Howdy, Stranger!

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





2008 Cadillac CTS

1101113151694

Comments

  • 14871487 Posts: 2,407
    Cadillac has been doing nice interiors since the mid 90s. Check out the '96 STS interior and the '98 STS interior. Same for the Eldorado and Deville of that era. The CTS interior was actually worse than that of the FWD Caddy cars in terms of design. Your contention that the '08 CTS interior is the first nice interior is a complete joke. They have been at this for a decade although the CTS and original SRX interiors were kind of out of place.

    I thought you had disappeared. We have kind of moved on from the Cadillac bashing stage of this discussion. Yes we know, MB has been making great cars for 100 year and Cadillac has just made its first competent car (well we dont really know yet, must wait for C&D to tell us) and they cant compete with the Europeans or Lexus. We all got the point.
  • 14871487 Posts: 2,407
    The car wasnt trashed by the press at all. That is a lie. NO one said the car was superior to teh 3 series, but that isnt the same as the car being "trashed". Please give the hyperbole a rest if you can. Just because you hate the car doesn't mean it was a failure. The CTS sold well, won a comparison test in R&T (can't wait to hear your excuse) and was generally given favorable reviews as a new kind of Cadillac that could actually handle like a European car. Apparently you missed all of that press though.

    "The complaints focused on cheap materials, poor fit and finish. I already gave the proof of this in the other thread a while back and yet you continued to deny it. That is classic denial. "

    Never read anything about the CTS being poorly assembled. I dont know what you presented earlier, but I'm pretty sure the actual quotes are different from what you are presenting above. Repost it, I know you like to do anti-Gm research. While you are digging of evidence that everyone hated the CTS why dont you reread (assuming you ever read it) the R&T test between 7 RWD sedans in which the CTS finished first. Kind of hard to believe that happened since the car was universally bashed by the press according to you. The CTS-V was also named an all star by Automobile two years in a row. Maybe Cadillac paid for that award though, there's got to be an excuse. Classic denial indeed.

    "I said that in the past American sedans were bottom feeders and you bring up the brand new Aura. The STS isn't a class leader is it? It isn't even close so my comment still stands. "

    Z06 isnt a sedan, finally a valid point. Bravo! The '98 STS, '05 STS/STS-V, Aurora, DTS, Intrigue, Lucerne, G6, CTS, 300C, Fusion, SVT contour, 300M, etc. are/were all bottom feeders? never said the STS was a benchmark, but I fail to see how its a bottom feeder, especially the v series. To me the bottom feeder in the class would be the S type. The V8 luxury sedan class is so competitive that its hard to really say any car in that class is a bad car. Well, you would say the STS is junk, most an objective person would say they are all great cars.
  • I'm not sure why any of us are trying to defend the old CTS interior (or especially its implementation in the SRX). It's not that the interior WAS cheap. Even Bob Lutz said that the interior wasn't inexpensive by any means. The problem was that it LOOKED cheap. Large swaths of plain black plastic around the center cluster will do that. But in trying to make the interior as edgy as the exterior, they also make door panels with hard edges, but were softer to the touch. But the hard edge look compromised the perception of the materials before your hand ever touched it.

    I pointed this out to my Cadillac dealership in Atlanta in August 2003 when I was looking at the car for the first time. Given what I'd seen in other cars, I knew this was going to be a problem. It was a problem by the critics but fortunately for Cadillac, the car sold anyway. But the interior clearly was the weak spot of the car. Unforgivable in my book was repeating that interior in the SRX (which I now own). For an SUV that ranges from $38K to $62K, large swaths of black plastic is completely unacceptable (and thankfully, was upgraded for 2007). Not doing the SRX interior right the first time I believe lost them sales to Lexus and others despite the largely positive magazine reviews.
  • chavis10chavis10 Posts: 166
    The only thing lame is the fact that you think you know what you're talking about. You think that you're some type of authority on what makes and does not make a good car and in fact your preaching your opinions as if they were the gospel of truth. They are opinions and if you don't like whatever type of car, that's great but that's where it stops.

