Howdy, Stranger!

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





2008 Cadillac CTS

1141517192094

Comments

  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    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.

    Really, apparently you're defending GM cars on too many fronts to remember which criticism to say wasn't made. I'll direct your attention too:

    Get past the styling that, to some, has been carved from a bar of soap, and underneath lies a first-rate effort to bring Cadillac into the 21st century. The target is BMW. It is still wide of that mark. A bull's-eye, perhaps, on a 10-year-old 7-series sedan, but not against a current 3- or 5-series from Munich.

    C&D Comparo

    Again, you asked for proof and there it is, let the excuse making begin. The CTS has never, ever been par with a 5-Series or 3-Series, only in your mind. You're the one that never was in touch with the reality of the CTS.

    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?

    Classic case of denial. The quotes spoke about build and material quality, again you say they didn't. Why keep going over and over the same thing when all you'll do is say that it isn't so?

    Never said the interior was nice.

    Yet every chance you get you'll tell us how competitive the CTS' interior was and how it didn't deserve the rep it got. Which is it?

    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.

    Yeah you missed it as always. Do you honestly think anyone looking at a 5-Series or A6 is going to look at a CTS? Not hardly. A Volvo S80 and S-Type aren't as defined and their prices aren't as steep as the German cars so they might be. Still I guess you've got to hang your hat on one comparo in which the CTS won against a group of cars that it isn't typically cross-shopped with. Typical GM denial and excuse making.

    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.

    You just don't get it. Why is that when people defend GM cars they rattle off the spec sheet in a futile attempt to prove that GM cars are the equal of their competitors? All that junk doesn't mean squat if the car itself isn't built or performs as well as the competition. It is the details that GM doesn't sweat and their fans don't get.

    The Lucerne, CTS, G6, 300 (not just C), Deville/DTS, '98 STS and 300M were (are) all successful.

    Whatever that means. They sold, and all of them except the 300 were about exciting as watching grass grow. The fact that you can't see where those older cars like the 98 STS weren't anything compared to the competition of the day tells me you'll defend any and everything GM till the end of time. According to you everything GM makes is competitive and the equal of the competition. Then you turn around and say:

    Only problem is I never said the STS was a great car.

    Then what the heck is the point? Doesn't every car company strive to build great cars? If not then what is the use or motivation? Nothing but massive contradictions and excuses over and over and over here. The STS was success, but wasn't a great car? Who the heck cares about it then? Most cars are "successful" if you're going to add up sales numbers and call it day. My goodness the GM ailment is serious and seemingly incurable.

    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".

    Right I missed the part in which you agreed with Rocky at every turn about what GM was going to do next year and how the "2007" models are no so much better, while trying to forget the crap GM already heaved onto the road prior.

    In five years you'll be saying the '08 CTS is crap because newer models will be on the market.

    Just like you're likely to be saying that it wasn't perfect, like you're doing with the old CTS...yet at the time you hyped it to be a BMW competitor, which it wasn't.

    All in all another round of defending the old cars like they were something special and championing their flaws and saying they "held their own" when they did anything but. Denying proof when presented just like 1999 all over again 1487.

    M
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    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.

    Looked at them for years, there were 2 1998-2000 STS in the family at the time and those interiors were okay at best. Now you say they made "nice" interiors, but in the next sentence you'll say they were the equal of the competition, which they weren't.

    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.

    How do you prove such a thing? You and I won't ever agree on this, yet if you go outside of your GM forums you'll find the consensous is that Cadillac didn't measure up and that they still don't. The magazines have been saying this for years and continue to do so about the current STS and XLR, yet you'll come back with some excuses as usual.

    The Germans did well in terms of materials, but in terms of design, ergonomics and aesthetic appeal the Cadillacs were better.

    See this is what I'm talking about. This is nothing more than a grand excuse. Now you're saying that is ok to use sub-par materials, but long as it aesthetically appealing it is ok? That is nonsense. Part of having an aesthetically appealing interior is having nice materials to begin with!

    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.

    What you don't get is that Cadillac's interiors then were even worse, beyond them having softer leather they didn't have a thing on any German car other than their "aesthetic appeal" according to you.

