Howdy, Stranger!

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





Entry Level Luxury Performance Sedans

1328329331333334587

Comments

  • fedlawmanfedlawman Posts: 3,118
    The way this entire segment is inching up in size/weight, why even pretend to be a sport sedan anymore?

    Maybe Cadillac has the right idea after all. Give the customer what they want - 300+ horsepower, 19" wheels, chrome, leather, wood, bluetooth, and a 40 GB hard drive. :cry:
  • Check out a fully decked out G35X @ $41K, the Cadillac is better looking and much lower in content and features.

    I LOVE the looks, and the interior is close to Audis in design and finish -- but the list of lacks is few BUT significant.

    No bluetooth, no full function voice commands, no real keyless system, no backup camera, a pedal parking brake and a really bad gauze sunroof.

    I really liked the driving experience of the new CTS, but it was floaty compared with the 2005 A6 I drove in.

    I keep thinking the CTS will be value -- the G35X with a similar sized wheelbase looks interesting.

    The CTS might intice a 5 series buyer -- sometime in the future, this one probably won't do it, tho. :confuse:
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    No bluetooth, no full function voice commands, no real keyless system, no backup camera, a pedal parking brake and a really bad gauze sunroof.
    ****
    All useless yuppie crap to break. Who honestly needs a voice command system or a camera in the rear for a sedan?

    The foot operated parking brake works very well and keeps an enormous amount of space in the middle console area free. This is one area that European cars have never gotten right. I mean - the only reason you would need to use the parking brake was if your brakes failed in an emergency. That's a big if, given all of the redundant sensors that you find in cars these days. Even then you could manage with the foot brake. Quicker as well I bet than trying to steer and pull on the brake.

    Yes, the sunroof is lame, but just get it without a sunroof. DUH. I never understood the need for a sunroof since they started placing them so far back you'd have to turn your head sideways while driving to actually see the sky.

    ****
    I really liked the driving experience of the new CTS, but it was floaty compared with the 2005 A6 I drove in.
    ****
    It's softer to be sure, but it's made to feel more like a 5 series. Softer but when you push it, it flies through corners. Do a search online for that video of the 2008 CTS-V prototype tearing around the Nurburing. At the end, it ends up right on that little Golf's rear end in seconds. Well over 100mph on the straights. It's no joke if you push it. That's something no Lexus manages to do - and no GM to date other than maybe a Corvette. Its times from what I've heard are very good as well - better than most of the Europeans in fact.

    (Even though it's a CTS-V, it's basically the sporty version of the 2008 CTS with just more power)
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,388
    That's something no Lexus manages to do - and no GM to date other than maybe a Corvette. Its times from what I've heard are very good as well - better than most of the Europeans in fact.

    The problem is that little nagging thing called dependability....the last CTS-V was breakable.

    Regards,
    OW
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Who honestly needs a voice command system or a camera in the rear for a sedan?

    I agree with you on that.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    "It's softer to be sure, but it's made to feel more like a 5 series. Softer but when you push it, it flies through corners."

    Oh puleeze. I am very familiar with the 5-Series and never would I call one soft. The CTS that I drove was in fact soft and no, it wouldn't fly through the corners.

    "Do a search online for that video of the 2008 CTS-V prototype tearing around the Nurburing."

    Here we go again, rockylee reincarnated. This discussion has nothing to do with factory tuner cars.

    After my fairly lengthy test drive of the CTS, I came away with a very favorable impression compared to the Gen 1 CTS, however, it is still a car that none of the other players in this space need worry about.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • scottm123scottm123 Posts: 1,501
    Who honestly needs a voice command system or a camera in the rear for a sedan?

    I can't remember the last time I used a voice command, but I personally love the backup camera.

    No, I don't need it, but it's an awesome option that I love having, and I use it every single day.
  • cdnpinheadcdnpinhead Forest Lakes, AZPosts: 3,288
    ". . .foot operated parking brake works very well and keeps an enormous amount of space in the middle console area free. This is one area that European cars have never gotten right. I mean - the only reason you would need to use the parking brake was if your brakes failed. . ."