    "True, because the average consumer doesn't care, heck some don't know which set of wheels propel their car. Problem is that Cadillac wasn't competitive with those FWD cars. They were lame and sticking out in a RWD class. "

    You just contradicted yourself. You agree with my point and say some people don't know which wheels propel the car but then say Caddy was lame for sticking with FWD. If an average driver couldn't tell the difference, how was that lame? The old STS handled as well as your run of the mill E320 or GS300.

    Yep they did and ultimately they caved in an went RWD like everyone else. All the CVRSS nonsense was the most ridiculous spectacle possible. Everyone does it now to keep up with the Joneses.

    More conflicting logic. You say everyone uses electronic damping now to keep up with the Joneses and then say CVRSS was nonsense and a ridiculous spectacle when they pioneered the systems used today on virtually all luxury cars. Get your facts straight, CVRSS 2.0 had technologies that are just now being introduced in your beloved perfectly balanced Europeans sedans who as you used to say didn't need such frivolous technology to achieve good handling. You make absolutely no sense at all and continue to prove that if GM does something first it's crap but if Lexus, BMW or MB introduces a system it's a god sent. Ridiculous.

    Cadillac is steadily chasing the Euros because that is whats in, not a DTS or ES350 type car.

    Um, they are, are they? Is the Escalade chasing a european type truck? Would you care to let me know the sales figures of the DTS (and previous DeVille) since it's not as you say, "in?" You speak as if you know what the industry wants when you continuously prove you are out of touch. Again, your opinion is being delivered as fact when it is not. The ES350 (and RX) is a good seller as well it's it predecessor. Just because you (or myself for that matter) wouldn't buy it doesn't mean we're in the majority.

    Also, if you like the new CTS, good for you. I don't think any of us will be jumping for joy because you can finally acknowledge a GM vehicle.
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    Cadillac has been doing nice interiors since the mid 90s.

    I see the problem now, that's we have different definitions for "nice interiors". No wonder the conversation didn't go anywhere.
  • chavis10chavis10 Posts: 166
    I'm going to try to make a point here Chavis. Those interiors which did suck (no argument from me there), but they were not the norm from those brands, especially Mercedes and Lexus. That is the difference and it why people rag on GM interiors, cheap interiors are what they've done for years and years, 10 out of 10 times so yes people do forget that certain MB, Lexus and other imports have turned up stinky interiors from time to time. Don't you see that when Cadillac does cars like the new CTS on a consistent basis the criticism will go away? If GM could quit introducing half-baked cars like the Kappa twins no would could say anything.

    Here we go... It seems to me, we are making excuses yet again. The Seville interior introduced in the '98 model year was a nice interior and very pleasing aesthetically in my opinion. I liked that car very much especially on the inside with navigation. So, for you this new CTS is the first GM car you would ever set foot in which is not true for other people. I have a '98 olds intrigue that has 98k miles and there is nothing wrong with it's interior design or durability (other than the cheap carpet). No sun damage, cracking or peeling on the plastics. Sorry, I cannot subscribe to your point of view implying every GM interior before MY '07 has been trash.

    How did the Kappa's come up? Again, here you go proving that you hate everything GM builds (except the new CTS). We already know that so that goes without saying. I don't like the Solstice at all (inside or out) but the Sky looks ok although I would never buy a small roadster.
  • chavis10chavis10 Posts: 166
    Please describe a nice interior then? I believe the models he's referring to are the '95 and up STS/ETC. Those models had a similar simplistic look of the Lexus LS400 dashboard while the Germans made terrible looking depressing cockpits of black on top of black with a few strips of wood thrown into the mix. You can say what you want about the quality but German cars before the last gen 5 and 7 series (I think it was introduced '95 or '96) had terrible LOOKING interiors in my opinion.