    Why are we stuck on 10 years ago? The same gripes are still there when it comes to Cadillac's current interiors. The XLR doesn't compare to the SL SC, or XK. The STS doesn't cut it next to the E,GS,M or A6. The outgoing CTS didn't cut it against various cars in that class either. The new one looks much better though.

    Now I know what you're going to say, that those Cadillacs interiors are "nice" and that "they hold their own", but what you don't get is that Cadillac needs to do better, not merely be competitive.

    M
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    ONE car went from FWD to RWD- the STS. The CTS was not around before Sigma. You prove that you have no technical knowledge whatsoever. In fact, I don't think you even understand anything about the dynamics of a vehicle. Your only source of knowledge are the driving impressions of journalists turned auto experts.

    Chavis I was speaking about the STS, couldn't you follow that? No techinical knowledge, coming from the one that constantly uses magazine quotes and stats to prove their points about Cadillac's past failures. Ok right.

    First off, let's define a chassis "aid" as you would like to call it. Whether it be Active Roll Stabilization, Airmatic DC, ABC, Magnetic Ride Control the goals are the same. All of them vary the reaction of chassis components to an outside force (road surface) over a larger range than possible with static settings. If you think of them as VVT systems on camshafts or an engine having a more useable powerband (long flat torque curve), u'll understand the point. It's not an "aid," it's effectively increasing it's range of reaction to varying degrees of wheel deflection. Some vary the dampers, others the springs and even anti-roll bars. These systems are optional on just about every mid-size and larger luxury car. According to your logic, simply because a car is RWD means it doesn't need such a system. Why then do even the Corvette, 911, Ferraris offer the exact same concept of CVRSS in their vehicles? Even when STS switched to Sigma, it still offers the same system offer in the FWD STS. At the time, Cadillac system was just as advanced in terms of the collection of data as the current offerings are now. The main difference is the amount of adjustments that can be made per second in which MRC leads them all at 1000 per second. Here are four RWD sedans that have chassis enhancement systems.

    Good definition, but what you don't get is that none of those brands wasted time trying to get a FWD heap like a STS to handle like a 5-Series.

    Also, your "average" BMW is a 3 series. If you had some knowledge, you'd understand that these systems are employed on heavier vehicles with higher horsepower. It's much easier to tune a car under 4000 lbs, that's simple logic.

    Likewise if you had any knowledge you would have realized that what Cadillac was trying to do with the FWD STS was the most ridiculously drawn out, futile effort going at the time. It was just plain stupid and all the excuses in the world won't change the fact they they caved in and went RWD on the STS because all the electro junk had reached its limit and didn't come anywhere near providing the same result as a good RWD chassis did at the time.

    What you don't seem to get here Chavis is that during the time Cadillac was trying to get everyone to buy into the whole CVRSS thing, no one else was really using chassis aids like they're doing now. The 5-Series of the time had no such electronic aids and it blew the STS and others away each and every other time it was compared. This is what you're not getting...you're using the cars of today and saying they're doing it now, but when Cadillac was doing it the Euros weren't and they still outhandled any FWD STS. I don't know why this is so hard to grasp. Heck all the comeptition uses something now, but they didn't then and they produced a superior handling car, especially BMW.

    Again, which car is responsible for the success of Lexus? The RX, not a sports car, not chasing europeans. Which car is the second most popular? the ES, not a sports car chasing europeans. You can't get out of your bubble to understand that everyone does not want or need a BMW.

    Yet Lexus' more recent efforts like the GS and IS are indeed wannabe BMWs. Try again Chavis. In case you forgot, Lexus' entire being was done to chase the Europeans, specifcially Mercedes. The LS has been up until 2007 the biggest Mercedes wannabe ever devised.

    Cadillac has a core group of buyers for the DTS.

    Right, and it keeps getting smaller and smaller each year. Keep counting on this group while the rest of Cadillacs buyers get with modern times.

    Also, who established the PROFITABLE crossover utility market? Lexus and every else has followed.

    If it wasn't Lexus with the RX, I'd surely like to know who did? It surely wasn't Cadillac.

