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

1497498500502503842

Comments

  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,259
    But look at the "Mark of Excellence" on the products they turn out!

    HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :cry:

    Regards,
    OW
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    wander on back to the cars here, folks. I'm sure there is plenty of conversation in Auto News about the strike, UAW, unions in general, GM, etc.
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,259
    You struck a great point the CTS is a 'tweener in the middle of the 3 and 5 series. It should be on it's own forum! With the Lincoln!

    Regards,
    OW
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 17,713
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    Come on, compare to Lincoln Cadillac is like the BMW...

    Ford should really put Lincoln out of its misery.

    In the article seems to me that most of the performance are due to the sticky Michelin Pilot Sport SP2 tires which are found in some Porsches. If I am not mistaken the standard tire for the 335i is Bridgestone Potenza RE050A RFT Runflat which doesn't perform quiet as well as the SP2. The 335i's performance numbers should be much better with the SP2 and further distinguish itself from the CTS.

    However, one thing nobody can deny is that the CTS is currently the interior standard of the segment. The quality of materials and fit-'n-finish is just amazing, but both the front and rear seats can be comfortable though.

    Exterior styling of this car is not my cup of tea. Too big, too edgy and too much chrome. The massive grille is just hilarious looking and I doubt it'll age well through time. I much prefer old CTS's exterior over the new one.

    Probably not going to drive it since I have no interest in getting one but overall it looks like a solid entry from Caddy. I can see that it'll sell well here in the states but that's pretty much it.
  • New tires helped my e90 tremendously.

    As for the other stuff...I've only seen pictures but to my eyes it's too busy. I love Spartan interiors; too much seems to be happening in the CTS. Too much chromey-stuff too. I'll get to it in 09/10 when I have to buy a new car.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    "However, one thing nobody can deny is that the CTS is currently the interior standard of the segment. The quality of materials and fit-'n-finish is just amazing, but both the front and rear seats can be comfortable though."

    I for one will deny it. I found the interior to be of no better physical quality than any other car in the class, poorly laid out and gaudy. Not my personal cup of tea.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • Are you completely serious in your arguments or are you just trying to be funny? First, this was probably one of the best reviews Cadillac could have hoped for. It went out of its way to say that Cadillac (and GM) had produced a vehicle that isn't saddled by the problems of previous vehicles.

    But what still gets my undies in a crunch is people around here directly comparing the CTS to the BMW 3 series. Oh sure Cadillac wouldn't mind some 3-seried buyers cross shopping since they don't have a car in that space (in America) and probably won't for another 2 years. But it's completely unfair to compare the CTS to a smaller, lighter vehicle.

    Don't believe me? Check out the specs between like vehicles in the class:

    Cadillac CTS
    Wheelbase: 113.4"
    Length: 191.6"
    Width: 72.5"
    Curb Weight: 3900+ lbs
    EPA Class: Midsize

    BMW 535i
    Wheelbase: 113.7"
    Length: 191.1"
    Width: 72.7"
    Curb Weight: 3650 lbs
    EPA Class: Midsize

    Mercedes-Benz E350
    Wheelbase: 112.4"
    Length: 191"
    Width: 71.7"
    Curb Weight: 3740 lbs
    EPA Class: Midsize

    Audi A6 3.2 (non-quattro)
    Wheelbase: 111.9"
    Length: 193.5"
    Width: 71.3"
    Curb Weight: 3858 lbs
    EPA Class: Midsize

    Lexus GS350
    Wheelbase: 112.2"
    Length: 190"
    Width: 71.7"
    Curb Weight: 3704 lbs
    EPA Class: Midsize

    Infiniti M35
    Wheelbase: 114.2"
    Length: 192.6"
    Width: 70.8"
    Curb Weight: 4043 lbs
    EPA Class: Midsize

    Now, compare those vehicles to the BMW 3-series:

    BMW 335i
    Wheelbase: 108.7"
    Length: 178.2"
    Width: 71.5"
    Curb Weight: 3593 lbs
    EPA Class: Compact

    The BMW 3-series has a wheelbase 5 inches shorter on average and about a foot in total length shorter than all the above mentioned vehicles. It's interior size is a whole 'nother EPA category. Bottom line is that the CTS is the new 5-series/E-class competitor to this space. Get used to it. It's just that the old competitor in this class for Caddy (the STS) hasn't died yet. But Cadillac has already publically stated that the STS (and DTS) will die in favor of a new large flagship car, while a smaller "B-series" car will slot under the CTS in the next couple of years.

    Yes the CTS is on the heavy side and that's been a problem for GM's Sigma platform in general. In this class, only the Infiniti M35 weighs a tick more. But they got so many other parts of the car right. Yes, entry to the backseat is cramped, but frankly, I don't have rear passengers often unless they are my kids.

    The CTS is now missing a couple of major features to properly compete in this space: a V8 engine option that's not a hot-rod (a la M-series/AMG/S & RS-class/V-series). I fully expect GM to retify that situation when the next-gen Northstar appears in a year or two. With a new CTS-V also due on the horizon, that means the STS can be put out to pasture. The second major issue is body styles. I already know a wagon is in the works and a coupe should be coming at some point.
  • I've spent a few hours in this car's interior. Please explain what is "poorly laid out" and "gaudy". Also, please give an example of what is a better example of the class.
  • habitat1habitat1 Posts: 4,282
    Also, please give an example of what is a better example of the class.

