Would you park this car in your driveway? I could, happily, as the CTS continues to impress as the perhaps the most well-rounded GM product available in eons. We scooted down to San Diego from L.A. for the Turkey Day holiday, where I managed some real-world feedback regarding one of the CTS's closest competitors.
My bro-in-law's father-in-law Tom was also in S.D., having just piloted his month-old 2009 Acura TL out from Illinois. Fresh out of his seat in the TL, I stuck him in the CTS to get some feedback. His take? The first thing Tom noticed in the CTS was the tighter turning radius and far-cleaner dash layout. He felt the ELS audio system in the TL was superior to the Bose setup in the CTS (neither impressed me for the $$). Tom asked how he'd "download his phone" and I had to explain that our CTS did not have Bluetooth, but that it was available in late '08 models and all 2009 models. Overall, Tom was truly impressed by the CTS, and mentioned it was easily a car he could see himself (a retired exec) or many of his friends driving.
Hopping in his TL, I noted initial throttle response was not as sharp as in the Caddy (thank the direct-injection), but the TL pulled harder from the mid-range on up, and sounded far sweeter when you revved it out. The TL is well sorted, but the rear-drive Caddy has better steering feedback and more satisfying dynamics, not surprising considering how much power the front-drive TL sends through the wheels that also steer the car. Compared to the CTS, the new TL's interior is a button fest, and sitting in it after the CTS really makes you appreciate the Caddy's understated style, and more subtle application of technology. If you're a gizmo-freak, the TL is definitely the ride for you. For those who want a just slightly less tech-laden car, in a surprisingly classy package, the sweet CTS is worth a hard look.
Paul Seredynski, Executive Editor @ 17,566 miles
Subscribe
Recent Posts
Archives
Vehicles
Past Vehicles
Links
I recently rented one for a trip from NC to Florida over Thanksgiving. It was a 2009 CTS, base model I think, with BT and a free upgrade (Thanks Avis) from a Full Size rental.
Our SLK350 is in the shop again, so at home we had a Mercedes C300 4Mactic Luxury loaner car for a week prior so could do a direct comparison. I think their pricing is in the same ballpark, with the MB a couple grand more.
Overall we really liked the CTS. Very comfortable over the 1,500 mile trip. Quiet. The HDD system was really nice. I liked the dash layout and it was a lot richer looking. There was more power compared to the C300 and the ride is both softer, but better handling. If the CTS had the optional Nav and the direct injection engine, I would have thought it would be nearly perfect.
The price is also similar to the C-Class, but the size is more similar to a MB E-Class.
I need to find a way to test drive the CTS-V.
Unfortunately, my SO said that the badge is not good enough and would still take a C-Class, or a slightly used E-Class or CLS, over a new CTS. One year old CTS look like a good value at more than $10k off the sticker price. Maybe with "employee pricing" a new 2009 would get similar discounts though, if you also factor in 0% financing.
CTS 3.6 DI > TL in value.
CTS 3.6 DI > TL in styling.
CTS 3.6 DI > TL(FWD) in performance.
And the most important of them all... Both have the look-at-me grille but the CTS is less hideous than the TL.
That being said, I'll take the G37 sedan.
Who'd a thought it - CTS/TL a coin flip...pretty impressive, CTS. I'll have to look hard at it.
Yeah, the new CTS is great.
But I have to say, I put the CTS and TL in the same styling 'category.' They have the same effect: gaudiness and ostentatiousness. The CTS comes off better, but neither are my type. I really miss Honda's old look, with no grille at all.
The biggest advantage over the TL is styling. Both cars are stunning, but for different reasons. I would never buy the TL due to styling alone. Every entry level lux car is nice so why buy one that is ugly? The CTS actually has a styling theme. The TL is simply a generic Honda sedan shape with a ghastly front and rear end. There is no comparison between the two cars.
The 2009 TL is hideous! The CTS also looks better in darker colors, as opposed to the Edmunds red one.
Nice review between the two.
Acura is apparently attemping to commit slow brand seppuku for no reason anyone else can figure out.
The TSX re-do was butchered (and now they dropped bringing in the diesel version)
The TL re-do was butchered.
The RDX is not a volume seller.
The MDX, ironically, is the one model that seems to be doing alright.
They drop-kicked their sport compact after a long time of Acura offering a sporty coupe.
I wonder why your friend bought a TL over the CTS? Even with the current GM problems, I'd rather the Caddy any day of the week.