    I'm glad you don't run a car company because they'd be out of business in about 6 months easy chasing some other company.

    Likewise because the level of denial about the inferiority of Cadillacs past efforts would have ensured your company wouldn't have made it past the 90's.

    So are you saying the car manufacturers are supposed to build cars for eunthusiasts with no regard for regular buyers? No sense of business whatsover and it's sad because regular buyers are the ones buying cars. I'd say the DeVille/DTS is what has enabled Cadillac to survive and produce newer more focused cars so it seems it has taken them very far.

    Twist and turn everything around Chavis. Did I say that? I said that there are regular buyers and there are enthusiasts. Now just because Cadillac is saddled with a throwback like the DTS doesn't mean anyone has to care about a car like the DTS. Lexus does agree with you though, they make a smaller version called the ES350.

    Actually I don't have a problem with cars like the DTS, but for you to sit here and say that Cadillac isn't trying to at the very least get with the program (i.e. European style cars) is just plum ridiculous. From the junky and ill-fated Allante to the Catera to the first CTS Cadillac has been trying to gain a foothold or following with the Euro car crowd for years. The STS-V and XLR-V are not for people who treasure the DTS and if you can't see that the DTS' days are numbers then you're in a deeper denial than I ever thought possible. Cadillac openly admits that BMW is the target for the next CTS-V, if that doesn't tell you where they're going or at least trying to go then nothing will. Keep cherishing the DTS, it won't be around for much longer.

    M
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    When the 3 series faces larger cars, the others are immediately ripped for not being as small, nimble and sporty.

    When has the 3-Series faced larger cars? The A4, C-Class, IS are all of the same class. Please don't give me some BS about a few inches in wheelbase. The only other car that is really larger is the G35 and the CTS.

    M
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Forward your concerns to the GM management. I don't run the company or profit from their success. They've made cars that I liked in the past as well as products I'm interested in today. You keep talking about this legacy of GM that I really don't care about. Sorry, I wasn't around during the golden years of Cadillac's glory so I can only go on cars made in the last 20 years or so. As I said, I liked the last generation STS which was as technologically advanced as any other car in the class, period. That car came out in '98 almost 10 years ago, so this whole "Cadillac hasn't done squat in x amount of years" doesn't apply in my book.

    The problem is that all that technology didn't give it any edge at what it was supposed to be there for, in fact for what all that tech was suppose to do the car still wound up being behind the competition.

    That car came out in '98 almost 10 years ago, so this whole "Cadillac hasn't done squat in x amount of years" doesn't apply in my book.

    Of course it wouldn't, since you still can't see or admit that the car was lacking and that the whole script had to be changed (fwd to rwd) to get with the program.

    The point is you've been saying GM's car aren't this and that. Now you're trying to clean it up and say that "competitive" isn't good enough?

    Wrong. I said that certain GM cars weren't anything in contrast to you're belief that most of if not everything they make is somehow equal to the competition. I mentioned competitive for your friend who seems to think that being competitive is the same as being as good as or better than the competition. Classic. The only thing I said was that "junk" wasn't fair and/or was too harsh. Most GM cars of today aren't that anymore, but there are some exceptions (Ion comes to mind).

    Again, your opinions live in the press and are congruent with the non sense spoon fed on this site and other publications. This is what happens when you have a bunch of English/Journalism majors pretending to be auto experts.

    Wow, is the same group that you'll be agreeing with if they pronounce the new CTS to be the best thing going? Nothing could be more hypocritical! Classic case of not liking what they say when they trash a GM product, yet agreeing with them and saying they've seen the light when they praise a GM product.

    M
  • 14871487 Posts: 2,407
    we enjoyed your absence. Please bless us with a repeat disappearance. YOur reasoning is flawed, you have no valid points and you continue to waste keystrokes trying to convince the world that Cadillac makes junk when that isnt the case. Do you really think you have won one single convert your anti-CAdillac position? I don't. Let's just agree that you hate Cadillacs and love MBs and call it a day. The reasons why you hate Cadillac are really unimportant at this point.

