Howdy, Stranger!

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





Cadillac CTS/CTS-V

15758606263215

Comments

  • mariner7mariner7 Posts: 509
    When are the XLR and SRX coming out? I notice that on the edmunds site on the Detroit autoshow, they're not listed as new models or concept cars, does that mean they're somewhere in between. It wouldn't surprise me if they won't debut at all 2003, but sometime in 2004. In the SRX segment, definitely the following SUV's are coming in 2003: RX330, FX35/45, Touareg, Cayenne. It's not like the SRX is ahead of its time.

    Caddy's timing is not helpful, to say the least! CTS was supposed to debut with the powerful 3.6L engine, that was more than 2 yrs, and we're still waiting. We've waited almost that long for the CTS-v. The chassis and engine are already there, so what's taking so long? In a similar situation, many a competitor of Caddy would bring out the product in half a year!
  • Would you rather have a well-executed car, or a POS? It is not as simple as throwing in an LS6 and saying thats that. They are tuning the chassis more, making sure the exhaust is right. They are not just throwing the stuff in. The SRX debuts 2nd quarter, the XLR 3rd. Also, the 3.6 is already ready, they just are fine tuning it, waiting for the SRX. Remember the CTS is not just getting V-Series and the 3.6, it is getting a more luxurious interior, and so on. They shouldn't debut if they are POSs, they need to be good.
  • For the record, the 3.6L was never intended for the CTS start of production (or even close to it). I also wish it was easy to drop a V-8 into a space created for a V-6 (which also happens to have 80 - 90% more torque/horsepower). Lastly, I guarantee none of our competitors would do it in half the time. Physics is physics - and tooling lead times are tooling lead times.

    Glad to see the owners are enjoying their cars!
  • So when does the CTS get the 3.6? It was not intended for the start of production? My point is that GM did not have the proper motor ready for a brand new model and platform. The re worked 3.2 does not cut it compared to the competition (BMW 3, G35). The CTS set the BMW as its benchmark and came up short in the power train department. I love the CTS and think it is one of the best looking cars on the road, the more I see them the more I like them. I have always been a GM fan and want them to succeed, it just irritates me when the have a golden opportunity and come up short. How about another example - the 2004 Malibu. 3.5 V6 only has 200hp. The Malibu's main competition the Accord and Camry have north of 240hp from their V6s. And yes I know the Malibu is intended to be a sports sedan but either is the Accord or the Camry.
  • jemillerjemiller Posts: 183
    pmdriver: one would think that when laying out the marketing requirements for a car for this segment, one would spec enough room for a V8, since it is pretty much a US (and Asia) market requirement.

    bigdaddycoats: I hope your last sentence was supposed to say "And yes, I know the Malibu ISN'T intended to be a sports sedan but NEITHER is the Accord or the Camry." The Altima and Maxima go 240-250HP too, with the same basic VQ35 V6 that's in most everything else Nissan offers these days (that's a very sweet engine, and they've obviously got a handle on its manufacturing cost.)
  • vcjumpervcjumper Posts: 1,110
    Camry v6 has 190hp and recommends premium fuel from what I've read. Accord gets 240 from regular.
  • oldsman01oldsman01 Posts: 1,203
    As someone else here said, I think it was wise of Cadillac to wait until the CTS and it's new engine were ready well tested rather than having them ready quickly but troubleprone. Cadillac needed a car like the CTS 3 years ago and since the chassis was ready to go, I don't see the problem in going ahead and getting the car on the market with a stop-gap engine. I agree that the CTS is a little behind the HP curve, but it's not like they are the only ones who have introuduced a new car with a moderately powerful engine. For years GM has instroduced new cars with wonderful powertrains, but lackluster everything else and that has hurt them. With the CTS, they seem to have gotten the entire package right out of the box. And when the more powerful engines arrive, it will only improve an already excellent car.
  • scottc8scottc8 Posts: 617
    I'm not a Cadillac owner, but read this board fairly often because of my interest in sport sedans. One thing that stands out here is the lack of complaints about chronic problems, pretty remarkable for a first year car. As oldsman01 said, they got it right by virtue of doing their homework well, before going into production.
  • I love the CTS. My mother has one and I've spent a considerable amount of time behind the wheel. The 3.2 is a decent engine. BUT...