    Lexus has always had nice looking cockpits and Infiniti has been all over the place.
  • 14871487 Posts: 2,407
    Why dont you name the bad Caddy interiors from the mid 90s onward? The FWD Caddies of the late 90s had interiors that had more in common with Lexus than anything being made by BMW or MB at that time. BMW interiors in their last generation vehicles were flat out dull, dark and uninspired. Same goes for last gen E class, '01 C class, first gen M class, etc. Current MB interiors are light years ahead of what they were making 5-6 years ago now that they finally realized they needed to challenge Lexus in terms of luxuriousness of interiors. I'm afraid to think of what German interiors would be like if Lexus hadn't come on the scene and forced them (OK, not BMW) to abandon their cold, angular interiors that lacked any feel of luxury or warmth.

    If you look at the '98 STS, ETC and Deville interiors and then look at Lexus interiors in the ES300, GS300 and LS400 at that time you will see some similarities. Matter of fact, the gauges for the Cadillacs were made by the supplier of Lexus' electroluminescent gauges. To me, the CTS and SRX interiors were a step down from what Caddy had been doing in earlier cars. It's obvious they have learned their lesson because the Slade, '08 CTS and SRX interiors have more in common with the 90s Caddies than the current CTS.

    I would like some examples of late 90s interiors that were head and shoulders above what Caddy was doing. Please don't say Acura or Infiniti either. My neighbor has an '03 I35 and the interior is about on par with the current Impala if it's even that good. The woodgrain is so obviously fake that they would've been better off omitting it from the interior. The last gen TL's interior was no better than the Accord's is today. They made a quantum leap with the '04 TL and TSX. All you are left with is Lexus really.
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    Like I said, we have different definitions of "nice interiors", nothing's wrong with that. I am not forcing you to agree with me so why should I must agree with you?

    I personally like Acura and BMW's interior best in the late 90's. I like BMW's driver-oriented design (which they took it away and replaced with the current disaster) and as always, they use good materials. Acura always has the most elegant interior in my opinion, it's not too "in your face" but unique enough to stand out. The most important part is that both manufactures have good fit-and-finish even on their not-so-desirable years (like the current BMW).

    To me Lexus and Cadillac's interiors are just IMO too bland in the late 90's (throw MB into that bunch if you wish). However, Lexus and MB at least utilized higher grade materials than Caddy and had better fit-and-finish (touch them and compare the difference, knock on it and listen, poke it and see how does the surface respond, press the center stacks cover to see if it squeezes, also the most important, check the gaps between panels) . Those are the ways how I identify good interiors from the rest. For me, Cadillac at that time was above average (Honda, Toyota level) but definitely not on par with MB, Lexus, Acura and BMW.

    I do agree that Infiniti's interior is always not so pleasant all the way until recently.
  • 14871487 Posts: 2,407
    There were some hard plastics in Cadillacs of last decade, but I would say it was no worse than what Acura and Infiniti were doing. Cadillac use of leather and Zebrano wood was very nice though and a Cadillac with the wood steering wheel and shifter was quite lovely and very upscale looking. I dont recall any fit and finish issues at that time, Cadillac has been on top of that for some time.

    If you liked the old BMW interiors than I can see why you weren't impressed by what Cadillac was doing. Driver oriented is one thing, but IMHO an interior needs to look like its befitting of a luxury car and that wasnt the case of older BMWs. Once you look at models before the '97 5 series and '95 7 series things got REALLY ugly, literally. All black interiors with small, simple gauges don't do it for me. The plastics and leathers in German cars has always been nice as far as I can remember but design is just as important as the hardness of plastics. Lexus interiors were rather plain (still are) but overall I though their late 90s interiors were the most luxurios looking on the market.
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    All black interiors with small, simple gauges don't do it for me

    There you go, another reason why we are having this conversion. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind woodtrims and light color interior but I prefer black + aluminum (metallic acceptable) for 3 and 5-series class of cars. I would definitely opt for wood if I am getting a 7-series, S-class or LS because of the prestige factor.

