2025 Cadillac Escalade IQ Goes 558 Miles on the Edmunds EV Range Test
We knew that the Escalade IQ would perform well on our test, given the impressive range we've experienced in its Chevy Silverado EV and GMC Sierra EV siblings. The EPA estimates the Escalade IQ can travel 460 miles on a full charge, but in the official Edmunds EV Range Test, we recorded 558 miles. This is the first time a vehicle has broken the 550-mile threshold out of the more than 100 EVs we've tested.
At our range test's required 40-mph average speed, which uses a split of 60% city and 40% highway driving, the IQ racked up more than 13 hours of drive time, requiring a team of three people to do the job. Keep in mind that's not including any breaks or traffic stops, just time while the car is on the move.
Diving deeper into the numbers, the IQ used 43 kWh of electricity per 100 miles of driving, making it less efficient than a Rivian R1S (41.7 kWh) but more efficient than the Mercedes G 580 EV (47.6 kWh). But the reason for the Escalade's success isn't its overall efficiency — it's the sheer size of the battery. The big SUV's battery capacity is 205 kWh, which is enormous compared to the packs in other three-row EVs like the Volvo EX90 (107 kWh) and the Rivian R1S (up to 141 kWh).
General Motors' other large EVs use a similar battery as the Cadillac. Out of the six that we've tested, the Escalade IQ's 558-mile range was the winner by huge margin, beating the Silverado EV Work Truck (539 miles), the GMC Sierra EV Denali (507 miles), the Silverado EV RST (484 miles) and destroying the GMC Hummer EV's 325-mile (SUV) and 390-mile (truck) tests.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
21 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Ford Motor Co. has a much bigger issue than tariffs at its door
Earlier this year, Ford earned an ignominious distinction after it issued its 89th recall of the year before July. The Blue Oval shattered the record General Motors set in 2014 when it issued 77 recalls in the whole year. Last month during its second-quarter earnings call, Ford said that it is taking the issue seriously. "We are not satisfied with the current level of recalls or the number of vehicles impacted. We are working to reduce the cost of these recalls," said Chief Operating Officer Kuman Galhorta. Related: Ford Motor Co. is still haunted by this one, costly issue But the company also downplayed the issue in some ways. Ford says that about a third of its recalls over the past three years have been software-related, and over-the-air recalls cost 95% less than physical ones. So even though Ford is breaking recall records this year, the issues are less costly to fix. Galhorta also said that the majority of its recalls are "tied to vehicles engineered several years ago before we made all the robust process changes across our industrial system." But the latest Ford recall shows that the problem may not be explained away so easily. On August 11, the National Highway Traffic Safety Association announced that Ford is issuing a recall for certain 2023-2025 F-150 vehicles equipped with the Trailer Tow Max Duty package and a 9.75-inch heavy duty axle with a 3/4 float axle design. The agency says the rear axle hub bolt may fatigue and eventually break, which could cause the vehicle to roll away, even when when in park, if the parking brake isn't also engaged. Ford does have a fix for this issue, and owners will be notified of the change via mail in phases beginning August 18, 2025, through May 22, 2026. Related: Ford CEO Jim Farley takes 'radical approach' to big money loser Ford's number for this recall is 25S82, and it expands previous NHTSA recall number 23V896. The Ford F-150 is the country's most popular pickup, but the NHTSA estimates that just about 1% of the vehicles have the defect. Ford says that tariff costs will shave about $2 billion off its bottom line this year, but if Ford doesn't get its recall issues under control, its tariff expenses could pale in comparison. Ford just announced that is recalling 2021-2024 Bronco Sport vehicles, 2020-2022 Escape vehicles, and 2019-2024 Kuga vehicles due to cracked fuel injectors that could leak fuel into the engine and increase the risk of fire. More than 694,000 vehicles could have the problem, so it's calling for a field service action that will cost Ford about $570 million. This was reflected in its second-quarter results but won't affect the company's full year EBIT. More automotive: Toyota is stuck in neutral after the latest US and Japan trade updateGeneral Motors has an unlikely ally in race against China$243 million Tesla Autopilot lawsuit lawyer has message for Elon Musk As bad as the recent spate of recalls has been, Ford says field service actions (FSA) costs for 2024 and 2025 model-year vehicles are at least 50% better than those for 2020 and 2022 model-year vehicles. FSAs account for about 40% of Ford's warranty costs. The other 60% covers bumper-to-bumper and powertrain warranty coverage. Last week, the NHTSA announced that Ford is recalling 312,120 vehicles in the U.S due to a brake assist issue that could cause the loss of that function. Vehicles affected by Ford brake assist recall: 2025 Ford Bronco2025 Ford Expedition2025 Ford F-1502025 Ford Ranger2025 Lincoln Navigator Ford will start mailing letters for that recall to owners starting August 25. Owners can contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Related: Ford CEO Jim Farley supports US tariffs despite $2 billion cost The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
