her SRX had a folding 3rd row, just perfect for her youngest son who’s shorter than 5-feet tall.

    She never upgraded because she didn’t have the parking space for an ESCALADE.

    The SRX should have never been decreased in size. It should have remained a “wagon”. It still looks good on the road, drives well and although the replacement of HID light fixtures gets expensive, it’s a keeper.

    This XT5 wears the design language well, but for Godsakes please stop this STUPID naming strategy. Give it a proper name.

    I bought my mom a 2010 STS (fully loaded) with the 3.6-L AWD unit. The 3.6-L is probably GM’s best current engine, since they don’t have the ballz to keep producing an optional V8, and are too chickenchit to, lower it into a “V-series model” and put the LSA under this hood with AWD. The Twin Turbo V6 is too expensive an option and the 2.0-L is too weak for anything else beyond the ATS.

    I see nothing worth desiring. Just another soul-less econobox on stilts. It’ll probably get AWD with the V-sport badge and Twin Turbo V6, but that’ll add another $,$$$ to it.

    I just had to comment before Deadwood gets here cause I can’t even imagine what he has to say.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “The 3.6-L is probably GM’s best current engine”

      The 3.6 isn’t even GM’s best current V6.

      Not to mention EVERY V8 they offer is better. From the 4.8 and 6.0 that will last until the sun explodes to the LS series to the Duramax.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Which is the best?

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          The best GM V6 is the 4.3L V6.

          I like the Ford, Toyota, Nissan, and Honda 3.XL V6s better than the GM 3.6L.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Really? The VQ fingernails-on-chalkboard machine and the Ford Duratec which hasn’t really had a top end since the SVT Contour version?

            I’ll agree with you on the Toyota and Honda mills.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I like the 3.5/3.7 Cyclone quite a bit. I find it to be a good engine for bigger sedans and crossovers.

            The VQ sounds like a paint can full of marbles being mixed, but I liked the VQ in the 370Z more than the 3.6 in the Camaro. I haven’t driven the VQ in anything else. Every time I get an Altima rental, it’s a terrible 4 banger. Maybe in other vehicles I’d like the GM 3.6 better than the VQ.

            I do like the GM 3.6TT. I driven both a CTS and XTS equipped with that engine.

      • 0 avatar
        baconator

        I’d second that. The 3.6-L has worse NVH characteristics than the Camry’s V-6, really, and given its size and fuel consumption, it should have more torque.

        GM’s current V-8’s, by contrast, are remarkably efficient for their power levels, and appear to be very reliable. They really should make a 350-horse LS or LT motor the middle offering in the ATS.

        We know the Alpha platform will accommodate it, and luxury buyers will buy a $65k crew cab pickup or Yukon Denali with that motor.

    • 0 avatar

      ‘The SRX should have never been decreased in size. It should have remained a “wagon”.’

      The difference in sales numbers between that generation and the current disagree quite starkly with your statement.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Wow, a lot of hate for the 3.6. I don’t agree.

      We’ll see, in time, if the latest DI iterations solved the timing chain issues with the first version. Other than those issues, I think the engine is great. It’s got a very flat torque curve (disagree with baconator), breathes well on the top end, and makes a nice noise. NVH is a problem in some applications (W-Impala) but I think that has more to do with the car than the engine. It feels very refined in higher-end applications.

      • 0 avatar

        “Other than those issues, I think the engine is great.”

        No modern engine is great if it has issues early in its life, let alone something like timing chain issues. We have been capable of manufacturing engines that are free from any issue for at least the first 150,000 miles since the 80s, so there is just no excuse today. I’m looking at you, Ford, GM…and especially you, Volkswagen.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          By that standard, the only companies with a satisfactory engine track record over the last decade or so are the Japanese big 3. And two of them have had trouble getting transmissions right.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            GM’s now discontinued pushrod motors were quite satisfactory if were going back a decade.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Only some of them. All three series of naturally aspirated 3800s were good. The last version of the 60-degree engines, the 3.5 and 3.9, were good (although they had terrible NVH). A lot of people got a lot of mileage out of the later pushrod 3.4s. But the 2.8, 3.1, and 3.3 versions, along with pre-3800 Buick V6es, all had at least one chronic problem.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            The 3.3L was good, it was just a short deck LN3/3800 and not part of the 2.8/3.1 family. There were also four series of the 3800 (the first one was probably the best). And you left out the Chevy 90-degree completely. GM is at its best when building anvils.

            Plus 28-cars said “if were going back a decade”. You’re going back almost 30 years on some of your references.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I know Series II/III was a giant departure from Series I, but what were the differences between the LN3 and the Series 1?

