Cadillac says goodbye to the performance V8 with 200 mph CT5-V Blackwing

This is Cadillac's last-ever gasoline performance car, but is it <em>too</em> fast?

Read the whole story

 

[IPunchCholla]

But the smaller, cheaper, lighter car is more exploitable on track and on the road.

The CT4 is only like ~270lbs lighter. That hardly seems like much when you're talking about just about two tons of weight.

That's two medium-size average female passengers, or one giant male.

On the track the driver can absolutely tell that difference. On the street, who cares?

As a longtime track day instructor, I can tell you that when we're giving rides in our cars to students or visitors, we're always on the lookout for small size and light weight. Somehow when that 250 lb guy turns up we avoid making eye contact and it's just never the right moment.

Am I really reading about discrimination against heavier folks?

I'm a bit over 230 and got absolutely wrecked driving go-carts against some lighter folk. Physics will win every time.

I think the issue is more the implication of avoiding (paying, I’m assuming) heavier students.

 

[AdamM]

The 10-speed starts at $88,165, but that includes some equipment you can't get with the three-pedal car, including adaptive cruise control and lane keeping and physical controls for the touchscreen infotainment system.

I have a particular dislike for OEMs who intentionally and unnecessarily cripple the stick-shift car. Almost all of the advanced driver-assist tech is just as compatible with the manual transmission as with the automatic. Yes, even adaptive cruise control – you just have it flash the "Please Downshift" light when driver intervention is required. Which won't be often, with this much torque on tap.

If you want traffic jam assist, i.e. "let's slip the torque converter to creep along at the speed of boredom", then yeah, that's not going to happen with a 3-pedal setup. But the rest of the omissions are just a marketing decision.

You see a form of this all the time in cheaper segments: one trim will have a rather nicely engineered 6-speed auto with a wide ratio spread and a very tall 6th gear, and then the lower trim will have a clunky 5-speed stick that feels like junkyard salvage and that turns 3200 rpm on the highway. Then they boast about "Look how good our automatic is, you really want the automatic!" Well, engineer the two options to be of equal quality, like Mazda (usually) does, and we'll see how they compare in a fair shootout.

There is an exceptionally small part of the American market that wants a manual. Even less who fall into this group probably care for ADAS features if they bought the manual “to be more engaged” with the vehicle. Requiring driver intervention in a feature like ACC where the point is to have the car slow down and accelerate on its own kind of defeats the point of the feature in the first place. It’s not surprising OEM’s aren’t wasting their time.

In terms of actual driving experience. Manufacturers of high end vehicles don’t tend to cheap out on the manual experience. Even the author of the article prefers the manual for driver engagement. Automatics however are always going to be quicker just by nature of eliminating need for driver involvement in shifting.

In the lower end segment it wouldn’t matter how great the manual is. Americans don’t buy them just on basis of them being manuals. So from an OEM standpoint why make it more than a cost saving option?

 

[sword_9mm]

Nifty for sure but I still wouldn't trust Cadillac's build quality. I'm sure the motor is unbreakable but I'd be more worried about everything around the engine.

 

[Dzov]

But the smaller, cheaper, lighter car is more exploitable on track and on the road.

The CT4 is only like ~270lbs lighter. That hardly seems like much when you're talking about just about two tons of weight.

That's two medium-size average female passengers, or one giant male.

On the track the driver can absolutely tell that difference. On the street, who cares?

As a longtime track day instructor, I can tell you that when we're giving rides in our cars to students or visitors, we're always on the lookout for small size and light weight. Somehow when that 250 lb guy turns up we avoid making eye contact and it's just never the right moment.

Am I really reading about discrimination against heavier folks?

I'm a bit over 230 and got absolutely wrecked driving go-carts against some lighter folk. Physics will win every time.

I think the issue is more the implication of avoiding (paying, I’m assuming) heavier students.

Yeah, I don't get that and figured it was a misunderstanding. Another implication is he only likes to give rides to 135 lb females.

 

[rosen380]

But the smaller, cheaper, lighter car is more exploitable on track and on the road.

The CT4 is only like ~270lbs lighter. That hardly seems like much when you're talking about just about two tons of weight.

That's two medium-size average female passengers, or one giant male.

On the track the driver can absolutely tell that difference. On the street, who cares?

As a longtime track day instructor, I can tell you that when we're giving rides in our cars to students or visitors, we're always on the lookout for small size and light weight. Somehow when that 250 lb guy turns up we avoid making eye contact and it's just never the right moment.

Am I really reading about discrimination against heavier folks?

I'm a bit over 230 and got absolutely wrecked driving go-carts against some lighter folk. Physics will win every time.