    Oh, By the way, I don't like simple gauges either. That's another reason why I hate current BMW interiors so much.

    Gotta agree with you on Lexus interior being plain. However I did see a great deal of improvement for their current L-finess inspired sedans. IMO, Lexus interior's fit-and-finish and material quality are still top notch in the industry along with MB.
  • thebugthebug Posts: 294
    WOW !!!!! I'd love to have your insurance company !!!!

    Rocky, your insurance probably offers the same thing, you just have to ask. Mine has a deductible of $250, but I think you can buy it down. Either way it's cheaper that the 2+K one's the dealer sells.

    Most of the major insurance providers offer this protection. I have the caveman. I think if you don't ask, they won't tell you. I have about 11 discounts because I simply asked, "What else can I get a discount on?". And they opened the flood gate.

    You may be surprised to find out all the coverages that you already have and haven't even used. It's some really good stuff if you inquire.

    thebug...
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    You need to realize that the CTS isn't and was never made to compete with the 3 series. What it's aimed at is the 5 series. When you consider that it's trying to be a 5-series competitor for 10-20K less, it's a whole different matter.

    Of course it's not a 3 series. The RX-8 isn't a 350Z either, but they always put it up against it. That the CTS and RX-8 both do about 80% as well as the car they are wrongly matched against speaks to how decent they are - especially for the price.

    The 2008 CTS is going to knock the 5 series and the E class for a loop. Less expensive to buy, less expensive to maintain. Better performance. I can't wait to sit in one. :)
  • thebugthebug Posts: 294
    Nav systems aren't useful in a town that's growing rapidly.

    The construction in this city is maddening. I believe it's some much that city officials don't even know where it is sometimes. There is no way a nav system could know about this. I mean it's everywhere. You would just have to visit Las Vegas to see what I mean. It's absolutely crazy.

    Cone zones have a tendency to just pop up unannounced. You can drive down a street at 9AM, and when you drive back the other way at 11AM it's now under construction, then at 5PM it's gone.

    That's how it is all day, and sometimes at night. On other days, or at other times, without prior notice, the cone zone guys will just close a road for some unknown reason. So you just have to know alternate routes up front, and sometimes that doesn't even help.

    thebug...
  • thebugthebug Posts: 294
    Rocky: How does this discount work? I'm sure it's based on usage, but how much usage constitutes a discount?

    A winter beater for a CTS. No way, I don't even drive the current in the rain. I think that in the four years that I've had it, its only been out in the rain twice, (and it doesn't really rain here, it just spatters dust spots) and that's because it started raining while I too far away from home.

    And yes, if I get the slightest hint of rain, I put it away, (or don't even consider it for the day) and use the designated rain car. If it's cloudy out, most people know which car I'm driving.

    thebug...
  • thebugthebug Posts: 294
    You need to realize that the CTS isn't and was never made to compete with the 3 series.

    I agree with you on this one, and I really think that the 5 Series, and like cars took a hit when the CTS hit the market.

    thebug...
  • thebugthebug Posts: 294
    I applied for the card and it was approved. I just need to know how much discount I can produce by November, or if it's even possible. Next purchase for sure.

    thebug...
  • What other cars are 'like' the 5 series? The CTS certainly isn't bothering that market at all. It might make a difference if the CTS's grill was bigger. Maybe something along the lines of a Mack truck would look better.
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    You have the larger Infinity models, the A6, the Volvo S80, the Lexus ES series, the E-Class...

    Some are more sporty, some are more luxurious, but none are priced as low as the CTS, and price does matter now that some of these models are pushing 40K for a base model.
  • thebugthebug Posts: 294
    I didn't say it killed the 5 Series, I said that the 5 Series and cars of the like probably took a hit. Cars of the like would be those of the same size with similar features and priced just above that of the CTS. That's a given for the most part.

    Just in my small social circle 5 people traded BMW's and Audi"s for the CTS. I'm sure that works both ways as well. Those first time CTS buyer's who were not satisfied went to other models. I bet if someone did research on this, it would be found as true. It's the nature of the beast.

