Edmunds CarPool

Wow, such praise for the CTS. If you are giving it high marks, Cadillac must have really got it right. Now, I am eager to go drive one. I really like the new look, it makes the old model lood very dated. So, did you drive one with the manual?

This post made me want this car really really badly

Karl,
 
You are going to get yourself in a lot of trouble with posts like this and I cant wait to read feedback.
 
Sounds good to me, only Automobile magazine (what a shock!) didnt like the CTS. All other reviews have been stellar. I really wish we didnt have to keep seeing the car in that red though, its not one of the better colors.

I drove one with the manual at Laguna Seca. It was my first trip out so I was focused on the proper line and re-aquainting myself with the track. Then I got back and the Cadillac folks were like, "So, how did you like the manual?" and it occurred to me that I never really thought about it...which is a very good sign. The manual obviously let me focus on the track without being distracted by abrupt clutch engagement or inaccurate shifter action, etc. I just got in it and went.
 
I remember having no problem heel-and-toeing, but otherwise I just remember tearing around the track. The manual must be "fine" at the very least. I need to try one again on public roads, where my focus won't be breaking points and apexes.

Karl,
 
I'm really confused. What class is the Cadillac CTS in? To be in the entry level class it fits well. V6 engines, priced right at $30,000, manual and automatic gears boxes, and feature content. It fits well with the BMW 3-series, Infiniti G35, etc.
 
But,
 
People, meaning editors, compare it to the BMW 5-series. I don't think it can fit in that class. It too small, doesn't offer a non V-series V8, and it does not have enough feature content to keep up with that class.
 
Which catagory is it?

I always thought that what the domestics should do, given their cost structure, is offer more car albeit for more money. It looks like they've got the "more car" part down. Now it's time to give it an appropriate margin, and NOT let it fall under fire sales (the CTS owners I know got theirs during that big employee-discount sale).
 
Is the idea to put the crown back on the logo if this keeps up?

The CTS is too big and heavy to compete driectly with the 3 Series. Price is close, and performance is on par except for the handling (because it's too big). Interior space is better than a 3 Series and close to a 5 Series/A6, as is feature content.
 
As is often the case the "official category" a car fits in ultimately doesn't really matter. What matters is what you get for what you pay. The CTS seems to be walking a narrow margin between two "established categories" and its mix of price, performance and features should give it an advantage over many "competitors."

Sounds like a future Edmunds long-term vehicle to me!!

The G35 and the CTS seem to have nearly identical interior dimensions. Other magazines have pegged the CTS' performance slightly lesser to the G35.
 
The G35 is ever so slightly bigger, $3,000 MSRP cheaper, with more headroom, while 364 lb lighter than the CTS
But I suppose the CTS' huge roof is worth it.
 
Do the rear seats fold down?

"As is often the case the "official category" a car fits in ultimately doesn't really matter. What matters is what you get for what you pay. The CTS seems to be walking a narrow margin between two "established categories" and its mix of price, performance and features should give it an advantage over many "competitors.""
 
exactly! I hate when people act like vehicles "have" to fit into the categories established by the German brands. WHo said Cadillac isnt allowed to have midsize car that matches the 3 series on price? Also, the lack of a V8 is a minor issue since most people get the I-6s on 5 series models. With 300hp out of 6s these days who needs a V8?

I think the CTS is very distinctive because it is undeniably very American - just like you would consider a BMW to be very German. For many, this will be enough for them to consider the CTS. Having a car that is very stable (i.e. heavy), and is a serene highway cruiser is, for better or worse, the American way of doing things and it looks like GM managed to throw in a little chutzpah on the corners as well. I think that combo in addition to the interior makes the CTS worth a look. The only glaring drawbacks I see to the CTS is the lack of factor-installed Bluetooth (only a crude, dealer-installed option) and the limited fuel economy of their engines (which Infiniti also suffers from by the way). It also remains to be seen if the complex interior electronics, which GM has never attempted in the past, will last.
 
My only question is whether or not the upcoming Lancer Raillart and/or Evo may be the last word in the value discussion?
 
By the way - I commend Karl for working on Labor Day!

" also remains to be seen if the complex interior electronics, which GM has never attempted in the past, will last."
 
That's the trend these days and this should not be in question considering the "benchmarks" have been installing useless conveniences for years now. I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to anyway. The screen has to motor into position as it does in countless other cars (Mazda nav, X3 nav, Volvo's system, etc) and that's about it in terms of possibly fragile items. GM has been installing remote start for years as well as Keyless ignition since '05.

Gotta drive it to believe it. I heard all kinds of praise for the last gen CTS and that car was a joke compared to anything from Audi, MB, Acura, Infiniti and BMW.

"and the limited fuel economy of their engines (which Infiniti also suffers from by the way). "
 
Compared to what cars? This has been stated before but under the 2008 standards most of the CTS' competition gets worse mileage. I believe the IS350 gets 19/28 under current standards which means it gets about 17/26 under new standards. CTS is rated at 17/27 I believe which is very good. Which imports have better mileage with 300hp? Let us know.
 
"Gotta drive it to believe it. I heard all kinds of praise for the last gen CTS and that car was a joke compared to anything from Audi, MB, Acura, Infiniti and BMW."
 
according to YOU, but not the general public and the press. To make such a comment shows that you my friend are a joke. Give us all a break and stop insulting our intelligence. I assume you include the CTS-V in your assessment of the old car even though it ran 13.1 sec qtr miles and pulled .9gs on the skidpad. When that car came out it was stated on more than one occasion it was capable of M type performance and was more of serious sports sedan than anything offered by MB at the time.

"By the way - I commend Karl for working on Labor Day!"
Me too, but it's a false labor day anyway.
 
As for 1487's predictable comments... I have to agree the old CTS was a joke compared to the competition. I like how it drove but c'mon, it hardly looked like a luxury car inside. So as awesome as the new one seems to be, I can't help but wonder where the compromises are. If it really is better in every way, for less money, is GM actually making a profit on it?

Carlisimo
 
+1

"As for 1487's predictable comments... I have to agree the old CTS was a joke compared to the competition. I like how it drove but c'mon, it hardly looked like a luxury car inside."
 