3 Reasons General Motors Stock Is a Screaming Buy
Key Points General Motors has sharply reduced its shares outstanding and boosted EPS. The Detroit carmaker has invested billions into its brands and product lineup. Moreover, management has successfully restructured its business in China. 10 stocks we like better than General Motors › When thinking about General Motors (NYSE: GM), many investors think back to the financial crisis and government bailout, but that doesn't do justice to the company that GM has become in the years since. GM is doing a lot of things right, and it's quietly becoming arguably the best automotive investment out there. Here are three reasons why. Returning value When it comes to returning value to shareholders, there are two primary pathways: dividends and share buybacks. Each comes with its advantages, but General Motors has decided to go heavy on share buybacks, with its stock trading at a paltry eight times price-to-earnings. General Motors has been extremely engaged in share buyback programs over the past decade. The Detroit automaker has consistently used strong free cash flow, along with the belief that its stock is heavily undervalued, to significantly reduce shares outstanding and boost earnings per share. You can see the extreme change in the graphic below. The carmaker has spent nearly $25 billion on share repurchases over the past three-plus years, reducing the number of shares outstanding from 1.5 billion to 950 million over that span. This is a significant and serious amount of cash spent to buy back shares when you consider that GM's market cap is roughly $50 billion. As long as GM's stock remains cheap, GM buying back its shares is good for investors, and that isn't likely to change in the near-term. Investing in brands/product General Motors has spent billions of dollars and years of time investing in its portfolio of brands and vehicles, and it's starting to pay off. Chevrolet, the heart and soul of General Motors, and GMC have both been thriving in 2025, with a record first half for GMC and the best since 2019 for Chevrolet. The brands, and GM in general, are coming off a product wave over the past few years that brought updated crossovers, SUVs, and EVs to the market -- and its highly profitable trucks are next. Chevrolet is also making a splash in the EV market, becoming the No. 2 brand during the second quarter, trailing only Tesla in the U.S. market. July was the best sales month ever for the Equinox EV, and it was the best sales result for an EV other than a Tesla in the U.S. market. The Equinox is projected to place in the top three in sales for 2025, behind only Tesla's Model Y and 3. In the broader picture, General Motors has invested heavily into its products and brands, and that's going to carry sales momentum for years to come. A turnaround in China China has been the promised land for automakers for decades: a booming population with a craving for vehicles. Unfortunately for foreign automakers, domestic brands have thrived in recent years -- so much so that there's a brutal price war going on, causing even the best foreign autos to struggle with profitability and market share. General Motors had previously been extremely successful in China, driving billions to the bottom line at its peak. But this price war hit GM hard, too, and forced the company back to the drawing board for a roughly $4 billion restructuring strategy. It's paying off, and GM just turned in a second consecutive quarter of sales increases, increasing 20% during Q2. "Our strong Q2 performance reflects the sustainable growth trajectory we are building in both sales and market share through local innovations," said Steve Hill, GM senior vice president and president of GM China. "We remain committed to driving profitable growth for China business by focusing on strong execution, business agility and customer choices." What it all means General Motors has been doing a lot of things right lately, even if Wall Street hasn't noticed. The company has spent tens of billions of dollars reducing its shares outstanding, poured billions in investments into brands and products, and reversed one of its biggest weaknesses in China. General Motors is buying back its shares on the cheap, and it's time mainstream investors started following suit. Should you invest $1,000 in General Motors right now? Before you buy stock in General Motors, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and General Motors wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $668,155!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,106,071!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,070% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 184% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 13, 2025 Daniel Miller has positions in General Motors. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Tesla. The Motley Fool recommends General Motors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 3 Reasons General Motors Stock Is a Screaming Buy was originally published by The Motley Fool
Politico
2 days ago
- Politico
A silver lining in Trump's anti-climate agenda