An issue here is that I suspect there is a bigger difference when talking about a 230 vs 130 pound person in a ~150 pound go-cart than between the same two people in a ~4000 pound vehicle.

In the former the extra 100 pounds is adding 36% to the total weight, while in the latter it is less than 3%

 

[real mikeb_60]

also please shut up, you sound like a communist thinking because you don't enjoy it no one else can.

You were doing so well, and then you had to go be a wingnut asshole for no reason. Pity.

Yup, upvote to instant downvote. I don't have a problem with fun hand built cars like this that sell in small numbers giving horrific mileage. It is the general American desire for GMC Yukon Denali's that I wish could somehow be curtailed.

There will be few of these built. 99% of us will never be able to drive one, under any circumstances. The 1% who can probably don't have a problem with the price (for the performance, it's a bargain!). People buying one are doing it for the trophy - sort of like having a true AMG or M car (not the watered-down versions showing up lately). Like - how many people really drive a top-line Porsche on the street?

One issue with these cars is range. If you're really going to use the power, you're not going to do it for long. That said, a suitably modified version of one of these would probably be a decent Cannonball car.

As for the sound: good question. Some people with one of these prefer sleeper mode, where there's little extra sound to go with the fury. Others like to advertise. So is this for the sneakers or the advertisers, or does it have a cutout like some Mustangs? JG?

 

[Dzov]

Yes, it is too fast.

There is no place, reason, or functional purpose for a vehicle this powerful on public streets meant to be shared with pedestrians, cyclists, children, disabled, etc...

It's almost like you think the car has to be driven as hard and fast as possible at every moment. Silly.

Then, why the 200mph? What situation would that EVER come up with "wow, if only this thing went 200mph or close to it", for a street vehicle? If you're in a race on a closed track, sure...but that's not "the street". We also don't see Formula one cars driving everywhere.

Silly. Do you believe the Tesla Model S plaid, which has the same top speed shouldn't exist and is a risk on public streets? How about the Mercedes S Class that tops at 155 in even it's lesser models? Corvettes? Porche models?

Hysterical hand waving about a vehicle top speed serves no purpose and is just plain silly.

Yes, they are a risk on public streets.

So are bicycles and battery scooters. People in pricey cadillacs are near the least category of people I'd worry about driving foolishly around me.

 

[close]

Yes, it is too fast.

There is no place, reason, or functional purpose for a vehicle this powerful on public streets meant to be shared with pedestrians, cyclists, children, disabled, etc...

You're not wrong. Seriously, what is the actual defense of putting something like this on the streets? You can't use the same excuses people use for owning firearms: "It's this fast for home defense. I use it for hunting. I just use a car this fast for target practice."

What a load of... What's the difference between "something like this" and a "regular" 600HP Tesla S or a 1020HP Tesla S Plaid, both of which can certainly do much more damage, much faster given that they can be 5000lbs projectiles going at 60mph in 2s? Or for that matter any car having more than 60-70HP, needed to cruise easily at highway speeds?

Is "home defense" the legal or moral standard for what you're allowed to justify owning? It's fine to keep a gun in the house because you may go with it in the forest to hunt but not fine to keep a legal car in the garage because you may go with it to race it on a track? Or to work, because having a car that can go fast doesn't mean you *have to* go fast.

 

[real mikeb_60]

The 10-speed starts at $88,165, but that includes some equipment you can't get with the three-pedal car, including adaptive cruise control and lane keeping and physical controls for the touchscreen infotainment system.

I have a particular dislike for OEMs who intentionally and unnecessarily cripple the stick-shift car. Almost all of the advanced driver-assist tech is just as compatible with the manual transmission as with the automatic. Yes, even adaptive cruise control – you just have it flash the "Please Downshift" light when driver intervention is required. Which won't be often, with this much torque on tap.

If you want traffic jam assist, i.e. "let's slip the torque converter to creep along at the speed of boredom", then yeah, that's not going to happen with a 3-pedal setup. But the rest of the omissions are just a marketing decision.

You see a form of this all the time in cheaper segments: one trim will have a rather nicely engineered 6-speed auto with a wide ratio spread and a very tall 6th gear, and then the lower trim will have a clunky 5-speed stick that feels like junkyard salvage and that turns 3200 rpm on the highway. Then they boast about "Look how good our automatic is, you really want the automatic!" Well, engineer the two options to be of equal quality, like Mazda (usually) does, and we'll see how they compare in a fair shootout.

There is an exceptionally small part of the American market that wants a manual. Even less who fall into this group probably care for ADAS features if they bought the manual “to be more engaged” with the vehicle. Requiring driver intervention in a feature like ACC where the point is to have the car slow down and accelerate on its own kind of defeats the point of the feature in the first place. It’s not surprising OEM’s aren’t wasting their time.