    You are absolutely right, the CTS was a POS and the market backed you up on this. Sales dont count for anything, but your opinion and C&D's are gospel. Cadillac is just as bad as it was 10 years ago and they have yet to produce one vehicle that is a legit contender to the almighty MB. You have finally showed me the light. I think I'm going to go to my local MB dealer and get a $599 per month lease on a base model C class with its class leading interior.

    Yes, the STS interior cannot compare to the sea of black E class interior. If you ask me those two cars are both trailing the GS when it comes to interior design.

    BTW, did you ever notice the CTS is the oldest car in its class right now except for C class? Just wondering. You keep going on and on about how bad it is when it's about 6 months away from replacement. I thought it was normal for the oldest car in class to be inferior to newer models with fresh designs, but maybe that's only me.
  • we enjoyed your absence. Please bless us with a repeat disappearance.

    Now, that's professional humor. ;)

    Seriously, though, the dialog going on between merc1 and 1487 is interesting and instructive.
  • 14871487 Posts: 2,407
    "Wow, is the same group that you'll be agreeing with if they pronounce the new CTS to be the best thing going? Nothing could be more hypocritical! Classic case of not liking what they say when they trash a GM product, yet agreeing with them and saying they've seen the light when they praise a GM product. "

    Kind of like you do when you quote C&D when they bash GM products (right down your alley) and then say they are biased when they routinely rank MB products behind BMWs and occasionally Lexus models. C&D is always right EXCEPT for when they don't rank your favorite brand #1 in comparisons. Got it.

    When any publication ranks an underdog highly you tend to think that vehicle really impressed them. When C&D praises Hondas and Audis it really doesnt mean much because they love everything those brands put out. When C&D has been bashing American cars for the last 30 years or so and they like an American car (like '08 CTS) it tends to hold a little more weight because you know they are not fans of the brand or the automaker. It's actually a pretty simple thing to understand. For example, if a known sexist where to tell you he is impressed by a female manager and recommend her for a promotion you would be inclined to think that female must be one heck of a manager to overcome his bias and earn his respect.
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    You know what the problem is here? You can't take any type of criticism on of a GM car. You'll come up with one excuse after another as to why GM cars are so this and so that. At no point did I say that the previous CTS or the new one was junk. Didn't say that at all. You have such a big chip on your shoulder when it comes to defending anything GM to the point where you make no sense at all. You seem to also think that someone is trying "win" someone over here. That is just lame, I coudln't care less about winning over anyone here. You don't seem to be able to understand anything. I said I actually saw the new CTS at Detroit and liked it, yet you come back and say I hate all Cadillacs. Ridiculous.

    Sales dont count for anything, but your opinion and C&D's are gospel.

    Why is that you're so hung up on sales? Now you asked for proof of what I stated earlier about the early takes on the previous CTS..then when I proved to you that it wasn't just something I made up, you come back with this sales BS. Most GM cars sell well and have done so for years and years, even when they were junk...so what does this prove? You can harp about sales forever and ever, it is only 1/2 of the equation....the other is how the car actually stacks up when compared. You'll just twist and spin to whichever point suits the GM car at the moment. One minute the car is a "success" then the next you say "I didn't say it was a great car". Talk about mass confusion, lost in a hypocritical mess.

    Yes, the STS interior cannot compare to the sea of black E class interior. If you ask me those two cars are both trailing the GS when it comes to interior design.

    Its called picking another color for the interior!

    BTW, did you ever notice the CTS is the oldest car in its class right now except for C class? Just wondering. You keep going on and on about how bad it is when it's about 6 months away from replacement.

    Classic "let us forget about the old car because the new one is coming". You couldn't have come up with a better way to prove my point about your excuse making. Nevermind the current car, wait till next year's model. Classic, classic, classic.

    I thought it was normal for the oldest car in class to be inferior to newer models with fresh designs, but maybe that's only me.

    Uh..the C-Class and CTS and A4 are all inferior to the 3-Series at this point incase you didn't notice. The C-Class didn't even have a decent engine until the 2006 model year so it was just as much of a laggered under the hood as the CTS was interior-wise. The A4 is still a nice car, but the 3, G and IS have moved the game onwards. I have no problem admitting when a Mercedes has been caught out, unlike you with any GM product. A 335i or G35 crushes a C350, A4 3.2 or your CTS at the moment.