Presented by With help from Noah Baustin, Annie Snider and Jordan Wolman THE SAFETY IN ENDANGERMENT: The Trump administration is about to roll back the federal government's power to regulate climate change, but a former top Biden administration official sees a silver lining for California. Ann Carlson, a UCLA professor who served as acting administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under Biden, said the Trump administration's move to nix the so-called endangerment finding — which the Obama administration issued in 2009 and lays out the legal basis for EPA to regulate greenhouse gases as a threat to human health — could open the door for states to create their own emissions rules for the transportation sector. While states are preempted from setting vehicle greenhouse gas standards under Massachusetts v. EPA, a 2007 case that affirmed EPA's authority to regulate those emissions, Carlson said that the federal government getting out of the emissions game would present state leaders with a serious argument that preemption is off the table. That would be especially useful for California, after Congress in June revoked its unique ability to create stricter-than-federal pollution rules. Carlson spoke with POLITICO about the endangerment finding, the Supreme Court and what electric vehicle policies she wants California to push forward. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. It seems counterintuitive that the Trump administration rolling back EPA's ability to reduce greenhouse gases could potentially help California regulate its own emissions. Can you explain your thinking? I would start with the reality that what it looks like when you read the endangerment finding proposal from EPA is that it's essentially making arguments that greenhouse gases are not air pollutants under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. That's the section that regulates vehicle emissions. So if that's true, then the states presumably are not preempted from regulating greenhouse gases. If you want Massachusetts v. EPA to be overturned, which is essentially what they're arguing, then you're basically saying that the Clean Air Act doesn't cover greenhouse gases, or at least with respect to mobile sources. How exactly would that help a state like California to develop greenhouse gas rules for vehicles? One of the arguments that opponents make against California's special authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate mobile sources is that Section 209, which is the section that both preempts other states and gives California its authority, is really designed to attack air pollution, because historically, that's been California's big problem. Los Angeles has the worst air pollution in the country, and that's really what that provision is about. And so if California is trying to use its authority to regulate greenhouse gases, opponents say that is beyond its scope. But now, if EPA is in fact arguing that Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, which gives it authority to regulate pollution from mobile sources, doesn't cover greenhouse gases, then states aren't preempted from regulating them. You could have 50 states potentially regulating greenhouse gases coming out of vehicles. Do you think that argument would hold up in front of a conservative Supreme Court? What EPA is doing is squarely putting on a collision course the combination question of whether Massachusetts v. EPA should be overturned and whether states can regulate independently because they're not preempted. Let's take power plants as an example. States can regulate greenhouse gases from power plants, because there's no preemption provision in the Clean Air Act. That's why California has its cap-and-invest program, for example. I believe the answer would be that if Section 202 doesn't cover greenhouse gases, there should be no prohibition on states regulating. Does that mean the Supreme Court would agree with me? Who knows. But it would raise a conundrum for them, because the conservatives on the court have been very reluctant to let EPA regulate greenhouse gases ambitiously. This seems to be a serious conundrum for the auto industry, which pushed the administration to revoke California's EV mandate. It's not an accident that the industry has not been urging EPA to withdraw the endangerment finding. If you look at who's aligned with that concept, going back to the first Trump administration, auto companies and the [U.S.] Chamber of Commerce are staying on the sidelines. It's the oil industry generally that has been arguing in favor of doing this. Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order after Trump revoked California's EV mandate, directing state agencies to develop recommendations for maintaining progress. If you were a state regulator, what policies would you advocate for? Incentives are one way to push. For example, replacing the rollback of the federal tax credits is one possibility. Cities and counties can invest in zero-emission technology and consider things like feebates, where you reward buyers of electric vehicles through lower vehicle license fees. You can use the indirect source rules that require stationary sources that attract a lot of vehicle traffic to ensure that some of those vehicles are low-emission or zero-emission. All of those sorts of things are, I think, appropriate. I think the harder question is, can you do enough to replace straight regulation? Yeah, right. That's why this opportunity is potentially interesting. If the