In terms of actual driving experience. Manufacturers of high end vehicles don’t tend to cheap out on the manual experience. Even the author of the article prefers the manual for driver engagement. Automatics however are always going to be quicker just by nature of eliminating need for driver involvement in shifting.

In the lower end segment it wouldn’t matter how great the manual is. Americans don’t buy them just on basis of them being manuals. So from an OEM standpoint why make it more than a cost saving option?

When an major powertrain part is an option that normally sells in the low single digits of production percentage, it becomes and expensive part even if it costs less to build, individually. If you're selling only a few manuals in a mass-production car, it's cheaper to drop it and just offer all automatics. In something like this, well, the few who will buy it anyway can and must have their any whim (well, most whims) catered to - and that means having a stick available for the tens of customers who will want one.

 

[Slyne]

The point of these cars is not to behave like an idiot on streets, you don't need a fast car to send someone (or yourself) to the hospital by doing something stupid. Any old beater will do (speaking from indirect experience).

The point of such a car is for the driver to have absolute control of their vehicle on the road. For instance, I happen to drive one that this Cadillac is often compared to, and its giant brakes saved my bacon when a deer jumped on the road in front of me one night last year. Had I been driving my wife's SUV I would certainly have hit the poor creature. Same experience this year with a cat that darted from under a parked car. As for acceleration, it's better to be able to pass an RV quickly and safely than to have to hope that you correctly judged the distance and speed of that vehicle coming in the other direction while yours takes its sweet time.

One thing from the article that I don't understand is the mention "too thirsty to daily-drive". Either you have the car or you don't. Owning another one to drive daily and this one just for weekends(?) would on balance be worse for the environment that just the gas consumption of one vehicle, what with the energy requirements and pollution caused by the manufacture and disposal of two vehicle vs. one. Am I wrong in this assessment?

 

[chalex]

The number I'm interested in is how many units of this thing we think they will actually build and sell. If it's a small enough number it might be a great collector's item in the future.

 

[time2lose]

But the smaller, cheaper, lighter car is more exploitable on track and on the road.

The CT4 is only like ~270lbs lighter. That hardly seems like much when you're talking about just about two tons of weight.

That's two medium-size average female passengers, or one giant male.

On the track the driver can absolutely tell that difference. On the street, who cares?

As a longtime track day instructor, I can tell you that when we're giving rides in our cars to students or visitors, we're always on the lookout for small size and light weight. Somehow when that 250 lb guy turns up we avoid making eye contact and it's just never the right moment.

Am I really reading about discrimination against heavier folks?

I'm a bit over 230 and got absolutely wrecked driving go-carts against some lighter folk. Physics will win every time.

You and I are about the same and I agree about go-karts, but the commenter I replied to is a track-day instructor, so we're talking about fast cars, not go-karts. Having an instructor who turns away from serving someone who paid for a service because of some personal bias? Nah...I'll stay away from that track.

 

[Rachelhikes]

One thing from the article that I don't understand is the mention "too thirsty to daily-drive". Either you have the car or you don't. Owning another one to drive daily and this one just for weekends(?) would on balance be worse for the environment that just the gas consumption of one vehicle, what with the energy requirements and pollution caused by the manufacture and disposal of two vehicle vs. one. Am I wrong in this assessment?

You’re assuming a single-driver household, but 2 and even 3 car families aren’t rare. And the cars don’t all get driven the same distance or anything close to it, so the “daily driver” observation isn’t nonsensical.

But I do think the time for ICE cars of this sort has clearly passed. The latest climate report shows that the situation is pretty dire and cars like this really shouldn’t be acceptable any more. The good news is that at the same price, you can get a very nice, very fast EV. (Though no doubt the long-distance travelling trombone repairmen who weekend their cars at the track will have something to say about it.)

 

[mikiev]

I'd imagine it's not one guy and there's a team of them. They're most likely the most experienced and top builders pulled off the production lines elsewhere. I'd also think at some point in the future people will decide who the best one was and then those cars will get higher prices at auction.

(@Gitlin wouldn't a piece on "a day with a Cadillac master builder" be an amazing Ars piece?)

1. It'll be interesting to see how many master builders are involved, and how many engines each one builds.

Then the shake-out on who is considered the best builder, and if any cachet is developed around a builder who only made comparatively few of the engines.

2. Agree with the idea of the article, even if it is an overview of this and similar programs at other manufacturers.

edit:

But #1 does remind me of the first time I ran into engine snobbery, in High School. Got my first job - as a dishwasher at a local restaurant - and one of the cooks I worked with had a sweet Mustang with a 351 V8. (this was about '74).