    M
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Kind of like you do when you quote C&D when they bash GM products (right down your alley) and then say they are biased when they routinely rank MB products behind BMWs and occasionally Lexus models. C&D is always right EXCEPT for when they don't rank your favorite brand #1 in comparisons. Got it.

    Wrong again. I haven't said anything about a Mercedes in a C&D comparo in years. In case you hadn't been paying attention Mercedes has been on a winning streak with them anyway. The SL550, S600, S550 and E63 all winning comparos lately. Only the E550 lost one and surprise(!), unlike you I don't and didn't cry foul when the E550 lost. Beating the snot out of that GS450h may have had something to do with it! :D

    When any publication ranks an underdog highly you tend to think that vehicle really impressed them. When C&D praises Hondas and Audis it really doesnt mean much because they love everything those brands put out.

    Honda they do like, but not everything Audi. The just tested the S8 and basically said it wasn't worth the money over the regular A8. That isn't "love".

    When C&D has been bashing American cars for the last 30 years or so and they like an American car (like '08 CTS) it tends to hold a little more weight because you know they are not fans of the brand or the automaker.

    Problem is you almost got this right, but I agree with them thinking highly of the CTS is impressive. Problem is that you're in denial as to why they've been "bashing" (i.e. in the real world telling the truth) about American cars for 30 years. American cars weren't up to the competition to put it very, very lightly. Nine out of 10 times those "American cars" deserved every harsh word they got, but you'll say that they didn't and it goes on and on. Denial about the past at its best.

    M
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    Actually what your reference to the Car & Driver says is that the ride and handling is very good. Some other things are not so good. The reference to the 10 year old 7 series (a much more expensive car) was not about handling. The power steering feel, a common GM problem, was not as good as it should be. to quote the article above:

    "the sophistication of the Caddy's suspension impressed the testers, leading one of us to write, "The CTS has a quality chassis. It's very fluid through the curvy stuff, predictable, and easy to drive. Body roll is almost imperceptible"
  • 14871487 Posts: 2,407
    So many words to say so little. As you know (but others may not) I have documented problems with GM vehicles time and time again to you. Alas, your selective memory precludes you from recalling those instances but I assure I have made it very clear that I can find fault with many of GM's vehicles. My list would probably start with the H2, Colorado/Canyon, Vibe and Aveo but I can think of quite a few more of their products that I dont like. The problem here is the same as it's always been, you cant stand that people dont share your dim view of the CTS and every other car in GM's stable and thus you continue your futile attempts to convert us to your line of thinking. Keep on typing, wont change a thing.

    "Why is that you're so hung up on sales? Now you asked for proof of what I stated earlier about the early takes on the previous CTS..then when I proved to you that it wasn't just something I made up, you come back with this sales BS."

    You are so right, sales dont mean anyting. If you say the CTS stinks that you are 100% correct. "Sales BS"- LOL........I like that line. You provide one quote and in your world you have "proven" the CTS was a piece of crap. Why dont you look up some reviews from sources that actually liked the CTS when it came out and then get back to us. BTW, just for the record (not that facts are relevent to you) I never said the CTS was a class leader. DOn't let that stop you though.

    "Classic "let us forget about the old car because the new one is coming". You couldn't have come up with a better way to prove my point about your excuse making. Nevermind the current car, wait till next year's model. "

    Let me make this "classicly" clear to you. Pay close attention: When the CTS was new it was competitive in it's class. Now in the year 2007, the CTS is dated and is near the rear of the class because its been surpassed by newer models like the 3 series and IS. Got it? I'm sure you don't but that is the best that I can explain a relatively simple point. You are the only one who doesnt get this. If you were to say the C class is a bottom feeder at this point because it's 7 years old I would agree, I wouldnt say you are making a "classic" excuse. Older cars bring up the rear and this is hardly news to anyone but Merc1.

    "I have no problem admitting when a Mercedes has been caught out, unlike you with any GM product."