    The fact that the 3.6 was not ready for the 2003 model year is inexcusable. It is indicative of everything that was wrong with GM. If they want to play in the big leauges they have to do better. Introducing a landmark new model with a stop-gap engine is frankly embarassing, no matter how decent the stop-gap engine is. Why can Honda redesign their engines every 4-5 years, and they are first rate every time? And this is not the fisrt time for Cadillac. Remember the 1992 Seville/Eldorado with the 4.9 because the Northstar wasn't ready? Sorry folks. BMW, M-B, Lexus et al do not have to make excuses, and neither should Cadillac. Man, I hope they make the Sixteen!
  • SERIOUSLY considering buying a CTS but can't decide if I should wait for the 04's or go ahead with the 03. What to do? I really don't need more than the 220hp for my driving but may like the adjustments on the interior, as rumored for the 04. Anyone have any info or links about the new 04's? Thanks!!
  • mariner7mariner7 Posts: 509
    It's not just their luxury guys who don't make excuses. Their down-market guys don't either. The current Accord engine wasn't supposed to make 240hp. It only got it because the Altima came out with a 240hp enging, ONE year earlier. If Honda could make such a big change in ONE year, I don't think it's too much to expect Caddy to come out with the 3.6L at the CTS debut, given how long that model was in the planning stages. If you're not prepared to execute quickly, and your competitors are, you're going to be in a competitive disadvantage.

    Just a thought: given how long Caddy takes to come up with a V6, how long would it take to come up with a much more complex V16?

    There's no auto analyst who thought the 16 is realistic. And if you read what GM executives said, they don't either. The numbers just don't make sense. It'll take years and billions to develop the 16, to compete with the Maybach. MB projects to sell 1000 Maybachs a year, I think. 40% are in the USA. Caddy currently doesn't have a distribution system outside NA. So I assume the 16's total output is 400/year, for the NA market only. How can you recover billions of dollars in investment by selling 400 cars a year? Plus the 16 must have the latest technology, that means continual big investments each year!

    MB numbers make more sense. The Maybach V12 is also used in the AMG versions of S/SL/CL classes. They already have a worldwide distribution system, unlike Caddy. They had a V12 for quite a while, so they didn't have to start from scratch.

    Now a V12 for Caddy might make sense. After all VW thought it made sense...
  • If the Sixteen does come to production, i would be VERY surprised to see the 16 cylinder engine in it. For the same reasons mentioned above (development dollars/etc.) But also the fact that its an OHV engine.(I think) Ohv's aren't exactly technical marvels any more. if this is to be a "halo" car its got to be a technological masterpiece. And if it is made I bet it gets the new Northstar v12 and a new name. Cadillac Sixteen sounds stupid anyways.......

    craig
  • oldsman01oldsman01 Posts: 1,203
    As I said earlier, GM needed a car like the CTS 3 years ago. Rather than wait another year or so on the new engine to be ready, I think they did the right thing in going ahead and bringing the car out. When the new 3 series first came out in 99, it had the old carryover 2.3 and 2.8 liter engines. It wasn't until 2001 that it got the 3.0. I'd love to have seen Cadillac come out of the starting gate with the new engine, but I'm glad they went ahead with the car when they did. And judging from the sales numbers, it seems the car is doing okay. As for Honda, the 2003 Accord engines are the first all new engines the Accord has seen in while. Actually, only the four is new as the 3.0 liter V6 was new for the 1998 model. The previous Accord's four had been around since George H.W. Bush was president with upgrades every 4 years or so. GM has been agonizingly slow to bring out new engines and hopefully that will change, but at least when the new engines come out they are solid. Look at the Northstar V8, it has been out for a little over a decade now and other than some upgrades it has remained in same basic form and hasn't had any major problems. The same cannot be said of "new" Cadillac engines of yore(i.e. HT4100, V8-6-4, diesel).
  • I meant to say the Malibu is not intended to be a sports sedan. And yes again the V6 Camry has 192hp. And I love the CTS I just think it needs a better engine to really compete.
  • "Look at the Northstar V8, it has been out for a little over a decade now and other than some upgrades it has remained in same basic form and hasn't had any major problems."

    Unless you talk to a head Cadillac tech who explains how these engines leak oil and have to have their oil pans silicone sealed on brand new cars. But be that as it may, I will agree that the Northstar is a kicking engine.

    "As I said earlier, GM needed a car like the CTS 3 years ago. Rather than wait another year or so on the new engine to be ready, I think they did the right thing in going ahead and bringing the car out. When the new 3 series first came out in 99, it had the old carryover 2.3 and 2.8 liter engines. It wasn't until 2001 that it got the 3.0."

    I agree that they did the right thing bringing the car to market without the 3.6. But it makes me sad because it was another missed opportunity to make a huge splash in the market. And...why was GM over the barrel in the marketplace? Because their products paled in comparison to the foreign competition and they were slow to react to the market.

    The carryover BMW engines were already among the finest engines in the world. No shame in using them as a carryover. You think the 3.2 Catera engine is in that class? I think it's a different situation.

