Howdy, Stranger!

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





Cadillac CTS/CTS-V

1176177179181182322

Comments

  • 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?
  • oldsman01oldsman01 Posts: 1,203
    When I was about 9 or 10 one of my friend's dad had one of those early 80s Sevilles. I remember the first time I rode in it, I thought it was absolutely the nicest car in the world. It had automatic climate contol, a cassette player, a comfortable back seat, and a digital speedometer. All things which cars my mom and dad drove(at that time) didn't have.

    bingoman, the bustleback Seville sold pretty well, especially got a car that could list for over 20K in 1980 when optioned out. When the car was redesigned for 86, sales dropped. I do think the bustleback was sort of a fad and not something Cadillac could have carried on forever, but you do have to admit it was distinctive. The Lincoln and Chrysler(forgot that one) that had this trait did not look good at all. In fact, Chrylser only made the Imperial(the early 80s version) for a couple of years. As for the Cimmaron, they may have gotten the bugs out by the end, but the car was still no Cadillac. Even as a kid(which I was when the Cimmaron was on sale) I never thought it was a true Cadillac. I used to see one and would say "thats one of those small, cheap looking Cadillacs".
  • oldsman01oldsman01 Posts: 1,203
    I assume you mean the Escalade by referring to the Suburban Cadillac. If your were talking about the first one(99-00) I would say no. But the new "Slade" is indeed a nice truck. And while yes it is Tahoe/Suburban based, the current GM full-size SUV platform is a pretty good structure. Again, my problem with the Cimmaron was not that it shared it's platform with a Chevy, but that it used the absolute cheapest and least refined platform GM had. And to top it off, Cadillac literally did nothing to make the car look any different than a Cavalier.
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Posts: 539
    I was thinking the first Escalade. And, yes it has been upgraded. Still, the SRX is more what I would think a Cadillac buyer would want in an SUV.
  • rstephrsteph Posts: 109
    A totally biased and 100% personal opinion only..but luxury car makers shouldn't be in the SUV business. I realize Escalades are nice rigs, and obviously people like 'em..you see them around quite a bit. The two concepts just don't go together in my mind ("luxury truck"). Next thing will be some logger bouncing around in the woods in a Cadillac 6-pack 4x4 covered in mud with a big old extra diesel tank in the back (if you've been in logging country, you know what I mean).
  • cu95cu95 Posts: 96
    Took my CTS in for its first oil change. Had ~1200 miles on it. After this I'll probably go to a every ~3000 miles schedule, but I wanted to get that first oil change earlier, plus, I wanted them to put it up on the lift to look at the front end as recommended by some of you (I hit a nasty pothole at pretty high velocity). They said the front end was fine and the replacement center cap set me back only $16. I had noticed before taking it in that if you get down and look under the back bumper, the rubber fascia has three holes along its bottom edge that match up with three holes in a metal plate just above them. Clearly, some sort of fastener was intended. My bumper didn't have any. I mentioned to the service rep and asked if he knew if it was a conscious decision to leave them off. He said he'd check. Well, when he came back, the oil change was done and he said that they put in three "christmas tree" fasteners in the bumper. I'm curious if anyone else's bumper is lacking these fasteners or if mine was a fluke --build date is Jan '03. I did, ahem, tap a small sapling backing up the car a little while back and it's concievable that that could have snapped the fasteners, but I highly doubt it given how little force was involved --the sapling's flexibility allowed it to give when the bumper hit it-- and that there were no remnants of broken fasteners in any of the three holes (I was left with a couple very minor scratches on the rear bumper).
  • b4zb4z Posts: 3,372
    August Motor Trend says 0-60 in 6.4 secs!
    1/4 mile in 14.9 @ 92.72 mph.

    Same as the Infinti G35.

    So there!!
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 2,476
    Very interesting. I presume these are for a 3.6 auto. version of the '04?

    MT gave the CTS 3.2 auto. numbers as: 0-60: 6.86 and 1/4 mile: 15.20 @ 90.70 in their comparison test vs. the G35 (6.21 - 14.61@95.67) and the 330i in their August 2002 issue.

    - Ray
    Waiting patiently for the Postal Service to deliver a copy of this issue . . .
  • wwhite2wwhite2 Posts: 535
    then what were they getting from the manual ?
  • wwhite2wwhite2 Posts: 535
    YOu are taking your CTS off-road LOL
  • wwhite2wwhite2 Posts: 535
    Has been a great place for info the vids are better if you have DSL or cable . The CTS-V video is cool the the operation of the XLR top is wild
Sign In or Register to comment.