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            The L27 has a two piece intake, the LN3 was a single piece. The L27 also had individual coils (maybe not in the first year), while every LN3 I’ve ever dealt with had a single coil pack from the factory.

            The rockers and cylinder heads are also different between the two, but I don’t recall the particulars.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Thanks

      • 0 avatar
        wmba

        Any person here nattering about the new 3.6 engine announced in March? Or just going on about the old one?

        I thought not – as usual, you’ve all forgotten. After all, March is so long go. It’s called the LFX, is all new and is almost 100 cc larger than the old one.

        Here’s a link:

        http://media.cadillac.com/media/us/en/cadillac/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2015/mar/0320-cadillac/0320-cadillac-36l.html

        This is the new engine going in the SRX and of course, the new Camaro. Until I read something from someone who has tested the engine, all the usual opining here is worth exactly nothing.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      Well yeah, the new one will have 335 HP and 285 lb-ft. You will hear no complaints from me about that.

      The 3.0TT should be nice as well.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    Behold the bold new face & direction of “premium” BMW, Mercedes & Audi fighter, Cadillac, now run under directive of Johan de Nysschen & Melody CT-Lee, from Cadillac HQ is posh & trendy Soho, New York City:

    https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/1313288928280785811-e1435320703469.jpg

    (Which looks like a$$)

  • avatar
    bunkie

    Could we drop the requirement to prefix SoHo with “trendy”? It’s just another horribly-overpriced Manhattan neighborhood with the same high-end chain stores as any other high-income locale world-wide. It was trendy 15 years ago, but that was then.

  • avatar
    VenomV12

    This just looks terrible. First they are still doing those stupid and annoying full face LED headlights and secondly it looks like they just hastily grafted a Cadillac nose onto a Chevy Traverse or some other generic looking GM crossover, which I guess is what they did. The Lincolns look better than this and as far as I am concerned the new Volvo XC90 blows everything away, inside and out.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      I’m not a fan of the size nor price of the Lincoln MKesCape, but its exterior is 100x better than this obese, angry eyebrow, puffer fish.

    • 0 avatar
      TrailerTrash

      I am actually more disturbed by the large, thick D pillar. It must be awfully hard to take a quick glance to see if anybody is in the lane you wanna turn into.

      I might be seeing it wrong as the black picture doesn’t give a real good detail.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        The target audience does not concern themselves with whether anyone is in the next lane. You see a Cadillac CUV/SUV moving over, you’re expected to make way.

        • 0 avatar
          Quentin

          If your mirrors are adjusted properly, this isn’t an issue in a vehicle this size. The car just isn’t long enough for anything to get lost behind those D pillars.

          http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-to-adjust-your-mirrors-to-avoid-blind-spots

      • 0 avatar
        300zx_guy

        DLO fail at the back window – I guess the designers also thought the D-pillars looked a bit too chunky. Overall, I don’t think it looks bad. As with most cars, there a lots of details to nitpick, like the aforementioned DLO fail, and the rear door handle sits higher than the front, I always think that looks odd. The new face of Cadillac is strangely robotic, but that’s not specific to this model (what’s it called again? I forgot already and don’t feel like scrolling up). I think the big problem will be the pricing, Cadillac seems to be quite optimistic with their pricing lately.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      The grille still looks very Chevrolet, even with that badge on it. I think they should have gone for a more upscale grille and wheel design. Those wheels are dated too. They’ve been on the CTS since at least 2010.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    Oh wow this is horrible, did they take proportions from the Colorado / canyon? It also reminds me of the handicapped accessible minivans in its proportions. Front end is just terrible, great way to destroy your number one selling model. Obviously Johan was brought in to make everyone else see how badly Cadillac needed to die so there wouldn’t be complaints when GM folded it.

  • avatar

    Nice find. I don’t love it, but I think it’s a huge improvement on the current SRX. I bet the interior is great. It’ll sell well.

    • 0 avatar

      Cadillacs have the BEST interior on the American market. Far more comforting and supporting than TESLA’s and Lincoln’s.

      The only problems are that they STILL aren’t as good as Mercedes’ C-class’ (lacking powered features in the chairs beyond the tilt and slide…

      And the infotainment system C.U.E. is complicated, slow and unpolished – especially when your demographic (Old People/ Retirees) are the ones who are going to be using it.

      • 0 avatar
        carguy

        + 1: Cadillac makes great interiors that are ruined by the CUE system. But from a materials and fit and finish standpoint, they are better than BMW and at least equal to Audi.

