Infiniti Q50 Forum banner
1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
the 14 CTS is pure sex, longer wheel base and a mission to hunt germans. Plus rear drive, double blown six. I have a sneaky suspicion the Q50 wont smoke tires like the Caddy


 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,661 Posts
This is the problem..

The CTS doesn't compete with the Q50 in terms of direct price segment, especially not the CTS V6. The 2014 CTS 4 cylinder turbo alone will receive a starting price of $46k (but now includes a lot more standard features in an attempt to isolate itself from the ATS). However, in a lot of ways, the CTS comes closer to the Q50 in terms of weight, size, yet is closer to the M37/Q70 in direct price. This contrasts to the Cadillac ATS, which is a lot closer to the Q50 in terms of price and engine(s).

Because of this overlap, this could be quite interesting (and maybe a little problematic for Infiniti) because Cadillac will now have two vehicles available both in the low-mid $40k and in the high $40k, low $50k slots that can still offer direct competition with the Q50, but in different ways.

The thing that Infiniti will always have going for it is value and its engine. As good as the 2014 CTS is looking, its larger V6 model will be going for around $60k-$62k, which will definitely push it out into a different kind of segment. To help neutralize this, the new M37/Q70 will have to step up with something special to slot it in between the CTS and XTS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,052 Posts
That's the best looking interior on a Cadillac that I've seen in a LONG time. However, I just can't get past the exterior - I've never liked the look of any of the "new breed."
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,177 Posts
That's the best looking interior on a Cadillac that I've seen in a LONG time. However, I just can't get past the exterior - I've never liked the look of any of the "new breed."
I'm with you....I do not like the Cadillac exterior styling at all!! But I do like the 2014 Lexus IS look.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
That's the best looking interior on a Cadillac that I've seen in a LONG time. However, I just can't get past the exterior - I've never liked the look of any of the "new breed."
Neither did I but this one seems more rakish, it almost looks like an aggresive baby maybach
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,569 Posts
If my Q isn't in my garage by release date, the CTS goes on my short list to compare . . . very short since I think I've ruled out everything else :)

They still need to work out the CUE bugs and I don't see any hard buttons added since the original release photos for things like independent volume control. That will likely keep me in the Q camp anyway but I will definitely go see this puppy. The ATS is no joke - just a little too small for what I need.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,661 Posts
If my Q isn't in my garage by release date, the CTS goes on my short list to compare . . . very short since I think I've ruled out everything else :)

They still need to work out the CUE bugs and I don't see any hard buttons added since the original release photos for things like independent volume control. That will likely keep me in the Q camp anyway but I will definitely go see this puppy. The ATS is no joke - just a little too small for what I need.
But are you ok with spending an extra $10k on the CTS's V6?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,569 Posts
I think the lease numbers are going to say it all. If the CTS is way higher than the Q then I'll just bail. I don't mind higher payments if they are justified but I'm not sure the offerings in the CTS will be that much better than the Q, and I am surmising that the Q will have better implementation of much of the safety and tech items anyway.

I really like the CUE system, it just needs to get better and I'm sure it will with time. They also need to add some hard buttons. They went too far and too agressive too early IMHO.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,661 Posts
I think the lease numbers are going to say it all. If the CTS is way higher than the Q then I'll just bail. I don't mind higher payments if they are justified but I'm not sure the offerings in the CTS will be that much better than the Q, and I am surmising that the Q will have better implementation of much of the safety and tech items anyway.

I really like the CUE system, it just needs to get better and I'm sure it will with time. They also need to add some hard buttons. They went too far and too agressive too early IMHO.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the iteration of the CUE system in the CTS is going to be better than both the current ATS and XTS in terms of responsiveness and use. That should be something interesting to look forward to. :)

I think the point I was also getting across is that for leasing a car $60k+, there's a huge step up in other competition out there outside of the segment that the Q50 belonged to. Now you're also entering the S5/A6/A7, E-Class, XF 3.0, C-Class AMG's,...etc. You're right about lease numbers possibly making all the difference..
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
699 Posts
The CTS is too big and the ATS is too small. I like where the Q50 fits in size-wise. I really like the ATS but the back seat is unusable. I also really like that you can create any shortcut you want on Cue, address, phone, radio station, etc. so that you don't have to go into those various apps or menus for the things that you do most often.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkay

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
The CTS is too big and the ATS is too small. I like where the Q50 fits in size-wise. I really like the ATS but the back seat is unusable. I also really like that you can create any shortcut you want on Cue, address, phone, radio station, etc. so that you don't have to go into those various apps or menus for the things that you do most often.