    Spoken by one who has never driven a manual transmission-equipped car in San Francisco (or anywhere else that's really hilly), no doubt. The reason European cars have hand-operated "parking" brakes is because they're necessary if the car comes with a real transmission & the vast majority of cars in Europe do NOT sport an automatic. And, to clarify, I don't mean that it's only necessary when parking on a steep hill; it's extremely helpful when all you can see is sky & the stop sign & it's time to get the car moving without sliding backwards into the vehicle behind and/or killing the engine.

    Given the rest of your post (which I generally agree with), I'm moderately surprised that you don't favor the stone-simple ultra-reliable manual transmission, which allows you to shift when you want & how you want.

    Happy motoring.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    "Spoken by one who has never driven a manual transmission-equipped car in San Francisco (or anywhere else that's really hilly), no doubt. The reason European cars have hand-operated "parking" brakes is because they're necessary if the car comes with a real transmission & the vast majority of cars in Europe do NOT sport an automatic"

    Bingo. I have driven my manual tranny car on the hills of San Fransisco. One cannot launch the car on a 45 degree uphill (California St?) without the aid of the hand-operated parking brake. (Unless the car comes with an electronic aid to do so)
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    Hmmm... Interesting comments from these "enthusiasts" whom one would get the impression they can handle a manual as well as Jackie Stewart. Hard to believe some of you can't do something as simple as hold the brake pedal and press the gas at the same time with your right foot while easing off the clutch. :confuse: Although, when I'm feeling lazy, I'll pull my hand brake. :P
  • cdnpinheadcdnpinhead Forest Lakes, AZPosts: 3,288
    to those with superior skills.

    It's clear that some of us "enthusiasts" require quotes.
  • vic10vic10 Posts: 188
    Don't think it's as much that the European cars come with manual trannies as that they also come with fairly weak engines so you'd have to rev the begeezus out of them to move from a stop on a hill. My last manual was a 350 cu.in. Firebird. Never during a 3 month stay in downtown SF did I need to use my emergency brake to help me get going from a stop on a hill. Never chirped a tire or spun a wheel either. Would imagine the CTS would be similar.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Ya! I'm lazy when I shift. I don't pretend to jackie Stewart, but after driving a stick shift for 20 years, it's second nature. Still it's much easier to apply the handbrake. Why make life difficult? Do I get a free lunch otherwise?
  • scottm123scottm123 Posts: 1,501
    I thought I read in the new C/D mag that the 08 CTS was offering a manual transmission as an option, but I don't see it anywhere on their website.

    Did I mis-read?
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    And, to clarify, I don't mean that it's only necessary when parking on a steep hill; it's extremely helpful when all you can see is sky & the stop sign & it's time to get the car moving without sliding backwards into the vehicle behind and/or killing the engine.

    Given the rest of your post (which I generally agree with), I'm moderately surprised that you don't favor the stone-simple ultra-reliable manual transmission, which allows you to shift when you want & how you want.
    ****

    Actually I like manuals - I'll never own an automatic again unless it's something special like a S class and I win the lottery or something.

    My Toyota has an E-Brake that's a pull lever under the dash - possibly the worst of all kinds. I've never had to engage it even on the steepest hills anywhere in California because I know how to deal with hills. (hint - you CAN brake and accelerate at the same time, you know...)

    Oddly enough my last car, a Mercedes, also had this type of parking brake. Go figure.

    Yes, it's nice I guess, but the brake on the GM is a simple push, push again to release type and works very well for hills if you want. Rev the engine, hit the clutch, and tap the brake to release it.(not like the rear brakes will do anything versus 300HP - you could probably go 50mph without noticing the parking brake was engaged).
  • Having driven Watkins Glen, Summit Point, and Virginia International Raceway, I know first-hand that there is a big difference between a car that excels on the track and a car that excels on the road. The CTS may have good track credentials, but as a vehicle to carry four passengers and their stuff on the road, the CTS faces tough competition for the dollars charged. Car reviews so often concentrate on the driver's seat to the exclusion of any other consideration. That's why I find Consumer Reports useful as well. My disappointment with the CTS is that GM's brilliant marketing campaign led me to expect a car with the interior room, features, and quality of the A6, 5-series, M35, and Volvo S80, but I found a competitor to the A4, 3-series, G35, and S60. I liked the CTS's instrument panel, but the rest of the CTS was undistinguished and the rear passenger area's small windows made for a feeling of incarceration.