The old car lacked a luxurious interior design, it wasnt a joke in terms of handling and performance- kind of like the last gen of BMWs. Lets not forget some of its competitors dont even offer manual trannies and the CTS has one from day one. Honestly, did you ever read anything about the car? You are acting like I am the only person on the planet to ever say the original car was capable.
 
"If it really is better in every way, for less money, is GM actually making a profit on it?"
 
who said less money? Karl didnt, thats for sure so I dont know why you made that assumption- plus pricing is available if you are interested. The new CTS goes up to around $50k and is hardly cheaper than the old car. Stop looking for some big hidden flaw and just acknowledge the car is nice as EVERY review has touted. Do you think ALL these reviewers are so blind that they are missing these glaring weaknesses and cost cutting that you are concerned about?
 
goes to show that Karl has no credibility with you people when he is complimenting anything domestic but all the credibility in the world when he criticizes one.

brett,
 
what in the world is your comment supposed to mean?

I've driven the old CTS. Yes, it is a fine sports sedan. I agree with you on that point.
 
But sport-luxury? More importantly, a Cadillac? It would've made a great Pontiac.
 
btw, "+1" means "I agree with your post."

The old CTS may have not been a complete joke, but it was signficiantly subpar when comparing it to its European rivals.
 
The interior wasn't just not luxurious, it was pathetic. Like a computer geek's wet dream with all the charcoal colored plastic and weird knobs on the steering wheel. The styling while adventurouson the front, was dull and boring on the sides and rear end. I personally did not like the new look, but thought the STS was a better rendition. The CTS looked tall and bloated. Sure it handled ok and obtained good "objective" numbers, but when you got in and drove you were not under the impression of a "driver-oriented" environment like in a BMW, or Audi.
 
I agree that the MB was no "sports" sedan, but MB gives its buyers what they want. "Weightiness" and substantive feeling of quality.
 
Cadillac did not have strategy going into the CTS development. It was better than the Catera. YEAH. So what. If value is all you have to offer in this segment, it only takes you so far. The old CTS was an important car because it allowed GM to prove they could develop a balanced and driver oriented chassis and structure. It was an important first step to this new car.
 
You have to give GM credit, it did not abandon the CTS and decide to go in a different direction. They massaged it, developed if further and refined a product that is far more compelling. But please don't confuse the first CTS as anything more than a weird looking bloated sedan with a nice chassis and handling characteristics.

2008 automatics:
BMW 335i: 18/26/21
Lexus IS350: 19/25/21
Cadillac CTS: 17/26/20
Infiniti G35: 17/24/20
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/

1487 - you need to relax man, you're gonna have a heart attack one of these days...I hope GM pays you enough for that at least (here it comes....here it comes!!!)

Personally i find this cts to be a far more attractive choice over its german and japanese rivals, both inside and out. The only problem i can find with the car, is that it doesnt offer a v8, and im a big fan of v8's. In my eyes, cadillac now makes the best luxury crossover(srx), suv(escalade), and smallish sedan(08 cts) for the money. Personally, however ill hold out for the cts-v, due solely to the v8 factor.

"But sport-luxury? More importantly, a Cadillac? It would've made a great Pontiac. "
 
Pontiacs are generally not RWD. On top of that the CTS had HIDs, 5 speed auto, DOHC motor, navigation etc- all things generally missing from Pontiacs back in 2002 when the car came out. The only area where the car was lacking was interior luxury, the performance and materials quality was actually quite good once it got the 255hp engine in 2003. The CTS has nothing in common with any Pontiacs and since people like you are fond of quoting magazine results it should be noted the CTS beat 5 other luxury sedans in a R&T comparo in 2004.
 
"1487 - you need to relax man, you're gonna have a heart attack one of these days...I hope GM pays you enough for that at least (here it comes....here it comes!!!)"
 
I'm pretty calm. How about you? I dont need to be paid to tell the truth. If people lie about GM, Toyota, Honda or anyone I tend to speak up because I do get annoyed with people who are incredibly biased but wont admit it and act like there are objective reasons to back up their bias.
 
"Cadillac did not have strategy going into the CTS development. It was better than the Catera. YEAH. So what. If value is all you have to offer in this segment, it only takes you so far. "
 
yeah no strategy- and you should know since you are a self prounounced expert on all things GM. Their lack of strategy is what led them to sell 50k+ CTS a year which is pretty good for a brand new nameplate with no history. Do you ever reference facts before typing?
 
"But please don't confuse the first CTS as anything more than a weird looking bloated sedan with a nice chassis and handling characteristics."
 
The car was supposed to be a sports sedan and you say "its nothing more than a bloated sedan with nice chassis and handling". WTF was is supposed to be? BTW (not that facts are ever important to you), the car was not bloated compared to the G35, 5 series, A6 etc. It was only bloated compared to the compact 3 series which is like a foot shorter. Matter of fact, the A4 weighs nearly as much (if not more) than the CTS even though its considerably smaller.
 
"but when you got in and drove you were not under the impression of a "driver-oriented" environment like in a BMW, or Audi. "
 
No, YOU werent under that impression. Most people would disagree. If anything the car was criticized for being too driver focused in terms of interior design with too little attention paid to luxury. I've driven the car and it was very Germanic in its look (inside) and responses. Cadillac went too far with the cold German look on the old car but they have corrected it in the new car.

I admit my bias. :) I won't be satisfied until GM/Mopar/Ford leave this world forever...

bdc,
 
thats apparent by your commentary which leads me to wonder why you spend so much time in blogs about products you hate. And you wonder why you have no credibility when trashing everything that isnt made in Germany. YOu have the right to like whatever cars you want but dont expect people to buy the idea that all the cars you hate are garbage. A true hate such as you will never be satisfied with anything engineered and made in the US or by a US manufacturer. Which brings me the point I try to make here so often- most of the complaints by import lovers has little to do with the merits of the cars. Its kind of like going to a KKK convention to get an objective assessment of Barack Obama presidential potential.

1487
 
"BTW (not that facts are ever important to you), the car was not bloated compared to the G35, 5 series, A6 etc. It was only bloated compared to the compact 3 series which is like a foot shorter. Matter of fact, the A4 weighs nearly as much (if not more) than the CTS even though its considerably smaller."
 