So are you going to name your Q50 Goldilocks? :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
699 Posts
I don't know exact dimensions but it "looks" bigger and Cadilac said that the 14 CTS was going to be bigger than the previous model to better differentiate it from the ATS.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,569 Posts
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the iteration of the CUE system in the CTS is going to be better than both the current ATS and XTS in terms of responsiveness and use. That should be something interesting to look forward to. :)

I think the point I was also getting across is that for leasing a car $60k+, there's a huge step up in other competition out there outside of the segment that the Q50 belonged to. Now you're also entering the S5/A6/A7, E-Class, XF 3.0, C-Class AMG's,...etc. You're right about lease numbers possibly making all the difference..
I don't want repeat all of my reviews of other cars as I know you already saw them Simpsontide - but the higher lease payments for the Merc and Beemer did not seem justified. I just wasn't impressed enough to pay so much more for either less in some areas or not that much more in others.

I hope you are right about the CYE system in the CTS. I know some issues were hardware related with replacements of entire head units for some people wight ATS so hopefully those issues are resolved. I still think you need a separate volume knob at a minimum, the haptic feedback ain't all that great and volume control is probably the #1 thing I use on my dash. If use the steering wheel controls a bit but being able to spin down the volume quickly - well there's just no substitute :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
2014 CTS Exterior
Wheelbase (in / mm):
114.6 / 2911
Length (in / mm):
195.5 / 4966
Height (in / mm):
57.2 / 1454
Width (in / mm):
72.2 / 1833
Track (in / mm):
front: 61.4 / 1560
rear: 61.7 / 1568
Base curb weight (lb / kg):
3616 / 1640
Weight distribution
(% front / rear):
50.3 / 49.7

Interior
Legroom (in / mm):
front: 42.6 / 1081
rear: 35.4 / 899
Headroom (in / mm):
front: 39.2 / 995
rear: 37.5 / 952
Shoulder room (in / mm):
front: 56.9 / 1446
rear: 54.8 / 1392
Hip room (in / mm):
front: 53.8 / 1366
rear: 53.3 / 1353

So its about 6 to 7 inches longer depending on version of Q50, a tad wider, 2.4 inch longer wheel base. Interior room Q larger in some area and CTS in others
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,661 Posts
For all its size the CTS apparently has cramped rear seating; quite disappointing. Check out the auto show videos on YouTube (eg 2theredline)
I think the older CTS, from when I test drove a 2008 model, seemed very comparable size-wise to the G37.

The thing I remember the most is how the CTS only felt a lot larger than it really was, primarily due to its steering and its weight distribution.


2014 CTS Exterior
Wheelbase (in / mm):
114.6 / 2911
Length (in / mm):
195.5 / 4966
Height (in / mm):
57.2 / 1454
Width (in / mm):
72.2 / 1833
Track (in / mm):
front: 61.4 / 1560
rear: 61.7 / 1568
Base curb weight (lb / kg):
3616 / 1640
Weight distribution
(% front / rear):
50.3 / 49.7

Interior
Legroom (in / mm):
front: 42.6 / 1081
rear: 35.4 / 899
Headroom (in / mm):
front: 39.2 / 995
rear: 37.5 / 952
Shoulder room (in / mm):
front: 56.9 / 1446
rear: 54.8 / 1392
Hip room (in / mm):
front: 53.8 / 1366
rear: 53.3 / 1353

So its about 6 to 7 inches longer depending on version of Q50, a tad wider, 2.4 inch longer wheel base. Interior room Q larger in some area and CTS in others
Yeah, the 2014 CTS wheelbase is 2.4 in longer, it is 7.2 inches longer in length overall, it's 0.4 inches wider and taller, and 24lbs heavier.
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top