    Backup cameras, Bluetooth, and other features do improve safety.

    I've had an Audi A6 4.2 and allroad 4.2, which have given me a benchmark to measure other cars and so I found the CTS lacking in what I want to buy. I'm eager to see the 2008 Infiniti M45x and the 2008 Audi A6 4.2.

    The CTS seems to be a nice car, but not for the money.
  • #10295 of 10295 Re: Disappointed by 2008 CTS [renssils] by renssils Sep 18, 2007 (3:11 pm)
    Replying to: renssils (Sep 17, 2007 10:21 am)
    Having driven Watkins Glen, Summit Point, and Virginia International Raceway, I know first-hand that there is a big difference between a car that excels on the track and a car that excels on the road. The CTS may have good track credentials, but as a vehicle to carry four passengers and their stuff on the road, the CTS faces tough competition for the dollars charged. Car reviews so often concentrate on the driver's seat to the exclusion of any other consideration. That's why I find Consumer Reports useful as well. My disappointment with the CTS is that GM's brilliant marketing campaign led me to expect a car with the interior room, features, and quality of the A6, 5-series, M35, and Volvo S80, but I found a competitor to the A4, 3-series, G35, and S60. I liked the CTS's instrument panel, but the rest of the CTS was undistinguished and the rear passenger area's small windows made for a feeling of incarceration.

    Backup cameras, Bluetooth, and other features do improve safety.

    I've had an Audi A6 4.2 and allroad 4.2, which have given me a benchmark to measure other cars and so I found the CTS lacking in what I want to buy. I'm eager to see the 2008 Infiniti M45x and the 2008 Audi A6 4.2.

    The CTS seems to be a nice car, but not for the money.

    =============================================================
    GM never led you to believe anything.
    You may have disappointed yourself.

    When--ever--has GM marketed the 2008 CTS against the 5-Series/A6/Infiniti-M? The 2007?

    The commercials barely started coming out last week.

    The car has always been slotted between the 3-Series and the 5-Series with the main advantage being interior room--not amenities.

    They always had the STS for that.

    Even the magazines grouped the old car there when reviewing it. All of them.

    You cannot find a car like the CTS with all its dimensions etc., for the same price. No other exists (another story altogether).

    image

    image

    image
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,647
    Yes, it's not hard to find a CTS listing at $40k or less, not optioned out, but way less than any A6 or 5er. Of course a $55k car will (and should) behave better.
  • Of course, by his definition, if the CTS is one Bluetooth and a platinum-embroidered sunshade away from the 5-Series, then it is way better than any 3-Series!

    Again, by his definition alone.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    "You cannot find a car like the CTS with all its dimensions etc., for the same price."

    Agreed, however, Cadillac did a phenomonally poor job of using all of interior space, so much so that the CTS is considerably less comfortable to drive and ride in than a "smaller" 3-Series.

    Slice it and dice it any way you want, the CTS is inferior virtually every car in its chosen category, the Lexus IS being the possible single exception.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,647
    That's fine, I have no problem with criticisms within this group. I hope to go out the next week or so to see. I've already tried the G35, too tight. What might be a big advantage for the CTS (for me) is the availability w/o a sunroof - I need the headroom.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    You may be in luck there, my business associate who I drove the car with is a VERY big guy and he just fit headroom wise, however, he didn't like riding with his legs almost straight out in front of him.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • #10299 of 10301 Re: Disappointed by 2008 CTS [readerreader] by shipo Sep 19, 2007 (1:36 pm)
    Replying to: readerreader (Sep 19, 2007 1:19 pm)
    "You cannot find a car like the CTS with all its dimensions etc., for the same price."

    Agreed, however, Cadillac did a phenomonally poor job of using all of interior space, so much so that the CTS is considerably less comfortable to drive and ride in than a "smaller" 3-Series.

    Slice it and dice it any way you want, the CTS is inferior virtually every car in its chosen category, the Lexus IS being the possible single exception.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo

    ============================================================

    The Cadillac did an excellent job, since it is larger than any other car in its class on the inside.

    It may be less comfortable to drive "mentally" (for some) since it doesn't have the roundel on the front; but the CTS is in almost every way more comfortable than the 3-Series--which is the smallest car in its class.
    This we know.