The CTS looked bloated. I don't care how heavy it was. The styling was boring. It looked top heavy, and looked much larger than it actually was.
 
"No, YOU werent under that impression. Most people would disagree. If anything the car was criticized for being too driver focused in terms of interior design with too little attention paid to luxury."
 
Most people didn't disagree with me. What needs to be defined is "driver-focused". When you drove the car it did not have the intuitive sense that comes with a BMW, Acura or Audi. It just wasn't there. Most reviews of the time gave the CTS good marks for handling, but it did not receive good marks for the steering. And the interior was terrible (and it wasn't because it was TOO driver focused) It was poorly laid out, cheap materials, ugly to look at. That is not Teutonic in my book.

1487
 
I'm stuck driving American cars often and I get a firsthand taste of engineering designed unabashedly to appeal to Americans. To be honest, I'm not happy with the directions BMW and other manufacturers (Lexus/Infiniti/Toyota/Nissan) have taken lately in that regard either. They're shifting their focus and design specs to appeal more to the LCD - Americans, essentially. From soft suspensions to wider interiors to much larger all-around dimensions, cars designed for Americans are ruining the fun of driving.
 
The current 3 series is a prime example of a car that lost its way. The last gen e46 was too large and soft for me. The current gen e9x is just ridiculous and it's designed primarily to appeal to Americans with its jumbo-sizing, soft ride, quiet interior, lack of engine noise, lack of road feel and worthless gadgets (self-drying brakes!).
 
So if you sense me attacking American car companies, it's because in the attempt to appeal to GM's market, all other manus are watering down their products. The other manus are stealing share left and right and in turn making most cars generic and bland.

blueguy,
You have such a way with words. Beautifully written, and I suspect, successful in eliciting the desired response.

BDC -- stop stealing my blog posts! This is supposed to be tomorrow's topic. =)
 
(don't worry, I'm still going to write it)

I always felt the 1st generation CTS was a capable car but wrongly executed. The interior WAS NOT up to par (1487) no matter what trim or year. And the fact that Cadillac was criticized for this and followed by an updated, better executed interior (CTS/SRX) is proof enough.
 
What really makes a Cadillac a Cadillac? Thats a hard question to answer as Cadillac doesn't have history of producing great handling, taught, composed, tactile, refined, vehicles. The Germans/Japanese certainly had influence on Cadillacs drastic change as well as a few other manufacturers. Just create a philosophy and follow it consistently.
 
What GM is mainly guilty of is bad execution, lack of refinement, and lack of high material quality. Don't just focus perceived quality but also consider how it will feel in 5 to 10 years. People who shop in the luxury/sport segment EXPECT that no matter how good it handles or how much it undercuts the competition in price. They also have to increase durability also as Ive driven 3 different manual CTS-V's ( all between 30k and 48K) and all 3 had major drive line slop that totally ruined the experience and is unacceptable in any car regardless of price. These type of issues really stick out especially considering the CTS-V wasn't exactly inexpensive.
 
Of course GM of late realized a few things and have made great strides in most areas. And these products are going to have to prove themselves over the long run. From the looks of it, the new CTS will do well over time but cars like the Pontiac Solstice/Sky wont as they are prime examples of what NOT to do when it comes to build quality/refinement.
 
~LP

"Pontiacs are generally not RWD. On top of that the CTS had HIDs, 5 speed auto, DOHC motor, navigation etc- all things generally missing from Pontiacs back in 2002 when the car came out. The only area where the car was lacking was interior luxury, the performance and materials quality was actually quite good once it got the 255hp engine in 2003. The CTS has nothing in common with any Pontiacs and since people like you are fond of quoting magazine results it should be noted the CTS beat 5 other luxury sedans in a R&T comparo in 2004."
 
1487, can I just say you're an idiot? The point carlismo was trying to make isn't that the 1st gen CTS was like a Pontiac. He is saying the 1st gen CTS was more like what a Pontiac SHOULD BE, since they are supposed to be the division of driving excitement. Performance and technology (such as HIDs, DOHC motors, and navigation) helps to create that excitement. Poor interiors are a little more excusable in that segment.
 
BTW, flic and I are sending one of our hit men in your direction within the week to silence you, so it would be wise of you too keep your identity to 1487, and not any real identity ;-)

"The CTS looked bloated. I don't care how heavy it was. The styling was boring. It looked top heavy, and looked much larger than it actually was."
 
pretty much everything you said makes zero sense. No surprise there. Now you say "bloated" didnt refer to weight just its look. Got it. You say the car was boring to look at when it was one of the most unique designs in the class. Its been called many things but I have to say you are the first I've enountered to call it boring. I dont know why I'm looking for logic in your criticisms, I guess that's my fault.
 
"When you drove the car it did not have the intuitive sense that comes with a BMW, Acura or Audi. It just wasn't there. Most reviews of the time gave the CTS good marks for handling, but it did not receive good marks for the steering. And the interior was terrible (and it wasn't because it was TOO driver focused) It was poorly laid out, cheap materials, ugly to look at. That is not Teutonic in my book."
 
More lies and distortions from a familiar source.
 
Audis are generally not seen as driver's cars in the sense that BMWs are. Same goes for MB.
 
The CTS was not criticized for poor steering when it came out- perhaps you should reread some of the reviews.
 
The materials were not cheap, but the design was unappealing to many. Again reread the reviews and/or sit in the car before commenting.

"1487, can I just say you're an idiot? The point carlismo was trying to make isn't that the 1st gen CTS was like a Pontiac. He is saying the 1st gen CTS was more like what a Pontiac SHOULD BE, since they are supposed to be the division of driving excitement. Performance and technology (such as HIDs, DOHC motors, and navigation) helps to create that excitement. Poor interiors are a little more excusable in that segment.
"
 
you can name all all day- better that than actually make any sense. The point you and your calvary are missing is that the #1 criticism of the old car was the interior design. Not the exterior design, not fit and finish, not steering, not braking, not handling, not weight, not materials quality, etc. I dont understand why this is hard to comprehend. YOu are saying the car was Pontiac level but aside from the black dash it was way beyond any Pontiac or any other midsize sedan in that class of car. Pontiacs werent tuned on the Ring, the CTS was.