endangerment finding is going to go away, maybe California has authority that it didn't think it had. — AN Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here! WAIT FOR US: The Trump administration is jumping into truck manufacturers' lawsuit seeking to dissolve a zero-emission sales agreement with California. The Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division filed the motion to intervene in a Sacramento federal court on Thursday, three days after four truck makers — Daimler Truck North America, International Motors, Paccar and Volvo North America — sued to break a 2023 voluntary agreement with the state. The move is the latest step in the administration's aggressive effort to dismantle California's electric vehicle policies, most notably Congress' June revocation of EPA waivers that allow the state to enforce ZEV mandates. DOJ's filing, like the industry's lawsuit, argues that without the waivers, California no longer has the authority to enforce the Clean Truck Partnership, which was negotiated by nine manufacturers and the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association. 'Agreement, contract, partnership, mandate — whatever California wants to call it, this unlawful action attempts to undermine federal law,' Acting Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson said in a statement. — AN ROLL OUT THE RED CARPET: A who's who of the California wind energy industry, and their regulators, visited Merced County on Thursday to tour the under-construction Gonzaga Ridge Wind Farm. Just three of the new turbines being installed will produce more power than the 1980s-era installation of 166 turbines that it's replacing, according to the developer, Scout Clean Energy. In total, its capacity will reach 147.5 megawatts. 'That demonstrates how far the technology has come,' said California Energy Commission Chair David Hochschild as he gazed at the site. 'This is what the future looks like.' Besides the state's top energy boss, POLITICO also spotted Ignis Energy USA General Manager Pedro Blanquer, Wind Stream Properties co-owner Bob Gates, Assemblymember Esmeralda Soria's field representative Vanessa Barraza and California Wind Energy Association lobbyist Melissa Cortez. Also in attendance were representatives of Clean Power SF, whose agency has committed to purchasing the power for San Franciscans to use, and the state park system, whose land the installation sits on. Rows and rows of turbine blades were being stored on the location, a welcome site to Scout Clean Energy CEO Michael Rucker. When his team heard that the Trump administration would be imposing hefty tariffs, they sped to expedite shipping supplies from India, Germany, and Malaysia. The blades, which were manufactured in Turkey, cleared customs one day before Liberation Day, according to Rucker. 'We were lucky,' he said. — NB BETTER TO BE LUCKY: Warnings that the Trump administration's Forest Service downsizing could hamper wildfire response efforts haven't materialized yet, thanks in part to favorable weather conditions in fire-prone parts of the country. Democratic lawmakers and state officials across the country have warned that the Trump administration is courting disaster by removing about 5,000 Forest Service workers through early retirement and buyout programs, including about 1,600 people with wildland firefighting qualifications. But decent spring and summer rainfall and cooler temperatures across the West have helped contain wildfires, making existing personnel and resources adequate for ongoing response efforts, POLITICO's Jordan Wolman reports. 'He's gotten lucky in a way,' Steve Ellis, a former Forest Service supervisor who now serves as chair of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees, said of Trump. 'You're not really going to look bad until fire gets going and you don't have enough resources.' — AN, JW KEEPING THE TAP FLOWING: California can expect to receive steady Colorado River water supplies for the rest of the year, but the situation is getting dicey. The Interior Department announced Friday that states along the river will continue to get stable supplies, despite the latest projections for the waterway, which show water levels at the two main reservoirs continuing to plummet, POLITICO's Annie Snider reports. New projections show Lake Mead at elevation 1,056 feet at the beginning of 2026 — almost 8 feet lower than it was on New Year's Day 2025 — and Lake Powell at elevation 3,538 feet — 33.5 feet lower than it was on Jan. 1. But the Trump administration left open the possibility of making mid-year changes to how much water gets released from Lake Powell, and potentially also releasing water from other reservoirs upstream in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah and New Mexico. The news comes as the administration warns it could develop its own water-sharing rules for Western states if they can't reach an agreement among themselves. — AN, AS — Former Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter gives Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin's AB 1408 a shoutout in his call to speed up clean energy installations. — A small Napa County town is experimenting with a new microgrid run on batteries and liquid hydrogen. — An invasive swan species is a growing threat to California's wetlands, sparking a debate over whether hunters should be allowed to begin killing the beautiful birds.