I was flabbergasted that one of the other cooks kept teasing her about how her Mustang was so lame for having a "boat anchor" 351 Windsor, when it would have been so much nicer with a 351 Cleveland.

 

[traumadog]

also please shut up, you sound like a communist thinking because you don't enjoy it no one else can.

You were doing so well, and then you had to go be a wingnut asshole for no reason. Pity.

Yup, upvote to instant downvote. I don't have a problem with fun hand built cars like this that sell in small numbers giving horrific mileage. It is the general American desire for GMC Yukon Denali's that I wish could somehow be curtailed.

There will be few of these built. 99% of us will never be able to drive one, under any circumstances. The 1% who can probably don't have a problem with the price (for the performance, it's a bargain!). People buying one are doing it for the trophy - sort of like having a true AMG or M car (not the watered-down versions showing up lately). Like - how many people really drive a top-line Porsche on the street?

One issue with these cars is range. If you're really going to use the power, you're not going to do it for long. That said, a suitably modified version of one of these would probably be a decent Cannonball car.

As for the sound: good question. Some people with one of these prefer sleeper mode, where there's little extra sound to go with the fury. Others like to advertise. So is this for the sneakers or the advertisers, or does it have a cutout like some Mustangs? JG?

Most of GM's performance lineup has a two-mode exhaust, so I would think this car would follow suit.

 

[MMarsh]

One thing from the article that I don't understand is the mention "too thirsty to daily-drive". Either you have the car or you don't. Owning another one to drive daily and this one just for weekends(?) would on balance be worse for the environment that just the gas consumption of one vehicle, what with the energy requirements and pollution caused by the manufacture and disposal of two vehicle vs. one. Am I wrong in this assessment?

That's not a simple question, but the answer can indeed be calculated.

I have a Yukon XL, because for about 5,000 - 8,000 km a year, I am doing tasks that only that (or something similar) can accomplish. Commuting in it would be insane. When my wife and I both worked in town, we did the calculations (fuel, insurance, repairs, depreciation, total CO2 per year) and found that being a three-car family (two little 4cyl hatchbacks plus the truck) was significantly better, on both emissions and cost, than being a two-car family (one hatchback and one truck).

Now that she's on probably-permanent WFH, the math changes, so I do my commute and the kid-shuttling in the little hatchback, and the Yukon pulls double duty as both heavy hauler and for the occasional grocery or doctor's office run. It gets so little extra use that the CO2 savings from buying something smaller to drive maybe 3,000 km a year are outweighed by the cost to build, maintain, and insure that extra car.

If they put my wife back in her downtown office, then the math justifies getting a small EV of some kind for commuting.

Generalizing across all scenarios doesn't work. There are a lot of factors that affect both TCO and total emissions, and can be traded off in different use cases.

 

[traumadog]

From Ars, one single article on the crushing IPCC report but you're straight in there following up with more Fossil fuel car reviews. We can see where Ars' priorities are on the Climate.

I suppose you missed the "too thirsty to daily drive" bit...?

 

[GenericAnimeBoy]

This is Cadillac's last-ever gasoline performance car, but is it too fast?

No.

 

[dashman]

Is it still cramped in the back like the CT4? I looked at a CT4 and that was the issue I was seeing.

AGREE 100% on teh CT4, I'm 6'1" and had to dive in/back out to get in and out w/o hitting my head... Had my hair, what's left of it, brushing the roof too.

 

[close]

One thing from the article that I don't understand is the mention "too thirsty to daily-drive". Either you have the car or you don't. Owning another one to drive daily and this one just for weekends(?) would on balance be worse for the environment that just the gas consumption of one vehicle, what with the energy requirements and pollution caused by the manufacture and disposal of two vehicle vs. one. Am I wrong in this assessment?

You’re assuming a single-driver household, but 2 and even 3 car families aren’t rare. And the cars don’t all get driven the same distance or anything close to it, so the “daily driver” observation isn’t nonsensical.

But I do think the time for ICE cars of this sort has clearly passed. The latest climate report shows that the situation is pretty dire and cars like this really shouldn’t be acceptable any more. The good news is that at the same price, you can get a very nice, very fast EV. (Though no doubt the long-distance travelling trombone repairmen who weekend their cars at the track will have something to say about it.)

Talking of trombone repairmen, people wave that climate report to justify doing just slightly less damage to the environment in the grand scheme of things. Nobody reads that report as needing to reduce the usage of cars in general, and rely more on public transport systems.