      • 0 avatar
        Waftable Torque aka Daniel Ho

        I’m not sure why so many reviewers have praised the new C-Class interior. It’s nowhere close to being as nice as the S-Class, and, to my eyes, doesn’t even hit the high mark established by the 2002-2006 Lexus ES. But it is competitive with today’s compact luxury sedans.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          Have you sat in one? The materials are really nice. The design is similar to the CLA but the materials couldn’t be more different. They even make me willing to overlook the Fake iPad Screen.

        • 0 avatar

          The S-Class is the S-class. The interior is UNTOUCHABLE by just about every car I’ve driven under $400,000 – including the Phantom Drophead Coupe and Ghost (I made videos).

          It’s length, leg space, material fit and finish, design and trim…

          The C-class is half the cost and looks and feels just as good – though you don’t get the leg space. The Next E-class is going to be so good, it’s probably gonna cut into S-class sales big time.

          • 0 avatar
            VenomV12

            Yeah, if the new E-Class has HUD, night vision and massage seats among other options, there will be little reason to spring for the S unless you are driven around. It is going to massacre the midsize segment. Judging from the new 7 series that just came out, BMW won’t have much to bring to the plate when they refresh the 5 series., Jag will never get the numbers and it will be up to Audi to come out with something really good because the A6 just isn’t cutting it right now.

  • avatar
    talkstoanimals

    “What’s that you’ve got on your face there, a snow plow blade?”

    Good grief that’s a blunt front end….

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      “Art and Science” has morphed into “art deco steam locomotive”.

      • 0 avatar
        talkstoanimals

        Good call. There are definite undertones of both steam and diesel locomotive in the design.

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          http://tinyurl.com/o5gt7pk

          Take a look at a front 3/4 view of a new Escalade – you’ll swear it should have a mile of boxcars behind it.

          • 0 avatar
            Veee8

            I think you’re spot on – what a hideous photo, the Escalade has about as much charm as a chrome clad Winnebago.
            The new XT5 should be called the Atlantica as it really is taking its cues from the old Chrysler camp as celebrity208 alluded to.

  • avatar
    mjz

    I’m very underwhelmed with this redesign and Cadillac’s new naming system.

    • 0 avatar

      The name isn’t what matters. It’s how awesome the car is.

      You have to MAKE people “Know” your product.

      You have to MAKE people believe in your product.

      You have to MAKE people WANT your product.

      Sometimes it means putting a Twin Turbo V6 in a coupe with over 500 Horsepower, completely embarrassing $200,000 sports cars and slapping the name “GT-R” on it.

      Sometimes it means putting a 6.4-L V8 in an SUV or putting a 6.2-L engine in a car – with a supercharger – and naming it something ridiculously cheesy: HELLCAT…

      Let me put an LSA in this boring, soul-less econobox, bigger Brembo brakes and tighten up that interior design and I’ll build you a CADILLAC.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        You, 9:26AM:
        “The name isn’t what matters. It’s how awesome the car is.”

        You, 8:34AM:
        “…for Godsakes please stop this STUPID naming strategy. Give it a proper name.”

        At least wait an hour before you contradict yourself.

  • avatar
    energetik9

    One major reason I have been turned off to Cadillacs as of late is the overall obnoxious look. This new grill style just makes it all worse in my opinion.

  • avatar
    PRNDLOL

    A little bland in the puss, but it’s fine.

  • avatar
    ItsMeMartin

    Am I the only person who thinks that the XT5 looks really good , especially in the rear? Sure, the beltline is way too high, and the blank space below the grille gives it weird proportions, but compared to, say, the comparable offerings from Lexus and Infiniti (no, I don’t know their names) it looks downright handsome and dignified. It even manages to look attractive rather than boring in black.

  • avatar
    NN

    I think it looks 1000x better than the current SRX, although I also hate the naming system that changes every few years and helps to ensure massive depreciation. It might work in China, though, and I guess that’s what matters.

  • avatar
    celebrity208

    To me it looks like an evolved Chrysler Pacifica with Caddy’s new headlights instead of looking like there’s SRX DNA in there.

    • 0 avatar
      VenomV12

      Pacifica, yep, I knew this damn thing reminded me of something.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      Cannot unsee

    • 0 avatar
      cdotson

      You’re not wrong re: Pacifica. Too bad about the Pacifica too, dynamically they drove worlds better than their contemporary minivans (since rectified with the vans) and rode more comfortably too. The Pacificas really were the crossover before crossovers went mainstream and sales took off. Too bad they were so coated in ugly and stained with ever-cheapening interior quality endemic to Chryslers of the era.