"I'm stuck driving American cars often and I get a firsthand taste of engineering designed unabashedly to appeal to Americans. To be honest, I'm not happy with the directions BMW and other manufacturers (Lexus/Infiniti/Toyota/Nissan) have taken lately in that regard either. "
 
You are comparing base model rentals to BMWs and other import luxury cars. That is the epitome of lunacy, well at least to normal person. Guess what, a rental Camry or accord isnt going to feel that special to someone who likes BMWS either.
 
I suppose more making cars to American tastes is supposed to mean cars are being designed to resemble the boats of the 70s and 80s but I dont see that happening. There are some cars like Camry and Sebring that cater to the "traditional" American ride and handling balance but those types of vehicles are on the wane. If you have a problem with what BMW is doing with their cars that is OK but I dont know that you can blame that on GM ruining the idea of a responsive car and forcing others to follow suit. You and I both know the Germans are never satisified and want to push the envelope of technology even when its not necessary which leads to useless tech and more weight and higher prices.
 
"So if you sense me attacking American car companies, it's because in the attempt to appeal to GM's market, all other manus are watering down their products. The other manus are stealing share left and right and in turn making most cars generic and bland. "
 
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Other than Toyota who is attempting to steal Buick, Mercury and old Cadillac owners? Not Honda. Not Mazda. Not BMW, Audi, MB or Infiniti. Your inference that other manufacturers are copying GM's "dull" styling and handling is laughable for many reasons but one of them is that GM's designs, performance and handling are actually more European than their oft praised Asian competitors. I can say that there is little eciting to be found in the stable of Toyota, Ford, Honda and Hyundai but I would not say the same about GM or even Chrysler. I dont think cars like the CTS, Solstice GXP, C6, Escalade, STS-V, HHR SS, Enclave are the hallmark of an automaker that only intends to put out dull vehicles. I also find it ironic that in a thread about the CTS you are talking about the GMification of vehicles when the CTS has 3 suspensions and the sportiest has been called somewhat harsh in reviews I've seen. While its true that manuals are dying out (blame GM i guess, why not?) the idea that cars are handling worse than they used to and coming with softer suspensions is a joke- well at least when talking of American vehicles. There is no way that vehicles like the Fusion, Taurus, Aura, CTS, STS, C6, Mustang, 300C/SRT, Charger, Avenger, viper, XLR, etc. are softer than cars of 10 years ago sold by the same manufacturers. With the G8, Camaro and CTS-V on the way I dont see American cars getting softer anytime soon. American cars are getting tighter and more European in suspension damping- as for the rest, well I dont know they could be heading backwards. Not my problem though.
 
hondaacura:
 
"The interior WAS NOT up to par (1487) no matter what trim or year."
 
who is disputing this? Did you read anything I wrote? I NEVER said I liked the CTS interior nor did I suggest it was close to class leading. I have said about 5 times that the interior was lacking. Stop trying to generate an argument when there is none, we agree on that fact so drop it.
 
mnorm1:
 
-1!

"The point you and your calvary are missing is that the #1 criticism of the old car was the interior design. "
 
We're not missing it. As far as my own posts go, that's the EXACT point I've been trying to make! The difference is that I think its interior is more important than how it drives. At the time Cadillac was still soft lux, more the likes of Lexus or Mercedes Benz (both of which would've been easier to go up against at the time, vs. BMW). All they had to do was build a respectable American luxury car again... and they didn't. They built a sports sedan as luxurious as the first Lexus IS300.
 
I'm not convinced that's what people were looking for.

1487
 
"The point you and your calvary are missing is that the #1 criticism of the old car was the interior design. Not the exterior design,"
 
The exterior design was not universally appauded when it came out and any characterization to the contrary is pure lie.
 
In September 2001 C&D said
"The only thing we reserve judgment on is the styling." Which was before the production vehicle was available.
 
In January 2003 C&D said
"We have mixed reactions to the sharply creased bodywork, though all hands agree this car won’t be mistaken for anything else. "
 
Automobile in a comparision test with BMW 3 and G35 said
"Cadillac's characteristic edgy styling works pretty well on the CTS, but when parked next to the other cars, the Caddy looks a little down on flash"
 
It is not condemning reviews but not good either. And notice that I said initially that only the rear and sides looked bloated and boring. You may want to READ others comments before trying to take them apart.

1487
 
""but when you got in and drove you were not under the impression of a "driver-oriented" environment like in a BMW, or Audi. "
  
No, YOU werent under that impression."
 
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I am tired of giving an opinion and then being told is it unacceptable because it was not backed up by some article or test result. I have a long and treasured past in driving and admiring automobiles of many different eras. Much more so than 1487, (who as owned 2 cars).
 
But what I find ironic is that his opinion is gold without reference to any materials or articles or test results. But if he does have some reporter that happens to agree with him then all other perspective is irrelevant to further discussion. Pathetic.
 
BDC had admitted to his bias, but 1487 still refuses to admit to his pathologic determination to defend GM. So in honor of that determination and defiance of all things import I repost a story that with time has only grown more true and more helpful in peering into the delusion that is 1487.
 
"You have to understand something about 1487. He was pushed around as a child, and the only one that stuck up for him was GM.
  
Therefore, now GM is his home, his solice, his life. He can't stand it when anyone slights his buddy, presents constructive criticism or points out the relative waste of good will over several decades. This hurts him personally, and he has to lash out.
  
The GM Six-Speed is his brother, the hydramatic of yesteryear his grandfather. To compare them to the invaders from Asia and the conquerors of Europe is a blow to his patriotism and family pride. The dark side of GM is hidden, and to him for good reason. Because for 1487 all is sweetness and light and the savior is just beyond the riverbend.
  
So please when you see the anger, when reality seems a little jaded in his posts, realize that he just wants to be heard. GM is good, GM is great, ahh ooomm... The chant of enlightened. The chant of the loyal.
  
Go get'em 1487, protector of all that is holy with the domestic, errr GM auto industry."

14, buddy, you missed the point.
 
Cars are moving toward the centerline, becoming amorphous, bland blobs - homogenization. You mention that the 08 CTS received criticism for having too harsh of a ride. Well the same is said of the G35 Sport and 335i with sport package. In my eyes, to my senses, those cars are soft. The continued watering down of all things sporty toward the collective mean or more precisely the Americanization of products leads us to a world where a car with a soft "sport" suspension is blasted as harsh expressly because the majority want the lay-zee-boy-recliner on wheels feel.
 