    Throw a dart at ANY of the other cars from your midsize list.

    The BMW 3-series has a wheelbase 5 inches shorter on average and about a foot in total length shorter than all the above mentioned vehicles. It's interior size is a whole 'nother EPA category. Bottom line is that the CTS is the new 5-series/E-class competitor to this space.

    ... Yes, entry to the backseat is cramped, but frankly, I don't have rear passengers often unless they are my kids.


    A little bi-polar feeling today? A mid size E-class or 5-series isn't "cramped" in the back for adults, so regardless of what the EPA says, the CTS doesn't compete in useable size. And if all you need to do is put kids in the rear seat, why would you buy a bloated 2-ton "not really mid size" car?
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    Poorly laid out:
    The various controls that are often actuated, especially HVAC and window controls were difficult to reach comfortably and difficult to manipulate without having to take my eyes off the road. As for gaudy, well, admittedly that is personal taste, but there's waay too much bright work in the instrument cluster and dash for me.

    As for better in the class, once again that's a matter of personal taste. I find that the Audi A3, A4 and A6 have arguably the best dash and control layout of the bunch, and while I'm not as fond of the newer/less driver centric control layout of recent BMWs, even that interior seems far more functional and logically laid out. Geez, I even think the Lexus IS is better done than the CTS, and I am NOT a fan of the IS at all.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    I see, so if someone doesn't like what you like they're snobs? Yeesh!
  • But it's completely unfair to compare the CTS to a smaller, lighter vehicle.

    The 535i is the same size but is 300 lbs lighter. Shrug.

    Bottom line is that the CTS is the new 5-series/E-class competitor to this space. Get used to it.

    It's a competitor to neither the 3 nor the 5.

    Yes the CTS is on the heavy side and that's been a problem for GM's Sigma platform in general. In this class, only the Infiniti M35 weighs a tick more. But they got so many other parts of the car right. Yes, entry to the backseat is cramped, but frankly, I don't have rear passengers often unless they are my kids.

    Then what's the hangup on a barge like a 5 or CTS? Seriously you just went on and on about epa space and then come back by saying it's not important to you. So what is important? If space isn't an issue, then why opt for a car of that size?

    The CTS is now missing a couple of major features to properly compete in this space: a V8 engine option that's not a hot-rod (a la M-series/AMG/S & RS-class/V-series).

    Huh? 5 series and 3 series both have 3.0 300 hp engines compared to the Caddy's 300 hp V6. Strangely, that 300 hp 6 in the 5 and 3 propels both cars with electrifying power. What exactly is wrong with GM's engine development? The weight can't be totally to blame for the slowness of the CTS.
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,259
    pucks, nice job on the post. Got anything positive to add? :confuse:

    Regards,
    OW
  • Well, part of the reason the back seat room isn't a priority for me is because of my physical size. I'm nearly 7 feet tall, so shopping for a car is like being fitted for a suit. Since most car companies don't cater to someone my size, my shopping short list ends up very short. For example, the Mercedes E class, BMW 5 series both don't have enough room for my legs and knees. The Audi A6 is even worse. The Lexus GS doesn't have enough head room (the ES is better). The only CTS competitors I've driven that I fit into are the Infiniti M35 and the Acura RL.

    One of the reasons I liked the previous CTS was because it had enough leg room and knee room for me....barely enough, but it was enough. I was very afraid that the next generation car wasn't going to have enough room for me. Instead, I found that the front leg room and knee room was far better than the outgoing vehicle.

    So when you say that the CTS doesn't compete in "usable space", I would only say that I consider the extra room I get in the front seat versus the rear seat far more important for me concerning "usable space".
  • Wow, interesting. Can't argue with that. Why not go with a FWD car and get all that space back?
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,259
    Well, no ELLPS can be comfortable for you! Go with the M35/45, IMO.

    Regards,
    OW
  • I am with you sevenfeet. I sometimes drive 700 miles in a day. The CTS and the M35 are the only two cars on your list that would NOT have me squirming in discomfort for the last 100 miles. The BMW 3 would have me screaming in agony for that last 100.
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,424
    I'm convinced this is part of the reason X5s and Cayennes are as popular as they are, even though there's no real off-road time expected. How else can you carry 4 large adults around in comfort with some sporting pretense? None of the ELLPS will do it.
  • Shipo,

    You're argument is a much better one than before...thanks! That's all I ask in a friendly debate. It's easy in a forum to end up doing the old "Monty Python Argument Sketch" in situations like this, especially when the debates often centers upon the objective and asthestic.

    For the recond, I've always thought that Audi made the best interiors in this space but since I can't fit in the driver's seat, it's pretty moot. BMW interiors to me are competent but too austere for me. The new CTS interior is light years ahead of the old one. Not perfect (what is?) but competetive.
Sign In or Register to comment.