There's always someone to justify all the reasons why they *need* a personal car (or 3) but never addresses those issues, especially in the context of the aforementioned report. Sprawling suburbs? Need to build miles and miles of new asphalt road for that? Workplace 50 miles away? "Need" to have 2-3 cars for one household because "public transport sucks"? An EV won't fix your massive carbon footprint, it will just prop up your entitlement. And in a time when most well-paid, EV-affording jobs moved at home, people bought more cars (EVs included) than manufacturers ever expected.

 

[Snark218]

One thing from the article that I don't understand is the mention "too thirsty to daily-drive". Either you have the car or you don't. Owning another one to drive daily and this one just for weekends(?) would on balance be worse for the environment that just the gas consumption of one vehicle, what with the energy requirements and pollution caused by the manufacture and disposal of two vehicle vs. one. Am I wrong in this assessment?

You’re assuming a single-driver household, but 2 and even 3 car families aren’t rare. And the cars don’t all get driven the same distance or anything close to it, so the “daily driver” observation isn’t nonsensical.

But I do think the time for ICE cars of this sort has clearly passed. The latest climate report shows that the situation is pretty dire and cars like this really shouldn’t be acceptable any more. The good news is that at the same price, you can get a very nice, very fast EV. (Though no doubt the long-distance travelling trombone repairmen who weekend their cars at the track will have something to say about it.)

Talking of trombone repairmen, people wave that climate report to justify doing just slightly less damage to the environment in the grand scheme of things. Nobody reads that report as needing to reduce the usage of cars in general, and rely more on public transport systems.

There's always someone to justify all the reasons why they *need* a personal car (or 3) but never addresses those issues, especially in the context of the aforementioned report. Sprawling suburbs? Need to build miles and miles of new asphalt road for that? Workplace 50 miles away? "Need" to have 2-3 cars for one household because "public transport sucks"? An EV won't fix your massive carbon footprint, it will just prop up your entitlement. And in a time when most well-paid, EV-affording jobs moved at home, people bought more cars (EVs included) than manufacturers ever expected.
.

I mean, it does state those things in extremely blunt and specific language, so if that's ignored, it's not on IPCC.

As for all the reasons why people need personal cars.....I mean, yeah, I do. I live 22 miles from my work, which is in the middle of fucking nowhere. Would I like to work from home? Yes, but unfortunately the sclerotic Boomer engineer who runs things around here feels the need to see people in the halls to be reassured that they're actually working. An EV would, in fact, substantially reduce my carbon footprint. So would driving fewer miles, but that's not in the cards right now.

Do I agree that sprawl and car-centrism are major problems? Do I agree that public transit sucks and needs to be substantially improved? Yes. No question. But it will take decades and billions upon billions of dollars to densify and re-zone even my mid-size city. What is your proposal until that happens?

 

[fredrum]

From The Guardian today,

"It may feel uncomfortable saying that fossil fuel companies, their investors and the politicians who enable them are the enemies of progress. But if we care about our collective future we need to say it, again and again, without flinching: using fossil fuels today is destroying our future."

EDIT: Yeah lets just downvote any concerns about emissions, that'll work out.

 

[AdamM]

One thing from the article that I don't understand is the mention "too thirsty to daily-drive". Either you have the car or you don't. Owning another one to drive daily and this one just for weekends(?) would on balance be worse for the environment that just the gas consumption of one vehicle, what with the energy requirements and pollution caused by the manufacture and disposal of two vehicle vs. one. Am I wrong in this assessment?

You’re assuming a single-driver household, but 2 and even 3 car families aren’t rare. And the cars don’t all get driven the same distance or anything close to it, so the “daily driver” observation isn’t nonsensical.

But I do think the time for ICE cars of this sort has clearly passed. The latest climate report shows that the situation is pretty dire and cars like this really shouldn’t be acceptable any more. The good news is that at the same price, you can get a very nice, very fast EV. (Though no doubt the long-distance travelling trombone repairmen who weekend their cars at the track will have something to say about it.)

Talking of trombone repairmen, people wave that climate report to justify doing just slightly less damage to the environment in the grand scheme of things. Nobody reads that report as needing to reduce the usage of cars in general, and rely more on public transport systems.

There's always someone to justify all the reasons why they *need* a personal car (or 3) but never addresses those issues, especially in the context of the aforementioned report. Sprawling suburbs? Need to build miles and miles of new asphalt road for that? Workplace 50 miles away? "Need" to have 2-3 cars for one household because "public transport sucks"? An EV won't fix your massive carbon footprint, it will just prop up your entitlement. And in a time when most well-paid, EV-affording jobs moved at home, people bought more cars (EVs included) than manufacturers ever expected.