    And we have not even gotten to the ride which was described thusly by Car and Driver:

    "On the street, our initial impression is that the CTS is more comfortable than a Sport-package-equipped BMW 3-series or Infiniti G35 without giving up much ultimate performance..."

    http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/13537/full-test-2008-cadillac-cts-driving-- - impressions-page3.html

    "It also doesn’t hurt that even with a steeply raked rear window, the CTS offers a much larger and usable back seat (the smallest Caddy is similar in size to a 5-series BMW) than those in the smaller luxury sedans it competes with price-wise."

    http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/13537/full-test-2008-cadillac-cts-the-verd- - ict-page5.html

    Indeed, it's "verdict" on the same page was:

    "Highs: Well-sorted chassis, bold exterior design, lots of passenger space, the best interior yet from GM."

    Shall I go on?

    Shall I find more reviews?

    No review of the 2008 CTS have ever compared it unfavorably with the competition based on interior room.
    That is physically impossible to do (according to the laws of physics).
    "Comfort" is subjective, but no dice there either.

    This car is not any more "inferior" than any other car in its class. It has its highs and lows like any other car there.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    "The Cadillac did an excellent job, since it is larger than any other car in its class on the inside."

    I never said otherwise.

    It may be less comfortable to drive "mentally" (for some) since it doesn't have the roundel on the front; but the CTS is in almost every way more comfortable than the 3-Series--which is the smallest car in its class.
    This we know.


    You can't be serious. Go and drive them and then go and ride in them, front and back. I'm only 5'8" and the 3-Series is WAY more comfortable especially in the back. I find it very telling that even a Honda Civic Sedan is more comfortable to sit in the back seat than a CTS. Said another way, the GM engineer that decided to put the seats (both front and rear) so low to the floor and then not allow for enough leg room in the rear to allow a rear seat passenger’s lower thigh to comfortably rest on the seat cushion ought to be fired.

    "And we have not even gotten to the ride which was described thusly by Car and Driver:"

    Do you have any opinions of your own? Folks who buy cars based upon what a car rag says deserved what the get, a turkey. That said, while we're on the subject:

    "It also doesn’t hurt that even with a steeply raked rear window, the CTS offers a much larger and usable back seat (the smallest Caddy is similar in size to a 5-series BMW) than those in the smaller luxury sedans it competes with price-wise."

    Apparently they didn't sit in the back and simply compared the spec sheets. The CTS has one of the absolute worst back seat areas of any sedan I've ridden in in recent memory, errr, except the Lexus IS.

    "Highs: Well-sorted chassis, bold exterior design, lots of passenger space, the best interior yet from GM."

    Yes, there's lots of space, HIGHLY uncomfortable space, and the "Best interior yet from GM"? Geez, that's kind of like saying "The best filet mignon yet from Dairy Queen". :P

    "This car is not any more "inferior" than any other car in its class. It has its highs and lows like any other car there."

    Clearly you haven't driven the cars in this class yourself. The new CTS is a sloppy handler with an uncomfortable interior, questionable exterior looks, and as for the power rating on the V6, either the car is extremely obese or the 300 horsepower is wildly optimistic (or maybe a little of both).

    Please, before you argue specs and reviews, go DRIVE them yourself, you might just find that your rhetoric is a bit hollow.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • It doesn't strike me as irrational to trust the overwhelming consensus opinion of professional independent reviewers and others who have driven the car over one pointedly divergent account.

    As a matter of fact, that is exactly what I will do. You take care now.

    image

    image
  • cdnpinheadcdnpinhead Forest Lakes, AZPosts: 3,288
    Thank you, for your incredibly helpful input, here and elsewhere.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    So you're saying that you'll buy a CTS based upon what others say without checking out the competition yourself? Yikes, that's scary.

    Do yourself a favor, go and drive the other cars, I trust that you'll then understand what I'm talking about. FWIW, I'm not the only one who's commented about the poor seating arrangements in the CTS.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,388
    I wouldn't waste my finger power to trash the CTS. I will use my buying power to buy the best again. Driving is believing.

    AFAIC, NO CIGAR for GM on CTS. Nice trucks, however. Forgot long ago how to build satisfaction, IMHO.

    Regards,
    OW
Sign In or Register to comment.