Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Cadillac CTS/CTS-V

1116117119121122215

Comments

  • automoleautomole Posts: 154
    I don't think ANYONE is actually copying it YET...
    I do think however, that in the near future more auto manufacturers are going to jump on the art&science bandwagon and style their cars with more dramatic edges and a sharper more agressive look.

    Take a look at this Ford for instance:
    http://www.ford.com/en/vehicles/autoShows/detroit2003/ford/427/de- - - - fault.htm

    Or this Lincoln:
    http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/2002- - - - - - /laautoshow/lincoln.continental.f34.500.jpg

    Or BMW?:
    http://www.conceptcarz.com/folder/photo.asp?car_id=5489&picID- - - - =27142&printAllPictures=&whichPage=&pagesize=&aut- - - - oshowID=&vehicleTypeID=1

    Yes, they don't look exactly like the CTS but they share certain design traits that the CTS 'pioneered'. I think you'll be seeing more sharp edges, shiny grilles, and vertical headlamps soon....just my opinion.
  • b4zb4z Posts: 3,372
    Looks like the CTS has seriously cut into deville sales.

    http://www.autosite.com/editoria/asmr/svsedan.asp

    CTS sales are up 34% from May 2002!
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Those cars don't look anything like the CTS. A lot of cars share some characteristics, but emulating the CTS' style they are not. The Cadillac theme is that of a jet fighter, I don't see that on any of those cars.

    M
  • automoleautomole Posts: 154
    You can honestly say that this car doesn't look ANYTHING like the CTS?

    http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/03images/det_ford427_1.jpg

    If you look at the following page the article states that " Ford indicated that it may a possible design direction for a future lineup of Ford cars" and that "The center console runs the entire length of the interior creating the sensation that its four-passenger bucket seats form individual roomy fighter jet cockpits"

    http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/030106-5.htm

    As I said in my previous posts -"JUST MY OPINION", yours may differ.

    It would seem that at least A FEW others share my opinion that it shares a likeness to the Cadillac design as seen by the comments at the bottom of this page...I found them amusing:

    http://www.corral.net/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=239&papas- - s=&sort=1&thecat=536
  • ctsjerryctsjerry Posts: 94
    Yes, Automole, I agree they are TRYING to emulate the CTSs design, but aren't copying it EXACTLY. I posted some photos at http://www.caddyedge.com showing the similarities. See: "CTS Versus Infinity Styling Similarities". At first glance, the Japanese makes in particular, look alot like CTSs. The 2003 CTS has been in production since October of 2001, enough time for these guys to start copying. I agree the F117 Nighthawk styling is not being copied very well. I like the American bred "stealth look" of my CTS and I look down on those wannabee copycats.
  • jemillerjemiller Posts: 183
    ...that the F-117 was a 'hack'.

    It looks the way it does only because the tools and techniques available in the late '70s (it's quite an old product) for low-observability design didn't allow them to do something aerodynamically efficient or aesthetically attractive.

    See the F-22 by comparison - the product of two-generation-newer design processes - a far smoother and more attractive shape (not that the Pentagon goes out of its way to make its planes pretty.)

    As for the Ford noted above - it looks a lot like an Infiniti M45, and that's *not* something one should run around patting oneself on the back for. There was another Ford showcar of some months back that looked a little like a '61 Continental, it was a much more attractive shape.
  • b4zb4z Posts: 3,372
    Anyone know where I can see a color sample of the new silver smoke?
    My salesman tells me that they won't have the brochure until late July or August.
    And if anybody has a dig cam pic and can post it or email it to me I would appreciate it.
  • wwhite2wwhite2 Posts: 535
    Gee ,I wonder where they got the styling cues for that car LOL
      Automole you are absolutely right
  • tomcat630tomcat630 Posts: 854
    "Seeing how the CTS has done much better than many perceived it would, a fair amount the harsh criticisms have been removed from their reviews. Go figure."

    They were biased simply by the name on the hood. Never mind the whole new plant and other new engineering that went into the car. I'd like to see them eat crow, too.
  • rob35ctsrob35cts Posts: 53
    So are you guys telling me that the sterling silver is no longer available? I wouldn't trade up for just that reason. I love the sterling silver.
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Yes I can honestly say that the Ford 427 looks nothing like the CTS. That Ford looks like a Lincoln concept of about 2 years ago if anything. It's square and flat with very little in the way of sharp creases like the CTS.

    Those comments said it looks worse than the CTS? Was that what you wanted me to read?

    ctsjerry,

    I'm really curious to know which Japanese cars you think look like a CTS. Seeing as how the Japanese have no style at all, in most cases.

    M
  • oldsman01oldsman01 Posts: 1,203
    Welcome back! I think the G35 looks like a watered down CTS, but so far no one has really copied the CTS. If anyone does, it will likely by Ford or Lincoln. Remember the 80 Seville with the "bustleback" rear end. What did the rear end of the 82 Lincoln Continental look like?