    I myself like the BMW 5 Series a lot, but won't buy one because I know it's over priced. There's just not enough there (big bucks, little bang) to warrant the asking price in my experience.

    thebug...
  • traded BMW's and Audi"s for the CTS

    Traded BMW's and Audi's what for the CTS?
  • thebugthebug Posts: 294
    Traded BMW's and Audi's what for the CTS?

    Actually the current CTS. I believe that former BMW owners traded because of maintenance/service problems (which are no longer an issue), two Audi owners (1 A6 sedan, 1 wagon) traded because they simply liked the CTS. One of the CTS owners has since traded her CTS for the STS when it came out.

    It may come as a surprise to you, but some people (me included) like the CTS and the Cadillac line very much. A few of us out here think that the BMW line is very, very nice, but at the same time very, very over priced.

    I think a lot people moved over to the Cadillac line with the advent of the art and science concept, it is pretty decent. My first clue was the used foreign cars on the Cadillac used car lot. One would guess, that whoever dropped these cars off, probably purchased a Cadillac of some type. Just a guess.

    And again, I'll bet it works the other way as well. Me, I'm sold on Cadillac. My current CTS (03 black on black, lux package) hasn't had one single maintenance problem, the service at the dealer is excellent, it continues to perform well, and still turns heads. Most of all, I really like it.

    I owned a Volvo once, and when it came of age, I truly wanted to trade for another one, but just couldn't (and won't) deal with the lack of quality of service. Only one dealer here at that time (turn of the century), and the service department sucked to high heaven.

    Car ownership for me is full circle. Pricing (bang for the buck), adequate bells and whistles (new technologies at a reasonable price), performance, and style (problem free, Ergonomically sound), and quality of service (service without the holier then thou attitude). Remove any one of these elements, and I am out of there.

    To date, the Cadillac brand has provided these important features. I will, I say again, will purchase the 08 CTS this year. Can't wait.

    thebug...
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Cadillac has been doing nice interiors since the mid 90s. Check out the '96 STS interior and the '98 STS interior. Same for the Eldorado and Deville of that era. The CTS interior was actually worse than that of the FWD Caddy cars in terms of design. Your contention that the '08 CTS interior is the first nice interior is a complete joke. They have been at this for a decade although the CTS and original SRX interiors were kind of out of place.

    I guess what the later posters are saying is true. Very different definitions of what a good interior is are at play here. The joke is that you think any Cadillac interior before the 08' CTS and possibly the 07 SRX were up to par with the class. The biggest gripes with latter day Cadillacs has been their interiors or did you miss all that?

    I thought you had disappeared. We have kind of moved on from the Cadillac bashing stage of this discussion. Yes we know, MB has been making great cars for 100 year and Cadillac has just made its first competent car (well we dont really know yet, must wait for C&D to tell us) and they cant compete with the Europeans or Lexus. We all got the point.

    You said it not me.

    M
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    The car wasnt trashed by the press at all. That is a lie. NO one said the car was superior to teh 3 series, but that isnt the same as the car being "trashed". Please give the hyperbole a rest if you can. Just because you hate the car doesn't mean it was a failure. The CTS sold well, won a comparison test in R&T (can't wait to hear your excuse) and was generally given favorable reviews as a new kind of Cadillac that could actually handle like a European car. Apparently you missed all of that press though.

    You're so far in denial its funny. A brand new car that gets comments about its handling being on par with a car made 10+ years earlier is sad. When the press is in agreement on a single issue about a car, that is a problem. You'll continue to say that the old CTS has a nice interior when in fact it looked and felt like something from Playskool. Wow the car won 1 comparo in its entire production run against a bunch of larger not as sporty cars! Such a pridigous acheivement!

    Never read anything about the CTS being poorly assembled. I dont know what you presented earlier, but I'm pretty sure the actual quotes are different from what you are presenting above.