The Mazda6 gets knocks and low sales expressly because it's compact inside and has sharper handling/roadfeel than the big guns of the Accord, Camry, Malibu, Altima, Taurus. Mazda execs, in an effort to appease shareholders with higher sales, will undoubtedly soften up the next gen Mazda6, while also increasing its size inside and out. End result, the car is watered down to make it more acceptable to more people.
 
I used BMW as an example as you can clearly see with each jump from the e30 to the 36 to 46 to the current 90 the car has grown up - bigger, wider, quieter, more luxurious, less roadfeel. It's becoming more American with every build and sales keep going up, thus encouraging the continuation of the trend.

1487, you said in a previous post "the performance and materials quality was actually quite good once it got the 255hp engine in 2003."
 
Then you stated "the materials were not cheap, but the design was unappealing to many".
 
Last but not least you stated "I NEVER said I liked the CTS interior nor did I suggest it was close to class leading. I have said about 5 times that the interior was lacking."
 
Do I sense a wee bit of contradiction here? Im certainly not arguing about the car as Im a bit more mature than some but you left me confused about if you did or didnt like the interior.
 
As a co-owner of a renovation co. (specialize in older structures and houses) I tend to know a thing about using top notch materials and great execution. No matter how good the overall design is if the materials arent up to snuff its not going in the house. If both the materials and design/execution (1st CTS) is bad then its not even considered. The package as a whole is most important as you cant go by only one good characteristic.
 
Just to make you happy 1487, Im actually very enthusiastic and impressed with the NEW CTS...great job Cadillac!

"you left me confused about if you did or didnt like the interior. "
Yes, but only the domestic parts.

Karl, pardon me for digressing a bit, but blueguy has made a very interesting point about the Mazda 6.....
 
Blueguy and Karl, I was under the impression that Mazda's Zoom-Zoom strategy is to appeal to enthusiasts or semi-enthusiasts who want a sporty and practical car with bolder styling! I thought they were going after a smaller but more satisfied set of enthusiast customers. The current Mazda 6 fits the bill perfectly (with the sole exception of its relatively weak V6).
 
I would be very sad if the new Mazda 6 becomes more like a Honda Accord or any of the other cars you mentioned, blueguy. From the spy shots we know it'll be larger, and we know the V6's power output will be competitive, but I really hope they don't soften the suspension, handling and styling...and I hope it's not much larger than the current model! The current model is large enough: it can seat 4 adults in total comfort.
 
My opinion is that if they give us an Accord-like Mazda 6, they'll lose that fan base they have because bored Toyota and Honda drivers would no longer consider them as an alternative.......consequently they'll lose rather than gain customers.

"you can name all all day- better that than actually make any sense. The point you and your calvary are missing is that the #1 criticism of the old car was the interior design. Not the exterior design, not fit and finish, not steering, not braking, not handling, not weight, not materials quality, etc. I dont understand why this is hard to comprehend. YOu are saying the car was Pontiac level but aside from the black dash it was way beyond any Pontiac or any other midsize sedan in that class of car. Pontiacs werent tuned on the Ring, the CTS was."
 
Again, you've missed the point. No one is saying the 1st gen CTS was like a Pontiac, they are saying the 1st gen CTS is like Pontiac SHOULD BE. Not that anyone is encouraging a sub-stellar interior, but it would have been completely excusable given the "excitement" factor that it would have given the Pontiac line, much like it has given to the Cadillac line.
 
Anyway, I am not a CTS hater, in fact I'm very enthusiastic about the CTS effectively being Cadillac's halo car. I hope the CTS magic can trickle its way into many other GM products. Also I hope everyone realizes my hit man comment was a joke, an inside joke for my own and select others' amusement, and that I don't actually mean 1487 any harm.
 
Blueguy I feel what you're saying. It is so true. Even my 2001 Sentra SE w/ PP made the new Civic I test drove feel like a Camry. Of course my poly motor mount inserts probably don't help. I should have driven the Si...

Blackadder
 
I totally agree with you regarding the Mazda 6. In fact, you would think that Mazda would have learned its lesson with the 1998 626. That car was bigger and more bland than the car it replaced in an effort to compete against the Accord and Camry and it suffered as a result.

"'Im not convinced that's what people were looking for."
 
all well and good but 250k other people disagreed and Cadillac had to be pleased with the sales success of the CTS. The public didn't dislike the car as much as the critcs apparently.
 
"Again, you've missed the point. No one is saying the 1st gen CTS was like a Pontiac, they are saying the 1st gen CTS is like Pontiac SHOULD BE. "
 
wth does that have to do with the CTS? I might as well say the TL is what the Accord should be or the ES350 is what the camry should be. Its pointless. This is all water under the bridge at this point so I dont get all your bitching. The car's interior was lackluster and it has been addressed as Karl and others have noted. What more do you want Cadillac to do? The criticism was taken and obviously they learned from it. If you want to act like the CTS interior was far behind its contemporaries in 2002 such as G35 and old 5 series go ahead but the truth is it wasnt THAT far behind. Do you even remember the first generation G35 interior? Apparently not.
 
"The exterior design was not universally appauded when it came out and any characterization to the contrary is pure lie. "
 
since you are here I assume you can read. That said, read what I wrote. Never said it was universally praised, but I did say NO ONE CALLED IT BORING EXCEPT YOU. There is a difference. The car was called many things, but never boring for obvious reasons. Polarizing- yes, boring- no. Got it?
 
your quote from C&D: "We have mixed reactions to the sharply creased bodywork, though all hands agree this car won’t be mistaken for anything else. " - Thats exactly my point, thanks.

"I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I am tired of giving an opinion and then being told is it unacceptable because it was not backed up by some article or test result. I have a long and treasured past in driving and admiring automobiles of many different eras. Much more so than 1487, (who as owned 2 cars). "
 
glad you are keeping track of what I've done. I'm on my third car and have probably driven 50-60 vehicles in the last 5-6 years. How many have you driven? Ah, it doesnt matter anyway since I can predict every american car you've drive sucks regardless of make, model, size or price. I dont value opinions of those who are totally biased, sorry. Anyone who has been here long enough knows nothing on an American car is up to par for you and nearly everything done by the imports is spot on. Once the pattern becomes clear you have no credibility in my book. I've driven the CTS and have read much about it and I nor the "experts" seem to agree with you. Thats good enough for me.
 