    Lies, untruths and exaggerations continue. Classic! Yes, I confess I truely believe that every GM product is best in class and I have never found fault with a GM product. I've been exposed!
  • 14871487 Posts: 2,407
    "Honda they do like, but not everything Audi. The just tested the S8 and basically said it wasn't worth the money over the regular A8. That isn't "love". "

    Um, that doesnt constitute C&D hating Audi. Sure the S8 may not be worth the premium but that is because they are saying the base car is so good. As I said, they love everything Honda and Audi make. Stop arguing about things that are universally accepted. Next you'll be arguing about the existence of gravity.

    "Problem is that you're in denial as to why they've been "bashing" (i.e. in the real world telling the truth) about American cars for 30 years. American cars weren't up to the competition to put it very, very lightly. Nine out of 10 times those "American cars" deserved every harsh word they got, but you'll say that they didn't and it goes on and on. Denial about the past at its best. "

    There have been decent American cars hitting the market for the better part of a decade. Was every domestic model as good as it should be? no. Is every Japanese model that is praised by the press offering much more than these same "mediocre" domestic cars? No. When cars like the Camry, Corolla, Accord, Sonata, etc. get praised and similar domestic cars are criticized for being dull, FWD or unexciting I tend to disagree with your sentiment that magazines are always fair. It's all about double standard, when the Asians make a dull car it's OK but when an american car offers the same attributes it's insulted for being boring and the writers start asking for a return to to glory days of RWD muscle cars. Most cars on the market are far from exciting, its just that this is accepted when those vehicles come from Asia or Germany.

    Seems like I'm totally right (as opposed to almost) in this instance. I gave you an extensive list of nice American cars from the past 10 years weeks back and you made up excuses about every one of them (except Contour SVT) even though WHEN THEY WERE LAUNCHED much of the press liked these vehicles, EVEN your much loved C&D. Thats what's great about being merc1, selective memory always kicks in at the right time.
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    /me pulls up a chair, starts the Hibachi, and grabs a beer.

    :P

    Nice litle war we've got going. Of course, I get most of my reviews lately from 5th Gear/Top Gear - because when they don't like a car... they REALLY don't spare one bit of their ire.

    It's not a bunch of jaded reviewers who think that 6 seconds is as slow as a sloth and isn't worthy of even being considered(Car and Driver), or incapable of saying anything bad about it(Consumer Reports - "Needs improvement" seems to be as harsh as they go), or other magazines which just spit out facts and not much else.

    Oh - Top Gear hated the CTS, btw. They said that it lacked refinement and the interior was cheap, to put it nicely - but that it did drive very well. Of course, they also pointed out a couple of better GM alternatives for the money - just... models we don't get here in the U.S. Blame GM on that one. They are very eage to get their hands on the new one, though - so their review should be worth watching.
  • If anyone is looking for a GMID deal on a new Cadillac Hummer GMC or Pontiac please contact me - acavins@sewell.com
  • rockyleerockylee Posts: 14,011
    On the next CTS-V ? I can't wait to see what the interior will look like on the "V" :shades:

    Rocky
  • rockyleerockylee Posts: 14,011
    What's GMID ? :confuse:

    Rocky
  • I thought this was a forum on the 2008 CTS. The streams talk about Merc's Audis, BMW's, STS. Everything but the CTS.
  • chavis10chavis10 Posts: 166
    Chavis I was speaking about the STS, couldn't you follow that? No technical knowledge, coming from the one that constantly uses magazine quotes and stats to prove their points about Cadillac's past failures. Ok right.

    Please provide a SINGLE article that I've EVER quoted to defend a FWD Cadillac. The very least you can do is tell the truth. First off, I can't think of a magazine that would even defend my point of view. I know it's hard for you to keep your feet on the ground seeing as though you exaggerate every single point made.

    Likewise if you had any knowledge you would have realized that what Cadillac was trying to do with the FWD STS was the most ridiculously drawn out, futile effort going at the time. It was just plain stupid and all the excuses in the world won't change the fact they they caved in and went RWD on the STS because all the electro junk had reached its limit and didn't come anywhere near providing the same result as a good RWD chassis did at the time.