    Then you haven't been reading. Remember the XLR-V thread? I gave you at least 4 quotes from various sources commenting on how pitifully finished and put together the CTS, CTS-V and SRX were. You then turned right around and said that they didn't really mean anything. You ask for proof and then deny it when it is present. Classic GM defender stance I guess when the negative press is everywhere.

    While you are digging of evidence that everyone hated the CTS why dont you reread (assuming you ever read it) the R&T test between 7 RWD sedans in which the CTS finished first.

    Impressive until you find out that it didn't face its direct rivals. I guess you're going to stand on this one leg of a comparo forever huh?

    The '98 STS, '05 STS/STS-V, Aurora, DTS, Intrigue, Lucerne, G6, CTS, 300C, Fusion, SVT contour, 300M, etc. are/were all bottom feeders?

    The 98 STS was close to junk, I should know I had 2 uncles that owned them. The Aurora and Intrique are self explanatory failues from a failed brand. None of the cars you named except the 300C and SVT Contour have been anything but bottom feeders. You've got to be pretty desperate to bring up such a losing list of cars to make a point. The G6? Been called a dismal effort since day one.

    The V-Series cars are impressive, no argument from me there. 2 rare expections to the norm.

    The V8 luxury sedan class is so competitive that its hard to really say any car in that class is a bad car.

    True there is no "bad" car in the class, but there are some at the bottom of the class and there is where the STS resides by everything I've seen. No the previous STSs were so out of touch with their class to be called that, but not the current one. It is at least competitive. No most people wouldn't say they were "great" cars, they'd say they're nice cars, the great ones don't sit in the bottom half of comparos. Don't ruin "great" status by trying to attach a Cadillac to it.

    M
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    You just contradicted yourself. You agree with my point and say some people don't know which wheels propel the car but then say Caddy was lame for sticking with FWD. If an average driver couldn't tell the difference, how was that lame? The old STS handled as well as your run of the mill E320 or GS300.

    Really? You just don't get it. Cadillac was going around saying that their FWD cars could outhandle the RWD competition and that simply was BS. If you're going to beat the competition you have to at least offer what they offer. Lame is to be the only FWD car in the segment and challenge BMW for handling. There are regular car buyers and then there are enthusiasts and I know you know this Chavis. Cadillac can build all DTS, but see how far that gets them. The fact that they switched proved that it was lame and that the class demanded it, cluless buyers and all.

    More conflicting logic. You say everyone uses electronic damping now to keep up with the Joneses and then say CVRSS was nonsense and a ridiculous spectacle when they pioneered the systems used today on virtually all luxury cars. Get your facts straight, CVRSS 2.0 had technologies that are just now being introduced in your beloved perfectly balanced Europeans sedans who as you used to say didn't need such frivolous technology to achieve good handling.

    Complete BS chavis. Yet for all that effort Cadillac had to throw it out with the bathwater and go to RWD. If you look at the average BMW Chavis they still don't have anything near what Cadillac had or any electronic suspension aids at all. Or have you not noticed this.

    Um, they are, are they? Is the Escalade chasing a european type truck? Would you care to let me know the sales figures of the DTS (and previous DeVille) since it's not as you say, "in?" You speak as if you know what the industry wants when you continuously prove you are out of touch. Again, your opinion is being delivered as fact when it is not. The ES350 (and RX) is a good seller as well it's it predecessor. Just because you (or myself for that matter) wouldn't buy it doesn't mean we're in the majority.

    One look at the majority of the cars on the market answers you question Chavis. 10 years ago the Cadillac lineup consisted of one floaty, ill-handling, fwd barge after another, yet today they only make one such car the DTS, which to its credits handles better than those slop-plop DeVilles ever did. If you think the switch to rwd and actually caring about handling, not to mention coming up with the V-Series cars were done in the traditional American car idiom you're seriously mistake and out of touch yourself. Cadillac just like Lexus is chasing the Euros and if can't see that you're in denial big time. I don't see anyone rushing to build a DTS, but I do see Cadillac (and others) rushing to build a 3-Series. Keep thinking Cadillac marches to their own beat exclusively. They don't.