"But what I find ironic is that his opinion is gold without reference to any materials or articles or test results. But if he does have some reporter that happens to agree with him then all other perspective is irrelevant to further discussion. Pathetic. "
 
what is pathetic is your lack of comprehension and poor short term memory. I provide reasoning for my arguments and use numerous sources. Here's the thing (pay close attention as it will save you time on your inevitable rambling response): when I see consensus amongst reviews I tend to take comments from reviews more seriously. If 90% of the reviews of the new CTS said it stunk and had cheap materials I would believe it. As it stands the ONLY negative review of the car I've seen is from Automobile mag who is known love imports about as much as you do. Guess what, to me their comments are pure BS and I disregard them. When 10 other auto writers are on one page and Automoble magazine comes along and says the CTS is a huge disappointment that is not close to the best from GErmany I tend to be skeptical of the latter review. So my friend, in spite of your efforts to prove that I pick and choose whom to quote when convenient the truth of the matter is I am only using examples that I feel are consistent with the consensus on a vehicle. Other times I mention past articles to show glaring inconsistencies from certain publications like C&D. They are world famous for being inconsistent in their reviews and the excuse always is "we didnt realize this car was crap until we drove in back to back with a Honda".
 
"BDC had admitted to his bias, but 1487 still refuses to admit to his pathologic determination to defend GM. "
 
that isnt bias my man. I can defend whomever I want, but that doesnt mean I am going to ignore the obvious to praise or deride GM or anyone else. Bias is when you make arguments like "everything GM makes is crap and I will never consider anything they make no matter what". See, thats your type of argument. I can give you reasons why I am skeptical of the supposed superiority of GM's import competition any day of the week. My point isnt that GM makes all great vehicles (as opposed to your point that they are a bunch of idiots who cant execute a competent vehicle) as much as its GM isnt way behind the curve as people like you suggest so frequently.
 
I am ready to defend what I'm talking about here but based on the fact that you are rehashing lame jokes about me being related to GM 6 speeds I see that you cannot say the same. Hey, keep up the comedy routine though. If you cant make us think perhaps you can make us laugh.

bdc,
 
I didnt miss the point, I just dont really agree or care. Cars are getting heavier but that isnt the same as getting softer and less fun to drive. Most mainstream cars have multiple engine choices and suspension settings. I dont doubt that the base model of the average car is tuned towards ride comfort but with M, AMG, V series, SE-R, SVT (well maybe one day), Type-S, SRT, etc. we do have plenty of sporty trim lines available to us that give us some handling options. Again, your focus seems to be primarily on BMW and thats fine but everyone is not doing what BMW is doing. As I stated, I dont see American cars moving towards "softer" as we head into the future. We already have SRT, V, GXP, SS and the vette and we have the Challenger, CAliber SRT, Camaro, ZR1, G8/G8 GXP and RWD family sedans on the horizon.
 
You may think any car weighing more than 3000 lbs is fat and sloppy but the average buyer does not agree. Regardless of your dim view of the 3 series the current car's performance is top notch in every single respect. I know you lament the power steering, leather, auto locks, heated seats, CD player, large wheels, etc. but the car is still quite a performer in spite of its mass.

"Do I sense a wee bit of contradiction here? Im certainly not arguing about the car as Im a bit more mature than some but you left me confused about if you did or didnt like the interior. "
 
No contradiction at all. What I said was very simple. The blocky design and black color was not well liked by many, including me. The materials used on the dash and panels were soft touch and low gloss- aka they were not cheap. Some of the early reviews noted this. My point is very straightforward.
 
BTW, the G35 was in the same boat as the CTS for the most part. Interior was functional but not upscale looking. Actually the G had worse materials inside than the CTS in my opinion. The Haloween orange backlighting didnt help either.
 
Hope that response wasnt too immature for you.
 
blackadder,
 
the next 6 will be larger, more powerful and heavier. Mazda has already said the current car was too small to compete effectively in the US market. While you may think they will lose customers with an enlargement of the car, the opposite is likely true. The current car has not been a huge hit in spite of great reviews so Mazda is going to go bigger to boost sales. It worked for the Altima.

1487,
 
Moron, I am not talking about the new CTS. I really like that car. It helps if you read the comments before posting with long rambling arguments address to the strawman of your making.
 
"Bias is when you make arguments like "everything GM makes is crap and I will never consider anything they make no matter what". See, thats your type of argument."
 
Never said that, quite the contrary. But you have never backed down from an argument about a GM product to the point of defending the Cobalt SS over the Civic Si.

"The current car has not been a huge hit in spite of great reviews so Mazda is going to go bigger to boost sales. It worked for the Altima."
 
Blackadder knows this. If this is what you consider ANALYSIS please spare us. Commander of the Obvious. It still don't mean that as fans of the current car can't be disappointed and think that in the long term it is wrong headed.
 
In fact the only thing I was positive about this whole global warming fear is that we may get smaller lighter cars back in order to fit new repressive regulations. But currently it does not appear that way

"The next 6 will be larger, more powerful and heavier."
 
1487,
 
I have to get in on this because you have absolutely NO clue what you're talking about.
 
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/09/06/2008-mazda6-breaks-early/
 
And I quote:
 
"The only official details we have so far is that the new car will weigh less than the outgoing model and will use less fuel and emit fewer CO2 emissions to boot."
 
Just shut up, will you? As you can see from the other comments on this blog (and the other ones that you've been perpetrating lately) no one likes anything you have to say nor do they respect your opinion. I'm beginning to think you actually like the criticism other give you.
 
I can't wait for the day that PA diverts the Delaware to the west side of Philly and sells all of you lunatics to NJ.

"Moron, I am not talking about the new CTS. I really like that car. It helps if you read the comments before posting with long rambling arguments address to the strawman of your making. "
 
when was I talking about the new CTS? I was only referencing it when talking about when I believe magazines and when I dont. Are you OK? You are really looking for anything to pounce on.
 