    The Honda's 3.0 for 2003 is extensively re-worked and makes 20% more power, weighs 24 lbs. less, gets better fuel economy, and emits fewer emissions. Good enough to qualify as "new" in my book. What does GM's DOHC 3.5 put out? Oh yeah, they no longer make it. ;)

    Believe me, we are rooting for the same team. I look forward to good things from GM and especially Cadillac.
  • b4zb4z Posts: 3,372
    Spy photo. Some of the info appears to be from september.
    http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=5692&sid=17- 8&n=158
  • Why do you guys think the 3.6 was delayed? If it was scheduled to go into the '03 CTS then why did they develop the 3.2? It was never ready for the CTS. It will be ready in the fall, for someone that wanted to know what the new interior would be like check out the SRX's.

    About the Sixteen, it took them 8 months to develop the V-16, it is already developed, handbuilt, that is how they would be if it was built. It has already gone on a cross country roadtrip, in a Tahoe with a streched hood.

    The Mercedes V-12 engines may have awesome numbers, but I can get way over 1000hp if I twin turbo the XV-12. I don't see what all the rage is about the Mercedes V-12s, they would make less than almost every other competitors if they didn't turbo/supercharge.
  • b4zb4z Posts: 3,372
    Mine has got to be the blue. My dealer has gotten in 2 certified CTS's with 5 speeds in blue.
    They look great.
    One has and in service date of June '02 and the other has a date of 12/14/2001!
    That is either a typo or it was one of the pilot cars or executive cars because they did go on sale to the public until Jan. 2, 2002.
  • eaton53eaton53 Posts: 356
    Awfully early in the build if that date is correct.
  • b4zb4z Posts: 3,372
    should have said "they did not go on sale until Jan.2nd."
  • mcgreenxmcgreenx Posts: 179
    Interest consumer device, I thought, but a little pricey ($140 or $180, depending on model):

    http://www.davisnet.com/drive/products/carchip.asp
     
    BTW, I'm getting the Check Coolant Level message again.
  • necrosnecros Posts: 127
    Sorry it took me so long to get to this, but here are the pics of bingoman's CTS's painted grill. I was skeptical at first, but after seeing it in the pics, I'm pretty impressed. It looks very nice! It's definitely no landau top. :)

    http://home.attbi.com/~madones/Grill01.jpg (250K)
    http://home.attbi.com/~madones/Grill02.jpg (325K)

    Careful, for those with slow connections. The pics are kinda large.
  • Hello everyone, first post.
    Looking to buy a CTS soon but need some help.
    1. have any of you seen the car in white diamond? I can't seem to spot one anywhere, but really like the color. If white isn't for the CTS I'm thinking of going with the blue onyx or just black.
    2. How much post-negotiating could I get a standard automatic trans for? The website says about 32. I'm hoping to knock off atleast 1.5-2 grand off the book pricing.
  • dismiss my first question, i just linked to Bingoman's cadi and, no doubt I want white :)
  • richw5richw5 Posts: 152
    CTS leads off the cars in Cadillac's Super Bowl Ad. Also featured are the Escalade, SRX and SRX. A second ad, "Running of the Bulls" features the Escalade ESV. Note: the first 15 seconds are a microsoft commercial, followed by the two Cadillac ads. Have fun.

    http://cgi.techtv.com/mediamodule?action=view&version=2003011- 7150038&video_src=/technews/2003/tl030117c&width=320&- height=240&vidsection=2100118&add_date=1042790400&sta- rt=&end=&duration=&bitrates='

    Rich
  • Thanks Rich ,for the ads
  • Does look sharp on a white CTS but I wonder what it would look like on a black one. Necros should do some creative changing on one of his pics that show the CTS front view from a distance and change the grill to black. I think necros has a black one maybe I'm wrong.
  • mariner7mariner7 Posts: 509
    "You have to see it in person, it is quite attractive (Look's great in Black!). We would buy the SRX over an RX330 or MB ML350 because of five things:..."

    Link:
    http://www.imakenews.com/autospies/e_article000120609.cfm

    Way to go! Those ads better be good to compete with the expected beer and hamburger commercials. What other types do we usually see on Super Ads, besides cars, beers & burgers?
  • eaton53eaton53 Posts: 356
    Of the wood applied to the console?
  • necrosnecros Posts: 127
    Yep, I've got a black one. Not sure if I have any good straight-on front pics of it, but if I can take one, I'll Photoshop it tonight to make the grill black. I have some other pics from bingoman of a white CTS with a spoiler I have to post anyway, so I'll try to do it all at once. :)
Sign In or Register to comment.