Howdy, Stranger!

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

Cadillac CTS/CTS-V



  • macguymacguy Posts: 21
    HI, i went back to the reviews and i noticed that motor trend made its tests on a CTS with 16" wheels. Motor Week had a 17 incher. Now, that can very well be the reason. I expect that the Cadillac claimed sub 7sec 0-60 only applies to the standard configuration. As you add optons you add weight, and by the time you add the sports package and all its whistles the car is couple of 100 pounds heavier. All that translates to a slower car. I hope my sport packaged CTS won't be above the 7.0 sec mark. The 17" wheels i think comes with the same 225 wide tyres, and hence the rolling resistance from the road is the same, so this should have no effect, except if the overall wheel and tyre diameter of the 17" wheel is larger than that of the stadard wheels, this will cause slower acceleration.
  • tgp1810tgp1810 Posts: 112
    Arlgiht, it was starting to bother me...I knew that I read somewhere that the "C" stood for Cadillac but I couldn't remember where. Well these sites list the "C" as standing for Cadillac:

    Atlanta Journal-Constitution

    Hamilton Motor Products

    Consumer Guide (at the bottom under news)

  • eaton53eaton53 Posts: 356
    Cool Touring Sedan... because it is!!
  • richw5richw5 Posts: 152
    Hit the wrong key so this will be a quick edit. I don't know if I like the alpha designations for Cadillac models, but it's common in the luxury class where Cadillac is competing. C-class Mercedes, BMW 325, etc. I've even started calling our Seville, "STS", instead of Seville. Whatever you call it, it's different, it's quick, it's safe and it's a fun car to drive. Most of all it's "Our CTS".

  • richw5richw5 Posts: 152
    Congrat's on your new CTS!

    When you said that the dealer wouldn't get any more Seville's until the '04 models, I thought the salesman was fibbing to you, then I remembered you were in Saudi.

    My '99 STS is a fun car to drive also, just not as much fun as the CTS. Most people don't realize how quick a 300 horsepower FWD car can be. It has some torque steer, not a lot, but enough for you to know it's there. Since I drive "goofy foot" ( with my left foot on the brake), I can surprise a lot of drivers with RWD cars that should be a few tenths of a second quicker than me.

    The STS is a superior road car!! I can only hope the next gen STS is as good on the road as this one. You would't have gone wrong with an STS, just not had as much fun in everyday driving.

    Keep monitoring this board. I think you'll see some interesting postings. Since Cadillac needs to lower the age of it's buyers, the young guys who are racing their CTS's, are the best thing Cadillac has going for it. I look forward to their exploits on the track.

  • baron87baron87 Posts: 93
    As stated previously, C is just the series designation! C-Series, S-Series, D-Series, X-Series, etc. The series designation is an indication of size and price...SRX and STS will be roughly the same overall length/width and price (high 30s for base), and will share powertrain combos. Again, the first letter is the series designation and the second two are the body-type.

    CTS=C-Series Touring Sedan

    STS=S-Series Touring Sedan
    SRX=S-Series XWD (crossover)
    STX=S-Series Touring XWD

    DTS=D-Series Touring Sedan

    EXT=E-Series XWD Truck
    ESV=E-Series (something extended, lengthened vehicle)

    XLR=X-Series Luxury Roadster
    XTS=X-Series Touring Sedan (think Imaj, FTS)

    Again, Escalade (base) will never have an alphanumeric...because it is woven into American pop-culture.
  • What is the difference between SRX and STX?

    Also is ESV E-Series Streched vehicle?
  • bingomanbingoman Posts: 373
    I hope you don't keep those brake lights lit all of the time.
  • richw5richw5 Posts: 152
    Bingoman - I've had a light touch on the brakes so far. Always got 55K + miles on my drum brake cars (front wheels, more miles out of the rears). The only car that went through brake pads fast was my '94 STS. I got about 25 to 30k miles out of those pads. The pads on my '99 are at 45k miles now and they still have pad surface left. I have them checked when I rotate the tires.

    I'm sure as I get older, the light touch will become the arthritic knee touch, but for right now, left foot brake is still good for me. Some of the performance driving schools teach their students to use their left foot, just don't lay it on the brake.

    My wife and stepson ask, "how can you drive like that?". I've done it for over 42 years, so it's second nature.

  • richw5richw5 Posts: 152
    Since my wife feels I spend entirely too much time on the internet, this will be my last post for the weekend. I have to keep her happy and go for a drive in the CTS (retirement party for one of her co-workers).

    I found this board in late July or early August. There were some CTS owners, in early posts, who haven't said anything in a while. I'd like to hear the following from them and other owners:

    1. How many miles do you have on your CTS?

    2. How would you rate your car (scale of 1 to 10)?

    3. Would you buy another?

    4. Any other comments you'd like to make.

    It should be interesting.