"Never said that, quite the contrary. But you have never backed down from an argument about a GM product to the point of defending the Cobalt SS over the Civic Si."
 
Cobalt SS/SC was better than si in every regard except the badge on the grille. Unless you have driven the cars back to back (which you havent) you have no logical argument against that. The car was faster, had better seats, better breaks, more torque, better tires, more grip, etc. I dont need to "defend" the cobalt SS/Sc, I merely told you something you didnt know. There's a difference. You have never read me defending any of GM's true dogs such as the Canyon, Trailblazer, H2, etc. but Cobalt SS/SC was not in that category by a long shot. Sorry but hard interior plastics dont disqualify a car from whipping up on a civic Si- the car was focused on performance not soft plastics.
 
"Just shut up, will you? As you can see from the other comments on this blog (and the other ones that you've been perpetrating lately) no one likes anything you have to say nor do they respect your opinion. I'm beginning to think you actually like the criticism other give you.
  
I can't wait for the day that PA diverts the Delaware to the west side of Philly and sells all of you lunatics to NJ."
 
did you take you meds today? LOL, you are a little excited.
 
I read the quote earlier today. The car is bigger, but not heavier- first time for everyting I guess. Either way it was enlarged to better compete with CAmry and Accord like I said.
 
My goal in life is to popular in here just like you my man. Maybe one day! That comment you made about the Delaware HAS to be one of the most absurd, ridiculous, idiotic and off topic things you have ever said. Just when I think you cant stoop to a new low you surprise me.

"Cobalt SS/SC was better than si in every regard except the badge on the frille. Unless you have driven the cars back to back (which you havent) you have no logical argument against that. The car was faster, had better seats, better breaks, more torque, better tires, more grip, etc. I dont need to "defend" the cobalt SS/Sc, I merely told you something you didnt know. There's a difference. "
 
Delusional. But you keep looking and those spreadsheets. A Lotus 7 is faster and better at the track too, but does that mean it is a better car for what 99% of customers will use it the Civic for? Again you miss the point.
 
Oh by the way. Where is the Cobalt SS now?

1487,
 
Even when you're wrong and try to admit it, somehow you never get around to it. Always with the "first time for everything" comment. Or "i never said that".
 
No, I think your goal in life is to piss as many people off as possible just to draw attention to yourself because it's the only way you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
 
The Delaware comment was pure humor targeted at you know-it-all Philadelphians that think they can do no wrong. Case in point: Ed Rendell. If you thought any of those feelings while reading that comment, you're more of a lunatic than I thought.

Karl,
 
I have a SERIOUS question. In the current issue of Motor Trend on page 17, the MT Confidential column, Mike Connor states that
 
"GM insiders know they have a minor NVH problem with the new 3.6L DI V6 fitted to the new Cadillac CTS and revised STS. And frustratingly, they know it's a problem that can't be fixed; it's a design fault, admits one serior engineer."
 
Have you noticed anything in your experience with the car? And have you heard anything further?

Interesting.
 
I drove six or seven cars over the course of the event in Monterey, then I drove one back to L.A. I noticed no NVH issue with the other six I drove (most of them were DI cars), but the one I drove back has something going on a around 70-80 mph. I'm 99.99% sure it is a slight imbalance in one of the front wheels, and we're going to have it checked to make sure.
 
As a result I'd be 99.99% sure it is NOT related to engine NVH, and the fact that I sensed no weird vibrations in the other CTS models I drove would support my belief that there is no NVH problem.
 
I'll let you know what we find after checking the wheel balance, but my position at this point would be that I didn't detect any NVH issues with any of the CTS models I drove.
 
Hopefully the vibration we're experiencing on our current test car (that is a DI version...) is not related to this item. I'm pretty sure it isn't.

Thanks, because this car is on my short list for serious consideration for new car in the next few months.

Since the Cobalt SS S/C vs. Civic Si matchup was mentioned, here are the Chevrolet Cobalt SS S/C vs. Honda Civic Si Coupe (and a few others) numbers from Inside Line's 2006 Sport Compact Comparison Test. (HTML used due to link length)

"Delusional. But you keep looking and those spreadsheets. A Lotus 7 is faster and better at the track too, but does that mean it is a better car for what 99% of customers will use it the Civic for? Again you miss the point.
  
Oh by the way. Where is the Cobalt SS now?"
 
here is a simple question for a simple minded person. Is it ever possible that the best peforming car posts the best numbers? Just wondering. If the civic Si beat the Cobalt on paper I doubt you would be saying "The Cobalt is really superior, the civic just looks good on paper". Numbers dont tell the whole story, but they tell a part of it. Only someone completely biased and out of touch with reality could sit here and "argue" that the Cobalt SS/SC wasnt a top caliber sports coupe for its price range. At the end of the day your entire argument about this car (and every american car) is that it has to suck because its made by GM. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
"1487,
  
Even when you're wrong and try to admit it, somehow you never get around to it. Always with the "first time for everything" comment. Or "i never said that".
  
No, I think your goal in life is to piss as many people off as possible just to draw attention to yourself because it's the only way you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
  
The Delaware comment was pure humor targeted at you know-it-all Philadelphians that think they can do no wrong. Case in point: Ed Rendell. If you thought any of those feelings while reading that comment, you're more of a lunatic than I thought."
 
Yes, Ed Rendell is incredibly unpopular in the state and he's a complete idiot- hence his landslide victory in the last election. I see you are in the minority on a lot things. The fact that you are insulting me based on where I live as opposed to what I said speaks volumes. Keep up the good work.
 
The 6 is lighter, I was wrong about that. The info I read in MT indicated the car would be larger to better compete and usually that means heavier but I supposed Mazda managed to keep the car 20 lbs lighter than the current model. I should have just said "larger" and not "heavier". Woe is me and everything I have said up until now is now null and void.
 
At least I know you are paying attention. For record I really dont anticipate or care how people react to what I write. I just get incredulous that people honestly think they are "enlightening" people with some of these statements here. You can run BS on your friends at a cocktail party who dont know squat about cars but dont come on here trying to act like we are uninformed and are going to stand by while you spout unsupported nonsense.

1487
 
"Only someone completely biased and out of touch with reality could sit here and "argue" that the Cobalt SS/SC wasnt a top caliber sports coupe for its price range."
 