Eliminate the need to buy a personal vehicle and people won’t buy them. The reality is people aren’t going to utilize public transit until it doesn’t suck. In the vast majority of the US that is unfortunately the case. You can’t expect to fix the problem just by attacking the symptom.

People also aren’t going to upend their whole lives to futilely make their lives more miserable while corporate polluters get to weasel their ways out of reducing their own emissions.

The problem is solved by regulation and fixing the issues that cause people to buy personal vehicles. Not this personal responsibility bullshit that shifts the burden completely on those who have the least power to solve the problem.

 

[rosen380]

"but unfortunately the sclerotic Boomer engineer who runs things around here feels the need to see people in the halls to be reassured that they're actually working"

And when you have those people around, even solutions like 4-day work weeks (4x10hr) aren't options as apparently only your work that happens to overlap with their schedule even counts...

 

[mikiev]

From Ars, one single article on the crushing IPCC report but you're straight in there following up with more Fossil fuel car reviews. We can see where Ars' priorities are on the Climate.

I suppose you missed the "too thirsty to daily drive" bit...?

Let alone:

"This is our last intended internal combustion engine version of the family here. We really felt like we wanted to go out on a high note," said Tony Roma, Cadillac's chief engineer.

Or the first sentence of the article, FFS...

Cadillac is in the process of transforming itself into an electric-only brand, with the first of its EVs due next year.

Its the end of an era. Their last hurrah...

GM shifting to electric vehicles - and only electric vehicles - is something I would have laughed-off if you had told me that just a year or two ago.

And now I am seeing this 'sea change' happening in my lifetime.

Take your "We" and stick it where the sun don't shine.

EDIT: Crud, quote collapsing has hidden fredrum's "We can see where Ars' priorities are on the Climate."

 

[close]

One thing from the article that I don't understand is the mention "too thirsty to daily-drive". Either you have the car or you don't. Owning another one to drive daily and this one just for weekends(?) would on balance be worse for the environment that just the gas consumption of one vehicle, what with the energy requirements and pollution caused by the manufacture and disposal of two vehicle vs. one. Am I wrong in this assessment?

You’re assuming a single-driver household, but 2 and even 3 car families aren’t rare. And the cars don’t all get driven the same distance or anything close to it, so the “daily driver” observation isn’t nonsensical.

But I do think the time for ICE cars of this sort has clearly passed. The latest climate report shows that the situation is pretty dire and cars like this really shouldn’t be acceptable any more. The good news is that at the same price, you can get a very nice, very fast EV. (Though no doubt the long-distance travelling trombone repairmen who weekend their cars at the track will have something to say about it.)

Talking of trombone repairmen, people wave that climate report to justify doing just slightly less damage to the environment in the grand scheme of things. Nobody reads that report as needing to reduce the usage of cars in general, and rely more on public transport systems.

There's always someone to justify all the reasons why they *need* a personal car (or 3) but never addresses those issues, especially in the context of the aforementioned report. Sprawling suburbs? Need to build miles and miles of new asphalt road for that? Workplace 50 miles away? "Need" to have 2-3 cars for one household because "public transport sucks"? An EV won't fix your massive carbon footprint, it will just prop up your entitlement. And in a time when most well-paid, EV-affording jobs moved at home, people bought more cars (EVs included) than manufacturers ever expected.
.

I mean, it does state those things in extremely blunt and specific language, so if that's ignored, it's not on IPCC.

As for all the reasons why people need personal cars.....I mean, yeah, I do. I live 22 miles from my work, which is in the middle of fucking nowhere. Would I like to work from home? Yes, but unfortunately the sclerotic Boomer engineer who runs things around here feels the need to see people in the halls to be reassured that they're actually working. An EV would, in fact, substantially reduce my carbon footprint. So would driving fewer miles, but that's not in the cards right now.

Do I agree that sprawl and car-centrism are major problems? Do I agree that public transit sucks and needs to be substantially improved? Yes. No question. But it will take decades and billions upon billions of dollars to densify and re-zone even my mid-size city. What is your proposal until that happens?

The problem is this:
Person picks a job in the middle of nowhere based on their needs(wants) despite the environmental impact this entails - Justified, "what else could they do?"
Person picks a non-EV because of their needs(wants) - trombone repairmen.

My proposal isn't to "do nothing" but at the very least you could see people judge less especially when most clearly don't understand other people's needs. There's the unnecessary condescension and virtue signaling attached to this topic which degrades the conversation.

You need a job that involves 50mi of daily driving. Someone else needs an ICE. For now.

 

[fredrum]

Transport is one of the three major Carbon offender groupings!