    M
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Here we go... It seems to me, we are making excuses yet again. The Seville interior introduced in the '98 model year was a nice interior and very pleasing aesthetically in my opinion. I liked that car very much especially on the inside with navigation. So, for you this new CTS is the first GM car you would ever set foot in which is not true for other people. I have a '98 olds intrigue that has 98k miles and there is nothing wrong with it's interior design or durability (other than the cheap carpet). No sun damage, cracking or peeling on the plastics. Sorry, I cannot subscribe to your point of view implying every GM interior before MY '07 has been trash.

    Well there were 2 of them in my family during the time and yeah they were nice, but what you don't get is that being "nice" doesn't cut in a class of car that expensive when rivals do things better. Why is that so hard for the GM faithful to acknowledge? Acura makes "nice" cars, but they're still seen a tweener brand, but Cadillac has the heritage and name to do better, but they haven't for the last 20+ years. Didn't say that everything up until now was junk, that may have been a little harsh, but their effors weren't up to the class either Chavis. The new CTS is or at least looks the part since they wouldn't allow anyone in the car at Detroit.

    I had a 1997 Mitsu with over 175K with none of that type of damage either, so whats your point? You set the bar too low and then pat GM on the back when they clear it instead of measuring their offerings by the competition...and thus the circle continues. GM makes "nice" cars, yet they are at best, at best competitive...when are they going to build something that sits in the top 3 of the class?

    M
  • 14871487 Posts: 2,407
    When the CTS came out no one said it handled like a 10 year old BMW except you. Again, why dont you provide a reference for this assertion. This is your opinion, it's not grounded in reality. The CTS was definitely on par with the 5 series of that era and I'm sure that reviews reflect that. You are losing touch with reality.

    "You'll continue to say that the old CTS has a nice interior when in fact it looked and felt like something from Playskool."

    Never said the interior was nice.

    "Wow the car won 1 comparo in its entire production run against a bunch of larger not as sporty cars! Such a pridigous acheivement! "

    The 530 isnt sporty? wow, that is news to me. Please explain. The CTS was only involved in three large comparisons in its model run, two in C&D and one in R&T. C&D obviously didn't like the car and it finished in 3rd or 4th place in both comparisons. You act like the car lost 10 comparison tests when in fact it won one, and lost two.

    "I gave you at least 4 quotes from various sources commenting on how pitifully finished and put together the CTS, CTS-V and SRX were."

    Wrong again. None of the quotes you provided addressed poor build quality. From what I remember they commented on the cheap look of the CTS/SRX interior and said the XLR's interior wasn't as nice at is should be for the price. Not the same as criticizing build quality. Why dont you provide the quotes you hold so dear to your heart?

    "Impressive until you find out that it didn't face its direct rivals. I guess you're going to stand on this one leg of a comparo forever huh? "

    Your right, it was up against the 530, 300, S80, S-type, A6, etc. None of its direct rivals. How did I miss that? Excellent point, its direct rivals are cars that beat it in a comparison I assume.

    " None of the cars you named except the 300C and SVT Contour have been anything but bottom feeders. You've got to be pretty desperate to bring up such a losing list of cars to make a point. "

    The Lucerne, CTS, G6, 300 (not just C), Deville/DTS, '98 STS and 300M were (are) all successful. In fact the FWD STS sold better than the current model ever has. The Intigue and Aurora were both well received by the press and when GM killed Olds most felt that brand was making the best non Cadillacs in the company. C&D said the Aurora was the closest thing to Lexus GM had ever produced when it came out. Wrong again. The Countour, however, was indeed a failure in terms of sales. Of course, your opinion does mean more than the actual success of the models in question. It's pretty apparant you dont like any american cars (Oh wait!!! except the DC produced 300C) so I fail to see why you are trolling this topic to convince the masses that Cadillac has never made a competitive car prior to the '08 CTS. This is all part of your notion that GM never had any decent models on sale right now, they are always saying "wait until next year". In order to keep this lame argument going you have to discredit whatever is on the market. In five years you'll be saying the '08 CTS is crap because newer models will be on the market. BTW, the G6 was panned initially because its top powertrain was a 200hp V6 and 4 speed, but it now offers a 252hp engine with 6 speed that will run 0-60 in 6.2secs which is faster than the 330i automatic.