Now you change the rules, I said the comparison is that the Civic Si is better, and the a the performance differences were minor to the point of being insignificant. Compared to level of engineering, build quality, styling, resale value, fun to drive factor and overall competence the Civic Si is more desireable. You were the one climbing all over my back for months now saying the Cobalt was BETTER IN EVERY WAY. Now you want to back down. Chevy killed it, I had nothing to do with that.
 
My "unsupported nonsense" is backed up by several articles. My qualitiative analysis is based on actually driven the cars in question and not merely reading some magazine.

"wth does that have to do with the CTS? I might as well say the TL is what the Accord should be or the ES350 is what the camry should be. Its pointless. This is all water under the bridge at this point so I dont get all your bitching. The car's interior was lackluster and it has been addressed as Karl and others have noted. What more do you want Cadillac to do? The criticism was taken and obviously they learned from it. If you want to act like the CTS interior was far behind its contemporaries in 2002 such as G35 and old 5 series go ahead but the truth is it wasnt THAT far behind. Do you even remember the first generation G35 interior? Apparently not."
 
OMG I can't believe I'm actually taking the time to try and spoon feed this to you, an hour past my bed time. (my self imposed bedtime, don't go making comments about my mom making me go to bed or something stupid) Anyway, once again, now that you've almost admitted you've been corrected (which don't get me wrong, we all have been corrected on here at some point) you back pedal, change the subject, and only now ask "WTH does this have to do with the CTS?" Obviously, for one, this has everything to do with the CTS, because it's the CTS we're talking about! Could the relationship be more simple?
 
The rest of your quote is pretty much blah blah blah that I already agree with. The whole reason I pursued this issue to to try to convey to you what carlisimo was really trying to say, because you obviously weren't comprehending him correctly. I think I have accomplished that, so consider my work on that subject done. My point was not at all to bash GM, Cadilliac, or the CTS. As I've said before, I appreciate the CTS, both generations, and am glad GM addressed the only glaring issue the 1st gen had. Parting thought...will 1487 be able to resist the urge to come back at my comment with some unnecessary, "clever", reply? doubt it...

"Now you change the rules, I said the comparison is that the Civic Si is better, and the a the performance differences were minor to the point of being insignificant. Compared to level of engineering, build quality, styling, resale value, fun to drive factor and overall competence the Civic Si is more desireable. You were the one climbing all over my back for months now saying the Cobalt was BETTER IN EVERY WAY. Now you want to back down. Chevy killed it, I had nothing to do with that.
  
My "unsupported nonsense" is backed up by several articles. My qualitiative analysis is based on actually driven the cars in question and not merely reading some magazine."
 
fun to drive factor is subjective so there is no way you can say the civic Si is definitively better.
 
you have no measure of build quality so dont mention it. Just because you say it dont make it so. Do you have any evidence the cobalt is poorly assembled? of course not.
 
level of engineering? how do you measure that? spare me. If the civic was engineered so well it should have been able to to outperform the lowly cobalt. How is the civic better in "overall competence" when it could beat the Cobalt in any way, shape or form? The better performing car is typically called the most competent vehicle.
 
Civic does win in resale value which is always the most important factor when comparing sports coupes.
 
Are you saying you have driven the Si and Cobalt SS/SC prior to making this qualitative analysis? My guess is you evaluation of the Cobalt is based on the C&D comparo that was done and the fact that its a chevy. I cant believe you have driven the car if you are making these statement. And since you have read so much about the car you would know it got good reviews across the board priot placing 4th in that C&D comparo- in fact C&D had nothing but praise for the car prior to that test.

"Obviously, for one, this has everything to do with the CTS, because it's the CTS we're talking about! Could the relationship be more simple? "
 
My point was the fact that one person felt the CTS should be a pontiac had no relevance to whether or not the car was a competent entry level lux sedan. I dont see why that is so far fetched. He said it was a Pontiac level car and wasnt a worthy entry for the segment and I disagreed. If plain black plastic interiors are enough to preclude a car from being a luxury model than last gen BMWs and the G35 should have Pontiacs as well. Their designs were far from luxurious in my book.
 
Dont worry this response isnt supposed to be clever.

"you have no measure of build quality so dont mention it. Just because you say it dont make it so. Do you have any evidence the cobalt is poorly assembled? of course not.
  
level of engineering? how do you measure that? spare me."
 
Why does everything have to "measureable" in your mind in order to be discussed here. Your perspective is ridiculous. Build Quality is probably one of the most IMPORTANT aspects of a car that I am going to buy. Therefore, I will discuss it. And the Civic is DEFINATELY better than the Cobalt.
 
Long Term test results and reliability will show this. The Shift linkage in the Cobalt is sloppy and gets sloppier over time. This can be quantified, try driving a two year old model.

1487 -
 
Weight is the enemy of fun. This is true for cars, sports and dating/marriage.
 
You may think any car weighing more than 3000 lbs is fat and sloppy but the average buyer does not agree. Regardless of your dim view of the 3 series...but the car is still quite a performer in spite of its mass.
 
Never said it wasn't a good performer. I contend it's too cocooned/isolated to enjoy the performance. It's unflappable, quiet, competent and thus boring. I'm not interested in a solemn ride with low roadfeel and a hulking mass that rotates around its axis - however perfectly it's done. There's no drama or excitement with most cars today and of the cars you mentioned only the Sti and Evo appeal to me. Even then they're both excessively heavy...
 
Have a great weekend. :^)

"Weight is the enemy of fun. This is true for cars, sports and dating/marriage."
Haha
 
"Never said it wasn't a good performer. I contend it's too cocooned/isolated to enjoy the performance."
While this is probably true, I think the more important issue is if curb weights were lower the performance AND efficiency could improve even further. Also a lighter car can be tuned less aggressively in the suspension, riding more comfortably for those who are into that, AND handling better than a slightly stiffer sprung car weighing 1000 pounds more.

Saw a batch of black 2008 Cadillac CTS's this morning coming back from washing the S2000. I must say I was REALLY impressed with the styling as it has more road presence than ANY Japanese luxury car from Lexus, Infiniti or Acura Ive seen to date.
 
If Cadillac can consistently execute this kind of package through their entire lineup then It can only get better for them. Bravo Cadillac!