See this recent graphic from the New Scientist magazine,

https://imgur.com/a/H3xu5Ka


You can read more there (for subscribers only) or elsewhere. This data has been available for a long time so I assume all commenters here are familiar with the facts?

 

[Hichung]

Yes, it is too fast.

There is no place, reason, or functional purpose for a vehicle this powerful on public streets meant to be shared with pedestrians, cyclists, children, disabled, etc...

Why are pedestrians, children and the disabled playing in the road? Cyclists I can understand since they should be treated as people driving vehicles and thus, have a right to be on the road.

 

[mikiev]

This data has been available for a long time so I assume all commenters here are familiar with the facts?

And we are also familiar with people who will continue to beat us over the head with them.

 

[jimisawesome]

Who is this master builder in Kentucky? That seems like an interesting story in itself..

I'd imagine it's not one guy and there's a team of them. They're most likely the most experienced and top builders pulled off the production lines elsewhere. I'd also think at some point in the future people will decide who the best one was and then those cars will get higher prices at auction.

(@Gitlin wouldn't a piece on "a day with a Cadillac master builder" be an amazing Ars piece?)

The real prize here would be getting to work with one of them for a day on the car you eventually take possession of. Much better than the Corvette factory tour imo. But then the kinds of guys who'd be interested in an opportunity like that aren't usually the kinds of guys who buy these cars.

Its one single person that assembles the entire engine. IIRC there are about a dozen or two on a shift and they produce all the top supercharged engines such as this, the ZR1 and the ZL1.

In the C7 days you can option it to include a build your engine if you were buying a ZR1 where you would assist even build your entire engine. With COVID I doubt this is currently an option but might be again in a year or two.

 

[real mikeb_60]

From Ars, one single article on the crushing IPCC report but you're straight in there following up with more Fossil fuel car reviews. We can see where Ars' priorities are on the Climate.

You may have missed the previous Cadillac article, where JG noted that he was there for the demo of 2 models, and the story on the 2nd one would be published later? Precise publication schedule isn't always under the writer's control.

 

[Deleted member 221201]

Yes, it is too fast.

There is no place, reason, or functional purpose for a vehicle this powerful on public streets meant to be shared with pedestrians, cyclists, children, disabled, etc...

It's almost like you think the car has to be driven as hard and fast as possible at every moment. Silly.

It gets 15mpg. It's intended purpose is basically non-existent, and it is totally unsuited for the task it will actually be given.

Do you think it will be able to manage the fabled Trombone Repair Run ?

 

[jimisawesome]

If only they made a wagon too...

They used to but surprise surprise the 1000s of comments on car sites of people demanding and saying they would buy one did not lead to any actual sales.

 

[MMarsh]

One thing from the article that I don't understand is the mention "too thirsty to daily-drive". Either you have the car or you don't. Owning another one to drive daily and this one just for weekends(?) would on balance be worse for the environment that just the gas consumption of one vehicle, what with the energy requirements and pollution caused by the manufacture and disposal of two vehicle vs. one. Am I wrong in this assessment?

You’re assuming a single-driver household, but 2 and even 3 car families aren’t rare. And the cars don’t all get driven the same distance or anything close to it, so the “daily driver” observation isn’t nonsensical.

But I do think the time for ICE cars of this sort has clearly passed. The latest climate report shows that the situation is pretty dire and cars like this really shouldn’t be acceptable any more. The good news is that at the same price, you can get a very nice, very fast EV. (Though no doubt the long-distance travelling trombone repairmen who weekend their cars at the track will have something to say about it.)

Talking of trombone repairmen, people wave that climate report to justify doing just slightly less damage to the environment in the grand scheme of things. Nobody reads that report as needing to reduce the usage of cars in general, and rely more on public transport systems.

There's always someone to justify all the reasons why they *need* a personal car (or 3) but never addresses those issues, especially in the context of the aforementioned report. Sprawling suburbs? Need to build miles and miles of new asphalt road for that? Workplace 50 miles away? "Need" to have 2-3 cars for one household because "public transport sucks"? An EV won't fix your massive carbon footprint, it will just prop up your entitlement. And in a time when most well-paid, EV-affording jobs moved at home, people bought more cars (EVs included) than manufacturers ever expected.

Eliminate the need to buy a personal vehicle and people won’t buy them. The reality is people aren’t going to utilize public transit until it doesn’t suck. In the vast majority of the US that is unfortunately the case. You can’t expect to fix the problem just by attacking the symptom.

People also aren’t going to upend their whole lives to futilely make their lives more miserable while corporate polluters get to weasel their ways out of reducing their own emissions.

The problem is solved by regulation and fixing the issues that cause people to buy personal vehicles. Not this personal responsibility bullshit that shifts the burden completely on those who have the least power to solve the problem.