  • fjk57702fjk57702 Posts: 539
    barron87 is correct about Cadillac's new naming convention. I think that it is poorly thought out, but that is only my opinion. STX probably is the next generation Seville (STS) all wheel drive model.
  • Necros - Trust me on the tire inflation - The camber gain (negative camber gained as the car goes into jounce on the front outside corner) along with the tire construction will allow for the optimum grip with 30 psi. Or better yet, the fun of what you're doing is finding the right set up on your own, just don't ignore lower tire pressure settings (I promise you wont "scrub off your sidewall lettering")

    Mcgreenx - I consider the "poise" of the vehicle the reaction of the vehicle to inputs in the linear range, or the sub-limit handling range. The way the car reacts to sharp steering inputs before tires lose adhesion and the way the roll motions are damped. In short, the confidence you have in the vehicle that it will remain composed after you give it an input.

    Jemiller - The nominal front camber is -0.5 degrees per side. Max adjustment is variable with production variation but -1.0 deg/side should be easily achieve able. I suppose the camber can be adjusted for driving style for autocrossing. I personally don't feel there is enough gross understeer for my style to bother with the re adjustments for toe with the camber adjustment (The toe curve is also effected). Good call on the FE3 adjustments for high speed cornering. They also are positive for transient (quick steering) inputs. Interesting tidbit on the V-series rumors on the Nordshleife.

    Richw5 - Thanks for the compliments for our team. I'm very happy to hear you are enjoying your car (that was certainly our intent!) I am working on the CTS-V. By the way, I know the young engineer you mention you DVD quite well!
  • scottc8scottc8 Posts: 617
    My experience bears out pmdrivers' advice. While our club was autocrossing our Lincoln LSs last Feb. in California, we had the pleasure of being joined by the Manager of Vehicle Engineering for the car, who designed the LS suspension and has a good bit of racing background. He informed us that there was no need to raise tire pressures, that the LS suspension would not allow the sidewalls to roll over. From what I've read, the CTS suspension is very similar and just as good. If you've got enough air to keep the sidewalls from rolling over, you've got enough air. More won't help, and in fact may lessen grip by reducing the contact patch. Many autocrossers use white liquid shoe polish to mark the sidewalls of the tires to see where they're scrubbing. FWIW, I've been autocrossing a 3700 lb. Lincoln on the OEM tires at 30 psi without scrubbing the sidewalls.
  • macguymacguy Posts: 21
    Have fun with your new car. I was supposed to get mine yestrday but they did not have my plates ready and promissed me today.

    Now what wheels are on this car. I have not seen these wheels before, at least not here in Saudi. Are these standard wheels, were these available since early '02. the one i am getting have 17" chrome wheels that are identical to those of the CTS. states that the only other 17" wheels are machine finished aluminums, but the ones you show in the picture do not look like machine finished.
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    So in other words Cadillac doesn't know what they're doing with their "designations" either. Their system makes no sense, it's silly at best as is the the new styling direction, a pity. I ask you what is so wrong with the current STS' look to warrant all this severe love/hate it styling? What is wrong with names Seville, DeVille etc? SRX means what now? S series, R means what (?) and X means crossover right? STS is about the only ones that make sense, Seville Touring Sedan. CTS doesn't stand for Catera Touring Sedan, but some think it does. ETC was cruel joke to post on the back of the late Eldo. I think Cadillac should keep names for the sedans, and use new designations for truly "new" products like the XLR (which should have been CLR = Cadillac Luxury Roadster, but thats another story) and SRX.

    Cadillac better hope the products overcome the naming system because if they don't they'll find themselves with a case of Acura Legend to RL syndrome.

  • baron87baron87 Posts: 93
    It's sort of like a pyramid type effect

    S-Series Family

    Touring_____________________X-Wheel Drive
    Sedan, XWD___________________Crossover

    The STX is merely an AWD version of the next generation STS, as fjk stated. I agree, that this naming convention could have been thought out a little more logically, however, when you analyze the whole picture it does make sense and follows some sort of pattern. And it is somewhat unique, also.

    My apologies for the crude diagram...but it was the best I could muster at 12 AM Chicago time!!
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    I disagree, that makes no sense and it way too drawn out for no good reason at all, other than to join the European/Japanese brands way of doing things. Everyone has a "S" something in their lineup, there is nothing "unique" about that mess of a naming system. Unique would be to stick with names in segments that are filled with letter/number combos.

  • The wheels are after market if you look in the web page next to the hole in one picture you will see the stock wheels next to the after markets made by MNS. My CTS is a LUX SPORT with all options
  • baron87, I have to agree with merc1 on this one. It is confusing, even to those of us who a fans of the marque.

    Part of it is that Cadillac hasn't unveiled the entire new product line yet, so we can't see the entire strategy. But based on what we know combined with previous uses of the "3-letter" designation, I'm not sure that Cadillac has this right.

    Mercedes also has the same problem in my opinion. They have the C class sedans, the large CL coupes and the expensive smaller CLK coupes. They also have the SL and the SLK, which have no relation outside of being two seater coupes. Each car has a numeric designation following for engine size although Mercedes has given the wrong number in the past for certain vehicles.

    Lexus handles this better. The ES, IS, and LS are all different sedans. The SC has its own designation as a coupe and the SUVs all end in "X" (LX, GX, RX). Each letter combo has a number combo for engine size, like Mercedes and BMW.