    On a different note, this morning on the way to work I saw three diferent CTSs within my 20 minute commute. All three were in the oncoming lane, first one was black, second cashmere, and last one was Diamond white. The black one takes the cake! It simply looked sharp. The cashmere was okay, but not my choice of color. The white one also had the chrome wheels so there was alot of glitter and it looked pretty good, but I think black or dark blue are the CTS's best colors.
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Now you'll have to tell me exactly which years of the Seville you're talking about. The last version of the bustle back was the one I like, and yes I do remember a Continental with a similar look.
    A lot of people like the orginal 76'(?) Seville, but that one looked too much like a Chevy Nova to me. I liked the last one they made with that bustle back design.

    So you're right there, but I'm not sure of the years, a Caddy expert will have to educate me on the years.

    The G35 looks like a watered down CTS??? Oh my... I think you just like to stretch things for the sake of doing so, like you did in the XLR topic. There is no way the G35 with it's flat rear and rounded front looks anything like a CTS, watered down or not. The G35 Sedan isn't even mildly attractive to me, the CTS is.

    M
  • b4zb4z Posts: 3,372
    tyler80 posted this for me on cadillacforums.com.

    http://eogld.ecomm.gm.com/NASApp/domestic/proddesc.jsp?year=2004&- amp;- amp;regionID=1&divisionID=5&type=0&vehicleID=328&- - section=col_trim&page=9&butID=3

    Click on the highlighted color to see a sample.
    It gives you an idea but the colors are a little off from what I think they would look like from a photo.
  • b4zb4z Posts: 3,372
    Photoshopped CTS-V wagon. Looks good.
    Scroll down on the home page.

    http://www.gminsidenews.com/
  • jpnmassjpnmass Posts: 45
    Thanks for that link on the colors. Not only does it have the colors available, but just about any other information someone interested in buying a CTS would need.
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Posts: 539
    The first generation Seville was the 76-79 models, which were based on the Nova. The body was modified to the point where it was a K body. I though the proportions were done right so the car was a nice looking 4 door sedan. Nothing exotic though.

    The second generation Seville was the 80 - 85 model years. This Seville was the first front wheel drive Seville and the body was based on the Eldorado/Riviera/Toronado body. This car had a bustle back (taken from some old Rolls/or? style). I thought that the front end (basic Eldorado) did not fit with the rear end. The basic styling problem was the front fenders which were too squared off.

    The third generation Seville was the 86-91 models which were greatly downsized and looked very much like the small GM cars (Grand Am) rooflines. External styling was not bad but the interiors were not very good, with the dash/instrument panel poorly done.

    The fourth generation Seville was the 92-97 model, which got the northstar V8 in 93. This is perhaps the best looking Seville of all. This was followed by the current generation based on the 95 Aurora body platform. The basic styling is the same but the body stucture is much stiffer.

    The 2004 Seville will be last of the current generation. Then it moves to the sigma (CTS) platform. I think that the CTS styling could be better, but is not bad. Perhaps the STS will improve on the basic theme. The next generation CTS may get the station wagon, the current generation probably will not. The SRX is probably as close to a wagon as we will get for a while.
  • sevenfeet0sevenfeet0 Posts: 486
    The first Seville was a nice and handsome car. My mother owned a '79 and I wish I still had that car. Despite its humble beginnings, it was a good automobile. However, the way it was built probably led to GM thinking that the Cimmaron was a good idea (another Cadillac built on Chevy underpinnings). The XLR also has Chevy underpinnings (Corvette), but it looks like GM is trying to avoid the platform-sharing mistakes of the past.

    The bustle-back Sevilles of the early 80's reminds me a lot of the current Rolls Royce Phantom styling. The RR has rounded hindquarters but both have exaggerated squared-off front fenders with a tall grill. These Sevilles were certainly daring in styling, but not the best handling vehicles out there, even with the optional touring suspension. Lincoln Mark VII LSCs were much better handling automobiles.

    The Sevilles (and Eldos) of the late 80s were the worst of the product line. I disagree with fjk57702; the styling of this series was so forgettable. And the interior appointments weren't good either. The size of the vehicles were tiny compared to what was expected by customers in the market for this nameplate. The original 4.1L V8 was...well, a joke (no power, reliability).

    The Gen 4 Sevilles had (thankfully) great styling, a respectable interior and in '93, a kick-butt engine. The current Gen 5 cars came on in '98 and they were okay...but they don't compete with the other makes nearly as well as the previous car did a decade ago.
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Posts: 539
    The first Seville may have started with the Nova platform, but the production Seville was considered a platform of its own. I don't think it came off a Nova assembly line (but I'm not sure). The Cimmarron was built on the same assembly line as the Cavalier and had minor changes - different grill, interior and so on. On the other hand the Cimmarron didn't cost much to put into production and sold at a rate of 25,000 for most of the 7 years that it was in production. The Catera did not sell as well for a much shorter production life.
  • mcgreenxmcgreenx Posts: 179
    Took my car in to get the leaky rear license plate surround replaced. They ordered the part, shown on the warranty invoice as a "Lens," priced at $510!!! I wonder if GM or the supplier of the defective parts bears the replacement, labor costs, or both.
  • b4zb4z Posts: 3,372
    Didn't know GMTV had this feature.