    "2 rare expections to the norm. "

    There are three V series cars.

    "No the previous STSs were so out of touch with their class to be called that, but not the current one. It is at least competitive. "

    Yes it was out of touch. It had 300hp, did 0-60 in 6.5secs, had DVD nav, HIDS, heated seats, stability, 425 watt Bose 4.0 Sound System with 12" sub in the back, Magneride, CVRSS and all the luxury features expected of a car in this class. The car went out of production in 2003 so it cant be compared to what is on sale now, but to what was available in 2003. It held it's own even if you hate the car.

    "No most people wouldn't say they were "great" cars, they'd say they're nice cars, the great ones don't sit in the bottom half of comparos. Don't ruin "great" status by trying to attach a Cadillac to it. "

    Only problem is I never said the STS was a great car. Dont let that stop you from arguing however, facts are typically irrelevant in any discussion with you. The STS is a solid entry and the only place it lags is in hp and interior styling. Thats really it. In terms of features and performance its right in the mix and it's far cheaper than the E and 5 series. I'll take the STS interior for $10k less than the Euro competition. I like the current E class interior (exterior is tired as ever) but I'm not paying 10 grand for a slightly superior design. I'm sure you know the model C&D tested in that big comparo didnt even have the sport package and then the complained the car wasnt sporty enough. Do they ever test BMWs without a sport package? Of course not.
  • 14871487 Posts: 2,407
    Now you are backing off your "harsh" GM criticims? please.

    Cadillac has been making nice interiors for the better part of a decade. Again, I suggest you look at the 90s STS/DTS/ETC interiors and compare them to what was being sold at that time. The Caddy interiors were very competitive and had the best gauges in the business except for Lexus. The CTS (as I already stated) was actually a downgrade from the FWD Cadillacs but Caddy was trying to go in a completely new direction to change perceptions about the brand. In YOUR opinion the last gen Caddy interiors didnt measure up, but everyone doesn't share that belief and you cant PROVE that their interiors were lacking. To me, and others, Caddy interiors in the late 90s were BETTER (not just on par with) than what Acura, Infiniti, BMW and Jaguar had on the market back then. The Germans did well in terms of materials, but in terms of design, ergonomics and aesthetic appeal the Cadillacs were better.

    "but what you don't get is that being "nice" doesn't cut in a class of car that expensive when rivals do things better. Why is that so hard for the GM faithful to acknowledge"

    what you dont get is that the luxury interiors of the German cars weren't more than "nice" 10 years ago. You have got them on a pedastal they do not deserve. Why is that so hard for the MB faithful to acknowledge? I rode in a last gen E class a few years back and I was just shocked at how plain and angular everything was. It was hard to believe that car probably cost well over $50k when it was new.
  • rockyleerockylee Posts: 14,011
    Well have to eplore those options ;)

    Rocky
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    The Germans did well in terms of materials, but in terms of design, ergonomics and aesthetic appeal the Cadillacs were better.

    There you go, you just said it yourself, others have utilized BETTER MATERIALS. We can argue about design and appeal all day long but that won't lead us anywhere because those are subjective opinions. Also, IMO, I don't think Cadillac had better ergonomics than its competitors as well.

    I rode in a last gen E class a few years back and I was just shocked at how plain and angular everything was.

    Some like plain and angular, others like smooth and subtle, it is totally based on people's preferences. However, one couldn't deny that everyone would love to have high grade materials for the interior.
Sign In or Register to comment.