    For BMW, you have standard size designations for 3 series, 5 series, and 7 series. That's followed by a two digit engine size, and then a "C" for coupes, or "L" for long wheelbase models. Like Mercedes, BMW has been known to fib on the engine size monikor for marketing reasons.

    But what is Cadillac doing? Well historically the STS and SLS were the first to use a 3 letter monikor in 1993. It made some sense, with the names meaning "Seville Touring Sedan" and "Seville Luxury Sedan" specifically. The DTS and DHS came later, by Cadillac resurrecting the old "Deville Touring Sedan" name from the early 90's. But the DHS should have been called the DLS in order to match the mission of the SLS.

    The Eldorado got ESC and ETC designations during this time. Again, Cadillac uses a different middle letter than "L" for the Luxury model, again confusing the buyers. The ETC name made more sense, outside of the unfortunate coincidence of what "ETC" means.

    Now fast-forward to today. Cadillac seems to be hell bent on going forth and changing all names to letters. The last major name shift of Cadillac vehicles started in the 50's (Deville, Eldorado) but the old numeric designations didn't completely disappear until the 1970s (i.e. "Fleetwood 75").

    But now we have a vehicle called the Escalade, which has variations called the EXT and upcoming ESV. So first, we have a new "E" series vehicle, despite the fact that Eldorado ETCs are still being sold. Part of this problem is the name "Escalade" itself. When the original Escalade was introduced, Cadillac hadn't committed to the new naming scheme. When the second generation was introduced, Cadillac missed an opportunity to rename the truck to a different name, or just go with a unique three letter designation. Since the original Escalade was forgettable, this was a missed marketing opportunity. Even worse, the new Escalade is a hit...such a hit that Cadillac doesn't dare rename the Escalade now to the new naming regime. So much for uniformity.

    And then there's the Escalade variations, the EXT and upcoming ESV. OK, "T" stands for truck. "X" stands for reconfigurable, given the new midgate design. But what does "S" and "V" stand for in the ESV? Previous uses of "S" in the middle letter designation have been in the ESC, which didn't mean anything anyway. And as for the "V", this flies in the face of Cadillac's use of this letter for their high end performance line. Let's say that the upcoming V12 engine will be the engine for V-series Escalades. The name "ESVv" is downright dumb.

    If anything should be the "E" class, it should be the new XLR. The old Eldorado was always the personal luxury vehicle, which is now the XLR's mission. The prototype was called the Evoq, another "E" name. But that was all for naught on the Escalade mistake. The rest of the name "XLR" makes sense, although it could have just as easily been called "XLC" to eliminate yet another way to call a vehicle at Cadillac.

    The real problem is the upcoming SRX. Since the STS is still going to be around in current and upgraded forms, I have some questions. Is the SRX really an "S" class vehicle like the STS? Do they serve the same market price points, or is it closer to the CTS? If "R" means reconfigurable here, this flies in the face of the EXT's name, not to mention the use of "R" as a "roadster" in the XLR. And worse, you have the use of the "X" name in three different places on three different nameplates (SRX, EXT and XLR).

    Does any of this make any sense? Even a first year MBA student wouldn't make these kinds of mistakes in marketing class. This isn't the first time Cadillac has had this problem. From 1936 to 1976, Cadillac used numeric names for some or all of their models. Despite the fact that some names stuck (Series 62, Series 60 Special, Series 75), others came and went and reappeared depending on the model year (Series 61, 63, 64, 67, 70, and the 90 series with the V16 engine). Even worse, the transition from all numbers to all names took over 25 years to complete. Also, there is no way to designate an engine type at Cadillac. There is no standard built into the name, or no trailing engine type like what Audi does. If I were Bob Lutz, I wouldn't forget that the marketing of these vehicles and their respective names can be just as important as the engineering.
  • baron87baron87 Posts: 93
    The only place where it really seems to make sense is the S-Series. STS and SRX will be same size, same price point, and will share the same powertrains.

    Remember, the next-generation STS will only be about two or three inches longer than the CTS, and it will base with the 3.6L V6. SRX will base around 37-38k with the 3.6, as will STS. But the real hitch comes in with the AWD STS variant, STX. Because 'X' is the last letter in the SRX, however, not all SRXs will be AWD. Another gaff...

    Maybe we interperate this too heavily. Maybe the connotation is that SRX, STS, STX are similar because they all begin with S, and that's it. Maybe we are supposed to just treat that way; that there is no code or "tricks" to the rest of the name...that they are just "names", only not in the conventional sense.

    But then why is Cadillac's official stance that the first letter is the series, and the second two the body-type? It's all very confusing, not at all streamlined or consistent enough. Perhaps in a few years it will make more sense.

    Oh and as for the "ESVv"...Cadillac has never actually put the 'v' in that position. The official name of the CTS-variant is "V-Series CTS"; it has only been the media who has used the term "CTSv".

    At any rate, it is confusing, and Escalade definitely messed the whole scheme up, but whatever, 'TS', 'LR', 'TC', etc., are easy enough to's only 'RX', 'SV', and 'XT', that seem a little absent-mindedly chosen.
Sign In or Register to comment.