Joe
I do not like the Red color either. Car looks sick in black, thunder grey and white diamond. Red is the 2nd worst color for this car.
joe,
None of Acura's models are doing alright. Acura's sales have been down for the entire year by a much larger margin than Honda's. The MDX was doing OK when it first came out but now its outsold by the Enclave, RX and others. RDX hasnt done well from the start. Same with RL. TL sales have been down for the last couple of years.
1487 - Yes, that was my point.
MDX is doing "alright" in the sense that it's doing "alright", not that it's outselling anyone. I said ironically because it's ironic that the fuel-hog would do the best given the climate of this past summer/fall.
As oil drops below $48 a barrel.
Joe
Were you able to get past the shickingly ugly fang-faced exterior of his TL without, y'know, throwing up a little?
The RDX isn't a volume seller but it flopped bigtime, missing Acura's goal by over 10,000 RDX's. Even with them selling below invoice. They shot for 40K and came back with 28K units sold in 07=failure, probably because it's so hideous.
cx7, the RDX's really awful gas mileage couldn't have helped it much in 2007/2008.
The CTS seems like it's a nice car. Too big for my tastes but overall people seem to say nice things.
is there any car larger than a SmartCar that isnt too big for your tastes? you act like the CTS is a 70s era Eldorado or something. Its smaller than the Accord.
Things arent going to be easy for the new TL. The styling is a major handicap but its also up against a revised G37 and the CTS. even the new MKZ is finally competitive for those who dont want RWD. It has all the tech of the TL, AWD and likely a lower price.
1487, anything larger than an e30 3 series 4 door or last gen Mazda Protege 4 door is too big in my eyes. I thought my 2006 3 series felt (and looked) like a 1980s Buick.
Acura needs to find a way to make its cars feel more premium. I don't think they're much nicer than the Hondas on which they're based. The only exception to this is the MDX. This is a probably why folks have a problem paying much more than Honda prices for most of them.
BTW - "the Caddy's understated style". Did someone mark this day for the record books? YIKES! The world is coming to an end.
I think that the only truly ugly car from Acura is the RDX. It's hideous. The new RL looks good from the back, but has the worst form of Acura's new "razorblade" grille (worse than the RL and TSX).
The new TL is a lot better looking in person, especially in black. It looks just as good as the CTS in black, IMO, especially when the CTS is that ugly red color.
1487, it certainly isn't a bland, generic Honda shape. If it was, people wouldn't be ranting about its styling so much. Its taught, chisled, and actually the opposite of bland. It's polarizing...for better or for worse, I guess. The CTS' "shape" looks more familiar...also, it looks like Acura tried to copy the Saturn Aura when designing the back end.
Also, sales of every automaker in America are down recently (even the invincible Honda), not just Acura.
oops...I meant worse than the TL and TSX. How can a website as large and well-organized as Edmunds be missing an edit button for their blogs?
Acura's sales have been down all year. Honda's sales didnt crater until two months ago. trust me, Acura is not doing well. Just because the automotive press doesnt cover it doesnt mean it hasnt been happening.
The TL is a generic car from the side. Only the ridiculous front and rear ends make it polarizing. From the side it looks like every other Honda sedan. The CTS has a cohesive design theme and the only weakness is the wheel design. The Tl has no design theme. Its a bland shape with an attention grabbing grille.
Must agree with 1487 on the styling. not that this would influence my buying decision.
Intersting series of comments...two cars I felt would appeal to the same buyers are so 'polarizing' they make they people that like one dislike the other...I like them both aesthetically, however, I could never ever lay down that kind of cash for a GM product...today on the news GM released a statement, rather apology, for knowingly taking short cuts on quality and using lower than industry standard manufacturing practices...that means the CTS will fall apart at 50k miles. By the way, price up one of those caddy's with the same options as the TL - you'll be well over 50G's compared to the loaded TL's 43Gs (thats why the buddy bought the TL). In 30K miles the CTS will be worth about 20G's, compared to the TL, that makes it about $20,000.00 more all in...yeah, it better be pretty.
I have a 06 6speed TL with 66k miles, no service or maintenance issues at all - new tires and oil changes thats it...and I drive it hard. If I had to buy a new car now...I'd be waiting for the 6speed TL in 2010. On the other hand, in two years it might be worth shopping around for 09 CTSV's. If you can get a deal on one it might be fun to have for a summer, then turn it before you get burned.
Just go to Edmunds 20k review of the Saturn Aura on the cover of the web page today. They sum up GM quality nicely.