Here's a personal example:

The sum of all public transit in the entire township where I live is zero. Not minimal, not occasional. Zero. No trains, no buses, nothing.

If I were to move to the closest city that does have public transit, a house of the same size as mine would be more than twice the price, and would be on one-eighth as much land, with no privacy. Its property taxes would be double what I pay now. We'd still need at least one car, even if monthly bus passes (which each cost as much as a month's gas for a compact hatchback) took over the daily duties, and synchronizing bus transfers with daycare pick-up times is.... awkward. We currently max out the annual contributions to my kids' education savings plans and our retirement plans; if we lived in the city, the mortgage would eat up most of that money, and we'd have to bet on house price increases to fund our retirements.

That's just one example of why "You need to give up your cars and move to a place that has transit" is not a solution at this point in time. We need to decarbonize transportation, and we need to do it fast. But mass transit really only works in dense urban & suburban areas, and is tightly intertwined with affordability, retirement savings, wages, the social safety net, and a lot of other very complex issues. It's not a panacea on its own.

 

[real mikeb_60]

Yes, it is too fast.

There is no place, reason, or functional purpose for a vehicle this powerful on public streets meant to be shared with pedestrians, cyclists, children, disabled, etc...

Why are pedestrians, children and the disabled playing in the road? Cyclists I can understand since they should be treated as people driving vehicles and thus, have a right to be on the road.

It's a woonerf?

 

[DistinctivelyCanuck]

also please shut up, you sound like a communist thinking because you don't enjoy it no one else can.

You were doing so well, and then you had to go be a wingnut asshole for no reason. Pity.

Yup, upvote to instant downvote. I don't have a problem with fun hand built cars like this that sell in small numbers giving horrific mileage. It is the general American desire for GMC Yukon Denali's that I wish could somehow be curtailed.

went from upvote to 'abusive' down vote here too.

I'm probably one of the odd ones here: I love reading Jonathan's writing about these vehicles even though I (personally) think they are mostly wasteful, and I would never buy one.

That doesn't mean I can't enjoy that others get some 'zest' from the experience.

 

[close]

One thing from the article that I don't understand is the mention "too thirsty to daily-drive". Either you have the car or you don't. Owning another one to drive daily and this one just for weekends(?) would on balance be worse for the environment that just the gas consumption of one vehicle, what with the energy requirements and pollution caused by the manufacture and disposal of two vehicle vs. one. Am I wrong in this assessment?

You’re assuming a single-driver household, but 2 and even 3 car families aren’t rare. And the cars don’t all get driven the same distance or anything close to it, so the “daily driver” observation isn’t nonsensical.

But I do think the time for ICE cars of this sort has clearly passed. The latest climate report shows that the situation is pretty dire and cars like this really shouldn’t be acceptable any more. The good news is that at the same price, you can get a very nice, very fast EV. (Though no doubt the long-distance travelling trombone repairmen who weekend their cars at the track will have something to say about it.)

Talking of trombone repairmen, people wave that climate report to justify doing just slightly less damage to the environment in the grand scheme of things. Nobody reads that report as needing to reduce the usage of cars in general, and rely more on public transport systems.

There's always someone to justify all the reasons why they *need* a personal car (or 3) but never addresses those issues, especially in the context of the aforementioned report. Sprawling suburbs? Need to build miles and miles of new asphalt road for that? Workplace 50 miles away? "Need" to have 2-3 cars for one household because "public transport sucks"? An EV won't fix your massive carbon footprint, it will just prop up your entitlement. And in a time when most well-paid, EV-affording jobs moved at home, people bought more cars (EVs included) than manufacturers ever expected.

Eliminate the need to buy a personal vehicle and people won’t buy them. The reality is people aren’t going to utilize public transit until it doesn’t suck. In the vast majority of the US that is unfortunately the case. You can’t expect to fix the problem just by attacking the symptom.

People also aren’t going to upend their whole lives to futilely make their lives more miserable while corporate polluters get to weasel their ways out of reducing their own emissions.

The problem is solved by regulation and fixing the issues that cause people to buy personal vehicles. Not this personal responsibility bullshit that shifts the burden completely on those who have the least power to solve the problem.

Make the charging networks not suck (for the record, I get to see how much they such every time I charge) and EVs cheaper and I'm sure more people will get them. What's the point in dissing the people who say they need an ICE when you just turn around and use the same kind of excuse based on your needs to keep driving your car?

The public transport system has been "sucking" for decades. At the same time EVs and charging went from "nothing" to "decent" in a decade or so. Makes me think none of the people complaining about it really made much headway because they want their cars more than they want their public transport system.