    Again, you are completely missing the point. If this stuff is as you call it, junk, why then are these perfectly balanced cars using the technology? It's obvious you don't understand any physics- mass directly affects any dynamic object- ie a moving vehicle. I don't care if a car is 50/50 or not, when it's heavy, it requires more force to change it's inertia and every movement is exaggerated unless, MAGICALLY, "electro junk" is there to save the day. Do not misinterpret that these "crutches" are needed for regular operation. They are, however if one wishes to make a 4500 lbs 7 series FEEL sporty. Roll must be mitigated and damping must be variable in order to make these opposed tendencies a reality, FACT. Don't argue me down, so ask an automotive engineer and he'll back up my claims.

    Also, you were careful not to touch on subject of perfectly balanced sports cars using active chassis components. Hmmm, wonder why? You obviously have no rebuttal on that subject. Car buyers seek greater variation in their vehicles, especially sports cars. Just because you can afford a 911 doesn't mean you should have a terribly punishing ride, hence the adjustable active dampers. Opps, I mean "electro junk." Is the AirMacticDC system from MB junk as well? Just curious...

    What you don't seem to get here Chavis is that during the time Cadillac was trying to get everyone to buy into the whole CVRSS thing, no one else was really using chassis aids like they're doing now. The 5-Series of the time had no such electronic aids and it blew the STS and others away each and every other time it was compared.

    You are illustrating every point I'm making against you yet do not even see it. A) The 540 & E420/430 both weighed LESS than the STS- there's that mass again. I just explained to you that HEAVIER cars NEED electronic or mechanical (ie Audi fluid conduit system) assistants to FEEL like lighter sportier ones. Wait, weren't you just saying that I, "constantly use magazine quotes," yet here you are saying, "...5-Series of the time had no such electronic aids and it blew the STS and others away each and every other time it was compared" ???? Whoa now!!!! There's something I haven't seen you do before.. Mr Merc1 telling me what those trusty old editors thought as if I couldn't read them myself. What would I do without your recycled anecdotes?

    Also, the implication from your exaggerated rant was that every car except the 540 was a handling mess. I don't think anyone will agree with that ill advised opinion. Also, please show me where a non sport 540 was compared to any other car in the class?? BWM does sporty and does it well. Their non sport cars do not feel special to me (I've only driven 3 and 5 series examples). To imply that no other cars handle well is utterly foolish.

    Please tell me what this has to do with anything besides letting us know that you despise anything American:

    "From the junky and ill-fated Allante to the Catera to the first CTS Cadillac has been trying to gain a foothold or following with the Euro car crowd for years"

    How were those cars even remotely related to ANYTHING that has been discussed? You speak to me as if I own GM or something. We can compile a list from EVERY single manufacturer that has made junk cars, can we not?

    "Cadillac openly admits that BMW is the target for the next CTS-V, if that doesn't tell you where they're going or at least trying to go then nothing will"

    CTS-V = low volume car. CTS (regular strength) = high volume car and it's target- the entire entry level lux sedan field. Stop trying to extrapolate proof from sketchy data. Car companies to want sell cars, period.

    You go from the past, citing Cadillac's mistake and then jump to the future predicting the death of the DeVille. Hilarious. Sure, the DTS might go away but it's still an EXCELLENT car that I would happily drive every day.

    "If it wasn't Lexus with the RX, I'd surely like to know who did? It surely wasn't Cadillac."

    Please read the quote this was referencing a bit more carefully. You'll find I said, Lexus established the market. Sheesh.... Yet another quote from you easily showing anti-American bias for no reason whatsoever. Who said anything about Cadillac creating the crossover market? I didn't even remotely allude to that.
  • rockyleerockylee Posts: 14,011
    Right I missed the part in which you agreed with Rocky at every turn about what GM was going to do next year and how the "2007" models are no so much better, while trying to forget the crap GM already heaved onto the road prior.

