I don't know if anyone from Cadillac is reading these forums, but as an owner of multiple V models I have a couple pieces of feedback.
- Cut the fat
- Focus on racing
- Conservative margins
- Restore art & science styling
I applaud Cadillac management and engineering for their persistence and hard work over the past 21+ years. The V-series program has gone from tupperware interiors, glass differentials, delusions of grandeur, and a brand on the edge of death, to cars that are consistently ranked as some of the top in the world. So, if you're tired and want to call it quits, I understand. That being said, I hope you still want to build some really great cars.
Over the four generations of V-series cars, there's been a ton of lessons learned, but some critical missteps. The most surprising misstep was GM listening to feedback to increase trunk space and legroom--those customer satisfaction surveys never ask questions correctly. Instead of contextualizing the question and asking, "would you like an extra 2" of legroom and 2" trunk space at the cost of 400 lbs and $10k in cost" to which the customer would say "absolutely not" they let the customer answer in a free-form fashion.
Then, when the car gets too big and fat, the company sticks a smaller car into the product stack instead of trimming the fat on the original car. That's maybe fine, except now the engineering teams have to split their work between two programs. And then marketing tries to stratify the products, and what you wind up with is a smaller, technically superior vehicle like the ATS-V (which is more akin to the CTS-V1 and CTS-V2) being nerfed to avoid cannibalizing sales of the supposed "halo" car (let's not forget that both cars are halo cars, and neither turn a profit, so you're just shooting yourself in the foot).
Point blank, the CTS-V3 and CT5-V are too big and heavy to be competitive at this price point. You're not Bentley. The original CTS-V had the right idea at about 190 inches in length; just enough room for occasional rear passengers and some trunk space to be practical. The ATS-V and CT4-V are smaller than the V1 and V2 and basically suck if you're riding in the rear, and both cars are way too narrow to fit enough tire to handle real power. But they're light, they have fantastic turn in, and if equipped with a proper engine and tire could be real racecars.
That's why I've been advocating for the "4-2-2" concept for a future ATS-V / "return to fundaments CTS-V": 4 inches wider, 2 inches longer, 2 inches lower. If GM did that, it would create a car that's between the V1 and V2 in length, and as wide as the 6th gen Camaro. 4000 lbs with driver, double wishbone suspension, 600 RWHP with cooling to stay on track, Bosch Motorsport ABS, and you might make a Nürburgring time that management doesn't have to suppress.
A car like that could be turned into a VR model that would be very competitive. There should be a rule that the car doesn't get to be called a V-series unless it can win a race at a sanctioned event. I have a ton of engineering friends that are into F1, and I can't believe how excited they got at the Cadillac V-LMDh--I used to get name-called for driving a Cadillac and nowadays Cadillac is the coolest thing around. There's a ton of guys that could be potentially be turned into Cadillac owners if you only made a worthy car, and frankly, the CT4-V and CT5-V are not it.
One of the biggest problems with the gen 4 V-series cars is that they're ugly. Not sorry--I'll never buy one. And I'll won't buy the next one if the current styling is continued. The CTS-V3 had a perfect front-end with those vertical DRLs looking like a evil vacuum cleaner, but a prolapsed ass. The CT4 and CT5 on the other hand look like Jackson Pollock paintings with conflicting ideas smeared all over with no rhyme or reason. At this point, I can use AI to create better-looking cars in a few seconds than any car Cadillac has ever created. Get artists with taste in your company--fire the current team. Restore "Art & Science" styling.