      • 0 avatar
        MLS

        Actually, most reviews agreed that the Pacifica’s interior was pretty nice for its time. Back then, Daimler had hoped to reposition Chrysler as premium brand on the backs of the Pacifica, Crossfire, and 300C. Only years later did they throw in the towel and begin turning out crap like the second generation Sebring. Along the way, they also found time to de-content the Pacifica’s interior and powertrain.

        I found the pre-refresh Pacifica quite handsome and think the styling holds up well today.

  • avatar

    Craptastic! Why does GM always do such a low prominent chin on their SUV’s? MPG’s for sure, but others don’t stoop that low. This one particularly strikes me as whale-ish, with the high grill and frumpy back end.

  • avatar

    This looks OK, but same as with the Cruze, it will just blend in with all the other CUV’s. It’s a little swoopier, but to me it looks a lot like the Equinox, which I’m guessing shares some parts with this, with more BLING.
    It can’t be any worse then the CUV it’s replacing though.

  • avatar
    clivesl

    All I know is that I can make out a tan interior in that first picture, that keeps it on my list.

    The exterior is fine, looks better than the current model, but since I spend 99% of my time inside my car I really don’t care much about the exterior looks.

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      Several posters on this site apparently don’t like it. I thought that the SRX was unattractive, but Cadillac had no problem moving those, so this one should sell, too. It’s a definite improvement over the SRX.

      • 0 avatar
        clivesl

        Given that the current SRX looks exactly like a Vue, this is better.

        But all I ask from exterior is don’t be Aztek ugly, bland is fine, keeps the 5-0 away.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    I like the rear, since it’s slick and simple and has really quite a bit of Mercedes about it. The front is a derp Chevrolet-Elite-Class, and is very messy and not tasteful.

    Different grille and wheels needed.

    And here’s something else – when viewed from the rear that way, I’m getting a lot of CX-9.

  • avatar
    Veee8

    Caddy is also going with the offset grill badge, like Jag have adopted. Not sure I like that, I prefer it centered and a tad bigger, it gets lost near the hood edge….being all about branding nowadays it should be more prominent.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    The design is too watered-down for the Chinese market. The result is it just looks like any other midsize CUV.

    Still, it will do well, both in China and here. Cadillac’s foremost need was an updated midsize CUV, and now they need two more CUVs, a XT3 and a XT7.

  • avatar
    carguy

    While the new 3.6 will most definitely be an option, the base engine will most likely be the 2.0T.

  • avatar
    Davekaybsc

    Looks like a fairly generic two box design, it’s boring, but all current Cadillac designs are boring so it is what it is. It might capture some Lexus customers fleeing from the HIDEOUS new Lexus RX. Stale and inoffensive is at least better than OMG kill it with fire.

    Cadillac interior quality is only skin deep. Once you actually start to touch and interact with them, that illusion that they are German quality falls apart.

    Also, GAUGES GAUGES GAUGES. Gauges. The new Chevy Cruze has better gauges than the ATS and lower trim CTS. As do most sub $20K compacts.

    I went back and looked at that old 2005 ES330, man Lexus must not think much of ES customers considering what they’ve done to that car since then. “Keep cost cutting this thing guys, we can put Corolla parts in here and they’ll keep buying them anyway!”

    The ES used to be a baby LS, now it’s lower grade inside than an Avalon.

    • 0 avatar
      VenomV12

      I thought I was crazy when I drove the new Avalon and the new ES and thought the Avalon was nicer inside, maybe I was not. Getting people to leave their RX’s will be tough, even with that godawful front end, Lexus’s ride, service and reliability are just too good.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        I can happily report for the old people, that just yesterday I saw a brand new guppy face Avalon… with gold badges.

        I’m also realizing the only Avalon that I liked recently was the short-lived style of the 11-12. 00-10 is too… something. Bubbled. And the big mouth on the current model is a turn off as well, though I like it from the side and rear.

  • avatar
    Robbie

    This is not really the right vehicle for Manhattan tastes. But, there are quite some Russian billionaires with bad taste in Manhattan, so perhaps they can sell a couple.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    When I first saw this I thought this was the new Chevrolet Traverse. I could see a big Chevy bow tie on the front.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • ToddAtlasF1: Is dissembling a skill listed on your resume? Rationalizing the war that GM(now Chinese) and...
  • Carlson Fan: Good grief that thing is dated. My 2007 Tahoe has a fresher look. The interior is also pretty low grade...
  • geozinger: Takata. Seat belts first, then air bags. And, Honda was complicit. And now, there’s a third round of...
  • DenverMike: I’ve paid lots more for new US made Ford trucks, Ranger to F-550, because it’s self serving,...
  • Carlson Fan: “EVs are fine for (probably close to) 90-95% of peoples’ needs.” That’s why as a 2nd...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States