    Merc1,

    Why are you bringing me into this dude ? :confuse:

    We had our beef in the car mag forum what 3 months or so ago ????? I've tried to be nothing but nice to you. I've complimented your car choice and liked your Mercedes Convertible, even though I wouldn't waste my money on one and could buy a nicer new GM car for the money but regardless it is your money. I've made honest attempts to try to get a long with you. ;)

    Merc1, I come in this forum to talk about the 2008' Cadillac CTS and all I read from you is not about the 08' CTS but posts that run Cadillac's and General Motors into the ground. Your post's parrot Car and Driver editors who have a very obvious anti-GM bias. I know you think your posts are credible but in reality they are becoming a eyesore to the majority of us. It's the same old rhetoric that is posted in various forums. The past mistakes by GM, have been admitted so why keep bringing them up. It's not like Mercedes Benz and BMW, have squeaky clean pasts. They both still rank at the bottom in intial quality and long-term reliability.

    I agree with others that we all don't want track cars for our automobiles. GM, has built more high performance automobiles in it's history than both Mercedes Benz and BMW combined ;) One other fact for you to choke on is General Motors, has built cars such as the Corvette that will out-run any factory car from Mercedes Benz and BMW's assembly line. ;)

    So can we please get this forum back on-topic and quit the GM bashing. I'd like to get back to discussing the 08' CTS, because that is the topic.

    Thanx,

    Rocky
  • Top Gear didn't "hate" the CTS.
  • rockyleerockylee Posts: 14,011
    readerreader,

    You and I must of read the same article. Perhaps plekto, got a alternate copy ??? :surprise:

    Rocky
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    You have to take the review Clarkson did in a typical British fashion - when he goes off on it for a good chunk of the review noting small things he doesn't like - it's pretty much your or my saying "it stinks".

    But they did like how it drove(The V, a whole a lot, actually), to be sure. It just needed a better interior and features. And it was overpriced compared to the competition.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhqkV6iRbE0

    Start watching at 7 minutes ;) He isn't in love with. The Holden Monaro is the same engine for loads less money. We don't get it here... Same speed around the test track in the rain, as well - within half a second. Over and over they say in various places on the site(s) about the CTS that it is cheap inside and lacks the refinement and precision of its European counterparts. "Like a big crude hammer" sums it up exactly.

    OTOH... It's a *tad* cheaper than the BMW 5 series, to be sure.

    But it does appear that the 2008 fixes the "cheap" factor, so it should be a better comparison. Just... Too bad we don't get the Holden.

    P.S.
    http://www.topgear.com/blogs/drives/016-smart-fortwo/
    A nice review of the one coming to the U.S. this fall. OKay, more like the "one-half" we'll get :)
  • ggesqggesq Posts: 701
    GMID means GM in your driveway. It's a type of discount that employees can give their friends and relatives. Basically, once you receive a GMID certificate number, you call a GM dealer and see if they accept it. If they do, basically go to the lot, pick out your car and you get the supplier discount automatically- no hassle and no haggling involved. Personally, I have used the GMID certificate on 2 GM purchases and it works awesome. Especially when GM dealers were not budging off of MSRP, it's an excellent way to get an excellent deal.
  • 14871487 Posts: 2,407
    That was a funny post. I agree with your sentiments 100%. I too thought this forum was about the CTS as opposed to "Merc1 airs his grievances against GM". Interestingly enough, you wont find me in the C-class forum reminding MB loves about MB's dismal quality of late. If I dont like the car I don't see any reason to post in a forum about the car. DOes that makes sense to anyone else?
  • 1. They tested both the CTS and CTS-V.

    --Don't mix up the two; and don't mix up the TV show with the website/magazine. It's a TV show.

    2. They have not yet tested the 2008 CTS.
  • 14871487 Posts: 2,407
    check out the new issue of MT when you can, there is an in depth article about the CTS with many pictures. They are impressed.
  • thebugthebug Posts: 294
    ggesq: Can this certificate be used if you order a vehicle?

    thebug...
  • rockyleerockylee Posts: 14,011
    Yes, because I know people that have done it. I never knew what the program was called since I never had any personal experience with it. It's basically someone like my father giving a friend a GM discount. I think it's at GM "supplier" cost though. It's still a good deal and will save ya a buck on hot models like the new CTS.

    Rocky
  • rockyleerockylee Posts: 14,011
    I'm still waiting for mine in the mail......

    Rocky
Sign In or Register to comment.