    Go to gmtv.feedroom.com and in the top left corner you will see a choice of channels.

    Click on "New Vehicles"
    Click on "More" until you see the 2004 CTS.

    After you watch that click on "More" again and see the SRX and XLR videos.

    Picture quality is very poor on all of these videos.
  • oldsman01oldsman01 Posts: 1,203
    While Cadillac may be sharing Chevy components again with the XLR, at least they are taking from the top of the heap rather than the bottom(i.e. Cimmaron). The old J-body platform was never anything to write home about and to make a Cadillac out of it was a big mistake.

    Merc, the "bustleback" Seville was 1980-85. I always liked the look of those cars and they were super plush inside, however, Cadillac really dropped the ball in terms of engineering and reliability. Whether it was the diesel, the V8-6-4 or the HT4100, that generation Seville had it. 1980 Sevilles could have the old 6.0 liter V8 in place of the diesel, otherwise that beautiful car was saddled with terrible engines.

    fjk57702, I liked the 92 Seville when it came out and even today they are still sharp cars, but I like the tidier look of the current generation better. One problem with the 92-97 Seville was with the base(SLS) model. It's rear bumber valance wasn't as low as the STS's and as a result, the two muflers hung down in plain sight. Despite being a 5 year old design now, I still find the STS very attractive.
  • rob35ctsrob35cts Posts: 53
    What do you consider a leakey lisence plate bezel. Should it allow water behind it? Should it allow bugs behind it along the edges?
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Ok thanks guys...it was the 1980-85 model that I liked so much then. One of my childhood friend's mom had one, it was black/grey or black/silver. I loved that car.

    M
  • bingomanbingoman Posts: 373
    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I thought the bustlebacks were the ugliest cars ever created, and that includes the Lincoln and Chrysler version also. Apparently the public agreed as all three companies dropped the style at the end of their respective model runs.

    As to the Cimmaron it started as a small underpowered non-agressive looking car, but by the end of the run in '88 it was the most powerful Cadillac in terms of power to weight, and acceleration. It may not have been a race car but it handled every day driving quite well. GM has had a bad habit of killing cars just about when the engineers have gotten out the bugs. I'm glad about all the bugs have been removed from the CTS before it was introduced.
  • tomcat630tomcat630 Posts: 854
    The '88 Cimmy may have had bugs worked out, but it was still a joke.
  • b4zb4z Posts: 3,372
    Gm spent a lot of money reengineering the platform to accept the 2.8L V6. It eventually trickled down to the Cavalier and other Jbodies.
    I think it eventually had about 140 hp.

    My personal feeling is that a true luxury car can't have a 4 cylinder.
    The Saab and mercedes C-class would never be on my list.

    No matter how much they refine it, or how many balance shafts they put in the block it will still not be as smooth as a V6 or V8.
  • sevenfeet0sevenfeet0 Posts: 486
    for the scratches my wife inflicted on the car in the parking garage mishap. Also the day before I dropped the car off I noticed that the clocks were mismatched.

    *Sigh*

    Well, might as well kill two birds with one stone. Hopefully this will be the longest single stretch of time I'm without my car. We have a Deville as a rental for the time being, which is a very different car, especially after having a CTS for the last year. I can't believe I was a Deville owner. I could never go back, at least with this design. The DTS is nice, but the CTS wins my heart.
  • jemillerjemiller Posts: 183
    Define 'luxury car'.

    There are expensive cars that make no pretense toward 'luxury' - Vipers, for instance. The Ferrari 360 Stradale. Or is being able to afford one the luxury in itself?

    If you define 'luxury' as 'plush and soft', then the CTS doesn't qualify, neither do the majority of its competitors.

    Is a fully-tarted 540i a 'luxury' car where a cloth-upholstery 520d is not? They're still the same structure, the same chassis, right pedal aside they feel more alike than different going down the road.

    For many Americans 'luxury' means 'leather upholstery and lots of gadgets'. As far as I'm concerned, a solid structure and unflappable chassis are the greatest luxuries you can have in a car, and they're things that the vast majority of American 'luxury' cars have never had.

    The Cimarron was an adequate car, but it was nothing that should have been sold under the Cadillac name.
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Posts: 539
    For the 80 Seville (the bustleback) to look right, I think the front fenders needed similar lines. Instead they were squared off. The mis-match made for a horrid combination. The overly downsized 86 model was much better looking, except that the dash was bad. The Cimmarron was a cheap Cadillac, still was the Suburban Cadillac really any better?
Sign In or Register to comment.