Cadillac: Other Series 62 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Weekly Recap: 2016 CTS-V gives Cadillac new momentum for the new year

It's been a rough year for Cadillac. The historic luxury carmaker been in the news for all of the wrong reasons: Declining sales, ditching its advertising agency and the relocation of its headquarters from Detroit to New York. But in late December, Cadillac reminded everyone what it does best: Build some of the rawest and most compelling luxury sedans in the world, as evidenced by the 2016 CTS-V. This monster churns out 640 horsepower from a supercharged 6.2-liter V8. Sound familiar? That's the Corvette Z06 engine, and it makes this CTS the most powerful production Cadillac ever. It also puts the sporting divisions of the Germans on notice. The new CTS-V easily overpowers the Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG S 4Matic and its 5.5-liter biturbo V8 rated at 577 hp, and the BMW M5 (with the competition pack) and its 4.4-liter twin-turbo V8 that pushes out 575 hp. The rear-wheel drive Cadillac can sprint to 60 miles per hour in 3.7 seconds, which is close to the 3.5-second time turned in by the 4Matic-driven E63 S, and a bit quicker than the 4.1 seconds posted by the M5. With Magnetic Ride Control, General Motors' stout eight-speed automatic transmission (also used in the Corvette), Brembo brakes and a carbon-fiber option package that pretty much builds your car out of carbon fiber – it's clear this Cadillac means business. Truth be told, we expected this CTS-V to deliver. It's been a serious sports sedan for a decade, and the recent generation and its 556-hp arrogance have been particularly memorable. But notice what we're doing here? We're talking about product. Not who makes Cadillac's ads, or if the brand's headquarters has a mailing address in NYC. Like the 2016 ATS-V that's due in the spring, the debut of the 2016 CTS-V (on sale in late summer) is a shot in the arm for Cadillac, and its arrival comes during time of transition. The brand is trying to reinvent itself as a modern luxury maker. It wants new customers, a different image and obviously more sales. Those things are going to take time, but with a 640-hp sledgehammer of a sports sedan on tap for next year, Cadillac can still maintain some of its swagger through all of the change. Other News And Views 1984 Audi Sport Quattro heads for the auction block If you're into '80s rally cars, you're really a car person. But if you're into that stuff – and we are – this 1984 Audi Sport Quattro is sure to get your blood flowing.

Cadillac planning its own engines, halo cars

Cadillac is in the midst of some big changes. It's got a new chief executive. It's taking some distance from parent company General Motors and moving to a new headquarters in New York. And it's instituting a new naming scheme that will allow not only for a more clear progression in its lineup, but also for more models. But that's not the end of the story. Not by a long shot.
Speaking with Automobile magazine, Cadillac's new president Johan de Nysschen revealed his intention to develop several new models and powertrains. For starters, he does not want Cadillac to continue borrowing engines from the GM parts bin, but intends to develop a new range of engines specifically for the luxury automaker. The program will likely start with smaller-capacity engines but eventually lead to new V8s as well, taking the place of the long-serving Northstar engine that finally ended its lifespan a few years ago after some two decades of production. Along with other technologies, de Nysschen envisions possibly sharing these powertrains with other GM divisions, but developing them first and foremost for Cadillac.
The bigger question, however, is where those engines would go, and de Nysschen had some thoughts to share on that front as well. For starters, the former Infiniti and Audi exec sees room for an even bigger sedan above the upcoming new CT6 that will cap the current range. Maybe even two of them. But that's not all. Johan wants to see Cadillac get (back) into the sports car game with a new halo model or two - something it hasn't really done since the Corvette-based XLR roadster. A pair of new crossovers are also said to be in the works, flanking the SRX on both sides with smaller and larger models.

Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.